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
Governance Issues
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: The next item on the agenda,
and we're relentlessly moving along here way behind schedule
is -- this was supposed to come after the lunch break at 1:30;
and it is now 3 o'clock. The next item is Governance, and I wonder
if Father Elliott would come and join us here, and take over.
We're told we've got to move faster. (Laughter)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO::
I tried, but you guys have so much good stuff, it seems like
a crime to cut you short.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: I may have to
throw it back to you. I have to leave here at quarter to.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: Well, why don't you get started, and I'll pitch in when
the times comes.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: I'm going to apologize
to all of you in advance is that I'm not officially supposed
to be here, but I'm
delighted that I can be; but since I wasn't officially supposed
to be here, I have to leave in 45 minutes, so if I walk out,
it's not because I'm not interested in what you're saying, it's
just that I have made this prior commitment which I can't change.
Now, if you would introduce yourself, sir, and I believe that
you' re the first speaker. Is that the agreed order?
MR. TONY: I'd defer to Jonathan Solomon. He's the eldest here.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: All right. From Fort Yukon.
MR. SOLOMON: Members of
the Commission. My name is Jonathan Solomon. I'm from Fort Yukon.
I’m the Second Chief of the tribal
council there. I'm supposed to speak on government issues; but
it seems to me that everything on this agenda is a government
issue, and I'd like to speak a little bit, on all parts of it.
You know, we heard all this morning about education and economics
and all this kind of things. You know, I can only speak for myself,
because this Commissioner meeting is not in rural Alaska or in
a village. It should be. I am not an expert, and I'm not authorized
to speak for every individual in my tribal member at this point;
but if you were in rural Alaska, in the village of Fort Yukon,
you would hear from them. I can only speak for myself as a tribal
member.
But we didn't even know that this Commission was
going to meet here until Friday. It was only by the generosity
of Tanana
Chiefs
that I'm here, because the rest of the tribal members can't
make it over here because of low funding. I think that if the
commissioners is going to accomplish anything, it's going to
accomplish what you guys are after in rural Alaska, at the least,
the sub-region level, if not the village level.
When we talk
about education, we need to hear from our elders, which are our
teachers; and we need to hear from our family parent,
which is our teachers. You have heard it all, but it didn't come
from rural Alaska, it came from individual members like me. And
I totally agree with Pauline and Madros when they say the responsibility
is the parent level. I'm a parent. I got 10 kids. My oldest boy
is over 40 years old now, and he has a college degree because
he wanted one. I didn't want a college degree for him; he wanted
one. My oldest girl is back in college, because she wants a degree.
My youngest son got a degree from University of Denver, Colorado,
because he wanted one.
It's not up to the educators to educate
your kids. It's up to you and him or her for what you want. There
is not a bad teacher
in this whole country. The teacher has got the education. All
you have to do is ask for it. This is a teaching of our elders.
When I was brought up, my father and my uncle say:
"Hey, get what you want from the White people,
and then leave them alone."
I was brought up by six uncles
and a father. Taught me these things. Says you've got to ask
if you want something. If you
don't ask, you'll get nothing. And he sent me to school for three
years, because they were reading in truth in their own Native
culture. But they knew char they have to learn the other one,
so they sent me to school for three years after they said:
"That's enough."
And then me and them
started teaching each other. And they taught me the Native way
of life, how to read the Native language, and
I taught them how to speak the English language. But it belongs
to us. Nobody can blame anybody if you lose your Native language.
It's you, the parent; us, the parent, that is losing it for them.
And I'll tell you how easy it is, because we got a Native tongue
to speak our language. In 1960, a gentleman come back to us from
Outside, and he couldn't speak his Native language. Wanted to
run for council, and the rules at that time, you have to speak
the language on the floor and make a speech before they get elected.
He couldn't do that. He lost his Native language, and he went
to his aunt for one year, and the year after that, he made a
speech in the Gwich'in language at the floor, and he got elected.
You can't blame nobody on these kind of things.
It's you the parent. You the grandmother. You the uncle. You
the teachers.
Not the White man teachers. They can't teach you the Native language, ‘cause
they don't know it. It only takes one hour in the day to sit
down with your kids. That's all. Sacrifice one hour every evening
after supper for your kids to understand your language. My father
had 23 kids; they all spoke the language. I've had 10 kids; they
all hear me, some do speak to me.
