Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Good morning, everybody. Welcome. Before we begin today's hearing, I want to recognize the tribal affiliations of the land we are on, which includes the land of the Miwok, Nisenan and Patwins here along the Sacramento River. Again, welcome and thank you. This is a joint oversight hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, which I have the honor of chairing, and the Select Committee on Native American Affairs, which Mr. Ramos chairs.

At today's hearing, we will discuss the findings and recommendations from the audit report produced by the state auditor titled Native American Engraves Protection and Repatriation Act. The California State University must do more to ensure the timely return of Native American remains and cultural items to tribes. I want to start my recognition by thanking Assam Ramos for initiating the request for this audit and for the Audit Committee approving that audit request.

And I also want to acknowledge Mr. Ramos for taking the lead on this important issue and this sacred topic. Thank you again, Chairman Ramos. I also want to thank chairman of our Assembly Higher Education Committee, Assembly Fong, who is with us. Thank you, Assembly Fong. As you will notice on the agenda, we will hear from the state auditor, who will present the results. The facts found in the state audit. The state auditor will be followed by CSU campuses.

Unfortunately, the CSU was unable to provide its Interim Chancellor, the recently selected Chancellor, or the Chair of the Board of Trustees. However, we hope and trust that the CSU will be taking this topic seriously and giving it all the due attention at all the levels. With all of the state auditors'recommendations being directed at the Chancellor's office, attendance by a top level Administration would have set an appropriate tone for today's hearing.

On this panel, along with the campuses, we will hear from the Executive Secretary of the Native American Heritage Commission. The final panel will consist of several tribal leaders from across the state, and their perspective is certainly important and vital to this topic. In reading the audit report, I was surprised and saddened by how little effort the Chancellor's office and campuses had exerted over the last several decades. The Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, was enacted in 1990.

More than 30 years ago, cal NAGPRA was enacted in 2001, which permits California tribes without federal recognition to submit repatriation claims to the campuses. This audit found that more than half of CSU campuses have not repatriated any remains or cultural items. More than half of the 21 CSU campuses don't even know the extent of their collections, something that the federal law required 28 years ago. In reading the auditor's report, it seemed clear to me that the Chancellor's office was culpable for this lack of effort.

I'll admit that I liked what I read in the Chancellor's office response to this audit. That's why we're here today, to make sure that this commitment and action that was promised 30 years ago will actually happen.

I'm hoping that we will hear some specifics, specifics from CSU, the campuses, that will assure all of us that this will be done in an expeditious manner to comply with both the federal and the state laws and provide the respect and attention that is due to the remains and artifacts to California's sovereign nations.

I can't think of, as I said in my statement earlier today, I can't think of a more personal, meaningful thing to individuals or to people than ensuring that one's ancestral items and remains and belongings are given the dignity and the respect that we all deserve. I trust that we can all understand and appreciate this, and it is with that intent that we have this hearing and we initiate. And I'd ask First Chairman Ramos to share any opening comments before we go on with panels. Chairman Ramos.

Thank you, Chairman Alvarez, for that and thank you for assembling this joint audit. And I want to thank the auditors for their hard work on this audit that's coming before us today and the findings that are there and the need to identify legislation moving forward. I want to thank everyone for being here today, especially the tribal leaders whose voices have been left out of the equation when discussing this issue that are truly here today. And that voice is silenced no more.

But sadly, the audit findings do not come as a surprise after we've seen the UC audit move forward and the need for repatriation there. The Cal State University's audit doesn't come as a surprise to Indian country. We know that there still has to be respect, healing, and collaboration built.

Because when we start to see the findings in this audit, we've seen the obvious, that the Cal State universities, along with the UCS, need to be able to have that moral aptitude when dealing with remains of Native American people. California's first people that our ancestors are not some trophies to be highlighted in a classroom or even in the coutureial facilities where they're at. They are our ancestors. There are ancestors that continue to their voices continue to be heard to many of us. Many of us.

California's first people tell the State of California who we truly are, but also let's move forward in getting those reparations taken place. We talk about 700,000 Native American remains and artifacts. But when you see the charts behind us, you see that some universities have not even started the process and they have large remains in their arsenal and their conterial facilities, over 400,000 in some cases that have not even started the process.

So we know that that 700,000 number is only going to climb by being here today with our colleagues from both the Senate and the Assembly, that we know that this is something that the Legislature is taking very seriously, that 28 years ago it was left to the Cal States to move forward for repatriation. And today we find that less than 2% have been repatriated back. We want to understand the issues, but we also want to make sure that the tribal voices are being heard.

And why this is important why this is important to us is because California's First People, the voices that are there should not be locked up in a box. Our families and our tribal people need to know to be able to get those remains and conduct a proper reburial for our people. They shouldn't be paraded around in classrooms. They should not be something that's lower on the different top ten list, from Chancellor on down from the Cal State University System.

It's now time that California's first People and the issue of repatriation starts to move to the number one priority of the Cal State University system. So I want to thank all my colleagues for being here today as we move forward to ensure that the voices of California's first people is something that's not being lost in the equation.

It's here today, and it's going to stay at the forefront of this body, and we're going to start to see some resolve and some movement from the Cal State University system, along with the tribal communities here in the state of California. It's time that we bring our ancestors home. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chairman Ramos. Appreciate that. I'd like to give the opportunity to Chairman of the Higher Education Committee, Mr. Fong, to say a few words. Mr. Fong, your microphone. Make sure it's on.

Thank you so much to Chair Alvarez and Chair Ramos for inviting me today and as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, to participate in today's important joint hearing examining the State Auditor's findings on the California State University and its handling of the Native American remains and cultural items. I know that today will be a really robust hearing and to hear from the representatives of the State Auditor's Office, CSU campuses, the Native American Heritage Commission, and tribal leaders.

As you have heard from our prior speakers, there is much more work to be done to ensure that Native American remains and cultural items can be repatriated in an appropriate and timely way. Look forward to today's robust discussion. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chairman Fong. Would any other Members of either committee like to say a few words before we get started with the auditor? All right. Seeing none, then we will proceed with a few housekeeping items for everyone to be able to have an opportunity to understand the hearing of today, I'll ask panels to keep their presentations to the time that was allocated. Following each panel's presentation, Members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Then we will reserve time for public comment after the last panel's question and answer period. Members, are there any questions before we begin with the hearing? Seeing none, then we will begin with the first presentation. We will hear from our State Auditor, Grant Parks, on an overview of the audit report by the Auditor's Office and Laura Kearney, who was a principal auditor. Mr. Parks, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Chairman Alvarez, chairman Ramos, chairman Fong. I'm with Laura Kearney, who is the audit principal in charge of the audit assignment, here to talk to you today about our June 2023 audit report on CSU's compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. I prepared some brief opening remarks, but please, along the way, if you have any questions, feel free to stop me. More than happy to answer any questions you may have to begin. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

NAGPRA and its state counterpart, Cal NAGPRA, are intended to protect Native American grave sites and to create a process by which Native American tribes can request the return of ancestral remains and cultural items from governmental agencies and museums. Chairman Ramos and several other Members sought an audit of CSU's compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA, which has similarities in scope to my office's previous review of the University of California in 2020 that also found weaknesses in UC's repatriation efforts.

And our audit of CSU also follows an incident at San Jose State University, where a faculty Member posted a photo of herself holding Native American ancestral remains without gloves, along with making inappropriate comments about the collection that would ultimately strain relations between the campus and the tribe.

With the passage of AB 2836 in 2018, the Legislature declared that NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA are human rights laws and stated that the delayed repatriation of Native American remains and cultural items are incongruent with the state's values, which include a respect for the cultural resources of California and California's Indian heritage that have been expressed and memorialized in other state policies.

Chairman Ramos and other Members noted in their audit request that the issue of repatriation of Native American remains and artifacts is a long standing issue despite the passage of federal and state law, and hoped the audit would provide more information on CSU's efforts. Among the audit's objectives, the Committee directed my office to survey all CSU campuses to determine what remains and artifacts are still in their possession, along with information on what items have been returned.

We were also directed to select four campuses when we included Chico, San Jose State, Sacramento, and San Diego to determine more specifically their degree of compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. And the audit also directed my office to review CSU's system wide policies and procedures, as well as the level of oversight provided by the Chancellor's Office pertaining to compliance with both the federal and state law.

In summary, I'd say overall there's four key findings and observations that we made during the audit that I'd like to share with you today. The first finding is that nearly 30 years after NAGPRA's deadline, twelve CSU campuses have yet to fully account for their collections. Federal law generally required campuses to have completed their inventories by late 1995 and to report this information to the National Park Service.

We surveyed all CSU campuses and included questions about the size of their collections and whether or not they had repatriated any of their inventories as required. As noted on figure one on page twelve of our audit report, twelve campuses have not completed their inventories, and four of these twelve could not estimate for us the size of their collections, despite reporting at least 100 boxes of materials that were still in their possession.

Overall, the campus survey responses that we obtained indicate that there are nearly 700,000 items in CSU's possession, which may likely increase as more and more campuses make progress on completing their inventories. Of particular note, some campuses with the largest collections, such as Sonoma and Sacramento, have yet to complete their inventories. Campuses generally cited a lack of prioritization and dedicated funding for NAGPRA activities as the main reasons for not completing their reviews.

For example, Sacramento State acknowledged during the audit that it did not commit the funding and staffing resources necessary for completing its inventory, noting that from 1990 until about 2007, only one faculty Member was responsible for campus compliance, which was in addition to the employee's other course and Department workload. Most of Sacramento's work stopped from 2012 to 2015 because the campus lacked a collections manager during the audit.

The lack of campus prioritization that we saw at the places that we visited was a recurring theme that I think we'll show again in the remaining findings that I'll talk about in my presentation today. The second finding that we noted is that campuses have made little progress in actually repatriating their NAGPRA collections. Again, based on our survey, only one campus has repatriated the majority of its identified collection, which is Long Beach at 70%.

The next closest are San Francisco at 32%, San Diego at 19%, Sacramento at 5%, after which five campuses another five campuses reported repatriating 1% or less, while another ten campuses reported repatriating no items at all. Globally, our survey's results indicate, according to the CSU, that the system as a whole has repatriated just 6% of its collections. Several campuses again cited the lack of funding as a cause, as well as insufficient staffing and limited communication between campus leadership and academic departments who maintain these collections.

In some cases, campuses could not explain the delays. For example, CSU Northridge explained that after 1995, the campus did not proceed with repatriation efforts until the National Park Service informed it of its noncompliance 20 years later, in 2019. Northridge's staff could not explain why the campus had not followed through on its repatriation efforts. At another campus, Humboldt cited the lack of a repatriation coordinator until 2022 as the reason for its lack of activity.

Bakersfield's President explained that because the campus had relied on its academic departments to implement NAGPRA, campus leadership was not aware of the status of its collections, including any requests to return cultural items. Meanwhile, San Diego's last repatriation occurred in 2012, and campus staff acknowledged to us during the audit that they had not taken any proactive steps since then, such as regularly informing tribes of its collections to expedite their return.

In our view, these campus perspectives, along with the results of our survey, reinforce that CSU has not historically viewed compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA as a priority. Our third finding focused more specifically on campus compliance or non compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. One of the findings that show up in this area is that we noted that some campuses return remains without providing sufficient public notice.

Two campuses, Chico and Monterey, returned remains to tribes without informing the federal government and other tribes through required postings in the Federal Register. Both NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA require campuses to consult with tribes to affiliate the remains and cultural items in their campus collections, and federal law requires campuses to submit collection details to the National Park Service for posting in the Federal Register, allowing other tribes the opportunity to determine their own interests in the collection.

By not following public notice requirements, campuses increased the risk that tribes will miss opportunities to submit a claim for repatriation. Chico reported that it returned remains to a tribe in 2014 after the Anthropology Museum discovered the remains in a box labeled with the tribe's name. Campus staff could not find documentation explaining the specific circumstances for this return and noted that the faculty who were involved at the time had since retired. Chico staff also indicated that the Department was unaware of NAGPRA's requirements pertaining to repatriation.

Monterey returned items to a tribe in April 2022 without submitting the required information to the federal government. Campus staff and faculty explained at that time they had not worked on any NAGPRA repatriations and were unaware of the specific steps the law required. Monterey had identified three tribes that claimed origins in the area, but the campus only contacted two tribes with whom it had maintained relationships and subsequently only returned the items to one tribe who actually responded to their requests.

Monterey staff indicated that they subsequently became aware of NAGPRA's requirements later in December 2022, after representatives of the Chancellor's office visited the campus and explained NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA's requirements. We also found that six campuses did not consult with tribes as required before reviewing their collections.

The 2020 amendments to Cal NAGPRA require campuses to consult with tribes before conducting new or additional inventory work, and this requirement is intended to allow tribes to communicate handling preferences and other information to ensure the respectful treatment of their ancestors'remains and cultural items. The six campuses that we noted that did not consult with tribes before reviewing their collections were Fresno, Fullerton, Humboldt, Monterey, Bay, Northridge, and San Diego.

