Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
02/19/2015 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska 4-h Youth in Governance | |
| HJR3|| HCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 3-CONGRESS:ALASKA NATIVE TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
HCR 1-TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY PROCLAMATION
8:40:51 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Urging members of the Alaska
delegation to the United States Congress to introduce
substantially similar legislation to the Alaska Safe Families
and Villages Act of 2013; urging the United States Congress to
affirm the criminal jurisdiction of Alaska tribal governments
over tribal members within the boundaries of their villages;
urging the United States Congress to cooperate with tribes'
efforts to transfer Native land to trust; and supporting
multilateral negotiations between tribal governments, nontribal
municipalities, and the state and federal governments to
delineate clearly tribal geographical jurisdictions and HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Urging the Governor to acknowledge
officially the sovereignty of Alaska tribal governments, to
create clear and consistent policies for increased state
collaboration and partnership with tribes, and to direct the
attorney general to conduct a complete review of the state's
litigation against Alaska Native tribes; urging the Governor to
acknowledge the inherent criminal jurisdiction of Alaska tribal
governments over tribal members within the boundaries of their
villages; urging the Governor to cooperate with tribes' efforts
to transfer Native land to trust; and urging the Governor to
support multilateral negotiations between tribal governments,
nontribal municipalities, and the state government to delineate
clearly tribal geographical jurisdictions.
8:41:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of HJR 3 and HCR 1, began by saying that both
resolutions are about making the state's public safety dollars
stretch farther in rural Alaska. The two resolutions intend to
foster collaboration between Alaska Native tribes and the state
in terms of criminal justice issues. In a broader context,
[Alaska Natives] are the third fastest growing prison population
in the state and they are growing four times faster than the
general population of the state. The aforementioned is
occurring, he pointed out, while the statewide criminal activity
is slowing and there are more nonviolent offenders. He opined
that because there is a prison population that continues to
increase, the criminal justice agencies of the state, as well as
the Department of Health and Social Services, are experiencing
an increase in costs. In fact, if the prison population of the
state continues to grow at its current rate, in two to three
years another prison the size and cost of Goose Creek Prison
will need to be built. Representative Edgmon explained that he
introduced the resolutions in the hope that [the state] could
better recognize the value of Alaska Native tribes in terms of
[addressing] criminal justice activities, albeit at the
misdemeanor and lower level. The result of such recognition
would lower costs of criminal activity as well as produce better
outcomes. He then noted the growing movement of reforming
justice measures in a manner that looks more toward the victims,
needs of the offenders, and impact to the community. Thirty-two
states, including Texas, Kentucky, and South Dakota, have taken
steps toward instituting "smart justice" and saved a lot of
money in the process. Furthermore, Texas has experienced a
decrease in its recidivism rate by one-quarter, saved some $3
billion in building new prisons, and experienced a 20 percent
decrease in the crime rates.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that Alaska tribes have been
wronged for a long time and there have been many studies and
committees that have found that the centralized justice system
in Alaska operating with hubs, remote Village Public Safety
Officers (VPSO), Alaska State Troopers, and the court system has
not been that effective. Family violence, alcohol abuse, and
suicide rates are at epidemic proportions and continue to spiral
upwards in rural Alaska. Therefore, he argued for the need to
move past the [centralized justice system] and engage tribes
more at the community level. He highlighted that the court
system has stepped up in terms of relationships with tribes in
the state. These two resolutions call for greater collaboration
and more consistent policies between the state and tribes while
recognizing the strong differences of opinion regarding the
state and tribal government powers. Although there are
unanswered questions with regard to the extent of tribal
jurisdiction in the state, the cost of litigation has only
grown. Therefore, the better approach would be to embrace state
and tribal governmental relationships such that an atmosphere of
respect and collaboration is created. Representative Edgmon
clarified that the resolutions aren't promoting the co-equal
treatment of tribes in the state government, but they all
operate under the Alaska State Constitution and the presumption
that "we are a state as a whole." Tribes have a unique
relationship with the federal government and other areas that
allow them to provide services and programs at that local level
that, he opined, can be helpful in addressing crime, reducing
the number of prisoners, and creating a better overall public
safety atmosphere. He then pointed out that [HCR 1] is directed
toward the governor while [HJR 3] is directed toward Alaska's
Congressional delegation. Both resolutions request that broader
steps be taken toward recognizing that a better relationship can
be had with tribes. He reminded the committee that although
resolutions aren't binding and don't carry the force of law,
they carry an important official message from the legislature
that it values a stronger relationship between the state
government and Alaska Native tribal government, which should
produce verifiable outcomes and a better public safety
environment in the state's rural communities. In closing,
Representative Edgmon mentioned that he has worked with Chair
Tilton to amend the resolutions, specifically removal of the
term "sovereignty" as there are differences of opinion as to its
meaning and connotation. The aforementioned maintains the true
intent of the resolutions, which is to foster better
relationships with tribes to promote better criminal justice
services at the community level.
