APPENDIX B A LISTING OF NATIVE VILLAGES WHICH DO NOT HAVE OVERLAPPING TRIBAL ENTITIES PURSUANT TO THE SELF Source: Native villages listed in ANSCA, sec. 11, Public Law 92-203. Native Village Corp. formed pursuant to ANSCA, "Alaska Native Management Report", vol. 3, No. 1. U.S. Department of Interior BIA, 1972, Alaska tribes recognized by BIA, "American Indians and Their Federal Relationships”. 1972 Resident Native Population-2(c) report: "Federal Programs and Alaska Natives,'' task 1, pt. B, sec. 1. APPENDIX C Incorporation dates of Native associations as listed in section 7 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Regional association: 1. Arctic Slope Native Association.... 3. Northwest Alaska Native Asociation (changed to Maneluk June 26, 1973) –– 4. Association of Village Corp. Presidents. 5. Tanana Chief's Conference__. 6. Cook Inlet (Native) Association___ 7. Bristol Bay Native Association__ 8. Aleut League__ 9. Chugach Native Association_ Date of incorporation Jan. 23, 1967. Not incorporated. Oct. 11, 1971. Feb. 26, 1965. Feb. 5, 1973. Jan. 26, 1972. Dec. 22, 1965. Council (Federal 10. Tlinget-Haida Central charter) 12. Copper River Native Association. 11. Kodiak Area Native Association__. Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Division of Corporations. APPENDIX D AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESIDENCE OF ALASKA NATIVES ENROLLED TO NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATIONS TABLE 1.- NUMBER OF NATIVE VILLAGE CORPORATIONS HAVING 25 PERCENT OR MORE, AND 50 PERCENT OR MORE OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS RESIDING IN PLACES OTHER THAN THE VILLAGES 1 1 Information not available for 6 village corporations. Source: 2(c) report: Federal programs and Alaska natives, task 1, part B, sec. 1. TABLE 2. PERCENT OF REGIONAL CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS RESIDING WITHIN THE REGION ENROLLED TO Source: "2(c) Report: Federal Programs and Alaska Natives," task 1, pt. A, sec. 2, p. 3. STATEMENT OF JOHN HEFFLE, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF INTERIOR ESKIMOS, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA This regulation which became law on January 4, 1975 is another way the United States Government has caused trouble to the American Indians and the Alaskan Natives. The intent of the law is in itself a fine thing, but once again, non-Indians or non-Alaskan Natives have made a law to govern the rights of people they do not understand; they are neither a part of them nor a tribal member. In 93-638 it states that the governing body is the sole spokesman for the tribe in contracting matters relating to B.I.A. or I.H.S. programs or services. It is supposed to reinforce tribal sovereignty and allow the designated governing body to speak on behalf of the tribe as its representative. No contracts can be entered into by the tribal organization under 93-638 until specifically authorized to do so by the tribal governing body by use of a resolution. This principle is supposed to enable the tribal government to make an intelligent approach to its use of contracting under the Act and other tools or rights under the regulation. What this has done has caused conflict and dissention between tribes as designated as such in 93-638, Sec. 4, Paragraph B which is highly restrictive and discriminating to Alaskan people since it denotes tribes in Alaska as villages, village corporations, and regional corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims. Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), while it gives an extremely broad spectrum to the Indians in the Lower 48. In Sec. 4, Paragraph C under tribal organizations, it would appear that our tribal organization which, by virtue of a resolution hand delivered to Commissioner Thompson in December, 1975, was designated to be a contract entity with the right to contract. Although our village was established by the U.S. Department of the Interior over 37 years ago in Fairbanks and is governed by a democratically elected traditional council, we have reached an impasse as to our tribal status.. We have received services from the Bureau as being eligible for services provided by the United States because of our status as Indians, yet no one has been able to establish whether we are or are not a tribe or a village. We have been continually ignored by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, as to why we were left of the land claims when we applied verbally to the BIA representative in December, 1971. We formed our tribal organization as per the BIA suggestion to facilitate our obtaining tribal status (prior to the Act) but so far, after 5 years, we still have nothing, based on the Solicitor's evaluation of the definition of tribes used in 93-638. It seems that the BIA uses this Act for its own benefit to become more a controller of the destiny of the American Indians and Alaskan Natives when the BIA should be, in fact, trying its utmost to help the people become self-reliant instead of subjecting them to the continual interference by the BIA by inadequate laws and statutes. The Act (93-638) states that if a tribal organization wishes to contract for performing services rendered to more than one tribe then a resolution is required for approval by all such tribes. This is another hoondoggle. If the tribes want selfdetermination, let them contract as individuals without interference by others. Contracts should be let, if a tribe, group, tribal organization, etc. indicates they wish to contract and are capable of doing such. A civilian or non-Indian or non-Native who wishes to contract to build roads, etc. for a state or the federal agency, bids for it without me or other taxpayers being required to produce a resolution either for or against. Why should we be compelled to do things not normally required by others? Our normal way of doing business has been by letter of intent and verbal commitments and, although the Act states that we are not being forced to do anything which is contrary to our tribal way of doing business, we are continually badgered by the B.I.A. that |