San Diego explained that it was focusing on providing its inventory to the Native American Heritage Commission per Cal NAGPRA, and subsequently learned in a workshop that the NAHC and California tribes were required to be consulted before the inventory process. Northridge explained that it reviewed and inventoried its collection prior to consulting with tribes because it wanted a full understanding of its collections beforehand. Further, four campuses have yet to provide their inventories to NHAC, Fresno, Fullerton, Los Angeles and Monterey.

These campuses gave varying reasons for not reporting, ranging from lack of awareness of the requirements to technical reporting problems or a focus on completing their inventories. The last finding and observation I'll leave with the committee before responding to any questions you may have is that we noted that campuses generally lack policies, dedicated funding and staffing necessary to support repatriation.

None of the four campuses we visited have established a comprehensive repatriation policy, and we identified areas within their draft and Department specific policies that did not reflect best practices. When multiple academic departments on a campus maintain NAGPRA collections, having consistently applied thorough and well understood policies can better ensure campus compliance and provide a more consistent experience for tribes.

Some examples of gaps in campus policies relative to the best practices we identified include missing dispute resolution policies that define how tribal representatives can appeal decisions to a party separate from the campus repatriation team, a lack of restrictions on the acceptance of new collections and the loaning of collections to other entities, incomplete public transparency and communication policies such as maintaining a public website devoted to NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA compliance, and easy to find contact information for tribes.

And further, we noted that only eleven of the 21 campuses with collections reported having a campus committee to provide oversight and accountability of repatriation activities, and further, just four of these eleven committees include Native American representatives who are independent and external to the campus. We believe including tribal representation can help strengthen collaboration between the CSU campuses and Native Americans. Since 1990, the Chancellor's Office has delegated responsibility for compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA to each campus and has not established university-wide policies.

In 2006, the Chancellor's Office reiterated that it had no plans to provide guidance to the campuses. More recently, in 2021, it has started to provide some support, such as by issuing a memo to campuses, clarifying inventory requirements, and later hiring a Systemwide cal NAGPRA project manager in 2022. However, we believe the Chancellor's Office is best positioned to play a much larger leadership role towards ensuring a more consistent, timely, and accountable repatriation process across the CSU system.

Some of our recommendations, all of which are substantially directed to the Chancellor's Office given its authority, include the Chancellor's Office needs to monitor campus efforts to finalize their inventories by December 2024, while ensuring campuses properly engage with tribes. The Chancellor's Office also needs to issue a systemwide policy establishing consistent repatriation practices and staff training requirements in consultation with California tribes and the Native American Heritage Commission.

Further, to ensure better oversight and accountability, the Chancellor's Office should establish a Systemwide NAGPRA Committee by December 2023 and require campuses to periodically report their repatriation activities to this committee. The Chancellor should also require individual campuses with more than 100 items to establish their own committees and to better ensure timely repatriation. Each campus with more than 100 sets of remains or cultural items should also ensure that they have full time repatriation coordinators by June 2024.

And finally, the Chancellor's Office must require each campus to determine their funding needs to complete repatriation in a timely manner, determining whether CSU's existing financial resources are sufficient. We also made one legislative recommendation that would require CSU to report to the Legislature annually on the status of completing its inventories, consulting with tribes, and the actual repatriation of human remains and cultural items. In closing, I'd like to say that the CSU system was cooperative and forthcoming during the audit.

CSU's Interim Chancellor indicated that CSU plans to implement each of our recommendations, including creating system wide policies and oversight. My office will continue to monitor the CSU system at six months and one year following our report's release. And with that, either I or Laura would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you to our state auditor. Mr. Parks. Appreciate the report, very well outlined, and I want to open it up now for questions. I have some, but I want to give the opportunity first to colleagues who might have questions for the auditor looking around. Let me then start. Okay, Mr. Ramos.

Thank you. Thank you for that report and knowing that you worked on the UC audit also, and with Laura now with the principal here, do we see similar things that we've seen in the beginning of the UCS and now? How do we look at what we're looking at now as far as making recommendations moving forward?

Hi, everybody. My name is Laura Kearney, and I'm audit principal with the California State Auditor's Office. I worked on the two previous audits that we issued of the University of California's compliance with Cal NAGPRA and NAGPRA. Initially, when we first started our work there, we absolutely saw similarities.

Some of the changes that resulted in the University of California are because of the requirements that are set forth in Cal NAGPRA, such as establishing a system wide policy committees to oversee repatriation efforts at the campus level, as well as a system wide level, and also our oversight. We are required to perform two audits of their compliance with Cal NAGPRA and NAGPRA. We have seen improvements.

There's still a long way to go for the University of California, but we have definitely seen changes, and we are seeing more items being repatriated. When we got to the CSU and we reviewed the progress that they have made, I have to be completely honest, we were completely disappointed.

We believe that with the recommendations that we have made, which align with some of those requirements that are in state law for the University of California, such as establishing campus committees establishing a system wide committee, and most importantly, that system wide policy. We believe that the CSU will be on the right track to begin returning remains and cultural items to the tribes to which they belong.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And also, just to be clear, the audit actually looked at not the whole Cal State University system, but a sampling of some of the Cal State universities. And that's how we got to the number where we're at now.

Well, what we did is for the California State University audit that we're here to discuss today, we reviewed four campuses, as the state auditor pointed out, Chico, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Jose. The audit request specifically asked us to look at San Jose because of the issues with the faculty Member there, as well as Chico. I imagine it's because that's where the CSU project manager of overseeing NAGPRA is housed. We also surveyed, though, all of the campuses that have collections.

21 of the 23 campuses have collections. And we present our survey results in the back of the report. The information that's behind you, Assembly Member, you have figure one, you have table two. That information is not only taken from the work that we performed at the four campuses, but that information is based on the survey responses that we received from each of the 21 campuses that we survayed.

We believe the information they have provided is forthcoming, and we verified it against evidence that was available to ensure that the information they were reporting is accurate. I do want to point out that the fact that there are four campuses on the bottom of figure One that have yet to go through their collections and identify what their inventory sizes even are, is, again disappointing. They have told us that there are remains and culture items in at least 100 boxes within their storage units.

This is something that we need to resolve and we need a remedy. And we are hopeful that by the CSU implementing our recommendations, that it happens in a timely manner.

Thank you. So the number that's been presented in the audit, close to 700,000 Native American remains, cultural artifacts, because of not being able to go through the full, the work hasn't been done. Do we believe that that number will only grow?

Absolutely 100%. You only have twelve campuses that have completed the inventory process where they are actually assessing how many remains and cultural items are in their collections. Some of these campuses have no idea what they're dealing with. There could be thousands more.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Let me ask some further questions about that and what is obvious or should have been stated at the beginning is audits are about facts and not about opinions. And the facts in this case speak pretty loudly and clearly about the lack of work done to respect federal and state law. And so we are focused on the facts and on making sure that those get addressed. And that's why we're having this hearing today.

That's why the audit was requested and that's why, as was recommended by the auditor, we will have follow up at least on an annual basis to ensure that there is progress.

But I wanted to see if perhaps there is a little bit of ray of hope in all of this really unfortunate findings that you came across and want to ask to see if you were--were any of the campuses, particularly as it relates to the only twelve that have completed--the ones that have not completed, was there any indication that they were on a pathway to completion as it relates to the accounting of artifacts and remains?

Yeah, sure. Because we visited Sacramento State and they are still in the process of inventorying their collections, I can speak to them most accurately. They now have the funding that they need. They believe they have sufficient funding and have identified it to fund the positions necessary to go through the collections, to consult with the tribes that are affiliated with those collections and to return them. Yes, there is hope and Sacramento is a good example of that.

Thank you. And what about on the issue of the committees at the campus level?

That's a little bit of a mixed bag. It is important that the campuses do have committees that can oversee the repatriation of their remains and cultural items and that includes reviewing the claims that are submitted by the tribes to make sure that the remains and cultural items are returned in a timely manner. One of the things that we believe is of critical importance is that the committees have independent tribal perspective on each of their committees.

This means a member from a tribe who is not affiliated with the university serving on that campus committee. That's where a lot of room for improvement exists. And so again, lot of work to do as it relates to having and establishing campus committees, especially those with tribal perspective that's independent.

What about on the funding front for the personnel that's needed in order to accomplish this?

Yeah, so one of our recommendations was essentially the CSU system needs to figure out how it's going to fund its efforts. Clearly more effort needs to be done. One of the things that I was perusing before coming to this committee today is I believe the University has identified publicly that it has over 700 million dollars in reserve for economic uncertainties.

It's up to the CSU System as a whole and the Chancellor's office to decide how best to use that money, but one option might be to use some of that to help fully fund a complete NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA program.

Appreciate that. I asked those questions just in preparation for the next panel, which will be the folks responsible for implementing these and gives me good perspective, so I appreciate that. Yeah. Our Vice Chair of our Joint Legislative Audit Committee, Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I don't want to cut in line if you had somebody else who was--okay. Thank you. I appreciate the information that was provided today as well as what's in this report. And I would ask these questions of the Chancellor's office, but I see that they're not scheduled here to be speaking to us. So I'll ask you if you've had positive responses to the following things that were in the report.

So it says in here that the Chancellor's office plans to wait until the appointment of a new chancellor, which it anticipates occurring in July of 2023 before taking additional steps to increase its oversight of campus repatriation activity. Can you address that, please? Because that was last month.

So one of the things that we've, I think, obtained recently from the CSU is their 60 day response to the audit. And one of the things that we're seeing in their 60 day response is we're beginning to hear about draft policies being created. There are some other initiatives that are underway, but nothing has been finalized. Everything is still pending. So I don't want to leave you with the impression that absolutely no work is happening until the new Chancellor took office. But we're not yet in the position to say that any of our recommendations have gotten close to full implementation.

However, as noted in the Chancellor's and the CSU's response to the audit, they seem to be accepting of our recommendations. Laura, I didn't know if you had further comments on that.

No, the only other thing that I might actually add is that they do have plan dates of implementation for each of the recommendations that we made, of which we made eight. Most of these plan dates of implementation are December 2023 through about June 2024, so it is still out in the future that they will be implementing a recommendation. And as of note, the Chancellor, the future Chancellor, is supposed to be starting on October 1st.

And so, hopefully, with her leadership, they can prioritize these recommendations and implement them in a timely manner.

Okay, thank you. Yes. I would just like to highlight this additional date of December 2023, because that is a few short months away. So the Chancellor's office should, by December 2023, formalize its administrative structure, such as by assigning a position within its office, the responsibility of directly overseeing the work. So I wanted to just highlight that date, because starting in October, hopefully there's an effort for compliance with that dates coming right up.

Yes, that is our hope. And to the extent that they're not successful, that would be something we would be reporting on on our continual updates on the implementation status of our recommendations.

Okay, great. Thanks very much.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. Other questions from committee members? Senator Mathis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just quickly, you've given the recommendations. We're starting to see movement. We're starting to see talk. We're hearing the Chancellor say, 'okay, we're going to follow suit, but for all of us up here, we have to actually write the policy to hold their feet to the fire.' With the tools that we have in front of us, what are some suggestions that you see as best tools that we could use to make sure that they do follow the recommendations?

Well, the Legislature has the power to appropriate funds to the CSU. And to the extent that you don't feel like they're making adequate progress in implementing our recommendations, that's an opportunity for you to hold budget hearings or hold additional oversight hearings or to withhold or reduce the amount of appropriation that you provide to the CSU System each year.

And also, I would say that if I was a member and I was hearing the University say, 'we can't afford it,' I would be asking some questions about why do you think that is, especially given the reserves that you have. So I think there's a variety of tools that you have, but primarily it's the funding, it's the budget that goes to CSU, and that's your primary lever.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto?

Thank you for providing us with the audit today. And speaking of this, and I hear a lot of the blame going on to the CSU System or their lack of action on this. But really what I'm also seeing is that--and it's not the fault of anybody here--we've had a legislature who has known that they put something in place 30 years ago.

Have there been any efforts within the first 10 years or the first 15 years to address what was happening with a program that we put in 30 some odd years ago? Because I know there's been some efforts on the part of people out there that were affected--the tribes that were affected--to have this address, but it never got addressed.

So as much as this might be a failure of the CSU System, it's also a failure of the legislative body not to follow up on yet another piece of legislation that they put in place. Would you say that's a fair statement?

I think some of the follow up, as you put it, comes from legislative audits like this that allows you to see what the status of the collections are. Another piece of the story that I think came out for us during the audit is when NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA were much earlier on in their lifecycle, we saw campuses trying to figure it out, trying to request guidance from somewhere. Consistent approaches.

And unfortunately, at that time, prior Administration in the Chancellor's office, they decided not to provide that level of oversight and guidance. I think if the CSU System was better positioned all those years ago where everybody was marching under the same rules and they were having discussions that hopefully we're having now about not just what the rules are, but how are we going to pay for it, how robust of a system are we going to build? I think those are the kinds of the discussions that needed to happen much earlier in the process and that's hopefully what the CSU is about to embark on now.

But I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that campuses weren't trying to do anything. I think a lot of campuses were trying to come to the table and get CSU Chancellor's office more on board in the leadership role.

But it's still up to the Legislature to make sure they follow up on and maybe sooner than 30 years later.

And I'm glad that we're doing this, because really what this is about is to figure out how we go from here forward and get it done in a much more expeditious manner. And I'm hoping that's what we get out of this committee. Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you. And that is the work, certainly, of this committee. I appreciate those questions. Assembly Member Rubio?

