ALASKA NATIVES COMMISSION
JOINT FEDERAL-STATE COMMISSION
ON
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AFFECTING
ALASKA NATIVES
4000 Old Seward Highway, Suite 100
Anchorage,
Alaska 99503
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Witness List | Exhibit
List
| PDF Version
Economic Issues:
Group A
(On record -- Tape log 0 - 55 side conversations
not transcribed)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: All right, we've decided
to kind of rotate the chairmanship, such as it is, of the meeting
between us; and,
actually, this should have been Morrie Thompson's chairmanship,
because that's his task force, Economic Issues for Native People,
but he's getting tired of it; and, besides, he figures since
this is his bailiwick, and I'm an outsider, I can afford to be
more dictatorial about the time limits than he was. I'm not losing
any votes by doing so. In fairness to the people who are scheduled
to make presentations later in the program, we've got to start
catching up on time, because at 5 o’clock, they kick us
out whether we like it or not; and it would be very unfair for
the final panels to be restricted; so I will request two things:
number one, try to stay within five minutes and not to exceed
eight. If you have a lengthy written statement, and we've had
several of those that have excellent content, but they were read
to us, it would have been much more efficient to put them in
the record -- they would be fully reproduced there -- and then
summarize and answer questions. And those of you who are coming
now, I would request that you do that. If you have 20 pages,
or 50 pages of statement, we certainly want to have it; and it
will be read, and it will be taken into account; but please don't
read it to us. Give us a five-minute summary, and be prepared
to answer questions. Is that okay with everybody? Anybody object
to that? Thank you. We'll start cut on the panel on Economic
Issues, and the first on the list here appears to be Mr. Ken
Johns of Copper River Native Association. Are you with us, or
is he not here? Oh, you're here. Thank you. Would you please
go ahead, sir.
MR. JOHNS: My name is Ken Johns. I've just recently
been hired as Executive Director at Copper River Native Association.
I'm
here today to give you my perspective of two important issues
that faces Alaska Native people: the subsistence and the economy.
First of all, Copper River Native Association is a sister nonprofit
organization of Ahtna, Incorporated, which is one of the twelve
organizations created by Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement
Act. Copper River Native Association provides services which
includes old-age programs, natural resources, health and social
services, human services, and administers all major contracts
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service,
as well as the State of Alaska. Having said that, I will briefly
cover concerns we feel needs to be addressed at this crucial
period in Alaska Native lives.
Subsistence has put a deep
scar in Alaska Native history. The failure of the State to fully
address this problem will be with
us for years. To be more specific, I will enlighten you about
our experience we have had in loss of our hunting and fishing
privileges throughout our region. The Ahtna Region is accessible
by all major road systems in the state of Alaska. The region
is also home of the popular Nelchina caribou herd, of approximately
40,000 caribou. Also, Unit 13, which covers most of the region,
is a very popular hunting area for moose hunters from Anchorage
and Fairbanks. Each year tens of thousands of urban and sport
fishermen venture into our region. Each year approximately 15,000
applicants apply for caribou permits to hunt in Unit 13. Our
villages are the most impacted villages in the state of Alaska.
Each year our villages files numerous lawsuits, both in federal
and state court, just to conserve our hunting privileges. I will
not go into great details because throughout the years, there
have been numerous testimonies on our need to subsistence hunt
and fish on our lands, but I will suggest that this Native Commission
pursue changes that would allow Native regions who apply portions
of ANILCA wildlife management to their lands, which would allow
for rural preference.
I chose to start off my testimony with
subsistence mainly because the economy is tied to subsistence.
Without major projects; for
instance, the Alyeska Pipeline, which runs through our lands
and our village, we would still rely totally on subsistence way
of life. As I mentioned before, we have major road systems throughout
our region; we have access to major cities, such as Anchorage
and Fairbanks; we have access to the Lower 48, Canada, and Valdez.
Several large state agencies, including the Department of Highways
and the Department of Education, but the Native employment in
these areas is approximately one percent of the total workforce.
With limited State funding, and cutbacks of major companies,
the employment picture in our region looks pretty dim.
Suggested
areas that the Native Commission can help us with is the development
of our own corporate lands for employment and
training. I am referring to training programs in the areas of
natural resources program chat would include timber and minerals.
We need to find ways that Native people can capitalize on tourism.
