Oneidas offer residents relief
Apr. 27, 2000

By PATRICK GANNON and STEVE FROHNHOEFER
Observer-Dispatch

The Oneida Indian Nation of New York Wednesday offered to remove threats of damages, eviction and rent against landowners in Oneida and Madison counties if the counties and New York state agree not to use such an agreement against the tribe in court.

But county leaders say they’re not interested in any measures that do not remove landowners entirely as potential defendants in the land-claim lawsuit.

Oneida County Executive Ralph J. Eannace Jr., after addressing the county Board of Legislators on the issue Wednesday night, said the county’s answer to the Nation’s offer is an “unequivocal no.”

“This does not provide the relief the landowners deserve,” Eannace said, noting the Nation made an identical offer in March, when the sides remained in confidential negotiations.

“The proposal today does nothing to alleviate (residents’) fears,” he added.

Nation Representative Raymond Halbritter extended the offer at an afternoon news conference in Oneida. He said the Nation never planned to seek eviction or rent from homeowners living on the 250,000 or so acres the Nation claims as its own.

“(The landowners) actually always were protected because the Oneida Nation said they would be, and our word is good,” Halbritter said.

The Oneidas filed court documents this week expressing their intent to remove the threats that have worried landowners since December 1998.

That was when the Oneidas’ filed an amended complaint seeking to add the owners of some 20,000 parcels as a defendant class in their lawsuit against the state and Oneida and Madison counties.

The Oneidas are “lodging with the court a proposed stipulation ... that makes clear that the Nation will not seek eviction of, or rent or damages from, any private, nongovernmental landowner,” reads the document, executed Tuesday in federal district court in Syracuse. “Once it is signed by the state of New York and the counties of Madison and Oneida, the landowners will have the legally binding protection that they and public officials have requested.”

Counties don’t agree
The counties, however, disagree. In addressing lawmakers and in a written statement issued with Madison County Board of Supervisors Chairman Rocco DiVeronica, Eannace pointed out what he said are three flaws in the Oneidas’ request:

• The stipulation does not remove all remedies against landowners, something only removal from the lawsuit would achieve.

• The action only is signed by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York, not by co-plaintiffs the Wisconsin Oneidas and the Thames Band Oneidas of Canada.

• The counties have no control over whether other parties use the stipulation against the Oneidas in court — an action that would declare the offer null and void.

Not everyone was displeased with the Oneidas’ offer.

U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who in the weeks since negotiations failed has heightened his involvement in the land claim, called the Oneidas’ move a “very productive step.”

The U.S. Justice Department should follow the Oneidas’ lead and “remove the landowners and the counties from the firing line,” Schumer said.

Michael McKeon, Gov. George E. Pataki’s press secretary, agreed that the federal government should support landowners, not side against them.

The Justice Department has supported the Oneidas in their claims.
“We think the best option is for the president to order the (U.S.) Justice Department to withdraw from this lawsuit,” McKeon said.

McKeon said Pataki had not seen the Oneidas’ offer as of late Wednesday afternoon. That the media knew of it before the state was disturbing, he said.
“It’s always a concern when headlines and public relations seem to be the driving force,” McKeon said. “The way to resolve this issue is at the table, not through the media.

Landowners skeptical
Several land-claim area residents, including Upstate Citizens For Equality President Scott Peterman, also said they were skeptical of the Oneidas’ offer.

“If they wanted to make an impression on the people, they would have completely removed them from the land claim,” Peterman said. “When you put a stipulation on things like that, there’s a reason for it.”

Mary Condes of Verona said while the Oneidas’ announcement might give landowners peace of mind, many issues remain unsolved.

“It’s just a little bit too fast because they wouldn’t remove us before,” she said. “And now they will consider it. I wonder why.”

“It doesn’t mean beans to me,” said Glenn Hartley of Canastota.