Tribal summit raises issues, ire

Published on March 4th, 2010

By ALEX DEMARBAN

Ivan Ivan, foreground, waits to appear on a panel discussing the future of Native issues. (Alex DeMarban, Alaska Newspapers)

Elizabeth Pleasant of Quinhagak, and Bessie Green of Eek, background, listen at the Tribal Leaders Summit. (Alex DeMarban, Alaska Newspapers)

Leona Black, at left, with husband Dave Black, took notes at the meeting to report back to her tribal council in Manokotak. (Alex DeMarban, Alaska Newspapers)

A recent tribal meeting in Anchorage that included a discussion about redistributing land to tribes angered some who say organizers left many Alaska Native groups out of the discussion.

Native leader Mike Williams of Akiak, who chaired the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council until recently, played a key role in putting the meeting together.

One controversial idea called for tribes to gain control of land now owned by village corporations.

Doing so would empower tribes and help Natives counter a wide range of social problems, including high dropout rates, suicides and crime, he said.

It would also give young Natives a greater stake in their own affairs, he said. Thousands of young Natives aren't shareholders in Native corporations but all Natives are tribal members.

"It's a tough issue, but we got to do something to secure the future of our children," he said.

Williams said organizers sent invitations by fax and e-mail to every tribe and corporation in Alaska.

Not so, others said.

AITC, the state's largest tribal organization, shares the belief that the state's 229 tribes should have land, said Delice Calcote, tribal liaison. The group doesn't recognize the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that deeded the land to more than 200 Native and regional corporations.

But Calcote blasted the Tribal Leaders Summit, held at the Hilton Anchorage, saying it excluded many Natives. She's taken lots of angry calls from tribes and corporations who said they weren't invited.

"I've got elders and some people who are upset," she said. "They want to see nation building. They don't want anything to split and divide us."

Vicke Otte, chair of MTNT Ltd., a Native corporation serving four villages in the upper Kuskokwim River region, said her village corporation never heard of the meeting.

The same thing happened last spring, she said. The land-redistribution idea was discussed at an AITC meeting when Williams still served as chair.

Her corporation wasn't invited then, either. Neither was the Alaska Native Village CEO Association, comprised then of about three-dozen village corporations, according to past reports.

"I guess I'm insulted that he would try to take my village corporation lands from our shareholders without discussing it with the village corporations," Otte said.

She also has problems with the idea itself. Many village corporations are succeeding, so why threaten that progress?

The village corporations, and the 12 powerful Native regional corporations that own the subsurface rights to roughly 22 million acres of village corporation land, would likely oppose the idea, she said.

If the issue ever went to court, it would be a huge legal battle sucking resources from corporations.

"That would be one less benefit to the shareholders because all that money would be tied up in legal costs," she said.

'Open invitation'

Williams, who lost his AITC seat in a close election last fall, said the three-day summit from Feb. 22-24 was not affiliated with any Native organization.

He called it an "open invitation" to the Native community to discuss critical issues.

Representatives from about 80 to 100 tribal councils attended, Williams said.

Calcote, who attended, said she saw about 25 tribal councils represented. According to her, many tribes sent several people.

The summit stemmed from an AITC meeting last year, said Williams.

At the time, many members agreed important issues needed to be addressed, free of established groups because they affect all Natives.

In addition to tribes controlling land now held by village corporations, the group wants something many Native organizations agree on: a subsistence priority for all Natives.

Some summit speakers blasted ANCSA, saying it tore Natives apart.

"We're here to figure out how we're going to survive, and how our kids and grandkids are going to survive," said John Reft, vice chair of Sun'aq Tribe in Kodiak.

The federal law led to the creation of the Native and village corporations, giving them 44 million acres of land to manage. It also eliminated Native subsistence rights.

In 1979, Congress attempted to restore those subsistence rights by giving rural Alaskans, primarily Natives, first shot at hunting and fishing.

That wasn't enough, Williams said. All Natives, even if they live in cities, need that protection.

"We've depended on fish and game for our survival for thousands of years, and we need to restore what was extinguished," he said.

Congress would have to make that change, according to Interior Department officials in Alaska.

Youths disenfranchised

Another problem with ANCSA: It limits younger generations, speakers said.

Natives born prior to its enactment enrolled in the corporations as shareholders. But descendents receive shares as gifts or inheritance.

An amendment allows Native corporations to enroll descendents, but many Native corporations haven't yet taken that step.

However, Will Anderson, head of the ANCSA Regional Association, pointed out that most, if not all, corporations give equal preference to shareholders and their descendents for benefits such as jobs, scholarships and internships.

Williams called those benefits important.

"I really appreciate Native corporations doing that, but many kids born after Dec. 18, 1971, have nothing. No ties to the land. No shares," Williams said.

Because most Natives are not shareholders in their corporations, many are losing interest in Native issues, he said.

"Five of my children are not shareholders and my five grandchildren have no interest in their regional corporation," he said.

To give Native youth a greater stake in local affairs, tribes should have jurisdiction of land, he said.

Land ownership would give tribes more sovereignty over local issues, allowing them to combat social issues locally, instead of waiting for the state, which doesn't recognize tribal sovereignty, he said.

For example, tribes could have more police powers to fight alcohol importation into dry villages or more control over child adoptions.

Empowering tribes shouldn't hurt Native regional and village corporations, which can continue to operate, said Williams.

"We're all in this together," he said. "If we do nothing right now our children are the greatest losers."

Land transfer scenario

A large-scale land transfer would require congressional approval, Williams said. He added that smaller efforts involving individual village corporations might be possible with administrative approval from the Interior Secretary.

Either way, village corporations would have to agree, he said.

Anderson said the ANCSA Regional Association, comprised of the powerful for-profit regional corporations, hasn't talked about the land-transfer idea. He couldn't say where the group stands on the issue.

But, speaking as chief executive of Koniag Inc., the Kodiak-based regional corporation, he said he doesn't think a large-scale land transfer is possible.

"There's so much complexity to achieve what he's trying to do," he said.

One question is how the village corporations' members would be compensated for the taking of millions of acres of land, Anderson said.

"You can't just take an asset like that," he said.

John Schaeffer Jr. served as the first executive director for NANA in the early 1970s, the Native regional corporation based in Kotzebue, for about a dozen years.

He spoke at the meeting.

Afterward, he said tribes should control the land while corporations still run businesses.

Schaeffer said he attended early meetings involving ANCSA and tribes originally sought the land, he said.

"That's the way we set it up to begin with, and Congress just wiped that out," he said.

When Native leaders got together to discuss the draft version, most didn't like it. But many accepted it, thinking they'd change the law later.

That time has come, he said.