So to Mr. Senator Seyarto's point, though, I think it's bureaucracy at its best, number one, and I appreciate that the CSUs have been trying to fix it, but also we went through 30 years of term limit where Assembly Members were here for six years, senators were here for eight. And I don't think it was intentional by the Legislature not to follow up, but that's why it's important that now that we have Assembly Member Ramos leading the charge and a bunch of our colleagues making sure that we do prioritize some of these issues is important.

But I also have hope now that the new Chancellor is being seated, that the organization is different. I have a saying that hope is not a strategy, usually especially in teaching, but the Legislature now being involved, as well as the new Chancellor being activated in this issue because of the audit, I think, might be finally what can help move these issues forward.

So I really appreciate the candid conversations about everybody's responsibility, not just blaming it on the CSUs or blaming it on the Legislature. I think we're all equally responsible for this.

And I think to Mr. Chairman Alvarez's point, that's why we're having these meetings and Assembly Member Ramos pushing on all of us, collectively pushing will get us there. So thank you for that, but again, you know, Senator Seyarto, we will take responsibility, but we also have to look to the CSUs to take responsibility for the lack of action. And I think that's why we're here. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblywoman Rubio. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm here today because I'm a member of JLAC, but I also chair the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education. And just in response to the exchange here, I'm confident we'll follow up, and I'm confident we'll list this in the items that we want to look at next year. One comment about CSU and their budget and any of you that were on the Senate Budget Hearing.

In our last hearing, I pointed out that of the three segments of higher education, I think they're the one right now that's most challenged fiscally. They have labor contracts coming up. They haven't been able to keep up with inflation, much less the salary studies on the labor contracts. And they're really challenged. And it is going to be up to us, completely separate from this issue here, to make sure they have adequate resources just to operate.

And they're looking at tuition right now, which is painful for all of us to have constituents going to CSU. The difference about this is that I think this involves one time expenditures. And while the CSU problem is really an ongoing thing, this is the opportunity to do some appropriation that addresses this singularly and prioritizes it.

And so I think that I'm not looking forward to next year's budget, particularly because if we have another year like this one, it's not going to be a pleasant experience for all of us to go to. But I just think we will have this on the table. And Senator Seyarto's comment, this is something we will have to bring up every single hearing, every single year until the pressure is felt and there's progress made. People advise me or question me for advice on hiring lobbyists.

And one thing I always say to them is, Legislature isn't here Friday, have a standing meeting on Friday, and they will all hustle by the time we leave on Thursday before Friday to make sure they've done stuff and have the ability to report. If we do the same thing in education hearings on this subject, they will know that they're going to have to present regularly, and they will have to have some update that shows progress.

And so us institutionalizing it that way will be one of the best follow ups to this audit. Thanks for the opportunity to make a comment.

Thank you, Senator. Assembly Member Fong.

Thank you, Chair Alvarez. Thank you for the really robust presentation here today. And as we heard from different recommendations, a systemwide committee, we heard different numbers on Long Beach State at 70 percent and many campuses at zero to one percent.

And when we look at systemwide guidance and oversight to the 23 campuses with the new Chancellor starting soon, in addition to the systemwide committee and liaisons and the budget request, what are some other approaches or recommendations you think, in addition to the ones you listed, that we can continue to push and to expedite this process?

I think beyond policies. Another thing that needs to happen at the CSU campuses is the staff on the ground really need to be trained and educated on what the requirements are. And so I would start there. It's not just the Chancellor's office or the CSU as a whole putting policies together and just saying that you're done.

I think an equally important part of this is making sure that there's a training program for those people who are in the Anthropology Department or who are in the museum, who are the people who are holding the keys where the boxes of items are stored and secured, that they understand what the expectations are and they understand what the process is too. Because just putting something on paper and saying you have a policy isn't going to get it done.

It's going to require people to actually internalize and understand what that expectation is.

Thank you. Senator Wood.

Thank you. And thank you again for the audit and the information. As I'm sitting here and thinking about mentioned Cal Poly Humboldt and mentioning you mentioned and see it in writing here, that they say one of the reasons they haven't done this is a lack of funding. So I'm reflecting to what Senator Laird has said. Is this a lack of dedicated funding for this? Is this a lack of university funding or a lack of priority?

Obviously, some areas are going to have potentially more of these remains with them. And so not every campus is going to have it's not proportional, obviously. And then some campuses have more of a capacity for looking at these remains. For example, Cal State, Chico that has forensic anthropologists and others. Is it meant to be dedicated funding or is this a measure of an overall lack of funding for the university system? Or I guess we go back to a lack of leadership.

I think step one is for the campuses and the CSU to determine how much is this going to cost, and then get into discussions about where is the funding coming from? Is this stuff that we can absorb, is it a request we have to go to the Legislature for what's the time horizon for repatriating, all these things? Do we need funding over three years, over five years? Can we do it in one year?

Those are questions that our recommendation leaves to the CSU to figure out, because they're the ones that are closest to it and are best positioned to understand what their resources are.

But of course, it's going to take some oversight, as Senator Laird was speaking about, in terms of making sure that you are holding CSU accountable in budget discussions to make sure you do see progress on the repatriation happening, and asking those questions about how much are you investing in this activity, CSU, and why do you think it's enough? And I'm looking at it was 6% when the audit went out, and now it's only 12%. So shouldn't you be investing more and why aren't you?

Those are the kinds of questions that I would expect the Legislature to be asking during these budget hearings.

Thank you. I also want to note that there will be a 60 day response from CSU, which we have not seen yet, but I know you referenced to it, and I think that last point you made really gets to where I think we need to be, which is what is the plan? What is the timeline? I know you referenced a timeline december of this year through June of next year. Does that mean implementing everything?

So I think we'll have to see that, and we'll ask those questions of the next panel as well. So I'll leave that question to them. Mr. Ramos will make our final remarks, and then we'll move on to the next panel.

I just want to thank the auditors for your hard work and starting with the UC systems, where we had several hearings here in the state Legislature holding them accountable for policies that were instituted. And during those hearings, we would have hoped that the Cal State universities would have seen that and took kayed and started to move forward in that process. Now, it took an audit of the Cal State universities to bring us to the table here today.

So there has been ongoing hearings of holding people accountable for policies and laws moving forward. And I want to thank you for your hard work on the Cal State University's audit. And with that said, it's really to bring to the awareness of the community colleges that they see these hearings going on. They should take heed and start to look at their remains and repatriation items that need to be repatriated back to tribes. So thank you again for your hard work.

Again. Thank you, Mr. Parks. Thank you, Ms. Kearney, for your work on this, and I'm sure we'll be hearing more from you in the future. We will move on to our next panel. We have six individuals, representing five of them representing universities, and we also have the Executive Secretary of the Native American Heritage Commission. I'd ask you to all please step forward and take one of the seats here.

And we are going to start with the testimony from Sylvia Alva, the interim President of California State University Fullerton, followed by Amir Deberian, provost of CSU Fullerton, Steve Perez, President of CSU Chico, Min-Tung "Mike" Lee, President of Sonoma State, and Luke Wood, President of CSU Sacramento. So we'll go in that order. I will ask if you can keep your remarks to three minutes and I will set my timer and then just let you know when it's time to conclude your remarks. So thank you again, all for being here. And we'll start with Ms. Alva.

Good morning, Chair Alvarez, Chair Ramos, Members of the Committee and tribal representatives, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, along with my university colleagues regarding the California State University's commitment to full and timely compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, known as NAGPRA, and in its state counterpart, Cal NAGPRA. First and foremost, the CSU would like to acknowledge our university sits on the territory of indigenous peoples, past and present, who have stewarded this land throughout generations.

I am Dr. Sylvia Alva, and I have had the privilege of serving as Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs at the office of the Chancellor for the past two years before becoming Interim President at Cal State Fullerton this month. I'm joined today by Presidents Dr. Luke Wood, dr. Mike Lee, dr. Steve Perez, and Provost Amir Dabirian, who will provide additional details on immediate actions at the university level.

As I begin my remarks, I wish to extend the regrets of CSU Interim Chancellor Jolene Kester, who intended to be with us today, but regrettably had to address a family medical issue that could not be avoided. She has asked me to relay her deepest respect and regards and to speak on behalf of the CSU Chancellor's Office. Today. I represent the CSU not only as a first generation graduate of the CSU, but as a faculty Member, Dean, and university leader for more than 30 decades.

Sorry, 30 years. Three decades feels like a long time. I have proudly served three California state universities Fullerton, Northridge, and Pomona, and I've devoted my entire professional career to empowering students of all backgrounds, to achieve fulfilling and impactful roles in their workforce and community, and to serve as agents and leaders of positive change.

In my most recent role as Executive Vice Chancellor, I had the duty and honor of helping our universities advance actions to comply with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA, as well as to ensure a comprehensive and timely response to the state audit. Allow me to clearly, directly, and humbly state that the California State University fully accepts the findings and recommendations of the audit. This is much more than an administrative or legal requirement for us.

Our university is dedicated to respecting and honoring Native tribes and to fostering amicable and productive relationships and meaningful consultation on repatriation and other issues in the future. Without question, we have fallen short. The CSU must do better not only to quickly and reverently return remains and artifacts that have been housed on our universities for far too long, but to more purposefully demonstrate our alliance with California's Native tribes and to earn and strengthen and your trust.

We fully grasp that repatriation is a just and sacred act that returns the ancestors and loved ones to their rightful homes and to their families. And we recognize that the cultural items that have been in our possession are irreplaceable links to the rich histories and contributions of California's Native tribes, as well as tangible treasures that help keep those vibrant cultures alive.

But as the audit clearly details, our universities have lacked the policies, dedicated funding, and staff required for full and timely repatriation, as well as the system level oversight needed to effectively advance progress. To remedy this, we are holding ourselves accountable for immediate implementation of the audit's recommendations. To this end, I'm pleased to announce that Dr. Thomas Morales, President of California State University, San Bernardino, for the past decade, has agreed to serve as the Presidential Advisor to the Chancellor's Office to ensure compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA.

President Morales is with us today and in partnership with the Native American Heritage Commission, the Chancellor's Office will also establish a Systemwide Oversight Committee with tribal and university representation by December 2023. This committee will coordinate appropriate consultation with California tribes in the development of a systemwide policy and procedures, as well as system wide training for faculty, staff, and campus leaders on cultural sensitivity and the necessity and appropriate methodologies for repatriation.

We'll require each of our universities with 100 or more sets of remains or cultural items to establish a Nagba Committee and to have a full time, experienced Repatriation Coordinator on staff by June of 2024. Through meaningful, timely discussions with local tribes regarding respectful and reverential protocols for handling and identifying remains and cultural items. All California state universities will immediately launch a full review of their collections and complete this inventory by December of 2024.

To provide for the most efficient stewardship of government funding, the CSU will seek out grants and master contract agreements with other state and federal agencies, such as Caltrans, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate and expedite similar repatriation efforts. And going forward, we'll submit a comprehensive annual report to the Legislature on the CSU's system wide progress in these matters.

If you could close, please.

Thank you. Chair Alvarez, chair Ramos and Members of the committee. You have my pledge that the CSU's Chancellor's Office will take urgent action to ensure compliance. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this afternoon. Now I'd like to introduce Dr. Amir Dabirian, the provost at Cal State Fullerton.

Dr. Alva, thank you very much. That was well over the three minutes, but you were providing very direct information that I thought was really pivotal to the Committee, so I appreciate that. I'd ask the others if we could try to not repeat, obviously, what's already been said and provide new testimony in your so. Thank you. Dr. Dabirian, please. Go ahead.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair Alvarez and Member of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Chair Ramos and Members of Selected Committee on Native American Affairs. My name is Amir Dabirian, and I have the honor of serving as a Provost at California University Fullerton since March of this year. I am the campus head designee for NAGPRA and Cal Nagra, with direct oversight of the project since June 2023. And with me today is Megan Lunsky, who is the campus repatriation coordinator at Calcifyerton.

We hold ourselves accountable, and to do so properly, we must acknowledge where we are and where we were and where we are today, as well as how Calcifyerton plans to move forward. I'm here today not just to demonstrate our compliance with the state and federal laws, but to express our deep appreciation for the spread of why we need to do this work and how we will correct our past mistakes.

Kelsey Fullerton understand the importance of California State Audit, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here to share with the Committee our ultimate goal and progress to repatriate ancestral remains and their possessions and other cultural items with our deepest commitment to do so swiftly and respectfully. Calcifyerton is the only California State University in Orange County, and as such, it had a good goal to become the site of permanent research collection of Orange County archaeology.

As a result, Cal Sepuartun amassed a large collection through the acknowledged archaeological exfocations and acceptance of private donations. Currently, Cal Sephoratun houses over 3500 archival boxes with a collection that made up materials from approximately 274 sites and donations. These collections do include ancestral remains with at least 213 ancestors housed at CSUF, including 40 housed on campus. By loan agreement with estate and federal agencies, there are 134 boxes currently identified by tribal Members as holding culturally sensitive items.

