Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 106
03/12/2019 08:00 AM House TRIBAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Tribal Compacts, Contracts, & Consultation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON TRIBAL AFFAIRS
March 12, 2019
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Vice Chair
Representative John Lincoln
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Sharon Jackson
Representative Grier Hopkins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): TRIBAL COMPACTS, CONTRACTS, & CONSULTATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
VALERIE DAVIDSON
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on tribal contracting and
compacting.
CORRINE GARZA, C.O.O.
Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on indirect rates.
RICHARD PETERSON, President
Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented on Tlingit & Haida tribal
consultation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:47 AM
CHAIR TIFFANY ZULKOSKY called the House Special Committee on
Tribal Affairs meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives
Edgmon, Lincoln, Ortiz, Kopp, Talerico, Vance, and Zulkosky were
present at the call to order. Also present were Representatives
Jackson and Hopkins.
^PRESENTATION(S): TRIBAL COMPACTS, CONTRACTS, & CONSULTATION
PRESENTATION(S): TRIBAL COMPACTS, CONTRACTS, & CONSULTATION
8:03:37 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation on tribal compacts, contracts, and
consultations from Valerie Nurraraaluk Davidson. She relayed
Ms. Davidsons experience in the administration of tribal health
programs, which spans 15 years, 12 of which were as co-lead
negotiator for the Alaska Tribal Health Compact with the Indian
Health Service (IHS). She was also chair of the National Tribal
Advisory group for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS).
8:04:24 AM
VALERIE DAVIDSON, Representing Self, shared that she would be
providing perspective on contracting, compacting, and
opportunities for tribal, state, and federal partnerships. She
stated that compacting and contracting began under federal law
and has typically been authorized under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), which
authorizes tribes to compact or contract for programs,
functions, services, or activities that the federal government
would otherwise provide to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
She stated, Programs, functions, services, or activities is a
key phrase in the discussion of compacting. She stated that
the relationship between the federal government and tribes can
spur concern of race-based mistreatment. She clarified that it
is a recognition of the political relationship between the
federal government and tribes, which is not based on race.
MS. DAVIDSON distinguished the differences between contracts and
compacts; tribes will typically begin with a contract and then
graduate to a compact. She shared that both have authority
under ISDEAA; contracting occurs through Title I, compacting
through Title V. She shared that compacts require, in addition
to a resolution, the successful completion of a planning phase
and three years of fiscal stability and management, which is
typically satisfied by three years of clean audits. She
shared that compacting allows for greater flexibility and local
control than contracting. As an example, Ms. Davidson pointed
to the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporations (YKHCs) acquisition
of programs and services in the Bethel area; administration
began with a contract before developing into a compact to
include all of the health services in the region, including
administration of the hospital. This transition from contract
to compact depends on an organizations readiness, ability, and
interest in taking on additional responsibility.
8:08:45 AM
MS. DAVIDSON distinguished between the two types of compacts
between the State of Alaska and the federal government. The
Alaska Tribal Health Compact has 25 or 26 co-signers and
compacts between tribes, tribal organizations, and the secretary
of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). The
other type of compact occurs with the secretary of the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI). The former focuses on
individual and community health; the latter concerns itself with
child/family services, economic development, education, natural
resources, et cetera.
MS. DAVIDSON shared that tribes, communities, and anyone that
lives in rural Alaska benefit from the local control
accommodated by compacts. Some of the larger health
organizations in the state are not rural-based, but urban-based
organizations. She stated that when the legislature was working
through Senate Bill 74 [29th legislature] - the Medicaid reform
bill a lot of the innovations that were under consideration
already exist in the tribal health system.
8:11:16 AM
MS. DAVIDSON stated that the Alaska Tribal Health System (ATHS)
allows for better coordinated care to beneficiaries through its
public health function. She stated that other states have
robust county health systems, but Alaska is not organized by
counties. For a sense of scale, the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) has approximately 3,500 employees
collectively while the ATHS has approximately 7,000 employees.
