Prof. Carol Goldberg on the UCOP Repatriation Committee

Professor Carole Goldberg, a professor of Federal Indian Law and a UCOP Repatriation Committee member, wrote the following in 2006--


December 11, 2006


Dear Colleague:


I am writing to you in my capacity as UCLA Campus Repatriation Officer and member of the UC NAGPRA Advisory Group, seeking to enlist your support in an effort to redirect UC policy regarding repatriation to Native American tribes. I have contacted you because I believe the policy as it is currently designed and implemented fails to recognize the interests of faculty throughout the system who engage in work with contemporary tribal communities, whether those faculty are in Native American Studies or other departments. UC policy and practices, as I will explain below, tend to result in the denial of tribal repatriation claims under circumstances where tribes are likely to conclude they have rights under NAGPRA and state law, thereby promoting a negative view of the University within tribal communities.


As you may know, UC policy centralizes decisions regarding repatriation in the Office of the President, and establishes the UC NAGPRA Advisory Group to make recommendations to the President regarding campus-based inventories that find cultural affiliation or otherwise propose repatriation. Under NAGPRA, repatriation is required upon a finding of cultural affiliation of human remains and specified objects, but "culturally unidentifiable" remains and objects may also be repatriated through a process established under federal regulations. Although those regulations have yet to be promulgated, several universities and other institutions, including Cal State Fresno, have repatriated human remains through an informal process set up by the National Park Service.


Under UC policy, only campuses with collections subject to NAGPRA are eligible to send representatives to the UC NAGPRA Advisory Group. These representatives are asked to consult with campus stakeholders with respect to matters of policy and implementation. In addition, there are to be two Native American representatives on this committee, selected by the Office of the President.


In practice this system has not been functioning well. First, there are campuses without collections, whose faculty may have significant research interests and knowledge relevant to the repatriation process, especially researchers in Native American Studies. Second, it has been my experience that although UCLA maintains a broadly representative campus-based NAGPRA committee, none of the other campus representatives consults with other concerned faculty and staff regarding systemwide matters. In practice, all the other campuses, except for UCLA, have sent archaeologists with particular orientations toward repatriation, especially an exclusive emphasis on certain kinds of evidence in determinations of cultural affiliation. The result has been that these archaeologists' perspectives heavily dominate consideration of campus-based recommendations regarding cultural affiliation. Third, Native American representation on the NAGPRA Advisory Group has not been robustly pursued by UCOP. Six months ago, one of the two seats was vacated. Since that time, UCLA has nominated two individuals, and I am under the impression that other campuses have nominated individuals as well. Yet the Office of the President has not appointed a replacement.


The adverse consequences of this arrangement have manifested themselves in several different cases, especially those involving older remains. Sometimes the problem has been failure to credit oral history evidence provided by tribal communities. In another instance, group members refused to recommend repatriation of "culturally unidentifiable" remains through the available informal process on policy grounds, without ever consulting their campuses regarding the desirability of such policy. In still another situation, the Office of the President has simply failed to schedule meetings to discuss a UCLA cultural affiliation recommendation, leaving the requesting tribe in a position of considerable distress.


I am concerned that this course of action by UCOP is harming the University's reputation with tribal communities in California and across the nation, and that those of us who rely on the trust and cooperation of such communities to conduct our research will feel the consequences. I ask you to let me know whether you share this concern, and would be willing to collaborate in raising it with Lawrence Coleman, Vice Provost for Research in the Office of the President. If you prefer to speak by phone, you can reach me at (310) 825-4429.

Sincerely,

Carole Goldberg

Professor of Law

Director, Joint Degree Program in Law and American Indian Studies


The original of this letter can be found at

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/UnivHouse/

(look for Repatriation letter.doc)

In the current tribal newsletter, Jud King has bragged about all the claims the Berkeley Repatriation committee has recently handled. But some questions arise:
How many claims has the Berkeley Repatriation Committee dealt with? What is the outcome of those claims?