On economic development, all
the tribal and the village people have set for many years, and
they keep escaping, the commissioners,
and the board of directors, and all this kind of stuff that are
there at these hearings. Economic development for Fort Yukon
is hunting, trapping, and fishing. We got a project right now
at Fort Yukon -- airport project. The streets of Fort Yukon were
flooded, wiped out year. With all kind of work, Monday morning
there was eight lobs opening; not one was filled, because the
kings happened to show up. When September hunting come around,
you’re not going to find anybody to work in Fort Yukon,
because this is their economic development you're talking about.
Their livelihood. They can't preserve anything in almighty dollars.
They quit a construction job to go fire fighting, because that's
where they belong, on the land.
A lot of people do a lot of study
on this job thing. Sure, they'll do a lot of study in Fort Yukon.
Fort Yukon job thing is (indiscernible).
One out of every hundred work, because if you take a survey in
Fort Yukon, you approach the people and say:
"You'll work for nothing?"
And they will
say:
"No."
And that's the statistic they're
using. They should ask:
"Do you want to work?"
Then they'll get
another statistic.
Our own corporation our own nonprofit the
people that are supposed to be representing us are doing these
things. We're tribal government;
we're sovereignty. We need that. When Alaska became a state if
they never asked the tribal people if they wanted to be part
of the state of Alaska. But in our Constitution says that. And
that's federal Constitution. We need the federal and the state
government to get out of our life.
Just like the subsistence
issues. It's federal and tribal government problem. It's not
their problem. It's the State problem cause
the State is the one that wrote that thing. We need to get rid
of a 280 law that came with statehood that says that the State
will govern the Native people. Bullshit. Let the Native people
and sovereignty run their own life.
When I grew up in the village
of Fort Yukon, I was under tribal government law. And I can speak
here before you with three years
of education. That's the kind of law (indiscernible). It’s
the kind of law I grew up in. Respect, but in another term ask
and demand of your people what you want. Ask for it 'cause if
you don’t you’re not going to get anything. And these
kind of things that we have to talk over. We don’t wait
to have to talk about all this stuff you guys put here. We all
know that you got to go out to rural Alaska and ask. You're not
going to find it here in Fairbanks. Least of all me. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Thank you, Jonathan. And
who is the next speaker, please?
MR. ISAAC: My name is Jerry
Isaac. I'm the Chairman of the Tanacross Village Hiring Council.
I share with Jonathan the statement that
he made that all of these are tribal government issues -- all
the panel discussion issues. But, however, there's a few things
that I'd like to expound upon to give credence to why I personally
feel the way I do concerning tribal government.
Broken down,
tribal government to have three basic elements that's: powers,
responsibilities, and its very existence. Under the tribal
government powers, there's law and order; there’s more
principals; there's authority; there’s an enforcement.
Under the responsibilities there’s passages of ordinance,
moral teachings, protection of tribe, betterment of tribe, i.e.
training, education -- and training is a very ambiguous word
-- it could be training in the subsistence way of life and/or
training
in the Western culture sense -- regulations of resources use
such as economic development, business development archeological
development,
art and crafts development.
Some of the existence factors include
sources of power, reasonable use of the powers. The judicial
arm of the tribal government
is the tribal court, and the tribal governments relationship
to other governmental agencies, i.e. the State of Alaska’s
Division of Family and Youth Services, one of the most dictatorial,
Hitler-type agencies along with EPA and DEC. Some of the things
that I really object to and I disagree with is the principal
of the right of -- first discovery theory, the Monroe Doctrine,
some of the Constitutional provision under the Statehood Act,
the potlatches, right to the religion of my choice, potlatch.
I do not question the validity or the sanctity of the Holy Communion
in the Roman Catholic Church or the Episcopalian Church. Why
do they question my taking of fresh game to consecrate the religious
practices?
The right of first discovery. Were the Indigenous
people of the American continent contacted and consulted with?
The framers
of the Monroe Doctrine, have they gone to the indigenous people
and asked them as to how they feel about the provisions of that
doctrine? Some of the problems that I face every day every year
within the Village of Tanacross-- I've been on the tribal government
there since 1976 -- I'm growing along with Tanacross Village
Council. There's several things, limited things. I've broken
it down,
as there's various things that is very problematic to the tribal
council but some of these are just the ones I'd like to expound
upon.
