Joint Legislative Audit

Opportunity. I'd like to thank everybody for being here today on the select committee on Native American affairs and joint legislative audit committee. We're gonna be discussing the update from the Native American Grace Protection Repatriation Act 2026 for the University of California, as well as having remarks and presentations on panels that would include the auditor, the senior auditor, and the executive director of California Native American Heritage Commission.

We also have a panel that will talk about the comments by the University of California, Teresa Maldonado, vice president research innovation, University of California office, Richard Lyons, chancellor, University of California, Berkeley, Pradeep Khosla, chancellor, University of California, San Diego. Gary McPherson, vice chancellor for administrative services, University of California, Santa Barbara.

And s Jack Hugh, chancellor, University of California, Riverside. We also have from the tribal communities, tribal voices that will be stating, their positions on this issue. We have Bob Purnell, director, tribal cultural resources, Table Mountain Rancheria, Charlene Ne'kma, chairwoman, Mukama, Ohlone tribe, Isaiah Vivanco, chairman, Suboba Band of the Sena Indians, Mary Ann Andreas, tribal council member, Morongo Band of Mission Indians. We also have Mike Lopez, vice chairman, Sandy Inez Band of Chumash Indians, and Jack Potter, chairman of Redding Rancheria.

With that, I'd like to offer, our Chair from JLAC, chairman Harabedian to say a few words.

Thank you, Senator Ramos. Thank you for having us here today. It's an honor for JLAC to take part in this hearing as we have in many years past. And just thank you for everything that you've done on these issues. Our personal conversations, we've often talked about Native American history, about NAGPRA, and the struggles faced by Native American people.

The return of ancestral remains and belongings, while certainly a very important and sacred topic, is just one of the topics that we have discussed. Very personal for me as it is for Assemblymember Ramos. I happen to be of Cherokee descent. And the return of these remains and these ancestral items strike a deep personal core for me. But I think everyone up here who might not be from the First Nations or tribal nation, people know exactly why this is important.

As an Armenian as well, for example, stories of personal sacrifice because of a genocide of cultural remains being stolen by another people, remains of loved ones never returned. Everyone up here, every member, regardless of their ancestral identity, can relate to that sadly. And this is why I think when you hear a lot of us talk about this, it's so personal, and there is a lot of anger about the process that has been laid forward before the audit.

And I do think that whenever you talk about a people or a civilization being slaughtered and exterminated, as the Native American people were here, you know that it's gut gut wrenching. It's pure evil, and it's disgusting.

And what makes it even harder is that centuries and decades later, we still are struggling to do right by the victims of these atrocities. And that's why we're here today. That's why we have done this year after year. We will continue to do it and why JLAC will continue to have these hearings where we hear from our auditor. We see progress and what's actually being done and keep all those who are leading these efforts accountable.

Nothing said or done here today will make things truly better or make these prior murders, thefts, and genocides any less evil, but we're nonetheless here today to talk about the Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, an act intended to provide a little dignity to this beautiful land's first people.

I believe this act of Congress and our meeting today are important, and I hope to find that the University of California has made significant progress, enough progress so that the state auditor can tell us that the title of his latest audit report is no longer accurate. Today, I hope instead to hear that the University of California is urgently taking action to return Native American remains and cultural items.

I'm confident that if significant progress has not been made, that the members of these two committees will let it be known. And with that, I just wanna thank you, Chair Ramos, for inviting me and the audit committee here today, and I look forward to the discussion we're about to have.

Thank you so much. We also wanna recognize Senator Carvaldin, Assembly members, Chair Sharon Quirk Silva, Assembly member Hart, Assembly member Cory Jackson, Assembly member Fong. Would any like to say any opening remarks? Assembly member Fong.

Thank you so much, Chair Ramos and Chair Harabedian, and and really appreciate the work and efforts on this efforts here. We know that despite years of external attention, the UC office of president has not effectively overseen the UC's compliance with NAGPRA. We know that there's a lot more work to be done, although that progress has been made in repatriating remains and cultural items over the past many years.

We know that there's still not certainty in terms of how much work needs to be done to achieve full repatriation. We know that one of the recommendations going forward is to schedule timelines and things going forward.

We know that there's still thousands and thousands of potential culture items and remains and individuals. So anything that we can do to continue to expedite to do this in a timely manner to really make sure that we're implementing recommendations from the auditor is critical.

You know, this can be a robust hearing going forward, but we must take the time to examine the progress that's been made, but there are much more work that needs to be done in repatriating remains and cultural items in a timely and efficient manner and really with the UC system. So I really appreciate the opportunity here today. Thank you, Chair Ramos, for the urgency and working efforts on this here.

I know we had one regarding the e c CSU system last year as well, and we look forward to the presentations here today. Thank you so much, Chair Ramos.

Thank you so much. Any other members? Opening comments? Well, thank you so much. As we the role of order will be when we have our panels will come up.

Our first panels will read those. You'll go through your presentations, and then we'll open it up for questions here from the dias. Public comment will be reserved for the last at the last at the end of the last panel, we'll have public comment. So with that, we wanna start with our our first presentations and panel. Grant Parks, California state auditor, Grayson Hughes, senior auditor, and Andrew Alejandra, executive director, California Native American Heritage Commission, and Reggie Paduling, chairman of the Native American Heritage Commission.

We will start with the auditor.

