Joint Legislative Audit Committee

We'd like to call to order the Select Committee on Native American affairs and Joint Legislative Audit Committee. And before we start to talk about sensitive issues here in Indian country in the State of California, we want to offer up a song as prayer.

[Song]

Well, good morning and thank you to Chairman Hart here for agreeing to a Joint Hearing here on this important topic of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee for collaborating with the Select Committee on Native American affairs on this oversight hearing.

The subject of today's hearing is what the University of California and Cal State University systems are doing to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation act, also known as NAGPRA.

The state's Auditor's office has released three audit reports, two audit reports reviewing UC compliance and last year's audit report looking into the Cal State University system compliance and to show their need to continue to meet with legal obligations under the decades old NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA laws.

The first audit focused on the UC system and was released in 2020. It indicated significant issues of concerns such as the lack of sufficient oversight in developing or implementing a repatriation policy, inadequate collaboration of Native American contribution to the crafting of guidance in this process, and inconsistent in policies administrations across the UC system.

In 2022, a follow up audit was conducted to ensure progress was indeed occurring. From this report, we learned that no adequate action was underway to ensure timely return of the human remains and cultural items. The most recent audit was performed by surveying the Cal State University system, the report stated.

Researchers found that nearly 700,000 and counting Native American remains and artifacts still remained in the possession of the Cal State University system. The audit reveals and underscores the continued need of both state University systems to prioritize compliance with federal and state law.

It is also a failure to recognize that repatriation is a basic issue of knowledge, a basic issue and acknowledging Native American humanity and our people's sacred obligation to protect and honor the human remains of our ancestors some 30 years ago.

After the initial enactment of NAGPRA, the original expectation was that Native American remains and artifacts will be returned to the appropriate families for proper reburial all nations, all people seek to carry out this sacred duty. But Native Americans have long been denied the ability to inter the remains of our loved ones and ancestors.

Everyone in this room would have an issue if the resting place of their deceased loved one was disturbed in any way. However, it continues to alarm the State of California and this Legislature on the inactions moving forward expeditiously on the remains of Native American people. We continue to move forward as a state Legislature and as a body.

I take pride in the fact that as a state, we take the lead on many issues across this nation, across this globe, but in this place, sadly the opposite. We are failing in this area to be a priority for others to see.

But by holding hearings like this and audits, we can make it a priority to ensure that we lead the way in the United States and globally on remains being returned to the rightful people. We continue to work together to ensure that this endeavor is something that continues to make progress towards.

With me today is Chairman Hart of the Joint Audit Committee.

Chair, thank you, Chairman Ramos, thank you for inviting me and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to participate in today's hearing. More importantly, thank you for your leadership on this issue. Issue of Repatriation this is an important and even sacred topic to many Californians and many people in this room.

We're talking about dignity here, about ensuring that ancestral remains and belongings are given the respect and dignity that they deserve. I trust that we can all understand and appreciate this.

In regarding the most recent audit report concerning CSU and NAGPRA, I was truly saddened by how little CSU and its campuses had done to comply with the law and return ancestral remains and belongings. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation act was enacted more than 30 years ago.

Nonetheless, the audit found that more than half of CSU campuses had not returned any remains or cultural belongings. More than half of the campuses don't even know the extent of their collections, something that federal law required to be completed 28 years ago.

In reviewing the one year assessment provided by the State Auditor, I believe that CSU has finally made some progress. The State Auditor found that CSU fully implemented two of the eight audit recommendations. CSU has made some progress implementing the remaining five recommendations. Eight CSU campuses now have a full time, experienced repatriation coordinator.

Three additional campuses are in the process of hiring coordinators. The CSU has engaged with tribes and developed a campus repatriation implementation plan.

These are all good things that we are encouraged by, but there remains a lot of work to be done and the purpose of this hearing is to highlight the progress that is made, but to also underscore how critical the work that remains is and how quickly it must move forward.

I look forward to hearing the State Auditor's thoughts today regarding the CSUs, as well as the UC's efforts regarding repatriation, and hope that by shining the spotlight on this important issue, that we'll be able to offer encouraging success in the near future on this critical issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Hart. And now going to Senator Laird.

Thank you. I just wanted to say, while I'm here, as the Vice Chair of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, I also chair the Senate Education budget Subcommitee. And we address this issue in the budget process this year.

And we stand ready through the budget process to continue to work with the Select Committee and JLOC on the Auditor, on anything we need from that side of the House. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Laird. Assemblymember Mathis.

Thank you, Mister chair. Just really thank everybody for being here. Because, you know, as I look at our agenda for today, it's one of those, we've been here before, but we're making progress.

And as we start looking at ways to attach different things to give a push to the CSUs to respond properly, we're seeing more compliance and more cooperation in getting our remains back to ancestors. Because we've been through this. We've heard about family Members having their ancestors literally bones and boxes, and that is not acceptable.

And we've come a long way in that and on this journey. And I know we will hear more today about making this right. But for the CSUs and the UC's, it's far past time and it's time to get it together and move forward and do the right thing.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Now we'll move to our first panel. Panel two California State Auditor and Native American Heritage Commission. We have Grant Park, State Auditor Grayson Hu, senior Auditor evaluator Raymond Hitchcock, Executive secretary, Native American Heritage Commission and Mario Paleri, NAHC legal counsel. Thank you.

We will start with Mister Parks when you're ready.

Good morning, Chairman Hart and Chairman Ramos. It's good to be with you this morning to discuss the important topic of NAGPRA, Cal NAGPRA, and my office's recent audit work evaluating the degree to which the UC and the CSU systems have made efforts to repatriate the remains and cultural items that belong to Native American tribes.

By way of brief background, the Legislature directed my office to conduct two audits of the UC system. The Sfargesthe. The first one being in 2019, the second one in 2021. The third audit just started, I believe, last month, and the final audit is scheduled to begin in 2026.

With respect to the CSU system, we've conducted just one audit on NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA that was completed just over a year ago, in June 2023, and that was requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

As far as the global conclusions and findings in those three reports, all three noted noncompliance or general inefficiencies with the UC and CSU's implementation efforts with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA.

My office made 18 recommendations over the course of these three audits, 10 to UC and eight to CSU, and the recommendations generally focused on addressing the following four problematic areas, the first one being the lack of system wider campus level policies regarding NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA's implementation, the second one being the lack of protocols for proactively and consistently coordinating with tribes.

The third issue was weak oversight mechanisms to monitor campus compliance and progress, such as through status reporting to campus and system wide NAGPRA committees. And the fourth issue was the need for better prioritizing NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA through the consistent commitment of the funding and the full time staffing needed to expedite repatriation.

All three audits found similar conditions at the UC and CSU in that several campuses had significant collections subject to repatriation. Some campus inventories were incomplete, with some campuses, such as UC Riverside and UC San Diego, finding new discoveries of previously unaccounted for cultural items.

We found uncertainties surrounding long term funding and staffing to repatriate items, which is a challenge. In the past, several campuses relied on individual academic departments, such as anthropology, to repatriate items, while oversight from the campus's executive leadership was at times limited.

And the tribes that we spoke to also described inconsistent treatment when dealing with different campuses within the same system, such as campuses using different methodologies to count items in their collections or variations in their willingness to abide by the tribes preferences for handling cultural items.

So that gets me to where are we today with respect to the University of California? We found that they've made progress over the last two audits, but as the chairs mentioned, more work remains.

The UC, in our view, has made progress in establishing the system wide foundational policies and expectations surrounding repatriation, and now it's the time to further execute on these policies and practices.

The UC's 50 page system wide policy and procedures document, we found, was developed with feedback from tribes and the NIHC, and the policy that UC developed sets important policy expectations in key areas, for example, making it clear that the chancellor of each campus is responsible for the oversight of and the allocation of sufficient resources to implement the UC's policy on repatriation.

We also see the expectation in UC policies now that they hire repatriation coordinators at each campus.

With NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA collections, we see the establishment of campus and system wide NAGPRA oversight committees that now have appropriate tribal representation based on nominations from the NAHC, and UC's policy contains expectations on how campus repatriation coordinators are to consult with tribes.

Finally, we also see UC moving in its policies into a direction of requiring campuses to develop implementation plans that specify how campuses will not only proactively reach out to tribes, but also including estimated budgets for the necessary work to complete their repatriation effort in a timely manner.

To date, we've concluded that the UC has fully implemented all of the recommendations from the two prior audit reports based on the documentation provided by UC after those audits, and I anticipate our next audit will allow us to further test the actual implementation of UC's policies and practices and to further focus on the pace of repatriation and further examine the causes of delay.

Ultimately, the UC still has significant work remaining. According to its own dashboard, the UC system continues to possess thousands of items cataloged as human remains and funerary objects that have yet to be repatriated.

UC Berkeley, in particular, has among the largest collections in the UC system and without meaningful and dedicated funding and staffing to support expedited repatriation, UC's ability to increase its activity and forecast when all items will be returned will likely remain uncertain.

Our next audit of the UC just began recently, so I know Grace and I are looking forward to hearing discussions from today's other panels which will help us inform our planning work for that audit of the UC system, and I anticipate that next UC audit will be issued sometime in winter 2025.

Turning to the CSU system our audit there the CSU system, in our view, demonstrated significant challenges with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. Based on our audit, many of the issues that we identified at CSU were similar issues that we noted the first time around at the UC system.

In particular, we noted that the CSU system had not prioritized repatriation, primarily evidenced by its lack of system wide and campus policies to repatriate items. For example, none of the four campuses we visited for our on site testing had campus wide policies, instead relying on individual academic departments.

Three of the four campuses we visited also lacked policies on how to resolve disputes between tribes. Also at these campuses, we noted the issue of lack of funding and staffing to necessarily repatriate items timely.

For example, 10 of the 21 campuses responding to our survey reported not having sufficient funding to support their responsibilities under NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. And although many campuses now have NAGPRA coordinators to work with tribes, these positions are not always full time.

For example, Sonoma state, which is one of the CSU campuses that had one of the largest collections at the time of our audit, had a repatriation coordinator on a part time basis who also served as a staff archaeologist in the anthropology Department and, as part of their other duties, managed the museum's collections.

We believe repatriation coordinators need to be a full time job given the historic delays in returning ancestral remains and the cultural items to tribes. And finally, at the CSU, we noted that, as the chairs mentioned, there's a significant number of items that remain to be repatriated.

We found that 12 of the 21 campuses we surveyed did not know the full extent of their collections, and some campuses had more than 100,000 items yet to be returned. Based on our system wide survey of CSU campus officials, respondents estimated that only 6% of the CSU's holdings had been repatriated.

Given the challenges we saw system wide at the CSU, we concluded that the chancellor's office should be doing more to support campus repatriation efforts, particularly in the area of establishing system wide policy expectations and creating NAGPRA oversight committees. My office made eight recommendations to the chancellor's office.

Two are fully implemented, as the chair noted, and six are in the process of moving towards implementation. Some of those outstanding recommendations include finalizing the CSU system wide policy that includes protocols for consulting with tribes. Our understanding is that recommendation should be implemented in July 2025 is our latest understanding from the CSU system.

Another recommendation dealt with making sure CSU is monitoring campus progress towards completing their inventories. We understand that's to be completed around December 2024.

Another area for the CSU we think is important is establishing system wide and campus specific NAGPRA oversight committees that has a target implementation date of December 2024, requiring full time repatriation coordinators at campuses with significant collections.

At the time CSU provided its one year response, it was anticipating an August implementation date, so that may or may not have been implemented by now, and finally, requiring campuses with collections to identify their funding needs and seek funding as necessary to expedite their repatriation.

Our understanding is that CSU has gone through a budget draw exercise to identify their needs, and they're working with the chancellor's office to figure out how that funding might be allocated to campuses to speed up their efforts.

We will continue to monitor the CSU's progress annually over the next five years as part of our follow up process, but in general, those conclude my remarks.

I have Grayson Huff with me here today who served as the audit team leader on our prior NAGPRA audits, and Grayson and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you so much. Now we'll move to Raymond Hitchcock.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ramos. I'm Raymond C. Hitchcock. I'm of Miwook and Nishanem descent. I'm an enrolled tribal Member of Wilton Rancheria. We're the only federally recognized tribe right here in Sacramento County, in the closest proximity here to the Capitol.

I've had the honor of serving as our tribal Chairman for two terms, and now the State of California is Executive secretary of the Native American Heritage Commission. I'm joined here today of our nine Member Commission body, appointed by the Governor. I have two commissioners here, or, excuse me, three. I'd like to recognize them.

And I'm going to start with Yuki and Round Valley tribal Member, our commissioned vice Chairwoman, Miss Buffy McQuillen, if she could raise her hand.

And then we also have in the hallway Paula Band of Mission Indians tribal Member and Commissioner Wayne Nelson and Palma, Band of Mission Indians Commissioner Bonet Kalak, that is out in the waiting room here, so I wanted to acknowledge them. I also have our chief legal counsel, Miss Michelle Carr, with us.

And sitting with me today is our staff legal counsel, Mister Mario Pilari. Mario has been instrumental in working with Cal NAGPRA and NAGPRA universities, museums, and tribes to help facilitate repatriation through the enactment of Kal NAGPRA in 2001. And you have NAGPRA in 1990.

Both Federal Government and the State of California have set laws and regulations for the respectful return of ancestors and associated funerary and cultural items back to tribes.

While there's been some challenges in implementation, the Native American Heritage Commission remains committed to building collaborative relationships with tribal governments, the universities and museums, and the work that still needs to be done to return those ancestors back home. I'm honored to use this time today to share the work that the Commission has led for repatriation in 2020.

AB 275, authored by a Mister assemblymember James Ramos enhanced and gave more oversight, tracking, mediation and enforcement powers to the Native American Heritage Commission. It called for all institutions to upload their inventory and summary collections to our website database library, which we created in 2022.

In that database library, there's over 17,000 collections uploaded that make up hundreds of thousands of associated funerary and cultural items, including our ancestors. We believe there are still many more out there that have been unaccounted for in both the UC and the CSU institutions, as well as community colleges, which have yet to be audited.

The Commission actively serves as a resource to assist institutions in compliance, including providing technical assistance, best practices, trainings, and database walkthroughs with repatriation coordinators.

More recently, AB 389, again authored by assemblymember Ramos, was clearly focused at the CSU system wide and their lack of Niagara compliance, as reflected as Mr. Park spoke about from the June 23 audit, AB 389 tasked the Heritage Commission with vetting and nominated campus and system wide repatriation and oversight Committee Members.

Additionally, the law required the hiring of full time repatriation coordinators for all CSU campuses and the development of a uniform system wide repatriation policy upon passage of AB 389 in the fall of 2023. The Heritage Commission has worked closely and collaboratively with the CSU NAGPRA leadership team to nominate campus and systemwide Committee Members.

With 23 campuses statewide and the system Committee, there are over there are exactly 168 voting positions that the Commission needs to fully vet and nominate. Campus committees work directly with tribes to facilitate repatriation of ancestral collections, whereas the system wide Committee plays an indirect role, hearing appeals and providing policy guidance to the campus committees.