She stated that in rural communities the tribal healthcare
provider operating under a compact is often the only healthcare
provider available.
8:12:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked for Ms. Davidsons perspective on
the governors proposed budget cuts to Medicaid.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that the Medicaid expansion gave the
opportunity to broaden coverage to those who have not had
coverage. The expansion provided resources for providing
behavioral health services, addressing the opioid epidemic, and
reducing recidivism. She shared that, while the compact does
provide some health services, it does not provide all of the
health services and resources. Based on the federal
government's analysis of available resources, ATHS is funded at
only 50 percent of the level needed to provide the most basic
healthcare services. Due to underfunding, Congress passed a
number of laws that require tribal health organizations to seek
third-party reimbursements such as private insurance, Medicaid,
Medicare, Denali Kid Care, and sometimes self-pay. She shared
that changes in the makeup of coverage providers or available
resources create a challenge for ATHS to provide healthcare
considering the extent to which tribes are underfunded.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON thanked Ms. Davidson for her response and
opined that, in respect to her background at YKHC, with the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), and as the
former Commissioner of DHSS, she was more than qualified to
offer her perspective on the proposed cuts.
MS. DAVIDSON, in response to Representative Edgmon, stated that
anytime there are few resources available for coverage, any
healthcare providers ability to provide care would be impacted.
CHAIR ZULKOSKY clarified to committee members that Ms. Davidson
was invited to speak due to her previous experience with tribal
compacting and contracting. She asked committee members to
respect the limited scope of Ms. Davidsons invitation.
8:16:02 AM
MS. DAVIDSON continued. She stated that many parts of the state
do not have a public health program available 24/7 and that,
therefore, tribal health programs often serve in that role. Ms.
Davidson shared that veterans in Alaska benefit from the tribal
health system. She gave an example of an uncle, who was a
veteran, who travelled from his village, to Bethel, and then to
Anchorage to visit the nearest U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) facility despite the presence of a clinic in his
village and a hospital in Bethel that may have been able to
provide care. She shared that now, through agreements with the
VA and the tribal health system, her uncle can receive care in a
tribal health facility without having his treatment disrupted by
travel. She stated that, after forty years of healthcare
delivery in Alaska through the compact, tribal health systems
have seen that health outcomes improve when care is provided
close to home. It is the transitions between systems and travel
between communities that introduce opportunity for outcomes to
diminish.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that there are care coordination agreements
between tribes, tribal organizations, and non-tribal
organizations through a tribal claiming policy that was
negotiated with CMS. She stated that this makes sense from a
programmatic perspective while also saving money for the state.
As an example, she shared that care coordination agreements
stipulate that if an individual is an IHS health beneficiary, a
Medicaid beneficiary, and is seen through an IHS facility,
including a tribally operated facility, the state is entitled to
a 100 percent match by the federal government rather than a 50
percent match. The federal government previously had a strict
interpretation of an IHS facility, but it has enhanced the
tribal claiming policy. Now, as long as a care coordination
agreement is in place, additional services considered for a
federal match include medically necessary travel and care that
is referred outside the tribal health system. She postulated
that if someone in Bethel were to experience a heart attack and
require travel to Anchorage to see a cardiologist, and he/she
went to the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC), the services
would receive a 100 percent federal match. The provider
receives the same rate, but there are dramatic cost savings for
the state. Previously, if a case were too complicated for ANMC
and a patient had to see an alternative service provider, the
state would have to pay a 50 percent match.
8:21:03 AM
MS. DAVIDSON shared that a 100 percent federal match would also
apply if a care coordination agreement exists between the
referring IHS facility and a non-IHS facility, the care began at
an IHS facility and was referred to a non-IHS facility, and the
patient has a care coordination agreement to return. She stated
that these leveraged partnerships have resulted in large general
fund savings; in fiscal year 2017 (FY 17) the state saved $17
million in Medicaid expenditures, in FY 18 $44.7 million, and in
FY 19 the state has saved $46 million in the first two quarters.