We need assistance in getting our people in these kind of the
mom-and-pop business during the high summer peaks. The Ahtna
Region has major road systems that are regarded as world-class
recreation rafting and boating areas. Also, the sports fishing
for king salmon and sockeye on the Klutina River and Gulkana
River has been one of the state's most well-kept secrets, and
it has very high potential for major recreational spots for sport
fishermen.
I'd like to go off and mention that our area is
in a stage that, if you look down on the Kenai, I foresee that
in
ten years from
now, our area will probably look like the Kenai. We need programs
that fund low-interest loans to Native villages to get in some
of these businesses that provide for boats, and provide for rafting
businesses, and it's something that we can do in summer months,
fully realizing that we are not going to be millionaires, but
we will have some type of income during the summer months.
I
want to go back where I mentioned about the subsistence portion
of the economy. Right now, we have lost a battle within the Supreme
Court on this all Alaskan. It's going to be very detrimental
to our Native people in our region, mainly of the impact of the
urban hunters from both the large cities. We had, in the past
two years, 11 days of moose hunting. My village which have over
2 00 people and has only got three moose. There are some villages
that didn't get any; and I think we probably got a total of 15
moose last year. When you're talking about eight major villages
in our region, that's very little. The Supreme Court has continuously,
continuously went against us on a three-to-two vote on these
issues.
I firmly believe that we are all equal when it
comes to hunting and fishing, but there need to be some standards
that
protect
the minority people in this state. You know, I'm a resident of
the state of Alaska; I'm a citizen of the United States. I will
protect the flag. I will go to the war for the flag, but when
it comes down to a need to survive, we need those extra perks.
We need that extra days. We need that extra season. The economy
is going to go down in our area. There needs to be a replacement
of the subsistence laws within the areas of the state-Without
subsistence, you had heard testimony today, you're going to lose
your culture; you're going to lose your language, because these
are all tied to subsistence. I heard somebody -- I asked this
elder before I came up here:
"What should I talk about?"
And she said
-- I think everything has been said already. And she said to
mention the booklet that was done on the AFN report
status that's called "Call for Action." I suggest that
this Commission review some of that. Another bock here by Thomas
Burger (ph.). Pick that up from the library off the shelves;
sit down and read some of that.
A lot of what was being said
today is redundant. You know, Native people are frustrated that
we have to be coming and testifying
every five years to another Commission, another book, another
study. We've been stamped; we've been notarized; we've been certified;
and I think we're just sick and tired of that. We need what this
book says: "Call for Action." And I really hope this Commission
can do that, because it's time to act. Testimony of the culture
being lost; it's being lost; and one of the things with this
battle over subsistence, it's going backwards, and that's all
I have to say.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Thank you, sir. Let me just
quickly comment that those of us on, this Commission who very
passionately share
your desire that this will be the last Commission, and the last
report, and that we'll start doing something instead of studying
it to death. Because it's very frustrating, and I fully share
with you, and I'm sure everybody on this panel. The next presenter
-- and our co-chairman, Mary Jane Fate asked me to make it clear
that these are not panels of the Commission, these are presenters;
and the next presenter is Chuck Akers of State Department of
Community and Regional Affairs; and would you please give us
your presentation, sir?
MR. AKERS: Thank you very much, Commission,
who invited our department to present testimony on our views
and our agency's efforts to
be an advocate and a service organization to rural Alaska. In
fact, and in more particular, because rural Alaska is mostly
Native people, in fact, we probably are the agency of greatest
service, we hope, to Native people. And this morning I heard
testimony; and I hope -- when Mike Irwin called me yesterday
and said;
"We need somebody from your agency here."
And I
said;
"Well, what is my discussion?" And
he said:
"Solutions to economic issues."
Well,
I don’t think any one agency or any one person has
all the solutions, but I will present one solution that we as
a department, and as state agencies and federal agencies have
been working on some two years; and which shall come to fruition,
I hope, this fall.
First of all, you need to listen to Chief
Peter John, when this morning he said:
"I want my great, great grandchildren to
know who they are."
So when I testify today, I'm in the arms
of the dilemma. I'm a State representative; I'm an official of
the State of Alaska,
but I'm also an Alaska Native person; and I seem to forget that.
As a person working for the State, many times you subliminalize
yourself, your own person; and so I'm proud to say that I am
a high official in this administration, and I'm attempting to
bring my rural experiences to bear on issues that involve rural
people, rural Alaskans.
