Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'S

DENIAL OF THE WISCONSIN CHIPPEWA'S CASINO APPLICATIONS

[The depositions of Michael Anderson, Loretta Avent, Michael Chapman, Thomas Corcoran, Ada Deer, Franklin Ducheneaux, John J. Duffy, Thomas Hartman, Ann Louise Jablonski, and Robin Jaeger follow:]

EXECUTIVE SESSION

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1998

DEPOSITION OF: MICHAEL JOHN ANDERSON

The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 1:45 p.m.

Appearances:

Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Robert J. Dold, Jr., Investigative Counsel; James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; and Michael J. Yeager, Minority Counsel.

For MR. ANDERSON:

TIMOTHY S. ELLIOTT, ESQ.

Deputy Associate Solicitor-General Law

Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

Mr. DOLD. Good afternoon, Mr. Anderson. On behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I appreciate and thank you for appearing here today.

This proceeding is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and a notary public, and I will now request that the reporter place you under oath.

THEREUPON, MICHAEL ANDERSON, a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. DOLD. I would like to note for the record those who are present at the beginning of this proceeding. I am Bob Dold, the designated Majority counsel, accompanied today by Jim Wilson, who is also with the Majority. Mr. Ken Ballen is the designated Minority counsel, and he is accompanied today by Michael Yeager. Mr. Anderson is accompanied today by Tim Elliott.

Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you have been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a court. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past and you are unable to recall the exact words used in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall the exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such con

(1)

versation to the best of your recollection. If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give me your best recollection of those of those parts of the conversations or events that you do recall.

Majority and Minority committee counsels will be asking you questions regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after the Majority counsel is finished. After Minority counsel has completed questioning of you, a new round of questioning may begin.

Members of Congress who wish to attend today's proceeding, if any do attend, and I do not know of any presently, but if they should attend, they will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask questions, and when they have finished asking questions, we will pick up where we left off.

Pursuant to the committee's rules, you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objections raised during the course of the deposition shall be stated for the record. If the witness is instructed not to answer a question, or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper.

This deposition is considered as taken in executive session of the committee, which means that it may not be made public without the consent of the committee pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. You are asked to abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone, other than your attorney, this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceeding.

Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman, and as we discussed before we went on the record, the transcript should be available fairly quickly. It has been as quick as a day or two, and as Mr. Elliott noted before, it's sometimes been more than a week. We will certainly try to make sure that this is available in the next day or two.

Committee staff may make any typographical or technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of your reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting substantive changes must be signed by you. Any substantive changes shall be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon your signing of the transcript.

Mr. Anderson, do you understand everything we have gone over so far?

The WITNESS. Yes, I do.

Mr. DOLD. Do you have any questions about anything before we go on?

The WITNESS. I will wait until Mr. Elliott has spoken.

Mr. DOLD. Let me just do a couple of the ground rules first and then that will be an appropriate time to go forward.

Mr. Anderson, if you do not understand a question, please say so, and I will repeat the question or rephrase it so that you understand it. Do you understand that you should tell me if you do not understand my question?

The WITNESS. Yes, I do.

Mr. DOLD. The reporter will be taking down everything you say and will be making a written record of the deposition. You must give verbal, audible answers, because the reporter cannot record what a nod of the head or a gesture means. Do you understand?

The WITNESS. Yes, I do.

Mr. DOLD. If you can't hear me, please say so and I will repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question to you.

Your testimony is being taken under oath as if you were in a court of law, and if you answer the question it will be assumed that you understood the question and the answer was intended to be responsive to it. Do you understand that?

The WITNESS. Yes, I do.

Mr. DOLD. I understand that you are here voluntarily today, and I thank you very much for that. If you have any questions about the deposition before we begin any of the substantive portions of the proceeding

The WITNESS. I do as to scope, but maybe I will have Mr. Elliott discuss that first. I just would inquire to counsel as to the scope of the deposition and the areas thatwhether there are new areas or old areas. That's the basic question.

Mr. DOLD. Do you want me to address that now?

Mr. ELLIOTT. You can address it now or I can make my statement.

Mr. DOLD. Why don't you make your statement.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Dold and Mr. Wilson, Mr. Skibine was deposed here for the better part of 7 hours yesterday. This was hours longer than Mr. Wilson predicted at the beginning of the deposition. The primary burden of the time that was spent here fell on Mr. Skibine and not the rest of us. Other depositions and redepositions have

also taken an inordinately long amount of time. All of the deponents who are or were employees of the Department of the Interior, so far as I am aware, have attended voluntarily.

In my view, the responsibility for the unreasonable burden imposed on these people lies with the Majority counsel. Despite representations by the Chairman and Mr. Wilson to me that redepositions were not to cover the ground covered in prior depositions, Mr. Wilson went over the same ground with both Ms. Deer and Mr. Skibine. Despite representations by Mr. Wilson and Mr. Dold that the litigation brought against the United States was not of interest to the committee, you have repeatedly delved into that litigation, the issues and documents central to it.

The resolution of the committee indicates that the committee is looking into campaign fund-raising and potential violations of law. The questioning of the deponents has been less an attempt to get at the facts of the Hudson Dog Track application. It looks to me more like what used to be called a star-chamber proceeding: an attempt to get to a predetermined view or answer, regardless of the facts and regardless of the testimony of the witnesses in answer to the questions asked.

