To My Students, to my Friends, and to my Readers: A Summer Reading List
Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
With affection and appreciation, here is a summer reading list for those who have been my students across the years, from the college level in the late 1970s through my most recent years teaching in common education
It is also worthy of the consideration of those who engage with my reporting and commentary, past and present.
Only two female writers (one a co-author of mine) are here listed. One day soon, I’ll prepare a separate list of books which sketch the efforts of several writers I admire – Margaret Thatcher, Peggy Noonan, Connie Marshner, and many others – who are not featured here.
The list below emerged as I updated end-of-the-year material I first prepared for students I taught at Oklahoma State University, in U.S. History and Sociology of Education, from 1976-80.
The list in this form and content is for high school juniors/seniors and older.
A book given to me by Sister Margaret Landis when I was graduating from Bishop McGuinness High School in 1972 is first.
“Five Ideas That Changed the World,” by Barbara Ward, was written in 1959. I have not reread it since college.
Ward covered, in a manner I have never forgotten, philosophies and ideas that transformed the world in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries – nationalism, industrialism (incorporating capitalism), colonialism, and internationalism.
After reading the book I had a feeling that helped define my life: “So, this is what everyone’s fighting about.”
Second on my list is “God and Man at Yale,” by William F. Buckley, Jr. It is the story of Buckley’s struggle against the dominant culture he encountered at Yale – explaining his motivations for opposing it, and what he learned by doing so.
The book’s subtitle is “The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom’.” It was published in 1951. I read the book during my first year at Oklahoma State University.
Buckley in this book and others prepared me for a lifetime of struggle as someone who – like him – did not, and does not, agree with most of the dominant philosophies within modern academia.
Third is “Profiles in Courage,” by John F. Kennedy. Written with the help of Ted Sorenson and published four years before he ran for (and won) the presidency, the book is a largely positive assessment of eight different U.S. Senators. Kennedy’s generosity of spirit toward even those he disagreed with deeply influenced my approach to public policy, politics and life itself.
Fourth, “Where’s the Rest of Me?,” the first autobiography of Ronald Reagan. The book was published in 1965. It chronicles Reagan’s journey away from youthful liberalism (including ardent support for Franklin D. Roosevelt) toward the conservatism for which he later became known during his service as governor of Calilfornia (two terms) and as president (two terms).
I have read biographies and autobiographies of several American presidents. This book, which includes deeply personal reflections about his father and others who influenced him, is my favorite by or about an American president.
Fifth, “A Pope and a President” by Paul Kengor. Published in late 2017, the book – written with access to previously undisclosed letters and reports -- details the close ties between Reagan and Pope John Paul II which led, among other things, to methodical anti-communist policies. Their shared views and many shared policies were I believe instrumental (fundamental, in fact) in the fall of Russian Soviet communism soon after the end of Reagan’s presidency.
Sixth on the list is "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, my favorite author of all. This is the fictional story of a man imprisoned unjustly by the oppressive communist government of the Soviet Union. It covers a single day in his life, from his rising in the morning to going to sleep at night. It is the shortest of Solzhenitsyn’s books.
It is not particularly a “fun” book, but it is a masterful work in which the reader encounters men from every level of Russian society during the brutal rule of Josef Stalin.
Seventh on the list is "The Gulag Archipelago," Solzhenitsyn’s most influential non-fiction work. It chronicles in massive and unprecedented detail the brutality and oppressiveness of life in the prison camps where millions of Russians and others, in the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, suffered unjustly and often died violently.
The single volume edition is a good place to start but I recommend that serious students seeking to understand the Twentieth Century read the entire work.
Eighth, Black Elk: Holy Man of the Oglala (Sioux) by Michael F. Steltenkamp. This is an accurate work of historical scholarship about the life of a warrior who fought at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Black Elk became a devout Roman Catholic and is, in fact, now under consideration for canonization.
I explicitly do NOT recommend, “Black Elk Speaks,” which some historians consider more fictional than factual.
In his latter years, Black Elk carried a Rosary with him at all times, reciting it multiple times a day. He is a neglected historical figure in many ways, who once reflected, “There can never be peace between nations until there is first known that true peace which is within the souls of men.” Yes, those words are included in the “Speaks” book.