And so I heed the call of Chief Peter
John when I announce to the group that I have had over 30 years
of life in rural Alaska.
And when I am, as an official of the State, attempting to bring
programs or issues to bear to serve people in rural Alaska, I'm
doing so from that base.
And secondly, I present today, not necessarily
the one solution, but at least, I hope, a solution that may help
us. And I've heard
in testimony today, the words fragmentation, dislocation; and,
over the last two years, there's been a movement among state
and federal agencies, in particular by the federal government
under the President's initiative for rural development, to develop
a coordinative approach to state, federal, private, nonprofit,
local government, and tribal issues in rural America; and, in
particular, for Alaska -- rural Alaska. And so the Department
of Community and regional Affairs and other state and federal
agencies, along with such people as Ed Rutledge from TCC, people
from Bristol Bay, in public meetings over the last two years,
have developed what I personally call "The Green Book,"
because it's got a long name; but it's "Towards a Comprehensive
Alaska
Rural Economic Development Strategy," and it is to be presented
to your Commission as a basis for what has been going on, at
least to this level. It has been the basis of an initiation the
part of the state and federal government to form a State Rural
Development Council in the state of Alaska; and, most recently,
two months ago, Walter Hickel and Undersecretary Walt Hill signed
a Memorandum of Understanding; and the state of Alaska is to
be awarded the status of a state rural development council; and
it is forming now.
The strategy envisioned a grassroots approach
to forming this council; and rather than go into all of the efforts
that came
about in developing that strategy, suffice it to say that we
wanted to make sure that the people being served had significant
seats on that council; because that council's mission is to cut
across bureaucratic lines in
federal and state agencies, to assist in delivering the services
that the clientele need for themselves and their communities.
So, rather than go through the whole process, I present the booklet
to Mike Irwin for your information. The book itself identified
several areas that need to be addressed when you’re looking
at economic issues in rural Alaska, and they include barriers
to economic development. And those barriers include a lack of
financing; a lack of equity, organizations of the system developing
equity; a lack of education; people who can actually handle or
run business or be involved in the network of operating entrepreneurships.
And so, without going into great detail, several barriers were
identified in the booklet itself. When the council forms late
this fall, the call will 90 out to organizations, and it is fundamental
and a requirement by both the federal government and the State
that the interests that will be served on that council will be
state, federal, private, local government, and, in particular,
tribal governments will be invited to sit on this council. That
council will be funded -- it' s not a money council. It is a
coordinative issue. It's an issue to assist the state and federal
governments
to cut across our bureaucracies in bringing those services and
those programs that we have to bear on our clientele in a more
focused and coordinative way. And, with that, I end my presentation.
(TESTIMONY OF CHUCK AKERS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT
#3)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Thank you, sir. We'll follow
the procedure we did before, in giving the presenters the chance
to speak
and then having questions. However, if my co-panel members
will permit
me, I would prefer to do this. We have two groups here of
presenters. We're hearing right now from Group A, and then there's
a Group
B that deals with Planning and Development; and I would like
to address the questions to the first group when they're
finished, and then do the same with the second group, so we don't
get
too far afield. The last of the three Group A presenters
is Robert
Coghill; and, if you will identify the organization that
you're speaking from, I will not mispronounce it.
(TESTIMONY OF
ROBERT COGHILL, JR., ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT
#4)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:
Thank you. Bob. Morrie you want to go first with questions?
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yeah, I -- let me go backwards,
if I may, Bob. First of all, I appreciate your observations.
How
do you,
though, wind down this process? I mean, how do -- what's
the solution. I mean, it's...
MR. COGHILL: Well, that's the problem. The solution,
we can still work it. We can't roll back the clock on RATNET;
we can't roll
it back on the services that are already there. We can provide
opportunities for tourism development that are offered to not-for-profits,
and make them available to individuals, or to entities like
ANCSA. I don't think there's very much difference between an
individual and the ANCSA Corporation; and if we have a government
policy that aims towards that, we can have economic development
that is owned by the villages.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: And an
observation, if I might, and I'll follow up with another question.