For these reasons, the Commission has prioritized campus Committee nominations over system wide fers to encourage faster implementation of these laws and the return of our ancestors. The Heritage Commission has spent the past several months diligently working on this task.

So far, out of the 168 voting positions, we've received 111 applications, of which 84 has met the statutory requirements. We've contacted 77 of those candidates for interviews, and to date, the Commission has nominated 29 candidates to serve on campus committees throughout the state.

There is still a lot more work to do to facilitate crucial repatriation Committee positions, but I'm proud of the time and the work and the effort of my staff, spirited by Mister Polari sitting beside me here today, and the commissioners that they have dedicated to fill these positions.

The CSU is engaged in listening sessions and tribal consultation around the state and created an internal working group where both commissioned vice Chairwoman Miss Buffy McCullen and staff counsel Maria Polari are active participants to give guidance and direction on developing a robust and singular system wide repatriation policy for the CSU.

Currently, the first draft of that repatriation policy has been circulated to the Heritage Commission and to California tribes to receive comments and engage in a formal 90 day tribal comment and consultation period. Regarding the UC systemwide compliance with NAGPRA, there have still been issues along the way.

In 2022, there were several collections not reported and found in UC Berkeley Professor Tim White's possession, which included ancestors of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, a part of a collection that had already been repatriated to the tribe in 2018, among other ancestors and cultural items.

This was a disturbing event that the Heritage Commission addressed with the UC. The seven UC campuses and the system wide committees have mostly been filled by nominations from the Heritage Commission as directed by a previous statute.

Currently, there are only three vacancies and the UC Davis Campus Committee and five vacancies on the system wide Committee, which mostly are non voting Members. As a part of the system wide Committee, we have vice Chairwoman Buffy McQuillen, Commissioner Isaac Bhorkas, and former Commission Chairwoman Miss Laura Miranda sitting in those seats to facilitate repatriation compliance.

When the UC adopted its system wide repatriation policy in 2021, the Heritage Commission provided suggestions for improvement, especially in regard in addressing adequate funding, staffing, repatriation timelines, and integration of tribal traditional knowledge into the policy.

As the UC is revising their policy in response to the revisions to federal NAGPRA, the Heritage Commission will again seek the opportunity to work closely with the UC and provide comments and recommendations. In January of this year, federal NAGPRA regulations were amended that had a significant effect on Cal NAGPRA and what the Commission's powers can be.

So, to better track the federal NAGPRA process, the heritage Commission will update our Cal NAGPRA tracking system.

To accurately monitor and potentially enforce the repatriation of those collections, we'll need to continue to work closely with institutions and tribes to ensure they are notifying their updates throughout the federal NAGPRA process and recording their repatriation agreements to the Heritage Commission.

As outlined in Cal NAGPRA, the Commission is in process of developing dispute resolution and mediation regulations, which have recently completed tribal consultation. These regulations provide a process for the Commission to conduct and oversee issues when they arise between the tribes and institutions under Cal NAGPRA.

Due to the net federal NAGPRA regulations, these regulations will not be able to provide mediation, support, or Commission led resolution when an institution is subject to both federal and state law. And going through the NAGPRA process, we still do hope to provide assistance to help facilitate agreements and repatriation of our ancestors.

As a part of this effort, the Commission is working to create frequently asked questions, best practices to assist the CSUs, the UC's, state agencies, and tribes to navigate both NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA effectively and seamlessly and clarify how new federal NAGPRA regulations process will impact repatriation.

Every institution and their respective leadership needs to actively step up and continue to make immediate changes to facilitate repatriation.

It's time to get all of our ancestors accounted for and the institutions to do the hard work and engage in the tribal consultation to get our ancestors back home to the tribes and tribal families where they belong once and for all. Tanga Camou, thank you.

Thank you so much for that. To both of the presenters here. Now we'll move it back to the dais if there's any questions from Members. Chairman Hart?

Yes, thank you. Chairman Ramos, I have a question for State Auditor parks. In your remarks, you mentioned that the CSU's had only repatriated 6% of their collection, and we have been at this with the federal law for nearest nearly 30 years.

Would you take a guess as to how long it will take, at the current rate of repatriation for CSU to.

Fully retain all that remains? I appreciate the question. I think making an estimate like that is incredibly challenging, given that collections are discovered that weren't previously accounted for. You never know when that can arise. And also, the question on how quickly or how much more time is needed to repatriate items is a function of several different things.

How big is the collection, how much staff is a given campus willing to commit to repatriating items, and how much funding is a campus willing to commit to that effort?

This has been a problem 30 years in the making, and I don't think we're going to get resolution without both time and investment to get these remains returned to tribes.

I think that underscores it well, thank you so much, Chairman Hart. Senator Wilk.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair. Mister Hitchcock.

I want to follow up on your comments from, and I appreciate you calling him out by name, the UC Berkeley Professor that held on to remains that allegedly had already been dispersed back to the Chumash, what was the response on that, and has there been any accountability for his action or inaction regarding that?

So, to clarify, Professor Tim White found or had collections in his possession upon retirement that they found in his offices or teaching facilities. Part of that collection, it turned out, was part of a repatriated collection that went to the Chumash tribe 2018. So it was an addition that they had in their possession that were not actively reported.

The Commission sent a number of questions to the UC. They responded to several of them. The Professor had since retired. There were some sanctions, but there's still more to be followed up with that significant issue.

All right. Appreciate that answer. That was really disturbing. I'm glad you shared that with all of us.

Thank you so much. Jackson.

Thank you very much, Mister chair, for our auditors. I mean, when you look at what has been found in the audit and the level of progress that the systems have made, what kind of grade would you give the progress?

Well, auditors tend to deal with terms like compliance and noncompliance. Okay, I'll take that. So NAGPRA has been in existence for quite a while, and so I would. Give a non compliant grade, noncompliant grade.

You know, I find it very hard when many of us field multiple requests from these systems, multiple concerns, and it's issues like this that gives me pause to facilitate any other requests from these systems when I know if these were African remains, Mister chair, it wouldn't be too good in terms of my response.

And so what else should we be doing? Would you suggest this body does, as a Legislature to ensure that there is a respectful, timely repatriation process to ensure that this gets done?

I think one of the things that I would recommend is what we're doing right now is having oversight hearings, where you bring CSU and UC to the table and you have them account for what progress has been made or what has not been made.

I think unless you continue to show light on an issue, if you don't do that, it becomes relatively easy in competing priorities and funding to make different decisions about how you're going to spend limited dollars. But I think through oversight hearings like this, I think through continued audits to evaluate compliance.

And I think also, perhaps most importantly, the Legislature can help play a role to make sure that both UC and CSU systems are both committing the funding necessary specifically for NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA compliance, and that they've committed the staffing on a full time basis to make sure that these remains are returned.

Because I don't want to say easy, but one level is developing the policies and procedures and practices that everyone's going to follow, actually implementing those policies and doing so on a consistent basis requires both money and people.

And so I think that's one of the values that I hope my audits in the future bring is as we continue to look at UC, we're evaluating the money and the people that they're committing to these problems so that we can have more insight on the pace of repatriation and what that looks like in terms of when might we expect all remains to be returned.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. I do want to acknowledge Senator Cortese for being here with us. Assembly Member Fong, Assemblymember Valencia, and Assemblymember Garcia, any other questions for this panel from the dais? Chairman Hart?

Yes, Mister chair, I don't have a question, but I do have a comment. As chair of JLAC, I read a lot more audits than I used to do, and it's not often that I read an audit report report that is eloquent and profound. But in this case, I want to take great pride in recognizing this audit.

On page nine, the report states that if it does not prioritize compliance with NAGPRA, the CSU may demonstrate a lack of respect for the laws governing its collection and for the tribes whose rights the laws are attempting to protect.

A lack of institutional respect can, in turn affect the attitudes of the individuals who work and study at the CSU campuses. The audit goes on to discuss how CSU needs to hold itself to a higher standard. That was very meaningful and really touched me, and I appreciate you recruiting these remarks in the audit.

I think it encapsulates the issue really well. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions from the dais comments? Thank you. Just a few from myself. We talked about the UC system and the compliance. Can you talk a little bit more on the next step on the audit and the progress that will take place? You mentioned that the next audit will talk about the implementation.

Right. So we're in the planning efforts now. I think we're at a place, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that we're seeing UC wide policies, we're seeing committees being set up, what our next audit is going to focus on.

Likely we'll be evaluating the extent to which we see UC actually following through and implementing those key policies.

And I think, you know, talking with Grayson today before we had this hearing, we're going to find the discussion today from various panel Members very informative and helpful as we map out for ourselves what specific procedures we might employ, what campuses we might go to, what questions we might ask.

I mean, of course, we have our own ideas on the subject. But whenever you can hear from other stakeholders, that's always valuable. And we plan to consider that as part of our planning effort for when that audit goes out in winter.

Thank you so much for that. And then on the Cal State University side, you mentioned that system wide policies that there's two out of eight, I believe, and six are in progress. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that. Just in terms of status? The two that are.

That have moved forward out of the eight and the six that are in progress.

Sure. So the two that have been implemented, we've seen, at the UC system, we've seen that they've implemented a requirement that there be repatriation coordinators where there are campuses with 100 sets of remains or cultural items. And we also. I'm sorry, that was UC. You asked about CSU. CSU. I'm sorry, my. I misspoke there.

But you could talk about CSU, if.

You would like, at the chancellor's office. One of the recommendations we made to the CSU actually focused on the chancellor's office, and we thought it was important that there was a person responsible for NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA compliance at the chancellor's office level. And so we've seen some updates and some charts there.

I believe they've hired someone in that role. Grayson, you want to talk a little bit about what we've seen there?

Yeah. My name is Grayson Huff. I'm a senior auditor evaluator with the State Auditor's office, and I don't know if there's too much more to say than that. They have assigned a role responsible for overseeing the system wide repatriation coordinator, whereas before the administrative structure was less formalized. They have An.org chart now.

It sort of shows, again, how this is all supposed to work. So we're satisfied that the chancellor's office, at their level, are prioritizing this by making sure they're able to provide that oversight.

And then for the other recommendation, chair Ramos, we recommended that the chancellor's office should require each campus with NAGPRA collections to identify and estimate the funding and resources needed to complete repatriation. As the State Auditor mentioned before, that funding piece is really critical, but it's also critical that the campuses understand exactly what they need.

But they're not just making guesses that they're really understanding the resources that they're going to need to complete repatriation in a timely manner. And so we recommended that the campuses make those estimates to the chancellor's office. And we have found that they've done so.

Thank you so much for that. And then the Native American Heritage Commission, you mentioned that there's positions that needed to be filled, 168 voting positions. Is that correct?

That is correct.

And where are we at in the process of getting tribal people into those positions?

So, as we spoke, there's been 111 applications for both the tribal positions and the CSU, because each campus has seven positions, which include three federally recognized tribal Members and one non federally recognized tribal Member, and then three CSU representatives, one of which needs to have Native American studies background.

We've only got 111 applications in this last round since November of 2023. There's 168 voting positions. Of those 111, only 84 were actually statutorily qualified to be in that position.

Our goal now is to actively look at each individual campus and from the Heritage Commission's perspective and working with staff council Mariupolari here and the CSUs, to individually target those culturally affiliated areas like CSU, SAc state, what are the culturally affiliated tribes?

And just do more concerted efforts to try to facilitate getting more tribal involvement and the CSU, because we need these positions filled. And it's a huge task and undertaking that Mister Polari is maybe want to speak to a little more?

Yeah. And if I can add on respectfully, the committees are a requirement under the law, and there are a lot of minimum requirements that the audit has set forth as well as the statute has set forth. But even with only meeting those minimum requirements, those are the floor.

The campuses that have done and been the most successful in moving repatriation forward quickly are those that are actually building meaningful and respectful relationships with their tribal community. We saw that at CSU Chico, as they've moved a lot of their collections forward very quickly. And it's about empowering the tribal voices.

Mister Jackson, you asked what is something that we can do in order as a Legislature to move this forward? I think the most important thing is listening to and empowering tribal voices, uplifting those who are saying that there are things that are working and there are things that are not working.

I look forward to the rest of the panel today where we hear those voices as well.

Thank you. And I just want to highlight in your comment that collaboration from the individual campuses, reaching out to the local tribes, has been beneficial in filling those positions. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. Any other questions from the dais before I release the panel? Well, thank you.

We'll move to our next panel, and in between, I'll offer Members that have came in any opportunity to staying any comments that you might have opening comments. Well, thank you. Now we'll move to panel three. Tribal response to the audit. I'll call the first four up and then the next panel, the next after that.

So the first four will be Chairwoman Lynn Valbuena from the San Manuel tribal government, Chairman Charles Martin from the Morongo tribal government, Chairman Jack Potter from the Reading Rancheria tribal government, and Chairman Leo Siscu, Chairman from the Tachi Yokut tribal government.

And we'll start with a Chairwoman Valbuena when you're ready.

I am ready. Hami Thomps, everyone. That's a warm greeting in our language from San Manuel Serrano. So good morning, Chairman Ramos, and good morning, Committee Members.

Thank you for inviting me to speak this morning on a matter of great importance to all of us as native people, to San Manuel and other California tribes here in California and throughout the nation. I am Chairwoman Valbuena of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. We are a federally recognized tribe in Southern California.

We are the Yuhaviatam clan of Mariam. The Spanish called us Serrano Indians. Like many other tribal nations in the state, we remain very concerned by what tribes perceive as indifference, as evidenced by the lack of progress by UC and CSU and the systems to comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 or NAGPRA.

The federal law requires that universities, museums, and other institutions that are supported by federal funds must abide by the terms of NAGPRA on repatriation of human remains, funerary objects, and other items of cultural patrimony. To further support the repatriation of cultural items to tribes, California enacted Cal NAGPRA in 2001, then amended it in 2020.

The 2020 amendments specifically require universities to consult with tribes before conducting reviews. Consult with tribes of collections of remains and cultural items in their possession.

Today, we are no further along as our ancestors and cultural items remain in the possession of museums and UC and USC institutions with no discernible efforts to repatriate remains and cultural items to tribes.

This situation is a very painful reminder to all of us as native people that are pleas to universities for the return of our ancestors and cultural items, as the laws require, have been ignored.

We would like nothing more to honor our ancestors by taking appropriate steps to prepare them again for the spirit world and bring them back home. We are taught that our ancestors cannot rest if they are not properly prepared and sent on their journey.

So in 2022, the state auditors completed a review of the UC and CSU systems compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. As you have heard from the summary of the report, the findings are tragic and show a complete disregard for the rights and interests of sovereign tribes in California.

Since the report was issued, San Manuel has closely monitored responses from USC and UC. The CSU system has held 10 listening sessions across the state to hear from tribal representatives on what should be included in developing CSU Cal NAGPRA policy.

San Manuel Cultural Resources Management Department staff attended the session in Long Beach, and that was on April 3 of this year, during the listening session, tribal representatives recommended that tribal knowledge be given in a role in identifying cultural objects for repatriation.

