1. Why is Commonwealth North doing this study?

[Lack of awareness of the interdependence of urban and rural Alaska. List some of the signs/evidence of the problem.]

MARK COPELAND'S DRAFT: Commonwealth North is doing this study to raise the awareness of the interdependence of urban and rural Alaska. While urban/rural divides are not unique to Alaska, they are strongly divisive in Alaska in part because of the not yet fully defined roles of the federal government and native tribal entitles. The divide has been emphasized as state fiscal resources have declined creating a perceived lose/lose situation for groups defining themselves either as urban or rural. This division can be escalated in the future by decisions about the Permanent Fund and land ownership and use issues.

Issues cannot effectively be resolved by looking to old models which emphasis geographic differences or isolation of various entities as groups. Even the terms urban and rural are not effective in identifying issues as they are defined differently depending on the issue and as people see themselves as being urban or rural depending on the issue.

The increase and change in population and the probability of populations within the state created by changes in communication, education, technology and transportation have and will change the way people live and work. It is the goal of the Commonwealth North study to begin the learning process to get beyond the divide currently emphasized by the terms urban/rural to enable issues to be looked at in the context of Alaska as a whole thereby more effectively using the state’s finite resources to create better opportunities for all Alaskans.

2. What does Commonwealth North hope to accomplish with the study?

[Identify a place to start, a structure for moving toward a resolution. [Refer to the Board’s charge to the committee.] Not intended to be rigorous, academic study; not intended to provide solutions to specific problems. Encourages progress by placing issues in context, providing a framework for analysis, and offering a concept of unity through education, communication, and understanding.]

STEVE SHEAFFER’S DRAFT: The study is intended to provide a structure and framework for promoting communication, education and harmony for Alaskans, Rural and Urban. It is the beginning of process for building awareness, understanding and sensitivity of our unique differences while encouraging development of shared common goals. It will not provide solutions to specific problems, but rather opportunities for building pathways for cooperation, tolerance and mutual respect. It is not intended to be a rigorous academic product but a hands on, grass roots look at ourselves and who we are and where we are going. It is the beginning of the development of a shared vision for Alaska’s future.

3. What is rural and what is urban?

[It depends on who you ask and for what purpose. List some of the definitions that have been used for various purposes (access, funding, political, subsistence, etc.).]

CHRIS BUCHHOLDT: [See summary of Alaska statutory provisions.]

JOHN DOYLE:

CAL CALVIN:

4. How did we get to this stage in urban/rural relationships?

[Changes in population and society (changing numbers and cultures); evolving concept of "otherness"; ignorance; technological and political changes; finite available resources to solve problems. Refer to Appendix.]

JANET MCCABE’S DRAFT: Over the past century, the pattern of size and distribution of Alaskan communities and the character of the Alaskan economy has changed dramatically. In the 19th century, before the Gold Rush, most Alaskan communities were small villages established by Native people in places where they could reach subsistence resources. Villages were usually located along rivers or on the coast, or, for the few that were inland, where migratory animals were prevalent. Some villages were migratory or partly migratory. People lived in fish camps in the summer and returned to more permanent settlements in the winter.²

It was not until the major gold rush at the turn of the century that substantial numbers of people from other parts of the nation ventured into interior Alaska, and the nuclei of the urban centers of today were established. With the Klondike Gold Rush and its extension westward into Alaska and to Nome, the Yukon River became the main highway of Alaska, and the communities of Nome and Eagle became centers of population. In 1903 the community of Fairbanks started to grow as the strategic point where the navigable river was closest to the Tanana gold fields. Seward was established a few years later as the port of entry into Southcentral Alaska and the terminus of the railroad that was being built to Fairbanks.

A relative newcomer, Anchorage was started in 1915 as the headquarters for construction of the railroad linking Seward and Fairbanks. The community was a small town for many years. In 1940, before the burst of growth caused by the Second World War, Anchorage’s population was only 4,000 people.

Unlike the Native people in villages, the newcomers from outside were almost totally dependent on a cash economy. The economic life of their communities was sustained and generated by exporting goods and services -- goods in terms of the fish, gold, copper and other natural resources sold to the outside world, and services in terms of transportation, territorial government, health and education, tourism and other services paid for by sources outside the community.

As elsewhere, the efficiency of these new cash-dependent communities was enhanced by size – by economies of scale. The larger the community, the more effective and competitive it was in exporting goods and services and in maintaining and expanding its economic engine. Hence, a few communities, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and regional hubs such as Bethel, Kotzebue, Barrow and Dillingham, became larger and more urbanized. In contrast, for purely subsistence purposes, a larger community can be a disadvantage. More people in the community mean more competition for subsistence resources in the vicinity.

The pattern of settlement and community size evolving from these opposing forces -- a few growing urban centers and numbers of small subsistence villages -- is found throughout the world, and is often referred as a "dual economy". In Alaska, however, the distinction between cash and subsistence communities is not clear-cut. In even the smallest village, cash is essential to survival and necessary to subsistence. Snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles have replaced dogsleds. Hunting and fishing require ammunition and gasoline. Many predominately Native communities contribute significantly to the growth and strength of Alaska’s larger cash economy through commercial fishing and other activities exporting goods and services. The Red Dog Mine in Northeast Alaska, Ahtna Construction Company, NANA’s Tour Arctic are but a few examples.

Still, the broad outlines of the pattern remain. Alaska has a few large, urban communities with economies that bring new money into the state and generate growth, and there are many small villages where it is difficult to earn a cash income, and where distance and the lack of economies of scale raise the costs of goods and services requiring cash. The cost of power is a prime example. On a per capita basis, state and local governmental services such as education are far more costly in small rural communities than in the big urban communities.