With declining state revenues,
we are going to see, though, a lot of the infrastructure that's
been built in urban and rural Alaska receiving less support;
and a concern I have is our rural communities are going to be
impacted more for several reasons. As the State dollars drop
across the state as they will here, rural Alaska is going to
take a disproportionate tie for several reasons. Number one,
we're losing the political power that we had, Number two, we
have a higher percentage of our city dollars come from the State.
And number three, we don’t have no alternative sources.
The urban communities can go to taxation; they can increase the
mill level and go to a sales tax. Those options are not open
to rural Alaska, so we need to be innovative. So, my basic point,
is there going to be less money to support the infrastructure
that's out there now -- the laundries, schools, the TV, that
might create some opportunity, but...
MR. COGHILL: I think it
will create an opportunity. The study that was done that I picked
up back there said that they estimated
the populations in the regions that they studied were three times
greater than the economies can support. I think that might be
a false analysis if the economies were truly locally based, It's
still three times larger, and I don't think we can develop an
economy three times as great; but I think this is part of the
tool that can be used.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: And I'm encouraged
from a positive note to see the number; and I know your community
is one of them;
but to see tourism being viewed as maybe a partial answer for
diversifying the economy. And we look forward to working with
some of your communities in that regard. I know it's spreading.
We see it now in Stevens Village, and Fort Yukon; and, up in
your area, the Lower Yukon is beginning to look at it, I think,
in a pretty systematic approach, so that's encouraging.
And,
if I may, just to comment, I couldn't agree more with Ken on
subsistence, and it's an effort that we put forth. You know,
when we view these problems, we tend to look at them as problems
that were visited on us a "Long time ago; but subsistence
is a current issue, and it's an issue today; and in 1990 and
1992, we've been singularly unsuccessful, collectively as Native
people, to impress upon the majority, and impress upon the legislature,
to impress upon the administration, the importance of subsistence.
So history is repeating itself before our very eyes in 1992;
and it's a sad commentary in my view. You know, we think that
we're enlightened as we grow; we think we get better at understanding
multi-culturalism and what it means; and we think we should be
more benevolent as our governments gain experience; but that's
not the case in this issue, unfortunately. And I, however, am
still hopeful that if the State truly wants to regain management
of fish and game, that they will recognize that there needs to
be a rural subsistence priority that allows the State of Alaska
to manage fish and game and protects subsistence lifestyle that's
so important.
MR. JOHNS: If I may, on that point, he said:
"Subsistence will always be tied to the economy;
always will be tied to economy."
And one of the solutions
I was going to mention was to make Anchorage a separate state.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Well, let me comment on
that, and I was hoping that somebody from the News Miner would
be here,
but they're
not. You know, we've lived in Fairbanks for a. long time, and
this is probably the seat of separatism. I mean, they've got
the Secession Unit here; they've got -- somebody just published
a paper the other day, a paper calling for cessation from the
union. It's been going on here in Fairbanks for 20 years, and
the News Miner never comments on it. Right? People who are
high in the administration now have even sponsored studies
about separating
the -- what the United States is not doing to Alaska. The very
minute that the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the North
Slope Borough talks of another state, the editor of the newspaper's
editorial is about what a terrible idea that is. It's fine
for the non-Native people to secede from the United States;
but the
minute the Native people think about forming another state,
it's a very terrible idea; and that's a double standard; but
that's
for another day.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I'm in favor of both --
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: -- the state seceding from
the union, and the North Slope seceding from Alaska, and Southeast
going to
Canada, and Anchorage being a separate state; and then we'll
have Slovania (ph.), and Bosnia, and anyway...
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: My point is that it's fine for the majority to talk
about all of this craziness, but the minute that a
distinguished worthy Native organization does it, it's heresy.
And I'm not
blaming you, Ed.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: No. (Laughter)
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I'm just making a statement.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: No,
I'm a maverick, you know that.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: You probably
put the North Slope up to it, but ...
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I'll
never admit to it. Beverly?
COMMISSIONER MASEK: I guess one of
the issues that I have directed toward Ken in regard -- or, excuse
me -- to Bob in regards
to the tourism. What steps are you taking in the tourism area?
MR. COGHILL: The City of Huslia is developing a
tourism project that they're trying to define themselves differently
from the
other tourism projects that have been established in the state,
take advantage of that isolation, the fact that the culture
is very strong in Huslia; and also because Huslia just has
a lot
of great storytellers that we feel like we have the ability
to share that.