Good morning, Chairs Harabedian, Ramos, Fong, and Vice Chair Cabaldon. April 2025, my office issued an audit report focusing on the UC systems efforts to comply with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. These federal and state laws required the UC system to promptly return the Native American remains and cultural items in their possession to tribes that can demonstrate their affiliation with those items. And the health and safety code requires my office to conduct four of these audits of the UC.

We've now completed three, and our fourth audit is anticipated to begin later this year in October, where staff will be following up with our prior audit recommendations and more importantly, also considering today's discussions as we begin the planning for that audit work.

Over the course of three audits of the UC system, we have consistently noted conditions that contribute to the UC's inability to promptly return the items in its possession despite re repeated audit reports, oversight hearings, and valid complaints and frustration from tribal leaders. Some of those chronic conditions include the UC's inability to identify the magnitude and locations of its various collections despite having more than thirty years since NAGPRA's deadline to have all inventories identified by 1995.

Historically, the UC system has not prioritized its compliance with NAGPRA or CalNAGPRA, A new previously unaccounted for cultural items are routinely discovered. Just during our most recent audit, Santa Barbara found 1,500 potential cultural within its anthropology department, while San Diego found remains in the office of a recently deceased faculty member. UC's repatriation efforts have experienced limited staffing, leading to incomplete or delayed searches of campus buildings and academic departments, where UC faculty at times resist efforts to find an inventory potential knack for related items.

As a result, UC does not know the full extent of the repatriation work that remains to be done, and thus neither do the tribes. The second chronic issue is that UC has not adequately planned for or monitored repatriation activity across all campuses to instill accountability in any sense of urgency for returning items promptly.

Historically, a lack of clear performance expectations for repatriation activity from UCOP coupled with the deference that UCOP has given to individual campuses to effectively go at their own pace created a repatriation environment that in our view lacks urgency and accountability. Further, the inconsistent approaches to coordinating and communicating with tribes during the affiliation process can create confusion and frustration, which is further exacerbated by some tribes lacking the financial means to fully participate during the affiliation process.

In addition to these issues, the UC system has demonstrated weaknesses in securing the items remaining in its possession.

Cultural items and remains have been lost, stolen, loaned to third parties without disclosure. For example, at Santa Barbara, we noted the campus had loaned items from 10 different sites over two decades to graduate students and others located out of state, all without notifying California's tribes. Noting these recurring issues in our now third audit of the UC system in six years, our most recent reports title concludes, unfortunately, the UC system lacks the accountability and urgency necessary to promptly return the items in its possession.

Our audit report made 18 recommendations to UCOP and one to a specific campus or 19 recommendations in total. And the year following the publication of that audit, 12 of the 19 recommendations remain open and are not fully implemented.

Some of the more critical topic areas with outstanding recommendations include ensuring that UC system completes the searches of its academic departments and buildings that are at high risk of possessing cultural items while ensuring unfettered access to repatriation staff to conduct and complete those searches. During our most recent audit, both Berkeley and San Diego's coordinator cited limited staffing and resistance from academic departments as barriers to completing their searches.

We recommended that UCOP require all campuses to complete their searches by June 2026, and empower NAGPRA staff through policy changes to ensure they have unfettered access needed to complete their work. The most recent data we have from UCOP as of last spring, which was UCOP's one year update, suggests that campuses were not on track to complete their searches as by June as planned. Instead, having complete completed reviews of less than one half of all locations that you see itself designated as high risk.

The second area where we have outstanding recommendations focuses on ensuring UC establishes repatriation goals and ongoing monitoring of campus performance for increased accountability. Although UCOP claims it has fully implemented our recommendations in this area, we disagree. UCOP has established some performance goals and metrics that are measurable, but campus reporting of their progress do not always contain the specificity required to allow the public to understand the progress that is being made. And most importantly, when the UC expects repatriation to be completed at its various campuses.

For example, UC Riverside's progress reporting did not list any goals for when it expects to fully repatriated its collections.

Similarly, Santa Barbara's progress reporting was silent on targeted timelines. Fundamentally, such time based goals even if just estimates and not fully within the campus's control are critically important for tribes and the public to understand the UC's intended pace and timing for completing its already overdue repatriation work. To its credit, San Diego is very specific with its intended timelines and goals for repatriation, demonstrating that providing such clarity to the tribes and the greater public is both possible and a reasonable expectation.

One of our recommendations to UCOP was that it annually evaluate and update performance goals to maintain their relevance as campuses progress with their efforts under NAGPRA, but UCOP has informed us that it believes the current campus level goals and reporting do not require further revision, which is an area where we disagree. Other recommendations remaining to be implemented are those where the UC appears to be actively making progress, but full implementation is not expected until five months from now in January 2027.

In particular, UCOP is developing a new system wide repatriation policy where it intends to address various outstanding recommendations from the audit, including providing further clarity on conducting campus searches, formally adopting federal standards for storing and securing cultural items, and reinterring cultural items that can't be repatriated because the affiliated tribe is not federally recognized. But fundamentally, moving away from the audits recommendations and their implementation status, the larger point from our audit is that the UC system has significant work remaining.

First, the pace of repatriation continues to be slow. Based on the rate of repatriations between November 2022 and December 2024, roughly a two year period, we projected it would take UC San Diego until the year 2037, eleven years from now, to repatriate all of the items in its possession.

UC Riverside would take until 2041, UC Santa Barbara 2053, and UC Berkeley with the largest collection in its system would need to triple its repatriation rate just to return 75% of the items in its collections by the year 2089.