Ninth on my list is Booker T. Washington’s “Up From Slavery.” The title pretty much says it all. Washington is a complex and sometimes misunderstood person. His personal journey is one of the most impressive life stories in all of American history.
Tenth, “The Autobiography of Frederick A. Douglass,” which is actually the result of at least three different autobiographies by one of the greatest orators of the Nineteenth Century. I encourage students to find a version of the “autobiography” which encompasses all of the works drafted with that name during his long life. I have used Douglass’ speeches and writings with every age group I ever taught. He is among the five persons I most admire in U.S. history.
Eleventh, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” ghost-written with the help of Alex Haley, the author of the “Roots” novel. Focused on the man born as Malcolm Little, this choice for my students or for anyone else may be considered controversial by many.
Malcolm engaged in criminal enterprises as a young man. He became a member of the Nation of Islam, and adopted anti-white views which influenced his philosophy before he became a deeply influential writer and speaker in the modern civil rights movement. He said and did many controversial things, including horrid comments about the assassination of President Kennedy.
Malcolm’s worldview transformed, however, during a trip to Mecca as an adult. He rejected racism after that experience, which is detailed in the autobiography.
His shift was so profound that he was a threat for some – to the point that he was stalked and murdered in 1965.
I read his autobiography soon after its release, re-read it frequently during college, then “revisited” it during the 1980s, when I lived and worked in the nation’s capital.
I recommend the book highly to high school students and older – not as an endorsement of certain of Malcolm’s views, but as a stark presentation of the realities of one important man’s views and the beginning of changes in his heart.
His was a consequential life. To understand American history requires, among other things, reading his story.
Finally, I commend to your attention “Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork,” which I wrote with Dawn M. Weyrich. It is an autobiographical work prepared with the help of my co-author, a reporter who became a trusted friend.
When President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in July 1987, it began the most significant domestic political confrontation of the Reagan presidency – and the most difficult three months of my life.
When the battle began, I served as chairman of the 721 Group, a group of conservative and libertarian activists who supported President Reagan in most policy disputes, and in the Bork conformation battle.
Lest those last few sentences drive away potential readers, I note that the book received favorable notice and reviews even from many liberals. The narrative includes lengthy quotes from, and explanations of the views of, individuals who did not share my admiration for Judge Bork. The book also features some criticism of Reagan, whom I consider the best president of my lifetime, and among the best in all of American history.
The design of the book was deliberate and methodical. I wanted it read by those who did not and do not share my personal beliefs on important matters.
Among the most interesting experiences after my return to my home state of Oklahoma in 1990 (where I entered journalism full-time) came on a visit to Washington, D.C. – while talking with several employees of the Clinton White House about Ninth Justice.
That chat with the Clinton crowd was a cordial and substantive exchange which took place at a Washington, D.C. restaurant.
The highlight of that evening was not the Clinton conversations, but time I spent catching up with a friend – a man who had done Senate Judiciary Committee work for a fellow from Delaware, a U.S. Senator named Joe Biden.
That guy who worked for Biden and I began as opponents, and ended as friends.
There is, I pray, a message somewhere in that.
That is a story, one among many, worth another book or two, at another time.
This list is presented respectfully and with affection, to my students, to my friends, and to my readers.
NOTE: A journalist and educator, Patrick B. McGuigan is the author of three books and editor of seven, including "The Politics of Direct Democracy," "Crime and Punishment in Modern America" (edited) and "Ninth Justice: The Fight for Bork."
To My Students, to my Friends, and to my Readers: A Summer Reading List Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
0 Comments
Analysis: Why Oklahomas historic (and recent) legal arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court are so vital5/18/2020
Oklahoma City – Just a few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma.
Attorney General Mike Hunter, in press comments after the state Solicitor General made powerful arguments in the case, praised his deputy for effective arguments. He was right to do so. (https://ift.tt/36b4yeG).
The High Court finally heard, clearly laid out, the argument to leave eastern Oklahoma under the control of the government of Oklahoma – other than for particular and broadly supported exceptions honoring tribal rights.
Hunter himself sidestepped the argument over whether or not Creek areas pre-statehood were a reservation as generally understood, or a dependent Indian community.
Without rehearsing past grievances about Hunter and the Big Tribes, it is important to understand how significant it was that he allowed Solicitor General Mithun Mansinghani to make the argument right arguments.