Calcifying is engaged in returning those sensitive cultural items and ancestry men we are committed to containing to implement our plan for complete repatriations and recognize that this work must be done with guidance with our tribal partners. In term of the timelines, a three to five years estimated goal is anticipated for a campus to significantly reduce the size of collection with ancestral remains as our priority. We expect respectfully to return the remains of 13 ancestors by end of December 2023.

This process requires and deserves dedicated staff having a full time reputation coordinator, as well as support of the staff made to provide for our campus to not only initiate more consultation, but to build relationship for trust between our university and tribal representatives. I would like to share with you the most recent. On August 4, 2023, Calcifolerton returned the remains of an ancestor from Kings County.

Members of affiliated tribal visited our university to take possession of our ancestor, who has been separated from her resting place for over 53 years. We are invited to observe and participate a blessing of the ancestor and us. It was true privilege to share in the beautiful ceremony and it will have a long lasting impact on everyone present, including myself. It was such a humbling firsthand experience to see the pain and trauma caused by institutional actions and our obligation to complete this essential work.

This was the first repetition since 1996 and why the second in Scalcer, Florida history. We are responsible for our goal for past practices and here responsible to carry on more of this process. And we are immediately to do so. What's right? We also understand, as indicated in the audit, Calciferton was one of the campuses that did not inaccurately consult with the potential affiliated tribes before reviewing the collection and missed the deadline to submit inventories to the Native American Heritage Commission.

I'm here to let Members of the committees know that we take full responsibility for this mistake and we now take a necessary step to make the things right. In the last twelve months, Calciforton since taking the following steps hiring a full time repatriation coordinator and a part time graduate assistant, and we are recruiting a full time project specialist, completed a box level accounting of collection. Calciforton has initiated consultation with approximately 50 tribes and we're currently holding monthly meeting with them.

We have convened an advisory committee that include independent tribal Members. We have drafted a campus wide repatriation policy with the input with independent tribal Members of the advisory committee to ensure the continuity and consistency of the procedures and reflection of the guidance principle for social justice to be accountable and transparent. We have launched an UpToDate public website to make available all known collection and their reputation, status and references to inventories.

And we have digitized over 15,000 pages of documents and made the record available through the consultation submitted inventories of all sites and known ancestors to NAHC, and we are hiring additional support staff to prioritize submitting the remainder of inventories and summaries quickly as possible. Although we have taken some steps forward, cal State Fullerton fully recognized that we are behind of the deadlines, and many of these efforts should have been done sooner.

I am here on behalf of Cal State Fullerton to take full responsibility for our mistakes and missteps and committed to dedicating necessary resources to create effective process for healing going forward. I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Dr. Dabirian. Dr. Perez.

Good morning. Chair Alvarez and Members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Chair Ramos and Members of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs. Thank you for the invitation to be here today. I'm Steve Perez, and I have the privilege of serving as the President at Chico State. This is my first chance to address any legislative body since being named President of Chico State on July 1, and it's my pleasure to be here.

First, I acknowledge that Chico State has been out of compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA for years and would like to apologize to all tribes and individuals who continue to wait for the repatriation of their ancestors and cultural items. Joining me from Chico State are Rachel McBride Pretorius, Director of the office of Tribal Relations and Don Ravalinsky, cultural artifacts specialist within the office of Tribal relations.

As the State audit noted, though not yet in compliance, the university has completed the very large task of reviewing its collection of more than 147,000 cultural items, of which 2612 are estimated to be human remains. The audit also noted that, quote chico State expects to repatriate a large portion of its collection soon. End quote. I'm happy to report today that we are currently in the process of doing that.

As of this morning, 532 ancestors and 87 935 cultural belongings are currently in the process of being legally transferred to the consortium of tribes that we have been in consultation with. This is the second largest repatriation to be completed in the history of NAGPRA. We are grateful for the detailed analysis of the California State Auditors report and the thorough approach of the State auditors with these findings. As the audit detailed, there are many challenges universities have faced in fully complying with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA.

Because of the sheer size of our collection, it has been a labor intensive process to get to this point. It is heartening to finally be able to show some real progress, regardless of whatever challenges exist we are committed to continuing this progress. Chico State is currently consulting with eight federally and non federally recognized tribes and will initiate consultation with additional tribes whose ancestors and cultural items are in the possession and legal control of the University.

The audit also recommended several best practices that Chico State either already had in place, such as a full time on site repatriation coordinator dedicated to managing this process, as well as recommendations we have implemented since the audit was published, including publishing a dedicated Cal NAGPRA website for transparency and a clear pathway to connect with tribes. Also, since the audit, we have formed a work group with the University's Anthropology Department and are working on updating our policies.

That process involves working with a tribal representative from the consortium of tribes regarding these important updates. Chico State also recently addressed culturally appropriate storage concerns by retrofitting a classroom and office space to appropriately house ancestors and cultural belongings. The move to the culturally sensitive storage space was in consultation with tribes and is secure with limited access. We are not yet in compliance.

However, it is not because the University has not prioritized the importance of this act, nor is it because we don't believe repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects to their lineal descendants is a critical human rights issue for Native American people. We absolutely do believe that. Rather, for Chico State, the biggest challenge to compliance has been the lack of accurate documentation for many sites, which is exacerbated by the utilization of differing numbering systems over time.

This has slowed the process considerably and creates obstacles in correlating how items have been labeled with their associated records, determining legal status, and physically locating ancestors and cultural items across institutions. We have also overcome challenges that field notes and inventories have been previously conducted and have found to be incomplete or inaccurate, which could create delays in initiating tribal consultation.

To give you an idea of the scope of this project and in some sense, whether this is a one time expenditure or an ongoing expenditure, the current repatriation progress that we are about to complete has taken more than three years, and that is with local tribes. As we move forward, we are consulting with tribes out of the area. Additionally, during this time, more collections have been located, even by conservative estimates, we are looking at many more years of full time work.

I do not want these clarifications to sound like excuses. We understand we can't truly say we honor Native communities until we have fully complied with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. We know repatriating tribal ancestral remains and cultural items is an essential demonstration of that respect, and it must be done in a timely and meaningful way that follows full federal and state guidelines, and we are fully committed to this effort. We look forward to continuing to make progress on our inventory that remains and sharing those updates.

Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, Dr. Perez. And now, Dr. Lee from Sonoma State University.

Good morning, Chair Alvarez, Chair Ramos and Chair Fung. I am Min Tong. Mike Lee, President of Sonoma State University, and it's a pleasure to be here with you. And let me start by saying that we definitely can do better. And we will do better. Sonoma State has top notch scholars in archaeology and who are most ethical, skill and consciences professional in their field. But improvements must be made with regard to our repatriation processes and practice.

The collection our possession has come to us from a variety of sources. Archaeological project led by Sonoma State are only a very small portion. State and federal agencies, private developers and other academic institutions submit collections to us for curation. Most have been created as a result of environmental and cultural heritage laws. For the past decades also, we have been the only facility in the region accepting new collections.

And without our curation service, they could end up in private office, storage facility and other unregulated locations without the care attention that they deserve. And though the review is not complete of all our collection, we have made significant strides in compliance with repatriation laws. First of all, as directed by AB 275, we have submitted to the NAHC summaries and inventory of all known collections within our holdings that contain potential Native California foreign cultural items. Second, we have contacted 141 tribal representatives from 114 different tribal communities.

This includes all contacts on the list provided to us by the NAHC. We have received so far 18 responses and have conducted 14 consultation meetings since the passage of federal Nacpura in 1990. Su has repatriated ancestral remains and items from 17 collections totaling remain of at least 168 individuals and 1077 cultural items.

And in addition to working toward repatriation of collections currently under Sonoma State control, SSU staff assisted other state and local agencies, including Caltran and Cal State East Bay, with their own napro and cow neck fraud compliance work. But clearly more need to be done. We have the expertise to do this right, and we have a plan for it. First of all, we have begun enhancing our campus Necpra Committee and Members of the Native American community for tribal representation.

Secondly, we have posted last Friday a full time Necro coordinating manager, and we are very optimistic we will have somebody on board very shortly. We also have a full time tribal liaison in addition to retaining the technical staff who are currently working on our collection. Third, we are creating a budget that includes funding for both SSU staff positions, operating expenses and funding for tribes, including an honorarium for participation in the Netpra Committee.

We're not permitting any research on potential Native American cultural items within our holding without express permission from appropriate tribes. So most tribes are fielding dozens of repatriate consultation requests like our own. If we truly want to make progress toward returning cultural items to our Carnivore and Indian communities. We will need to prioritize this work at multiple levels. We also look forward to continuing work closely with tribes, as full repatriation is impossible to achieve without their robust input.

SSU will work with all tribes and has no interest, no interest whatsoever in retaining possession of any cultural items to which the tribe makes a claim. Again, I thank you for inviting Soroma State to appear today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Dr. Lee. Appreciate your testimony. Next we have Dr. Wood, President from CSU Sacramento. Congratulations on your name as President. Please proceed.

Thank you. And good morning, Chair Alvarez and Chair Ramos and Members of the Committee on Behalf of Sacramento State, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on this critical topic. My name is Luke Wood and I serve as the newly appointed President of Sacramento State. I'm committed, along with my colleagues, to achieving timely and appropriate compliance with Cal, NAGPRA and NAGPRA. I represent Sacramento State's 31,000 students and approximately 3000 faculty, staff, and administrators.

Prior to serving as Sac State's President, I was a distinguished professor and administrator at San Diego State for twelve years. I'm also dedicated to creating a strong relationship with Sovereign Tribal Nations of the Sacramento Region. As the audit revealed, there's much more that we must do to ensure that our commitment to the repatriation process is fulfilled. We do have ongoing dialogue and regular consultation with the Sovereign Tribal Nations of California, including through our campus Nagpro Roundtables.

Currently, three external tribal representatives have been seated on the campus Nagpro Advisory Committee, including representatives of the Shingle Springs Band of Mimak Indians, United Auburn Indian Community and Yocha Dihi Wintu Nation. But that is not enough. We've had administrative and resource shortcomings for far too long, and we owe the Sovereign Tribal Nations of California a sincere and humble apology for how long they have been waiting for repatriation for their ancestors and cultural items. It is unaccessible, it is disheartening, and it will be changed.

We are committed to working with our tribal partners so that we can bring home their ancestors, funerary items and cultural objects that have been housed on our campus for far too long. Under the guidance of our campus NAGPRA Advisory Committee, we have begun to work on interim procedures. Importantly, we have recently allocated additional funds to focus on repatriation work and to provide tribal assistance in our region.

To date, roughly 73% of all ancestors and 49% of all catalog entries under the University's control have been claimed by Tribal Nation and will likely be repatriated within the coming year. This year, our campus has published an additional twelve notices in the Federal Register, with another four to be soon published. Additionally, we have finalized these inventories and summaries with the Native American Heritage Commission. For comparison, Sacramento State published 19 notices in the Federal Register between 2005 and 2021.

This tenfold increase is largely owed to AB 275. Sacramento State is actively consulting with tribal partners on over 90% of our collections. We are deeply committed to respectful and timely repatriation while engaging meaningfully with our tribal partners. Our campus takes seriously the critical recommendations of the state audits and is working to ensure compliance is met. We take full responsibility for the faults identified within the audit, and as recommended in the audit, we are dedicating necessary resources to create an active process for healing.

As we advance, we look forward to continuing our progress and our remaining inventory and sharing those updates. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Wood. Last on this panel, we'll hear from Raymond Hitchcock, the Executive secretary of the Native American Heritage Commission. Welcome.

...Esteemed committee Members.

I'm Raymond C. Hitchcock. I'm of Miwa'Kanishanam descent. I'm an enrolled Tribal Member of Wilton Rancheria. I've had the honor and pleasure to serve my Tribe as Tribal Chairman and now serve the State of California as the Executive Secretary of the Native American Heritage Commission. The state auditor reached out to the Heritage Commission during the initial phase phase of the audit to get our perspective on how the repatriation process was going regarding the CSU System.

We shared several instances of non-compliance, lack of Tribal consultation, lack of consistent policies, lack of dedicating to prioritize the return of ancestral collections, and the inappropriate handling of those collections held at California State Universities without proper Tribal consultation and input, as outlined in the AB 275 CalNAGPRA statute. We also brought up the now infamous case of San Jose University involving Professor Weiss and her inappropriate handling of ancestral remains, which triggered a strong response from the Native American Heritage Commission and the greater Tribal community.

All institutions who house ancestral collections and are subject to CalNAGPRA should take this very seriously. You've had more than 30 years to comply with NAGPRA, at least 20 years with CalNAGPRA, and now three years when AB 275 was enacted, further strengthening CalNAGPRA, and still there are far too many violations and clear disregard for the process that's outlined.

This continued lack of compliance prolongs the trauma and emotional pain Tribes feel and are a grim reminder of our history of genocide that shaped this state and the eventual desecration of so many sacred sites and burial grounds by archaeologists and university-led excavations without any regard to Tribal families those perpetrators stole from.

This policy of noncompliance needs to finally cease, and proactive efforts to return our ancestors need to be a priority. As the Secretary of the Heritage Commission, it's my mission to carry out the statutory requirements outlined in AB 275. Since its passing, the Heritage Commission has created a comprehensive reporting system for all institutions, including all CSUs with ancestral collections, to report them to Commission by April of 2022. Yet there are still several institutions, including some CSUs, who still have not complied.