These projections again reinforce the need for the UC system to be more explicit and transparent with tribes, the legislature, and the public regarding the pace of progress it expects campuses to achieve. The fundamental question the UC needs to directly answer is, how much longer do tribes need to wait? Once clearly understand repatriation goals are established, the UC needs to take the next step to ensure it's committing the staffing and the funding necessary to meet those performance expectations.

UC campuses we visited were not spending significant portions of the funding allocated for its NAGPRA activities despite the size of its collections. For example, our audit noted that UC Berkeley with the largest collection in the entire UC system had accumulated $3,000,000 in unspent funding at the beginning of fiscal year twenty four, twenty five.

Most of Berkeley's unspent funds were budgeted for the salaries of vacant NAGPRA positions. At Santa Barbara, the funding for its NAGPRA work never fully materialized. Santa Barbara told their NAGPRA coordinators that they would have roughly $550,000 a year in their budget to conduct their work, but ultimately provided 350,000 that later dwindled down to just $212,000 resulting in an underinvestment of the campus by roughly 900,000 for NAGPRA work over a three year period.

The key point here is ultimately how campuses decide to fund and staff NAGPRA activities is a direct reflection of how it prioritizes prioritizes NAGPRA. Also important to the funding discussion is the level of financial support provided to tribes who seek to consult with campuses during the repatriation process.

Each of the four campuses we visited during the audit spent less than half of the funds they had set aside for tribal financial assistance. For example, Riverside budgeted $54,000 in 2324 for tribal assistance, but spent $8,000. Berkeley budgeted $465,000 that same year for tribal support, but spent $80,000 or just 17% of the total budgeted amount. And the tribes we spoke with during the audit further explained that the financial assistance that they do receive is not always sufficient to cover their costs.

One tribe received $5,000 from Berkeley, but estimated that it costs more than that for a single rebur reburial, which would be many times higher.

In an environment where campuses aren't fully using their NAGPRA budgets, campuses can likely cover additional tribal expenses beyond what they're currently funding. In our audit, we recommended that the UC system study the cost that tribes incur and by January 2026, report its findings to the legislature, providing information on how much funding would be needed to fully support tribal participation in the repatriation process and the university's ability to cover those costs.

I understand the UC recently submitted that report to the legislature just last week, and as a result, my staff have not yet had a full opportunity to consider and evaluate UC's conclusions in that report.

But in closing, our most recent audit report concludes that the UC system, after six years, three audits, and numerous oversight hearings, has now had adequate notice and ample time to both develop and execute a plan for the thorough and effective repatriation of the remains and cultural items in its possessions, yet it has not done so. The UC's expected timeline through repatriation remain unclear to us, while significant funding allocated for NAGPRA efforts go unspent.

Ultimately, UCOP and its campuses need to demonstrate they possess the collective will to expedite the return of what is fundamentally not theirs to begin with, not through promulgating new policies and procedures, but instead by achieving meaningful progress and returning the ancestral remains and cultural items to affiliated tribes following a process that is collaborative, respectful, and doesn't require tribes to wait another ten to twenty years. We look forward to continuing our work with the UC and updating the legislature again following our fourth audit of the university.

And with me today is Grayson Huff, who was the audit supervisor on the assignment. We'd both be happy to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you so much for that report. As now, we'll go to Andrew Alejandre, executive director, California Native American Heritage Commission.

Thank you. Congress recognized that Native American remains and cultural items must be treated with dignity and respect and that they belong to Native American tribes. Under NAGPRA, any entity receiving federal funding that holds Native American human remains and cultural objects must identify and inventory collections, notify tribes of the collections, meaningfully consult with tribes culturally affiliated with the collections, and return ancestors and cultural objects to tribes.

Despite NAGPRA's mandates, entities in California that are subject to the law made little to no progress in returning ancestors and cultural items to tribes. To rectify this situation, in 2001, the state adopted the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, CalNAGPRA, designed to better implement compliance with NAGPRA.

State law set a deadline of 01/01/2003 for the completion of inventories and summaries of collections, detailed the process for identification of the appropriate tribes with which to consult and authorized the imposition of civil penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of CalNAGPRA. The University of California system is subject to both NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA, but as evidenced by three separate California state auditor reports, has yet to fully comply with the mandates of these laws.

Most disturbing are the conclusions of the most recent audit report that at the current rate of the work, the UC system will likely take more than a decade to report to report that at the current rate of the work, the UC systems will likely take more than a decade to repeat repatriate all collections. Given the fact that NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA have been the law since 1990 and 2001, respectively, this lack of progress in repatriation is disheartening and inexcusable.

Additionally, it has been reported to the NAHC that some UC campuses have used the 2023 changes in federal regulations and the resulting confusion for an explanation as to why repatriation efforts are slowed.

However, the 2023 changes in the federal law are not an excuse for the UC failure to identify inventory, consult, and return ancestors and cultural objects as that was the federal law for over thirty years prior to the changes. As demonstrated by audit follow-up reports submitted by the UC system, progress is being made.

However, it is disappointing that progress had to come as a result of the UC system being pushed by the legislator and state auditor rather than by a sense of urgency to comply with both federal and state law. It is time to bring each cultural item home to their rightful owners. It is time to bring the ancestors home so that they can finally rest.

These actions are long overdue and must become a priority. The NAHC thanks the committee members for their continued efforts to hold the UC system accountable for the past injustices and to push for the return of all ancestors and cultural items to tribes. California's first people. Thank you.