Mansinghani argued that for purposes of this case the Creek areas are a dependent Indian community.
Rationally and legally, there is nothing particularly innovative or shocking about that (see below) but let’s be clear: This position has potential to transform an economic juggernaut the state’s Big Tribes have built while advancing their power as a result of faulty decisions at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Along the way the tribe has manipulated the political and legal class, and much of the state’s private sector leadership, through raw monetary clout.
These tribes have supported Hunter in the past and most likely will still do so in the future. But the McGirt case could shift the tide in Oklahoma, opening the door for more equitable treatment of smaller tribes and nations, and more rational gaming compacts (among other things) between the tribes and the state.
State Solicitor General Mansinghani focused on U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Alaska Native Village of Venetie Triba government v. Alaska (https://ift.tt/2X5MmyZ) in 1996. He wove into his presentation an old Supreme Court case involving the Creek Nation itself. That case said, in layman’s terms, that when lands are held for tribal members in “fee simple” with the ability to sell (instead of being held for the benefit of such tribes as reservations) the status is, in the end, similar (for purposes of “reservation, or not”) the same as in the rest of Oklahoma for other tribes/nations.
I learned long ago that oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, and for that matter legal briefs, are only part of the drama and texture in significant cases. But saying “only part” does not mean the discussion (which last Monday took 90 minutes, longer than usual) and questioning is mere by-play.
It seems sound to assert that Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (constituting the “liberal” wing of the court) will deem the argument Mansinghani made as a threshold for deciding the issue.
I believe three or perhaps four of the judges in the “conservative” wing will do the same.
In this and in another important case, Murphy v. Oklahoma, the court majority has been rather publicly, without articulating such, seeking a way NOT to tear Oklahoma apart as a state.
It will be no shock if, contrary to expectations, this is one of those historic 9-0 conclusions that sets a broad framework for Indian law here and at least some other parts of the country.
The thing is: Unanimous Court decisions often mean: Details to follow (i.e. in future litigation).
The argument Mansinghani posited, a fully sound one in terms of law and history, was not advanced in earlier arguments in the Murphy litigation.
Mansinghani is a rising star in tribal law, and why not? Someone had to be willing to state the obvious. Nonetheless, first discerning and then stating the obvious is sometimes an exercise in courage for public officials.
Perhaps because of concerns about federal powers, the Deputy United States Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler was unwilling to go as far as Mansinghani did. His analysis favored the idea that Eastern Oklahoma was at one time a reservation, but that that status changed at statehood. Fine so far as it went, but that analysis was/is not enough, in this writer’s view, to reach the judicious result.
That federal view advanced in this matter is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent on disestablishment of reservation cases as found in Solem v Bartlett. That one involved white settlement in areas intended to be treated as under native control. Complicated, but the High Court held that without language to the contrary, a reservation remained intact.
(https://ift.tt/2ZfU64g).
Applied here in Oklahoma (without taking into account the state’s particular history and the meaning of the treaties and other accords) the U.S. government silence could allow Big Tribes to continue claiming that nearly all of eastern Oklahoma is a reservation, transferring more or less all meaningful jurisdiction away from the State.
Decision-making at the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the last 16 years (longer in some instances) has resulted in the Big Tribes having perhaps six dozen casinos enter trust status for ostensibly non-casino purposes – but were then developed as casinos.
Those lands and those casinos never went through the various requirements and processes in place guiding the purposes for which lands are legally taken into trust (including environmental and other strictures). (https://ift.tt/3fZyf6X)
Confused? Don’t be. The state of Oklahoma did the right thing, using the right argument, in the right way, and in the right case, at the right time.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees (and I believe they will), the future will be brighter for more of Oklahoma’s Native Americans – and for all the rest of us.
NOTE: Patrick B. McGuigan is publisher and editor of The City Sentinel newspaper. He is also the founder of CapitolBeatOK, an online news service.
Analysis: Why Oklahoma’s historic (and recent) legal arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court are so vital Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
Before beginning their final week of business at the state Capitol, Republican legislative leaders announced the hiring of former state Rep. Mike Jackson as executive director of the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency (LOFT).
In a press release, House Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, and Senate President Pro Tempore Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, named the former House Speaker Pro Temp (2013-2014) to the post, created through 2019 legislation.
Despite Jackson’s legislative experience and fiscal conservative record, the announcement drew some criticism from legislative Democrats serving on the LOFT Oversight Committee.
