Here is part of an account by Alice Elwell in The Enterprise of Brockton:
He [Bingham] said the federal land trust for a reservation could be in jeopardy if any illegal acts are uncovered.
“Everything has to be questioned at this point,” Bingham said.
Bingham said he does not want to stop a casino, but the contract with Middleboro only benefits the investors, “not the tribe, not Middleboro.”
And here’s another Elwell story, which I couldn’t find on The Enterprise’s site, but which was republished in the Norwich Bulletin: “Bingham said if his group succeeds, all contracts, including the one signed with Middleboro, will be null and void.”
Given all that’s happened, I would think that Bingham’s group has an excellent chance of succeeding. And let’s not forget that three Middleborough selectmen are facing recall as well.
As I’ve said before, this is all crumbling very quickly.
Peter Kenney has a blog post on the tribal meeting that took place Monday evening, which includes some background on Bingham, his 84-year-old mother, and three other tribe members whom Marshall had ordered “shunned.”
A disclosure: I’ve accepted an invitation to speak at a fundraising event being organized by Casinofacts.org, the anti-casino group in Middleborough. It hasn’t been scheduled yet, but I thought I should disclose that immediately. For the record, there’s no speaking fee.
Welcome news!
Please post when the casinofacts meeting will be held.
That Alice Ewell of the Enterprise didn’t ask how a change in leadersip renders all contracts null and void. That is a pretty radical statement. All contracts ever entered into by the tribe? Even if they have nothing to do with a casino? If not, why are casiono contracts different?
Is it a literal contract? There’s an oral contract, it seems, but is anything in writing, other than the record of the town meeting?
The town selectmen signed the contract the instant they could, right after the town meeting. Most of them managed not to drool.
Thanks
If, arguendo, the tribe really didn’t want the Middleborough deal to go forward, I am sure they could kill it in a dozen different ways.
<
p>
But why shouldn’t the tribe want the deal?
<
p>
As I read it, there’s a lot of things going on with Bingham versus Marshall, but stopping the casino is not one of them.
He’s on the record. Yes, you’re right, he wants a casino. But he wants to start the negotiations over from scratch. And after all that’s happened, it’s hard to imagine Middleborough would be the destination. New Bedford makes more sense. (No casino anywhere makes the most sense, but that’s another matter.)
<
p>
Consider … by the end of September, you could have a tribal council and a majority of the Middleborough selectmen who no longer support the deal approved by town meeting on July 28. Yes, it may be legally binding, but how can it go forward when both parties have withdrawn their backing? Answer: It can’t.
It never was. It isn’t about Bill Delahunt, Middleboro town officials, Deval Patrick or the Legislature. These people are just the puppets. It’s about business. Just business.
<
p>
The people that want the casino are savvy businessmen. They will get the business deal. That’s how it works. I wouldn’t want to get in their way. Would you?
Two points:
<
p>
Additionally, the Tribe does not own the parcels in Middleboro — it is owned by agents acting on behalf of the Wampanoag. The Tribe cannot receive this land unless it has achieved Trust status from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Given that any Native American tribe has only one chance to apply for Trust status with the feds, they often want to make sure they have all their ducks in a row (such as having access to the land, and local permission) before applying. One such duck is a unified leadership structure with the allegiance of the Tribe, which is rapidly deteriorating at the moment.
New Bedford makes more sense. And you wouldn’t have nearly as many NIMBY issues there.
<
p>
I might prefer having Deval approve putting out to bid one or two casinos in areas to be determined. That would take away all the complications of tribal status, putting land in trust, etc.
<
p>
New Bedford, I think, would be at the top of the list.
But I would argue that there are no NIMBY issues with respect to the casino, because it doesn’t have to be built anywhere. It’s not like a prison or a landfill. It’s strictly optional, and a bad idea no matter where it’s built.
There are no NIMBY issues? You’re not serious, are you?
<
p>
There aren’t people opposed to the casino that have been to Vegas or Foxwoods? Those would be the NIMBYs, Dan. And they’re hypocrites.
I am against Foxwoods, as previously noted. But Las Vegas would not exist without casinos; it would be a desert. Atlantic City was absolutely dead, and casinos revived it. Massachusetts does not need a casino, it has a strong economy.
There are people who are opposing the casino in Middleboro…
<
p>
…not becuase they think the Massachusetts economy is strong enough to survive without it.
<
p>
…not because they are morally opposed to gambling or casinos in general.
<
p>
…not because the jobs it would bring “aren’t good enough.”
<
p>
…not because they are concerned with the corrupting influence of evil forces on the democratic operation of a ?Native American tribe.
