Alaska Native contract senate hearings

What with all the Palin news, I haven't even attempted much Native news updates. But there's a whole lot going on, especially in D.C.

Senate hearings on Alaska Native contracts (from the Anchorage Daily News)

Probably one of the most publicized Native news pieces is regarding the Alaska Native federal contracts. In short - many Alaska Native corporations are using a small-business administration program that allows for preference to minority-owned businesses. U.S. Sen. McCaskill is trying to create big reform, saying that the corporations are abusing the program.

It is hard to say where I really stand on this - I can see both sides. There are Alaska Native corporations I don't really think can be called a disadvantaged business, and I think competition should happen (some of the contracts are given without.) Yet my fear is what happens with most things regarding Alaska Native corporations - they are all painted with the same brush. The Alaska Native corporations that are raking in the money are an incredible minority. Many are really struggling - one of the 13 regional corporations looks to have gone under. What's more, the Alaska Native corporations that are succeeding take constant flak for their success. Can we all turn around and make Kaladi Brothers justify their success at every turn? My guess is it was smart business practices.

I don't know enough about the current laws to see where reform is needed. It seems like fair should be fair - a business that is disadvantaged should hold the same weight in a bid as another business that is disadvantaged in the spirit of the program. If that's not happening, things should change. They should define just who they are trying to give help to.

One thing many don't understand about Native corporations is that they are not run at all like regular corporations. What other corporations are required to give 70% of its natural resource profits to "competing" companies if they aren't doing well? Can you imagine if Conoco Philips were required to give 70% of its profits from oil to Exxon when Exxon had a bad run? Yet all the big (13) Native corporations are required to do this, or at least the ones doing well.

And the money doesn't all go to line pockets of "all the wealthy Natives." I'm sure enough of it finds its way to corruption, as in any major business, but I would wager most Native corporations people see on a regular basis are actually non-profits. The money goes to health care, social services, cultural programs, scholarships and justice programs.

Coca-Cola and Microsoft get major kudos when they give a small percentage of their profit toward college scholarships and building a wing in a hospital. I challenge anyone to look at just how much the for-profit Native corporations have spent on the non-profits - health care, justice, culture, housing, you name it. What's more, they are expected to do this, and little recognition is given, or at least, certainly not the same recognition as a non-Native corporation.

I'm glad they are doing it, and I do expect Native corporations to spend substantial amounts on Native health, welfare and culture. I just hope that people realize these contracts aren't given, and then every Native person in Alaska is walking around with a fortune in Native dividend checks.

To be transparent about my own tie to this, I have received exactly three checks in my life from my corporation - the largest sum was enough to pay two months car insurance, the smallest two tanks of gas. I don't happen to think there's anything so wrong with that - I would rather the shareholder money go toward building up tradtional language programs or funding college (I HAVE earned scholarships, and would prefer those any day!) than paying my bills... Of course, I'm not struggling with outrageous heating costs and children to feed, so I have the freedom to say that.

I'm glad both Sen. Begich and Sen. Murkowski are fighting the good fight on this. Although I'm sure reform is on its way, I have a hope that it will be fair, instead of a retribution, or favoring some other side. Don't know that that is how it will turn out, but with the many voices I've been hearing about in D.C. speaking out about this, and two senators, there's at least a chance... right?

Alaska Native corporation contracts... I just don't know

One of the bigger Alaska Native stories lately has been the congressional investigation of the federal contracts awarded Alaska Native corporations. Essentially, Alaska Native corporations are given contracts as disadvantaged businesses - or able to get the contracts without competition.

I haven't commented on this or the simple reason that I am honestly undecided about the whole thing. Some is that I don't know much about it (nobody... NOBODY wants me truly judging business and money decisions.) Some is that, so far, I can see both sides.