Recently, we've made more robust changes to that digital tracking system to help both Tribes and institutions track and follow the repatriation process of over 17,000 collections that are uploaded on our database from start to finish. We're in the process of developing a comprehensive mediation training and certification program surrounding CalNAGPRA and restorative justice principles to assist with dispute resolution and mediation when they are required.

We're working to create best practices in a flowchart to lay out in a simplistic way the CalNAGPRA process for both Tribes and institutions to follow, and we'll be unveiling these in the coming weeks. These will be the precursor to draft CalNAG for process regulations. The auditor's data is clear.

Only six percent of the CSU collections systemwide have been repatriated. After the results of the CSU audit were unveiled, we contacted Dr. Mildred Garcia, the incoming CSU System Chancellor, to set up a meeting to discuss these shortcomings and see if we could be a resource to help change the paradigm of noncompliance of CalNAGPRA. She responded immediately, wanting to meet as soon as she takes office, the 1st of October.

An excerpt of her response are as follows: 'I respect and I'm humbled by the gravity of the situation and take the recommendations of the audit very seriously. The California State University commits to work closely with Tribal leaders and return ancestors and cultural items to the first people of California and beyond. It's not only a legal duty, but a moral obligation.'

We, the Heritage Commission, intend to hold Chancellor Garcia to her words. As we speak, the Heritage Commission is actively working on CalNAGPRA enforcement regulations to have the ability to levy fines and punitive damages when institutions such as the CSU System are non-compliant, defiant, or just plainly disregard the process outlined within the statute. We cannot wait for another law to be passed to hold these institutions accountable. Every institution and their respective leadership needs to actively step up and start making immediate change.

It's time to get all our ancestors accounted for and these institutions to do the hard work and Tribal consultation to get our ancestors back home to the Tribes and Tribal families where they belong once and for all. I'll be glad to take any questions from the committee members. Tenga-kamu. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate you being here.

Thank you all for your testimony. We are going to move on to questions from our members of either committee. Maybe I'll start with some perhaps basic questions. Maybe you can give me a better overview, Dr. Alva. Thank you for being here on behalf of the Chancellor's office and the system. You provided an overview about some of the steps that are being taken.

I want to maybe dig a little bit deeper into that issue and try to get from you as much as you're able to provide at this time, understanding that the Chancellor will likely provide us more when she takes the position in October. Let me ask about the, at the campus level first. Have you done an analysis survey of all the campuses in terms of identifying a coordinator, someone who will be directly responsible?

Does that individual already--I heard the Provost talk about the case of Fullerton, that there's someone that's been identified. Can you give me an overview how many of the campuses are in the same situation?

Thank you. So the audit was extremely comprehensive and very detailed in its analysis of system, as well as campus compliance with the NAGPRA policy. One of its recommendations is that when a university or a campus has 100 set of holdings, artifacts, that the recommendation is that there should be a full time coordinator. And we support that recommendation. And at the time of the audit, 15 of the CSU campuses needed a full time repatriation coordinate using that 100 artifact metric.

Many had part time or faculty individuals with responsibilities for this role. And what we're moving towards is compliance with the recommendation of a full time repatriation coordinator for those campuses that have more extensive collections. So there is work to be done on this front. This requires base dollars. These are permanent positions with benefits that will need to be added to the inventories at each of the universities, 15 of them currently at the printing of the audit.

Do you know if in the adopted budget for the universities, whether these positions were already included in their site-specific budgets?

So I can speak to the plan moving forward. The CSU plans in its 2024 budget request to include a budget request to support CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA repatriation activities and efforts.

Okay, so the 2023-24 adopted budget that we're currently operating under--right. My question is, though, the current budget that we are in, fiscal year 2023-24, does not necessarily include an approved member of personnel at every campus today, but you are anticipating that for the next year's budget, it will. So 15 of the university's sites still do not have a full time coordinator.

As of the printing of the audit.

And do you know as of today where that stands?

I think we are pretty close to that. Some campuses are making concerted efforts to add these staff members. These require national recruitments and finding people with the experience and the cultural sensitivity and understanding of this important work that's also very technical.

Let me ask President at Fullerton--Provost at Fullerton--did you, your Coordinator, is that someone that was just brought on or is that someone that you've had already, previously the audit?

It's been one year since our coordinators in place, full time repatriation coordinator, and we have a part time graduate assistant and we're in process of hiring a project specialist to work with her.

And you think that a combination of those three individuals is sufficient to allow you to progress expeditiously to repatriate remains and artifacts?

That is our plan at this point, yes.

Thank you, that's a good example. Back to Dr. Ava, have we done the same assessment on a campus by campus basis of what it's going to require?

So thank you for your line of inquiry. The System Office and the campuses are working on completing a framework called an Implementation Plan that will get at not just the personnel, but also the operating costs and the repatriation-related investments that will need to be made to ensure the timely return of these remains and artifacts back to their Tribal home.

And so we're in dialogue to develop that implementation plan and recognize that that work needs to be co-created with the Tribal community as well as the Native American Heritage Commission. There is a framework, there's an interim policy. What is lacking currently, and there's a commitment to complete, is the establishment of a systemwide oversight committee.

And we remain committed to the goal in the audit of a December 2023 date to constitute and build out that committee that will be really important in reviewing these data-collection tools to ensure that we are getting from the 23 universities--or not the 23--the 19 that have collections, accurate assessments of what kinds of investments are needed to repatriate. And then once those plans are looked at, aggregated in total, one can determine how much of that can be funded using campus dollars, system dollars, as well as potentially new requests for additional funding.

I want to better understand the implementation plans. It seems like this is where the facts of this audit will lead to a 'policies, procedures, and implementation,' as you phrased it, will occur to actually meet the intention of the law. I think this is the whole point of this hearing today is to know that, and I certainly don't want to leave today without having a better understanding.

You've mentioned that there will be budgetary requests for 2024, but you're also working on the Implementation Plan, which is going to lead you to understand what your needs are campus by campus and systemwide.

And so, I don't want to get lost in 'will we have the Implementation Plan in time for your budget request or not,' given that budget requests are coming in now to the Administration and the budget is already being developed for next year.

And then your Implementation Plan and your December date that you mentioned. So I just want to be more clear or as clear as can be as to where this is all leading to and how we're going to get to the end goal of being more timely. So the Implementation Plan, you believe that will be completed by when?

So we have asked campuses to work on that Implementation Plan. There's a framework currently in place. We are looking to engage with Tribal communities in policy and implementation matters. So we expect that governance leadership body to be in place by the end of this calendar year, first of the year.

In the meantime, the campuses have that framework and are using it as a heuristic to start to assess the size and the complexity of their collections and to anticipate what are the costs associated with repatriating those remains. So we're not waiting for those committees. We are honoring what is in the law and I think is the rightful role of the CSU to be working hand in hand with Tribal communities on both policy and implementation of the policy.

And we see the framework, the implementation framework, as an important artifact of that work.

Okay, let me ask, this is really an effort that needs to happen at the campus, at each individual campus. But as the audit pointed out, and I think you've acknowledged in your testimony, the oversight and the responsibility really lies with the system itself, the CSU System in the Chancellor's office. So for that to happen, we do need to have the sites, the individual campuses, be prepared. Has the Chancellor's office identified the responsible individual at each campus at all 21 campuses for NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA, and who's going to be responsible for ensuring that those two laws are actually followed?

What you're pointing out is, if we could borrow the Fullerton Example, clear identification of who the full time Repatriation Coordinator is, and as well as what I'm-

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the coordinators won't respond to the CSU System. They'll respond to someone on the campus. So my question is, does each campus have a responsible agent for this?

Yes. So what I was saying is that coordinator must report to a president or designee of the President in order for there to be that consultation and active engagement. And it's also why the Chancellor has appointed President Morales to serve as the presidential liaison to ensure that the presidents are active in this process and overseeing at the campus-level and ensuring compliance with the policy.

So that's clear to me from the Chancellor's office. President Morales will be the person responsible, obviously with the Chancellor being ultimately responsible.

Correct.

And at each of the 21 campuses, there will be someone. Are you telling me that at the moment we haven't identified who that is? Obviously, each individual president is responsible at each campus, but has there been a designee yet for every campus? Do you know whether that's happened or not?

I don't have those details at my fingertip, but you're looking here at several university presidents who I'm sure can address that. Absolutely.

As far as the four campuses, this is the one that really stands out to me that have in the--I don't know if these charts, oh yeah--these figures up here identify the four campuses: Monterey Bay, Stanislaus, Bakersfield, and Los Angeles. I don't want to leave them out. Where do they stand today? Can you give us an update from when the audit was done, as far as the inventory that's been done?

So you're asking me an important question, which I don't have direct answer for given my current role, but I can commit to getting this committee an update on those four university institutions.

Thank you, Dr. Alva. Appreciate it. I'll turn over to Chair Ramos.

Thank you, Chair Alvarez. And just some questions and some troubleshooting. When we did the UC audit, we identified a lack of a Native American voice on those NAGPRA coordinators, even on NAGPRA boards within the universities, whether they're at the local universities, campuses, or statewide. So I'm hearing a lot about the focus on NAGPRA coordinators, but who would fill those roles?

Are we looking for the Native American voice in the beginning, not an afterthought, to then put together a program and then have Native American people chime in on it rather than be part of the voice in the beginning? So could you talk a little bit about that on the statewide area, but also on the campuses themselves and how they want to or how they vision that moving forward?

And I am looking to ensure that the Native American voice is first and present moving forward in all these discussions.

Thank you so much for your question. I think it highlights a very important value proposition in the law, and that is that the Native voice must be an equal partner with others on these governance committees, whether they're at the system-level or at the university-level. The Native community--Tribal community--must be an active voice and partner in this work.

It is one of the reasons in all candor why we haven't moved forward in formalizing the interim policy that we have been working under because we haven't had a system-level governance structure that we could take then this draft policy and have it be reviewed and endorsed jointly by the Tribal community as well as the CSU academic community. So the presidents, the leadership team sort of has endorsed that as the auditor has indicated; it's been communicated through formal memos from the system office.

But it is an interim policy because it lacks what you've outlined is the shared governance that will require Tribal communities to be equal, important partners in helping us shape and implement that policy. It will happen with the establishment of a committee in December. Talking about the system-level at the institution level, I think what you're hearing from the testimony is that they're much further along in developing those campus governance structures.

But even at the draft policy-level, at the draft, I would say that Native American presence and voices need to be present within that drafting because what we're here talking about is an audit, right, from the Cal State Universities that has identified that there's a lot of work to be done. But who better to be a voice to understand the sensitivity of the issue that we're talking about here today than California's first people?

So, even though you're drafting policy, I would recommend that that voice be part of that process too. Because then, if that policy--that draft policy--is presented to Native American people in the state of California and it's not agreed upon, we slow the process down even more, more than the 30 years plus that we're here today.

So I would encourage that, and through the Chair, look at that as part of the policy coming back to us in December so we could see that the inclusion there, and any NAGPRA committees being developed, that there would be a balance of Native Americans on those committees. We'll look to the policy moving forward, but I would encourage that voice to be there. Chico State has reviewed and completed some of the areas there, 150,000 plus.

But also being truthful, and I believe you did allude to some remains that now have not been able to be identified, and so where do we go? That's another process. We're talking about in a draft policy statewide. But now we're dealing with a campus that did move forward but still is being truthful, and there's some remains that now can't be identified or where are they? So that's the next step: where do we find those remains that now we can't seem to understand where they're at? Right?

And moving forward at Chico State, it seems that there was a stronger focus from the top down, from the president's level to the system at the campus to make this a priority. Is that something that has happened there as opposed to what's going on the statewide where we're talking about policies now to govern statewide?

I don't know that I can compare what we've done across the system, but what I can say is, as I said earlier, I came into my position July 1st.

Okay.

But I was the Interim Provost prior to that, and I knew the previous President, and we've got a pretty well established office of Tribal relations. And so I believe we have a very, very strong commitment. I know our former President had an exceptionally strong commitment to this effort to appropriately working with our local Tribes and honoring what we ought to be doing, and so I know that commitment existed prior to my taking office. And I have the luxury of walking into a very good structure, I believe.

I now carry that same commitment and will continue that progress moving forward. I'm happy to answer any questions about how we are set up or what our structures are, if that would be helpful.

Thank you. And it seems that there was a focus from the top level at Chico's campus, Sonoma State. I know you wanted to chime in on some of the past questions, but we see that Sonoma State has not completely reviewed and has, according to the charts, the highest remains and artifacts that are there with over 185,000.

So the question also--and feel free to answer the question prior--but a question that I'm going to follow up on, Chico State seemed to have direction from the top down to make it a priority. And has that at Sonoma State been a barrier to complete the task at hand?

Well, I wouldn't call it a barrier because first of all, there is a very strong determination to get through this. We will do it. And even though I have very short period of time at Solomon State, but it's very clear to me this campus, as related to your previous question, been working very closely with the Tribes around us on multiple, multiple projects. One quick example is the Fairfield Osborn Preserve, which is on Native American land and we've been working with the Tribe very closely, including having the Tribal Cultural Monitor on the site every single day making sure that everything we do are within the compliance.

