THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016
Sitnasuak Native Corporation should never allow discretionary proxies to be used for annual elections. SNC mislead its shareholders when they indicated that DP’s are a right protected by State Law in the notice of special meeting for Jan 7,
Discretionary Proxies are not a right protected by State Law, in fact, several ANCSA corporations no
longer allow DP’s for annual elections and SNC can do the same. SNC shareholders will vote for three candidates at the upcoming June 2016 annual meeting. In 2015, Discretionary Proxies altered the outcome of the popular vote of outstanding shares. Please don’t re-elect those who support Discretionary Proxies. The SNC BOD are lead by a group of six that voted to prohibit otherwise eligible candidates from being listed on the corporate ballot and have tarnished SNC and destroyed the trust in our corporation for transparent and fair elections. Please do not vote a discretionary proxy for the 2016 annual meeting. Show those who have used discretionary proxies in the past that it will no longer corrupt our annual meeting or our annual elections. Please do not vote a discretionary proxy. Thanks to all.
SITNASUAK SIX – A Letter to the Editor to the Nome Nugget Newspaper is under deliberation by the Alaska Supreme Court Justices as I write this.
Bear with me, the boring legal quote below is only a few sentences. Then after the legal quotes, I will share the truth and it is a flipping doozie, people!!
So, Austin Ahmasuk is a Sitnasuak Shareholder and is represented by the Alaska Civil Liberties Union suing the State of Alaska for “Violating his Free Speech and Violating his Right of Due Process.”
Quick backstory is that Austin wrote a ‘call to action’ to Sitnasuak Shareholders to vote their own proxy; and not vote a discretionary proxy.
The call to action states, “..why all this commotion about discretionary proxies? Because I and others have thoroughly researched the issue and recognized there is an dramatic ethical argument about what is right and what is wrong with SNC’s elections. Discretionary proxies have allowed single persons to use discretionary proxies to dramatically alter the outcome of an election for their singular goal. You know who they are they are members of the SNC 6.”
Ahmasuk has appealed his way out of a cease and desist order and $1500 fine from a 2017 State of Alaska Banking and Securities Enforcement Order – all the way up to the Alaska Supreme Court; funded by the ACLU.
Fast forward to his “Reply Brief of the Appellant to the Alaska Supreme Court”, it states:
“He (Ahmasuk) read the proxy solicitation regulations carefully. He understood they applied to him when he wrote to express support for a specific candidate, and he understood they did not apply when he wrote about a type of proxy that could be used to support either Board-endorsed or independant candidates….”
further it goes on to state, “Ahmasuk is a conscientious shareholder of ordinary intelligence who tried to comply with the law. This one individuals reading of the reguations did not give him fair notice of how broadly the Division would interpret them”
THE NOME NUGGET NEWSPAPER
I did not mention that his letter to Sitnasuak Native Corporation shareholders was actually a Letter to the Editor, published in the Nome Nugget Newspaper, February 9, 2017.
You will not see any disclosure by the ACLU in this briefing to the Alaska Supreme Court that this was in the Nome Nugget Newspaper.
Ahmasuk’s letter leaves the audience with the impression that: 1) he and others thoroughly researched the issue, 2) discretionary proxies are unethical, and 3) only the Sitnasuak Six support the unethical discretionary proxy to unethically maintain their unethical control of the board of directors.
Oh, but do not let me forget this super key self-entitlement he and “others” hold: he and “they” are protected by Free Speech because a former State of Alaska “Regional Supervisor” for the Division of Elections mistakenly characterized Sitnasuak elections the same as government/political elections.
She did not grasp the first clue that the State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities hold jurisdiction over Sitnasuak elections – not the State of Alaska or the U.S. Voter Rights Act she was sued for violating in both 2007 AND 2014 for discriminating against Alaska Native speaking people.
Those that may not be aware, Sitnasuak Native Corporation is not a governmental entity, tribal or otherwise. It absolutely is not a publicly-traded corporation either.
Sitnasuak Native Corporation is a “PRIVATE” company.
As board candidates and board members, the Constitutional Right to Privacy prevails in comparison to the “shield” of Freedom of Speech that the ACLU argues.
BUT HERE ARE THE REAL – LIFE FACTS
Jacob Resneck penned a news article out of Juneau Alaska on January 19, 2020 for CoastAlaska.
The article states:
The Nome Nugget’s editor Diana Haeker has worked at the paper since 2003. She received a letter to the editor in early 2017 about Sitnasuak Native Corporation’s upcoming board elections. It wasn’t an endorsement of any one candidate, the newspaper, as a rule, doesn’t print those.
“We don’t want to end up with 50 letters to the editor endorsing the same candidate,” she said. “To me, voicing an opinion on process is exactly what letters to the editor are all about…”
She goes on to say, “You voice your opinion and so I didn’t think twice about it, because to me that falls under the First Amendment Rights to free speech”.
BUT DIANA HAEKER OMITS KEY INFORMATION
Here’s a quick list of key facts that Diana Haeker, Owner of the Nome Nugget Newspaper, lied by omission about:
- On May 5, 2016, Austin Ahmasuk wrote a Letter published in the Nome Nugget Newspaper endorsing Sitnasuak Native Corporation board of director candidates in 2016 by name. He states, ” Becka (Edna Baker), Crystal (Anderson-Booth) and Bruce (Davis) will bring fairness to the board. I urge all SNC shareholders that Louie Green, Jr. and Bobby Evan not be re-elected so our corporation can prosper”.
- In the column directly to the left of Ahmasuks’ letter and underneath Nancy McGuires weekly Editorial states (regarding letters to the editor, “…Thank you notes and political endorsements are considered ads”).
- On this same page is the listing of Nome Nugget staff members. They include: Peggy Fagerstrom, Photography, and Gloria Karmun, Production. Both women that are Sitnasuak Shareholders who had active conflicts of interest at that time. Gloria Karmun was a candidate for the Sitnasuak Native Corporation Board of Directors in 2016. Peggy Fagerstrom’s husband, Chuck Fagerstrom was no longer the SNC President. He signed a severance agreement, received $68,000, and certified he would not disparage the company.
Austin Ahmasuk has not disclosed that his mother, Janet Ahmasuk, was a long-time reporter for the Nome Nugget Newspaper until her passing.
The Sitnasuak Native Corporation Annual meeting was held the first Saturday of June in 2016.
Irene Anderson (my mother for full disclosure) penned a Letter to the Editor and submitted it to the Nome Nugget Newspaper in ample time to be published in the June 2, 2016 edition.
Her letter stated, “Recently, I have seen ads and a letter attacking the current board of Sitnasuak Native Corporation. It surprises me to see these comments when I know they are not true. I don’t know why people can’t be honest during elections.”
She went on to say, “I will attend the Annual Meeting at the Nome Elementary School on June 4 and vote for Bobby Evans, Lincoln Trigg, and Louie Green, Jr. Sitnasuak has a good team working for all. The elder dividend is greatly appreciated. Thanks to the Board of Directors”.
HER LETTER WAS NOT PUBLISHED UNTIL JUNE 9, 2016 – THE WEEK AFTER THE ANNUAL MEETING
The Alaska Supreme Court Justices have before them a case where the facts have been ‘narrowed’ down so much as it was coming up through the appellate court system; that the key information is left out.
As Journalists like to say, they want to get the whole story and that includes, “who, what, where, when, why, and how”.
Or at least that is what they used to strive for back when the industry of journalism was granted broad constitutional protections.