One of it is outside agitation. Being subjected
-- tribal governments being subjugated in words and opinionating
by conservatism.
There
are attempts to try to control tribal governments by outside
entities. And there’s constant movement and threat of termination.
There's also the constant questioning of the tribal government
's authority. We have problems that are forever dogging us due
to the size of the tribe and the land jurisdiction, which causes
lack of funds on a per-capita basis.
We also have a well-intended
legislation that goes in the form of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. It’s a document
for which diligence and fierce determination are owed to those
spearheading that particular drive. However there are several
factors that I feel very concerned about concerning Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act. One is the very guts of that act plays
or basic drives: greed, selfishness, and 100 percent individualism.
It necessitates the use of foreign vehicles. Our forefathers
do not know anything about the corporate system. I had to learn
it. It is a direct contrast to the structure of the Native community,
and it caught the Native populace in the state of unpreparedness.
There is many, many questions. Tribal governments
are being attacked with questions on its land and jurisdiction,
its very cultural
identity. Does the U.S. government pay tax to the Royal British
government? Why do they have regulations that mandates Tanacross
Village Council to pay organizational taxes to the State of Alaska
and the federal government? Regulations that govern different
types of programs, be it federal or state. Because it works in
Anchorage or D.C., it does not necessarily work in Tanacross.
Another feeling that I have towards the present
system is the importation of another's government, and that government
expecting
the Tanacross Village Council to conform to its expectations
and to abandon the original system of tribal government.
A word
on economic development is many positive that can happen within
the realm of economic development. There can be local
control, local jobs, local experience, with onsite technical
assistance, benefits to people as individuals and then as a community.
Local control meaning the local organizations take the lead in
the development, and all other carpetbaggers taking the status
of technical assistants. Some of the reasons for some of these
problems are banks are very unwilling to take risks in rural
areas for good reason. Because of this -- there's too much use
of subsidized banking system. More often
than not,
villages are approached with, quote:
"We'll do it for you. Stand aside,"
type
of an attitude. Those days are over. I may not have a Master's
degree in business administration; but I have the interest
and the motivation to truly set a site forward that I can lead
my
people towards.
There's constant use of the double-standard
system as a subterfuge. For example, the Native land you subject
to an all-out application
of existing law, but cases like the Hazelwood Blythe Reef
fiasco was easily let off. A good portion of public programs
and policies,
the regulations governing these things, basically are almost
non-practical in rural Alaska. Tribal court authorities are
not fully understood and respected. It seems we have to consult
state
laws at all times; for example, to do simply little things,
like to place a foster child in a foster home within the
village. These are some of the concerns that the tribal councils
face. I'd like to conclude with the same question: What is going
to happen to these valuable testimonies? Many times I've
been party
to many different types of studies, all designed on how to
make the Indian better. It's often put on a shelf, gathering
dust.
We're going to make something work. We're going to make this
Commission work. We also need full Commission member participation.
I would ask you not to take these comments lightly. You sit
down and ponder upon them. I'm hearing the jurisdiction of
the Fairbanks
City Council. I subject myself to their governing powers,
and I abide by their rules. I do not bring four-wheel trucks,
or
four-wheelers, or boats, and go swashbuckling all over their
community unchecked. I ask for the same respect. That is
all I ask. Thank you.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Thank you, Mr. Isaac, and
I think I can assure you, and I think I can speak on behalf of
all
14 members
that none of your remarks we're hearing today are going
to
be taken, lightly. None of us would have accepted appointment
to
this Commission had we not had a sincere desire to faithfully
serve the Native people of Alaska. Thank you for your testimony.
Please -- and let me say, I may have to interrupt; but
if I walk out, again remember, it's not being disrespectful
to you;
and
I hope you'll understand.
MS. LEE: Oh' I was just going
to say, I'm going to keep my testimony short, 'cause I need
to make sure my kids
haven't
hogtied my
husband at home -- (laughter) -- so I'm going to keep
this short. I have -- my name is Shirley Lee; I'm Director
of
Village Government
Services for Tanana Chiefs Conference.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT:
I have read your written report, while I was waiting for you
to speak. Thank you.