So we have a determination and practice of working with them. This is just matter of making sure that same principle is applied to this particular, very important project. And we have been engaging Tribes in there. And as you can see, in our collection it's over 114 different Tribes. It's certainly a pretty large, daunting number.

As for the reason why we have such a high collection, it's really partly or mainly because SSU has a traditional, very strong archaeological program that have trained many generation of experts who have the ethics, the professionalism to do it in the most respectful way. And that's part of the reason that a lot of times the other institutions, we refer them to SSU so that they can be in very good--and with sincere number, it's going to take a while.

But as I mentioned, we are not only putting in the resources, making sure that we have the coordinator, but as a matter of expanding to go beyond what we have been already doing with the Native Tribes Community. So again, let me tell you, even though I'm pretty new there, I am very embarrassed by what happened there. And again, my sincere apology to all the Tribes for what not able to do it sooner and more.

Thank you. Thank you for the honesty on that with the over 185 still that needs to be processed and reviewed. Thank you to Chico State and other universities, Cal States, moving forward on this. We do need a statewide policy that then would govern and be consistent on the local campuses. I believe that the willingness here that we're hearing and we're going to be following up to keep track on what's there.

Certainly, when we read the report, it was very appalling to see, but then to hear those on this panel talking about commitment to change, commitment to work together, moving forward, but still we can't leave out the voices of California's first people in the drafting of policies moving forward. We have to make sure that's there and hopefully by this hearing that it does become a top priority, top down on every campus on the Cal State University System.

We did have an audit on the UCs. We now we have an audit on the Cal State University System where it's unconscionable knowing that this should have been done. But I would also put out there for those listening that we dealt with the UCs, we're dealing with the Cal State Universities. It's time that also the community colleges take notice of what's going on. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. We have Assembly Member, Quirk-Silva. To make some questions?

I want to thank everybody for being here. This has been very comprehensive, not only from the auditor, but of course, for those of you who are sitting on this panel, and I appreciate it. What I'm getting out of this and I have been involved with more than a few audits throughout my term here. And I'll just say for the record, nobody likes audits. I mean, nobody wants to hear of an audit.

And yet they're effective in the sense that many times it reveals next steps; many times it reveals actions that can be taken to correct issues. So I do appreciate all of the speakers up here who made a bold apology to the Tribal community. And certainly that's the beginning, respecting the community, restoring what we need to to, in essence return artifacts that in many communities it has caused trauma for decade. So the beginning certainly is that apology and that commitment to do better.

And I think that what I'm hearing here is there is a variance across the system of how much progress has been made from campus to campus. And yet what is incredibly important is a system-wide approach. But what I'll just end with is, it is about rebuilding once these steps have been made. It's about restoring trust in the community. And that's going to take time, as was noted. It's going to take resources, as was noted.

But we certainly are now at the place with this audit where this topic has been elevated not only to the presidents of the campuses, but also to the Chancellor's office. I have a very large affinity for the new Chancellor coming in, as she was the former Chancellor at Cal State Fullerton. And certainly we have two CSU individuals here representing Fullerton, which I represent.

So I'm confident that these steps will take. I'm sorry to the Tribal community that it has taken so long, but now we know what we need to do. And now the next steps are to follow the path forward, to restore and to rebuild. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. We have Assembly Member Mathis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And for brevity, I'll keep it short, and I want to kind of tie into what Chair Ramos had said with really making sure that that voice is at the draft-level. But I want you to understand, when you're talking about Tribes, you're talking about sovereign nations.

And I'm a military guy, so I think about when we got to go get our remains of our soldiers overseas, how that's handled and the importance of how that's handled in that when we do these things, you don't ask the foreign country, 'hey, handle our remains the way you want to.' It's done the way we want them to handle it.

So as these policies are being drafted, that voice of those sovereign nations--because the Anthropology Department might be great; it might be the best one ever--but the way they do it may not be completely the way the Tribe wants it done. And it's not about doing it the way the Anthropology Department wants it done. It's about doing it the way the Tribe wants it done. When we think about burials and things in the modern age, right, some people want to be buried in a casket.

Some people want to be cremated. These are very sensitive things. And it needs to make sure that to the point at that drafting-level, at the fabric of this policy, it's taken in there. Not you all go and do the policy and then come back and say, 'hey, what do you think?' It's got to be from the beginning of this new step forward, of this change that's got to take place.

May I comment on that issue? I'd like to, just for the record, indicate that in my former role as Provost for the California State University, I had regular and very helpful conversations with Provost Michael Brown at the University of California. And he helped guide and mentor me, and as well as the law itself, in understanding how to react, respond to some of the feedback and the needs for improvement.

And so what we have is our draft policy reflects very closely the University of California repatriation policy, but we cannot rely on their consultation. We have to engage our own authentic consultation. And so that's where we sort of found ourselves needing to establish this system-wide governance committee to really bring to that group something that's well-vetted but also needs to be completed.

With all due respect, ma'am, you're talking about a system-wide internally with you? And in order to get that correct, you have to have that Tribal voice as part of that, not separate.

I concur.

Thank you, Assembly Member Mathis. Now we have Assembly Member Rubio.

Thank you. And thank you for the conversation. And I do offer the apologies to California's first people for not following through. I think that's the most important part to begin to heal. I appreciate the conversations, and I'm glad that we're having the conversations. As we were stating earlier, we can go back and forth as to why not, how, when, where, all of that. At this point, I think it's irrelevant. I think that we do need to move forward, and to Chairman Ramos's comments and Mr. Mathis's comments, the folks that are being affected have to be at the table.

And I appreciate the policies, etcetera. Again, I don't want to belabor that, but it is very important that first and foremost, that the California's first people--voices--are in those conversations. That being said, we have to begin to move forward. And I appreciate the efforts that have been made so far. But clearly because of we saw the audit, it has not been enough.

And so the point I've been sitting on the JLAC committee for six, seven years, and it's my favorite because nobody wants to be audited. However, it does give us information, but people take it as punitive, and it's not. For us, it's also to reflect upon what we need to do as legislators, either accountability measures, but more so guidance to make sure that you all are doing it with some resources as well.

We can't expect for us to just say, 'do this' and not be able to support you. So this is not about blaming you for anything. It's just about us beginning to actually do this. We've been promising to do this for 30 years and it hasn't happened. So I want to make sure that we all understand that. And again, the California's first people deserve an apology for everything that has done, not just in this space, as we all know, in all of the other spaces.

So please take this as us trying to work with you on how we best can help. Earlier, the auditor stated that, yes, we are in charge of the budget. But because we're in charge of the budget, maybe that's the opportunity for you to say, 'we do need some additional resources. We do need or how do we redirect some of the reserves and some of the agencies to make sure that you all get what you need?' So again, don't take it as a punitive conversation.

This is about how do we move forward and how can we help you move forward as well. Thank you.

Thank you all. Yeah, this is a hard conversations. All audits are difficult, but this one's really, really hard. And I appreciate you reflecting on the severity of this and acknowledging that as hard as it is for us to recognize these facts, it is much, much more difficult and painful to the Tribes and California's first people of what's been going on for decades. So it's important that we recognize that as well. Thank you all for your testimony. Appreciate you all being here.

And this is a joint committee, and so we have two committees here. So I'm going to turn over the next segment of the agenda to Chair of our committee from Assembly Member Ramos who is the Chair of the Committee on Native American Affairs. Chair Ramos.

Thank you, Chairman Alvarez. The next panel will be Perspectives on Audit and Repatriation. We have those on the panel: Vice Chairman Johnny Hernandez from the San Manuel Tribal government, Malissa Tayaba, Vice Chairwoman from Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Chairwoman Janet Bill from the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians. We also have Brian Lugo from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Chairman Jack Potter from Redding Rancheria Tribal Government, Chairman Leo Sisco from the Tachi Yokut Tribe, and Lorelle Ross, Vice Chairwoman from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

We will start with Vice Chairman Johnny Hernandez.

Amitam Schnitawan. Johnny Hernandez. Nun Yahavia tom Nahun hakupa ay tutayaka Yohaviyatam Pumov Natutia napuchiach to VPI Vice Chairman. Hi everyone. My name is Johnny Hernandez. I have the honor of serving on behalf of my people as the Vice Chairman of the Samoa Nation. I want to thank Assemblymember Ramos, Assemblymember Alvarez, and committee Members for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my tribe about an issue that impacts not only our people, but Indian Country as a whole.

What tribes face today is a significant impact on our humanity, family, culture and traditions, and the respectful treatment of what is most sacred the identity and preservation of a people. Despite enactment of the Federal Law NAGPRA more than 30 years ago, little to no progress has been made in repatriating items that are of historical and cultural significance to tribes. The law was intended to establish a process where federally recognized tribes could request from government agencies and museums the return of the human remains and cultural items.

But the lack of a comprehensive strategy to address NAGPRA compliance by universities, museums and other institutions continues to highlight the continued trend of limited or no action regarding NAGPRA obligations. The items to be repatriated might include baskets woven by great grandmothers with very intricate detail that are masterfully made with a love that bonds a family together in rich history and storytelling. There are remains of our loved ones, our ancestors who graves have been disturbed, and the remains and sacred items held for research.

The recently conducted audit is disheartening. It shows the California State University system inability to fully comply with NAGPRA legislation to review and report collections to the Native American Heritage Commission. A lack of funding or statewide policy cannot continue to be a barrier as to why the CSU system is making little to no progress in the repatriation of sacred artifacts and remains.

The sacred objects and remains held by CSU campuses are an important part of our Native American culture and need to be treated with respect and in coordinates with legislation guidelines and consulting with tribes on the repatriation process should be a number one priority. Our local campus CSUSB has been proactive in their outreach to our tribe for review of their collections to identify any Serrano artifacts.

They are one of the only handful of CSU's campuses across the state that have an Elder in residence filled by Robert Levi from the Torres Martinez Tribe. While the outreach from our local CSU is a step in the right direction, the pervasive inaction across the system cannot be ignored.

We are asking the California Legislature to require the Chancellor's Office to provide an annual report regarding the CSU's system wide progress in repatriating and collections to ensure adequate progress is made in returning which is sacred to California tribes. We also request funding to support the audit's recommendation.

In closing, I'd ask all the non tribal people to picture your family, your ancestors, and their belongings that you hold near and dear, that they're owned and used under the guise of an artifact on display for public learning and teaching, which is the unfortunate reality of my people. We're talking about humanity, human rights. So we have to finally get this right and bring all our people home. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that and bringing it home to the personal level, what remains really mean to our people. Our next presenter is Melissa Tayaba, vice chairwoman from Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

Good morning, Chairman Ramos and honorable Members of the committee. My name is Melissa Tayaba. I am the vice chair for Shingle Springs Band of Miwak Indians. I am Nisenan Ampenan. I come from the American and Sacramento Rivers, my two villages closest are the village of Kadema and Pusune, which is just a couple miles from Sac State. I would like to begin by thanking Assembly Member James Ramos and the Select Committee on Native American Affairs for convening this hearing today.

Although this hearing is called in response to the state auditors'findings on the California State University system wide lack of meeting their statutory obligations under both NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA, we see this as yet another step in our endless and ongoing efforts to get CSU to return remains and artifacts that have been in their possessions far beyond any time frame a reasonable person could possibly deem appropriate.

In the 13 years since the establishment of our own Tribal Historic Preservation Office, we have engaged in five repatriation efforts specific to the CSU system, with only two finding a successful return of our ancestors to where they belong home. This is not from a lack of trying on the end of mine or any other California tribes, but the systemic failure at CSU and I'd be remiss to not address the UC and California Community College system as well, which has been appalling, unacceptable, and shameful.

The excuses given over decades now are hollow and must be dealt with by all parties involved and at every level. This includes the newly appointed Chancellor of the CSU System, Dr. Mildred Garcia, who we hope will begin to turn a new chapter when dealing with California's First People and Cal NAGPRA specifically. You have read the statistics published in the audit. They are staggering by all definitions of the word yet considered. Alongside the UC audit conducted just last year.

It is painfully clear that hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of millions, of collections remain in institutions housed on ancestral territories, yet with uncertain timelines on when these ancestors themselves will be returned to the tribes in which they belong, the time for action is now. To date, the CSU has completely and totally failed in achieving meaningful and intentional repatriation.

Through NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA, we hope this committee will invite Dr. Mildred Garcia and others soon to provide information on their plan to move forward and address these historic failures and to start implementing recommendations you will hear today from fellow tribal leaders whose experiences are unfortunately not shocking, but a norm across the state. I also want to remind this audience that there have been numerous well intentioned efforts by the legislator in the past years, including Assemblymember Ramos's continued efforts.

17 years ago, then Senator Dean Flores convened an informational hearing when he was the Chair of Senate Governmental Organization Committee. He focused on the Hearst Museum at Berkeley. And even today, 17 years later, these institutions continue to provide roadblocks and exhibit an unwillingness to cooperate on repatriation. It is a sad state of affairs. Indeed. The Independent State Auditor Report has brought to bear the stark reality tribes are facing in California, and I hope that today's hearing leads to actionable and enforceable steps toward remediation.

