LDFNEWS.COM

Primary Election Results

niijii — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:11:03 +0000

President:

Tom Maulson 236

Jerome “Brooks” BigJohn 226

Muriel “Christensen” Fralick 63

Bert LaBarge Sr. 18

John LaBarge Jr. 26

Michael Christensen 139

Vice President

Dee Ann Mayo 357

William ”Buzz” Beson 176

Kevin Maulson 89

Phillip “Bub” Chapman Sr. 99

Council Members:

Joseph Wildcat Sr. 206

Vivian “Luci” Wolfe 164

Carl W. Edwards 154

Janice Philemon 148

Elizabeth “Liza” Doud Diver 143

Terry Allen Jr. 141

George W. Thompson 122

Frank C. Mitchell Sr. 120

Bobby Christensen 118

Racquel R. Bell 114

Daryl G. Poupart Sr. 107

Linda M. Daniels 105

Nick Chapman 90

Robert “Bobby” Chapman 86

Gloria Cobb 81

Melissa Thompson 77

Christine Doud 77

Mary Peterson 77

Patricia Zimmerman 62

Jeanne M. Wolfe 60

Lisa “Chapman” Soulier 48

Harold L. Jackson 48

Gerald W. Mann Sr. 57

Elizabeth “Liz” Perrone 38

Myra Beson Doud 36

Can you see now?

Gus — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:59:17 +0000

views

Just want to make sure we’re on the same page,regarding conflict of interest.

Something to ponder.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

I’m just posting this because some may not know what is exactly meant by a conflict of interest. I hope this opens some eyes.

Ethics and Conflict of Interest

by Michael McDonald

You’ve seen the headlines, “Politician caught in conflict of interest ” or “professional denies conflict of interest allegations. ” You probably were thankful that you were not the subject of the newspaper story. But you also may have wondered what exactly is a conflict of interest, why such conflicts are ethically significant, and what you can do to avoid being in one.

Definition
I define a conflict of interest as “a situation in which a person, such as a public official, an employee, or a professional, has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties. ” There are three key elements in this definition. First, there is a private or personal interest. Often this is a financial interest, but it could also be another sort of interest, say, to provide a special advantage to a spouse or child. Taken by themselves, there is nothing wrong with pursuing private or personal interests, for instance, changing jobs for more pay or helping your daughter improve her golf stroke.

The problem comes when this private interest comes into conflict with the second feature of the definition, an “official duty” — quite literally the duty you have because you have an office or act in an official capacity. As a professional you take on certain official responsibilities, by which you acquire obligations to clients, employers, or others. These obligations are supposed to trump private or personal interests.

Third, conflicts of interest interfere with professional responsibilities in a specific way, namely, by interfering with objective professional judgment. A major reasons clients and employers value professionals is that they expect professionals to be objective and independent. Factors, like private and personal interests, that either interfere or appear likely to interfere with objectivity are then a matter of legitimate concern to those who rely on professionals — be they clients, employers, professional colleagues, or the general public. So it is also important to avoid apparent and potential as well as actual conflicts of interests. An apparent conflict of interest is one which a reasonable person would think that the professional’s judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest.

Leading examples
With this in mind, consider the following types of typical conflicts of interest listed by Canadian political scientists Ken Kernaghan and John Langford in their book, The Responsible Public Servant. They list seven categories:

[1] Self-dealing. For example, you work for government and use your official position to secure a contract for a private consulting company you own. Another instance is using your government position to get a summer job for your daughter.

[2] Accepting benefits. Bribery is one example; substantial [non token] gifts are another. For example, you are the purchasing agent for your department and you accept a case of liquor from a major supplier.

[3] Influence peddling. Here, the professional solicits benefits in exchange for using her influence to unfairly advance the interests of a particular party.

[4] Using your employer’s property for private advantage. This could be as blatant as stealing office supplies for home use. Or it might be a bit more subtle, say, using software which is licensed to your employer for private consulting work of your own. In the first case, the employer’s permission eliminates the conflict; while in the second, it doesn’t.

[5] Using confidential information. While working for a private client, you learn that the client is planning to buy land in your region. You quickly rush out and buy the land in your wife’s name.