Repatriation funding should be made available to tribal partners to help with the financial burden of consultation efforts. Also, CSUs should also provide land to rebury ancestors and cultural items if requested by culturally affiliated tribes and bear the cost of those reburials.

CSU staff tasked with the work of repatriation should not come from anthropology departments, should not come from anthropology departments to avoid conflicts of interest and remain true to state and federal repatriation laws.

As intended, the chancellor's office would be the most appropriate authority to engage in repatriation efforts on behalf of the University, so attention should also be given to holding past and retiring professors accountable for all the items that were collected under their watch and purview.

Too often, cultural items are hidden away in the Professor's personal homes or storage containers. That is not a good thing. This practice is highly unethical at best and undermines the purpose of higher education institutions as a place of learning.

Some campuses move forward with submitting federal and state reports without ever having consulted with tribes, as the law requires. This is not a good practice either, as it shows tribal perspectives have been similarly dismissed in the process.

There is a need for hold and trust agreements by which cultural items can be stored on campuses at the request of culturally affiliated tribes, either indefinitely or until reburial or physical transfer to the tribe that can occur. So we respectfully offer the following recommendations for colleges to facilitate or improve the repatriation process.

Prioritize and appropriate funding for all aspects of repatriation, including supporting tribal consultation and reburials. NAGPRA practitioners should not be under supervision of anthropology departments, but should report directly to the chancellor or an appropriate authority within the chancellor's office.

Prepare plans of action to identify and recover all cultural materials that CSUs are accountable for, to include full search of campuses for previously unaccounted materials collections created by past and retiring professors. Tribal consultations should also take place before federal or state reporting.

Cultural sensitivity training for faculty, staff, and NAGPRA practitioners also establish a regular cadence of issuing reports to tribes and state federal agencies with oversight of the NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA laws. Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of San Manuel band of Mission Indians.

Thank you, Chair Lynn Valbuena. Next we'll go to Chairman Charles Martin from the Morongo tribal government.

Good morning, gentlemen. I want to give thanks to Yahweh Yahshua in the spirit. Thank you Chairman Ramos and the Members of the Select Committee for convening today gatherings to hear firsthand about compliance with Cal NAGPRA guidelines.

I appreciate the opportunity to share the experiences of the Morongo band of Mission Indians and to hear the experiences of other tribes in relation to the necessary due repatriation effort. Currently, Morongo is engaged in a one Cal NAGPRA repatriation project with the California State University, San Bernardino.

Additionally, the University of California, Riverside recently initiated consultation with Morongo to review collections for repatriation, and we will be moving forward in partnership with UCR on that effort. So far, Morongo's work with CSUSB has been positive and the following steps have been completed.

The CSUSB Cal NAGPRA team visited Morongo to share information and inventory lists regarding two collections held in the University's Department of Social Services. The team informed the Morongo THPO and that's our tribal heritage repatriation office and cultural heritage staffs, that the collections had been examined by a forensic expert who determined that they did not contain any human remains.

The two collections had been acquired from two different sources. The first was the work of a field school class from several years ago, and second was accepted from a cultural resources firm that had taken over an incomplete project that was later abandoned.

CSUSB accepted the collections with the intention of using them as teaching materials for undergraduate and graduate students. The Morongo Tribal Historic Preservation Office and cultural heritage staffs were invited to view the collection and to visit the curation room and laboratories where the collections are stored at California State University, San Bernardino.

This visit was conducted with respect and transparency, and our representatives were able to approach, examine, and discuss the artifacts without interruption, intrusion, or safety concerns. The Morongo tribal archaeologists examined inventory records and confirmed that the origin sites of both collections were within Morongo ancestral lands.

One collection contains most mostly pre contact materials and a few historic period items, while the second collection contains mostly historic period materials and fewer pre contact items. Summaries of the collection and their acquisition were provided by the tribal archaeologists to the Morongo Cultural Heritage Department.

Our cultural heritage department is preparing a presentation for tribal council to consider when deciding the disposition of these collections. They have also begun planning on how the collections and related archival materials would be stored should tribal council seek to repay their collections to the Morongo reservation.

We are encouraged by these positive steps forward with CSUSB to date and the development developing consultation with UCR. However, when we look at the entire process across the state, it is clear that numerous barriers still exist that are hindering full compliance.

These obstacles include lack of funding for staff at educational institutions and tribes to develop inventories and to care for collections lack of funding for the equipment needed for curation, such as housing, environmental controls, recordkeeping devices and programs poor storage conditions for existing collections due to a neglect or a lack of funding collections from single sites or projects that have dispersed among several institutions lack of knowledge regarding the existence of human remains among collections, particularly those acquired and stored before NAGPRA laws were established unwillingness from some institutions to cooperate or repatriate their research collections loss of documentation regarding older collections lack of understanding on the part of educational institutions and their decision makers regarding tribal significance, sensitivity, and the importance of collections that represent our ancestors and their belongings problems with having adequate teaching materials to use in the classroom and laboratory when preparing students for professional jobs.

Addressing these barriers will require a concerted and sustained effort from all stakeholders to facilitate a timely, respectful repatriation process that honors the cultural heritage and ancestral lands of indigenous communities. Together, we can build a future where these practices are not only compliant with legal requirements, but also reflect the deep respect and recognition that our indigenous cultures deserve.

I would also like to add and listen to the former panel. You know, we're referring to our aunties, our uncles, our grandfathers, our grandmothers. Some of them remain. We're referring to them as bones on a shelf. How many times do you got to, you know, take the, in the event that they were given back, they're giving back.

They're no longer bones on a shelf. How many times are you going to give them back? That's how we're asking, is that they be given back, folks. That's all we're asking. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chairman Martin. Now we'll move to Chairman Jack Potter from Redding Rancheria tribal government.

My name is Jack Potter Junior. I'm the tribal Chairman of Redding Rancheria, and I'm here today and I heard the previous panel, and it kind of bothers me because it seems like it goes back to money, and it makes me think, how many times is money going to be allocated for our people?

In the beginning of this state, $5 bounties were put on the heads of our males and $1.50 bounties on our females and our children. These are the ancestors we're trying to get back today. And now these CSUs and UC's want more money to return them to us. It's a matter of heart.

They should just hand them over. They know where they came from. It shouldn't take so much money. Chico State University has proved that they were one of the worst offenders, and they are one of the best ones in compliance now because they have fully got on board with what they had without seeking future monetary contributions or anything.

And I believe that it's because the leadership there has a heart, and they understand the connection with tribal people. And I'm not speaking against other nationalities because I don't know their ways, their burial practices or things, but with native people, there's certain things we have to do. As I'm in mourning right now, my hair is short.

I lost a sister, and so we do those things. We remove our hair so we don't dream our deceased persons to allow them to travel, so they have smooth transition. And my grandfather, he was the medicine man for the pit river tribe, and he had dreams.

And he said one of the reasons why so many of our people have alcohol problems or drug problems, because they hear the spirits of those that are on these shelves calling out to them. We have family connections, and we don't have to know that person, because your bloodline from the beginning of time has you connected to everyone.

And so those family lines, they're calling out to their ones that are here today, asking them, please get me home. Bring me home. And it bothers me because I don't need to turn to drugs or alcohol, but I hear those cries.

My ancestors speak to me on a daily basis and then to be here, to have to speak before people. I'm glad, and I'm thankful for Assemblymember Ramos for bringing this to light, but it's been in the making for over 30 years, and it shouldn't take 30 years to have our people brought home. Just use your heart.

CSU and UC system, you have those lists. Get a hold of those tribes and hand them over. Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Chairman Potter, for that. Next we'll move to Chairman Leo Siskiyou, chair of the Tachi Yokut tribal government.

Good morning, chair Ramos. Committee Members, my name is Leo Sisko. I have the honor to represent my people of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut tribe. We're at the heart of the San Joaquin valley, just 3 hours south of here, and I want to thank you for inviting our nations here and for the follow up on this matter.

I really do appreciate it, giving the utmost respect and attention our ancestors deserve. This issue not only affects our communities here in California, but it affects tribes all across the country. Again, I would like to thank Assemblymember Ramos and the entire Legislature for your unwavering support. Thank you.

This is a crucial step toward the accountability and compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA by the CSU system. Many factors have contributed to the CSU system making little progress in the timely return of our human remains and cultural items to our respective tribes. They generally lack policies, funding and staffing necessary to follow the law and repatriate their collections.

Some do not even know the extent of their collections of our ancestors remains and cultural items, despite federal state law requirements. The fact that little to no progress has been made in repatriating our ancestors funerary objects and cultural items over the past 34 years since federal NAGPRA was enacted in 1990, is inexcusable, and it's unacceptable.

The biggest factor here is our ancestors and their belongings were not a priority. Again, that's the problem. Our people were not given a priority. NAGPRA was not given a priority. We were given a priority. Our tribe recently from the Chicago Field Museum, and we received many of our ancestors belongings.

And I had the privilege of being in the room with our belongings before they came home. And you could feel the energy. They could feel happy that their descendants were there. We felt the good energy, and that's one thing that CSU and UC will not understand, a part of our culture.

We feel our ancestors, they are not science projects. Our ancestors carry values, stories, and we want to bring those stories and those values home. And it's sad that this crime can be practiced publicly. And it takes an audit. It takes intervention by outsiders to make this right.

You know, we had our last meeting at Fire Mountain, and Assemblymember Ramos organized that, and we discussed the findings of the audit. And Cal State Chico, again, one of the worst ones, made tremendous progress in repatriation despite, quote unquote, lack of funding.

Now, if they can do this despite their circumstances, who's to say that the rest of the CSU system could not do the same? Again, not a priority. The ancestral remains and cultural items being held in these inventories are vital in preserving our Native American culture, history, and should be repatriated to their respective tribal nations, as laws require.

It is time to make things right and bring our people home where they rightfully belong. Now, when it comes to our future generations, we have stressed the importance of education to our youth, and we encourage them to attend these institutes of higher learning. Again, are they going to tell our youth?

Are they not going to have enough respect for our ancestors? They're not going to have respect for them because they come from the same blood. You know, they're not bag of bones sitting in boxes. They're our people. And those are things that we have to explain to our youth. Are we lying to them? Yes, we are.

As tribal leaders, I am ashamed to say that I am lying to them because I want them to go to further their education. But the places I want them to go are doing stuff like this to our people. So we ask that you give us the opportunity to heal.

And our tribe, just like many of the tribes in this room, all nations will remain committed and see this through to the very end. Thank you.

Thank you so much for those comments and this panel and your testimony. Is there any questions from the Dais. Assemblymember Sharon Quirk Silva?

It's really more of a comment. But first, I want to thank all of you for your heartfelt comments. Sometimes when you're in a legislative position, we get a lot of information over a period of time. This is now my 10th year being a Legislator.

Also, I'm an educator, and I represent Fullerton, which is the home of Cal State Fullerton. And you take a lot of information in, and then there becomes an aha moment. And the aha moment is right now, right here at this moment. And this is.

We can get documents and documents, and we have a whole folder here filled of reports and information. But it's much simpler. And it's as simple as you said.

It's about the will, about the simple will to do what is right, to bring home your ancestors in a timely fashion, it is unconscionable that we've had to have several audits now over a 30 year period when the law has been there.

But when you run major institutions, whether it's a CSU or UC system, there are priorities, and there's hundreds of priorities.

And unless we make this a number one priority and say we're not going to accept these delays, we're not going to accept these excuses, we're not going to accept that we can't do something, because Chico is example of what you can do when you make that intentional decision to do what's right.

So I'm very happy to hear the rest of the presenters. I may have to leave. But what I would say is, it is no more excuses. Let's do this. It is not complicated. Sadly, I was really in one of the documents presented, and again, my favorite chancellor is here.

But I was really pretty saddened to read the report of Cal State Fullerton that was moving forward with the broad type of plan to house these collections and really pay tribute. And then because of hiring practice, they removed two individuals who were spearheading and said, well, now, you know, this is okay because it's going to be better.

But the point is, when you delay, when you change leadership, this causes time. And I sat on this exact audit two years ago with you as we brought this, and others of us have so simply no more delays. It's time for respect and return. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any others wishing to comment? Well, I want to thank you for your testimony and really talking about the tribal consultation before reports go out to the federal or to the state area of compliance with institutions that was brought up. I think that needs to resonate, right?

That we need to have the input of tribal people prior to any reports going out and talking about the field school and the incomplete project where remains are sheds a light to how these remains end up in archives where they're at now, of our, of our loved ones, that it's during field schools, field schools that were implemented through schools, UC's, Cal states, and even private field schools that would go out there and excavate and find remains of our people.

We have to make sure that that component also is addressed so that we start to be more proactive before these remains are even uncovered. And thank you for bringing that up. And, Chairman Potter, the remains that we talk about and the loved ones that are there, you mentioned it should be a matter of heart of complying.

We shouldn't have to have audits and hearings and talk about funding these things. It should be the proper thing to do in the State of California is returning remains of our people, of our loved ones. So thank you for that.

Chairman Sisco, you bring up an area, another area that this body and the Select Committee have addressed was education attainment. And we moved pieces of legislation in those arenas. But you bring up a statement that I think needs to resonate.

How can we tell our kids, how could we even ourselves go to a Cal State University or a UC when from the top level down, they haven't had respect for our ancestors? So it goes deep. And I think when we talk about repatriation, we talk about remains of loved ones that are there. We can't just stop there.

It goes deeper than that in the historical trauma that we have to now move forward in telling our kids to pursue a higher education. So it's time that we do come together as a State of California.

This legislative body, the Cal State University system, the UC system, and start to bring an end to this practice so that we can honorably move our kids into higher education. Thank you for bringing that component into the equation. I want to thank each and every one of you.

As now, we move to the other presenters here within the tribal response audit Laura Lee Ross, Vice Chair, Federated Indians of Grayton Tribal Government, Buffy McEwen, tribal heritage preservation officer of the Federated Indians of Great and Tribal Government and Catalina Chacon, Council Member of the Pachanga tribal government.

And we'll start with Lorelle Ross, Vice Chair of the Federated Indian Great Tribal Government.

Hi. Good morning. My name is pronounced 'Laurel" Ross. It's a little different.

Apologies.

No worries. I would like to first start off with a thank you and for starting off today with a prayer song. I also want to acknowledge that we are here on the land of the Wilton tribal nation.

Good morning, Chair Ramos and members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Assembly Select Committee on Native American Affairs. I am Lorelle Ross. I am the Vice Chair emeritus of the Federated Indians of Greaton Rancheria, having served 28 years on tribal council. I am representing my tribe officially today.

I also serve as the chair of the UC President's Native American Advisory Committee, and I'm a Member of the Sonoma State University Campus Committee for CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA Compliance. I am speaking today on behalf of tribal Chairman Greg Sarris and the tribal council.

The Federated Indians of Greaton Rancheria is a tribe comprised of southern Pomos as well as Coast Miwok from our aboriginal and culturally traditional lands of Sonoma and Marin County. Our reservation is in Sonoma County. I grew up on what was the historical ranch area where my mom still resides.

