Vitriolic Humor

This letter was originally sent to various contacts with the Tribal Police organization, Creek Indian Enterprises (CIE) management, Poarch Creek Indian (PCI) Gaming management, and Poarch Band of Creek Indians Tribal Council via e-mail. I received no response, so I'm posting it here:

On September 17, 2006, we were driving through Wetumpka and decided to check out the Riverside Entertainment complex. I am an amateur photographer and after looking around a bit, I wondered if there was a good view up or down the Coosa River from your parking garage, so I went up to go take pictures. I didn't take any as the view wasn't there, but upon returning to my vehicle, I was approached by two Tribal Police officers. They were polite, but informed me that "[I could take no] photos on Federal land." One continued on to say that "Tribal Rules prevent photography [on the facility.]" I would like some clarification on his guidance.

1. Is the reservation/facility "Federal land" (is that US Federal or Poarch Creek Indian Federal?)
2. Is photography prevented on "Federal land"?
3. What is the legal standing of the Riverside Entertainment complex? Is it a reservation? A special administration area?
4. Why is there no indication that I have entered on to Federal or Indian reservation land when I enter the Riverside Complex? Where is the border?
5. Why are there a different set of rules on the facility with no public posting of these rules?
6. How would I go about getting proper permission from the Poarch Creek Indian Government (or from CIE) to take pictures on Poarch Creek Indian property? (I understand you wouldn't want pictures of clientèle. I'm primarily interested in scenery that might be visible from your property, especially up and down the Coosa River.)

While I went up to the top of the parking garage, my wife fed our 6-month old son in the car. After the Tribal Police officer left, a Casino employee (she looked like she was coming in to work) stopped and notified us that "children weren't allowed on the complex" and that we'd have to leave as soon as he was done feeding.

1. Are children allowed on the Riverside Entertainment complex? (Obviously, I understand not IN the Casino.)
2. Why is there no notice of this or any other rules?

Clear posting of special areas and rules applying to them would make these interactions (cordial, but tense) with members of the Public unnecessary, and I wouldn't be writing to you right now asking these questions.

Please consider forwarding this information to appropriate contacts within the Tribal Police organization, Creek Indian Enterprises (CIE) management, Poarch Creek Indian (PCI) Gaming management, and Poarch Band of Creek Indians Tribal Council for their deliberation and consideration.

Thank you,

-David Morrison

I can be reached at speed-vh@transmit.net.

Tags: gambling rights reservation complaint law enforcement poarch public relations tribal casino pr

Posted by speedeep at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. I contribute to the 401K plan my company participates in.
2. My company matches a certain percentage of my contribution with immediately fully-vested matching funds.
3. Those matching funds go into a [Company Name] Stock Fund in my 401K account where they cannot be transferred or removed until I am 50 years old (~20 years from now), or quit the company (at which time I can roll-over my 401K.)
4. That stock fund is not a regular mutual fund, is not publicly tracked, is "not a diversified or managed investment option", and doesn't have a stock symbol outside of the 401K service provider.
5. There is very little visibility into the fund's holding other than checking the value reported in my 401K account periodically (i.e. there are yearly average figures, but the daily trading details are not publicly available unless I record them manually, daily.)
6. This stock is highly volatile, nearly doubling and halving its value in the course of a year.

The problem is that I am essentially locked into investing my matching funds into this [Company Name] Stock Fund, which currently has a -8.71% average return for the life of the fund (since 1988.) Is this arrangement legal? It seems to trap the "matching funds" into propping up the corporate stock as well as nearly assuring that these funds will be lost on the employee's account instead of the company's. Do I have any alternatives that I'm not considering?

This January, our company is removing the requirement that the matching funds can only go into the [Company Name] Stock Fund and will allow us to assign the matching funds to investments of our choice(!), but matching funds already in the Stock Fund are stuck there until I turn 50. At the current rate of negative return, this money will eat itself away before I turn 50. Things may change, but the 18-year historical average of -8.71% say otherwise.

Does anyone else out there find themselves in this same situation with their employer and their 401K plan? What options do I have?

Tags: financial fund market strategic strategy economics long-term money stocks retirement economy problem tactical mutual business company invest 401(k) investing politics shortterm longterm trade investment 401k finance stock managed question personal finance short-term trading mutualfund

Posted by speedeep at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)