8:51:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted her appreciation of the intent of
the resolutions as well as the revisions. She then requested a
brief overview of the unique relationship between the federal
government and Alaska Native tribes.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON informed the committee that Alaska Native
tribes were recognized in the late 1990s through an
administrative order. There are roughly 228 tribes throughout
the state. Through the federal recognition, Alaska Native
tribes have a unique government-to-government relationship with
the federal agencies that allow them to capture revenue streams
and certain services that are outside the normal range of
municipalities. These resolutions suggest that a better
relationship between the Alaska Native tribes and the state's
criminal justice agencies would afford them the ability to
access and obtain federal revenue for resources and [law
enforcement] presence not present today.
8:53:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES inquired as to whether there is any
history between the state and Alaska Native tribes that would be
relevant to these resolutions.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that Representative Hughes'
question articulates that the legislature knows very little
about Alaska Native tribes. In fact, Representative Edgmon said
that although he is of Alaska Native descent and was born and
raised in rural Alaska, he doesn't know a lot about Alaska
Native tribes.
8:54:45 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HCR 1 is designed to demonstrate the
state's willingness to work with Alaska Native tribes on ways to
alleviate crimes, social ills, and community distress. As
mentioned earlier, HCR 1 endorses strengthening the authority,
responsibility, and capacity of local Alaska Native tribal
government with regard to public safety and the delivery of
justice in their communities. Both resolutions, in particular
HCR 1, were derived from the findings of over a half dozen
commissions that have met over 25 years. All of those
commissions agreed that greater control, better defined
jurisdiction, and increased accountability at the local level
will lead to swifter response to violence and criminal activity,
increased crime prevention, and increased rehabilitative rather
than punitive sentencing models. The aforementioned, he opined,
will work significantly toward achieving healthier communities.
The current iteration of HCR 1 requests the governor officially
recognize tribes, particularly to detail clear and consistent
policies for increased state agency collaboration and
partnership with tribes. He opined that state and tribal
relations and in turn tribal communities can be vastly improved
with state policy that emphasizes collaboration as well as
consistency and clarity in policies. The resolution, HCR 1,
also urges the governor to direct the attorney general (AG) to
conduct a complete review of the state's current litigation
against Alaska Native tribes to determine whether some of it
would be deemed unnecessary if working toward a greater
partnership with Alaska Native tribes. Furthermore, such
collaboration would save the state money. Mr. Clark then
directed attention to the third resolve, which refers to
criminal jurisdictions over tribal members within accepted
boundaries of rural villages. He noted that the aforementioned
is a recommendation of the Indian Law & Order Commission, which
devoted an entire chapter of its 2013 report to Alaska Native
tribal issues. This recommendation is also endorsed by the U.S.
Attorney General's Advisory Committee on American Indian and
Alaska Native children exposed to violence. Mr. Clark mentioned
that this is something Congress could confirm without addressing
the notion of Indian country. The basic intent of the
resolution is to increase authority and responsibility at the
local level while allowing tribes, through potential new federal
funding streams, to build better institutions and capacity to
undertake such responsibilities. The fourth resolve speaks to
land and trust issues and is related to a recent Department of
Interior (DOI) decision that would allow Alaska Native tribes to
transfer land into trust. Allowing Alaska Native tribes to
transfer land into trust is one of the more controversial and
complex issues that will likely be eliminated in amendments as
it's not the core intent. The fifth resolve is merely a
statement urging the governor to support eventual negotiations
between tribal governments, nontribal municipalities, the state
government, and federal government regarding geographic
jurisdictions. The resolution, he emphasized, is aimed at an
eventuality in the future.
9:01:56 AM
CHAIR TILTON opened public testimony.