Sonoma State University sits on our aboriginal territory, as does many community colleges, private colleges and museums within our aboriginal territory. Due to the urgency that was shared last year at the audit oversight hearing in August, the process has been slow and cumbersome as the CSU has tried to achieve compliance with the directives of AB 38.

While I was nominated and appointed to serve on the SSU University Campus Committee, the path to get there was slow and bureaucratic. The president of SSU resigned.

Leadership is needed to move the SSU Campus Committee forward and to achieve the objectives of CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA. Tribes are faced with institutions, institutional bureaucracy coupled with challenges finding qualified applicants who are suitable to serve on the CSU, who are not CSU employees, who are conflicted or have potential conflicts, all of which slows down compliance.

The CSU has seats available remaining. There still is a CSU system wide committee that has not been formed formally. Further, AB 389 requires campuses to have a full time, experienced repatriation coordinators as well as a system wide coordinator by July 1 of 2024.

Adriane Tafoya, the CSU CalNAGPRA project manager, has been hired and is making significant strides in outreach and communication. However, it is unclear if CSU has fully empowered her to effectively oversee and implement AB 389. Clarity is needed regarding the overall leadership and structure to ensure compliance and progress.

It was noted on the earlier the first panel that there was an .org chart explaining such structure that hasn't trickled down. CSU leadership the chancellor's office must continue to take responsibility for compliance, funding, training, reporting, and enforcement of NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA.

I urged the committee last year to use the UC NAGPRA policy as a roadmap to develop the CSU policy and establish committees to implement NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA. However, the CSU draft policy, it was just released on July 2 to tribes for review and provided comments.

In December of 2023, new NAGPRA regulations were published in the Federal Registry and became effective July 12 of this year.

These new regulations dismantle Health and Safety Code section 8020.7 because the new NAGPRA regulations eliminated culturally unidentifiable human remains category requires museums and federal agencies to obtain free, prior informed consent before any exhibition of access to or research on human remains or cultural items and requires deference to indigenous knowledge.

The federal regulations also allow CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA to work together to promote tribal sovereignty. The need for CSUs and UC's to thoughtfully and meaningfully comply with both NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA is critical.

Last year, on August 29, I testified here before the same Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Assembly of Select Committee on Native affairs regarding AB 389 and the CSU audit. The tribe - my tribe supported the findings and recommendation of the audit, which highlighted CSU's system's overwhelming failure to inventory and repatriate collections to tribes.

I stressed last year, and I'm going to stress again now. It is critical to recognize that that all state agencies and museums receiving state and federal funding and possessing human remains and cultural items must comply with CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA. The audit is the only oversight tool to ensure this compliance.

Therefore, we urge the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the state auditor to conduct audits of the state agencies and museums to enforce NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA. Additionally, annual reporting to these agencies and museums must be a legislative mandate. The current pace of progress towards cultural justice is undeniably slow, painfully slow.

We must work with a renewed sense of urgency and ensure the efforts are comprehensive across every agency. In close, I would like to just leave you some numbers. At Sonoma State University, just in my tribe, Coast Miwok, southern Pomo of Sonoma, and Marin counties, there are 510 collections. I am being conservative.

We have counted over 295,000 thousand items. These are ancestral fragments to funeral objects, as well as reflecting the problematic areas in field schools and research. I thank you for your time and for your continued leadership on this matter and for giving us an opportunity to participate today. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll now move to Catalina Chacon, Council Member from the Pachanga tribal government.

Chairman Ramos and members of the committee: [Foreign Language]. Good morning. My name is Catalina Chacon and my tribal council member for the Pechanga Band of Indians. I also serve as the Vice Chair of the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nation, otherwise known as Taensa.

I also serve as the Vice Chair of the California Tribal Families Coalition and also serve as on the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls.

Thank you for holding and holding this hearing today and keeping this issue in front of the legislature here in California, home to the most federally recognized tribal governments in the country, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, NAGPRA has proven inadequate and ineffective when it comes to research universities like the University of California and California State University.

NAGPRA requires federally funded museums and universities to repatriate ancestral remains and cultural items to federally recognized tribes. Unfortunately, the UC and CSU have a well-documented and chronic history of noncompliance with these federal and state laws designed to bring our ancestors home.

Although more than 30 years have passed since NAGPRA was enacted, the state auditor recently found that more than half of the CSU campus have not returned any remains or cultural items to tribes.

Our tribal ancestors and cultural items are still seen as specimens to many researchers instead of human beings with the right to a final, dignified place of rest.

Even today, there are amateur archaeological societies that are generally not subject to NAGPRA, but they have CSU professors and staff as members, and they coordinate regularly with CSU campuses to offer fields, schools to CSU students. They often house the excavated resources at CSU campuses, with CSU staff assuming responsibility for them.

They trade them with each other, they take them home. All of this so they can publish papers and books about a people and a culture that has not consented to being treated as specimens.

Failing to return our tribal ancestors, whose remains and funerary items were dug up in the name of science, is disgraceful, incongruent with the reputation and stated values of the UC and CSU. After years of deep frustration and disappointment with repatriation, our tribe, Pechanga, had enough of the delays, the defiance, and the disrespect.

That's why Pechanga sponsored AB 2836 by former Assemblymember Todd Gloria in 2018. The intent of the bill was to compel the UC to finally take federal NAGPRA seriously to return our ancestors to the appropriate tribes for proper care.

Specifically, the bill established a system wide framework for the process to return our ancestral remains, cultural items and created a system of checks and balances by requiring that repatriation policies and procedures include tribal voices both in their creation and implementation at every step. We thank you, Chairman Ramos, for your leadership in authoring AB 389 last year.

We were very happy to have worked with your office to model a similar framework for the CSU. In spite of this painful and traumatic past, laws like AB 2836 and AB 389 give us hope, hope for the return of our ancestors to the rightful families and communities, and hope for the day when our grandchildren will not have to undertake this heavy and traumatic work. The state auditor has outlined several thoughtful recommendations in their report from last year.

We agree with the key recommendations, namely that the chancellor's office should first ensure that campuses properly consult with tribes immediately concerning protocols for preparing the required inventories by December 2024. This includes locating culturally appropriate handling and identifying ancestral remains and cultural items.

I want to especially emphasize this recommendation by the auditor and add that while we want to return our ancestors home as timely as possible, we do not want the US, UC, or CSU to rush the process or skip steps and send relatives to the wrong places.

Ensuring proper tribal consultation first would go a long ways to avoiding such mistakes. Second, although the system wide NAGPRA policy has been released and tribal consultation is planned for the fall of 2024, a clear process of how tribal government input and best practices will be incorporated into the policy should be communicated to consulting tribal governments.

Third, require campuses to have full time repatriation coordinators. Let me emphasize that training on repatriation laws is critically important for the coordinators. Our experience is showing us that some that are put in charge of repatriation and consultation are simply not trained in repatriation laws or tribally approved best practices.

This is causing delays and mistakes that are burdensome on our tribal governments.

Finally, the intent of the campus and system wide committees required by AB 389 are not intended to be barriers to repatriation, but rather to provide California tribes with a voice and repatriation decisions to ensure that they're in compliance with federal and state repatriation laws and tribal practices.

In closing, let me say that we recognize CSU is at the beginning stages of implementing their system wide repatriation program. We also recognize that the UC and CSU face challenges. They are large and complex organizations responsible for nearly 1 million students. Funding for NAGPRA is also a challenge.

However, we cannot begin to address this challenge without knowing what we face. To that end, the chancellor's office should make funding for NAGPRA a priority and should estimate the funding needs. Mister Chairman, we look forward to real progress by next year.

We thank you for this opportunity to share some thoughts and we stand ready to help correct this injustice. [Foreign Language]. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for that testimony in identifying key areas that are there. Next, we'll go to Buffy McQuillen, Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer, Federated Indians Tribal of Graton Rancheria Government.

Thank you Assemblymember Ramos, members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Assembly Select Committee on Native American affairs. My name is Buffy McQuillen. I am here on behalf of the Federated Indians of great rancheria.

I currently serve as a fairly recognized tribal member on the UC systemwide Repatriation Committee with over 20 years of direct experience in the repatriation field, it is also my honor to serve as a Governor appointee to the Native American Heritage Commission.

While honored, I am not formally representing the commission today, but I will clarify, from our earlier testimony from Secretary Hitchcock, a few items in two audit reports issued in 2019 and 2021, it was overwhelmingly clear in the audit findings that the UC has not adequately prioritized the return of Native American ancestral remains and cultural items.

They were allowed to report that they addressed the audit findings, which included everything from failures to identifying collections, consistent practices for tribal consultation, inconsistent practices to prioritizing funding for repatriation.

While it seems the UC was able to respond to the findings, there still seems to be in practice significant challenges for tribes to repatriate ancestral remains and cultural items. With the issuance of updated and clarifying regulations by the Federal Government this past January 2024, there has still been a slow effort to implement the updated regulations.

UC repatriation staff and the president's office while committed to the efforts to implement the law, there are challenges when it comes to ensuring that campuses are in fact meeting their federal requirements for NAGPRA.

Because there is an audit requirement under the California Health and Safety Code 8028, the California State Auditor, which requires the CSA to conduct an audit commencing in the year 2019 and 2021 regarding UC's California compliance with federal NAGPRA and shall report its findings to the legislature and to all other appropriate entities.

It seems there is a dire need to renew this effort to review the UC compliance with federal NAGPRA. Both AB 275 and 389 require compliance with both state and federal repatriation laws. There is also greater clarity amongst practitioners in this field that the only path to repatriation is by way of the Federal Government's NAGPRA process.

UC campuses have yet to fully comply with federal NAGPRA and have been allotted more time to submit inventories and summaries. However, let's be clear. With 30 years now plus into the repatriation, there is nowhere near being completion on the horizon.

One thing I really want to be clear about, and really stress, is that until campuses fully comply with inventories and summaries at the federal level, we cannot move forward with repatriation because it is only through that process. While CALNAGPRA uplifts the process, it is through the Federal Government that repatriation actually happens.

So, I want to be really clear about that. We have to work in concert with one another in order to achieve this. So, while we can do things at the state level, it's really critical to actually follow that federal process. One thing I want to clarify is that the Native American heritage fundamentally feels that everybody should comply.

All institutions and museums. While we would like to have other institutions spotlighted, it is absolutely critical for every institution to hold themselves, their consultants, accountable. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony and the panel. Any questions from the dais? I do want to acknowledge Assemblymember Carrillo and Assemblymember Luz Rivas, who joined us, but do we have any comments, questions for this panel from the dais?

I want to thank you for bringing forward during your testimony. From Graton, as far as the nomination process and identifying that that could be a barrier to getting these positions filled.

We would like to work with you to identify what those barriers are so that we could start to look at that to ensure that that's not a hindrance for moving forward and complying with CalNAGPRA and the federal NAGPRA. Thank you for bringing that forward. Also, I just wanted to clarify: you talked and mentioned about Sonoma State 510 collections, but did you say 295,000 pieces of artifacts individually?

Right. So, they consider the 510 collections as sort of like a large collection, but within those collections, when you start going piece by piece, item by item, the total is nearing up to 300,000.

Wow. And so, would it be safe to say or elaborate that was identified in the audit as 700,000 Native American remains collections, artifacts, that a formula like this could actually be implemented, that it's far more than just the 510, and in this case, almost 300,000?

Yes, Assemblymember Ramos and I had mentioned I was being conservative. However, we do feel that there is probably more, given that there are other resources and boxes that have yet to be really fully vetted.

I'm also aware in the short time, one of the milestones that has happened since this law was implemented was a lot of the CSUs are doing a outreach internally to various departments. So, beyond anthropology, biology, other types of departments that may also have cultural and human remains that have gone under addressed or not accounted for.

So, it underscores the point that THPO, McQuillen has said about really ensuring that the inventory and expansive awareness of all of the universities is thoroughly researched and assessed from every department tip top to also the prior chair talked about the professors who retired what's in people's homes, because what had resulted at Sonoma State, for example, was a huge point of education for some professors and departments who really do not understand NAGPRA or even know what that means or repatriation.

So institutionally, there needs to be greater awareness besides the typical anthropological departments, as well as understanding that potentially there are collections that have been in hiding or in byways that the universities have not thought about before.

Thank you. Thank you for that and Catalina from Pechanga Tribal government bringing up as far as amateur field schools. This still is a practice that's taking place currently as we're sitting here. Those field schools that go out and work with the local education institutions, going and digging up areas that sometimes uncover remains.

And so, it goes deeper to compliance with Cal State universities, UC's. It goes to how those remains, how our loved ones are being excavated in the first place. I know that you've been working tirelessly on this effort, also repatriation, but identifying that and making sure that how do we move forward to make sure that those field schools are not continuing to do this?

I wish it would stop. I wish it would just stop. It's so disheartening for us, for the tribal leaders before me that sat up here. I mean, you can hear it in our words, in our hearts, and, you know, we just want our people back. We want them safely put to rest.

You know, gentleman that was sitting up here earlier, the legislator, I can't remember his name.

Jackson.

But, yeah, Jackson, you know, he said, God, I don't know how I'd feel if this was my ancestors. I'd be taking this, you know, and it's like that for each one of you up here. I mean, just imagine if this was your ancestors. And it's been happening for so long.

I mean, over 30 years, NAGPRA has been enacted, and we still can't get this right. It's not right. We need to bring our ancestors home, and that's all we're asking.

Well, thank you. Thank you for that. And also, the compliance of professors and retired professors that keep these in their archives. And again, it needs to be stated that our loved ones and our ancestors are not trophies to be put on a shelf.

We need to make sure that the repatriation process continues, but we have to stop that process to make sure that our loved ones and remains do not continue to move that move forward.

So, it was a testimony in this panel and prior that there should be accountability for professors and retiring professors for what they have within their collections. So, thank you for that. And it also was brought up that even though we're filling these positions, that there needs to be further education on the laws themselves.

And I guess that would go into some of the recruitment process, maybe after the recruitment's done, that there should be some type of education on these laws and CalNAGPRA, NAGPRA laws on repatriation. So, we'll take that to heart and thank you for that. Catalina. And, Buffy, you mentioned the difference between the federal and the CalNAGPRA.

If we're focused strongly on the state CalNAGPRA, we're forgetting that a lot of these institutions still have to comply with the federal aspect. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?

Yes. Thank you. Assemblymember Ramos, in order to actually achieve repatriation without the liability or risk that comes with actually, technically, property transfers, you actually have to notice it in the federal register, and you give notice to all of the potential other culturally affiliated tribes or ancestral lineal descendants that could come forward.

That's a very formal process under federal law. And so we really uplift that in California. And so if you don't go through that process, basically you open up yourself to liability, not an attorney, but I know a lot of attorneys.

So, but that is one of the risks that come with repatriation under state law is we don't have a mechanism right now to do that. That's not to say that something couldn't be created, but right now it really stems from the federal government down to the state system, and that we really support that effort.

And that is a lot of what we are doing at the Native American Heritage Commission. When we talk about being able to mediate, we are able to actually sit down.