[6] Outside employment or moonlighting. An example would be setting up a business on the side that is in direct competition with your employer. Another case would be taking on so many outside clients that you don’t have the time and energy to devote to your regular employer. In combination with [3] influence peddling, it might be that a professional employed in the public service sells private consulting services to an individual with the assurance that they will secure benefits from government: “If you use my company, I am sure that you will pass the environmental review.”

[7] Post-employment. Here a dicey situation can be one in which a person who resigns from public or private employment and goes into business in the same area. For example, a former public servant sets up a practice lobbying the former department in which she was employed.

Some tests

How do you determine if you are in a conflict of interest, whether actual, apparent, or potential? The key is to determine whether the situation you are in is likely to interfere or appear to interfere with the independent judgment you are supposed to show as a professional in performing your official duties. A good test is the ‘trust test’: would relevant others [my employer, my clients, professional colleagues, or the general public] trust my judgment if they knew I was in this situation. Trust, in my opinion, is at the ethical heart or core of this issue. Conflicts of interest involve the abuse, actual or potential, of the trust people have in professionals. This is why conflicts of interest not only injure particular clients and employers, but they also damage the whole profession by reducing the trust people generally have in professionals.

In fact, the ‘trust test’ suggests one very good way of dealing with a conflict of interest: reveal your private interest in the matter to relevant parties. Often if we let others know what might be influencing our judgment, they can be on their guard and not caught unaware.

But sometimes it isn’t enough to know that there is a particular private interest influencing a professional’s judgment; the client, employer, etc. expects that the professional will stay out of such situations. So the second way to avoid conflicts of interests is to absent yourself from decision making or advice giving if you have a private interest. So in the case of potential self-dealing, the conscientious professional will say that she can’t be involved in a situation where she is both bidding on a government contract and deciding as a public servant who is awarded the contract. She will either step aside and completely [and, I mean, completely] absent herself from determining who gets the contract or refrain from bidding on such contracts in the first place — which is probably the wisest course of action.

A final word
It may take some skill and good judgment to recognizing that you are in a conflict of interest situation. This is because private and personal interests can cloud a person’s objectivity. So it may be a lot easier to recognize when others are in a conflict, than when you are. This suggests that it may be useful to talk to a trusted colleague or friend when you are in doubt.

But once you recognize that you are in or are headed into a conflict of interest situation, the ethical responses are straightforward: get out of the situation, or, if you can’t, make known to all affected parties your private interest. These responses will preserve the trust essential to professional objectivity.

It is important to realize that avoiding conflicts of interest is only one part of being a conscientious professional. Another part is the difficult task of making choices when the ethics of the situation aren’t clear or when there are good moral reasons for acting in diametrically opposing ways. This is typical in the case of whistle blowing, in which a duty of loyalty to a client or employer counsels confidentiality but this conflicts with a duty to warn the public of a serious harm or danger.

This page last reviewed
October 21, 2007

Former LdF tribal attorney Brown reprimanded by Supreme Court

niijii — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:55:14 +0000

Office of Lawyer Regulations rules on seven counts of misconduct

Doug Etten – Lakeland Times

The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) publicly reprimanded former Lac du Flambeau tribal attorney Carol J. Brown this week, and ordered her to pay $36,680 in restitution to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.

That amount is half of the $73,360 the Saginaw Tribe will receive as ordered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court Wednesday.

The ruling comes on the heels of an OLR report that details Brown’s commingling of funds held in trust by the tribe and gross misconduct.

The report disclosed many Saginaw trust account anomalies and other problems with accurate financial disclosures between the tribe and Brown’s Madison-based firm, Brown & La Counte, LLP, which showed that on at least two occasions in 1999, Brown disbursed more funds than her firm held in trust.

When she became aware of the negative trust account balance, she arranged to draw on the firm’s line of credit to deposit $59,674.48 of funds into the Saginaw trust account Aug. 2, 1999.

She then inaccurately misrepresented the disbursement of funds to the firm on client ledgers for the tribe as “repayments” of a loan or advance to the tribe from the firm.

By doing so, Brown caused the firm to commingle between $15,953.40 and $16,899.43 of firm funds with client funds in the trust account.

