Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator ABOUREZK. The next witness is Frank Peterson of the Kodiak Native Association. Is Frank here? Frank, we'd like to welcome you to the hearings. Do you have a prepared statement or are you just going to speak off the top of your head?

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement, because of the problems of the indirect rate development that some of our regional nonprofits are experiencing. But I would like to mention a few comments here and then if there is time allowable after the hearings, I'd like to also submit a written testimony.

Senator ABOUREZK. We will hold the record open for 30 days for anybody who wants to submit statements for the record.

STATEMENT OF FRANK PETERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the board of directors of the Kodiak Area Native Association I appreciate the opportunity to be able to express a few concerns about Public Law 93-638, the problems of the tribal definition and the problems of the programs that come along with that particular piece of legislation in the form of contracts, grants, et cetera. Now, it is my understanding that the purpose of Public Law 93-638 is for revision of social service oriented programs, primarily to Indian or Alaskan Native groups. It's also understood that that particular piece of legislation is to provide the determination on the part of the Indians or Alaska Native people the authority and decisionmaking process to administer or implement the programs to the best of the abilities of the Indians or Alaska Native groups. These are my understandings of that particular law.

But looking at it from where I sit as executive director of the Kodiak Area Native Association, trying to understand how we can best implement social service programs to the people who need certain services, including health social services, housing, et cetera that are available through this legislation, I see that this particular legislation creates and perpetuates some bureaucratic monsters within our Federal agencies resembling what I might relate to as many guys who determine, who are in a position to determine whether or not a village, a region, a village corporation or a regional profit corporation will be the administrator of programs under this particular piece of legislation.

While on the other hand it proliferates the authority and decisionmaking process of the people that this legislation is designed to assist in alleviating some of the social problems that we have within the State.

There are certain concerns that we have. One is the accountability question. I note that there's been several instances here where someone testifying or asking question related to accountabilities. Fiscally whoever is the entity that is administering programs funded through either Indian Health Service or the Bureau of Indian Affairs or through the auspices of 638 are required to go through stringent reguations in the contracting process before an entity can effectively administer a program through the contract. It is a difficult problem. Let me just relate one instance here just completed this week, or this past

week. In order to get any program funds for a particular program since we were formally notified of the availability of funds, we have had to rewrite the contract proposal five times, which has taken us the past 3 months or so to finally accomplish.

Senator ABOUREZK. Which contract is that?

Mr. PETERSON. This is for the Indian Health Service contract. Commissioner BORBRIDGE. I might ask a question, Mr. Chairman, if I might.

Senator ABOUREZK. Go ahead.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. When you were asked to rewrite the program, was this delegated to the organization to accomplish solely by itself with its own personnel or was it a matter in which the IHS was it

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE [continuing]. Personnel worked with you to insure that the revision was satisfactory?

Mr. PETERSON. Well, in most part it was- we were asked or required to rewrite the proposal here in Anchorage and in no instance do I recall that any representative of that agency came to our region to work with us in developing that contract.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. And you're headquartered in Kodiak? Mr. PETERSON. Yes; in Kodiak.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. OK, thank you.

Mr. PETERSON. That is one instance that I want to relate. We have not by our own options pursued any contracts under or from within the Bureau of Indian Affairs as yet.

Getting back to the concern I had about accountability, to be accountable fiscally is quite an undertaking for any entity that is new in administration of certain programs funded by either the State or Federal Government, because of the stringent regulations that come along with these contracts. There is more concern on the part of the agency that lets out the contract for fiscal accountability than there is for programmatic accountability.

The concern of the board of directors, of course, is more in programmatic accountability because of the services that come along with these contracts. So, on the part of the administering entity we are stuck with the problems of being fiscally accountable to the agency letting out the contracts as well as being stuck with the programmatic accountability, the people that we are providing the services to. I have no problem there providing that the structure of the entity contracting also has the accountability to the people that the programs are serving, as well as to get the direction. In some instances right now the entity that I belong to and administer programs through, we do have certain number of board members who are elected at large, which presents a small problem for us. Because those members at large really are not accountable to any agency or any group within the region, nor are they required to get any direction from any entity in order to make these programs successful. Hopefully, after our annual meeting that particular problem will be resolved.