To date, since FY 17, the state has saved $125.7 million in
Medicaid general funds. She said, Not only does it make good
sense from a patient perspective, from a quality [of] care
perspective, it also makes really, really good fiscal sense and
it makes good budget sense for the state to continue to work
with tribes and tribal organizations to make sure that these
kinds of arrangements continue.
8:22:37 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked if care coordination agreements are
incorporated as part of the tribal health compact.
MS. DAVIDSON answered yes; the care coordination agreements are
required by CMS and, in order for the provider to be eligible
for a 100 percent federal match, care must be provided in an IHS
facility. The determination of an IHS facility, and the
associated funding agreement, is determined in schedule (e) of
the Alaska Tribal Health Compact.
8:23:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked, from the perspective of ANTHC as
the umbrella organization down to the providers, where the
compact exists, if it would be possible to have a contract and a
compact and if ANTCH holds the main compact with service
providers.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that the 25 to 26 co-signers are
independent legal entities that typically provide service in a
specific service area. She provided the example of YKHC, that
provides care to 58 federally recognized tribes in an area
approximately the size of Oregon. Its sister tribal
organization Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation is
independent and legally distinct from YKHC and ANTHC. She
shared that ANTHC provides statewide services, a lot of which
were previously provided by the IHS area office. She summarized
by saying that they are connected but legally distinct
organizations.
8:25:21 AM
MS. DAVIDSON stated, in reference to slide seven, that Alaska
has most experience with federal compacts with the secretary of
HSS and the secretary of the DOI. She stated that there are
opportunities for state compacts; the state currently has an
existing child welfare compact, a government-to-government
agreement with 18 co-signers representing over 160 tribes. It
recognizes tribes inherent sovereignty and affirms that tribes
may be in a better position to provide child welfare services
than the state. She shared that the model used for tribal
health and other Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs
advocates the provision of services as close to home as
possible, which leads to better outcomes; applying that same
model to child welfare was the logical next step. She said that
change to something new can be challenging. Beyond the
practicalities of changing programs, there are people who have
cared about programs from the beginning and have seen the
program grow over time; therefore, letting the program go can be
difficult. She said, Change is hard. Its an emotional
exercise as well as an intellectual, legal, and programmatic
one. She stated that the message was always were on a path
to yes, recognizing that there are obstacles and federal
requirements to be satisfied.
8:28:31 AM
MS. DAVIDSON stated that upon the states compact with tribal
organizations and the lack of anything in state law that
precludes compacting, other potential areas for compacting
include education, public safety, and transportation. The
consideration of compacting requires asking the hard question of
are we the right people to provide that service? and is
someone else in a better position? She emphasized that
compacting is not simply a transfer of responsibility and
authority, rather we have to set people up for success with
analogous resources. Ms. Davidson stressed the need to ensure
compacts are adequately funded.
8:30:20 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked Ms. Davidson to provide an example that
would illuminate the compactable points included in an
agreement.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that, under the compact, the department
agreed to provide information on reports of harm to compact co-
signers to tribes, which was previously not shared until it rose
to the level of investigation. With the child welfare compact,
every report of harm is shared with the tribe at its first
occurrence, which allows the tribe to wrap services around that
child and family. Ms. Davidson shared that this may stem the
number of reports and preclude a formal intervention down the
line. She said that tribes have performed diligent relative
searches for Indian Child Welfare Act cases and ensure that the
state complies with the requirement of placing that child with a
relative. Some tribes are also interested in licensing foster
homes while others are interested in taking on the services
currently provided by the Office of Childrens Services (OCS)
[within DHSS]. Ms. Davidson shared that, just like the contract
and compact at the federal level, tribes determine their
interests, capabilities, and the scope of their provision of
services.