<
p>
They generally are ok with the existence of casinos, just not in their backyard.
<
p>
That’s all I’m saying. It seems ridiculous that the existence of such a species can be denied completely.
<
p>
I wasn’t even saying NIMBY was the biggest source of opposition to the Middleboro casino, for craying out loud.
So I pointed out that one can support (or at least not object to) casinos in some places while opposing them in others. That does not make one a hypocrite.
Bingham said if his group succeeds, all contracts, including the one signed with Middleboro, will be null and void
<
p>
Is there a provision in the contract with Mittleboro that would allow one side of the contract (the Wampanoags) to declare a contract “null and void” without the permission of the other side of the contract? If so, that would be a very strange contract.
<
p>
In other words, can the Wampanoags say “I want out” after Mittleboro might have spent lots of money fulfilling their obligations under the contract–the infrastructure improvements, for example.
Raj — As I’ve said, Bingham might be wrong. Still, how is this going to move forward if the tribal leadership withdraws its support? And what happens if a newly constituted board of selectmen also withdraws its support? Ah, now you could say that both sides have turned against it, but no — the contract was approved by town meeting. Very convoluted.
…it strikes me that town council can agree to cancel a contract, whether or not it was approved by an informal (i.e. lakeside) town meeting.
<
p>
That aside, I don’t know what this purported contract requires either party to do. Maybe it doesn’t require them to do anything.
Raj – It was a legally binding and properly posted special Town Meeting, which has greater legal authority than the Board of Selectmen to ratify contracts.
<
p>
That aside, Dan, there’s another cloud on the horizon.
<
p>
The Bingham family believes that the tribe should NOT have settled its land lawsuits with the Town of Mashpee 10-15 years ago, and they pursued the effort to reopen those matters when recognition was granted. The land in Middleboro is a part of that suit – an offset for admitted and genuine town encroachment on tribal lands. Places like Mashpee Commons and New Seabury are at stake in this. So when Mr. Bingham talks about ALL contracts entered into being back on the table, he isn’t NECESSARILY thinking of the casino.
<
p>
25 years ago, NOBODY would buy a house in Mashpee as virtually the entire town had once been Wampanoag tribal land. After the lawsuit was settled, development – for better or worse – proceeded at a clip commensurate with the rest of the Cape.
<
p>
Can you IMAGINE the ruckus if the newly recognized tribe revisited that issue? Part of the reason the suit dragged on for 10+ years was taht there was a great deal of squabbling as to whether or not the Wampanoags wre REAL Indians. Now that they officially ARE, the Mashpee Board of Selectmen are tossing and turning at night, as an old issue may be ressurected.
…as far as I’m concerned any “town meeting” that is held outside of normal town meeting halls (they need to have them) and at regular times at which town meetings are held are “informal.”
<
p>
I suppose that you would consider a town meeting held on the town green in the dead of winter at 30 degrees below zero after three feet of snow on three days notice to be OK. I would beg to differ.
There IS no ‘normal’ town meeting hall in any town in Barnstable County, and I would wager that is true is the other 200+ communities with open town meeting as well. THAT IS WHY THE WARRANT MUST BE PUBLICLY POSTED FOR 45 DAYS.
<
p>
Your considerations are irrelevant.
The towns don’t have access to high school auditoriums at which town meetings would normally be held? Are you seriously suggesting that MA is so primitive that they don’t have such facilities?
<
p>
No mention of gymnasiums. Many towns rotate where town meeting is held. In fact, my own town has FIVE village halls, which were often used for town meetings. While they CAN be held in a school auditorium, they do not HAVE to be held in one location – as I said, that is why the warrant is posted to give notice of where it will be.
<
p>
Likewise, there is an Annual town Meeting – usually held in the spring, although that varies too, and as many Special Town Meetings as the Selectmen or voters deem necessary. Last year – Harwich had three. One was annual at which an override failed, the next was a Special at which a DIFFERENT ovverride failed, and the third was one yet another Special where override proponents were able to get yet another override option passed. Any fifty voters can call a special town meeting, in the same way any ten voters can get a warrant article onto an existing town meeting warrant.
<
p>
All of these meeting were equally legal and their actions had equal force at law. NONE of them were ‘informal’ because they were at a different time or place. There is no such thing as an informal town meeting.
They expected (and got) a crowd far in excess of the normal turnout for a Town Meeting.
<
p>
They looked into holding it somewhere out of town, but were told that wasn’t legal. So the meeting was held at the high school’s football field.
Town Meeting is the sole legislative body for Middleborough- or any “town” in the traditional statutory sense in Massachusetts.
We agree on something. Nothing informal about town meeting.