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?

Can I get a little objectivity?

The Anchorage Daily News is going to drive me insane.

On Sunday, the Juneau Empire chose to run this headline:

Sealaska seeks resolution of land claim

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/070608/sta_300571693.shtml?p

It’s a story about Sealaska trying to resolve the land claims from 37 years ago. I don’t think Sealaska has to be held up as doing everything right (Without actually knowing the whole story, it sounds like there are some questionable decisions going on.) But here’s the headline ADN decided to run:

Sealaska’s proposed land grab raises worries

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/457552.html

Not that the tone ADN consistently uses with Native corporations is anything new, but really. Same story, but ADN editors went with a much catchier headline, only a little more biased. And just to make sure I wasn’t steeping in paranoia, here are just a few definitions of “land grab”:

“The term ‘land grab’ is almost always used in a pejorative sense to describe a hostile or unfair real estate transaction.” (WiseGeek)

“...the seizing of land by a nation, state, or organization, esp. illegally, underhandedly, or unfairly.” (Random House Dictionary)

Not that you need a definition to see the difference.

I don’t think Native corporations have always treated the land Native people paid for as they should. But in no way does the upholding of a legal transaction that should have taken place in 1971, or shortly thereafter, make for a land grab.

This is another area in which it is easy to get mired, and I really hate mentioning things that seem so small. After all, why should the “slight” difference of wording be so upsetting? Why should a few different words on a headline make any difference?

I happen to have a healthy respect for the responsibility of the media, and the Anchorage Daily News knows very well what “slight” differences in wording make. People read headlines. Many people will only read headlines. Sensationalism in any form gets people to read the story more, gets more newspapers sold. But for those that only read the headline, Native corporations (once again) come out on the wrong end. The headline sets up the whole tone for any article.

If you really want to see the difference in reader reactions, read the ADN (Anchorage reader) reactions vs. the Empire (Juneau reader) reactions. The ADN readers give out the “there go the Native corporations again” comments, the anti-Native comments, the “enough already” comments. The Empire readers discuss the ACTUAL ISSUE, which is not Sealaska trying to unfairly grab land from the government. Same story, different tone. The interesting part is Anchorage readers are the pissed off ones, while the Juneau (Southeast) readers are the ones who are actually going to have to deal with the results from this supposed “land grab.”

I would love to talk about the actual issue more. It is not something I am completely resolved on myself. But it is difficult to focus on real issues when the repeated attention of Anchorage’s only daily newspaper tries again and again to shed Native corporations in a negative light. I think it’s great that we are hearing about Native corporations, but without the bias, please.

Again, I don’t think the Native corporations are all angelic. But they certainly aren’t the devil incarnate either. There are many corporations, serving a diverse people in a completely unique circumstance, and were formed as a requirement from the government. It is frustrating, not to mention a bit ironic, that the Native people are so frequently vilified for being successful at what they were required to begin.

_