We hope to sit down with tribes who maybe are in dispute or with campuses who are in disputes and don't understand the law or don't understand why a transfer needs to occur or why a culturally affiliated tribe wasn't actually contacted. Those are the mechanisms that are in place under the commission's authority.

So those are all the ways in which we can support federal law, along with also the repatriation review committee at the federal level. There's also failures to comply, notices that can go out. So, there's a lot of work that we can do if we actually sit down and work together with our federal partners.

Thank you for that. Luz Rivas? Assemblymember? Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and both of you for putting together this hearing. I had some comments and questions. First, thank you for joining us today. You know, I'm learning so much and not proud that our universities are not complying and that they have a history of noncompliance.

I know one of you mentioned that over half of Cal State University campuses have not returned anything. And it's horrible to hear that what you're saying, these retired professors are keeping some of these items and the way they're treating the remains.

And I'm curious if, you know, as part of graduate education, like our future researchers and academics and professors, is NAGPRA and repatriation any part of that training so that in the future, you know, our future researchers know this and it's part of their training? Do we know if that's happening anywhere?

I'm happy to try to respond to that. Under the new regulations that clarify this part of the process under, it's called a duty of care, and if you work with tribal nations, and if tribal nations want to lead research projects or they have their own research inquiries, there could be a process for doing types of field schools that may be in the best interest of the campus, the UC system, the CSU system, and the tribe.

But it really brings it into the tribal fold where they can actually make decisions. And so, you know, it could work in a manner where there is an acceptable standard to a specific tribe or tribes.

But categorically, as Assemblymember Ramos is saying, we're, as Indian people, we're not made for the shelves, so we are not objects and nor are people or their cultural items. And so, it really sets that apart and sets that standard.

And so that's really the critical piece, I think, to uplift right now is to really set that standard and really cement that in these systems that that's unacceptable, that is no longer, because it is a human rights violation.

So, I think that is where we're at. We may get to a point where there could be some allowances, but we're really at a starting point 30 plus years in.

Okay. No, that's good to hear because I'm just curious if that was part of their training, their graduate school training and how are we changing that, right, so that they know this is not appropriate. There's a way to change the system. .

Absolutely. Absolutely. It really is, though, changing, changing - it's a paradigm shift of, you know, holding themselves accountable. But if they have not yet done that, which many of them are upset by the research ban, which actually is now uplifted in federal law, that you can't just go do that.

So, you know, that was a monumental step for tribes. That was a big victory to actually have the federal system support us in that way.

Well, that's great. Years ago, I used to work at a museum of natural history in New York City. I worked in science education, but my colleagues that worked in anthropology and others, I remember there was just a fear, right, that native tribes would come and take these items that are stored in basements, not all on display.

And I never really understood why they're just stored somewhere, and you just want to keep them just because that is what they're used to. Right. This is how their field of study works, unfortunately, and, but I think it's time to change.

And in California, especially here, since we're here at the legislature, you know, I really feel, and I support this. And as I transition to the federal level and to Congress, I definitely want to keep updated on how the federal laws can support and make California accountable in some way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rivas. Assemblymember Garcia?

Yeah, thank you. That was an excellent question, and you gave a response, but I think it deserving of maybe a reframing and, should the legislature mandate this type of training for those going into this particular field of study.

And perhaps each one of you can chime in on that because we've got legislators here and others watching, other stakeholders here, that if the sentiment is we should move in that direction, that is how we can begin the shifting of how the anthropologists and or other academic researchers from the classroom all the way down to the executive office.

And you know, the, I think what most folks are here to hear from are the next panelists, because what we've heard from the first panel, the second panel, is all too familiar to many of you in this room and to many here on the dais. But the reframing of the question more simple.

Can we perhaps proceed with conditioning these types of training methods to make sure that the future academics are not adhering to these old practices that are, quite frankly, very disrespectful, and anyone else, as our colleague Mister Jackson shared, would be furious about this problem still happening. So, that's the question.

Should we consider legislation to condition these types of trainings for future academics?

I would like to thank you for that. I'd like to share with you a sort of an answer or an example or model that I think could be replicated and certainly should be deeply understood in more depth. For my tribe working with Sonoma State, they have an anthropological information center.

A lot of the collections that I referred to earlier have come through different contractors, where the anthropological center is paid to come out and do services through different projects that are requiring that type of knowledge.

What we've advocated for is for the anthropological center to stop monetizing their resources and services, for anthropological services and collect, and thus de facto becoming the holder of these collections.

But to uplift tribes, not just our own, but other tribes, to do direct tribal consultation, so that tribes are put in front where they should be, to actually decide and dictate where there is collections, if there are jobs or some sort of impact to place, rather than creating it, a monetary means for a university to keep the flow of their center.

And I think there's some really, you follow, the money is always kind of the adage, but I think there's an opportunity there where the centers, rather than being gatekeepers, really need to be uplifting tribes through real meaningful consultations so they don't actually become the recipients in the first place.

And just to add to that, I think that tribes in general are always looking to mandate best practices, practices when it comes to things like this. I think even in the archaeological field, we need to have ethics. There needs to be ethics involved, and that's currently not the case right now.

So, we are always looking forward to best practices and mandating all of that is definitely in favor.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Mathis.

Thank you. Just quickly, I think, to Member Rivas' comment, the mythology has been, you know, these are cultures that have been stored in basements of museums and other places. And it reminded me briefly of watching like Indiana Jones, but you're talking about a culture that's dead and gone. This, these are our cultures, your cultures, our family members.

That why the family member may be passed, their spirit still lives on, and their ancestors are here begging to get them back, which goes to what you just said about the ethics on what's being done, and it needs to be looked at and rephrased of, you know what?

If they're still, if there's still a tribe, if there's still a nation saying give us our people back, then that's what needs to be done. It's not you know, something 10,000 years ago and everybody's gone. This is here today now. And that's what needs to change.

Thank you so much. Any more comments, questions from the dais? Thank you so much for your enlightening testimony.

Thank you.

Now we'll move to our next panel with Cal State University's and UC response to the audit. We have with us the distinguished Mildred Garcia, Chancellor of the California State University Steve Perez, President, California State University Chico, Teresa Maldonado, Vice President for Research Innovation, University of California, and Deborah Motton, Executive Director of Research Policy Analysis Coordination, University of California.

Glenys Echavarri, System-wide Repatriation Coordinator, University of California, who will join us virtually when we get to that point, and Richard Lyons, Chancellor of UC Berkeley, and Alex Lucas, Director of Repatriation, UC Berkeley.

And I know there's limited seats, so I'm not sure how everybody's put together, but we'll start with the chancellors in Cal State universities, and we'll go through the agenda and call people up. So, first, we'll go with the chancellor, Chancellor Garcia, then Steve Perez, Teresa Maldonado, and Deborah Motton, first four.

Chair Hart and Chair Ramos. Thank you for holding today's hearing and providing me the opportunity to take part of it. I am Doctor Mildred Garcia, Chancellor of the California State University.

I would like to begin by acknowledging to the legislators and to the tribal leaders here today that the California State University has fallen far short of our obligations to return the Native American ancestors and cultural items that have been on our campuses for far too long.

Our actions and inactions have caused great pain to Native Americans throughout California. I recognize, and I am deeply troubled by the ongoing and historical trauma associated with our lack of repatriation. Sincerely, I am deeply sorry for us at the Cal State for doing this horrendous thing for so many years.

I want to assure the Legislature and California tribes that I and each of our university presidents understand that our full and timely compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA is more than a legal obligation.

We know it is a moral imperative, and that moral imperative requires that the reappreciation of ancestors and cultural items be done responsibly, respectfully, transparently and with accountability. It requires that we act in constant collaboration, in consultation with tribal communities and in a way that honors and respects tribal heritage, culture, values, and beliefs.

I say unequivocally, we will repatriate all ancestors and cultural items at each of our universities. This has been a top priority of me, of mine, since I began my tenure last October, and it will remain so until our moral imperative is met.

I would like to now offer a brief response to the State Auditor's update and share with you our response and commitment to the recommendations made in 2023.

First, as noted in our initial response to the audit last summer, we agree with the State Auditor's findings that the chancellor's office has not given our universities appropriate guidance and oversight to ensure compliance.

To rectify this, and to respect the government-to-government nature of our relationship with tribes, we have shifted NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA responsibility from the Division of Academic and Student Affairs to the Division of External Relations and Communications.

While not part of the state audit's one year update, in June, my office announced the creation of the Office of Tribal Relations with the sole charge and focus to facilitate engagement with tribes, cultivate partnerships, and ensure compliance with state and federal law. The office will be led by an Executive Director and report directly to the division's vice chancellor, which reports directly to me.

Our NAGRA team has spent the better time of this calendar year drafting a system-wide policy through an inclusive and transparent process, elevating tribal voices and perspectives throughout. We held 10 listening sessions across the state during which I and other CSU leaders heard firsthand the tribes' concerns.

These concerns included, but are by no means limited to, the need for the CSU to simplify and standardize the repatriation process, the importance of compensation to tribes for their time spent on repatriation, and the need to consistently review campus spaces for ancestors and cultural items.

Last month, we shared the working draft for consultation purposes, which we mailed to more than 300 tribal leaders and the Native American Heritage Commission. It is also on our website at nagpra.calstate.edu. A 90-day consultation period will begin in September and run through November to give tribes the opportunity to provide direct feedback.

At that point, the working draft will be updated before another round of tribal and commission consultation in the spring. We will meet AB 389's deadline for the policy to be implemented by July 2025.

As you know, AB 389 requires our future system-wide policy to include a prohibition on using tribal ancestors and cultural items in teaching and research. I did not want to wait until July 2025 to enact the prohibition. Therefore, in March of this year, I sent each president a directive to adhere to the prohibition now.

Despite our challenging budget climate and reflecting on our commitment, I have allocated $4.25 million in our 24-25 Budget to system-wide and campus NAGPRA compliance efforts. This is the first time the chancellor's office has allocated funds directly to our campuses for this work.

Campuses will use this funding to hire and train staff, respond to tribal requests, and support campus committees, as well as other compliance work. We view this initial investment as a long overdue down payment, and we know that additional investment is needed.

We continue to collaborate with the Native American Heritage Commission to create and fill campus and system-wide oversight committees. Of the 154 committee members needed to date, the Commission has nominated 29 members.

We sincerely appreciate the time and energy that the Commission staff have dedicated to the committee nomination process. Both on the audit and AB 389 call for hiring experienced campus coordinators. Our response to the Auditor indicated that 18 campuses have fulfilled this obligation.

I am pleased to report to you that one of the three campuses that did not meet AB 389 July 1st deadline has done so by offering making an offer to a candidate at Cal State LA.

The remaining two campuses, CSU Bakersfield and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, have reposted their positions after not attracting a qualified candidate in their initial searches this spring. Before I close my remarks, I want to acknowledge and thank the team at Chico State, led by President Perez, who joins me here today.

For five years, they have been a model for the CSU in working diligently, transparently and with accountability, establishing respective collaborative and consultative relationships with their local tribal communities. The other CSU campuses will honor their exemplar.

I will end my remarks by sharing with you some of the ways our board of trustees and I are holding each other and our campuses accountable in our NAGPRA compliance work. First, our trustees are updated on system and campus compliance efforts at each board meeting.

Second, NAGPRA compliance is now part of each presidential review, as well as their more formal triennial performance evaluations. Presidents know that they must prioritize repatriation on their campuses and actively direct this essential work.

Third, NAGPRA is also a standing item at each of our executive leadership team convenings, attended in person by each president in our system-wide senior leadership. President Tomas Morales is our executive leadership team leader who serves as Presidential Advisor for Native American Initiatives.

We are pleased to have Native American Heritage Commission leadership join us in February this year so they could speak directly to the presidents to increase their knowledge, awareness, and cultural understanding about the need to bring the ancestors home. Finally, as chancellor, I will hold this university system accountable.

I will ensure that our actions align with our words and what I know is to be our sincere intent to live up to our legal and moral obligations. And as I said earlier, which bears repeating, we will do this work responsibly, respectfully, transparently, with accountability, in a way that honors, respects tribal heritage, culture, values, and beliefs.

Chair Hart and Chair Ramos, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today.

Thank you so much for your comments, Madam Chancellor. Next, we'll move to Mister Steve Perez, President, California State University, Chico.

Thank you. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Ramos, Chairman Hart, Members of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs, Joint Legislative Audit Committee Members, and tribal leaders. Thank you for the invitation to be here today. My name is Steve Perez, and I serve as the President at Chico State.

This is my second opportunity to address this group as I represented Chico State at the Joint Hearing of the Legislative Audit Committee and the Select Committee on Native American Affairs on August 29th, 2023, in addition to a Native American Legislative roundtable on May 28th, 2024.

Joining me in the audience are Doctor Rachel McBride-Praetorius, Director of our Office of Tribal Relations, and Dawn Rewolinski. Sorry, Dawn, Cultural Artifact Specialist, also in our Office of tribal Relations. First and foremost, I want to express my acknowledgment that Chico State has been out of compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA for years.

Repatriation is of the highest priority for us, and though we have made significant progress, I want to apologize to all tribes and individuals for the hurt and harm Chico State has caused and to those who continue to wait for the repatriation of their ancestors and cultural items.

This hearing is an important opportunity for Chico State to share progress and to continue to learn how we can do better. And I'm grateful, genuinely grateful, for being invited. Though we know our work isn't complete until 100% of ancestral remains and cultural items have been repatriated, I am able to report that Chico State has made progress in its repatriation efforts.

As of June 2024, Chico State has successfully repatriated 94% of the ancestral remains and 86% of the cultural items that were previously under our legal control. Those percentages equate to 2,567 ancestral remains and 97,098 cultural items. The University continues to work closely with tribal leaders and lawmakers to ensure responsible and respectful return of all remaining items.

The ancestral remains that have been repatriated to a tribal consortium that includes Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, Konkow Valley Band of Maidu, Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians and Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians.

These ancestors were reburied June 2024 on land identified by tribes and in agreement and collaboration with Chico State. The 2023 State Audit noted the University was close to repatriating a large percentage of its collection and that did in fact, happen. The recommendations in the report have helped us to further improve our processes.

As you all know, the repatriation process is complex and long. Chico State began to focus on consultation in 2019, and it's taken five years of dedicated resources, employee hours, and prioritization to begin to see repatriation progress. Appropriate staffing has been critical to the process at Chico State.

Repatriation is facilitated by cultural artifacts specialist Dawn Rewolinski, who is an administrator with the ability to make decisions and who also possesses a deep knowledge of NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. With the upcoming hire of a data collection specialist, Chico State will have eight professionals and student staff employees working toward NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA compliance.

Our university is fortunate, through the work of our Office of Tribal Relations and under the direction of Rachel McBride-Praetorius, to have built strong relationships with many area tribes who we have consulted with, who have consulted with us throughout this process, including serving on the hiring Committee for the Cultural Artifacts Specialist.

This feedback has been integral in our progress. Our cultural artifact specialist was hired in December 2021. Having her on board and working with the campus Native American Consultation and Repatriation Committee for the last two and a half years has been incredibly helpful.