“The Legislature is incredibly focused on ensuring transparency and accountability in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars and LOFT will greatly aid in our efforts,” McCall said in the formal announcement.
“As a former legislator, Mike Jackson understands how our government works – and sometimes doesn’t work – and knows the right questions to ask as we track the expenditure of taxpayer dollars and institute metrics to measure the effectiveness of state programs and services.”
A Republican, Jackson represented Enid during his 10-year tenure in the Legislature.
Most recently, he has been executive vice president of government and political affairs at the State Chamber of Oklahoma.
“LOFT will provide the public and the Legislature with objective data and will be a game-changer in our efforts to provide increased oversight and accountability in how our tax dollars are spent,” said Pro Tem Treat, creator of the LOFT idea in Oklahoma.
“Having served in the Legislature, Mike has a familiarity with state government and can lead the LOFT team to dig into the numbers, and his private-sector experience will help him manage the small LOFT team efficiently and effectively,” Treat added.
Jackson, a graduate of Oklahoma State University, said in a statement, “I look forward to working with the Oversight Committee and legislative leaders to ensure Oklahomans’ hard-earned tax dollars are used effectively and efficiently.”
CapitolBeatOK designated Treat’s announcement of the LOFT concept as one of the top 15 stories in Oklahoma state government for the year 2018. After legislation creating the office was put in place, this reporter said the LOFT concept fed “hopes for substantive, recurring and methodical investigations (examinations might be a less confrontational word) of government agencies.” (https://ift.tt/2Td7h1N)
Senators Julia Kirt and Michael Brooks, Oklahoma City Democrats serving on the LOFT Oversight panel, were joined by House Democrats Cyndi Munson of Oklahoma City and Meloyde Blancett of Tulsa in a statement critical of Jackson’s designation.
In a press release sent to CapitolBeatOK and other news organizations, the quartet said, “We are disappointed by the process used to hire the new director of the Legislative Office for Fiscal Transparency (LOFT). The objective of the Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency was to provide openness and transparency. This vote ... to hire a director and the process by which this was brought forth was nothing close to transparent, which begs the question of how effective LOFT will be if this is the way we conduct our actions.
“There should have been a more transparent process for hiring the director of a new taxpayer-funded office launched to focus on transparency. The candidate selected was not one of the original applicants for the position. As members of the LOFT Oversight Committee, we were previously told we would have input in the vetting of candidates for the director position and on who was selected after the interview process. That is not what happened. Moving forward, the work of LOFT and the LOFT Oversight committee must be conducted with more openness, public participation and accountability."
In a news story, Ray Carter of the Center for Independent Journalism reported the oversight panel must "do an annual performance evaluation and make a recommendation on whether to retain the director. The LOFT director cannot be retained without the support of both legislative leaders and the support of a majority of the oversight committee’s members."
Carter also reported the salary for positions similar to Jackson’s runs from “$115,000 to $124,000.” (https://ift.tt/3cK4ZPK)
The Legislature adjourned the regular session late Friday (May 15).
Jackson sets LOFT-y goals in new post at state Capitol Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
A day after having his vetoes of budget bills quickly overridden by state lawmakers, Gov. Kevin Stitt said he had no regrets.
“I wasn’t going to put my name on a budget that had a billion-dollar structural deficit,” Stitt said. “I’m glad that’s in the past. They overrode it. The Legislature owns that budget. The facts are the facts and so when we get to next year, which is seven months away, we’ll have the Board of Equalization meeting, and we’ll be in here dealing with the ’22 budget. I think I’m going to be proven correct that we’ve got some structural problems and we should have addressed them this year instead of borrowing some one-time funds.”
The day before Stitt vetoed Senate Bill 1922, the general appropriation bill for all of state government, and several related measures, citing concerns about excessive spending based on diversion of pension and road funding. Supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature voted to override those vetoes within a matter of hours. Legislative leaders said the diversions are temporary and will not harm pension or road programs, and the use of the money prevented larger spending cuts this year. Under the legislative budget plan, most agencies saw cuts of around 4 percent, although K-12 schools were cut just over 2 percent.
“I feel great today,” Stitt said. “I have shared with Oklahomans my reason for vetoing it. The Legislature disagreed with me, and they’ve got to answer to Oklahomans for that. And I’m happy to stand up every day and tell Oklahomans why I did it.”