8:33:09 AM
MS. DAVIDSON reinforced the importance that tribes receive
adequate resources. She stated that the Tribal Child Welfare
Compact provided an indirect rate for all of things the state
would normally be allowed to have. For example, at DHSS its
not a single department that provides a service; they can also
access the resources of the Department of Administration (DOA),
the Department of Law (DOL), the services of the attorney
general, et cetera. She shared that those indirect rates
compensate and provide additional resources for administrative
functions such as rent, facilities, insurance coverage for
employees, et cetera.
MS. DAVIDSON discussed consultation practices. She shared that
there are very strong consultation policies at the federal
level; while every department has a consultation policy, some
are more stringent than others. For example, CMS has a tribal
consultation policy mandating that states demonstrate adequate
consultation with tribes prior to submission of a state plan
amendment. If the state has not, CMS can decline the state plan
amendment and the state would not be authorized to modify its
Medicaid policy. Typically, rather than CMS formally declining
a state plan, it will invite the state to withdraw its amendment
and make modifications. Ms. Davidson stressed the weight that
CMS puts on meaningful consultation with tribes.
MS. DAVIDSON reported that consultation also happens on the
state level; some states have strong policies with routine and
formal consultation. She stated that DHSS has a comprehensive
consultation policy that was signed by Commissioner Butler. The
Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
has also had a tribal consultation policy for some time. She
said that Administrative Order (AO) 300 required every
department to develop consultation policies.
MS. DAVIDSON stated that consultation policies create a
formalized structure for meaningful dialogue between tribes,
tribal organizations, and the state. She added that
consultation policies offer an opportunity to understand and
formalize an entitys role and abilities and accommodate forward
movement and discussion of compacting possibilities.
8:38:46 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked if it was correct that AO 300 requires
every state department to develop consultation policies. She
also asked, in follow up, when AO 300 was signed and for its
current status.
MS. DAVIDSON maintained that yes, AO 300 requires every
department to develop consultation policies. She stated that AO
300 was signed over a year ago, and she believes that the order
is still standing.
8:39:22 AM
MS. DAVIDSON provided another perspective to frame the
opportunities in compacting. She shared that Yupik people
believe that your view of the world is entirely shaped by your
experiences, and so its considered really, really impolite to
tell somebody that theyre wrong, because they have not had the
experience to form that perspective. Ms. Davidson offered an
example of an interaction with her nephew; he once pointed and
asked for the orange object on the table, but there was only
one thing on the table - and it was green. She picked up the
object and responded, This kind of orange is called green.
Ms. Davidson encouraged the committee members to consider that
sometimes we may be seeing something that we believe is orange
because thats all that weve ever known, and we need to be open
to the possibility that that thing might also be green. She
emboldened the committee to be open to new opportunities that
lie with compacting and contracting. Ms. Davidson ended her
presentation with, quyana.
8:41:31 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY thanked Ms. Davidson for her presentation. She
introduced the next presenter, Corrinne Garza, who was the Chief
Operating Officer of Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska for nineteen years. Chair Zulkosky
shared that Ms. Garza is Haida Eagle/Frog/Sculpin and her Haida
name is Saksaani; she is also Tlingit Raven/Coho, and her
Tlingit name is Daanna Shawaat Money Woman. Chair Zulkosky
relayed Ms. Garzas educational background.
8:42:15 AM
CORRINE GARZA, COO, Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska (Tlingit & Haida), relayed that
federal regulations concerning audits and indirect costs are
found in 2CFR Part 225 of the Code of Federal Regulations, noted
on slide two of her PowerPoint presentation. In addition,
tribes must follow generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP). She shared that costs are classified in various
manners, which are basically direct costs including compensation
and materials. Indirect costs are incurred for a common
purpose, such as finance or computer information services, and
are usually applicable to an entire organization. She stated
that indirect costs are not assignable without associated work,
such as copying, long distance cell phone calls, et cetera.