The trust account records and Brown’s July 28, 1999, letter to the tribe show that on July 29, 1999, Brown believed the tribe owed the firm fees in excess of $42,749.85, and mistakenly believed the firm had more than $42,749.85 of tribe funds in the trust account.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed this week that by causing the firm to use client funds held in trust to satisfy disbursements unrelated to the clients’ matters, and commingle at least $15,953.40 of firm funds in the trust account for more than three months, Brown violated SCR 20:1.15, which addresses the safekeeping of property, trust accounts and fiduciary accounts.

The SCR states that “a lawyer shall hold in trust, separate from the lawyer’s own property, that property of clients and third persons that is in the lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation or when acting in a fiduciary capacity. No funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm, except funds reasonably sufficient to pay or avoid imposition of account service charges, may be deposited in such an account.”

In addition, by causing or participating with the firm to send trust account ledgers to the tribe which misrepresented the firm had made a loan to the tribe, and that several disbursements from the trust accounts to the firm represented repayments of that loan when the firm had not made a loan to the tribe. Brown also violated SCR 20:8.4(c).7 which states: “it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to ‘engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.’”

The SCR goes on to cite violations, saying Brown acted in “professional misconduct by violating a statute, Supreme Court rule, Supreme Court order or Supreme Court decision which regulated the conduct of lawyers.”

The OLR investigation also revealed issues pertaining to billing and staffing.

The report said it was undisputed that attorneys Brown and La Counte were the sole partners of the Madison firm. However, in August 1998, pursuant to a written contract, the firm hired Arizona-based attorney Robert J. Lyttle as a “contract attorney to assist [the firm] in matters related to the Saginaw Chippewa Constitution Project.”

Billing records and the firm’s contract with Lyttle show the firm paid Lyttle $90 per hour for legal services he performed, related to the tribe, and $55 per hour for his related travel time.

The firm then turned around and billed the tribe $125 per hour for Lyttle’s work and travel time. However, the firm did not obtain the tribe’s written agreement to the markup or the arrangement with Lyttle.

The tribe calculated that during the course of the firm’s representation of the tribe, Lyttle billed the firm a total of $106,040, $69,696 for his services and $36,344 in related travel time.

The firm billed the tribe a total of $179,400 for the same work and services – more than $73,000 in net markup for Brown’s firm.

By causing or allowing the firm to charge the tribe markups of $35 per hour on services provided and $70 per hour on travel time by Lyttle, when such markups were not proportionate to the services performed by Lyttle, the firm violated SCR 20:1.5(e) by failing to disclose the compensation arrangement with Lyttle, and by failing to obtain the tribe’s written agreement to the markup or the fee arrangement with Lyttle.

Brown is ordered by the court to begin her annual payments of $4,000 on March 4, 2011. Those payments to the tribe will continue until March 4, 2018, when Brown will pay the remaining $1,680 plus half of the costs.

If the restitution payments are not made, and absent a showing of her inability to pay, Brown’s license to practice law in Wisconsin will be suspended until further order of the court.

Contract disputes with tribe

In March 1998, Brown entered into a contract with the tribe, but the costs affixed with the services were too high, according to Saginaw tribal leaders at the time.

Therefore, the contract was not approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and was months later revised by Brown and the tribe and again sent to the BIA for approval.

The controversy with the contract, however, stems from the time in which the firm was retained by the tribe, as election results were clouded by arguments over those listed on the tribe’s membership rolls and whether they were proper members of the tribe and legal to both vote and run for office.

Disputes about election results, as well as disagreements as to whether then-serving members of the tribe’s governing council, also known as the “Chamberlain Council,” ensued.

It was soon determined that then-serving council chief Kevin Chamberlain, and others were legitimately elected representatives of the tribe, though between 1996 and 1999, the tribe experienced a series of elections, election protests, and subsequent invalidation of election results by the Chamberlain Council.

Between November 1997 and August 1999, the members of the Chamberlain Council continued to hold office as a “holdover” government, instead of turning over the reins of the tribe’s government to the persons elected in the invalidated elections.

On Aug. 11, 1999, interim chief Philip Peters, Sr., who was elected chief in at least one of the invalidated elections, wrote to attorney Brown and advised the firm:

“As you no doubt know, a new Saginaw Tribal Council took office yesterday … You currently do not have a valid contract [with the tribe], and you do not represent the Saginaw Tribal Council or the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The council has voted to rescind the former council’s approval of your contract and its request for Bureau approval. Therefore, effective as of this date you are to cease all work for the Saginaw Tribal Council and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and cease holding yourself out as attorneys for either.”