We are committed to continued tribal consultation with tribes and tribal leaders and continuing to understand how we can improve our practices and strengthen our commitment to tribal consultation, NAGPRA, and tribal relations

To provide a status update regarding what we will still have in front of us, currently, less than 50 ancestors remain and are under Chico State's control, though this number may change as we move through consultation and repatriation. The campus also has 58,422 remaining cultural items, 14% of which are controlled by Chico State. These are largely from 78 federal and 94 state collections.

In response to the recommendations from the audit, Chico State established two distinct spaces, the Office of Tribal Nations Building where consultations could be conducted and a separate, culturally sensitive storage space, a modified classroom to house all ancestors and cultural items in a culturally appropriate and safe manner.

Additionally, 20 notices have been published in the federal registers, 15 notices of inventory completion, and five notices of intended repatriation have been filed. Finally, policies have been drafted on NAGPRA practices and are currently under legal review and tribal consultation.

In addition, Chico State has been in consultation with 13 tribes, invited to consult with 22 tribes, and conducted four state and federal agency consultations.

Reunification of collections has occurred with collections from five universities, UCLA, Michigan State University, UC Riverside, UC Davis, and Sonoma State two state agencies, Caltrans and California State Parks, and one federal agency, U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. We have consulted with tribes within our four-county regional area that borders Butte County.

We are currently moving further north to engage in consultations. Consultation and repatriation also happen through tribal requests. We will continue to engage in consultation with tribes until all collections are repatriated. Your guidance will shape our actions as we work towards fostering a more respectful and equitable relationship.

Your presence here today is deeply appreciated, and your voices are essential as we endeavor to move forward together. We will continue to listen to tribal leaders, comply with the Auditor's recommendations to ensure NAGPRA compliance, and we will continue to repatriate. And again, thank you for inviting us here today and allowing us to share our progress, listen and learn from you about how we can do better.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We will now move to Teeresa Maldonado, Vice President of Research and Innovation for the University of California.

Thank you, so much and good afternoon, Chair Ramos, Chair Hart, Members of the California Assembly Select Committee on Native American Affairs and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Also, good afternoon to the tribal leaders and respected guests.

I am Teresa Maldonado, and I serve as the Vice President for Research and Innovation at the University of California Office of the President. My office leads the development, all updates and implementation of the UC Native American Cultural Affiliation and Repatriation Policy. Joining me from my office are Doctor Deborah Motton, sitting right here beside me.

She is Executive Director for the UCOP Research, Policy Analysis, and Coordination Committee, as we call RPAC. Doctor Motton will report on the status of UC repatriation.

Also, from research and innovation are Miss Lourdes Dematos, who is RPAC Director, and she is sitting in the audience, as well as System-wide Repatriation Coordinator Glenys Echavarri, who is currently out of the country but on Zoom at this moment.

In addition, we have the new UC Berkeley Chancellor Doctor Rich Lyons sitting here and his team to report on the Berkeley-specific campus activities. I am here today representing UC President Michael Drake and UC Systemwide Provost Kathryn Newman.

Although they were not able to be here today, I can say that their commitment to repatriation is unwavering and focused. You will learn more about some examples of their commitment today. Before I begin, I'd like to express my deepest gratitude to the tribal leaders who just spoke in the previous panel.

Your remarks were very powerful and very meaningful to me personally, and they will guide the work that we do in my office. Thank you. Also, I'd like to acknowledge and congratulate you on the special Fifth Annual California Indian Cultural Awareness event that took place yesterday.

I watched it live stream and the spiritual nature of that event came through very strongly and also recognize the ACR 140 on the importance of the California Native American Day. Now for my update.

First, I want to begin by reiterating our apology for the University's role in the acquisition of Native American and Native Hawaiian ancestors and their cultural items. These items and ancestral remains were obtained in violation of indigenous spiritual and cultural beliefs without free, prior, and informed consent.

UC is committed to fully implement the spirit as well as the legal requirements of both NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. We acknowledge and embrace the fundamental human rights encompassed in these laws and now in our policy. We are fully committed to repatriation and to repairing the damage we cause.

UC's current repatriation policy represents a significant shift both in level of commitment and action, making repatriation a fundamental priority of the University. The current policy was first adopted as an interim policy in June 2020 and subsequently revised to incorporate the requirements of AB 275 passed in September 2020 regarding inventories and summaries.

The UC policy was finalized in January 2022. Among other changes, key concepts from AB 275 reflected in the policy include deference to tribal traditional knowledge, inclusion of all Native American archaeological and ethnographic objects in UC-submitted summaries, and identification of objects as cultural items by tribal representatives and not the University.

We are in the process of updating the policy to align with the recently revised NAGPRA regulations issued by the Federal Government in January 2024. Fortunately, because of many concepts from Cal NAGPRA were adopted by NAGPRA. The UC policy is already compliant in several areas.

For example, as I just mentioned, the UC policy requires deference to tribal traditional knowledge. It also prohibits research, instructional, and other use of Native American human remains and cultural items without explicit written tribal authorization. In addition to implementing our policy, UC has taken significant steps to advance repatriation across the system.

We have implemented all of the recommendations of the California State Auditor, including issuing guidance on consultations and processes for working with partner institutions, hiring full-time repatriation coordinators, requiring campus repatriation plans, and budgeting for repatriation work.

In November 2023, President Drake committed $5.7 million for campus repatriation over a three-year period, with campuses expected to fully fund their respective activities after Fiscal Year 2026. In total, President Drake has committed $10.4 million since November 2021. Campuses are facilitating more consultations and repatriation since 2018 than in the prior 20 years combined.

Anyone can now track our progress online on the UC repatriation dashboard and in cases where transfer of legal control has occurred, but the tribes are not yet ready for physical transfer. UC campuses support tribes' preferences for culturally appropriate and respectful care in the form of care and trust agreements.

We acknowledge we have a long way to go, but we are taking significant steps in the right direction. I would like to spotlight some examples from our campuses and of course here today we have UC Berkeley who will provide their specific update. So quickly, starting with UC Davis.

Last fiscal year, the campus repatriated 165 ancestral remains and approximately 9000 cultural items. UC Davis anticipates repatriating all known Native American ancestors by June 2027. Moving on to UCLA.

They continue to work towards repatriation, transfer, and reburial of the remaining 1% of known Native American ancestors in their control. UC Riverside significantly increased consultation frequency, publication of notices, and repatriation actions. In the last two years, they published 52 accessions in federal notices of inventory completion and intent to repatriate, representing a 766% increase.

Just from 2022 to 2021, they conducted 64 consultations representing a 540% increase, and they completed seven repatriations as compared to two cumulatively in the prior 21 years.

UC Santa Barbara has consulted on and finalized an inventory in April of this year of over 8,000 funerary objects which will be repatriated to the federally affiliated tribe in the coming months.

The campus is in the process of identifying campus land that can be used to facilitate reburial. Santa Barbara has also initiated consultations with over 115 tribes throughout the western United States. Their goal is to repatriate all known Native American ancestors by December 2028.

Finally, they co-sponsored a NAGPRA, Cal NAGPRA, workshop in June 2024 with tribal partners from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. This event aimed to bring repatriation practitioners together to learn more about the regulations and how we can better facilitate repatriation from a tribal perspective. The last campus I will spotlight is UC San Diego.

Since 2018, UC San Diego has successfully repatriated 484 ancestors and 69 lots of associated funerary objects. More recently, they submitted a notice of intent to repatriate in June 2024 that will result in the return of 1922 lots of cultural items, which are equivalent to over 10,000 individual items.

Their consultations remain continuous with tribes across the nation, including 16 additional consultations within the past six months with various California tribes. UC San Diego remains committed to repatriating all ancestral remains and cultural items to the safety and protection of their descendants and anticipates achieving their completion goal by the end of 2027.

Now I will return to turn to Executive Director Motton to provide more information on our repatriation work. Doctor Motton.

Thank you, Vice President Maldonado, and thank you, esteemed Assembly persons and guests for the opportunity to speak about UC's efforts to implement NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. We take this work extremely seriously. We recognize not only our legal obligations toward repatriation, but its deep spiritual significance for tribal nations and the painful process it is to work through today.

I'll be sharing some key points in our recent report to the Legislature, which provides current data about UC's campus holdings and summarizes our actions since 2018 in responding to AB 2836 AB 275, and AB 226.

In terms of data, we reported to you progress in terms of how many human remains and associated funerary objects you see published in the Federal Register, and out of those numbers, how many have been repatriated. These figures represent two steps in the NAGPRA process.

The Federal Register notice of Inventory completion must be published before the legal transfer of control to tribes takes place. Cumulatively, UC campuses have published federal registered notices for about 10,391 individuals, and out of those individuals, campuses have repatriated 5863.

There are an additional 6211 individuals for whom consultation is ongoing or is in early stages for associated funerary objects. 200,53756 items were listed in the UC Federal registered notices and 207,437 of these were repatriated. There are 40,208 associated funerary objects still in consultation, and we anticipate that thousands more will be identified for repatriation as consultations continue.

We also launched a NAGPRA dashboard with more detailed information about campus holdings, including the repatriation of other cultural items such as unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.

This dashboard will be updated twice per year, and we hope to build it out to include more features, such as the number of consultations conducted and UC's holdings by place of origin. In regards to AB 2836 AB 2836 required UC to adopt and implement a system wide repatriation policy.

Together with a workgroup comprised of four members nominated by the UC President's Native American Advisory Council and four members nominated by the UC academic Senate, UC drafted several iterations of the policy. The policy drafts were distributed broadly, including to California tribes.

The consultation process with Native American tribes included three open public comment periods, four work sessions, online surveys, multiple one on one conversations, and direct correspondence with Native American stakeholders across California. The policy, as Vice President Maldonado mentioned, was issued as interim in June 2020 and completed and finalized in January of 2022.

UC is currently reviewing and drafting edits to comply with changes in the federal NAGPRA regulations this year in January and consulting with the system wide Committee before engaging in broader consultation. In regards to the audits.

AB 2836 also required establishment of system-wide and campus-level committees to review and advise UC on NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA implementation. All committees have been established in accordance with the Cal NAGPRA requirements, including nomination of members by the NIHC.

Finally, AB 2836 required two audits by the California State Auditor, and as we've heard, the first was completed in June of 2020 and the second in November of 2022, and UC has implemented all the Auditor's recommendations. For both of those, AB 226 required two more audits in 2024 and 2026, and the 2024 audit is underway.

As we've heard, in regards to AB 275, it was passed on September 2020, requiring museums to complete preliminary CalNAGPRA inventories and summaries of Native American human remains and cultural items under their legal control, in consultation with California Indian tribes by January 1, 2022 and thereafter to submit preliminary inventories and summaries to the NIHC within 90 days.

UC submitted inventories and summaries. However, consultation is still ongoing as consultation for each succession is completed with tribal concurrence. UC is informing NIHC so that inventories or summaries can be moved from preliminary to final status.

Regarding AB 226, passed in October 2023, it strongly urged UC's submission of annual progress reports to the Legislature, financial support for campus repatriation efforts, and a prohibition on the use of any Native American human remains or cultural items for purposes of teaching or research at UC. UC submitted its first annual reports to the Legislature in June 2024.

As mentioned by Vice President Maldonado, President Drake has committed $10.4 million to the repatriation efforts of UC since November 2021. We expect individual campuses will entirely support their respective repatriation activities after fiscal year 2026, and UCLP will monitor campus budgets to ensure sufficient and appropriate resources are allocated, including support for tribal means.

Lastly, the UC repatriation policy already prohibits the use of any identified or potential human remains and cultural items for research, instruction, or any other use without explicit written authorization from all culturally affiliated or potentially culturally affiliated tribes.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize UC's commitment to repatriation of all Native American ancestors and cultural items currently housed at UC. We understand that it is our responsibility to correct the harm we caused and return ancestors and their belongings as expeditiously as possible, and while we have made many strides, we acknowledge we have significantly more work ahead of us until we repatriate all ancestors and cultural items. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there any others that want to testify from UC, or is that the.

Others will be here for questions. We don't have the available details.

All right. Thank you so much. That ends that testimony. Did you still have a comment? Chancellor Richard Lyons Chancellor, UC Berkeley.

Good morning, esteemed tribal leaders, Chairs Ramos and Hart and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this morning hearing on NAGPRA. I'm pleased to be here today to share updates on repatriation efforts at UC Berkeley.

I'm honored and moved to hear testimony from the tribal leaders on this critical issue, and I look forward to working with you. I'm five weeks into my new role. I have a lot to learn about these issues. I thought it was important for me to be here today to demonstrate my and Berkeley's commitment to this critical topic.

I have our chancellor's designee for NAGPRA, assistant Chancellor Christine Treadway, and our repatriation coordinator Alex Lucas here with me who can help answer any questions you may have. First, I want to acknowledge and apologize for the deep pain that the University has caused native people since our founding.

University representatives and others took ancestors and sacred belongings without tribal permission and held those ancestral remains and belongings against tribal nations and people's wishes for the purpose of research and teaching for far too long. We are long overdue in honoring our commitment to repatriation and have created too many barriers.

In the past, we have lacked transparency with tribes about what we still hold in our museums and in some instances have failed to treat sovereign tribal representatives with appropriate respect when coming to campus.

While Berkeley still has a lot to do in acknowledging and owning the very painful history of harm to native people, in the last several years, the University has abandoned practices that slowed or impeded repatriation and comprehensively reformed and revised our repatriation policies, processes and perspectives.

I want to clearly state my strong commitment to the full repatriation of all Native American ancestors and cultural belongings held on the campus. My predecessor, Chancellor Christ, also made this commitment and put into place a number of important changes to our policies and practices.

We've been asked to provide your Committee with an update on our progress, and I'll focus efforts since 2021, the last time UC Berkeley appeared before you 0.1 tribes are now empowered in the repatriation process. At Berkeley, tribal knowledge and geographic location are given deference as evidence of cultural affiliation.

In repatriation and consultation, timelines are developed in collaboration with tribes. Point 2: the campus has moved responsibility for our repatriation efforts into the chancellor's immediate office. My immediate office.

Led by our first repatriation coordinator, Alex Lucas, we have hired a number of additional NAGPRA staff and, importantly, have included tribal representatives on hiring committees to ensure that tribal needs and perspectives are reflected and respected in our staffing. Point 3: the NAGPRA campus Committee, which now consists of three UC affiliates and three California Native American tribal representatives, meets regularly to approve claims and advise on implementation and policy matters.

Since 2017, the Committee has gone back and approved previously denied claims and has approved every repatriation claim since then. Point 4: in October 2023, the campus published a federal notice to repatriate 47% of ancestors and their belongings held at Berkeley.

We are finalizing inventories and writing notices for an additional 13 counties in California and are in consultation for 80% of ancestors we currently hold. These active consultations will result in the repatriation of more than 7600 ancestors. Point 5: the University has dedicated significant funding to NAGPRA efforts as we must, including funding for tribes to assist with consultation-related costs toward repatriation.