COMMISSIONER MASEK: And is the corporation helping
--
MR. COGHILL: No, the corporation --
COMMISSIONER MASEK: -- to promote it, or is it just the villagers that are.....
MR. COGHILL: This is part of my complaint, that
the corporation is not doing it, partly because funds for doing
the marketing
research are available to not-for-profits, villages, perhaps
not exclusively, but they're much easier available to not-for-profits
and governments than they are to a profit-making corporation.
There are programs for individuals in profit-making corporations,
but they're not as user friendly.
COMMISSIONER MASEK: Okay,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Did you have more?
COMMISSIONER MASEK: No, I think that's all.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Oh, okay.
I want to address this also to Bob Coghill. There are a couple
things that your comments triggered
in my mind. Number one, you said, in effect, that local enterprise,
whether it be village corporations or individuals, can't compete
in certain areas with government, because they can't do it
as cheaply. I'm thinking that that's a fallacy, because government
can only do it so cheaply because it is subsidized by revenue
money. I mean, it isn't that they're so much more efficient;
it's just they got more money to spend, and they can do it
without
regard to having to make a profit.
MR. COGHILL: I definitely
didn't mean to say they could do it more cheaply. In fact, I
think they do it much more expensively.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Exactly,
so my next step is why wouldn't it make more sense, instead of
using government funds to run
utilities networks, or other enterprises like that, why wouldn't
it make more sense to take that same revenue money and make
it available to local entities or the private sector as low-interest
loans, which if that's low enough -- and we know this from
the
three-and four-percent money that used to be available years
ago, how that was a real stimulus -- why wouldn't that start
something that would keep on going, and the government eventually
would
get it back. Wouldn't that make more sense than having the
-- pardon the expression -- Owner State, own it all?
MR. COGHILL:
Well, I hope that's something that can be worked out. Well, I
know it can be. It's done in the urban settings
everywhere, but we have to --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Seems to
me if one of your village corporations could borrow money, for
instance, for a tourism capital investment
facility, you have to provide something for the tourists. You
can't just tell them stories. They have to be able to sleep
somewhere overnight. If the government could give you a three
percent loan
that you could pay back over 50 years or 30 years, that should
do wonders, shouldn't it?
MR. COGHILL: Well, that's the secret
to the riches of our corporation is that so far no government
will provide the capital, and
that's what we will probably do -- giving away a trade secret,
what
we will probably do is build out of our funds, the capital
resources that the village Huslia needs --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:
And I have another question.
MR. COGHILL: -- to run this program.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: You talked about ANCSA corporation, and I was one of
the midwives who brought into this world the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act and its progeny; and one of the
things that I'm wondering about, whether the Division of Resources
between regional corporations and village corporations was
equitable and fair, or whether it shortchanged the villages?
Do you have
a comment?
MR. COGHILL: I can't comment to that.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Why is that? Is that a taboo subject?
MR. COGHILL: Well,
no, I'm
not a shareholder. I'm what they refer to at Tanana Chiefs
as one of the rednecks, especially at this time of year; and
I really
have never given that any consideration.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:
Anybody else on this panel have any thoughts on that? It's something
that's been troubling me, because we
created regional corporations in the image -- and I know Morrie
is going to throw a dagger at me in a minute -- in the image
of the Western-style profit corporation, and so they are very
effectively
and efficiently run in that image; but most Western-style White
man's corporations that we know are primarily interested in
providing for their managers in the style to which they would
like to become
accustomed; and then if something incidentally is available
for the shareholders, hooray, but not always. Sometimes they
lose
money, and the managers get raises; and I don't know whether
that's the best way to provide for the economic development
of rural Alaska, and I'd like some input on that. Maybe I'm
totally off base.
MR. JOHNS: I think you're talking about two
separate issues here.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: All right.
MR. JOHNS: You'
re talking about what ANCSA was regional corporations, and the
ideas about how to operate those. The descendants who do not
like how these were created are more
thinking in line of retaining a lot of the Native rights,
rather than looking at it as a business entity. I worked for
7% years
for our regional corporation as one of the senior management,
and no matter which structure you put in place, you'll always
have differences of opinion how to operate. But --
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: But my question is why should village corporations have
to go to government for money when, for instance, the
subsurface rights to their resources are vested in their regional
corporation?
If they had those, maybe they wouldn't need to go to government
for money.
