[The deposition of Michael Chapman follows:] EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, DEPOSITION OF: MICHAEL CHAPMAN FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 1998 The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:17 a.m. Appearances: Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Robert J. Dold, Jr., Investigative Counsel; James C. Wilson, Senior Investigative Counsel; and Michael J. Yeager, Minority Counsel. For MR. CHAPMAN: TIMOTHY S. ELLIOTT, ESQ. Mr. DOLD. Good morning, Mr. Chapman. 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 and the person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and a notary public. I will now request that the reporter place you under oath. THEREUPON, MICHAEL CHAPMAN, 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. My name is Bob Dold. I'm the designated Majority counsel, and I'm accompanied today by Jim Wilson, who is also Majority counsel for the committee. Mr. Mike Yeager is the designated Minority counsel, and Mr. Chapman is represented today by Mr. Tim Elliott. Mr. Chapman, 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 of law. 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 those exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection. If you recall only a part of a conversation or only a part of an event, please give me your best recollection of those events or parts of the conversation that you recall. If I ask whether you have any information on a particular subject and you have overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding it or have seen correspondence or documentation regarding it, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source, either a conversation, a document or otherwise. Majority and Minority committee counsels will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of this investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel has finished. After Minority counsel has completed questioning, a new round of questioning may begin. Members of Congress who attend today's proceeding will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask questions, assuming they come. And I don't anticipate any Members are coming today or coming back into town for the deposition, but if they do come, they will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask questions. At the conclusion of that, committee counsel will pick up where they left off. Pursuant to the committee rules you are allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection 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 it may not be made public without the consent of the committee pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule XI. We ask that you abide by the rules of the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney the deposition and the issues raised during this proceeding. Finally, no later than 5 days after your testimony is transcribed and normally it comes back to us in a day or two-and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman. Committee staff can make any typographical or technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications or amendments to the deposition, however, must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of the reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting any 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. DOLD. Do you understand everything we've gone over so far? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. DOLD. If you do not understand a question, please say so and I will repeat it or rephrase it so that you understand the question. Do you understand that you should tell me if you do not understand my question? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. DOLD. The reporter will be taking down everything that we say and will make a written record of the deposition. You must give verbal, audible answers because the reporter cannot record a nod of the head or what a gesture means. Do you understand this? The WITNESS. Yes. Mr. DOLD. If you don't hear me, please say so and I will repeat the question or have the reporter read the question to you. Please wait until I finish each question before answering and I will wait until you complete your answer before I ask the next question. This will help the reporter make a clear record, because he cannot take down what we are both saying at the same time. Your testimony is being taken under oath as if you were in a court 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. Mr. DOLD. I understand that you are here voluntarily today, and we thank you for that. Mr. DOLD. Mr. Elliott, do you have anything? Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes. Mr. Chapman, in my view, has virtually nothing to add to the record that is being put together by the committee and the staff. One thinks about if one puts a microscope on any decision that's been made by a Federal agency, I suspect that the one with the microscope would find things done with which the person with the microscope would disagree or take issue, particularly when you have the advantage of hindsight. That's what the judicial system is for. That's what we have our judges do. We have litigation in this case, and we believe the court will rule for the United States. I believe that the committee should let the judicial process work because there has been absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by any Federal official, nor is there any evidence that there is a need from this case for legislation. We do, as I have said, have litigation, and we will insist that had the committee staff in its questions—and I will advise Mr. Chapman to stay away from issues involved in the litigation so far as he is aware of them. Mr. YEAGER. I'd like to echo Mr. Elliott's concerns and his observations about the committee's inquiry into this process. As the Minority has done in the past with every deposition on the Hudson Casino matter, we object to this deposition. We feel that not only does Mr. Chapman have virtually nothing of significance to add to the public record on this issue, we feel that this entire inquiry is duplicative and unnecessary, and a waste of taxpayer-funded resources. So on behalf of the Minority, I'd like to restate that objection. Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chapman, do you have any questions before we begin the subtantive portion? Answer. No. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Would you state your name and spell it, please. Answer. Michael Chapman. M-I-C-H-A-E-L, Chapman, C-H-A-P-M-A-N? Answer. Yes. Question. And where did you attend college? Answer. University of Wisconsin, Green Bay; University of Wisconsin, Madison, and NACE College in Chicago. Question. Were those was NACE College in Chicago for graduate degrees? Question. Can you give me a brief employment history from college forward? Answer. Sure. I have been—well, I'll start a little before because I didn't graduate until later. I have been involved in the student movement. I was president of the American Student Association. I went on to be communications deputy and acting director of the National Congress of American Indians, at which point I began to do foundation, not-for-profit fund-raising and public relations. I worked with NACE College in Chicago and then worked with the American Indian Business Association in Chicago; and then at that point began to do some freelance consulting and fund-raising around not-for-profit causes. And then came to Washington in '92 and came to Interior in '93. Question. And what was your position at the Department of Interior? Answer. I was essentially a consultant in '93 and '94, and in January of '95 I became a permanent employee, Special Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. Question. You say you came to Washington in 1992. Did you have employment in 1992 in Washington? Answer. Just consulting. Question. In '92 who were you consulting for? Answer. Various national not-for-profits. Americans for Indian Opportunity and First Nation's Development Institute. And the Association on American Indian Affairs. Question. And in 1993 when you came to the Department of the Interior doing consulting work, who were you consulting for in the Department? The Department as a whole, or was there a specific area? Answer. I was a Special Assistant essentially, part-time in the Office of the Secretary and then in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and then later on the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Question. And what is your current occupation? Answer. I'm Special Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. Question. Do you know who hired you at the Department of Interior back in '93? Answer. I believe it was the acting Deputy Commissioner, Woodrow Hopper. We had a series of actings before Ms. Manuel became permanent. Question. And how did you get the job at the Department of Interior? Answer. I applied. It was a short-term employment. Question. What were your responsibilities at the Department of Interior in 1995? Answer. I was Special Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. I helped do a lot of intertribal meetings and facilitations and consultations on behalf of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Question. And who was the Deputy Commissioner at that time? Answer. Hilda Manuel. Question. And where were you located? Where was your physical office located while were at the Department? Answer. In the 4100 corridor, which is where the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Secretary is. Mr. ELLIOTT. The main Interior building. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. And who would be around the 4100 corridor? Who else? Answer. The Assistant Secretary, the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, other Special Assistants. Question. And just so we've got it for the record, who are those individuals, the titles, the four? Answer. Ada Deer was the Assistant Secretary; Michael Anderson, the Deputy Assistant; Hilda Manuel, the Deputy Commissioner, and various others. Question. And who did you report to during 1995 in your role as Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner? Did I get that right? Answer. Special Assistant. The Deputy Commissioner, Hilda Manuel. Question. Have you discussed this deposition with anyone prior to coming here? Answer. No, no. Mr. ELLIOTT. It's not exactly true. He's talked with me. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Besides your attorney. Answer. Well, no. Question. Has anyone from the Department of Justice spoken with you about the Hudson Dog Track matter? Answer. No. Question. And just for the record, when I refer to the Hudson Dog Track matter, I'm referring to the fee-to-trust application in Hudson, Wisconsin. Apart from this deposition and arranging logistics for this deposition, have you spoken with any congressional personnel about the Hudson Dog Track? Answer. No. Question. Have you talked to anybody-congressional personnel about the Hudson Dog Track before the decision came down in July of 1995? Answer. Did I-clarify. Question. Have you talked to anybody up on Capitol Hill, congressional-Senate, Congress, anybody like that? Answer. Oh, no, no. Question. Do you have any documents pertaining to the Hudson Dog Track in your personal possession? Answer. The only document I had was a transcript from a meeting in Wisconsin, which I furnished the committee. Question. Which meeting are you referring to? Answer. The April meeting, the consultation the Secretary had with Wisconsin tribal leaders. Question. Do you recall when that meeting was? Answer. Just April, April of '95. I don't recall the dates. Question. And the Secretary was at that meeting in April? Answer. Yes. Question. Do you know if the Hudson Dog Track matter was discussed at that meeting? Answer. Yes, it was. Mr. YEAGER. Mr. Dold, I think we have a transcript of that meeting. EXAMINATION BY MR. DOLD: Question. Mr. Chapman, when did you first hear about the Hudson Dog Track? Answer. I would assume in '94. I am from Wisconsin. I am a member of the Menominee Indian tribe, so I had some working familiarity with the issues in Wisconsin; and it was from that context-it wasn't from a policy Interior context-that I initially became aware of it. And my mother was a tribal chairperson of the tribe for five terms in the early '90s, so obviously I had some involvement with Wisconsin-related issues. Question. When did you first hear about the Hudson Dog Track issue in your capacity at the Department of Interior? Answer. At that April meeting. Question. Were you also at the April meeting? Answer. Yes, I was. Question. Mr. Chapman, can you give me your understanding of the application process of how an Indian tribe would take land in the trust? Answer. I have limited familiarity with it. I don't deal with policy matters principally at Interior, and certainly don't deal with land acquisitions or gaming issues. So I could not tell you, is the answer. Question. So you have no idea? Answer. That's correct. Question. On July 14th of '95, the application to take land in trust was rejected. Do you know why it was rejected? Answer. My recollection or my belief is, it had-it would have adverse impact on some of the tribes in the immediate vicinity and there was objection in the local community. Question. Did you agree with the recommendation? Answer. Yeah, I had no problem with it. It wasn't an issue in terms of my role. I don't have a policy role; I process essentially documents in that immediate corridor. 48-493 98-7 |