9:02:20 AM
LIZ MEDICINE CROW, President/CEO, First Alaskans Institute,
explained that the First Alaskans Institute is a statewide
Native nonprofit that focuses on leadership development and
through which there is a public policy fellowship in which
fellows are placed in offices in the legislature. This session,
fellows are placed in the offices of Senator Olson and
Representative Kito. The First Alaskans Institute also focuses
on community engagement through grants that are given through
community investments. The nonprofit also publishes the First
Alaskans magazine. She then noted that the First Alaskans
Institute has the Alaska Native Policy Center and one of the
most consistent themes from communities throughout the state is
the inability to form great relationships between tribes and the
state. She said she is most excited with the resolution because
it symbolizes the state's progress as it continues to be a state
known for its innovation. A blockade for that innovation has
been the inconsistent treatment and relationship status between
the state government and the Alaska Native tribal governments of
the state. As a tribal citizen of Kake, a citizen of the State
of Alaska, and a citizen of the U.S. government, Ms. Medicine
Crow said it would seem she would have three forums by which to
have services and protection provided to her. However, that
doesn't exist. She expressed the need for the state and tribes
to be able to bring forward a more functional and healthy
relationship to determine how to best bring resources together
to address the challenges of the citizenship while protecting
them as well. She reminded the committee that the most
vulnerable [Alaska Native] people are continuing to be harmed
and harmed at greater rates. Therefore, [HCR 1] provides an
opportunity for the state to recognize the way it has been
operating hasn't effectively addressed the issues [of Alaska
Natives]. These resolutions provide an opportunity to find
other innovative ways to leverage the abilities and strengths
that exist rather than fighting a jurisdictional war because in
the interim the people are being harmed; these people are
citizens of the state, the tribes, and the federal government.
In closing, Ms. Medicine Crow stated her support for both HCR 1
and HJR 3 as well as making government-to-government
relationships a priority for the state not only because it's
fiscally prudent, but more importantly because it's better for
the citizens of the state.
9:07:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to the current litigation
and issues between the state and Alaska Native tribes.
MS. MEDICINE CROW pointed out that there is litigation with
respect to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), Office of Child
Services. These cases are troubling because whatever the legal
arguments when ICWA provisions for placement are triggered, the
[Alaska Native] children, families, and communities are being
harmed. A respectful government-to-government approach would
help create a pause during which consideration can be given to
what is in the best interest of the children. Another area in
which there are issues is with regard to voting and whether
equal and equitable access to voting is being provided in terms
of language, materials, and polling stations. She noted that
there are other situations within the Department of Law that
would allow the attorney general time to reflect on its position
and principle of practice in dealing with Native tribes around
the state.
9:10:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Ms. Medicine Crow was supportive
of the proposed [amendments to the resolutions] to streamline
and eliminate some of the conflicting language in the
resolution.
MS. MEDICINE CROW said that although she only saw the amendment
this morning, she believes the sponsor knows what is best for
the resolutions and the processes in the legislature.
Therefore, she said she would wait to see the result.
9:11:19 AM
ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, expressed
concern with the last resolve of HJR 3, which relates support
for the clear delineation of tribal geographical jurisdictions.
The concern, he specified, is in terms of the impact of such
delineation on the contiguous fish and game management regime,
particularly with migratory animals and fish stocks that pass
through 220-plus Native areas, on a sustained yield basis. Mr.
Arno said he hasn't seen the earlier mentioned amendment to HJR
3 that would change this aspect of the resolution, but will
continue to follow the legislation to ensure the matter is
addressed for all Alaskans.
9:13:07 AM
MARY BISHOP, referred to a 2/26/97 Alaska State Legislature
document entitled "What does Indian Country Really Mean for
Alaska?" that she submitted to the committee. She then
encouraged the legislature to oppose HCR 1 and HJR 3, moving of
Alaska Native lands into federal trust, and establishing
geographic boundaries of tribal jurisdictions. She opined that
both resolutions encourage the establishment of Indian Country
in Alaska, but Alaska Native leaders rejected that type of
settlement in the 1960s as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) was being developed. Village leaders voted
overwhelming in support of the corporate settlement instead.
She acknowledged the high rates of social ills in rural Alaska,
but pointed out that the same situation exists in the Lower 48
reservations. Therefore, Indian Country status doesn't solve
the problem [of social ills]. Ms. Bishop then opined that in
general, the Lower 48 reservations don't serve as a good model
for rural Alaska villages. However, she agreed with the idea of
an innovative approach, which she opined doesn't include
thinking in terms of Indian Country. She highlighted the Choose
Respect program as an example of innovation.
