Alaska Native corporation descendants

"At what point in our growing population do we draw a line that would further disenfranchise our descendents from benefiting from ANCSA? This very important issue needs a well thought out process by all Alaska Natives so that our descendents can benefit from ANCSA in perpetuity."

I thought this was a pretty relevant issue brought up in the Cordova Times. As an "after born" myself - an Alaska Native born after 1971, and therefore ineligible to be a sharholder of a corporation - I found it irrelevant to get involved in my corporation for most of my life.

My corporation is now one of only two (I believe) corporations that voted on allowing descendants of original shareholders to become shareholders themselves. So for the past two years, I have been a shareholder allowed to vote, receive dividends, and have gained a little interest in the company. What was interesting at the time, I believe the corporation expected a flood of descendants signing up to become shareholders - but that ddn't happen. Or at least not to the extent they expected. I think they didn't consider a few things:

1) Alaska Native people my age have never been allowed to do much with the corporations. If my corp didn't vote on the descendant issue the way it did, I would not have any say in what happens with the corporation. Quite honestly, I'm still not a decisive factor in the decisions, but I do get to vote on board members and (I hope) other decisions.

2) I don't think corporations have done a great job showing shareholders or descendants why they should get involved, and why ANCSA is so important to keep improving. The people involved in the original settlement know the before and after for Alaska Native land claims. I've lived my entire life in an Alaska with ANCSA. Why does ANCSA matter to me?

3) Shareholders are spread across Alaska and the United States now more than ever. A huge percentage of any corporation's shareholders doesn't live in the area it is based. I don't. How is my corporation relevant to my life?

4) We seem to be in a state of having the issues "settled." But land was yesterday's push. How can what was settled then be brought into help today's issue. I know corporation's will have different views on this, but I believe they have an absolute responsibility to address the welfare of their people, including culture, social issues, health, and more. By this, I don't mean to say that they don't. I think my corporation in the last decade has done an exceptional job focusing on culture.

5) It's not just about the money for shareholders. And don't get me wrong, I've seen shareholders from other corporations mae it all about the money. The corporations should be allowed to be corporations and make money - and seeing the success of Native corporations be railed against in the general public simply for doing what it was created to do is no small frustration. But first, I'd like to show people MY dividend - the last one I got from my corporation. As a hint, I could fill up my small car twice with the funds - my friend with her big truck couldn't. Don't get my wrong, I appreciate that much. But when I'm asked why I struggle to pay for college when I have Native money rolling in, I'd love a little perspective on the "rolling in" amount. There are a few corporations doing better, but the larger majority of corps are doing about what mine is, or worse.

What I mean is I don't believe my generation is looking to my corporation primarily for personal dividends. I want my corporation to operate every day thinking about culture, thinking about our health, thinking about the next hundred years and Alaska Native people thriving, and giving to the world community.

I want my corporation to work hard to invest the money it makes well - it is a corporation. But I also require it to consider what the land represents to my people - health, life, culture, history, future. The land we lost was settled for what the corporations now have. Agree or don't agree on whether it was a good or bad thing - it is what it is. Money is not a good enough replacement for me for culture and life and a future lasting longer than myself. I hope, in the coming years, I see ever more development from corporations encouraging and supporting just those things.

Alaska Native leader speaks out on Palin

Saw this in the ADN Newsreader today, originally from the New York Times. Willie Hensley, a prominent and VERY well-respected Alaska Native leader wrote an op-ed that landed in the Times, aptly titled "In Alaska, Qiviters Never Win." The "qiviters" is a play on a an Inuit word for... well, quitting.

From the article:

In short, Alaska had a governor who had the stature within the state, nationally and internationally, to deal with our problems. She could have used her position to find solutions to the high costs and financial insecurities of our far-northern state. Instead, she abandoned her role as the state’s leader in midstream, making her the only governor in our state’s history to "qivit" in the true sense of the word, at a time when we need strong leadership.

It's actually a great article on the history of this state, and endurance of ALL its people, and worth the read.

Phil Munger over at Progressive Alaska also had a great post today about the voice of Alaska Native people, highlighting Hensley and other Native leaders.

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?

Enough with the commercial

I love watching the Olympics - especially when you get to see Phelps breeze through history. What I don't love watching is the ANCSA Regional Association commercial. It takes some historical strides backwards for Alaska Native people.

I am not in support of the Pebble Mine, but I also think that we tend to get into other region's business a bit too much. Alaskans hate it when the rest of the U.S. tries to assert its will on Alaska - but we do it within our own state frequently enough.

It is not the support or opposition that rankles so much. It is the selling out of Native values that really gets to me.

The first statement: "For Alaska Natives, protecting the environment has always been a priority."

In one sentence, the leaders of most of the ANCSA regional corporations took a giant leap into exactly what we fight against every day. Although I think that most Alaska Native cultural groups valued and respected the land itself historically, this cannot be a statement in which we hold our heads high in today. The ANCSA leaders here made a sweeping generalization not based on fact, but on the stereotypes we don't want non-Natives to buy into.

My grandparents take excellent care of the land. If they go into "nature," they tread lightly. When gathering subsistence, they don't take more than they need, or too much from one place. They recycle. They throw chemicals away correctly. They drive as little as possible. They truly respect the earth.

But to say that the corporations make the environment a priority is simply not true. A corporation that clears vast swaths of land for development, clearcuts miles of trees, blasts holes in the earth for mines absolutely does not have the environment in mind as a priority. Profit is a priority, and it certainly doesn't came anywhere near traditional values. I was in a talk once just for Native employees of corporations - how to navigate the seeming contrary values of Native culture and corporate culture.

The trouble with criticizing Native corporations is that many people will read what I am not saying into this. For any other corporation, profit is supposed to be the top priority. Can you imagine what Nike shareholders would say if Nike decided profit was not the top priority anymore? The corporations are just doing what they were set up by the U.S. government to do, and what shareholders prefer they do.

But taking corporate leaders and twisting them into cultural leaders is what is wrong with the picture. The message that "Alaska Natives take care of the land and therefore we're experts on whether this will be good for the earth or not" - it is dangerous and irresponsible.

The CEO's and leaders of Calista, Doyon, Bering Straights Native Corp., Koniag, Chugach, NANA, Arctic Slope Region Corp., CIRI and Ahtna can support or speak out against whatever initiative that could potentially hurt their corporation's financial interests. That is, after all, their jobs. There is certainly an argument to be made about profits and jobs hanging in the balance.

But back off the generalizing and playing into Native stereotypes. Our corporate leaders need to be honest with why and what they are doing.

In this case, they don't speak for me.