Well, if you are curious like we are, we suggest you send the following letter to Mr. King:

Interim Director Jud King
Hearst Museum of Anthropology
103 Kroeber Hall
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720


Dear Interim Director Jud King,

Hello, my name is [*] and I am a NAGPRA representative for the [*] tribe. Per California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250-6276.48), I am writing to request copies of the complete minutes from the meetings of the UC Berkeley Repatriation Committee meetings for the 2008 calendar year. We hope the minutes contain who attended the meeting, who the committee members were, how they voted on tribal claims, and the inventories, claims, etc. discussed in the meeting. If the minutes do not contain this information, I would like to know which documents do and I will then make a formal request for those.

I am willing to pay reasonable copying costs and postage. Your written answer to this request is expected in the next 10 days. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[*]

And by all means, let us know what you hear from Mr. King!

Does the UCOP Repatriation Committee comply with the California Public Records Act?

In last year's State Senate hearing, it became clear that the UCOP Repatriation Committee did not keep minutes of their meetings. As we come up on the one year anniversary of the hearings, it is time to find out if they are complying! Use the form letter below to find out:

Ms. Rebecca Landes
UCOP Repatriation Committee
Office of Research
1111 Franklin St.
Oakland, CA 94607-5200

Dear Ms. Landes,

Hello, my name is [*] and I am a NAGPRA representative for the [*] tribe. As a Federally recognized tribe, NAGPRA and repatriation are important to us. Per California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250-6276.48), I am writing to request copies of the complete minutes from the meetings of the UC Office of the President Repatriation Committee for the 2008 calendar year. I hope the minutes contain who attended the meeting, how it was held (phone, email, in person, etc.), who the committee members were, what they discussed, and how they voted on tribal claims. If the minutes do not contain this information, I would like to know which documents do and I will then make a formal request for those.

We are willing to pay reasonable copying costs and postage. Your written answer to this request is expected in the next 10 days. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

[*]

Just substitute your name and tribal affiliation where the [*] are. If you are not a tribal member, just change the sentence and let Ms. Landes know you want the information as a California resident. The UCOP Committee may have forgotten about things, but we haven't.

Prof. Tim White on NAGPRA and the events of 1995

Some more e-mail turned over by Ms. Sandra Harris for the State Senate hearings on February 26, 2008. Click on the images above to read Professor Tim White's views on NAGPRA and the events of 1995 (For another version of those events read the Luby report at http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com ).

"Appropriate" Native Americans

In the Spring 2008 issue of Catalyst (V. 3, No. 2), Robert Birgeneau says:

Says Birgeneau about King’s role, “At my request, Jud stepped into this difficult situation as interim director of the Hearst Museum. He has been extraordinarily effective in this role and now has us on a track which promises to resolve many of these problems; this includes especially seeking out appropriate Native American input.

NANC is intrigued on how Mr. King--a chemical engineer and University administrator--determined which Native American tribes had appropriate input and which ones did not? Was it based on the amount of human remains from their traditional tribal territory, or some other criteria? Or was it ones who agreed with Mr. Garcia's statement? Or did the input come from just Native Americans employed by the University? Why hasn't Mr. King invited input from all tribes which have human remains housed in the musem? Are he and the Chancellor worried they may hear something they don't like?

Anthony Garcia on Repatriation

In the minutes of the 37th Meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee meeting, it is noted in the Public Comment section that:

Mr. Garcia stated that he regularly has Native Americans tell him that human remains in the museum were from their tribe but they did not want them to come back to the tribe.

(see http://www.nps.gov/history/Nagpra/INDEX.HTM )

NANC would like to ask Mr. Garcia, which Native American tribes he has heard this from? Further, we would also like to ask if Mr. Garcia has totally forgotten his meetings/consultations with the Great Basin Coalition, the Tachi Yokuts, and Susanville Rancheria? Admittedly, these occurred before he became NAGPRA Coordinator, but one has to ask was he sleeping at the time of those earlier consultations?

Letter to UC President Yudof

This a copy of the recent letter sent by the Great Basin Intertribal NAGPRA Coalition (GBITNC) to UC President Mark Yudof. (Left click on the image to see it full-size.)