After a court ruling depicted the election results as valid, interim chief Peters included in his letter to Brown a request.

“Please send us an immediate accounting of all of the work you have done on behalf of the tribe and the council, along with all related billing records …”

The firm did not respond until May 11, 2000. That letter did not provide or include an accounting to the tribe, and instead included only billing statements for one and one-half months.

Chief Peters replied to that letter July 21, 2000, stating:

“I have received and reviewed your May 11, 2000, letter responding to my letter of August 11, 1999 … [Y]our May 11, 2000, letter does not respond to my request for a full accounting and a release of all billing materials.

“You provided no accounting and provided only billing statements for July 1999 and August 1-10, 1999. I am, therefore, again requesting that you provide the information and materials I requested last August including, but not limited to the following: A full accounting of all transactions into and from the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s Client Trust Account with your firm; a full accounting of all payments made to the firm from the $150,000 paid to the firm on or about July 28, 2000, purportedly to ‘replenish’ the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe’s client trust account; the production of billing records for services purportedly rendered to the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe from the inception of your relationship with the Tribe to the present.”

Brown responded July 28, 2000, enclosing copies of the firm’s statements for legal services to the tribe from March 1998 through June 1999, as well as a copy of the firm’s “actual Trust Account ledger sheets,” as well as an “Excel worksheet of the ledger accounts.”

The documents, however, were filled with accounting errors which in Brown’s July 28, 2000, letter to chief Peters, showed the firm misrepresented the tribe owed the firm an additional $69,816.93 when in fact, the firm owed monies to the tribe.

The OLR’s subsequent investigation determined that the office manager’s calculations of the amounts received by the firm from the tribe, which were also included in the July 28, 2000, letter, were not accurate because Brown recorded activity on the firm’s client ledgers and check stubs inaccurately and because whoever prepared the letter failed to accurately calculate the total funds due.

By doing so, Brown violated terms of the SCR which was ruled on by the courts this week.

Lawyer reprimanded over dealings with tribe

niijii — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:37:40 +0000

By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel

Aug. 18, 2010 11:12 a.m. |(2) Comments

A former Madison lawyer whose efforts to represent an Indian tribe from Michigan a decade ago led to professional misconduct complaints, got a public reprimand from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The high court ordered Carol J. Brown (Wisconsin ’93) to also pay restitution of $36,680 to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. According to the state bar’s Web site, Brown’s law license is currently suspended. She lists an Arkansas address with the Wisconsin bar.

According to the court’s order, Brown’s problems all stemmed from her firm’s work with the tribe, which was plagued by infighting that helped put Brown in the situation that led the Office of Lawyer Regulation to file a seven-count complaint against her last year.

We begin our discussion by noting the referee observed that many “of the problems that Attorney Brown got into in this case were as a direct result of the contentiousness between various interests in the tribe and the instability of the tribalgovernment.”

The order recaps litgation dating back to 1998 in which shifting tribal leaders and Brown’s former firm disputed whether a valid legal services contract did or did not exist. It also details various billing and trust account problems between Brown & La Count and the firm in 1999 and 2000.

Brown’s former parter had previously argreed to a public reprimand and to pay the same restitution amount to the Saginaw Chippewa tribe, according to the order.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/100987799.html

Tribal Theft-Polly (Poupart) Vachon

gunther — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:59:45 +0000

POLLY POUPART VACHON was arrested 8.9.10 for Felony Manufacture and Delivery. Polly is currently employed at PCHC as a pharmacy tech. If it was pills she STOLE while working then the tribe should be pressing charges too. Polly was terminated from LOTC Human Resources Dept for stealing hours approximately 3 years ago. Besides being a drug dealer in our community….shes a thief! Quit giving slaps on the wrist to thieves and drug dealers!

FYI,Gaming Commissioners have the right.