MS. LEE: Okay. I'm here on behalf of Tanana
Chiefs, and, in some part, as a tribal member of Evansville,
which
is a small
community
up in the Brooks Range. The Village Government Services
Program for Tanana Chiefs Conference is charged with
providing technical
assistance and training to all the villages that
we serve under the 638 Contract. And when I was asked to prepare
testimony, my mind went in a hundred different directions
on what we
could
discuss concerning tribal government; but I've tried
to condense that into my written testimony. I'm not
going
to go into
my written testimony, because I've made enough copies
for
you
to read.
Several days ago, I saw in the paper that
a task force on local government made a recommendation to
Governor
Hickel that a
new hybrid government be considered for Alaska,
utilizing local and
state municipality-type organization. They also
recommended to him that by the year 2,000, there be organized
governments in
each village. When I read that, I had to shake
my
head like
I often do when I read about State actions concerning
tribal government,
because this is just a prime example of people
not looking toward tribal government that exist in each
village;
and that they're
just so easily dismissed.
In Alaska, there are
generally two types of tribal governments. They' re either
traditional government,
or the government
is organized under a federal statute under the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which was
made applicable
to Alaska in 1936.
So
we have those two types of governments, one or
the other, existing in most villages. They are
active.
They do utilize
their powers,
and they should be afforded more courtesy and
legal comity than they are. Also, in addition to tribal
governments in each village,
there usually exist in most areas as state municipality
or city.
What I just wanted to emphasize is that
state municipalities do not reflect the true cultural
government of
the Native people, and they do not incorporate
tribal
practices into their infrastructure.
Tribal governments, on the other hand, directly
utilize the customs and tradition of their
ancestors; and
things that
are passed
down generation to generation are employed
in their governments.
Unfortunately, in Alaska, we have a State administration
that has asserted that there are no tribes
in Alaska; that there
are just merely clubs based on -- membership
is based on racial ties.
This can be no farther from the truth. When
we have that on the -- in addition to the State
perception, we also
have a
general
public perception that seems to fear tribal
government. When we hear the word sovereignty, many people's
hackles go up.
When I worked for the Bureau, I was almost
afraid to say the "s" word. But now it's -- sovereignty is merely
a reference to self-government that does exist in our villages.
In my paper, what I tried to do is I tried to focus
on specific issues, not general concepts -- the specific issues
that are
facing tribal governments today; and very quickly, I'll just
go over
them.
(TESTIMONY OF SHIRLEY LEE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT
#[7])
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Miss Lee. I noticed -- or
obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, oh, some months ago,
a listing
they had of what they called the Tribes of Alaska. Is that the
listing that you're referring to, which is regarded as tribal
entities by the Secretary of the Interior?
MS. LEE: Well, I'm
not sure, because I haven’t
seen it; but they certainly don't call us tribes.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: They did -- well, when I asked the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, that's what they said:
"This is the listing."
MS. LEE: The Juneau
area office has made the 1988 list and made a recommendation
back to D.C., and perhaps that's the list you
were looking at.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: I don't know. I received
it a few weeks ago from the Bureau of Indian Affairs office when
I inquired.
MS. LEE: I'd be happy to provide what we have later
on.
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Thank you very much. And
now, sir, I'm going to excuse myself, so I don't interrupt you
in your
testimony.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: Thank you, Father Elliott,
for --
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO::
-- coming when you --
COMMISSIONER ELLIOTT: Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: -- weren't required to. All
right, who is our next speaker, please?
MR. TONY: Good afternoon,
members of the Commission. My name is Paul Tony; and I serve
as Tribal Affairs Planner and General
Council for Ahtna/Tananena (ph.), otherwise known as the Copper
River Native Association, and frequently referred to as CRHA.
I'm also a member of the Subsistence Advisory Commission Committee
to the Alaska Federation of Natives. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify here today. I hope that through the ears of your Commission
members, Congress will hear what we have to say. CRNA is located
in the Ahtna Region, and is a tribal organization serving the
eight villages of the region. It administers programs which are
funded through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health
Service, as well as other federal and state agencies. I offer
comments in the area of subsistence and tribal governance, with
the hope that the Commission's report will lead to both changes
in policies affecting Alaska Natives, as well as legislation
to address areas of concern to the Native community at both the
federal and state level.