Thank you so much, director Andrew Alejandre, former Chair chairman. Also, we'd like to give a opportunity for Reggie Pagdeline, chairman of the named American Heritage Commission.

Thank you,

Assemblyman Ramos, and honorary members of this subcommittee joint committee. Excuse me. We really appreciate your time. Meaning greetings. Hello.

My name is Reginald Pagling, chairman of the Native American Heritage Commission. I have served in the commission since 2013, and the last three years, I've been the chairman. The commission is tasked with protection of Native American culture resources and is responsible for overseeing CalNAGPRA, including the tracking of progress of repatriation on the CalNAGPRA database, providing mediation of CalNAGPRA CalNAGPRA disputes and enforcing violations of the act. In the past, the UC system was notoriously challenging to tribes in both consultation and repatriation.

I'm gonna go a little off script because I think we're talking about colleges and universities, and I wanna talk about my tribe from the sense of we have traveled across the country to Yale and Harvard, and they complied.

We just recently acquired all our remains from both campuses. There's no excuse. It's time for our people to come back. It's time for all the tribes to have them come back.

We just recently acquired all our remains from both campuses. There's no excuse. It's time for our people to come back. It's time for all the tribes to have them come back.

The last thought it made it clear at the current pace, UC would not fully complete repatriation in the next decade.

I'd like to express my gratitude as to Assembly member Ramos who has consistently held both UC and CSU accountable through not only passing legislation, but raising the call for state audits to hold these institutions accountable. The impact of these audits on the culture and progress of repatriation at the UC is tangible. Thank you for all who gathered here today. I hope my testimony and the testimony of all here today lead us towards a positive change.

Last part, I'm gonna go ahead and go off the script one more time.

And James has known this since I he was formerly part of the Heritage Commission. You know, all of us here, probably 90% of us are cultural bearers. My cultural bearer from my tribe is we paddle across the Channel Santa Barbara over the Channel Islands. That's a representation of taking our ancestors on the way back to their next journey. On the fourteenth of this month, we'll paddle again.

Young men, young women. And we instill on them instill on them the the confidence and the importance of continuing this tradition. And that's what this is about, a tradition of taking care of ourselves. So please help us get him back. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments. We also wanna recognize Assemblymember Rogers who joined us, Assembly member Colosa, and Assemblymember of Valencia. Thank you for your presentations that we as now we bring it back to the diaspora. Any comments, questions from members? Assemblymember Sharon Quirk Silva?

Thank you for your comments. And this is not the first time I've sat on the Seclette committee here and heard the same information. It is certainly disappointing to see the lack of urgency, but I guess my question is related to comply. We heard that in several of your remarks, and I think we will be hearing it in additional remarks. When we think of a body complying, that typically means that you're asked to do something and there should be an outcome.

So my concern is that our systems don't seem, you see, don't seem to be moving towards complying as been mentioned with urgency. And so what is our I guess, how do we make sure there is an actual date and time, and we just heard from that other bodies have been able to do this. So if you can just can speak to what are the consequences when a body does not comply?

Is that for me or for

Either.

I I think you bring up a a very valid point, and there hasn't been consequences for not complying historically. And I think that is a fundamental problem and why we come back here year after year on this topic. One of our key recommendations in our audit report is we've been pushing The U As UC system to develop clear specific target time frames for when you are trying to return all of these items.

If you don't know what you're shooting for, you're never gonna know if you get there. There may be a role for the legislature to play in having discussions with UC about establishing what your expectations are for those time frames.

But absent common knowledge for the tribes, the public, the UC, and us as an audit team understanding what the target is, it's gonna continue to be this amorphous thing that is never really solidified.

May I may I just add that the the Native American Heritage Commission is in the final stages of adopting regulations for enforcement, which will anticipate being effective July 1. So these will be the CalNAGRA enforcement regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Jackson.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and for both our chairs on kind of your leadership on this issue. I mean, I remember one of the first of these hearings that I participated in. And, I mean, I have to tell you, this is you can't get any worse than this report when it comes to our expectation of some of our world renowned flagship institutions and their failure to honor California's first people. I mean, I'm ashamed to even be here hearing this again.

And California leads the way in so many things, but it's disturbing that we can't lead the way in this.

I know one of your recommendations is to talk to the UC. I mean, I don't think any of us have really been successful with talking to the UC. What would be your top recommendations that the legislature can do that's within our purview to ensure that we move the needle forward and that we're not back here talking about decades of timelines, even if they chose to set that timeline, by the way, because they chose to not to set their own timelines.

That that's worrisome

as a legislature where we get all kinds of asks from UC. And when we ask the UC to do something, they can't follow through. And I find it hard to balance the two when this is a moral imperative for California. And in my book, this is the most important thing we should be asking them to do, especially if they're gonna ask us to do things for different campuses.

So what are the top three things that this legislature can do, both legislatively and through the budget process, to make sure that we Max the come back here and we've actually made progress because the legislature has put things in place to ensure that it's getting done.

I think one of our recommendations on our report is to consider the legislature has the power of the purse. You are the ones appropriating funding to the UC system, and so you have a say in the conversation about what are the legislature's expectations for when these items are to be returned to California's tribes.

