that might be necessary because of misunderstandings of the act. I do thank you very much.

Mr. KETZLER. Thank you kindly.

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you.

Senator STEVENS. Senator Gravel has asked me to extend his apologies, he had, as you recall we were delayed because of winds and other problems and we got in here late, he had to keep his schedule and leave on an airplane. John Borbridge will be the chairman of the hearing during the balance of the period.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE [presiding]. Yes; I think Mitch had a

statement.

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Yes; thank you.

STATEMENT OF MITCH DEMIENTIEFF, PAST VILLAGE COUNCIL CHIEF, VILLAGE CORP.

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Senator Stevens, Chairman Borbridge and guests; I'm delivering this testimony as a past Village Council Chief, Village Corp. chairman of the board, Village Corp. president, president of Tanana Chiefs and chairman of the AFN Human Resources Committee. I know it appears that I can't hold a job, but I am intending to show my experience in relationship to Public Law 93–638. I was raised in the belief that the Tanana Chiefs is the tribal government for the Athabascan people since I first attended the reor ganization of the chiefs in 1962, at Tanana as a 10-year-old boy. To think that the villages individually are a power to deal with is one thing, but the chiefs villages have long since realized that in unity there is strength, thus, we have the chiefs.

During my terms as chief of Nenana we contracted for services with the Government and some of those contracts exist today. However, there is no doubt that we never circumvented the chiefs and in fact, the chiefs provided solid support in obtaining those contracts.

I can only urge the adoption of the Alaska amendments and let the Tanana Chiefs Conference do its job as our only real village advocate.

Thank you. That's all I have to say.

Senator STEVENS. We have studied and, of course, that's one of the main reasons we're here.

Mr. DEMIENTIEFF. Right.

Commission BORBRIDGE. Thank you for your testimony. Is Lucy Carlo here?

STATEMENT OF LUCY CARLO, DIRECTOR, FAIRBANKS NATIVE

ASSOCIATION

Ms. CARLO. Good afternoon, my name is Lucy Carlo, and I'm director of the Fairbanks Native Association, and the Fairbanks Native Association thanks you and your committee for this opportunity to express our opinion and relate our experiences with Government contracting and with Public Law 93-638.

The Fairbanks Native Association is a private nonprofit organization of Native people residing in the Fairbanks area.

The Fairbanks Native Association has traditionally served the Natives of Fairbanks for the past 15 years. We are recognized by the Tanana Chiefs Conference as a "village" and sit on its 43-member board of directors. In March of this year, the Tanana Chiefs Conference full board of directors passed a resolution recognizing the Fairbanks Native Association as the tribal governing body and/or representative association for the Fairbanks Natives and, therefore, eligible to contract with the Federal agencies to provide services in education, employment, social services and other programs benefiting our people.

We, also, have a resolution from FNA's general membership recognizing FNA as the true representative of the Fairbanks Natives and, therefore, eligible to contract for services on their behalf.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs would not accept these resolutions in their discretionary powers to define who will and who will not contract with them. Under protest, FNA submitted a resolution from Doyon, the profitmaking regional corporation established under the Land Claims Act, which simply stated that they endorsed, recognized and supported our intent to contract with the Bureau. The Bureau failed to recognize that the Fairbanks Native Association is the tribal government which represents the Alaska Natives of the Fairbanks area, and that it was recognized as an Indian tribe for BIA contracting purposes under BIA regulations prior to the implementation of regulations pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act.

It is our belief and knowledge that we can and do provide the best service to our own and that the system of contracting services in most cases is the correct means to accomplish this.

Gentlemen, I also believe that any system as complex as contracting, can be improved. In this light, I would like to relate specific examples which we feel could be improved based on our past experiences.

NEGOTIATIONS

Negotiations in the past with the Bureau of Indian Affairs are untimely and at the convenience of the Bureau. Oftentimes, contracts are negotiated after the time they have expired, forcing us to more than compromise and subsequently lose program moneys because we are operating without a contract and hence, no moneys.