MS. BISHOP opined that rural justice and problems with
criminality in the villages is pushing the agenda to obtain an
Indian Country designation, which she characterized as a smoke
screen over other features of Indian Country, including taxation
and regulation. The state, she offered, is prohibited from
regulating and taxing land in Indian Country as the tribal
entity actually has the authority to tax and regulate. After
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' unanimous ruling in favor of
Venetie, Judge Fernandez wrote the following:
We had been asked to blow up a blizzard of litigation
throughout the State of Alaska as each and every tribe
seeks to test the limits of its power over what it
deems to be Indian Country. There are hundreds of
tribes and the litigation permutations are as vast as
the capacity of fine human minds can make them. They
can include claims to freedom from state taxation and
regulation. Claims to regulate and tax for tribal
purposes, assertions of sovereignty over vast areas of
Alaska, and even assertions that tribes can regulate
and tax the various corporations created to hold ANCSA
land. The latter assertion would give the tribes the
power to control, regulate, and tax those corporations
out of existence and would provide a fruitful area for
intertribal conflict. This no imaginative parade of
horribles.
MS. BISHOP, in conclusion, encouraged the committee to be
extremely cautious with any consideration of tribal land that
goes into trust or might promote the status of Indian Country.
She reiterated the need to consider innovative ideas to address
rural justice as well as suicide and other problems in rural
Alaska.
9:21:25 AM
WAYNE HEIMER said he was gratified that the term "sovereignty"
is [to be] eliminated from [HCR 1]. However, he expressed
uncertainty that the concept of sovereignty could be separated
from this issue or the resolution's intent. Sovereignty, he
offered, is an abstract concept. He noted that he has been
pondering sovereignty since Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Secretary Ada Deer administratively recognized the tribes in
Alaska. Mr. Heimer opined that using the concept of special
municipal regulations instead of the term sovereignty creates a
situation that doesn't currently exist. The language in ANCSA
was incredibly strong and such rights as aboriginal titles,
claims, etcetera do not presently exist and would have to be re-
created if that's the path chosen. Mr. Heimer said that
although freedom is a human impulse, to secure the blessing of
community people have to compromise their individuality. Alaska
is trying to secure the blessings of community, he opined,
without making the necessary compromises. Although he said he
respected the human yearning for self-determination and
recognized the practical and economic benefits of government-to-
government contracting, he encouraged the committee to carefully
weigh the risk to the greater Alaska community for the romance
of sovereignty and the risk it carries. For those who believe
the federal approach is an appropriate path, Mr. Heimer reminded
the committee of U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell's
recent visit and the degree of respect she had for Alaska's
sovereignty.
9:25:26 AM
GREGORY RAZO, Member, Alaska Federation of Natives Board of
Directors, began by informing the committee that he has been an
attorney in Alaska since 1984 and is a member of the Cook Inlet
Region Incorporated (CIRI); co-chair of the Alaska Native
Justice Center; and president of the Alaska Legal Services Board
of Directors. He then related support for both HJR 3 and HCR 1.
Speaking to an earlier question about the federal Indian law
that applies in Alaska, Mr. Razo pointed out that the
responsibility to Native Americans, that is tribes, is found in
Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution. He
explained that by extension, the passage of the aforementioned
article extends the authority to engage in relations with tribes
to the executive and judicial branches of government. Article
1, Section 8, he opined, places the tribes firmly within the
constitutional fabric of the nation. The aforementioned has
been extended through case law and congressional statute over
the years. The trust obligation derived from Article 1, Section
8, has been the basis to support development in Alaska and
throughout the United States of tribal institutions. This trust
obligation, he emphasized, is the highest responsibility of the
U.S. to any of its citizens, which was recognized in the case
Seminole Nation v. United States [316 US 286, 62 S. Ct. 1049, 86
L. Ed. 1480 - Supreme Court, 1942]. The obligation was first
discussed, however, in The Cherokee Nation v. The State of
Georgia [30 US 1, 8 L. Ed. 25, 8 L. Ed. 2d 25 - Supreme Court,
1831]. Over the last 40-plus years in Alaska since ANCSA
changed federal Indian policy, corporations and tribes have
worked together to develop institutions to take care of Alaska
Natives. He opined that the two have created the most
innovative, creative, and successful community-based
organizations in the state. The aforementioned has been
achieved largely in the absence of state intervention. However,
the state has provided support for the development of health and
social service institutions within [Alaska Native] nonprofits
and regional tribal associations. As an attorney in Alaska for
30 years, Mr. Razo opined that although not officially
recognized, community-based justice happens every day and needs
to be recognized. Whether it's with a tribe, borough, or city,
community-based justice is a non-centralized justice that is the
fastest, cheapest, and most effective justice. He suggested
that legislative support of these resolutions is a significant
show of support [recognizing that Alaska Native] institutions
have been developed and are fully capable of serving Alaska
Natives and others in the state's small communities.
