THE NAVAJO COUNCIL’S NAA’BIKI’YATI’ COMMITTEE CONTINUES AMENDING PROPOSED $220 MILLION BOND/LOAN THAT LEGALLY PROTECT SPECIFIC NAVAJO ASSETS, ESPECIALLY $1.4 BILLION PERMANENT TRUST FUND, FROM BEING USED TO REPAY BOND IF NAVAJO NATION FAILS TO MAKE REPAY BOND/LOAN.

DELEGATE LORENZO CURLEY/BUDGET & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER
Crate Section 9

DELEGATE LEONARD TSOSIE
why was this important clause left out in the first place? I understand we will be using PTF interest to repay Bond/Loan. that is how presented at Resources & Development Committee. And there are prohibitions on how the PTF interest is used and it’s used for capital improvement projects, not loans.

Other reason is that we have to say that this returns to Council. on Page 6 of 9, if u read line 25 down, when we approve this, we’re totally delegating authority to Controller to do what he wants cuz says authorized person/persons are fully authorized…without further action by Council. We give to Controller and whomever he is with.

So going to amendment E, they could ID available assets with “unlimited” authority that we give to them.

DK if this language is used in the Bond world. To me “fully authorized” is 100 percent and not return to us for 15 yrs.

Language in E was included as additional exception cuz in negotiations with Bond purchases, we cud negotiate additional exclusions of Navajo assets. Certainly if NDOJ attorney Gomez has different view. Delegated authority not to take away but protect.

DELEGATE TSOSIE
Only way to bring back to Council is to tell us what excluded. If read page 6 and adopt way is then we wud never know wat excluded and included. As elected leader to protect Navajo people’s assets, I have to question this.

DELEGATE LORENZO CURLEY
This is perfect example of not being able to get out of rope binding us. Section E language is for certainty in financial world. Delegate Tsosie wants us to hold back in negotiations.

But E allows adequate protection. We lay down what is available and not available. When you sit down at table, we have to be certain on what it is we are offering as security. But I think I’m hearing from Delegate Tsosie that we want to hide it as protection. I disagree.

DELEGATE TSOSIE
not asking anyone to hide anything. But E says that any assets ID in writing wud be excluded. I’m asking that that list be shared with Council before the end of 15 years or until we get in trouble. Then they’ll come running. Let’s just put something in here that tells us what is included and excluded in this $220 million deal. If don’t do that then goes against wisedom and common sense.

I can’t vote for something like that. Navajo pple didnt put me in here to give fully authority to perhaps give away assets and not know for 15 years.

At times I have admitted my failue to constitutents. All I’m asking is to return to Council and let us know or for us to approve or disapprove.

DELEGATE MEL BEGAY
Earlier I spoke in support of this document and to make better document and apprecate amendments for better understanding and preserving assets of nation and what here for.

however we continue to downplay this effort by giving away our assets that are the Navajo Nation’s. If take further and think about, the outside investors give us $200 m of their assets to better ourselves and communities and that we have revenues to repay. That is the point.

We are not working on documents that takes it away. We are basing on business principle and how relate in outside world. I totally disagree with how being stated. But this continues to be better document.

But we are not giving up anything. It’s the pple on the outside giving up something. But if we go any further we won’t have document acceptable to outside.

VOTE AT 6:42 PM on DELEGATE LORENZO CURLEY’S AMENDMENT TO CREATE SECTION 9 TO CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT ARE AVAILABLE AND UNAVAILABLE NAVAJO ASSETS THAT COULD BE USED TO SERVICE THE $220 MILLION BOND/LOAN.
13 in favor, 1 opposed.