And so one of our more specific recommendations is you could start perhaps consider earmarking larger and larger percentages of the UC's budget to make sure that they are dedicated to NAGPRA, where that funding is tracked, where staffing is actually hired, where year after year, if progress isn't being made, you can continue to use the fiscal tools at your disposal through the appropriation process to make sure that the UC is properly incentivized to make progress.

When when I view the legislature's role and I understand the UC is a bit unique and that it has certain, you know, constitutional independence factors given the state's constitution. At the end of the day, it's a legislature that it's appropriating the funding for UC.

And so I think that's a incredibly powerful tool, that the legislature could use to be setting expectations for how much of UC's budget should be spent on NAGPRA activities. I I went through my presentation where you had campuses that allocated money for tribes to participate in the repatriation process. There was money budgeted for NAGPRA coordinators to be going through campus departments and academic departments, but that funding wasn't fully being used.

And so perhaps the legislature needs to be more explicit in directing the leg directing the UC system that of this budget that we're giving you for the UC campus as a whole, here's our expectation for how much money we want you spending on NACRA, campus by campus. And here is our expectation for based on that money, here's how quickly we want you to be returning items.

Give us give us the specific target. Give us the date. Right now, again, we're in an environment where it's not clear, at least to me, about what is the expectation. What are we shooting for? And I think the legislature has a role to play in in establishing that target.

Thank you so much for for those comments. Assemblymember Kolozan.

Thank you so much, Chair Ramos, for holding this important oversight hearing. Thanks as well to Chair Harabedian for for putting this together. I represent Los Angeles, Northeast LA, East LA, South Glendale, and so my jurisdiction is home to the Gabrielino Tongva people. And, you know, I am also a proud graduate of UC San Diego. And similar to what Assemblymember Jackson just shared, I I'm not proud of this.

This is increasingly disappointing to to hear how the UC has treated our tribal communities, and I really appreciate this report from our auditor that highlights, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency in, what are timelines that are gonna outlast all of us. I was elected in 2024, and the earliest projected timeline for repatriation of some of these remains at UC San Diego. My alma mater is 2037. I if I'm lucky, term out in 2036.

And so what will happen, for these projected timelines that we're hearing about is they're beyond any of us.

And that's really concerning. And so I think for the chancellors, who were here today, what we are hoping what I'm hoping to hear from you are clear deadlines, clear answers. I know many of you have taken on your post, recently, and I hope you work to correct, the wrongs that have been done. And we're really looking to you to make this right. And I know that my colleagues and Aye, are not going to stop asking you these questions until we hear answers.

And I know that through the leadership of our Chair, we're gonna continue making sure that all of our tribal communities, get their loved ones back to where they belong, and that's home. But I look forward to the UC. Thank you to all the speakers, to the state auditor. Thank you again to Chair Ramos.

Thank you so much. Any other comments, questions from the dais? No. Oh, city member Ransom.

Thank you. So thank you all. I just had a question in the report. There was an indication that there was there was, like, a $3,000,000 allocation needed, but there was also uplifted the concerns about, you know, storage and and places to for the tribes to be able to, like, properly prepare to accept and receive these items. And so I'm wondering if if what was uplifted for $3,000,000 is actually realistic just as a starting point.

If we can start by discussing that initial designation of $3,000,000, is that a realistic designation that will actually move the needle and really help prepare, expediting this? And and I think it's already been uplifted the need to the timeline. 2037 was, I think, low hanging fruit. And I think we saw, like, 2053 for some of these these things, which is completely unacceptable given the stature of the institutions in particular.

So I wanna kind of hone in on the immediate opportunity looking at the university saying, you know, $3,000,000.

Like, what is that actually going to do, and and should we look at that? Do we need to look at what we can do to increase that? And then also working with the tribes to identify what actually has to happen for them to be able to prepare given that they have said at least a couple of them in in the listening sessions pre report said, like, we're not ready to receive these things. So it seems like, one, is there enough money?

And two, like, how can we help them be prepared, whether it's the stewardship or some other sort of financial arrangement?

Did you wanna go over me? Okay.

Thank you for the question. One of our recommendations in our audit report was that the UC needs to be working with the tribes to better understand what are their costs. It's not just UC that incurs costs to repatriate items, but there's obviously a cost for the tribes to visit the campus, collaborate with campus officials. There's a cost to once you accept those remains and cultural items, rebaring them.

And so we made a recommendation on our audit report is that the UC system needs to have those discussions with the tribes to figure out what is the ongoing cost to fully fund full tribal participation in the repatriation process.

And our recommendation was that once you figure that out, you see, you need to come back to the legislature and report to them what they what you found. Because if the legislature was to consider, for example, earmarking UC appropriations for NAGPRA activities, a component of that earmark could be funding specifically to support tribes as part of the repatriation process. That report to the legislature, I believe, happened just last week.

So we haven't had a chance to review, the conclusions and findings in that UC report, but I expect that's something that the UC officials in the next panel would be able to go in more depth about. We just haven't had a chance to evaluate it yet.

I would just like to echo what he just said, but also add, you know, that each tribe in California is different. And we have to understand that they have their own ways of repatriating or, you know, taking care of these ancestors or these cultural items. So we need to be respectful of that as well and understand, the differences that that take place with each tribe because not all are the same. So, that also adds, you know, different cost for different tribes.

So I I would just encourage that as well.

Just one more comment on that. The one of the things you mentioned was storage, and I think that's ideal if each of the universities was would put a part of their facilities there for the repository there where tribes can come in in private, go through the collections, and decide is this our tribe or is it somebody else's. I think that's really a a hamper for us when you look at sometimes we get stuff delivered, and I know tribes that don't have a repository.