Going down on my discussion list here I note with one exception that most of the discussion here presented to the committee is related primarily to contracts. I note the particular absence to any discussion to the grants that are available under Public Law 93-638, and I would

hope that the responsible governing or responsible agencies involved in Public Law 93-638 would consider utilizing the grant options within that particular legislation.

I also note the absence of any discussion regarding contracting, any options that are available under contracting. I note that most of the discussion is related to cost reimbursable type contracts. I think the responsible agencies here also should consider other options available such as fixed price contracting.

On my last comment, something that I don't have any facts to back me up on my concern is I think that the Native community in the State of Alaska should have some voice as to the budget developments, program distribution that currently exist in the State of Alaska primarily in the Indian Health Service total area budget, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget for the State of Alaska. I mention this because I understand that in the State of Alaska the total budget for the Indian Health Service exceeds $40 million, for the whole State of Alaska. I also understand that the total budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the State of Alaska exceeds $40 million. I also understand that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' budget for the State of Alaska being $40 million, $20 million is allocated to the area office and the other $20 million throughout the State of Alaska. Now, to me that is not quite equitable, and I think there should be some mechanism addressed or established so that the Native community has some participation in the development of the budget for both the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my comments, and I'll be happy to submit a written testimony within the 30-day period.

Senator ABOUREZK. That'll be very good. Thank you. [Statement was not received in time to be included in the record.] Does anybody have any questions?

Senator GRAVEL. Not I. Thank you very much.

Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you very much for your statement and we'll wait for your testimony to be submitted. The next witness is Dean Olson. Is Dean here? Dennis Tiepelman? Dennis, I'd like to welcome you to the subcommittee hearings. Do you have a written statement?

Mr. TIEPELMAN. Yes.

Senator ABOUREZK. And how long is that statement, Dennis? Mr. TIEPELMAN. If I read it, it would probably take about 5 or 10 minutes, but I'll just make a couple comments that I wish you to note on the papers that I have.

Senator ABOUREZK. All right.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS TIEPELMAN, PRESIDENT, MAUNELUK

ASSOCIATION, KOTZEBUE, ALASKA

Mr. TIEPELMAN. I think one of the problems that we have with the definition of Indian tribe is that so many different people can get into the act, and a region our size has 11 villages. And there is 11 village IRA councils we have to deal with, and we have the regional corporation and we haven't even gotten into any kind of tribal organizations, and we have trouble trying to get all these different tribal governing bodies to agree as to who's going to deliver the kind of services that

can be split so many different ways, because you just lose the value of the money.

What we've done in our region is attempted to make sure that everybody knows what they're getting involved in and kind of split the type of activities that they're going to have. Prior to my attendance down here I met with John Schaeffer, president of NANA Regional Corp., and I also met with Tommy Sheldon, Senior, president of the Kotzebue Village Corp., and asked them if any of our activities as a nonprofit regional corporation interfered with their activities and they told me, "no." And I told them what I was going to say here in the written statement I am presenting.

And the concern that they have is that they thought the Maunelak Association would be a tribal governing body, which is not the case, and they recognize the need that some sort of regionalization of the program is necessary. But according to the interpretation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the village IRA councils are the tribal governing bodies and anything that Maunelak Association decides to do has to be an individual resolution from each village, pretty much on a year-by-year basis. So we have minor problems here of trying to make sure that everybody doesn't go their separate ways.