This campus level funding is in addition to the limited term NAGPRA funding from UCOP, the Office of the President, which ends in 2026. Point 6: Finally, under Chancellor Christ, the campus hired our first tribal liaison and Director of tribal relations, Teddy Simon, who is also here.

This position was recommended by a tribal forum several years ago to provide tribes with a single point of contact on the Berkeley campus and to facilitate sovereign government to government relationships. Teddy strives to build positive relationships with tribal nations while improving campus communication practices and policies.

Although Teddy doesn't directly work on repatriation, she does collaborate closely with the NAGPRA team as we recognize this is a priority issue for many tribes. Complete and comprehensive repatriation is an inseparable and necessary part of UC Berkeley's commitment to be a more inclusive community and to better serve all the people of California.

We are committed to ensuring that our repatriation process empowers tribes and this happens on a timeline and in a manner that works for each tribe. I will make this a high priority for my Administration and I'm committed to doing all I can to support the repatriation process in full partnership with native communities. Thank you for your attention. My colleagues and I are happy to answer your questions

Well thank you so much for all of your testimony and updating on progress in areas that still need to be addressed. Is there any questions from the dais? Comments Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you Mister Chair, and thank you to the panelists. Thank you for all the guests that are also joining us for the hearing this morning. I just want to give a special recognition and thank you to Doctor Garcia in your role as the new head of the CSU.

As a proud CSU alum myself at Cal State LA, it's a big task for you to take on, especially with the legislation that we move forward to ensure that the CSUs are one, in compliance with the policies that have been signed into law, but two, that set a new model and a new method of how we work with our native and indigenous communities to ensure that repatriation is part of the ongoing process and that we deliver results to the folks that are here today and the folks that are watching.

Congratulations on your post and for your comments that were deliberate. I believe incredibly authentic and really set forward a path when you stated that you will unequivocally use the power of your office to ensure that the policies are met and move forward.

I believe that, and I know that the Legislature is going to be looking at the work very closely, as we have already done. But I just want to acknowledge that you also came into policies already moved forward and that you are doing what you can to ensure that that actually happens.

I think it sets a new tone for the CSU and I hope also a recognition for the UC universities as well. And so I think we all want to see what's right being done right. And that we acknowledge how hurt some folks are, the pain and trauma that it's caused throughout decades, and really working with our academic institutions to do the right thing for the people of California. So I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Chairman Hart.

I just want to acknowledge the leadership of the CSU campuses. Chancellor Garcia and Mister Perez, I think that your presence here, in particular with the track record at CSU Chico, is very, very important to setting the tone for both the CSU system and the UC system.

Appreciate the leadership, chancellor, from Berkeley being here and I the vice chancellor as well, and staff.

The comments that you made about apologies to the native tribes, I think is extremely important to recognize that there has been tremendous harm done and is continuing, and that the sense of urgency that you feel to address those issues, I felt myself, and I think that that, Assemblymember Carrillo mentioned, is a new thing that is very important to acknowledge.

There still is a lot of work, work to be done, and I appreciate that you are here committed to doing that and look forward to the progress that you're going to make over the next year.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Garcia?

Thank you so much. We appreciate the testimony provided by all of the representatives at the universities. And although it sounds like a lot of work has gone into this and a lot of work will continue to be going forward, we have a case here of perhaps it not moving fast enough.

It said perhaps that we don't have the resources to move faster than what we have. And then, of course, perhaps there's also a real conversation that maybe has been had or needs to be had in terms of realistic expectations on how quickly we can move to repatriate, whether it be the ancestral remains or other important and traditional artifacts that belong to our native people.

And I don't know if the latter has been a conversation where we are setting realistic expected timelines, but clearly, from what we're hearing from the first two panelists and the, the one before you all, the representative from the heritage Commission with Grattan Rancheria said, we're far from, we're very far from being able to meet the legal expectations, not to mention the emotional expectations and I, the distress and the anxiety and frustration level of expectations that have accumulated over these decades for our native people who testify today and who represent thousands of other first peoples from throughout the state.

So I guess my question would be, what does the Legislature need to do to further support the efforts that are underway both for the UC and the Cal State? And my hope would be that it isn't us spending more money on more audits, because I think the problem has been identified.

And those resources that go towards the audits, the time, energy and resources that go towards the audits could very well go towards the actual action orientated steps to get these individuals and other items that belong to our first peoples back in their possession. So it's a question that goes around the table.

Earlier, my colleague from the San Fernando Valley asked a question to the prior panel, should we be mandating certain types of practices so that our future academics are also adhering to a much more ethical and culturally competent and sensitive approach to dealing with these issues so that we don't have a conversation about potentially professors who retire taking some of these possessions that aren't even the universities, they belong to the first peoples of very different parts of the state.

I mean, that in itself just sounds really bad that anybody would do that. And I gather from the testimony, and I'll stop my comments to get some responses, is that everyone here is working under the notion and the premise that we're treating this issue like, if it was our own family and relatives, and how would we want this issue to be taken care of?

Because if we're starting from that premise, then there's no reason why we couldn't get to the end goal and making sure that 100% of things that are in possession of the University system get back to the first people's governments and tribal nations. So I'll stop there, and I'd love to hear.

It was two questions, you know, how more can we be supportive? Number two is, you know, the issue of mandating our academics to go through certain trainings in conjunction with our tribal leaders to make sure that these types of things don't occur.

I believe you hear the urgency from us and the pain that we feel for what we have done. Let me begin there. We also understand that the time becomes important because we must include tribal leaders and tribal voices in the process.

We would love to be able to do this right away, but that would be disrespectful to the tribal leaders and those who know best how to bring back the cultural ancestors and items back to them. Let me begin there. Secondly, you asked about, what can you do? Hold us accountable.

We have sat at this table and said we will do. And so it is all just like I am committed to holding my presidents and my board is committed to holding me accountable for this. These oversights will let us give you an update of what we are doing every day.

And finally, we are training on our campuses and our staffs. What is the process? What is the law? What is the culture of care that we should be doing our work in this process of repatriation?

Thank you so much. Any comments from UC on the question? I have a follow up, but please, first partner.

Go ahead.

So I arrived at the University of California three days before COVID shut down, and my office was working on the repatriation policy, which is why we had an interim in June 2020, was because of COVID My observations have been coming, you know, moving here from out of state and engaging in this, in this important work is I saw a lot of people talking past each other, so there was not a clear understanding of what their issues were.

And I think there's more clarity today as we work through some of these misunderstandings just in our own office, but also at office of the President and with the campuses also, as Doctor Motton knows, I'll ask about accountability of behaviors that we see. And to be clear about accountability.

The third thing I noticed is that we needed to hire coordinators and liaisons. But what did the job descriptions look like? And so we need to be clear about job description descriptions and what types of skills we are seeking so that whoever we hire can hit the ground running in meeting the mission.

And also, like, a rule of engagement is not to be defensive in meetings, but to really hash out very important, challenging issues. And I, you know, challenge each other and try to achieve common goals and direction. So those are just dynamics that I have observed since I've been at UC for the past four years.

Thank you for that. You had a follow up question.

Assemblymember Garcia, unless there's someone else who wanted to respond. I do. I can wait till. Go ahead. Okay. So my follow up question in terms of the accountability and the oversight, I mean, we can have these hearings three times a year, and that takes a lot of time and energy, of course, from folks.

But the accountability, I mean, we don't have, we don't hire and fire you and or any other President of any institution. Right. And so we can't hold folks accountable directly in that manner. We could talk about budgets and penalize the universities in that manner. That would have other consequences.

That's probably not the right approach to hold folks accountable at the universities.

And so I would ask across the table here, how do we adequately and responsibly and respectfully hold you accountable when, you know, aside from just having more hearings and shedding light to the problem and building on the emotional roller coaster that it creates every time we have this conversation, for all of us, more so those who are implicated by these issues, the first peoples, let's talk about what that looks like aside just more hearings, more audits, and more conversations like this, please.

I've trained as an Economics Professor, so it's hard for me to get away from your budget angle because I think it's meaningful. We had Assemblymember over here talking about how you all hear from us regularly. We need this. We need that. We need this for various different topics. Ask them.

Ask me when I come and talk to you about I need money for a building. We'll say, well, how you doing on repatriation? Have that be, that's what my boss is going to do when I talk to her in a month or two during my review. How are we doing on repatriation?

What have we done since we talked about it in August? How are things going? So keep it top of mind. I will say that's, I think, how to keep, hold us accountable. But I'll reiterate something that you said and something that you said that accountability matters. It matters a lot. But in this area, I don't think it's that hard to figure out what the right thing to do is once you've come to the understanding,

The realization that we're talking about people's ancestors and we're talking about cultures that, where ancestors are deeply, deeply valued and deeply important and the pain that's associated with how those ancestors have been treated at our hands, it's not hard for us to figure out what the right thing to do is. So I encourage you to hold us accountable. But as my chancellor has said, I promise you we're going to do the right thing moving forward.

If I may, this is Glennis from the virtual platform. Hi. Hello.

Was I supposed to call?

Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for including me here today. And I'm sorry I wasn't able to join in person. I just wanted to add in this question because I think, you know, a common theme I heard come out today is about how the success of repatriation, and I found this in my work as well as to the keys, really, to uplift tribes. And we talked about, you know, earlier, you know, what is the best allocation of resources?

And I think something that we would really like to see if the state would be able to help with is to establish a repatriation Fund, not for institutions and not for to come to UC or to CSU, but funds to go to the tribes.

Because we do, we can allocate funds to help with consultations and other expenses that have been talked about today. But when it comes to further work in that reburial and so on, we try to cover costs as much as possible as well at the UC campuses.

But I think establishing some kind of parallel to the federal grant program, the federal national NACVA grant program for Cal Nagra for California Indian tribes would be certainly something that I think would be a worthy use of funds.

And I think another second thing as we're talking about the role of the Legislature here is just maybe a re-examination of CalNAGPRA. As Commissioner McMillan said earlier, we are looking at what the federal process and the state process look like together.

And I think greater guidance and greater clarity about the two pieces of legislation and whether it's Cal Nico, as a piece of legislation should be, you know, is compatible in the federal legislation would. Be, would be very appreciated. So thank you.

Thank you for that. And thank you for jumping up on the screen so quickly. Thank you so much. Any other questions? Comments? Senator Garcia? Assemblymember Rivas?

Thank you, Mister Chair. I think, you know, we all agree that these remains that we're talking about are not just historical artifacts. You know, they're remains of individuals who deserve proper resting place. They belong to families and communities who have long awaited their return.

And we are wrong to keep these in our University systems, in a lab or at retired professors homes. And, you know, I know all of you have acknowledged that, that this remains a cycle of injustice and, you know, but there is a history of non compliance.

And, you know, there's, you know, half of CSU campuses and the UC's that have not returned anything. And, you know, there's no consent of tribes to write papers on these items that don't belong to us, the state universities.

And, you know, you've outlined some of the responses to the audit or what you're doing, but how long does it really take to write a job description, to hire the staff? And, you know, so I don't see any timelines and maybe I haven't, you know, you know, what are the timelines for each of your campuses are?

And in terms of. I know my colleague talked about what can we do to hold you accountable and when you're coming to request something in the budget.

I also expect as a Legislator that you're proactive and that you tell me what the update is on this repatriation and not for me to my staff to have to put that in as a question if I'm meeting with a CSU or a UC. You know, this is important to us.

You know, we have two chairs of committees that take a lot of time to organize these hearings. We spend a lot of time and resources of state funds on these audits, too. And, you know, I expect that, you know, we get updates and not just when we reach out as state legislators.

And so I just want to know, like, what your systems will do to be proactive, to reach out to us and not wait for us to ask that question when you're asking for $10 million for a new building at your campus.

First of all, let me say that we agree with what you're saying. That's number one. There is no argument over that. Second of all, I know that our office is keeping in touch with those who are important.

We can send our updates to all the legislators on the Committee if that's what we need to do in order to show you that we are working as quickly as we can because we believe that we must repatriate. As I said earlier, I think it is extremely important that we work with our tribal leaders.

And so that does take time, I will be the first one to say the tribal leaders have lost trust in us, and we must regain that trust to build that relationship and show how we are working together and getting their voice and that their voice matters, that in our system wide policy, for example, their comments are taken seriously.

All of that is a process. And so while I would love to do it extremely fast, we must work with those who have been affected to get their ancestors back.

But, you know, I hope that that results, you know, that, you know, I know the building, and like you said, you have to build trust, and that results in concrete dates and timelines, that goals that we're trying to reach and not waiting for the results of these future audits. Right.

We're waiting for recommendations to come out and then trying to respond to each recommendation. Right. I think, I mean, these are our universities that produce high quality research, are renowned around the world. I know you know how to do this, and so I believe that you can. And like you said, it does require some time and trust.

But, you know, I just want to see, like, goals and actual dates.

Well, thank you, Senator Reavis, for bringing that up and really be more proactive rather than on the question of accountability. Hold you accountable, but being more proactive in engaging the Legislature to let us know where you truly are in the process.

I do want to acknowledge some of the Member Ting who has joined us here on the dais. Is there any other comments, questions for the current panel? So looking and starting with the Cal states, thank you again for the apology.

It's been 30 years, though, and we're still at the table here today, where the audit identified what, less than 6%. And then speakers from the tribal leaders identified that it's not just the number of a collection, 510 collections equated to 300,000 associated Native American remains, components that are there. It's not just the number.

And we could multiply that and know how severe the issue truly is. But the question also is, how do we stop the flow of remains coming into the campus? Has there been a directive statewide to stop that flow of moving forward?

We heard from other tribal leaders as far as the concern of field schools continuing to move forward with support from the academia world. So the reason I'm bringing this up, if we get a handle on the repatriation and we get the remains back to the rightful people, the Native American people.

And again, thank you for bringing up Native Hawaiians, because their remains are also something that we're drastically interested in making sure that that comes true. Resolve also, but how do we stop that inflow? How do we address that with the field schools, the studies that continue to move forward?

And we heard from others that maybe it's time this Legislature looks at holding some professions accountable for using those remains for future educational purposes, or even holding current professors or retiring professors accountable for remains of loved ones that they consider to be their property. How do we move forward?

Let me begin with the field schools. We heard exactly what you're speaking about, and we will go back and investigate through our campuses. We also heard that sometimes if you do it in consultation with the tribe.

So let us go back and find out what's happening on these field schools, how many we have, do our campuses do this and come back and give you some information on that? How do we stop? We stop with the people we hire.

We're hiring all these coordinators, and there's going to be an office and chancellor's office to ensure that when somebody approaches us that we have trained everybody say, hey, wait a minute. Have you included the tribal leaders in this?

And make sure that the tribal leaders and our Native American Heritage Commission, for example, is included to ensure that everybody's on the same page and that we are not accepting things without understanding. That's why training is so important.

Thank you for that. And training was something that was brought up as far as making sure that people were up to speed on the laws. Kalnagpra and the federal law also. So we talked about job descriptions and those things, but there has to be that knowledge also.

And at the Cal State, at Chico State, you're able to be one of the top violators and move forward through a directive on your campus to start to comply without coming back to the Legislature and saying that you needed more funding to do that.