MR. JOHNS: You're going to have to ask every single
village corporation about that.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: All right.
Just thought I'd throw that question out. On subsistence, I have
a question. Let me preface
it by
saying I've never hunted in my life; I couldn't hit a moose
at five paces with a bazooka, because I'm industrially blind;
I've
fished occasionally, but not lately, so I have no personal
interest in one way or the other; but the argument goes that
we have a
finite resource, we have so much wildlife, we have so much
game, so much fish, and there are competing interests. There
are the
true subsistence needs for people who live traditionally off
the land and who at least, even in our modern economy, have
to supplement their income and their sustenance by hunting
and fishing.
Then there are the people who basically do it for commercial
reasons, and particularly the fisheries; and then there are
the sports hunters who do it because they love to hunt, or
they go
for trophies or whatever.
And we have a State Constitution
that says, and the Supreme Court, you like what they say or not,
they did interpret it
the way
it's written; and if you don't like it, you need to change
it. The Constitution says that every Alaskan has a right, the
same
right, to those limited resources. And if you give preference
to one group, that takes away from the other; and maybe that's
what should be done, but I'm talking about legally now, you
need to do something to be able to do that.
So what is the
answer to that? Should subsistence be based on need? In other
words, should you have to prove that you
need
the meat and need the fish to support your family? Should it
be based on residence, rural versus urban? Should it be based
on race or ethnicity? How would you define subsistence for
the purpose of preference?
MR. JOHNS: You know, God blessed
this lady's heart before I came here, because it was just --
she incited me about something
here, about a need to explain why we need to do certain things.
Her nephew went out on a plane the other day, and he was missing
for almost 30-some hours, and she told me that:
"I never know what it's like until I experience
it to have lost somebody. Now I can tell other people what
it feels like."
It's just like
an alcoholic. You can't really know what an alcoholic is until
you are one, or you've been through it.
Abused child.
You' ll never know. You' ll never know. And I can't sit here
and tell you exactly how I feel that my need to subsistence
hunt until you've actually done it yourself. And that's hard
to explain.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Unfortunately -- and I know
where you're coming from, and I feel that you're right -- unfortunately,
a majority
of the people who have the power to make that decision
are in the same class of people who have never done it; and,
therefore, don't understand it. So how do you reach them?
How do you explain
to them why certain things should be done? See, we are
going to have to make recommendations, and to put them into a
book
isn't going to do any good, just like you pulling it out
very effectively. It'll be just another book. We've got
to come
up
with arguments that will convince reasonable people of
good will that they should go in a certain direction, whether
by legislation,
or policy, or whatever.
And I have followed with a lot
of interest the subsistence debate; and, as far as I'm concerned,
it wouldn't affect
me one way or
another to give the classical rural preference to rural
Alaskans. It wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit. But there
are people
who are just as passionate on the other side of this,
and they
have a certain amount of political clout. And I would
like to hear
some effective arguments, why, for instance, it would
be right to amend the Constitution of the state to allow a
preference for rural residents.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:
Okay, you're talking about economy, you're talking about education,
you're talking about
culture. You take
away subsistence, you can throw all the rest out the
window for Native people; because all of that is tied
to subsistence.
And
to understand that, I cannot sit here -- I don' t
have enough days to sit here to explain what it all entails.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I know where you're coming
from, and you don't need to do that; but what I'm saying
is how do
you explain
to the White resident of rural Alaska, or the Native
resident of urban Alaska, a system of rural preference,
or a system
of preference based on race or ethnicity.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Ed, if I may, that needs to be a subject maybe for
a complete hearing by itself.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: You're right.
You're right, but the subject was brought up as a key point;
and
it's one that
I'm deeply
interested in and that I want to do the right
thing. And of course I'm also,
as you probably know, an advocate of a Constitutional
Convention; and that's the only way, I think,
you'll ever going to
gee a Constitutional amendment, if that's what
s appropriate, to deal
with the subsistence issue.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:
Just let me add a comment, if I might though. The problem hasn't
been just
a political
one. I mean,
a majority -- I mean we've had the entire Congressional
Delegation; we've had a big majority in the
Senate before; we had 24
votes in the House, which is clearly a majority,
supporting a Constitutional
amendment. We came one vote shy in the House.
We had a
majority of the Senate with us; we had the
Governor with us. So, it's
not that the political will hasn't been lacking.