NOTE: This news story first appeared here (https://ift.tt/3fR7Msl), and is reposted with permission. Ray Carter is a veteran journalist who has served in state government.
Stitt: Legislature ‘owns’ future budget problems Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
This item has no description. Follow link to view item.
A journey toward faith: Reflections from a mustard seed, to rest in Him Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
Oklahoma Govenrnor Kevin Stitt vetoed the state’s “general appropriation” bill and several associated measures on Wednesday, but lawmakers voted to override those vetoes within hours.
Stitt’s most significant veto was of Senate Bill 1922, the general appropriation bill for all of state government. “This proposed budget does not reflect the values of Oklahoma or the clear directive voters gave elected officials at the ballot box of living within our means and making hard decisions when times get tough,” Stitt said.
The state’s chief executive offer continued, “Senate Bill 1922 reflects misguided policies that conservative Republicans have spent the past decade reversing. It is propped up with one-time funds that will not be available for Fiscal Year 2022.”
S. B. 1922 appropriates around $7.7 billion for state agencies in the next year, a cut of 3 percent compared to the current year state budget. Although lawmakers faced a $1.3 billion shortfall, this year’s budget plan cut far less thanks to the use of savings and redirection of funding currently provided to various state entities outside the appropriation process. Overall, lawmakers filled $886 million of the $1.3 million gap with those sources.
Even so, most agencies will have their appropriation reduced by around 4 percent under the plan, although school funding is cut by a smaller amount and a handful of agency budgets saw budget increases.
In his veto message, Stitt warned the budget plan “is going to back the state into a financial corner, which leaves us with very few options in [Fiscal Year] 2022 — we will either have to raise taxes or implement draconian cuts. As Governor I am here to protect the taxpayer — not harm them.”
Amidst the debate over state budget practices and priorities, questions also abound about how federal COVID-19 funds may ultimately backfill many state budget cuts, which was a source of contention between the Legislature and Stitt.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Roger Thompson, R-Okemah, objected to Stitt’s veto comments when he moved for an override vote. Thompson said the budget plan “represents the core values of Oklahoma” because it does not cut government spending by a larger amount in areas like education, health care, and the court system.
Without debate or extensive questioning, the Oklahoma Senate voted to override Stitt’s veto of S.B. 1922 on a 35-11 vote.
Several hours later, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 79-20 to override Stitt’s veto of S.B. 1922.
As he had promised to do earlier this week, Stitt also vetoed several other measures: House Bills 2741, 2742, and 2743.
House Bill 2741 takes $73.1 million currently earmarked for the Teachers’ Retirement System of Oklahoma and redirects it to public school funding.
House Bill 2742 similarly redirects $38.8 million to public schools and away from the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension Retirement System, and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System.
House Bill 2743 takes $180 million from the Rebuilding Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety (ROADS) Fund, which pays for bridge and road repair, and redirects that money to public schools.
“While I understand the importance of a balanced budget, it is improper to do so at the expense of the solvency of the Teachers’ Retirement System, which has been greatly improved through the legislature’s commitment to fiscally conservative policies,” Stitt’s veto message for H.B. 2741 stated. “It is important we do not go backwards on the meaningful gains we have made.”
Stitt said the bill would increase the unfunded liability of the teachers’ retirement system and could also negatively impact the state’s credit rating.
The governor’s veto message for H.B. 2742 was almost identical In his veto message for that measure, Stitt wrote that it “would force” the Oklahoma Department of Transportation “to unnecessarily take on additional debt through the use of bonds.”
Noting that he has supported use of bonds in the past, Stitt said he “cannot support the use of bonds to plug budget holes.”
House Appropriations and Budget Committee Chairman Kevin Wallace, R-Wellston, said Stitt’s veto message on the bill redirecting teachers’ pension funding was filled with “inaccurate statements” and “false communications.”
“There’s really hardly even anything that I can even agree with in this veto message,” Wallace told House lawmakers. “A lot of misrepresentation, misinformation, inaccurate statements.”
House lawmakers argued the redirection of pension money will not increase the system’s unfunded liability because that cash was provided in addition to the state’s employer contribution — so the redirection instead impacts the rate of improvement in pension solvency.