Our region, which is approximately 36,000 square miles, I'm told, is approximately the size of Iowa, and has a population of less than 5,000 people, but we have 11 different villages scattered among that region. And there's the village IRA councils which are 11, the regional corporation which is in Kotzebue, and the village corporation which is in Kotzebue. And all 13 can apply for the contracts at the same time, so that there's a future possibility that none of them could ever disagree if we didn't try to meet and get this established.

The other concern that we have is that in 1991 the regional corporation NANA and Kotzebue Village Corp. will be, their stock and all their assets and everything that they have will be open to the public so that they will not necessarily be addressing Native concerns alone, but concerns that were started with moneys given to Natives and that when you look 20 years down the road Native services might not be important as the all mighty dollar in the course of the way the economics in the United States seems to be moving. So that that becomes a concern, that if they're still the tribal governing bodies that are authorized to receive tribal services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Indian Health Service, it might become a situation that's not harmonious to what the people at the local level needs, and I'm talking about the villages in the region that we represent.

I think it's very common to say that a lot of people are scared of "big brother" type of operations, and that's what the regional corporations can become if they're not careful in the definitions that are handed down. Our region, knowing that we had to work with certain definitions tried to make the situation work, and what I'd like to conclude is explain to you how we made it work.

We accepted a definition that the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated and established that the IRA councils are the tribal governing bodies. So we spent the past 2 or 3 months in each village revitalizing all IRA councils that were not in operation, and we made sure that the others started having active meetings and reflected their minutes and unnecessary paperwork to reflect that they are in operation. And it was

easy to do because we have only 11 villages to work with. Other regions, such as the Bethel area, have 56 villages. The Tanana Chiefs has 43. So that might be very difficult for them to achieve. So that the definition of tribe, as the IRA council, can be very hard to achieve in the larger areas.

The other point that we kept in mind was NANA Regional Corp. took the approach that it will not pursue grants and contracts that are of the "service-delivery" type as identified under Public Law 93638. Kotzebue Village Corp. also allied itself with the same idea, but the thing that they both said was that they did this on the basis that they recognized Maunelak Association is the type of organization is delivering and looking after this kind of programs.

The other thing that we have going for us right now as far as making this work is that the villages seem to be compatible with Maunelak Association's philosophy to plan, develop, and assume these kind of programs. But the point to keep in mind is that Maunelak Association is only a tribal organization and not a tribal governing body, so that one of these days we could easily disrupt any activities that we have started at this time.

Some of the recommendations that I think might have to be done, and there's no real answer, is that we'll have to find out if the definition of Indian tribe can be reworded to eliminate the multiauthority of the present tribal governing bodies that are occurring concurrently. I think the point to remember is that many of these tribes can easily become tribal organizations sanctioned by a single tribal governing body, but I don't know which organization that would be or which tribal governing body would be the single authority.

The associations have a need for a place in this act, but they must not be recognized solely on their status alone, because just like anything else we can become too big for our own good and the villages will start complaining that we're not addressing their needs. So I always try to keep that in mind when I'm acting on behalf of the association, that right now most of our activities are not dictated but a voluntary nature and the people seem to agree as to what we're doing at this time.

And in order for Public 93-638 to be more successful in the future we've got to eliminate some of these duplication of activities. And, you know, that's the function of the oversight hearings and various committees and subcommittees and the American Union Policy Review Commission is to review and hear our comments and hopefully we can come to a consensus as to what a tribal governing body will be. Senator ABOUREZK. Thank you very much. Ted.

Senator GRAVEL. No questions.

Senator STEVENS. Again, let me make sure I understand. Your consensus then is the same, that the tribal governing body really ought to be the villages and that they are to consent to organizations such as your carrying out the contract and responsibility?

Mr. TIEPELMAN. Well, I'm saying that it can be made to work, but it's very difficult to do. And a lot of times I think that if a regional nonprofit organization such as ours was identified, it could be more efficient and more effective but at the same time they always have to remember that they respond to the villages they represent. So that a regional corporation or a regional nonprofit association would be more

« PreviousContinue »