For example, the present BIA general assistance contract we are currently managing has 11 modifications to the original contract signed in November of 1973. This averages out to a new contract every 3 months. These modifications include requests by the Bureau to: (1) decrease program amounts; (2) decrease indirect amounts; and (3) provide extension of 2 to 3 months in duration.

Because of these modifications, financial problems are experienced as without a contract the Bureau ceases reimbursement of funds. FNA then operates with limited or no money in the bank to provide general assistance to eligible Natives as well as meeting payroll for its staff. The problem with money flow controls numbers of clients we actually can provide services to.

On another occasion, we submitted on May 25, our proposal to continue the BIA general assistance contract for 1 year starting October 1.

This proposal was submitted over 4 months before contract termination so that we would not have to negotiate at the time our contract terminated. We have written since then to remind the Bureau that October 1 is less than a month away and that we have yet to hear from them on the status of the proposal. We have not heard from them to date and feel that this is a consistent policy of behavior with the Bureau.

We have for the past 3 years operated an alternative accredited high school program called Project Now. Our proposal for fiscal year 1977 was submitted May 1. We negotiated a contract with the Bureau on July 30. At that time, the budget and general program content were tentatively agreed upon. We were asked to submit additional information which we sent to them the middle of August. The contract starting date was supposed to be August 17. With no moneys to begin the program we requested a starting date of September 1. As of last week, no contracts for JOM moneys have been signed yet because contract stipulations have yet to be drawn up. This means that in order for our high school students to receive credit for their classes, they must make up for the hours they missed by us starting our classes late.. It also means that we cannot receive moneys or hire staff until that contract is signed..

Contracting procedures are not clearly defined even under Public Law 93-638. For example, most contract negotiations would normally go through the agency office. We were requested in early spring to submit our JOM proposals to the area office. The agency office, to my knowledge, were not notified of our negotiations nor were they informed about the proposal's content.

On August 12, I wrote to Juneau notifying them of our intent to contract for a grant under Public Law 93-638, title 1 of the Indian Self Determination Act, section 104. We submitted the completed proposal August 31. This proposal was to assist Project Now in several key areas: (1) to conduct an on-going evaluation of the project; (2) to work with the Parent Committee, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Board of Education and its administration is designing a Native Education Plan; (3) to design on-going staff training workshops; and (4) to plan and monitor monthly Native workshops for the Fairbanks school system.

These goals fit the purposes and are consistent with the intent of Public Law 93-638 title 1 grants under subsection D which states that the grants may be used for the purposes of "planning, designing, monitoring and evaluating Federal programs serving Indian tribes."

I was notified last week that the proposal must be resubmitted on the Bureau grant "form" and that it must also be submitted to the agency office. This is extremely frustrating because the Bureau will have to evaluate the application and review the intent and purposes of such a grant and that it will further delay processing of an approval of the grant. A grant that should be a starting date of September 1 to correlate with our Project Now contract.

Who to go to in these situations is ill defined in the bureaucracy; there seems to be no particular person in authority to provide direction. When there appears to be someone who can provide direction, often

times the Bureau has had problems in defining and interpreting their own regulations.

Let me tell you about another example of inconsistent policy determination. In late 1975, the Tanana Chiefs Conference contracted for most of the Fairbanks BIA Agency services. Since FNA has been operating the BIA general assistance contract for over 8 years, we were requested by the chiefs to assist them in setting up and orienting their staff on policies and procedures for this particular program. We found that many of the procedures that FNA had operated by in the past were different than the procedures that Tanana Chiefs were given by the Bureau. One major example being the difference in amounts of grant money authorized. Since that time, we have met with the Bureau about giving consistent policies to the three major contracting organizations in Interior Alaska, that being the Tanana Chiefs Conference, United Crow Band and FNA.