Subsistence is not a Native word, rather
it is the non-- Native word used to describe Native sustenance
from the land. As a Native
person, I know that subsistence is not merely physical or nutritional,
as the name implies; but is inherently tied to cultural and spiritual
aspects of the Alaska Native way of life, or as it is call in
the Ahtna Region, Indian Way.
Subsistence for the Ahtna Region
is a very serious issue, because our region is very heavily impacted
by thousands of residents
of Anchorage and Fairbanks who come to the region to participate
in fisheries, such as the fishnet fishery; personal-use fishery
at Chitina, the sport fisheries at Gulkana and Klutina Rivers,
as well as hunting for the Nelchina caribou herd, and moose,
and sheep.
We are affected also by the dual system of management
which exists, and which leads to confusion, and by State administration
by
subsistence, and management: of fish and wildlife resources on
Native-owned lands, due to the steadily diminishing protections
which this state government and state law have afforded to subsistence.
State administration -- or management of fish and
wildlife resources on Native-owned lands is essentially a breach
of an implied promise,
which was made at the time that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act land selections were made. Many of the selections were made
relying on the implied promise that subsistence, and the hunting
and fishing practices of the Alaska Native people, would be protected.
Through that process, many of the land selections made under
ANCSA were of traditional hunting and fishing lands.
For the
Ahtna Region, the net result of these policies has been the absence
of moose, where once there was moose to feed the
people in the Ahtna villages; the absence of fish, caribou, ducks,
and sheep, where once there was plenty. This absence leaves in
its place a deep, unabiding hunger, which is tantamount to suffering.
I don't expect -- although it would be nice --
for those who have been raised on domesticated beef, pork, and
chicken to understand
that these foods will not satisfy the hunger that the Ahtna people
have. But please take our word for it.
What solutions are there
to these complex problems? One solution that I would propose
that the Commission seriously look at is
a review of ANILCA and the findings which Congress made under
ANILCA that the subsistence priority was essential to Native
well-being, health, and that Native preference on Native-owned
lands was essential to Native well-being and health. Please ask
Congress to make ANILCA consistent with the findings that Congress
has already made, and extend the priority or protection for subsistence
management to Native-owned lands which were primarily selected
in reliance on the idea that they would be protected.
This Commission
could also recommend changes in the structure of laws and policies
concerning both state and federal government
to lead more towards a cooperative management, which exists in
other states with respect to tribal entities.
I was at the Federal
Bar Association's Indian Law Conference in Albuquerque this year,
and there was a presentation given
there on a cooperative management system that exists up in the
Great Lakes Region, which has as one of its elements, a lot of
tribal control over the resource, as well as tribal biologists
and managers.
The law could be clarified to strengthen the relationship
between Native governments and wildlife management in Alaska.
In addition,
out of respect for knowledge which has been passed down for generations,
the scientific management can also be valuably supplemented by
knowledge of the elders.
Another issue where there is room for
improvement is management of fisheries in Alaska. The Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation
Act is clearly broad enough to give the Secretary of Interior
authority over the management of fish stocks in Alaska. However,
in the implementation of regulations, the federal subsistence
board defined very narrowly the definition of public lands. This
should be reviewed and broadened in the regulations to allow
for the subsistence priority of ANILCA to extend to fisheries
and to allow for federal and tribal cooperative management over
fisheries.
Perhaps the strongest suggestion that could be
made to Congress in your report is that Congress exercise its
authority
under
the United States Constitution over the management of Indian
affairs to make federal policy consistent in the area of wildlife
management; and I'm speaking of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act exception which applies to Alaska Natives. There should be
consistent protection of the traditional hunting and fishing
practices of Alaska Native people, based not on their racial
characteristics, but rather on their unique and distinct political
status as members of a culture and a sovereign group of people
that exist only in Alaska; and, if wiped out, or if their cultural
practices are threatened, will exist nowhere else on earth.
And
I don't know what background some of the non-Native members of
the Commission have; but, for example, if you are of Irish
descent, you can go back to Ireland and find your culture still
intact there; but if Alaska Native culture does not exist here
in Alaska, it will not exist anywhere on this earth. And that
is a very strong reason to support policies -- federal government
policies especially, which affect Alaska Native culture.