The budget plan also did not eliminate all additional payments, but did reduce their size.
“Yeah, we’re not able to put in as much extra money, but we are still going above and beyond our obligations to the retired teachers of the state of Oklahoma,” said Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid.
The bill also calls for lawmakers to restore the redirected pension funding in future years, although that provision can be amended by future legislatures.
Some lawmakers stressed that a veto override was a major act.
“What we’re contemplating doing today is pretty serious,” said Rep. Charles Ortega, R-Altus. “And I don’t know of anybody in this room that takes any delight on having to do what we’re contemplating doing.”
“This vote today is not a vote against the governor,” said Rep. Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow. “We want him to be successful.”
Lawmakers had already voted separately to replace the diverted road funding through bond financing. Stitt did sign that legislation — House Bill 2744 — a fact noted by House and Senate lawmakers as they voted to override Stitt’s veto of the bill that diverted road funding.
Late Wednesday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 94-4 to override Stitt’s veto of H.B. 2741, 95-5 to override Stitt’s veto of H.B. 2742, and 95-5 to override Stitt’s veto of H.B. 2743.
The Senate later took up override votes on those bills late Wednesday. Senators voted 34-12 to override the vetoes of both HB 2741 and HB 2742, and 44-2 to override the veto of H.B. 2743.
Prior to the override votes, House Minority Leader Emily Virgin, D-Norman, released a statement.
“Last week, our caucus was asked to vote on a budget that borrowed money from Oklahoma retirees to pay the bills of the state. We said ‘no,’” Virgin said. “Now, the vote in front of us is to support that budget, which we voted against, or uphold the governor’s veto and cut more than a hundred million dollars to public education.
“In the name of public education, members of the Oklahoma House Democratic Caucus will vote to override Governor Stitt’s veto,” Virgin continued.
In his veto message, Stitt warned that this year’s budget sets Oklahoma on track to face tax increases next year. Democrats in both chambers have already called for tax increases, and Virgin reiterated that stance as she announced her caucus would support the override attempts.
“Oklahoma Democrats have been vocal for years about the need to diversify state revenue streams,” Rep. Virgin said, “and we will continue to call for stable, recurring revenue that can support public education and other core services without relying on one-time funds and taking money from pension systems.”
NOTE: Ray Carter is director of the Center for Independent Journalism, housed at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA). This report first appeared at the OCPA website (https://ift.tt/2X00Pwc). Carter has two decades of experience in journalism and communications. He previously served as senior Capitol reporter for The Journal Record, media director for the Oklahoma House of Representatives, and chief editorial writer at The Oklahoman. His stories often appear on CapitolBeatOK.com, a non-partisan news website, and in The City Sentinel newspaper in Oklahoma City.
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt vetoes budget, state Legislature overrides Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
The Comanche Nation and Otoe-Missouria Tribe released on Wednesday (May 13) a legal memo emphasizing the legality of their compacts in light of the recent opinion from Attorney General Mike Hunter.
In the letter, which was sent to Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, both tribal Chairmen state they strongly believe their compacts are both legal and in the best interest of their people, their communities and the state of Oklahoma. The tribes also point to numerous other compacts with similar features that have been approved by the Department of the Interior over the last several decades.
“While we respect Attorney General Hunter, his grievances with our compact are not well-founded, as our agreements comply entirely with federal and state laws,” said Comanche Nation Chairman William Nelson, Sr. “We negotiated these legal compacts in good-faith with the state and they should be approved. They reflect a significant modernization in tribal gaming and will bring new jobs and more revenue to our local communities and the state.”
In the memo, the Comanche Nation and Otoe-Missouria Tribes highlight the reasons the compacts are fully consistent with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and Oklahoma law.
The Governor has the authority to enter into compacts on behalf of the state
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor “has been and continues to be the party responsible for negotiating compacts with the sovereign nations of this state.”
In addition, Oklahoma statute states, “[t]he Governor is authorized to negotiate and enter into cooperative agreements on behalf of this state with federally recognized Indian tribal governments within this state to address issues of mutual interest.”
Compacts under IGRA can, and often do, address forms of gaming that are not currently allowed under state law
It is not a new concept for a tribal–state compact to address forms of gaming that have yet to be explicitly addressed in state legislation, according to the memo. Among several examples from the memo, over the last 20 years, Arizona, California and Massachusetts have all entered into compacts with tribes that address forms of gaming the state legislature had yet to explicitly authorize, and all were routinely approved.