Press Release from the Tribal NAGPRA Alliance

Contact:
Reno Franklin, Kashia Pomo Tribal Council Member, 707-591-0580, ext.105; James Hayward, Redding Rancheria, 530-410-2875; Radley Davis, Pit River Nation, 530-917-6064; Mark LeBeau, Pit River Nation, 916-801-4422

Tribal Reps. Call on US Senate Indian Affairs Committee to Conduct Hearings on National Park Service and UC Berkeley (UCB) Transgressions of Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

Indian Country, Calif.—A recent financial review conducted by the Nat. Assoc. of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the Makah Nation on the National Park Service’s (NPS) use of NAGPRA funds, reveals that the agency has used more than $3 million in Tribal Government grants for purposes not covered by the law. NAGPRA authorizes the federal government to provide funds to Tribes to help them recover their ancestors and cultural property and to museums to assist them in repatriation.

The financial report, released on 8/14/08, indicates that the decision-makers of the NPS have used NAGPRA funds to support their administrative costs and other interests, including funneling money into the legal system to pay attorney fees to support scientists against Tribes in the Kennewick Man repatriation lawsuit. The report lists public data showing that from 1999 to 2007, Congress appropriated $21.9 million but the NPS only awarded $18.8 million to Tribes and museums. NPS took $221,000 from the program in 2002, $250,000 in 03, $255,000 in 04 and $342,111 in 05, $473,112 in 06 and $463,718 in 07. An additional $680,000 was taken in 05 to pay attorney's fees to the scientists who sued the federal government to study the remains of the Kennewick Man.

The number of repatriation grants awarded each year to Tribes has declined since 1999 as more funding is being inappropriately taken from the program by the NPS, while the need of Tribes to repatriate remains high.

In a related matter, Tribal reps. strongly recommend Robert Birgeneau, University of California Berkeley (UCB) Chancellor, recommit to the dispute resolution strategies entered into between Tribes and the University since their meeting in April 2008. Tribal peoples have been concerned for decades about the UCB’s lack of effort to return their ancestral remains to their families for reburial. UCB warehouses over 10,000 Native skeletal remains in boxes in its Hearst Museum basement. UCB continues to refuse to consult with Tribes on their return as required by NAGPRA, especially those the University lists as “culturally unidentifiable”. Tribal peoples know their ancestral relatives, even if UCB does not. UCB must recommit to consulting with Tribes on the repatriation of these Native human remains.

UCB decision-makers informed Tribal reps. that their recommendation to remove a highly undesirable osteologist of the college from handling Native remains and participating in decisions related to repatriation would be honored. However, Tribal advocates have recently learned that this unwanted osteologist is back conducting business as usual. In this situation, UCB is highly disrespecting and dishonoring these deceased as well their living descendents.

Tribal reps hand-delivered a letter to Chancellor Birgeneau outlining many of their concerns and asked him to respond in writing and provide appropriate remedies. The Chancellor agreed to provide the response and the remedies within a couple of months. It has been six months and the Tribal reps are still waiting for him to fulfill these commitments. Among other details, the Tribal letter sites a report written by UCB staff and other evidence indicating that UCB scientists were not conducting their work in compliance with NAGPRA. A passage from the UCB report states:

“...virtually all human remains yet to be inventoried were determined
to be culturally unidentifiable, with no evidence supplied as to why this
was the case. Even more serious, however, and contrary to statutory
language, the inventory was not associated with evidence that consultation
with Indian Tribes had taken place, nor were associated funerary
objects listed. In addition, this inventory did not accurately reflect the
museum’s documents, and the descriptions of the
geographic and cultural affiliation of the human remains
listed were insufficient.”

In light of the ongoing National Park Service and UC Berkeley transgressions of NAGPRA, the Tribal NAGPRA Alliance is calling on the US Senate Indian Affairs Committee to conduct hearings on the transgressions and work to ensure these federally-funded entities comply with the law.

The "Luby" Report

A digital copy of the July 18, 2000 report by Dr. Ed Luby to Vice Chancellor Cerny
"Administrative Update on Compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)" is now available on-line at

http://nagpra-ucb-faq.blogspot.com/

This report describes how UC Berkeley got into forbearance, what they
did to get out of it, and the possible consequences thereof. This report was made public during the State Senate hearings on February 26th, 2008.

Prof. Nelson Graburn's concerns

Below is an e-mail submitted to the State Senate hearings on February 26th, 2008 by Ms. Sandra Harris. (As always, why is she submitting Kent Lightfoot's email to the State Senate?)

Left click on the message to read it full size