MR. RAZO turned to the budget crisis that the state faces, which
he characterized as of a proportion of which the state has not
seen before. The institutions funded by the federal government
that are tribal in nature rarely receive 100 percent funding,
which means the tribes and nonprofits have to obtain additional
funding from the state government and private sources. Although
it's not a free ride for tribal institutions, the federal
funding that has been available for a number of years has
resulted in the Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP)
and its institutions in Western Alaska that are ready, willing,
and able to provide help with health and social services as well
as legal services and investments. The aforementioned, he said,
merely requires a partnership with the state. He remarked that
sovereignty is such a buzz word for some people, but opined that
what [the resolutions] refer to is a government-to-government
relationship. Although he acknowledged that the federal, state,
and tribal governments are not equal, he pointed out that tribal
governments have existed long before any statute said they
existed. These resolutions seek engagement in a partnership and
a real discussion regarding how better to serve the needs of all
Alaskans, but especially Alaska Natives. He noted that he just
returned from a meeting in Kotzebue with U.S. Secretary of
Interior Jewell. Unlike what was reported in the newspapers, it
was a respectful conversation before Alaska Native leaders from
across the state in which there was a clamor for working
together at the state and federal levels. Visiting any of the
villages, he remarked, highlights the needs that exist. Mr.
Razo acknowledged that there are less funds to meet the needs,
and therefore he questioned why one wouldn't use partnerships
with existing organizations that are ready, willing, able, and
begging to be able to help with this crisis. Furthermore, such
partnerships would build institutions in Alaska and create a
better Alaska for everyone. The aforementioned, he said, is why
AFN supports [HCR 1 and HJR 3] and why he personally supports
[the resolutions] as an Alaskan, attorney, and person who is
committed to equal justice for all.
9:33:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES inquired as to whether there would ever be
a conflict with a municipal government.
MR. RAZO acknowledged that there's always the potential for
jurisdictional conflict as exists now between Alaska State
Troopers and city governments. The aforementioned is worked out
through compromise and compacting, he said. He explained that
generally, tribal governments are responsible for tribal members
within the boundaries of the tribes. The process of setting the
boundaries and recognizing the geographical location of
boundaries will have to be addressed, but doesn't have to be
addressed in these resolutions. The resolutions set out the
notion that there are areas where tribes are entitled to
exercise jurisdiction over their own people, which is an
important concept in Alaska. The aforementioned, he emphasized,
occurs everywhere else in the U.S. and it should happen in
Alaska as well.
9:35:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES related her understanding that the
reference to tribes in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
Constitution only refers to commerce.
MR. RAZO explained that the case law derived from Article 1,
Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution has been extended to protect
tribal rights in every form and aspect, from equal protection to
due process. The extension occurred through a long series of
federal cases to cover all aspects of trust responsibility for
Native Americans. In further response to Representative Hughes,
Mr. Razo stated that the Commerce Clause is probably the largest
clause in terms of extension of rights and responsibilities in
in the U.S. Constitution. Although technically Representative
Hughes is correct, he pointed out that the law of the land as
determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the same effect
and weight as the constitution, has significantly expanded the
clause.
9:38:22 AM
VERONICA SLAJER, President, North Star Group, informed the
committee that she was the original staff director of the Rural
Governance Commission, which was formed in the 1990s to address
state-tribal relations. The Rural Governance Commission is one
of the many organizations mentioned by Representative Edgmon
that support clarity with regard to state-tribal relations.
About a year ago, the Rural Governance Commission reconvened and
upon reviewing the original report, determined that many, if not
all, of the recommendations made in the 1990s were still
relevant today. Therefore, Ms. Slajer said she is heartened
that the committee is considering the resolutions. These issues
are real to all people, Native and non-Native, in terms of
providing the tools to address everyday situations.
Furthermore, there is a symbolic value to this conversation as
well, she said. Ms. Slajer offered the Rural Governance
Commission web site, www.ruralgov.org, and herself as resources
to the committee. She also offered to provide the committee
with names of others who have expertise in this area.