So it would be worthwhile, perhaps, for the universities to also make that as part of this process, a repository at the university, at the UC campus, allowing tribes to come in. I think it's essential that these are some of the resources tribes don't have, and we really appreciate that.

Thank you so much. Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. Mister Otter, I wanted to to follow-up on the on sort of your your top line recommendation with respect to what to do about it. I'm looking forward to the university's response on all the the content issues, but the and and I'm hoping that you'll be able to flush out some of your ideas around how the how the budget might work in this way.

I do I wanna flag though that the I mean, the Supreme Court and several districts of the appellate court over the last seventy five years have ruled pretty consistently and repeatedly that the legislature may not, through the appropriations process, do something that is prohibited from doing under Article nine of the constitution. So the the university's constitutional autonomy extends to the budget.

Doesn't mean that we can't make incremental changes on the on the margin, but we can't earmark the base budget. And so I'm so I'm hopeful that either now or later, you can share with us some of your your the concept that you're suggesting here on how we might add additional resources or on the on that margin. Because I think I've I've I've I've been here only a year and a half, but I've been in the in this building for a lot longer.

And it can often seem facile that we'll just order them to do it, and then we lose in the courts because the constitution prevents us from doing that. So I I hope you you know, that you can give us a more fine grained set of suggestions about how we might use our the levers that we constitutionally do have available to us to impel more effective action by the university in this regard.

Yeah. So your your question is, you know, well taken. Unfortunately, I didn't bring our legal counsel with us here today, but my commitment to you is, you know, when we were coming up with that recommendation, we were speaking with our legal counsel, and so there's more additional information we can provide to your office that provides clarity on the legal basis for our recommendations. We can absolutely do that following this hearing. I'm I'm sorry I don't have that here with me today. Alright.

I I I would just I I guess what I'd like to request is in addition to that, because I'll I'll also be happy to send over the the ream of court cases that have been very clear on this question, specifically about the budget and appropriations, is that we have a more that we have a more fine grained constitutionally valid approach to dealing with the appropriations. And it isn't that we can't take, appropriations actions here. We do it all the time.

But they are not of the nature of earmarking the the budget and and and mandating that dollars be spent in a specific way. So that nuance is really, really important for us to be able to do something that is constitutionally valid to look forward to the follow-up conversation.

Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments? Senator Fong.

Thank you so much, Mister chairman. And just echo my colleague's comments, we know that a lot more work needs to be done and urgency of the issue system to push on this is is so critical. So I heard from the grand auditor different timelines. UC San Diego is at twenty thirty seven. I forgot what you see our but you and UC Santa Barbara is at twenty fifty three, and UC Berkeley twenty eighty nine.

And you mentioned in your remarks that San Diego at least had a little bit more clarity in terms of the timeline. Is there something in the process or somewhere where UC San Diego in terms of their timeline versus the other UC campuses, is there best practices or anything that we can do to help speed up the timeline in terms of efficiencies?

Talk about what you saw.

Yeah. My name is Grayson Hough, the senior auditor evaluator and was the team lead on this project. So, the state auditor was referring to UC San Diego's repatriation plan, which we reviewed during the audit report. And essentially, it just had explicit, timelines for some of the actions that it was going to take, which means you can measure against those timelines and measure the campus's progress. Other campuses did not have those timelines or weren't their goals weren't as measurable.

A lot of the recommendations that we've made to the UC are essentially establishing a framework for making sure every campus has those specific measurable goals and that the UC is tracking to make sure that, campuses are meeting those goals. And if they're not meeting those goals, to figure out why and take whatever the appropriate action is.

So, really, it's just about establishing a framework where it's very clear what each campus is trying to accomplish, what the UC as a whole is trying to accomplish, and then measuring against that and making sure progress is being made.

And thank you for that context. So is there a system at the UC office of present where the these goals are being measured, or is it just campus by campus?

So, campuses, have established, according to the office of the president, and their updated repatriation plans, which came after the completion of this audit, updated goals, and they submit quarterly reports on those goals. When we reviewed those reports, we found that a lot of campuses still there wasn't content in those reports explaining exactly what the goals were and exactly what the progress they were making over that review period. So, I apologize. I don't know if that answered your question, but

Thank you for the context. Anything we can do to continue to in these quarterly reports and in terms of consistency, reporting, the deadlines, anything that we could do to continue to encourage the UC system to continue to to push, it it would be critical.

Yes.

Thank you, Mister chairman.

Thank you so much. Assembly member Valencia?

Thank you, Mister Chair, and to both chairs for organizing this committee hearing today. We've been discussing a lot about recommendations and how to expedite the process. A question that I often ask myself when evaluating systems to make them more efficient is actually the reverse of that question. Is there anything impeding the UC system from meeting deadlines that we set or the expectation that is set through these reports. Right?

We just heard that private institutions have met the mark, and not to make this a private versus public debate, but it's disappointing to hear that private institutions are able to meet these expectations at an much rapid rate than what our UC systems are despite the infrastructure that we have here in California. So was there anything in your audit assessment that points to the inability of our incredible institutions from meeting these benchmarks?

I think one of our observations during the audit is UCOP's deference to campuses. Fundamentally, here, you know, we can make as many recommendations as we think that are helpful, and they increasingly get more and more prescriptive audit after audit. But at the end of the day, it requires the UC system to want to implement and to achieve progress on NAGPRA.