I call on all the Members of the CSU Board of Trustees, the UC regents, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the speaker, the Pro TEM to fully engage and finally hold both the CSU and UC systems accountable for their horrific track record on NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. Increased funding must be provided for staff at both institutions. But more importantly, quarterly reports to the legislators showing their progress and providing accountability for the funding that is allocated is crucial.

I close by thanking Assembly Ramos for his pending legislation, AB 226 and AB 389 and urge all in attendance today and online to support these measures so that it can cross the finish line and get to the Governor. This hearing must not be the only of its kind and AB 226 provides for such needed additional auditing and continuous reporting requirements on Cal NAGPRA progress within institutions. We thank you for your efforts and this important and all too often ignored issue. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Vice Chairwoman Tayaba, and for your statements there that it's not from lack of trying to repatriate our ancestors back. So the will is there. And we've heard from prior panels that there could be some areas to be improved upon by the Cal State University system. And again, that quote, not from lack of trying. Thank you for that. Next we'll hear from the chairperson, Janet Bill from the Picayune Rancherie of Chukchansi Indians.

Hille hille hoyowush nim Chairperson Janet K. Bill, the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, a sovereign Nation, located in Madera County, near the south entrance of Yosemite National Park. On behalf of my nation, mich gayis, thank you, to the Honorable Assembly Member Ramos, Assembly Member Alvarez and Members of both committees for inviting our nation to be a part of the critical oversight hearing today and to share our perspective on the NAGPRA audit and repatriation efforts of the California State University CSU system.

It is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that human remains of ancestry and items of cultural significance must at all times be treated with dignity and respect. It is clear that the intentions of these two pieces of human rights legislation are to address and provide redress for centuries of displacement, exploitation, desecration, colonization and disposition of our indigenous people. Our ancestral remains and cultural items are the foundation of our identity and heritage.

This foundation connects our present day descendants with our ancestors, providing a sense of continuity and belonging. The collections across the CSUs encompass a wide range of artifacts, traditions, languages, rituals and practices that have been passed down through generations that hold historical, social and spiritual value to our people. Preserving these elements help our current and future generations understand and appreciate the resilience of our people.

While NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA aim to protect Native American grave sites and create a process to return ancestral remains and cultural items to our people, absent compliance and enforcement, these laws are degraded to nothing more than words on paper full of empty promises. The findings in this audit report serve as a reminder that we all have a collective responsibility for ensuring compliance with these laws and most importantly, to bring our loved ones and heritage home.

Our tribe fully expects CSU to consult with us due to the cultural genocide, force removal, boarding school era and all other Assembly policies that caused our people and cultural items to be removed and redistributed across the state of California. However, due to the need of brevity today, we'll focus our comments on the CSU that is closest to us. Our tribe is located nearest to California State University, Fresno.

CSU Fresno is listed as one of the campuses that has completed a review of its collection of human remains and cultural items. Although we acknowledge that CSU Fresno took initiative to complete its review, we must highlight that CSU Fresno is a campus that did not consult with tribes before reviewing its collection under the 2020 Amendment to Cal NAGPRA.

This failure to consult denied us the opportunity to opine on the respectful treatment of our ancestors and cultural items, hindered our ability to share our tribal knowledge and traditions, and undermined our tribal sovereignty. Additionally, it is disheartening to know that over 30 years of enactment of NAGPRA, the CSU Fresno still maintains a sizable self reported collection of nearly 40,000 items.

However, absent the prior consultation with tribes, it is difficult to judge whether this self reported number of approximately 40,000 items is truly accurate and whether these items were handled with respect. Providing further doubt to this self reported number is that according to the Native American Heritage Commission, the CSU Fresno failed to submit their inventories last year in further violation of the 2020 Amendment Cal NAGPRA. Furthermore, around the world, Indigenous people believe that repatriation is healing, repatriation is decolonization. Repatriation is justice.

Of the CSU Fresno sizable collection of human remains and cultural items. It has repatriated 0% of its collection. Once again, 0% of its collection. This failure to repatriate denies us healing, denies us decolonization, denies us justice. We must continue to dismantle the barriers to repatriation that were created after centuries of marginalization and disfranchisement of our tribal communities.

Today, we call on the State of California and the California State University's Chancellor's Office to make systemic changes that not only ensures compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA, but most importantly, frees our ancestors and brings items that once were stolen back home. The Chancellor's Office must increase oversight of all CSUs implementation of the provisions outlined in NAGPRA and Cal. NAGPRA and tribes must have a voice in the repatriation process in order to keep the CSUs accountable.

Thus, it is important that CSUs consult directly with tribes and engage in meaningful, timely discussions regarding protocols for handling and identifying ancestral remains and cultural items, and create a CSU NAGPRA Advisory Board comprised of tribal leaders and other key partners tasked with overseeing repatriation efforts. We support the recommendation in the report to require an annual hearing.

However, this annual oversight hearing must allow tribes, CSU personnel, the Native American Heritage Commission, and other key partners a seat at the table to discuss the remaining barriers to repatriation and progression of the CSU's compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. In closing, it is well past time that we demand action on the requirements of these human rights legislation. For tribes that have faced historical trauma, our ancestral remains and cultural items play a critical role in revitalizing and reclaiming our heritage.

All efforts to protect, respect, and comply with repatriation are paramount to preserving our culture for future generations. As always, we stand strongest together. Our nation is committed to partnering with the State of California, the California State University systems, our fellow tribal leaders, and other key partners in addressing the negative findings of this audit and to removing barriers of repatriation. Mich gayis. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments and thank you for bringing up some of those recommendations. But also to be that voice that tribes must be at the table to ensure that proper handling, even during these reviews, and bringing to the attention that the feeling still is if tribes weren't involved in when those reviews were being completed, that they were dishonouring our ancestors by mishandling them in a manner that we could only imagine. Thank you for your testimony. Our next speaker is Chairman Jack Potter from Reading Rancheria tribal government.

Hestum. My name is Jack Potter, Jr. I'm the chairman of Redding Rancheria of Wintu Indians. And I don't want to be repetitive on the things that need to be fixed. There are so many. But what truly needs to happen is the respect of our remains, the respect of our know. I've worked with the CSU San Francisco and got so far, and then a few months ago, they sent a letter and said, what remains we've had that belong to your tribe, we've now transferred to Berkeley.

And so now the process is starting over. And I don't understand that because we were at a point where we were getting ready to head over there and pick them up and stuff. And so now to have to go through the UC system at Berkeley when they hold the largest amount of remains, you know, is just bothersome to me. I don't understand why that CSU has done know but who knows?

But from a spiritual point it's damaging to our spirit nowadays to have to go into these places and see our ancestors sitting on those shelves and you hear them, you hear their spirit. And walking by some of those items I heard them chattering and heard different things, baskets. You would see them dance. And I believe those items were made by our ancestors specifically from our bloodline and they were trying to reconnect when they felt our spirit enter those areas. Those things need to be returned home.

And in fact, the native people need to be a part of that from step one because we know certain items are to be handled by men, certain things are to be handled by women. And when people don't understand the importance of that they're damaging the spirits of those items.

Each one of our cultural items have a spirit and those spirits are still alive and they're wanting to reconnect with the people, with the homelands, with the waters, the mountains and everything that come from that area where they originated and where they were used to keep our cultural practices and our religion alive. Those items have to come home. And time is of the essence that we get through this.

I'm grateful to the Assemblymen or almost Assemblymen Alvarez and both branches of the government to call upon this audit and have it come forth. But it's sad to think that about 700,000 of our people are there that genocide is alive and real. It's still happening until they come home. We have to put those spirits back to rest. We have to create songs, we have to create prayers. We have to do those things.

And while I repatriated that grandmother and her five grandchildren two years ago and I chose the day and I did a public burial I chose May 5 on MMIW day because she was a woman and her demise was horrible. She had a hole in the size of her head about the size of a baseball but her pestle was that same size and her pestle was broken half.

And so I could assume that she was getting ready to prepare food and feed her grandchildren when whoever came upon her bashed her head in and then grabbed the feet of those grandchildren and bashed their heads in because their skulls were so fragmented but their little leg bones and arm bones and ribs were okay. And I know from listening to the elders that that is what they did to our people to save bullets and stuff.

But when we picked her up soon as we hit the southern tip of Wintoon country down in Vallejo she started singing a song as she was in the car traveling home. She felt the spirit of her country, and it was a beautiful thing to know we were bringing her home. And we're going to have to go through that many, many times.

And it affects my spirit spiritually, and I always have to get regrounded, but I'm glad that we are able to get regrounded, but we need to get them home. And hopefully it don't take another 30 years. Hopefully we could get this all done in five years and get everybody back.

And for those that they've lost all the information to and they don't know where the remains come from, we as Native people in California can come together and have a solution for those that are unidentifiable now and do something to get them home too, and put their spirits back to rest.

Thank you for that testimony and really bringing it full circle of what our ancestors mean to us than just being in a box or being on display in a Cal State University classroom or in the couture facilities. They have they have meaning. They have meaning for us. And proper cultural etiquette when handling those remains culturally sensitive. Some things were for males, some were for females, and some have different meanings.

But that's why the presence and the voice of California's first people should be first and foremost at the table when discussing, starting to discuss these issues way before the handling of those remains take place. Thank you for that. Our next speaker is Chairman Leo Sisco from the Tachi Yokut tribe.

Good morning, Chairman Alvarez, Chairman Ramos Members, thank you for the opportunity to give us a voice here today. I come on behalf of the Tachi Yokut people. We're located in the San Joaquin Valley. And I sit here today because of these ancestors. I sit here because we're the voice for people that can't speak for themselves.

They're the reasons why that us as tribal leaders sit in these chairs to be able to speak for them for all the damage and the disrespect and total disregard for their lives that occurred. And we appreciate the time that forcing the auditors, having them open this conversation to realize the importance of Native people, that they have to be in the conversation. And I appreciate Assembly Member Mathis for the analogy for the people that serve this country.

And thank you that we want our people buried the way we would like them buried. Because if you want to know something about us, all you got to do is ask. We've been here time immemorial. And the part of having that conversation is the utmost importance to have. So they can see that we're human beings just like they are. We're no different. We don't see anybody else sitting in boxes, tagged up on shelves, put on display in classrooms, being touched inappropriately in San Jose.

And that's sad to say that's my mother's alma mater and the thing is, in listening to some of the presentations earlier, using the University of California as an example is a very poor example because they are responsible for a lot of our people sitting on shelves under a swimming pool, tagged. And it's the thing is, how would you like your people to be remembered? How would you like your people to be respected? It's the utmost importance. And the thing is, where do we go from now?

Where do we go from here? We have to be able to collaborate, work together, ask those questions. And as painful as it is, and it's very painful for some of our elders that don't want to talk about just our Yokut people were one of the largest tribes in the. The Spaniards came in. The government came in. They emptied Tulare lake. And now we are one of the smallest tribes in California. But you know what? Our native people are still here. And we're very resilient.

We're not going to go anywhere. And with Cal, CSU working with us, we can make that possible. And hearing today, I hope it's just not empty promises. Because as us, as Native people, we're sad to say, it's very hard to trust people that give you false promises. And we have to be able to rebuild that trust for our people because some of our elders, they hold on to that till they go to their grave.

And for us, it is our responsibility as tribal leaders to give that platform to them and to speak for those that as painful as it may be, able to be able to speak through that pain and have the CSU and many others that have our ancestors remains and their belongings sitting in storage and really not really having no disregard it's, having no disregard for human life. That's a poor example of humanity.

I understand that these are education establishments, so to speak, but for us, education comes in many forms. You learn about yourself through life. You learn about people's experiences. We've had experiences as Native people, and they're very painful experiences. We don't wish that upon anybody, but just understand that all we want is for our ancestors to come home and be respected and come home to rest in peace. Because right now, sitting in those boxes being on display, they're not resting right now. They want to come home. So thank you for allowing us to speak today.

Thank you, Chairman Sisco, for not only being on this panel, but prior panels. When we dealt with the UC system prior and now dealing with the Cal State University system, the word respect continued to resonate in your presentation.

Respect that for many California's first people still don't feel that we're at that point when we see these types of audits done and the lack of repatriation moving forward, I think it was 6% of the total items to be repatriated have only been repatriated back since the time of these laws coming into place. So it is, and it truly is. The voices that we speak is not of us. It's our ancestors that still need that voice to be heard.

And we stand here today, this body stands here hearing these things, and we heard from others Senators, that this issue is not going to be just dropped by the wayside. We're going to make it a top priority here in the Legislature through the JLAC and the different bodies here. Thank you for that. Our next speaker is Lorelle Ross, vice chairwoman from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

Oppun towis. Hello. Chairman Alvarez and Ramos and Members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and select committee and tribal leaders. My name is Lorelle Ross. I am the vice chair of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. We are a federally recognized tribe comprised of Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo peoples. Our reservation is in Sonoma County, and our aboriginal, traditional and cultural territory is in present day Sonoma and Marin Counties. Sonoma State University sits on our aboriginal lands.

There are also community colleges, private colleges, and museums within our aboriginal territory. The tribe strongly agrees with the findings and recommendations of the audit of the California State University System in 2021. The auditor found that the UC campuses overwhelmingly failed to inventory and repatriate their collections of human remains and cultural items required by Cal NAGPRA. Now, in June 2023, the Auditor has found that the CSUS have also overwhelmingly failed to inventory and repatriate their collections to tribes.

