Ancshareholder assumption that commentor doesn’t have education on the ANC issue nor is interested in the plight of OUR native movement jumps to an offensive conclusion. This commentator is well aware of ANCs requirements and have followed the historical progression of the corporations. The “big business” referred to in my comments are factual. ANCs saw revenues rise dramatically over the years, however, despite this growth, most ANC shareholders receive small dividends. It is the ANCs whose beneficiaries, less than 500, and receiving huge benefits are causing congressional investigations. The national argument regards the ANC’s contracting privileges, where the heart of the work has gone to non-native consultants and subcontractors hired to do the work. ancshareholder needs to focus his self proclaimed “expertise” on the issue, as the disparities in financial performance from the village corporation to the “big business” corporation have little to do with size, location or natural resources available to the ANC. There is a responsibility from regional corporations to village corporations to native communities. In regards to ancshareholders comments on healthcare. Historically, the “Indian Wars” – fought before Alaska statehood, provided for the healthcare of American Indians. The treaty or agreement (Snyder Act) provided for healthcare, where U.S. soldiers brought disease and death to our people, we negotiated the Act. In essence, the American Indians shed blood for Alaska Native healthcare. This brings our movement closer and binding. I've met your challenge.
Sunday, January 8, 2012 - 01:40