Gus — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:06:49 +0000

Joey Wildcat your wrong and have been for sometime now. And you Enistine Rodrigies putting your salary into the Commission budget, should be arrested for not only being a theif,but a lazy twit that let people like Mr.Wildcat run the show, under the “Hat” of a Tribal council member. A great deal of wrong doings have infected our gaming operations and it because there was no accountability on your part as a Commissioner Ernistine! Joey you ARE NOT the Boss up there and hopefully those who are backing will realize that your nothing but a two-faced CROOK!

Bulletin No. 99-3

Date: October 12, 1999

Subject: Independence of Tribal Gaming Commissions

Introduction/Overview

This Bulletin supplements NIGC Bulletin No. 94-3 (April 20, 1994) which discusses the role for a tribal gaming commission in helping a tribe meet its regulatory responsibilities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Effective regulatory oversight requires a functional separation between the operation of tribal gaming and the regulation of that tribal gaming. In the NIGC’s experience, a well-run tribal gaming commission, free to regulate without undue interference from tribal leadership, is the best vehicle for achieving this functional separation.

Discussion

A tribal gaming commission is an arm of the tribal government established for the exclusive purpose of regulating and monitoring gaming on behalf of the tribe. The charter document for the tribal gaming commission should ensure that the commission is an independent body, separated completely from the tribe’s role as owner and operator of the tribe’s gaming activities. Responsibilities such as the adoption and establishment of rules and standards for the operation of gaming activity should be delegated to the tribal gaming commission. The exercise of such authority is strong evidence that the gaming commission functions in an independent capacity distinct from the tribal council.

The purpose of a tribal gaming commission is regulatory not managerial. A tribal gaming commission conducts oversight to ensure compliance with federal, tribal, and, if applicable, state laws and regulations. The commission serves as the licensing authority for individuals employed in the gaming operation, administering an effective program for background investigations as part of the licensing process. The commission also has a role in monitoring compliance with the internal control standards for the gaming operation and in tracking revenues. In order to carry out its regulatory duties, the commission should have unrestricted access to all areas of the gaming operation and to all records. A tribal gaming commission should have clear authority to take enforcement actions, including suspension or revocation of an individual gaming license, when appropriate.

A tribal government helps ensure the independence of a tribal gaming commission by creating for it a permanent and stable source of funding. This funding may originate in the tribal budget, which is recommended, or from license fees or assessments on the gaming revenue. The independence and integrity of the commission is seriously threatened if the tribal council is able to withhold funding from it or if the level of funding is not sufficient for the gaming commission to perform its role. Similarly, approval for day-to-day expenditures for the gaming commission should be within the authority of the gaming commission or a staff supervisor and not from an outside party. The tribal gaming commission should be supported by a qualified staff.

The length of term in office and assurance of an opportunity to perform the required duties are important to the independence of tribal gaming commissions as both a matter of reality and perception. The term should be of fixed length and long enough to ensure stability. Continuity is fostered by staggering the terms of commission members thus avoiding wholesale changes in the membership. The commission should be non-partisan and non-political. Removal of commission members during term of office should be for good cause only and follow a procedure which provides for due process. Removal should not be permitted for simple disagreement with tribal leadership over matters that involve a gaming commissioner’s exercise of discretion in the performance of duty.

While independence is critical, regular and open communication with tribal leadership and tribal membership is also important. The general aspects of the commission’s regulations and its oversight of gaming activities are of vital interest to the tribe. Regular reports should be made to the tribal council and to the membership on the status and health of the gaming operation from a regulatory perspective.

Serious conflicts of interest in the exercise of its regulatory responsibilities as well as an appearance of impropriety are avoided if members of gaming commissions are prohibited from playing in the gaming activities they regulate. Commission members should not be employed by gaming operations or by the management company or consultant serving the gaming operation. Participation as a player or as an employee in the regulated operations will likely raise questions about the independence of the tribal gaming commission and potentially compromise its integrity or that of its members.

Ideally, no members of a tribal council would serve on the tribal gaming commission. Tribal council members and tribal gaming commission members may not always agree on matters about which the tribal gaming commission has taken a regulatory position because they may approach these matters from different perspectives. Actual and perceived independence for a tribal gaming commission is fostered if the roles of council member and gaming commissioner are separate and distinct.

Conclusion

The NIGC encourages tribes to review their responsibilities and procedures in respect to gaming regulation and consider whether their tribal gaming commission operates in a sufficiently independent manner. This bulletin serves as guidance to tribes and identifies attributes of an independent tribal gaming commission but the NIGC recognizes that there may be other ways to achieve such independence. The overall goal is, of course, to ensure integrity in Indian gaming.