We have yet to resolve the question of certain types of services we can and cannot provide our clients. FNA can assist a recovering alcoholic while he is receiving treatment. It is still unclear whether the chiefs can provide this type of service even though they have the same type of social service contract. It is annoying and frustrating to FNA because many of the TCC clients must come to Fairbanks for this particular service and we cannot help them.

EVALUATIONS

Since late 1974, when I became director of the Fairbanks Native Association, we have yet to receive a written evaluation of our program or an evaluation of our fiscal administration.

This is not to say that we have had no evaluations. In early June, I was notified that an "outside” evaluation would be conducted of our BIA General Assistance program. We spent 3 weeks with an evaulator from Seattle. Several times I have requested a copy of that evaluation and have yet to receive one. It has been over 2 months since the evaluation occurred. My only assumption is that the evaluation pointed to the many deficiencies and inconsistencies that the Bureau has operated under for many years.

What is regrettable about this situation other than the assumption I have just stated, is that fact that if FNA truly needs technical assistance or financial assistance, a professional and unbiased evaluation would point this out. Public Law 93-638 is required to provide training and technical assistance to those Native organizations that request it in order to implement the philosophy and intent of Indian self-determination. To date, I have seen no technical assistance other than the assistance we receive from the Alaska Federation of Natives.

NO MONEY

An organization such as FNA with a population exceeding 5,000 Natives, operates between 12 and 15 different contracts a year in order to provide services in employment, education, social services, youth recreation, and a comprehensive alcoholism program. In order to operate these programs, we need money and we need it in the banks. One major obstacle in having moneys to operate a program, is the

recordkeeping requirements that the various Federal agencies impose upon our accounting system. We must prepare the financial data several ways to satisfy our grantors and contractors, and at the same time maintain accounting records which satisfy the IRS as well as good accounting practices. Often the differences in requirements are arbitrary and do not affect accountability at all. If your committee should recommend anything of priority, we can't emphasize enough the need to standardize reporting and recordkeeping systems.

Ninety-nine percent of our contracts are cost-reimbursable. That means that we, as a non-profit organization, must have cash advances equaling approximately one-third of the total grant or contract and that this policy must apply in all cases. In no other way can our organization meet its legal obligations in a timely manner. This advance should remain outstanding until the last one-fourth of the contract and that only at this time should it be liquidated on a scheduled basis. Onsite financial orientation should occur on each grant or contract at the time of award and prior to start of a contract and not half way through or after completion. In other words, we need to know requirements of the contract before we start.

Another policy consideration on financial management of FNA programs would be required to pay FNA for any interest costs incurred if the Agency drags their heels on making timely reimburse

ments.

In summary, the Fairbanks Native Association is a private, nonprofit organization. It is subjected to all the hazards of that type of organization. It must prepare all the reports required of most business organizations, it must compete in the labor market for its staff, each day it faces potential dissolution from decisions it makes. It is not a government agency with all the protection of a sovereign. It should not be required to organize, function, report or be evaluated on the same basis as an internal government agency.

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns relating to Public Law 93-638.

Commissioner BORBRIDGE. We certainly thank you for a very thoroughly prepared testimony. I know that we will find it very, very helpful to us. Senator Stevens?

Senator STEVENS. I have no questions. I agree that it is a very thorough testimony.

Ms. CARLO. I would like to add that the Bureau is not the only Federal program we have problems with, we have problems with Indian Health Service and Law Enforcement Administration, and the National Institute of Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse. We filed a formal complaint to the State on Criminal Justice Planning Agency, mainly dealing with their inconsistent policies. We'll be working with the Tanana Chiefs Conference in trying to renegotate a contract with the Indian Health Service. Last year they gave us a $24,000 contract, there are several stipulations in there that we would like to change, they've given us an additional $35,000 this year, but we haven't used a penny of those funds. The Indian Health Service contracted with the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital to provide detoxication services at $100 plus a day, and they will only allow us $30 per inpatient a day to provide the same services. They won't allow any advances so we

81-879-77-13