There are also unallowable costs such as contributions,
donations, fines, penalties, fundraising, general government
expenses, contingencies, and lobbying.
8:44:49 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked for other types of organizations in Alaska
that have established indirect rates or costs.
MS. GARZA responded that tribes have indirect rates;
universities, non-profits, and any organization that receives
federal funding may negotiate indirect rates with the federal
government. She further relayed that the source of the majority
of federal funding will determine with which federal
[department] an organization would negotiate an indirect rate.
MS. GARZA stated, in reference to slide six, that costs are
divided between the groups direct, indirect, administrative,
and unallowable costs and that all costs for an indirect cost
proposal must be reflected in the audit. She stated that there
is often a misunderstanding that tribes allocate all of their
costs into indirect cost pools. The Interior Business Center
(IBC) does not want the federal government to pay for things
like donations and other unallowable costs; it requests a
breakdown of costs at its discretion while negotiating
agreements.
8:47:01 AM
MS. GARZA referred to slide eight and discussed the limitations
to indirect costs, with the federal and state government. These
caps limit how much a tribe may recover in indirect costs. She
shared that Head Start has an indirect cap limitation of 15
percent, as does Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
for client benefits; the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO)
program also has a cap. The caps imposed upon programs limit
the contractors that will participate, because those caps create
shortfalls, which equate to real money losses. Most small
tribes do not have another source of unrestricted revenue and
therefore cannot make up those shortfalls.
8:49:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that he was familiar with auditing
for non-profits. He relayed from Ms. Davidsons presentation
that there must be three years of fiscal stability and clean
audits prior to meeting eligibility requirements to compact.
Representative Edgmon asked if his understanding was correct and
if audits focus on indirect rates.
MS. GARZA answered affirmatively and shared that the state and
federal government require copies of audits. She shared that
Tlingit & Haida posts audits on its website so everyone can see
the allocation of money.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON emphasized the tribes focus on fiscal
transparency. He stated that, while cities often have
difficulty completing their audits, tribes are held to a pretty
high standard.
MS. GARZA concurred and stated that if the tribe does not submit
an audit, then the tribe could potentially have funds withheld.
8:51:23 AM
MS. GARZA stated, in reference to slide nine, that there is a
shared cap at the VPSO program. She stated that because the
tribes and non-profit regional organizations have different
indirect cap rates, the entities agreed to a shared cap rate
accommodated by a pool of money available for indirect costs,
which was capped at 30 percent.
MS. GARZA asserted that tribal contractors take efforts to
minimize their indirect rates as it is easier to obtain grants
when a tribe or organization has a lower indirect rate. She
remarked that tribes were offered the opportunity to participate
in the federal insurance program rather than the AFN program.
Upon switching the tribe lowered its insurance rates, which
created savings and lowered its indirect rate. She attested
that during her time at Tlingit & Haida efforts were taken to
lower the indirect rate, such as the hiring of an in-house legal
counsel.
8:54:54 AM
MS. GARZA explained that in order to minimize shortfall, while
still providing services, tribes have developed administrative
rates or administrative pools, a method of recovery in
administrative costs approved in the Ramah settlement. The
tribe has developed administrative rates for Head Start and
VPSO; doing so required the program to track costs in pools and
identify the services associated with those costs. As an
example, Ms. Garza relayed that, for the administration of the
VPSO program, communities were required to provide space for
program staff. In order to bring the rate down, Tlingit & Haida
segregated the facility costs and charged the administrative
pool for one space rather than individual spaces for all of the
officers. She stated that not all tribes are able to do make
these changes to accommodate caps, as there must be economies of
scale. She articulated details of the process: The programs
with administrative pools are subtracted from the direct base.
The amount of indirect that is recovered is subtracted from the
indirect pool. ... You get the administrative rates for each of
those programs and then an overall indirect rate for the
remaining programs.
