The Sault Tribe Board of Directors sent a ballot to the members regarding an issue of compliance or non-compliance with the IRS regulations Section 409A. Why?
That same board will not give the members an opportunity to vote on their own constitution or give them a say in the new retirement plan developed by the Board of Directors for themselves. But they are asking the members to take responsibility for compliance with the federal IRS regulations. The regulations are not new unless you consider January 1, 2005...new. There is no reason that the membership should vote on this issue since it does not concern you as an individual. If you have a plan that falls under any of the categories mentioned below, then it would be your individual responsibility to comply with federal regulations. If you don't comply, it is you that will be held responsible.
So why then is the board asking the members to decide on whether their retirement plan should comply with federal regulations? Is this the sneaky route they have chosen to get the members to agree with their new plan without actually telling you what you are doing?
This is exactly what they did to the Mackinac Band members. Sneaky bunch, aren't they. Look who was leading the tribe then and look who is back. That alone should answer all the questions regarding whether to approve or disapprove the question on the ballot.
The board was irresponsible for spending money the tribe could not afford by this new voting shenanigans so don't help them along by getting involved in their sneaky dealings.
So the answer to everyone's question regarding how to vote is this..
THROW THE BALLOT IN THE TRASH!!!!!
That same board will not give the members an opportunity to vote on their own constitution or give them a say in the new retirement plan developed by the Board of Directors for themselves. But they are asking the members to take responsibility for compliance with the federal IRS regulations. The regulations are not new unless you consider January 1, 2005...new. There is no reason that the membership should vote on this issue since it does not concern you as an individual. If you have a plan that falls under any of the categories mentioned below, then it would be your individual responsibility to comply with federal regulations. If you don't comply, it is you that will be held responsible.
So why then is the board asking the members to decide on whether their retirement plan should comply with federal regulations? Is this the sneaky route they have chosen to get the members to agree with their new plan without actually telling you what you are doing?
This is exactly what they did to the Mackinac Band members. Sneaky bunch, aren't they. Look who was leading the tribe then and look who is back. That alone should answer all the questions regarding whether to approve or disapprove the question on the ballot.
The board was irresponsible for spending money the tribe could not afford by this new voting shenanigans so don't help them along by getting involved in their sneaky dealings.
So the answer to everyone's question regarding how to vote is this..
THROW THE BALLOT IN THE TRASH!!!!!
_____________________________________________________
Anonymous has left a new comment:
Since when is the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians a “public company”? This tribe rests on sovereignty in every case that benefits itself, including against employees fed up with unfair employment practices. So why is the board now looking for input from the membership? Is it because when they collect their safe havened retirement they can say it was the “will of the people”? This is so wrong. And in this post where the board’s actions are touted as responsible and necessary, there is no transparency, no mention that the amount is for LIFE! So you figure it out. Look at the longevity of the sitting board members. What is the real gain here; lifelong retirement payments for board members who have not yet been dethroned. To be fair one would have to acknowledge that these fine legislators can’t depend on any elder payments to supplement their income, so they have to set themselves up while still in office and before you send them packing. There should be no pension plan for board members.
It’s not bad enough that they have taken away all employee protection via resolution, fattened their wallets while mismanaging Tribal funds, removed Tribal members access to health care, assistance with health care costs, education assistance, elder meals, elder payments, funeral assistance, and a host of other cuts to the people. NOW they want our input?
Give me a break
_____________________________________________________
Hi Lynne:
I just got my ballot and I can’t see how this is even legal. First, the amendment is not part of the package so we really don’t know what we are voting for. Second, the resolution is not to approve the amendment or to disapprove it. The resolution only asks members to give a preference to either be in compliance or not to be in compliance. If you vote for it, they can interpret the vote as permission to make future changes to stay in compliance with federal tax laws. If you vote against it, they can use the result to demonstrate the “ignorance” or unsuitability of the people to make decisions on how the tribe is run. Unless a quorum of voters are needed for this, not voting does no good.
I just got my ballot and I can’t see how this is even legal. First, the amendment is not part of the package so we really don’t know what we are voting for. Second, the resolution is not to approve the amendment or to disapprove it. The resolution only asks members to give a preference to either be in compliance or not to be in compliance. If you vote for it, they can interpret the vote as permission to make future changes to stay in compliance with federal tax laws. If you vote against it, they can use the result to demonstrate the “ignorance” or unsuitability of the people to make decisions on how the tribe is run. Unless a quorum of voters are needed for this, not voting does no good.
Philip F Kraushaar
_____________________________________________________
Comment from Anonymous:
I wouldn't vote at all.
It is to approve what the board put in place for the existing Board retirement to comply with IRS rules. If the members vote it down, it won't change anything. The retirement will still be in place. However, their intent in putting this to referendum is to try to eliminate the board retirement (which it doesn't do) but will likely move down the road to eliminate it. Only those board members who have served for at least five years qualify and they have to be of retirement age. If they serve for a full 20 years, they qualify for $1,000. If they only serve 10 years, they qualify for $500. Again, I think they intend to open the door to get rid of the Board retirement.
No comments:
Post a Comment