9:40:42 AM
WILL MAYO, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), explained that he has
a long history of advocacy in the Alaska Native community, which
began in the 1970s when he was involved in the implementation of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and ultimately
became the CEO of TCC. He opined that the issues before
[Natives] are immensely complex, particularly in Alaska where
there is a mishmash of policy that has collided with the various
ideologies and disagreement. He recalled his 20s when, as a
leader in Tanana where there is inadequate law enforcement, he
had to respond to public safety issues, although he wasn't
trained in law enforcement. For instance, there was a situation
in which he had a gun pointed at his chest when trying to
separate an individual from his drinks and gather the children
present and take them elsewhere. Such situations continue to
exist today as [rural communities] continue to have a high
population of untreated needs. Mr. Mayo clarified that [Alaska
Natives] don't assert jurisdiction or sovereignty as an idea but
rather as a means to provide needed services. He then related a
recent situation in which he helped a local tribal council deal
with an individual who had fired shots; this is a community
without a city government or Village Public Safety Officer
(VPSO). The three local tribal judges approached the individual
and encouraged him to work with them for his children's sake.
There had already been a determination that the situation wasn't
a threat. Eventually, this individual submitted to an
assessment and voluntarily went to town after the tribe
addressed the situation. In that same community last week,
local tribal leaders discussed the need to control loose dogs,
children running around, domestic violence and sexual assault.
These leaders asked him when the community would receive a VPSO
and whether the VPSO would be able help them with their tribally
established ordinances. The leaders also asked whether an
agreement could be reached with the state such that Alaska State
Troopers could help [enforce] the tribally established
ordinances. Mr. Mayo clarified that the tribal leaders weren't
saying that the Alaska State Troopers have to submit to their
sovereignty and do it their way rather they were asking for
help. Mr. Mayo said he had to inform the tribal leaders that
thus far the state hasn't been a willing partner, though the
state has been approached many times.
MR. MAYO then turned to the land trust issue. He related that
when [Alaska Native organizations] have approached the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of Justice, and other
agencies that have funds appropriated by Congress to address
critical needs in [villages] for public safety and tribal
justice assistance, he tells them that courts already exist in
the villages. Furthermore, circle sentencing is already
occurring such that individuals in the village come together to
tell the individual what he/she did wrong. The power of the
aforementioned, he remarked, is so immense that it's difficult
to articulate in this setting. Mr. Mayo emphasized that [Alaska
Natives] are consistently told by the federal government that it
isn't permitted to fund Alaska Natives because Alaska Natives
don't have Indian Country or a base from which to assert public
health or safety. Therefore, lots of resources that are
provided to tribes in the Lower 48 aren't provided to tribes in
Alaska. In conclusion, Mr. Mayo informed the committee that the
majority of states in the U.S. have tribes and a long history of
tribal state relations that have benefitted their members.
Furthermore, there are volumes of agreements, including
Memorandums of Understanding, Memorandums of Agreements,
contracts, and intergovernmental protocols. He stressed that
there is no conceivable reason such couldn't work in Alaska.
There is such a dire need for help that doesn't seem to be
addressed because people wrangle over important questions. Mr.
Mayo related his support for HCR 1 and HJR 3 and urged working
toward greater tribal and state relations as there is a lot to
gain. The aforementioned, he clarified, doesn't mean the state
has to submit or roll over. In fact, he opined that tribes are
making headway with the state in different areas in Alaska, but
there is room for more. Again, Mr. Mayo urged taking steps
toward addressing the human suffering. He offered to provide
background materials to help the committee in its deliberations.
9:53:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether there have been any federal
efforts to resolve access to what the Lower 48 tribes have
without the physical boundaries of an Indian Country
designation.
MR. MAYO answered that although there are many programs
available to tribes in Alaska without an Indian Country
designation, the lack of an Indian Country designation is used
as the reason for Alaska tribes not being given funds for public
safety issues. He noted that Public Law 83-280 is also used as
a barrier as it addresses jurisdiction. He explained that
although there have been many discussions with the Congressional
delegation, the resolutions are before the committee today
because of the inability to craft something that would free
large amounts of resources. Mr. Mayo urged consideration of the
many situations that exist in the nation where Indian Country
tribes exist with cross deputization agreements with their law
enforcement. Further, the federal government training facility
in the Lower 48 for tribal police exceeds Alaska's Police
Academy requirements. The funding received for the training
facility for the Lower 48 tribal police is received because of
the Indian Country designation. He further informed the
committee that there is an entire body of case law that defines
tribal jurisdictions that would be of interest to the committee.
Mr. Mayo reiterated that the reason [the resolutions have been
introduced] is because of the inability to cross the barriers
without an Indian Country designation.
9:57:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted her appreciation of the innovative
thinking and work with the congressional delegation. She then
expressed interest in having an informational session on this
issue as well as how tribal ordinances relate to state statute.