And you it's, you know, an audit language, we refer to that as tone at the top of an organization, that the foundation of any process or internal controls to make sure that programs run effectively and smoothly is the tone at the top from leadership who establishes the expectations, establishes the benchmarks. And as I mentioned in my remarks, even though UCOP has worked towards establishing statewide policies and and procedures, a lot of it still seems to be driven by the campus.

And when you don't have NAGPRA coordinators who are able to have access to academic departments and buildings to search, when you have campuses that aren't being required by UCOP to be specific about what is your planned timeline for returning things, and when you have campuses making decisions not to spend all the budget that they've allocated for NAGPRA activities, it starts to paint a picture of, well, just how important is NAGPRA. Everybody says NAGPRA is important. I think we all agree that it is.

But as I mentioned in my report remarks, how important NAGPRA is in some respects is reflected by how much funding and staffing you put behind it and how clear you are about what you're shooting for. And we just we're not there yet based on the results of our audit.

Would it be fair to say then at this point in time that after three decades of NAGPRA being implemented, the focus or the interest in addressing these issues is just not there?

You know, auditors are paid to be professionally skeptical. I would characterize that we we are skeptical at this point. We'd like to see more progress.

Thank you.

Well, thank you so much for that. And I just wanna I have a couple questions. Certainly, we talked about recommendations, and I believe you said there was 18 or 19 recommendations that were made when we first started the audit to where we are now. And 12 recommendations are still going unad attentive to that they're not even being implemented or even discussed. Not fully implemented.

So there's progress being made on some. On others, we have a disagreement with UC about whether it's implemented or not. I didn't go recommendation by recommendation in my remarks, but there are there are categories of recommendations whether they pertain to searches of buildings, whether they pertain to establishing clearly understood metrics and time frames for when campuses expect to be completed with their work and recommendations surrounding the funding piece of it. So that's sort of how we characterized our recommendations.

Well, thank you for that. And and and there seems to be some disagreement between the auditor's office and you UCOP, with the universities, not only on those recommendations, but on other issues also. Is that right?

So there are some recommendations where UCOP believe they fully implemented our recommendations. We disagree, and I expect those will be things and issues that we encounter again on our forethought it in addition to our future conversations with the UC system. So we're not in perfect agreement on the status of our recommendations.

Other places where there's not agreement by by two bodies, a neutral body steps in, if if you would say, maybe that is a role for for this legislature to get engaged, to find out where the disagreement truly is, or else we're gonna continue to hear of noncompliance from the UC system. And and I do have to, echo, Assembly member Jackson's comments. We're talking about loved ones, remains of a people, not prize possessions on someone's shelves or or or a profession.

These are loved ones that need to be respected and put back into the ground. We're talking about California's first people that suffered atrocities, bounties on our people.

But yet in 2026, we're still urging compliance in the state of California for California's first people. And I do have to say that if if it was any other people out there, there would be task force assembled. There would be marches taking place in the in the state of California, especially when other states are complying and California is not. We have to start to understand what where that disagreement is.

We have to start to understand how we could better move forward the repatriation process and not use laws to slow down the process.

NAGPRA versus CalNAGPRA, those types of issues. Items that the auditor talked about that were loaned to graduate students that have gone missing, if I heard that correct. That's happening even after we started this audit when we first got into office. And we also hear from the auditor that there was $3,000,000 allocated. I wasn't sure to which university, but yet that budget was unspent.

And it was the purpose was for NAGPRA positions out, and I believe it was Berkeley. Is that right?

Berkeley.

And so the budget process, the state allocates the budget UC system, then the budget comes down from the UC top to the bottom. That money was allocated $3,000,000, but yet was unspent. So are we to assume that the priority of NAGPRA, CalNAGPRA, is not a top priority?

I I think that's a fair question to ask. And again, if there aren't clear timelines being established by the campus when funding isn't being fully used, It begins to paint a picture of just how much effort and attention is being applied by the UC campuses to compliance with NAGPRA, and it also raises the question where is UCOP to make sure that the campuses are following through on their commitments.

Right now, you have campuses, I would say, having different levels of clarity in terms of where they're at and their commitment to spend money. And so UCOP potentially has a role to play there in terms of evening every you know, evening everything out. But it seems to be a very campus driven process right now, and there's a greater role for UCOP to play in our opinion.

We're looking forward to the those answers to some of those questions in the next panel. There was at the last hearing a bold statement from the UC saying that they disagreed with a lot of these time frames, and they were putting out there that a 2028 time frame was more realistic. They would comply with with, repatriation coming back. I'm gonna ask that question at the next panel. However, the auditor has identified San Diego, would not comply until 2037 at the pace they're going now.

Riverside, 2041. Santa Barbara, 2053. And UC Berkeley, not even full compliance by 2089, but 75%. So I would venture to say that that's where some of the disagreement is at, with u UCOP and some of the universities. Difference of timing.

And I believe, it was mentioned that some campuses have not even put a timeline for completion of those remains. And yet, as that's happening, items are being still loaned out to graduate students.

I don't believe items have been loaned out to graduate students for several years, but what we found during the report was that items that had been loaned out had not yet been collected, nor has that process been completed.

And is it safe to say that the full audit or the full analysis of those archives, from the UCs has not been fully, completed? There could be more remains than the 1,400,000 that's been identified.