So that shows that if there is a will, there's a way to move forward. And you got those Members and those boards filled with people. How did that transpire? Was it outreach yourself, taking the initiative to the local tribes in the area?

How can we show that where the will is there to comply, that it is possible to get that done? And what steps should others look at in making sure that that's taking place?

Let me just say the progress that we've shown, as I talked about earlier, is five years in the making, and it's been a long not long enough. Clearly, commitment to doing this well and to doing it right.

It started under a previous Administration at Chico State, and I've tried as hard as I can to maintain that, that commitment, and we will maintain that commitment into the future.

And so we've built up a really talented office of tribal relations with really smart people that are very passionate about consultation, about doing this well and about making sure that we're bringing tribal leaders in, experts in the area, they work in the office, and true consultation is the result of that.

And from that, I believe that we're building up trust of the University that our intent is to do this well. And so it's both when we talk about things take time. It has taken time. It's taken time for us to sort through what we were doing wrong. How do we do it better?

Doing it under the leadership and the guidance of tribal leaders in our area, but within our office of tribal Relations as well and making sure we continue that commitment. That's, I think, how we've made progress and that's how we will continue to make progress.

Thank you for that. And I know there was updates of compliance and moving forward and continuing to work together with the tribal communities moving forward. And we heard from other tribal leaders that reaching out to the tribes, from the local campuses could be an initiative rather than reacting. Being more proactive to engagement could serve the campuses there.

We will continue to work together to make sure that repatriation is something that is moving forward. But I am interested to hear back from the Cal State universities and we'll get to the UC's in a moment of how you're going to stem that from remains coming into the campuses altogether so that we're nothing back into this place.

And I appreciate the five years that it took to get there, but we're talking about a law that's been in place for over 30. So we want to make sure that we're moving forward. And the accountability.

I know that we talked about hearings holding the Cal states and the UC's accountable by oversight hearings, but maybe a little bit more proactiveness of letting us know where you're at before we have to call a hearing to make sure that everybody is complying. Is there any comments, Madam Chancellor?

No. I will say that I will begin by saying I'm holding the presidents accountable. They do have, we're going to have a website of how, a system of accountability of how many items they have. I'm going to ask how many relationships they have with their tribal leaders. I'm going to ask them. Give me your progress report.

This is how they're going to be judged as good presidents. The way we judge presidents on academics, on facilities, on budget, and in that is Cal for and Title IV. So all of the presidents have that, and it will be my role to hold them accountable and call them on the carpet when they haven't and then have the consequences that happen if not.

Thank you for that. And before I move to the UC's, just one more comment. The system wide policy that's been implemented, what comes with that system wide policy? And you mentioned, I believe4.0 something million that was going to be allocated. How is that money going to be allocated? And will that also have involvement from the tribal communities?

Right now we have allocated 4.2 million, and the money is allocated by the number of items, by the amount. Right. So that's given out to all the campuses. It runs between 150,000 to 200,000 per campus, depending on the campus. And then there's 550,000 for the chancellor's office, for training, for salaries, etcetera.

So that's where the 4.2 million you wanted to follow up on the money.

How the money. And with that money going into the campuses, how does that include the voices of the Native American community and the Hawaiian Native American community?

They should be working with that Committee.

Right.

They're going to have that Committee that they're going to get the dollars for, and they should be working collaboratively with that Committee.

Okay. All right. And then if you could follow up with my office on a more clear direction of where that's going to be going to and how it includes the voices of the Native American people, I deeply appreciate it. Thank you so much for your testimony. UC, same question. How do we.

How do we be more proactive in stemming that? We're not in this place again. This has started, and the law came into place 30 years ago, but this practice has been going on for too long. So how do we stem that? How do the field schools, how do we stop Native American remains from getting into the archives from the beginning?

May I answer that question? Yes, go ahead. I'm Lourdes D'Amato. Okay. Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay. So our policy stipulates that UC will not accept possession or control of human remains or cultural items, except with two exceptions. One is with the tribes upon a tribe's request, which I really can't see happening, but that's one exception. And the second exception is with chancellor approval, but always only if it's to facilitate repatriation.

So those are the only two circumstances in which we can bring in new cultural items and human remains into the University.

And that policy is in effect now? Yes. When did it go into effect?

It was in effect from the interim policy was in effect in January of 2020, and then now the full policy since 2022.

Okay. And that policy going back to the Cal State, is that a policy that's implemented at the Cal State University level, too, or is that something you're going to be looking at?

We'll be looking at that. We're in the process of putting together this together.

And a policy like that could be driven from the chancellor's office on a statewide policy without having to have legislation moving forward. It's something that, if the right thing to do is something that we're hearing, I believe that would be a policy that would move forward. Before we meet again, thank you for that.

And the question on the field schools. So that policy is there. So is there still ongoing dialogue with field schools? Because we heard that from tribal leaders. That that could be an area where how remains are being uncovered of love, loved ones in the State of California?

Well, they can't bring them on campus, so I think that there is more work to do there.

Okay.

Glennis, I don't know if you have.

Any comments on that area and specifically contracts, contracts that still are ongoing, maybe remains, don't end up at the campus, but are we still engaged in that type of activity?

To the best of my knowledge, no. But I will say this, the level of awareness around repatriation and the damage that the University has done inappropriately and without collecting these items is spread and high level throughout our 10 campuses. And I feel confident, and I'll let Glenna speak a little bit more to it.

I feel confident that if our campus community would encounter that type of activity, it would be escalated to our office and we would step in and make sure that we would adhere to our policy. That being said, of course, we always know that there are sometimes bad actors.

Definitely. And thank you for the honesty and moving forward on the these policies. And certainly you've heard from the tribal leaders here today and the Auditor that continues to monitor these things and the progress that takes place. We do know that there's been changes, right? Changes within academia world that comes in. We got interims.

We got someone three weeks in that's here in front of the Legislature attesting to some of the goodwill. What is different from 30 years ago, 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 170 years ago, is that this Legislature is taking accountability for the treatment on California's first people and this nation's first people, including native Hawaiians.

And so we're going to continue to hold hearings, we're going to continue to advocate and hear voices of potential legislation down the road, and we're going to be monitoring with the Auditor specific reports that will come out. These types of hearings are things that will be part of the future.

So again, if there's areas that you want to bring to our attention prior to a hearing of how you're complying, by all means do it. Because Assemblymember Rivas and Senators that were around the table and those around the dais now want to know these things.

When we're talking about budgethouse constraints or budgets that move forward for new buildings on the campuses, are we honoring California's first people? And I'll leave with this last comment that was brought up by one of the tribal leaders. Education is something that's important to all people in the State of California.

And as Native American people, we continue to push our children and our young ones to move forward in higher education. How can we truthfully sit there and, and tell them to pursue a higher education here in the State of California through the Cal states or the UC's, when they have not had historic or even contemporary respect for our ancestors and elders of getting those remains back? So it goes deeper than the repatriation process.

This goes to the very reason and the premise of education in General in the State of California to educate all those in the State of California, including California's first people.

So we have a long way to go to mend that relationship so that we can truthfully go out there and tell our loved ones and our young ones to move forward in higher education. But it has to come with mutual respect.

And that was brought up earlier, and that has resonated with me and should resonate with the institutions here in the State of California. With that, I'd like to thank you for your participation.

Mister chair. Mister chair. Members of the Committee, Paula Treat. I've represented tribes for over 30 years, including Pechanga, Tahon, and Colusa. And for the UC and the CSU Members that are walking away right now, I just wanted to say I appreciated your words. I've been hearing this for almost 3030 years. So, no, there's no trust. Unfortunately.

I'm a grad of Berkeley, UC Cal, along with my husband. Phoebe Hearst is the worst of the worst. And you actually need to have more oversight going into those museums so they don't think these things belong to them.

The head of each of these museums consider them to be their items, and that change has to happen, and it has to happen now.

Thank you so much for your comments. Any other public comment, state your name. Any other public comment?

Thank you for holding this hearing on the progress California is making on this really important topic. My name is Tony Overly. I'm alum of UC and CSU. Today I speak to you as President of the Society for California Archaeology. The society is a non profit established in 1966 with 1300 Members dedicated to the heritage of California.

For background, we furnished a hard copy statement about the society's membership, activities, and history to the sergeant. We've got about 25 copies of those for whoever would like one. Let me be clear.

The sea supports full, timely, and legal compliance with NAGPRA, and we maintain that full compliance with NAGPRA is a basic humanism rights issue that is long overdue to be completed. However, the recent interpretation of the policies and procedures now being implemented at CSU campuses range beyond NAGPRA.

At present, administrators are stopping practical archaeological training for tribal Members and archaeologists alike. Universities are pronouncing field schools and lab classes. Even with Non NAGprA Archaeological material, there are broad unintended consequences to this lack of practical training.

The demand for trained archaeologists due to environmental compliance laws and trained archaeologists and tribal Members in California has never been greater. Our summary statement that we furnished provides reference to a workforce study completed in 2022 that shows universities were only creating 60% of the archaeological workforce needed over the next 10 years.

This study was done before the interim policy by CoSU was adopted. There is a better way forward where technical, ethical, and legal training can be done in partnership with tribes, universities, and students. To reiterate, the society supports full, timely, and legal compliance with NAGPRA, but the CSU must fulfill its mission to train the state's workforce as well.

We're here today in the spirit of partnership to engage with tribes, the state legislators and University policymakers in working toward accomplishing both the long overdue implementation of NAGPRA and the continued education of our states future archaeological workforce. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi, I'm Annemarie Meaden, past board Member of the Society for California Archaeology, but my comments are my own.

I noticed that Mister Park's summary of the audit identifies many problems that the California archaeological community has long known about, but we have been unable to address these due to lack of support from the chancellor's office and campus presidents, and I appreciate Chancellor Garcia taking this seriously.

I think we can all agree, everybody in this room can agree that funding is an issue. Last year, Mister Ramos was able to pass AB 389 to get the chancellor's attention to this important issue, and I fully support that effort.

Mister Hitchcock's summary today of AB 389 leaves out the part that forbids CSU professors from using any Native American cultural materials for teaching. UC and CSU professors have historically used student interns to manage these collections. That has been done as part of the Professor's academic load and not usually any extra funding from the campus.

That's how these collections have been managed over the years. I wholeheartedly concur with San Manuel chair Valbuena's points that anthropology departments shouldn't be expected to absorb the responsibility for complying with AB 389, and Chairman Potter commented that it shouldn't come down to money to address this issue. But unfortunately, that's where we are again.

The lack of funding over the past 30 years is why this continues to be a problem, but I'd like to come with a helpful solution. It seems to me that students have a role here in solving this problem.

As councilmember Chacon pointed out, collections need to be reviewed in order to ensure that they go to the right tribe. Students can help with this process and helping professors solve this problem. Unfortunately, AB 3809's prohibition on using collections for teaching inadvertently hamstrings this effort by eliminating a pool of labor to manage collections.

Please consider an amendment to this teaching restriction as a means to partially address that shortfall. I'd also like to point out during the conversation, can you wrap it up, please? Assembly Member Garcia and Rivas asked about any training that can educate these people. Anybody can call themselves an archaeologist.

Anybody can go out and dig up a site and call it archaeology, but it's not. If it's not done ethically and in consultation with tribes, it's not archaeology. A decade and a half ago, I tried to get a law passed for registration requirements for archaeology that failed.

If you want to take this seriously, the Society for California Archaeology is here to help.

Can you please wrap it up? And I believe we are taking it seriously. Next comment? We do have another Committee that's coming in here at about 130 for budget, so we want to keep your comments moving.

Jimmy Sunwe I wanted to include Article 11, section two of the UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous peoples that states shall provide redress through effective mechanisms which may include restitution developed into conjunction with indigenous people with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free prior and informed consent or in violation of laws, traditions and customs, which has been happening although it's been 30 years having laws and policies in place.

It was 60 years ago that our ancestral remains were dug up in my ancestral territory of Jumaui and Pit river territory for research purposes to examine our voice boxes while we had living, fluent language speakers, and this was through use.

Davis indigenous justice and the Pitt River Tribe are affiliates of the International Indian Treaty Council that works on international indigenous rights violations and protections, and I have worked for IITC since 2008 as the tribal and community liaison for California.

The lack of a clear participatory process for repatriation and return of indigenous people sacred items and or remains that were collected in the process of colonization are active international concerns of indigenous peoples around the world.

The so called collections of human remains held in California universities are well known and a source of ongoing trauma for California's indigenous peoples. We call for consistency for the creation of repatriation protocols and mechanisms based on indigenous people's own laws and priorities, as well as the recognized right of free, prior and informed consent.

We are committed to hold governments, state and federal museums, universities, business, private collectors, and others currently holding our items accountable for their human rights obligations.

In this regard, we continue to support the establishment of international repatriation mechanisms developed with the full participation of the impacted indigenous peoples repatriation efforts on the local, state, national and international levels by indigenous peoples in Californias, which is necessary. I have further comments, but I will submit by writing.

Thank you, thank you so much. Lets keep our comments. We do got to be out here by 130 and then ill have to cut it off.

I'm from Round Valley Indian reservation. I am a descendant of the ancestral people of the Yuki people, the first people of the nation, and I just want to say as we try to figure everything out, they continue to dig my people up.

Two weeks ago they dug up a village while they was doing road sites, you know, so and as they were doing the trails and trying to do trails. They dig up some more people. So this is continuing to happen today. So, like you said, let's make a decision.

Let's protect our ancestors and the people, my people that are down in Berkeley, that's been there from the first time of Hastings family, massacring us into taking our remains there. Something needs to happen.

I'm just coming as an individual indigenous woman from Round Valley, a Uki descendant, and knowing that something has to be done because it continues today.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Nishkin Redhawk. That was my mom. Anyways, I come up here to say to the universities that tribal government.

Okay, is fine and dandy, but we need to look to cultural leaders, not so much as tribal government, because cultural leaders has more of the aspect of where all these artifacts need to go to the families, the cultures they keep it up to today. And, yeah, not so much as government. You know, don't look towards the government.

Try to do the homework and look for the cultural leaders, and that's where they need to go to. That's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comments. This will be the last but not least.

Hi, I'm Laura Miranda. I am. I sit on the UC system wide repatriation Committee. I'm also the former chair of the Native American Heritage Commission. I just wanted to comment on the practice of archaeology.

I'm not sure if folks know, but there are not legal ethical requirements for archaeologists or a licensing procedure for archaeologists as there are for other professions. So this is a gap in how archeology gets done for environmental compliance or in any other realm. There aren't standards and guidance on a state level, and it's desperately needed.

Otherwise, we're going to continue to have these issues.

Thank you so much. And thank you for the public comment. And thank you for all the presenters and the panels that and the input that has been there.

And from the Cal State University level, from the chancellor to the UC's to the Auditor, to the tribal leaders, and adding their voices to these areas as well as the Auditor's office. We thank you for all these things, and be assured there will be more oversight hearings taking place around this topic. Thank you. This Committee is adjourned.