For additional information, a tribe may contact an NIGC field representative or the NIGC Office of General

Where was Dee last week?

gunther — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:39:59 +0000

So gossip has it that our one and only the beautiful vice president Ms. Dee Mayo was passed out at the flame on the fourth of July in the women’s bathroom pants down to her ankles and in the handicap bathroom no less…. What kind of example does that set for our tribal members?

Not only that but when one of our tribal members tried to wake her she got violent and tried to snake out but rumor has it that didnt last too long. From what I hear she was put in her place real quick. I guess pictures were taken by a few people who happen to walk in and see her knees and her crusty ankles.

These were passed on to me and I will reveal these beauties around election time with a caption of GUESS WHO?

Don’t forget – you will be able to tell by the crusty ankles she must have been looking like that from all the rain that day!!!!!!

See you in November…… these pictures are beautiful!!!

Constitution Workshop

Gus — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:13:14 +0000

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
WHAT’S THAT ?

The Tribal Constitution is the law of our Tribe. In 1936, we had an election and adopted this law, which is in the form of a “document”. This document gives all of the governing power over our people to our Tribal Council.

For the past seventy-four years, we have lived under this law. Up until about 1966, this document and the laws of our Tribe were okay to live by. But, along came the federal agencies with “program dollars”, “housing dollars”, “Indian Health dollars”, and this money coming to our Tribe gave our tribal government added power – power that put a lot of unnecessary controls over our lives.

In 1990, the building of a casino on our reservation added more dollars to our Tribe. Our council now had unlimited power over our people. The “document” (our Tribal Constitution) was not designed to deal with this kind of power.

Today, because of the lack of understanding by our tribal leaders and our Tribal members, we face many problems. Housing shortages, unemployment, and even more important is the increasing loss of jurisdiction to the State of Wisconsin.

Our Tribal leaders are very aware of these problems. In February of 2010, the Tribal Council established a new Constitution Committee. They instructed this new Committee to begin the work of “Constitutional Reform”. This means drafting a new “document”. The new Constitution must be written by the Tribal membership. It must be voted on by the Tribal membership. And most importantly, the Tribal membership, in the drafting of this new Constitution, make sure that The tribal membership has full control and powers of review over the official actions of our Tribal leaders.

So, now people, it is YOUR duty, YOUR obligation to your families, your coming generations, to write the most important law in your lifetime. The Constitution Committee will NOT write this new law. YOU will not only write the law, but YOU will have the final word in voting for what you eventually write.

The Constitution Committee will provide you with the meeting places, will work with you to meet and discuss, even debate, what you want in YOUR NEW CONSTITUTION.

The Constitution Committee has already held two tribal membership WORK SHOPS AT THE LOTC CONVENTION CENTER. At the last work shop, over eighty tribal members were present. Your next work shop will be on Saturday, July 17, 2010. It will begin at 9:00 AM.

(Tribal members who bring their Tribal ID and register, will receive either a $25 free play or a $15 food voucher which is good at either the Eagle’s Nest or the smaller snack bar). And remember, you must use your $25 free play or your food voucher before midnight on the day you receive it.

At this next work shop, you will be discussing “The Governing Body” (ARTICLE III), “Nominations and Election” (ARTICLE IV), and “Vacancies and Removal” (ARTICLE V). There will be coffee, soft drinks, and rolls available for you at this work shop.

We remind you again -
The WORK SHOP will be on: Saturday, July 17, 2010
Beginning at 9:00 AM
At the LOTC Convention Center

WE HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE

What’s up?

Gus — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:44:39 +0000

Wonder where we were a little over a year ago?

http://ldftv.com/?p=213

Woodland Native Art Market

niijii — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:35:49 +0000

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010

11 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

715 588-3700

Native Woodland artists from Lac du Flambeau and the region will be selling their artwork. A variety of high quality Native arts and crafts will be for sale: beadwork, baskets, jewelry, dream catchers, paintings, moccasins, decoys, wood carving, and more. There will also be music and entertainment.

Woodland Indian Art Center Adawe Place Mall, downtown Lac du Flambeau