As you know, Mr. Anderson is also here voluntarily. He has other work to do for the United States of America. The Senate deposition took slightly less than 2 hours. Mr. Anderson and I will be leaving here at 5 p.m. to go back to our offices to do our regular work. We would like to take regular breaks during this deposition for the next 3 hours and some 5 minutes. I think if you attempt to discuss the facts and not speculation or opinions of the attitudes or opinions of others, we will get the facts out within the time allotted. If you stay out of the litigation, if you stay away from ground that has already been covered, if you stay away from opinions and facts of others, we can proceed with this deposition and get it done in a timely fashion instead of spending the inordinate amounts of time we have spent with the other deponents.

I resent the intrusion that you have taken on the times of these individuals to get to what appears to be a predetermined view. I think it is unfair to them, I think it is unfair to the committee, and I think it is unfair to the United States taxpayers. That's my statement.

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Ballen?

Mr. BALLEN. Well, I think that Mr. Elliott made some very cogent points in his statement, and it does seem the Majority has predetermined an outcome that it wishes to get to in this case, rather than examining the facts as they actually occurred.

As to the mandate of this committee, it is to look into campaign finance violations and improprieties and possible violations of law, not to reexamine the entire Department of Interior. Unless the scope for the depositions have changed since the resolution, that is Minority's understanding of why depositions are being conducted in this investigation.

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Anderson, I would like to, on behalf of the Majority, thank you for coming, and I do sincerely hope that we will be done by 5 o'clock. It is going to be my every effort to make sure that that is done so that you can get back to the office at that time.

By all means, I do not-and I hope it is not your understanding at the end of this deposition that I was anything but fair in my questioning of you. Unfortunately, due to the fact that we have received, to say it mildly, boxes of documents, new material from the Department of Interior since you were deposed last, we felt it was necessary to bring you back to ask you some questions.

In saying that, asking questions in a vacuum is very difficult to do, and I understand that there will be some questions that will probably be covering some of the stuff that you already testified to in the Senate, and it is my intention to minimize that greatly as much as possible.

But as far as the scope of the matters concerned, it is dealing with the Hudson Dog Track proposal. The Hudson Dog Track I will use throughout the deposition as a shorthand for the fee to trust application taken by the three tribes in Wisconsin to take land into trust in Hudson, Wisconsin.

The WITNESS. Okay. Well, I expressed-or I appreciate the commitment on fairness. I may want to consult with Mr. Elliott regularly as to the scope of the questions, but I certainly appreciate that commitment made.

Mr. DOLD. As you have entirely the right to do.

Before we begin the actual beginning of the questions, is it your understanding that Mr. Elliott is here representing you in a personal capacity?

The WITNESS. He is representing me in my official capacity as officially with the Department of the Interior. He is also representing the interests of the Department of the Interior, is my understanding.

EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD:

Question. Mr. Anderson, will you please just state your name for the record for

us?

Answer. Michael John Anderson.

Question. And can you give did you attend college?

Answer. Yes, I did.

Question. And where did you attend college?

Answer. The University of Oklahoma.

Question. Did you obtain any graduate degrees after the University of Oklahoma? Answer. Yes. Juris doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center.

Question. Can you give me a brief, when I say brief, I want to emphasize brief

again, employment history from college forward?

Answer. Do you want to include summer jobs in college?

Question. No. I am trying to get an idea of what positions you held.

Answer. Let me start first job after law school.

Question. Okay.

Answer. I was employed from 1984 to 1985 with the law firm of Cralking, Kramer, Grimshaw and Harring in Denver, Colorado, from 1984 to 1985. From 1985 to 1987, I was employed with the law firm called Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay, here in Washington, D.C. From 1987 to 1992, I was employed by the law firm, McKenna and Cuneo. Within that time frame I had a one year leave of absence in 1990, first as associate counsel and then later general counsel, at the Special Committee on Investigations for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

From 1992 to 1993, I served as executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. In May of 1993, I began employment with the Department of Interior as a consultant to the solicitor from May to August 1993, and then in August of '93 as the associate solicitor for Indian Affairs, from August 1993 through April 1995. Since April 1995, I have been employed as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior.

Question. How long has that been, I'm sorry, for that?

Answer. April of 1995.

Question. If I may just go back and ask a follow-up on the National Congress of American Indians, you say you were the executive director of that organization from 1992 to 1993?

Answer. That is correct.

Question. Who would you work for? Who was your boss when you were the executive director?

Answer. I reported to a board of directors. The President was Gaiashkibos, the chairman of the Lac Courte Orielles tribe, and there was a board of directors of 11 other directors, and the primary reporting was to the 4 executive officers of the organization, the president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer.

Question. Mr. Anderson, have you discussed this deposition with anyone, besides your counsel?

Answer. I discussed timing of the deposition with Mr. Ballen and I believe Mr. Yeager, and also I discussed, as Ms. Manuel came back to the office, I think it was Monday or Tuesday, how long it took. Mr. Skibine came back to the office today and I asked him not to discuss his deposition with me.

Question. Have you discussed the substance of any other depositions that this committee has taken with anyone?

Answer. No.

Question. Have you given documents regarding the Hudson Dog Track to the Department of Justice?

Answer. I submitted an affidavit in the Wisconsin litigation to the solicitor's office, who, in turn, I believe provided it to the Department of Justice in Madison, Wisconsin.

Question. Has anyone from the Department of Justice spoken with you about the Hudson Dog Track matter?

Answer. Yes. I have spoken to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Jones, about the matter.

Question. Did you speak with anyone from the campaign finance task force?
Answer. No.

Question. Apart from this deposition, and arranging for the logistics of this deposition, have you spoken with any congressional personnel on matters regarding the Hudson Dog Track?

Answer. No.

Question. And when I say that I'm also speaking about prior to the decision?
Answer. Right.

« AnteriorContinuar »