Past patterns of population and community size have been reversed. Today, only ___ percent of the state population was were born in Alaska, and over 40 percent of the state population lives in Anchorage. With approximately ________ Native people, Anchorage is often referred to as Alaska’s largest Native village.

SUE MASON: [Some mention of the effect of legislative reapportionment probably should be included in this section. The significant cases are summarized below.]

• Baker v. Carr; 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (the apportionment of a state legislature is subject to review by the courts for a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment);
• Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (equal protection clause requires both houses of a bicameral state legislature to be apportioned on a population basis);
• Wade v. Nolan, 414 P.2d 689 (Alaska 1966) (applying Baker and Reynolds to Alaska; finding that, due to Alaska’s area-based Senate districts, 30.7 percent of the population could elect a majority of the Alaska Senate and that the Senate therefore was unconstitutionally apportioned; recognizing governor’s authority to carry out interim reapportionment of Senate--based on population, rather than area--in order to comply with Baker and Reynolds);
• Egan v. Hammond, 502 P.2d 856 (Alaska 1972) (under the federal equal protection clause, Article VI, section 3, of the Alaska constitution, which required reapportionment based on "civilian" population base, is unconstitutional; requiring that military population be counted for purposes of legislative reapportionment; authorizing use of census or other methods for determining population base);
• Article VI, section 3, of the Alaska Constitution, which was invalidated by Egan v. Hammond in 1972, was not amended until 1998 (effective Jan. 3, 1999). It now provides for reapportionment based on population (without reference to military or civilian), but it still requires the use of the census for determining the population base.

SHAUNA NEBEKER:

5. What are the most significant factors/issues?

[To achieve a unity of purpose among Alaska’s peoples -- urban and rural, Native and non-Native, the main issues that must be dealt with are [the three topics covered by this study/report]:

Economics: [Summarize hypothesis or results]

Delivery of Local Services: [Summarize hypothesis or results]

Management of Fish and Game: [Summarize hypothesis or results]]

6. What would the ideal look like?

[Mutual trust, open communication, sensitive relationship between urban and rural people and organizations]

JOE DONOHUE’S DRAFT: Utopia is not achievable and this study makes no attempt to establish same. Notwithstanding that premise, it is indeed possible to describe an improved Alaska with "urban" and "rural" differences and dichotomies blended in a more harmonious Alaska that honors and respects the diversity. Alaska is still a relative newcomer as a state within the union of states, and is still determining its true identity or

character. Many of the political, economic, and social issues faced by Alaska have been faced by other states in the past. Much of this study describes processes and desired results, with recognition that it is not necessary for Alaska to experience all the mistakes already made by other states.

The time is past for "outside" entities to extract or exploit Alaska's resources and its residents. The time of colonialism of Imperialistic Russia, military government by the United States and military inundation of Alaska, the gold mining era, and fishing, forest and oil industries' extraction and exporting or resources has, and must, come to an end. The rural and urban areas of Alaska must work together in a partnership to assure that internal development, added value businesses, local micro-business, logistical infrastructure and support industries are enhanced for the long-term economic, political and social future of Alaska.

Thus, the future envisioned by this study is a full partnership between rural and urban Alaska, regardless of where the "line" of definition between the two segments of our state is drawn. As with any partnership, this requires communication, understanding, respect and mutually agreed benefits and expectations. This study defines a process for achieving those mutually agreed benefits and expectations. Simply put, this recognizes the individual's right to support his/her family in the manner they choose, and in the location of their choice. This means that ways must be found to support the economic viability of the smaller "rural" locations in Alaska and recognizes the diversity of cultures and lifestyles in the state. It also recognizes the inter-dependence of rural and urban Alaska in economic, political and social ways heretofore sometimes overlooked.

JOETTE STORM:

Appendix: Chronology of significant events
Bibliography

[Chris Buchholdt to be responsible for Appendix]

Miscellaneous

Notes from the April 19 meeting (some of which might be incorporated into various sections of the Preamble):

1. Arliss Sturgulewski and Perry Eaton commented on a number of issues:

• shifts in legislative power (decline of the "Native caucus");
  
• changes in Native leadership ("changing of the guard" now in progress; increasingly Native leadership found in health care and education, not in politics);
  
• change in where the Native community goes in order to get its needs met (looks more to federal government than to State);
  
• lack of money and will among legislators to actually travel to rural Alaska to communicate with people and learn about the way of life there;
  
• legal changes--court decisions relating to legislative apportionment (summarized below);
  
• significance of Native land ownership (98 percent of privately-owned land in Alaska);
  
• role of the Native corporations;
  
• community groups (civic participation), rath er than government, as the most promising source of a solution;
  
• the need for healthy and continuing dialogue;
  
• the need for a new paradigm of what the goal is and what success looks like. (For example, is a 40-hour a week job an appropriate employment indicator in a Bush village?)

2. Some key quotes from the discussion:

"There’s no ‘solution’ to this problem, only a process."

"What we are all really after is ‘harmonious living’ and respect."

"How do we recapture a more balanced approach to statewide issues?"

---

 ¹Material enclosed in brackets and italicized is the original draft summary of what each section should discuss, from the committee's early outline of the Preamble.

 ²The pattern in Southeastern Alaska was somewhat different. The wealth of coastal subsistence resources encouraged larger, more permanent Native settlements, and outsiders seeking resource wealth developed cash-based communities in Southeastern Alaska the 18th and 19th centuries.

Commonwealth North      Background   Speakers    Study Groups and Reports    Membership    Newsletter    Program Transcripts    Directors