It is important to recognize that all state agencies and museums that receive state and federal funding have and have human remains or cultural items must comply with both NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. Therefore, missing from this discussion is what, if any, progress state agencies and museums have made to repatriate ancestors and cultural items. The audit specifically recommends legislation mandating the Chancellor's Office to annually report to the Legislature on the CSU's system wide progress in inventorying its collections, consulting with tribes, and repatriation.

Any legislation must be developed with tribes, as lawmakers cannot and should not predetermine what is best for tribes. Lawmakers must work with tribes holistically and be solution oriented. All efforts must be tribally led. We need similar laws as in AB 2836, the Gloria Bill, which was closely developed with tribes as it was enacted, to hold the UCS accountable. We need that similar law to hold the CSU agencies and museums accountable. We cannot just piecemeal legislation or develop a Bill without true tribal consultation.

We must see a robust Bill that should be developed with tribes and have that enacted. Because the audit is the only oversight tool available to bring state agencies and museums into compliance. We urge the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the state auditor to conduct audits of state agencies and museums. To meet the intent of NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA, annual reporting by agencies and museums must be a legislative mandate our tribe has done extensive work with Sonoma State University that spans several decades.

Together, we established the Great and Rancheria Endowed Chair in Writing and Native American Studies. Our chairman, Greg Saras even held this endowed chair for 17 years. We have provided funds to Sonoma State for their Summer Bridge program since 2017 and have funded other Sonoma State projects.

Even with the establishment of this relationship and despite some repatriations over the years, there are still thousands of cultural items that have not been transferred to the tribe going back to 1998, the tribe reached out to Sonoma State requesting cultural affiliation of ten collections at Sonoma State. In 1999, Sonoma State responded that they were resolved to culturally affiliate those collections in a timely manner to return items to the tribe. In 2000, Sonoma State provided a draft notice of affiliation to National Park Services.

Six years later, in 2006, Sonoma State alerted the tribe an amended notice would be sent to National Park Services. This illustrates the number of years it takes for just a few repatriations and even when we think we're done, more are at it either because of new information or newly found items. To date, my tribe still has over 600 collections at Sonoma State ranging in size from one item to as many as 50,000 objects.

This is just one example of a long and difficult process we face in our efforts to repatriate our cultural items and our ancestors. CSU Leadership Chancellor's Office must take responsibility for compliance, funding, training, reporting and enforcement at Nagpura and Cal Nagpura. The UC Office of the President, as mandated by the Gloria Bill, adopted a UC nagpur policy in 2021. This policy can be used by the Chancellor's Office as a roadmap to develop the CSU policy and establish committees to implement NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA.

Chairman Saras was recently appointed to the UC Board of Regents, the body that governs UC. Chairman. Sarah served on the UC Office of President Advisories Committee the Committee that approved the UC Nagpr policy. Our Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer, Buffy McQuillan, serves on the UC System wide committee. Through strong leadership and action, my tribe helped shape Nagpura and Cal NAGPRA implementation and compliance at the UC, along with other tribal leaders. We hope this is achievable for every CSU.

In closing, I reflect that in 2019, Governor Newsom finally apologized for the violence, maltreatment and neglect afflicted on tribes. It is now time for the state to right these wrongs, return our ancestors and cultural items and atone for the generations of maltreatment and neglect. Repatriation is an act of repairing the past. This is what makes us whole again. Returning ancestors, cultural items and ceremonies to the tribe. The tribe has been seeking repatriation of our ancestors and cultural items at the national and state level for decades.

We will not stop until everyone and everything is home and we are whole. I thank you for your time and for allowing me the. Opportunity to participate in today's hearing and hearing my native voice. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that testimony and bringing to light that we have to do some type of act. Certainly the audit has been done, recommendations moving forward, but the larger part of building legislation that starts to address it is something that we hope would be able to be done. So thank you for your comments. Thank you for each and every one of you. I'm here we'll open up any questions from the dais.

I just want to again acknowledge and recognize you putting not just a face, but life in the facts that were demonstrated by the audit and the significance of this, certainly to you, but to all of us as human beings.

I think it's a moment of reflection, certainly of what has happened in the past and should not have happened, and how as we move forward with legislation, with budgetary action, with oversight, continued oversight, how we need to continue to do better, and how we are all collectively responsible for that.

So I want to thank you for your testimony, your presence today, and for the ongoing work that I know you will engage with, that you've already done and will continue to be engaged with at each one of our universities in both systems and at other institutions, as you've all recommended that we should. So thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Any others? Senator Laird.

I just make a brief comment and I missed a part of the comments in this panel, but I just know it's not easy to talk personally and tell those personal stories. And I just want to thank you all for doing it. And I know that Chairman Sears has been appointed to the UC Board of Regents and I sit on the Senate Rules Committee and we have not confirmed him yet. And we usually have a long hearing where we discuss issues.

And now I have an issue to add that I will raise in that conversation. And I think it'll be helpful because it'll educate other people and it hasn't come up in some of our UC regents confirmation. So this hearing has been very helpful for that purpose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much. Senator Laird, Senator Mathis.

Thank you, chairman and Chairs, thank you for taking the time. And we've heard, we've discussed, we've made some comments. It's been a long morning, but this has been a long time coming. And I think, Chairman Potter, when you spoke about the souls of ancestors sitting in boxes, I don't think that too many who don't understand tribes realize that because the cultural difference to them, it's bones and boxes. It's not a soul of an ancestor that wants to go home.

And it's vital that, again, as we build these policies, as policymakers, that as we put together that fabric of sewing that together, that that viewpoint is added there at the beginning so I want to thank you for sharing that. Thank you all for coming to share your stories, your family stories, because it's through these that those that don't know, that they don't know have the ability to learn.

Thank you so much for that and thank you for the panel and taking time to be here to honor our ancestors and be that voice. There still is a lot of work that needs to be done, pieces of legislation, some alluded to them. But we can't as California's first people, we have to also continue to be that strong voice for our ancestors that continue to cry out like we heard in the testimony. We have to be able to move forward.

So I want to thank you for being here and bringing all the knowledge forward. The handling of remains even though some Cal states have completed review. Who did the review? Was it taken with a tribal perspective? We heard as far as draft policies that the tribal voice needs to be present even at the beginning of those draft policies. And certainly if NAGPRAs are going to be created committees, that it should be Native Americans outweighing those on those committees themselves.

So I want to thank you all for being here and sharing those stories. And it is trying for each and every one of us to be able to go through these things and sing songs and do our prayers. That helps us get through these things, but also being that strong voice for our ancestors that are still calling out correct the wrongs of the state of California. So I'm going to thank you again as we now transition to public comment and...

Good morning. My name is Laura Miranda. I'm a Member of the Pachanga tribe and I am a tribal advocate and attorney practicing in the area of cultural resources preservation for over 25 years. I've been doing repatriation since the late eighties and I am also on the UC system wide committee and helped develop the UC policy that they currently have in place for repatriation. I just wanted to make a couple of brief comments and support all the tribal leaders that just testified.

Pachanga is in a similar situation. To give an example, although CSU LA, it showed zero items. We personally know of at least 700 boxes of items that are affiliated to San Nicholas Island and my tribe and have been in dispute between the Navy and CSU LA. So there are these types of really intricate issues where there are not agreement about who has proprietary interests over these items and it delays repatriation. So these issues are crucially important because they're very technical.

It takes a balancing act of federal law, state law and tribal ethics and tribal values to be brought together in one policy. It took us over three years of UC consulting with tribal governments and consulting with the Native American Heritage Commission to come up with a UC policy that is still not adequate. It's still not adequate and it's still not acceptable to most tribes that are trying to follow these processes. Please, I just caution to be careful to not cut and paste what is in the UC to the CSU. We cannot overlook the tribal consultation that needs to happen and learning from what.

We did at UC what does work. And what doesn't work. For example, you might have a structure and policy requirements for these committees to have tribal folks serve. These tribal folks are voluntary. There's not enough tribal folks to serve and they do not oftentimes get the authority that they need. I have been sitting on the UC system wide for two years. I have helped the UC Office of the President to understand what is needed to move repatriation.

And still everything that we are saying as tribal people is not being heeded. So I don't want to just replicate the same type of system for CSU that's going to be ineffective in this regard. So can we please learn from what does work and doesn't work with UC and take that into the next chapter? In addition, a core problem is academic ethics.

That is a core problem and you cannot address that by just implementing policy on paper. It is the training on the tribal culture, the history of how these things came to be, what they are today. Archaeology is the problem, it's not the solution. Tribes are the solution. This should not be rooted in archaeology. It should not be rooted in archaeological departments. It should not be headed up by archaeologists that are not tribally led. It needs to be a tribally driven process.

And lastly, consultation is a core piece of this tribal consultation. It's not a one time thing. It's not a partnership. It's not a joint effort. It should be tribally driven, not academically driven, not driven by what would be a university policy, ethics policy. It needs to be driven by tribal value systems and tribal ethics. Lastly, I just want to say that there is also the geographical areas that are available for potential reburial of these items is an issue.

Most of these items are recovered from places where tribes would like them to be returned to, and there is not that ability to do that if there's not land to rebury these items. And it's a reason that some of these repatriations are delayed. So this is another issue. To come full repatriation, we need to understand how tribes do repatriate and what they are doing with these items and what they need to do with these items once repatriated.

I just want to close with saying that repatriation should be a part of a reparations package that the State of California puts together through a reparations report, which I hear might be pending. But this is a long overdue issue that should be a focal point of any reparations program in the state of California, and I just want to close with that. Thank you for the ability to provide comments today.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any other public comment? Please state your name.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Paula Treat. On behalf of Pechanga Taho and the Calusa tribes, I just want to say that I've been working in these areas for 28 years. I consider myself to be a pretty good lobbyist, and it's taken all of this time to have the audit done and get to where we are right now. Please settle this before I retire.

When will that be?

Might be next year, who knows?

We'll work hard. Any other public comment?

Mr. Chair. Pamela Lopez on behalf of the Tule River Tribe. Tule River wishes to align themselves with the comments of the chairpersons here today. Thank you for this important work. It has been 28 years, and Tule River looks forward to bringing their ancestors home.

Thank you so much. Any other public comment?

Chimisanwi. Morning Star Hali, elikata Gay Chi Maajimawi is Chi. My name is Morning Star Gali, and I am a Director with Indigenous Justice. Thank you to Assembly Member Ramos for leading these efforts. I recently met with our Pitt River Tribe Cultural Committee that consists of eleven autonomous bands. All of our cultural committee Members and cultural elders would like to participate in consultation regarding this matter. And so I just wanted to share that on behalf of Pitt River Tribe.

They're very grateful to you, Assembly Member Ramos, for leading these efforts and understand Pitt River tribe has been involved for the past 16 years very actively in our cultural repatriation efforts. We understand the importance and significance of the current harms that have been caused within our communities.

We have a recent story that just took we were mentioning at our language event this past weekend where it was through the National Science Foundation that had paid for a study to unearth our ancestors, and it was a language study where they were studying our hearing canals and our throat boxes. This was in the 1960s when we had many language speakers still alive. We are now applying to National Science Foundation for ongoing cultural language efforts in terms of databases.

And so it's really a full circle effort, but it does need to be a part of those efforts in terms of making right and correcting those wrongs that have happened to California tribal peoples. So we just wanted to say for for this hearing and for the opportunity to be able to come forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other public comment? Any other public comment? Well, I want to thank everyone, all the different panelists, the auditors, for conducting it and being an independent voice of what truly is happening within the Cal State University system when dealing with repatriation, going back to California's first, people, and also to the California State University panel being here in the discussion and the willingness to move forward. And you heard it here, tribes do want to be consulted.

So if there is a contact number, please let us know so we could get that out to those that want to be involved from the beginning, from the draft policies that will be enacted from the Cal State University. System wide and even at the campuses, being able to move forward and to the tribal leaders, that so eloquently put into perspective that we're not just dealing with remains, we're dealing with loved ones, family Members.

Chairman Potter talked about the repatriation and reburial that he did and how the singing took place. And Chairwoman Bill talked about, even though Cal States have completed the review, who handled those remains and were they done with proper, not only moral aptitude, but proper respect? That's why the need to be able to have California's first people first and foremost, when this discussion takes place is truly needed.

And hopefully that message could be relayed to the incoming chancellor who we wish to work with, but also will hold accountable because 28 years is too long for us to get to this point. And so we want to make sure that's happening. And just bringing full circle to my colleagues who have been here and moving to different committees.

And you heard that this is something that now the Legislature is going to take a strong look at when it comes to budgets, when it comes to the reporting mechanism back to the Legislature that has been identified in the legislative findings and recommendations from the audit. We have to start moving forward in that direction. Doesn't mean that it's the end, doesn't mean that it's going to be able to fix everything that's been wrong. But we have to be able to start moving forward.

And believe me, there will be other pieces of legislation moving forward also to continue to hold people accountable and update policies specific to the Cal State University system. The UCS is a separate system. We want to make sure we're focusing on the Cal State University system and by this hearing should give heed to the community colleges that if they don't have a process, if they have remains, that they should probably start moving to get their house in order. I want to thank you. This joint committee is adjourned.