Further, the Department of the Interior has made it clear that an intrastate dispute over the legality of certain games is no reason for disapproval. They cite the 2003 amendments to Wisconsin’s compact with the Sokaogon Chippewa Community, which amended the compact to include forms of Class III gaming that were the subject of an ongoing legal challenge in state court. Notwithstanding the unresolved legal dispute, the amendments were allowed to go into effect.
“It is entirely appropriate for a compact to include provisions regarding forms of gaming that are not yet legal (but may be in the future)...” the memo reads. “Ultimately, the compacts merely address new forms of gaming that were not part of the prior compacts and that would be innovative in the state—a practice that the Department has long approved.”
The Compacts are entirely consistent with state law
The memo emphasizes that the Attorney General’s challenges to the event wagering, gaming machine and house-banked game provisions rely “entirely on a false premise — that the Compacts in and of themselves will authorize event wagering and house-banked gaming and certain gaming machines in the State of Oklahoma. That is not what the compacts do.”
Under the compacts, event wagering can only be conducted “to the extent such wagers are authorized by law.” Therefore, if it is determined event wagering or house-banked table and card games are not authorized by law, the tribes cannot offer those games in their gaming facilities.
“There is no requirement under state or federal law that says every tribe must operate under a universal model compact, and in fact it goes directly against our tribal sovereignty to imply one compact would be best for all tribes,” said Otoe-Missouria Tribe Chairman John R. Shotton.
“As individual, sovereign nations, every tribe in the state has the same prerogative to do what is best for its members, as we did for ours. If the Department were to disapprove these compacts, it would strongly discourage the practice of exercising tribal sovereignty in the future, which would be detrimental to all tribes in our state and set a dangerous precedent nationally.”
The U.S. Department of the Interior has 45 days to review and approve both the Comanche Nation and Otoe-Missouria Tribe compacts and is expected to make a ruling on or before June 8.
Last month, Nelson and Shotton signed, separately, gaming compacts with Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (https://ift.tt/35XCnjb). The Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association, of which the Comanche (https://ift.tt/3bwt7Uv) and Otoe-Missouria (https://ift.tt/3fIyH9H) were both members, responded separately after the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association moved to suspend their memberships for the rest of this year.
Each leader issued strong defenses of their rights to act in the interests of their respective members in seeking more economic opportunity.
About the Comanche Nation: The Comanche Nation is located in Southwest Oklahoma, with headquarters located right outside of Lawton. The tribe currently has approximately 17,000 enrolled tribal members with 7,000 residing in the tribal jurisdictional area around the Lawton, Ft. Sill, and surrounding counties.
In the late 1600’s and early 1700’s the tribe migrated from their Shoshone kinsmen onto the northern Plains, ultimately relocating in Oklahoma.
For more information about The Comanche Nation, visit https://ift.tt/2KtZdoU.
About The Otoe-Missouria Tribe: The Otoe-Missouria Tribe is located in North Central Oklahoma in Red Rock. There are currently 3,288 members enrolled in the tribe with 2,242 living in Oklahoma.
The tribe was relocated to Oklahoma in 1881 from its first reservation on the border of Nebraska and Kansas. For more information about the Otoe-Missouria Tribe, visit https://ift.tt/3axBuOQ.
Comanche Nation, Otoe-Missouria Tribe respond to recent opinion of state A.G. Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
Gov. Kevin Stitt announced Monday (Mary 11) he will veto two bills that redirect money from state pension systems to education. That will remove a substantial share of funding lawmakers used to avoid making larger cuts to state agency budgets and potentially force a redrafting of the state budget.
Stitt noted the Teachers’ Retirement System of Oklahoma’s portfolio is down more than $1 billion since June 30, 2019. That system’s funded ratio, on a market basis, currently stands at around 64 percent, down from 72.3 percent last year. A system is not considered fully funded until it is at least 80-percent funded.
“We have made great progress shoring up our retirement systems in the last few years,” Stitt said. “Now is not the time to undo that progress. These bills will take tens of millions of dollars away from teachers to fund district costs.”
Stitt said he would veto House Bill 2741 and House Bill 2742, which provide extra funding to schools by redirecting funding from state pension systems.