This time around, in the special session, I
think it was
called too
early. It was
very narrow call. Subsistence Constitutional
amendment was never really given a chance in
this special
session, because
the Constitutional
issue was not put on the table; and, therefore,
could not be properly debated. So the issue was never given a
fair hearing in the special session; but go back to the last
time, we did have all of those entities supporting a Constitutional
amendment. We've polled that issue. The public
is with us. Very clearly they want to decide; and very
clearly
they support a rural subsistence parting. I
only mention these things, 'cause you may not know
that.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: I do know it. I'm
aware of them, and also I'm aware that you'll never
--
don't say
never, but
it's very
unlikely that you'll ever get a constitutional
amendment that is so controversial through
the legislature;
because you need
two-thirds, and it's almost impossible. What
you need is a change in the Constitution
which will
permit a
popular initiative
to
amend the Constitution, which we do not now
have.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: But now, just
a suggestion while we're sitting up here figuring out
how to resolve it,
time is ticking
away for us.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Yep, you're
right, and I apologize; but it is a key issue.
I did
have a question though
of Mr. Akers.
This
council that's being created, is this
just going
to be another layer of bureaucracy, or
is it really going
to
cut across
bureaucratic turf boundaries? And how?
What powers will it have, other than
to try to persuade?
MR. AKERS: I think,
you're correct. The danger is there to be another layer of
bureaucracy.
There have
been
eight pilot
states
in the system that have already adopted
the council program. There's been measures
of
success in
the process, in that
the council itself, obviously, is not
going to run out and say:
"Department
of Commerce and Department of so and so, you get together.
You make one agency and go down your trail."
What it's job is to
do is that if an area like the Middle Yukon wants to do tourism,
and it's been a major part of the strategy, it is up -- and there
are some inhibiting factors in federal or state regulations that
keep something from happening, then that council and its director
can cut across bureaucratic lines by going straight to the Monday
morning management group in Washington, D.C., and getting it
on the table at the Department of Interior, or the Corps of Engineers,
or wherever it's occurring. And they've been successful in getting
waivers for allowing states such as Alaska, who when they make
regulations and laws in Washington, they make them for all; and;
typically, they don't fit Alaska's needs. And, therefore, that
council's job is basically to deal with those issues.
Now, in
it's a form of commitment. The federal government is committed
to it, to the extent that their federal agencies are bound to
participate on the council. The state agencies are being invited,
too; and, hopefully, we can convince them that it will be an
assist. And, secondly, I think it will be the core of the people,
the grassroots organizations, that will assist in making it work;
and those are the people invited, and those will be Native corporations,
both regional, nonprofit. The other organizations that should
sit on this council are regional development organizations, state,
and local governments. So, if they're not committed to making
it work, it won't work. But if the village of Emmonak or Unalakleet
feel strongly about, something, and they participate in the council,
and they force it to work, then it shall. But it's a matter of
education, commitment, and there's not a lot of money in this
thing; but they have had successes.
And I want to put on another
cap on subsistence; I want to take off my State hat; I want to
put on my -- on the issue of -- this is an economic panel --
economics or -- and as a past General Manager of Unalakleet Native
Corporation
for three years, and having managed and operated a general store
in that community, I can tell you that while we did $1 million
of business in selling groceries in that community of 800 people,
it was not because they had cash that they could survive; it
was because they had subsistence opportunities in their community
to get seals, whales, fish, trout, ducks, geese, moose, that
they were able to survive at least at a standard level, or a
level better than what they were used to. It was not because
the groceries could get in on Mark Air every night, and if that
was all that was available to them, they would not have been
able to survive in that community. Me, as a General Manager,
recognized that over 60 percent of that economy was probably
subsistence.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Thank you. Anybody else wishing
to address economic issues that are not in this group of presenters?
If
not, we'll close this particular segment. I want to take this
opportunity --
MR. JOHNS: I would like to --
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON:
We've got Group B, right?
COMMISSIONER BOYKO: Oh, that' s right,
we've got Group B.
MR. JOHNS: I would like to introduce a respected
elder from our region, Ben Neely (ph.) and his wife, Hazel,
sitting over here.
(Applause)
This document was ocr scanned. We have made every
attempt to keep the online document the same as the original,
including the recorder's original misspellings or typos.