8:57:48 AM
MS. GARZA, referring to slide 11, stated that DOI approves of
indirect cost proposals for tribes. She stated that some tribes
negotiate their rates with the IBCs counterpart in DHSS, but
IBC requires tribes follow the IBCs template to derive carry-
forwards. She said it is a complicated formula of determining
over and under recoveries; over recoveries occur when the
tribe collects more from indirect than initially allocated,
which rarely happens.
8:58:37 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY stated that she was unfamiliar with IBC and asked
Ms. Garza to describe where its located.
MS. GARZA responded that IBC is located in DOI. She continued
with her presentation, on slide 12, and explained that the over
recovery is subtracted from the pool two years in the future.
She shared that under recovery is similarly calculated and
results in an increase in the next periods rate. In reference
to slide 13, Ms. Garza stated that shortfalls require a
different calculation because the tribe does not recover the
shortfall. She relayed an example of a potential shortfall.
She explained that carry-forwards occur when the overall
recovery deviates from the budgeted amount, and there will
always be variances; shortfalls will not be recovered while
carry-forwards can. She commented that the deficit, for tribes,
consists above the shortfall and the carry-forward if theres
an under recovery.
9:00:52 AM
MS. GARZA, moving to slide 14, stated that tribes must make
certifications in their indirect cost proposals; usually the
state will honor indirect cost rates that are negotiated but
must certify allowable costs in accordance with federal
requirements. She said that any excluded costs pay for their
own administrative costs; the pool of unallowable expenses also
has an indirect rate. She stated that all funds must go towards
their respective programs; a Head Start dollar must be spent on
Head Start activity, and costs cannot be shifted between
programs. In reference to slide 15, she explained that the
tribe submits the indirect cost proposal to IBC for review; IBC
must approve or disapprove of all costs in the pool and then
issue an indirect cost agreement. Upon approval, all federal
agencies must honor that agreement.
9:03:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked if indirect rate costs apply to both
federal and state dollars allocated toward tribes. He further
asked, of the money that goes from the state to the tribes, how
much is federal passthrough administered through the state as
grants.
MS. GARZA answered affirmatively. She illuminated that the
dollars for TANF are passed through; Head Start dollars come
from the general fund and requires tribes to come up with a
match. She further relayed, Tribes dont have that match, so
the state has stepped forward and provided that match. She
shared that receiving the match makes a big difference as to
whether or not tribes can provide services.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP inquired about the VPSO programs funding
sources.
MS. GARZA stated that the VPSO program is not a passthrough;
funding comes from the states general fund.
9:05:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that the states matching portion
for Head Start grants is $6.8 million and inquired as to how
many programs receive that funding.
MS. GARZA responded that she did not know. She stated that
Tlingit & Haida served 300 students with 50 employees, but she
is unsure of how many communities have the program. She stated
that Rural Alaska Community Action Program, Inc. (RurAL CAP)
serves other communities.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that it was suggested in a recent
House Finance Committee hearing that the $6.8 million in
funding, which is cut out of the proposed budget, could be
provided by tribes in lieu of the state funding. He said, I
beg to differ with that. ... It just seems to me that these
tribes dont have that kind of unrestricted money lying around.
MS. GARZA stated that the only tribe in Alaska with unrestricted
revenue is Tlingit & Haida, due to its settlement with the
federal government over the taking of the Tongass. She shared
that all other tribes are landless and, therefore, dont have
any resources with which should generate revenue, nor do they
have a tax base. She stated that without unrestricted revenue,
they cannot generate a match for those services; it would be
very challenging to continue to provide Head Start without the
match. She suggested that it could be easier if Congress were
to change the match requirement.
9:07:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Ms. Garza to elaborate on the tribes
lack of a tax base and stream of revenue and how the
corporations contribute to funding for services. She opined
that this would clarify how services are provided to Alaska
Native people and the expectation of how services are paid for
in relation to the state and federal dollars. She opined that
there may have been an assumption that tribes had a revenue
stream.