In the
area of tribal governance, the failure of state and federal government
policies is clear from the statistics that exist,
and I saw a column done by Mike Doogan that said that Alaska
Natives have an abundance of everything bad and not very much
of the good things, like State jobs, economic opportunity, as
well as a number of other things. But we rate high in the number
of prison inmates. In fact, I believe the latest statistic that
I've heard is over 35 percent of the inmates in the State Prison
System are Alaska Native.
The answer? Support and empower Native
governments to address their own problems. On the State level,
stop opposing through
litigation and try to work cooperatively with Native governments.
Another area of concern is the area of tribal status;
and, right now, there's some potential for tribes having to go
through costly
litigation and have what, amounts to possibly 200 trials on the
issue of tribal status, and proving tribal status among the 200
tribes in Alaska. Rather than this costly and burdensome process
of litigation, it makes a lot more sense for the federal government
and federal policymakers again to address this and to recognize
the tribal status of Alaska Native governments.
In the area of
land status and tribal governmental control over land, it would
be advantageous to create a mechanism to allow
for the easy transfer of ANCSA land into trust for village council
ownership for regions which are wanting to do that. Both the
federal and state government could provide some of the money
that is presently going to basically band-aid fixes to social
problems that are being caused by the federal and state government,
or administration of Native matters to support tribal self-government.
It's more cost effective, and it makes better sense from a policy
standpoint.
In addition, there should be a consistent policy
both on the state and the federal level with respect to tribal
organizations
that contract under the Indian Self-Determination Act; and that
contract for the provision of State services on the issue of
indirect costs, or otherwise known as contract support costs.
From a policy standpoint, there are many reasons
to support Indian self-government; reasons such as cultural understanding,
cost
effectiveness, and the basic results of government programs.
On the other hand, there are no good reasons for non-Native administration
over affairs which only affect Native people. The failure of
this approach is evidenced by the many statistics and reports
which have been done; and in the case of this Commission, the
report that was done by the Alaska Federation of Natives, which
brought about the existence of this very Commission.
From a philosophical
standpoint, there are several principles which could be applied
in this area, and I would like to ask
you to think about two statements which have a lot to do with
the history of this government. One is:
"No taxation without representation,"
which
could be translated into:
"Don't give us the negative consequences
of government without the benefits of having our interests
represented."
And
another statement which comes from the Declaration of Independence;
and that is that:
"The consent of the government legitimizes
government."
A government which does not employ, understand,
protect the rights of, benefit, or respond in a meaningful way
to Alaskan Native
interests does not represent Alaska Native interests, does not
govern with the consent of Native people; and, consequently,
is not legitimate.
Thank you; again, for the opportunity to testify
here; and since I'm participating on the task force on Governance,
I will be
further comments in the future, I hope.
(Applause)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: Thank you, Mr. Tony. Is there
anyone not on our printed list that wishes to be heard on the
Governance
Issue that has signed up since? If not, what is the pleasure
of the panel here? Pretty soon we're going to take a five-minute
seventh-inning stretch. I'm going to try to see what we're going
to try to do about the rest of the program. We have an hour to
cover what was scheduled to take three hours, so there's going
to be some major surgery, unfortunately; and there's nothing
much we can do. Did you wish to ask questions of this particular
group of presenters now, or take the stretch and then decide?
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: I think we ought to take
the…
COMMISSIONER MASEK:: Take the stretch and (indiscernible).
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: All right, we'll take a five-minute.
I mean five minutes, folks. I realize that we're all operating
on Indian
time. (Laughter) Forgive me for making what would appear
to
be a racist remark. If's not; I operate on Indian time
myself, by
virtue of my own predilections. But we must for once -- five
minutes is five minutes.
(Off record)
(On record)
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: May I have your attention
for a moment. When we go to the Health Panel, we're going to
have Group A and Group B-Group A is going to be Melinda Peter,
and second is going to be Cindy Adams. They both have planes
to catch. Donna Galbreath is going to speak next, Lorraine Jackson,
and then Andy Jimmie. Group B is going to be Rose Ambrose, Mim
Dixon, and Margaret Wilson. Okay? We did have a request , and
we' re trying to work on the room to see if we can extend a little
bit. We would ask, and I appreciate that this is a bit maybe
unfair, 'cause some of those of you who haven't testified, if
you could by -- Ed made the request, and I would second it that
if you could summarize your statement, we would appreciate it.