House Bill 2741 takes $73.1 million in funding that is currently directed to the Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma and instead sends that money to the K-12 school system.
House Bill 2742 similarly redirects $38.5 million currently going to the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police Pension Retirement System, and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System.
The money redirected by the two bills is cash deposited into state pensions in addition to employee contributions and the state’s employer contribution. Legislative leaders said their budget plan continues to leave 75 percent of the extra pension cash flowing into the system but redirects 25 percent for each of the next two years to address school funding during the current shortfall.
H.B. 2741 passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives by a veto-proof majority, but the bill fell short of that threshold in the Senate. The House also provided veto-proof support for H.B. 2742, but the Senate again fell short.
Stitt indicated he believes administrative costs could be reduced in the school system, rather than reducing state contributions to pension systems.
“We’re taking from the teachers’ retirement, and we’re filling administration costs,” Stitt said. “That’s what we’re doing. We need to be smarter than that.”
Stitt said he is still reviewing the rest of the budget passed by lawmakers and has not determined if he will sign other budget bills. He questioned the decision to take money from some agencies while increasing the budget of others, such as the 12-percent increase given to the attorney general.
The governor also said lawmakers will face significant financial challenges when drafting next year’s budget, noting the crash in oil prices is not expected to recover until calendar year 2022 and some sources of one-time cash used this year will have to be replaced.
“There’s a lot of things that are going to hit us in 2022,” Stitt said.
Note: Ray Carter is director of the Center for Independent Journalism. This report first appeared at the website of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (http://www.ocpathink.org/post/stitt-says-he-will-veto-bills-that-redirect-pension-funds). It is re-posted here, with permission.
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt says he will veto bills that redirect pension funds Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
This item has no description. Follow link to view item.
Attorney General Mike Hunter comments following oral arguments in ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ at the U.S. Supreme Court Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
International conferences on Kashmir have been held on a regular basis, but the propositions discussed have failed to make a substantive impact on the fragile issue.
Tensions rose this last week in wake of the Indian Army’s operation which killed a militant, but some developments feed modest hope for those who love Kashmir and want true progress for India.
Sunday, students long kept at school sites due to the broader lockdown were allowed to travel (many by train) in the region, getting home to families. Friday brought reports of no new COVID cases in the region, but that welcome lull from expansion of the virus was considered temporary.
Mobile phone service, long suppressed or disrupted by the government, returned a few days ago – but not mobile Internet.
In this moment of mixed tension and hope, it helps to look back at inconsistent efforts to forge a better future for Kashmir.
Although representatives from both sides of the LOC (the “line of control” divided Indian-administered Kashmir from Pakistani-administered Kashmir) make regular appearances at some of the venues where peace and stability is advocated, the prevalent discourse is rather elitist in nature. As in the case elsewhere in the world, the woes of the marginalized remain unheard.
A global discourse that is generated at international forums, such as the Kashmir Summit Meet in Brussels, Belgium (held on April 1, 2008), can do little to formulate constructive programs for the ethnic and religious minorities in the nation-states of India and Pakistan – unless the bonafide effort is to demilitarize the region and rehabilitate the disenfranchised.
It remains important to rehabilitate those who have been languishing in Indian and Pakistani jails without a cause, militancy-affected people, and victims of counter-insurgency repression.
Several political leaders, workers, and ordinary civilians from Kashmir were put behind bars in August 2019. Some of those detainees are senior citizens with ailments, who require medical attention.
Despite frustrations, declarations so frequently made about the desire to settle the dispute peacefully must not be dismissed.
In order to enhance their economic and political clout in the South Asian region, India and Pakistan require stability. Can both countries begin the process of establishing themselves as stable forces by initiating a serious political process in Kashmir in which the people of the state have a substantive say.
NOTE: Nyla Ali Khan, a native of Kashmir, recently became a citizen of the United States. A writer and academic, her articles – both of a scholarly nature and reflections on her family and friends – appear frequently in The City Sentinel, a community newspaper in Oklahoma City, and on CapitolBeatOK, an independent news website.
In Kashmir, despite tumult and stress, any spark of hope? Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles |
Pat McGuiganThe dean of all Oklahoma Journalism, Mr Patrick McGuigan; has a rich history of service in many aspects of both covering the news and producing the information that the public needs to know. Archives
September 2021
Categories |