 Live from AFN: Follow Alaska Dispatch's live reporting of the 2009 Alaska Federation of Natives Convention at our AFN blog.
|
The Alaska Federation of Native Annual Convention is this week. Subsistence returns as a major issue for AFN this year. Alaska Native Corporation's 8(a) government contracting also is a topic in this convention.
Subsistence
For those who aren't informed, federal subsistence laws require a rural preference for the harvesting of fish and wildlife. The State of Alaska has contended against this preference without regard or respect for traditional ways of living.
There are several arguments floating around about what should be done. Some want an overhaul of the Federal Subsistence Board. In another region, locals want more say when it comes time to set the rules. AFN President Julie Kitka says that the system is broken and people are tired of it. Alaska Outdoor Council Executive Director Rod Arno says that all of the fish and wildlife are owned by the state as a public resource and are for common use.
Historically there is little evidence that simply changing board members or asking for more local control is going to do anything to bring subsistence issues to a meaningful resolution. It will only escalate conflicts and controversy until one side or the other declares a major victory. In this day and age, with the state of the economy and the cost of living in rural Alaska, I believe that the rural subsistence priority will soon become a reality that is a long overdue.
Why will it happen? I'll tell you why: because the state can no longer maintain face while the rural story is being told and made public as time goes on. Rural subsistence users are being cited by law enforcement for violations over rules that should never have been set, and set by someone living hundreds of miles away. Even Sen. Albert Kookesh got cited for over fishing in Angoon, which seems to be a perceived violation.
What nobody proposes, either from lack of ideas or leadership, is that the tribes in rural areas should be the ones setting the rules, within reason of course, and the ones issuing the hunting and fishing permits which you must currently purchase from the State of Alaska. A logical resolution to the subsistence issue would be a totally new process with the tribal governments having the final say in setting the regulations. The state and federal governments, with their biologists and boards, would obviously make their educated recommendations. When a user is found by a state trooper to be in violation, they would forward the citation to the nearest tribal government court. Since there are many tribes with members hunting and fishing in overlapping areas, the tribes may have to form regional consortiums to deal with the violations. It is doubtful that non-tribal members would approve of such a deal yet alone consider it.
Politically though, the State of Alaska can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the problems it creates for itself by playing favoritism with different fish and wildlife user groups. If an urban user or industry user could afford to fly out, boat out, charter, etc., while a villager can barely afford to hunt and fish, they can certainly afford to cut back their operations or go to the nearest supermarket. Since there has been a very public economic and social crisis in western Alaska this past winter and who know what will happen this winter. When hunger and the ills of bad fisheries management practices coincide into a situation where the governor pays a visit to places no governor dared ventured before, the rural voices are going to be heard. Urban and industry users are going to have a hard time arguing that their wants and needs be met and considered equally.
8(a) business
This past July, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill opened an inquiry into Alaska Native corporations' 8(a) government contracting businesses. She wants to know if the Native corporations have "participated in a giant loophole to competitiveness." McCaskill said, "These are no longer small companies that are trying to find their way and grow in order to help the Alaska Native population. I think this is about a program that began as an effort to allow the Alaska Native corporations to participate in federal contracting and just somehow has grown bigger than anyone probably envisioned."
This is from a statement she made in July. She got one thing right, and that is that these are no longer small companies, but they are trying to find their way and grow ever larger in order to help the Alaska Native population. If she thinks that Alaska Native corporations have gotten big enough, she is very wrong. I doubt that this program is bigger than anyone probably envisioned. It's only the beginning of what's been envisioned for the corporations. The critics may contend that the program has created billion-dollar businesses, but the corporations can, will, and must become multi-billion-dollar businesses.
To cite a few numbers: Other 8(a) businesses are capped at $5.5 million, so a corporation like Doyon Ltd., which has over 17,500 shareholders, would have to procure a little over $96 billion worth of federal contracts to even match a contractor owned by a single person. Think about that: $96 billion. So, to the Small Business Administration, that's the amount of money that could be contracted if each Native shareholder owned their own business. Compare that dollar amount to what has actually been contracted: $24 billion in the last eight years. Now consider that there are over 120,000 Alaska Natives living in Alaska and multiply that by $5.5 million, and you get $660 billion. So until that amount has been contracted out, I see no reason to reform this program and I see every reason to expand it. Like I said, it is only the beginning of this successful program.
If reform in this area of federal contracting is going to happen, it is going to happen on the Alaska Native corporations' side. They could cap the contracting per shareholder, as the numbers clearly demonstrate the current program as designed is inadequate. But I suggest a broad solution on the order of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act's 7(i) revenue sharing. Under that policy, 70 percent of the profits generated from natural resources by the regional corporations must be paid into the 7(i) fund, which is then redistributed among the regional and village corporations. The amount distributed is determined by the number of shareholders and other variables, but the outcome is meant to boost the other corporations that have not had much success or do not have access to natural resources. I would propose a revenue sharing program, not at 70 percent but maybe 40 to 50 percent, as this could be coined a "national" resource. After all, it is a program meant to benefit Natives as a whole, but the results are rather disproportionate in my opinion.
The critics of the program claim that it's created a few large businesses with varying contributions to the shareholders, so with a revenue sharing agreement, that argument goes out the door. Another reason to do revenue sharing is that the village corporations would be contributors rather than being a draw on the 7(i) fund. The formula for revenue sharing would be a little complicated, but I see long term benefits for everyone involved to do it.
All said, Alaska Natives, their businesses and issues have a long ways to go to get to a level playing field in the modern world.
Eric Huntington is a Louden Tribal Council board member studying tribal management at UAF. He is also a candidate for the Doyon Ltd. board of directors.