If you could keep your statements to five minutes; and maybe
what we could do is I'll try to be the timekeeper and wave you
when you're coming close to five minutes. We would appreciate
it. The only reason we have to do this is to be fair to everybody
to make sure that they're heard. You've all come a long way;
you all have something to say; and it's all important; and we
all want to hear it. And we want to be as subjective as we can,
and fair to you; and we will go as long, physically, as we can
in this room to make sure that everybody fa heard. So that will
be the Native panel. I guess, is that fair? We don't want to
be unfair; but, yet, we don't want to not listen to people either;
and I think that is the most discourteous thing we can do is
not listen to you. And to do that, requires you working with
us, as well as we with you. Doctor Soboleff?
COMMISSIONER SOBOLEFF: (Indiscernible
- away from microphone) the good things about is that panel --
I mean, the
Commission people are your friends. We are not here proposing
anything whatsoever. We are your friends; and if you haven't
had a chance to speak; and if you've already spoken and forgot
something, you really should write it down and send it in. Just
write down what you think should be done, or ought to be changed;
some problems that you are facing. Write it down and send it
in.
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: For those who don't know this,
Dr. Soboleff is a member of the Commission and who has been modestly
sitting in the back of the room. There were two folks who wanted
to be heard on Governance. Would you please come forward, and
state your name, and keep your remarks to five minutes. And if
you don't, I'll sick Morrie Thompson on 'em.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: As Dr. Soboleff said, we're
your friends. We think we're not from the government.
(Laughter)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Gideon James from Arctic
Village.
MR. JAMES: Thank you for letting me testify here.
My name is Gideon James. I'm from Arctic Village. Arctic Village
is one of the two villages located on a former Indian reserve
-- (indiscernible) Indian reserve. And we have an IRA-charter
government. Shortly after passage of ANCSA, our corporations
-- both corporations have transferred all of its land back to
(indiscernible) tribal government IRA. This is something like
1.8 million acres of land. The IRA government was ratified in
1940. Presently, (indiscernible) IRA is pursuing to implement
certain programs for our tribal members. The provision in the
IRA documents qualified or tried to exercise its tribal jurisdiction
over our tribal land and members. The existing federal programs
for Native Americans are directed to tribes to administer and
have; and (indiscernible) local governing body to have priority
and also have ability to contract under the Self-Determination
Act. In working with our tribes and IRA traditional government,
I am convinced the direction the state of Alaska has taken is
that many times tribes in Alaska have been ignored when appropriating
funds for Alaska Natives.
Federal government, through its regulation and
tribal regulation, recognition make it clear that tribes in Alaska
will be treated equal with the rest of the Native Americans across
the nation. When we talk about tribal government, we are not
only talking tribe that owns the land, the interpretation in
the ANCSA seems to be in question; but that is not so. The
aboriginal title, aboriginal rights, is two different things.
Aboriginal title to a land that we lost and that then Native
people got paid for is the one that is real. But aboriginal rights
is not lost. That's why the traditional government and IRA charter
are in place today. And each tribe in Alaska should pursue to
exercise those powers that’s still in place. And it seems
like state of Alaska does not look at it that way. They'd rather
take us to court and spend many, many hours; many, many years,
just litigation, litigation, after litigation. And we have experienced
that. We at IRA government experience that, and we know what
we' re talking about. We're not going to compromise over any
specific interest decision or recommendation. We will stand by
the promise and the law that was written for Native tribes and
IRA documents that's in place today.
So that's why I want you to know that each tribe,
or each Native people in Alaska are eligible to exercise these
things.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Thank you, Gideon. Any questions
of Gideon James?
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: Did Mr. Tony leave?
COMMISSIONER MASEK:: He did, I'm afraid so.
(Side conversation not transcribed)
COMMISSIONER BOYKO:: Was there one other person
chat wanted to speak on Governance?
COMMISSIONER MASEK:: She changed her mind.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No, no, she changed her
mind.
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.
