| Commissioner Sweet responds to question on Coquille Tribal Road Proposal |
In a message dated 7/21/2014 9:28:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jsweet@co.coos.or.us writes:
Theo,
Thanks for your concern. Although I do not make up the agendas, I believe that the matter you are referring to will be on next week’s BOC agenda. In visiting with our Roadmaster I have found that this is simply preliminary to getting Bureau of Indian Affair’s funding to help maintain county roads used by the Coquille Tribe along with general public. It does not give them ownership rights to the roads or road segments involved. We have much the same arrangement with some of the local timber companies who help the county with road maintenance on county roads heavily used for logging activity.
John
Theo,
Thanks for your concern. Although I do not make up the agendas, I believe that the matter you are referring to will be on next week’s BOC agenda. In visiting with our Roadmaster I have found that this is simply preliminary to getting Bureau of Indian Affair’s funding to help maintain county roads used by the Coquille Tribe along with general public. It does not give them ownership rights to the roads or road segments involved. We have much the same arrangement with some of the local timber companies who help the county with road maintenance on county roads heavily used for logging activity.
John
Mr Sweet,
My concern is the word "Inventory" which implies ownership. The term "economic development" implies the Tribe has plans that are not being addressed. We are also aware that the Tribe is a sovereign nation when it comes to legation. I still believe the public should be able explore the road segments identified in the list attached to the MOU. Both of which have been replaced with a "Contact / Grant Summary Form that is basically blank. The attached written contact was also missing. It was signed as being reviewed by Counsel. I have no problem with the County receiving additional funding for our roads. If the Tribe wishes to help in that manner, just do not attach strings. I also believe if the Tribe uses the term "inventory", as in ownership, on any request for Federal Funds from the BIAF, Dept. of Interior, when in fact they do not own the property, that may be fraud on their part. Theo
My concern is the word "Inventory" which implies ownership. The term "economic development" implies the Tribe has plans that are not being addressed. We are also aware that the Tribe is a sovereign nation when it comes to legation. I still believe the public should be able explore the road segments identified in the list attached to the MOU. Both of which have been replaced with a "Contact / Grant Summary Form that is basically blank. The attached written contact was also missing. It was signed as being reviewed by Counsel. I have no problem with the County receiving additional funding for our roads. If the Tribe wishes to help in that manner, just do not attach strings. I also believe if the Tribe uses the term "inventory", as in ownership, on any request for Federal Funds from the BIAF, Dept. of Interior, when in fact they do not own the property, that may be fraud on their part. Theo
RSS Feed