CHAIR ZULKOSKY noted there would be a representative from
regional and village corporations and organizations presenting
on the organizational revenue stream and investment in Alaskas
economy at the following meeting. She noted that there was not
an expectation for Ms. Garza to clarify these details because
her work has been on behalf of tribes and tribal governments.
Representative Zulkosky welcomed any overview that Ms. Garza may
be able to provide.
9:09:23 AM
MS. GARZA noted that she also served as the CEO for Klawak
Heenya Corporation, a village corporation. She said there are a
lot of differences; tribe membership is not the same as a
corporations membership. She stated that individuals not
alive before the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) are not shareholders unless they inherit shares.
However, tribes define their own terms of membership/citizenry.
She stated that, in the Central Councils case, membership is
determined by relation to an original member; an individual must
provide the family tree and birth certificates to establish
their relationship. She opined that Congress created this
"mess when corporations garnered resources, land, and money
from ANCSA and not the responsibility to provide services to
members.
9:11:34 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY thanked Ms. Garza for her service to Alaskas
tribes. She said, Its very evident from your presentation
that there are strict boundaries and parameters with which
tribes are expected to expend resources, and we appreciate your
expertise and knowledge in this area.
9:12:07 AM
RICHARD PETERSON, President, Central Council of Tlingit & Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska ("Tlingit & Haida"), Juneau, Alaska,
noted his reverence for the two presenters to speak before him
and began a PowerPoint presentation. He imparted that tribes
have been working with the federal government on tribal
consultation for a while. He said that there are multiple
models of successful consultation that has produced quality
programs that are efficiently responsive to the needs of the
communities, such as tribal health. He stated, in reference to
slide three, that he would be presenting on the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA); the 1994 Act included the ability for the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED) and DOI to enter into co-management agreements with
tribal governments and acknowledged that working with tribes
would more likely achieve the goals of the MMPA than management
by federal agencies. He shared that it is more efficient to
hear from communities on local matters; he emphasized the
importance of governance by localities.
9:14:11 AM
MR. PETERSON stated, in reference to slide four, that there are
multiple consultation policies for a variety of departments,
divisions, agencies, and programs within the federal government.
He stated that tribal consultation is based on a government-to-
government relationship and referenced Lieutenant Governor
Davidsons remark that this relation is not based on race,
rather tribes are sovereign organizations. He stated, Agencies
should be represented by decision-makers, not low-level staff
checking a box to report on consultation to their superiors.
He said that, as the president of Tlingit & Haida, he sits with
those that run programs and noted that more high-level decisions
are able to be made because of that consultation. Mr. Peterson
explained that there were multiple co-management bodies
resulting from MMPA, such as the Indigenous Peoples Council for
Marine Mammals (IPCoMM). He recommended reading IPCoMMs
handbook, titled Model Alaska Native Consultation Procedures.
He reinforced that tribal consultation provides local control
and efficient policies that best suit the communitys needs.
9:16:37 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked if, in his experience in villages and
communities in southeast, Mr. Peterson thinks the tribal
governments, municipal governments, or both are best suited to
provide services to residents.
MR. PETERSON responded that after acting as mayor of his village
for 13 years, serving on the council for 18 years, and serving
as the tribal president for 18 years, he has a unique
perspective. He said that, because of the federal funding that
the tribe brought into the community, the tribes were the
doers. He stated that through partnerships between the tribe
and school district, the tribe was able to build a new school.
MR. PETERESON returned to his presentation and discussed the
benefits of consultation, as shown on slide seven. He stated
the benefits are as follows: local infrastructure, local
solutions to local problems, formal representation, myth
busting, savings to taxpayer money by identifying efficiencies,
and communication. He stated, in reference to slide eight, that
Tlingit & Haida has been involved with consultation on the
Governors Tribal Advisory Council (GTAC) and the DOI
Secretarys Tribal Advisory Committee. He stated that Tlingit &
Haida is also involved with consultation such as the BIA
Reorganization Act, where the tribe is able to consult on a
federal level.
