According to the article about ANCSA, "As the law now stands, there is a split between the 'have' and 'have not' Alaska Natives." Since only those Alaska Natives born on or before December 18, 1971 were eligible to receive stock, it was reported that by 1991 over 50% of Alaska Natives may not be shareholders. This fact surprised me. Given the importance of the land to maintain their traditional lifestyle, I believe this is an unforseen effect of the provisions in ANCSA. I believe it was the intent of the Alaska Native people, to insure through this claims act, that the land and stock provided in the agreement would always be there to sustain them. While the "New Natives", as they are referred to in the article, will be able to inherit stock and purchase stock (when and if it becomes available), those who are not Alaska Native will be able to purchase the stock as well. As the population of Alaska Natives born on or before December 18, 1971 declines, how will the language in ANCSA that created the "have" and "have not" Alaska Natives impact the stock and land ownership? Should this issue be addressed soon? If so, by whom?
Mary
I understand the reason for not issuing more stock to the "new" people born after the given date. It would simply water down the worth of all of the stock. But if I am a person who has 100 stocks and I pass them down to my 2 children the would each get 50. Then when they pass theirs down to their 2 children they would each get 25 stocks. Before too long there wouldn't be much to pass down. This would happen much quicker in families that have more than 2 children in each generation. I know Native Alaskan families that have 6 and 8 children in one generation.
ReplyDeleteThis concept doesn't seem fair to all Alaskan Native people, however much in life is. Sometimes stock in companies "splits", maybe this would be a way to add "new" people to the stock list. Maybe they could create a list of people who want to "wait" for stock. The list could be made first come first serve or by lottery.
Yeah to me the ability to own stock if born around 1971 is fine for me. Those born after 1991 or after the original date,stock must be inherited, and two other ways. But at least they still have the option.
ReplyDeleteI would really like to know the status of this bill, since now it is after 1991.
Thanks to amendments to the original ANCSA agreement, some of the disparities between the "haves" and the "have nots" among Alaska Natives have been eliminated. Check out the section titled, "The afterborn and other specified groups" from this page.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/ARTICLES/mthomas/ANCSA_Update.htm
In essence, this provision in the 1988 amendment places decision-making power in the hands of the original shareholders. By a majority vote, corporations can issue stock to New Natives, determine whether their stock will be restricted or unrestricted, and whether the new shareholders will receive voting rights and dividends.
Although I have very little experience with investment and money management, to me this amendment seems to achieve a balance between offsetting the inequities in the original bill and ensuring that stock will not become diluted over time. Placing control over the corporation in the hands of the shareholders, who have the best interests of their people at heart, should help to guarantee that the ANCSA corporations will continue to provide for future generations of Alaska Native citizens, not just those who were born on or before the arbitrary date of 18 December 1971.
Yes I do think that the issue should be address. I still would like to know the status of the agreement as of 2010.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find any information about subsequent amendments, so I assume that those I linked you to are the only amendments ever made.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else have input on this subject?
I agree. It seems unfair at first that not everyone would get stock, but before you know it, there would be so many splits... Things would be "watered down". I like the idea of the new natives being able to inherit the stock, that seems fair to me. I also thought a lottery of some sort would be a good idea for new natives to get stock, but a wait list is a good idea as well.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as we discussed in class today, I'm not sure how I feel about non natives being able to purchase stock... I think it defeats the purpose. I need to look into it more. Any thoughts?
I talked with a friend who will inherit Doyon Stock. She isn't 100% sure about the process but she said a few years ago Doyon had open enrollment that allowed children born after 1996 to be enrolled. She said that most young people already have stock that has been inherited from Grandparents. Doyon did this with a majority vote. She feels that it was a good thing because today's young children will be tomorrow's leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe situation mentioned is the prime example of some of the negative aspects of ANCSA. Our speaker yesterday mentioned the Communal nature of the Alaska natives. If this is the case, then why is this even a discussion. This should be a no brainer, sharing the wealth is the traditional way of living except when it comes to stocks? No! No! Across regions and or villages all should have equal access to the wealth garned by previous generations.
ReplyDeleteAs a corporation they have the ability to spend thier money with the vote of the shareholders. If the intent of the corporations is to ensure the livelihood of Alaska Natives I would think that although not all natives recieve money they can all recieve benefits. The federal and state government has set up organization to help those in need. Why can't the corporations also have thier own similar organizations. The corporations have the money to do this. Maybe the cash payout distracts the shareholders from thier opportunity to make a difference to all natives.
ReplyDeleteI am going to present this in a different fashion and switch my arguing point around a little. As far as I can tell we are all adults in this blog so let's take a modern look at it:
ReplyDeleteAs a woman with a dependent I know that I will do whatever I can to ensure that my dependent's future will be as stable as possible. I am making an assumption that this applies to the rest of you: If you had a dependent you would look after it.
Each and every Alaska Native enrolled in ANCSA was given stock. They were than told that the welfare of their future, and the future of their offspring, was in their own hands.
Sounds fair.
It was up to themselves to manage their personal affairs. Just as you, as an adult, will manage your own personal finances, and ensure that you will have personal wills and so forth in the event of death. IF you have any assets, you will divide what you have among your loved ones.
If those who were given their stock sat on it until they could sell it, and than sold it and spent their money without saving anything for their children, than those children have no one to blame but their parent.
That is the same concept as a person who wins the lottery and spends it all and leaves nothing for their children.
This is a different point of view, but lets be honest: These people were/are of legal age if/when they sell their stock. It is their choice.
My point of view is similar to Wiley's comment. I think those who stand together as one become stronger. Native people, years ago, shared whatever they hunted with the whole community to prevent starvation. They were taught this from birth.
ReplyDeleteOf course, my opinion is meek, but I believe if the Alaska Natives shared the income from their corporation equally with the new natives born after 1971 they would have been further ahead. These new natives are our future. In the Yukon the Native people have a slogan they hold up proudly, "Together Today for our Children Tomorrow" Our children are our future leaders. I may be wrong, but this way they would have one goal in mind and that is working together as one for the future and betterment of all.
Thank you Mary Jane for your objective opinion. I believe 100% in personal responsibility. As a person who grew up very poor and disadvantaged, I took it upon myself to provide for myself and my family and I believe all people should do the same.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised too that 50% of natives do not hold shares. It would be interesting to see if there is a jump in the number of new shareholders as a generation dies out. I would have to take some time to map that one out in my head. (oh great another reason for me to lie awake at night and do mental calculations)
ReplyDeleteWell I know that the people born on or before Dec. 18 1971 can put hand their stock down to family members but I agree with Rosebud's saying "Together today for our children tomorrow" I like the idea of giving out stocks every 10-15 years maybe that would be assure each family would have at least one stock holder. This leads me to another question: if the permanent fund can run out when is that estimated to happen?
ReplyDeleteYou have to keep in mind that in some corporations, it's required that you have to have at least a quarter native blood. That might be a big factor, because even if they have 10% native blood, they are still considered Native, but are not allowed to have stock unless they are granted it by another whom has had stock and passed it on. If the case is that they are more then 25% native and the corporation did not allow them to have stock even though in writing it says that they are allowed, yes its a problem and it should be addressed as soon as possible, by the people and the corporation, maybe even higher authority.
ReplyDelete