I think some of the publicity problem is that the Alaska Native corporations will, as usual, be portrayed as all the same. I actually really don't believe some of the corporations, the ones doing supremely well (and there are FAR fewer of them than you think!) should be getting the preference. I don't think they meet the spirit of the program.

But some corporations do. They are struggling, of benefit to a disadvantaged public when they succeed, and need the help. I don't know which corporations are all benefitting from this program, but I hope they do this on a case-by-case basis, not a sweeping generalization. My concern is that the decision will be the sort of reactionary thing that happens so much - one incident, or one small group, abuses the program, and the reaction is that everyone who looks a bit like them gets the punishment.

But again, I simply don't know enough about this topic, or the details. I'm hoping the investigation is more of an investigation to DISCOVER, versus an investigation on the premise that everyone is guilty already - and that they release the details in a fair and informative way.

Thoughts? I would love to hear opinions on this.

_

Well, I WAS happy about it...

I spotted this bit in Obama's plan about meals for seniors, including specific allocations for Native programs. Without too much detail, I happen to know a little bit about the great importance local Native programs have right here in Anchorage - including having restrictions on how many seniors they can serve due to funding. As the details of the stimulus package are reported, it was awesome to see programs like these - very easy to ignore - get attention in such hard times.

I was very happy.

But today, with the announcement that Palin is rejecting nearly half (there's different numbers around) of the Alaskan allocation of the stimulus package so we don't "grow government", I saw this tidbit:

Palin is also turning down money for weatherization, immunization, senior meals, child care development, employment services, air quality, justice assistance grants and other programs.

I would love to, and still might, make an argument for all of those things. Immunization? Child care, when we need it now more than ever? EMPLOYMENT SERVICES? When the biggest newspaper in the state just announced today it had to cut 17% of its staff?

I like my irony funny, not tragic.

But the senior meals really hit me. Really? The "I'm making a point here" argument wins out over Elders who just want a hot meal?

These battles will be taken way beyond what I can argue - both Sen. Begich (Alaska Report) and Anchorage school superintendent Carol Comeau (Alaska Dispatch) had words about the biggest chunk Palin turned down - $170 million for education (again, heard different numbers here.) The ADN article about the school official's reaction further drove home the irony of Palin arguing she only wanted money that would help "alaskan jobs":

Much of the stimulus package money for education -- about $74 million -- was designated for poor schools and special-needs kids. It was to be spent over the next two academic years.

Most of the other money is meant to help prevent cuts to classrooms, staff and critical services.

The article pointed out some of the rural impact:

Aleutians East superintendent Phil Knight hopes Palin reconsiders.

Knight's district of six schools, all of which are accessible only by boat or plane, has 250 kids. He had planned to use his district's slated $84,000 to keep open smaller schools threatened with closure next year.

Northwest Arctic Borough superintendent Norman Eck reacted to the news in an e-mail: "I am stunned," he wrote.

His district is under intervention by the state Department of Education because of poor test scores year after year. He said he had planned to use his $1.2 million for education materials the district otherwise could not afford. High electricity and fuel costs hit his budget hard this year, and ended up being taken from money otherwise meant for kids in classrooms.

Even if Palin's argument that the funding would "only be around for two years" - Holy crap! That's TWO MORE YEARS of having an accessible school for some of these communities! In two more years, the economy could be better, the energy costs might not be diverting from the education costs - in short - you just don't know. Two years is a long time in the life of a child, and incredibly long in their education life. Why on earth are we worried about losing the programs/materials/staff two years from now when we are going to lose them right now?

It's like that sad friend you have that always cuts her relationships short because "she knows she's gonna get hurt"... My advice to that frustrating friend has always been - take a risk. You could absolutely lose out in the end, but it's just stupid to prevent the present from also being a good thing. Living with the constant anticipation of losing just means you will never have anything to lose.

Maybe analogies like that are why I'll never be balancing anyone's budget, but Palin is going to have to do a much better job of explaining why she's selling out Elders, disabled children and the unemployed.