9:20:24 AM
MR. PETERSON referenced a photo on slide nine of the signing of
an agreement between the tribe and the State of Alaska. He
said, This is just the beginning, we feel it will get better
the more consultation we do. I think, again, through Madame
Chair, Vice-Chair Edgmon, your wisdom in forming this committee
is instrumental in this. He expressed his appreciation to the
committee's interest and implored the State of Alaska Senate to
develop a similar committee. He ended his presentation with,
"Gunalcheesh, Haw'aa."
9:21:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON thanked Mr. Peterson for his presentation.
He stated that the material discussed today has little reference
in current state law.
MR. PETERSON concurred.
9:22:09 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY thanked Mr. Peterson for his presentation and for
his ongoing work for his tribal members and for all tribes in
Alaska.
CHAIR ZULKOSKY invited Ms. Davidson to offer any closing
comments on tribal consulting, contracting, and compacting.
9:22:37 AM
MS. DAVIDSON imparted her love for the House Special Committee
on Tribal Affairs. She discussed common myths that she has
heard in her career in tribal health and in compacting. She
shared that she has heard it suggested that tribes are not
sophisticated enough to take on complicated programs. However,
Alaska has world-renowned health programs, such as the tribal
tele-health program. She offered the Alaska Dental Health Aide
Therapy Educational Program as another example, a program that
began in the tribal health system. She stated that the Nuka
System of Care, provided through Southcentral Foundation, is
considered one of the best healthcare programs.
MS. DAVIDSON emphasized the number of rules that regulate
tribes. She noted the high level of attention paid to the
development of indirect cost proposals and attested that they
do look at every single penny that is spent. She commented
that the indirect caps may have made sense at the time of policy
development but that increasing costs coupled with inflation
shifts costs to the service provider.
9:26:36 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY asked if indirect rates are federally
established. She sought to clarify if the loss to tribes, when
costs are not allowable, are real financial losses without
revenues to supplement the difference.
MS. DAVIDSON concurred with Chair Zulkosky's assessment. She
addressed earlier questions regarding regional corporations and
relations to tribes. She clarified that tribal organizations
with the word corporation in the title are tribal health
organizations. Ms. Davidson stated that, while the tribal
health organizations are non-profits, they must cover their
costs even when funded at only 50 percent of the level of needed
funding. She explained, Regional corporations were designed by
congress as a for-profit business mechanism; their function is
not to provide social services. She stated that ANCSA regional
corporations and village corporations will make charitable
contributions. She ended her statement as follows: I applaud
the creation of this committee. I applaud the Chair for
creating a safe space to be able to have these kinds of
conversations and to really look at the incredible level of
sophistication that occurs ... in the services that are provided
by tribes ... to everyone who lives in the community. She
said, State compacting opportunities really are at their
infancy, and she referenced the number of other compacts that
have formed for health and social services, natural resources,
and transportation. She emphasized, [Compacts] must be
adequately funded in order for them to be successful. We need
to make sure that ... we dont just merely transfer the
responsibility without any of the resources. She said
quyana, thanked the committee and Chair Zulkosky, and
concluded with tua-i, a Yupik term for thats it.
9:31:28 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY thanked Ms. Davidson for her time and insights.
9:31:45 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Tribal Affairs meeting was adjourned at
9:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Indirect Cost Proposal Explanation.2019.pdf |
HTRB 3/12/2019 8:00:00 AM |
Indirect Rate Presentation |
| Davidson Compacting.pdf |
HTRB 3/12/2019 8:00:00 AM |
Tribal Contracting and Compacting |
| Tribal Consultation .pdf |
HTRB 3/12/2019 8:00:00 AM |
Tribal Consultation |
| Self Gov Laws.pdf |
HTRB 3/12/2019 8:00:00 AM |
Tribal Self Governance Statutes |