Yes. That's correct, Hussein.

And with the the Native American Heritage Commission, Chairman Pagdoly, you mentioned that, your tribe was able to get repatriation items back from institutions outside of the state of California. Do you believe that other states are in further compliance with, repatriation and following laws and honoring the Native American people than the state of California?

I don't know if it's other states, but I think they're probably just the other institutions have understood that where we're at and our ability to communicate what we need and what we want has been clearly a success. At the same time, you know, it's very painful. I think every tribe that's going through this is a very painful issue to go through, to go in and identify, to spend the time there, to go ahead and go through those records and the files and the boxes. The boxes.

I mean, we just I can tell you that it's and I think probably might speak on behalf of many many tribes here is is when you walk into a room with boxes, you feel the energy.

Open them up, there's bowls. Open them up, there's feathers. There's there's feather flags. There's there's such beautiful work that's been done, you know, as we talk about what it is Native Americans have been. You know, we've been those scientists.

We've been those mathematicians. All that we've done in in just look at the creation of the art, what they had to do to go ahead and carve a bowl out. I mean, the pain that goes through. But I'm not sure if I'm gonna say it's go so far as a state to state, but I will go ahead and say, yeah, there's different institutions that have a different priorities, and there shouldn't be an issue with California GC and CSU systems doing the same.

And not to throw everybody under the bus, I think there are some some universities that open up some of those rooms that we can have those repositories, but I'd like to see that common allowed to that knowledge be able to transfer it to tribes to know that they have a place to go in to do that.

And I think that's the the some of the barriers, some of the walls, and just that chance to have that that that point to where you actually know that you're with your relatives is the point that's here. And I'm thankful that both those private institutions were able to comply with that.

Thank you for that. And and it would be interesting to see other states and compliance institutions, private, public, if there is a certain accountability matrix that that meets the specifics of judicial analysis there. Mister director, Drew Alejandre, you mentioned that you believe that the CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA and then the amendment at the federal law, the 2023 is being used to hinder remains coming back to tribes in the state of California. Can you elaborate a little more on that?

Yeah. It just seems that that's become an excuse to not comply. As I mentioned, you know, these have been in place for thirty years plus, if that. And with this change, it just seems that this has been a way to kinda compromise and delay, the repatriation and and the process of of getting the ancestors and cultural items back to their rightful owners.

Thank you for that. And I do wanna reiterate that this isn't new. The audits, since we got into the state legislature, we've had, audits move forward. Certainly, your predecessor and now yourself, Mister Parks, we've been tackling this issue. But this is an issue that has plagued Californian people, this nation's first people, from time immemorial.

And and and a lot of us, myself included, are still, cultural bearers that do reburials, still. So when Chairman Pagoli is talking about that, we've carried those boxes and did the reburial. So this isn't something that that we're we're talking about, that there's no connection. A lot of people in the room have connection to these reburials. And so we continue to to harp and to make sure that the compliance is there.

We do understand that there is some confusion with federal NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. We believe that and we'll be asking the question also, but maybe to yourself also that when the federal NAGPRA is exhausted, it's always been envisioned that the CalNAGPRA process would would step in. That way then, we're getting those remains back to, fairly recognized tribes and tribes in the state of California.

That would be the goal of of of this committee, of this legislature, to make sure that we expedite those remains back to all, Indian people in the state of California. You have comments on that from the Heritage Commission or or anyone up on the dice?

I guess I'm just trying to put it in context. It's a pretty tough one to go ahead and address, but I know that just from the consultation process that staff, that Andrew, that the attorneys, some of the commissioners have gone through, has been not only exhausted but enlightening, you know. So I think we're obviously open to, I think you'd mentioned the what are the some of the barriers.

We're obviously open to you, your staff working with us to look at what some of those hurdles might be and try to address them. I think one of the things I don't wanna see is the lowering of standards for for the people that are part of that banker committee at UC systems.

I think we need to stay on top of that. I've always and and I'm sure we've had this conversation before, Assembly Ramos, you know, not only do you have to be as good as a person next to you in this process, you have to be better. And that's why I don't think that lowering standards is one of those issues we need to go ahead and address for Native American people. We have to have our standards.

We have to set our bar high, and we're you know, we're not a stone wall. We have ears. We've always been listening. And sometimes we just remain quiet to find out what it is we wanna go ahead and seek. And you and I are on that same page.

We wanna go ahead and make sure our answers should get back.

Another question that has came forward was the appointments of Native American people, cultural bearers to the UCs and even Cal State Universities. The criteria, certifications of those that are applying, who are cultural bearers that we know, within our territories that still don't meet that that criteria that's there, I guess, with the educational documentation. I did run a earlier bill that talked about cultural bearers being equal to museum directors at at one point for repatriation and cultural knowledge and bear.

Do you believe that that some of those stipulations is what's hindering some of those appointments that are going towards the UC system?

So as far as the criteria, you know, I think, I think that that we have put forth the right criteria for these committees. So I think the commission would agree as well that what we have in place is what is should be required. And I think that, you know, it but if we need to reconsider and there's other criteria that needs to be looked at, we're certainly open to exploring that.

So, yeah, we definitely would take a look at that if that is an issue. But as of now, I think that the criteria is is where it needs to be.

Well, thank you. And the question is posed around increasing Native American participation, not decreasing it to make it easier for our people to be part of the process and the solution, and to make sure that those remains are coming back for proper reburial. Any closing comments from the panel?

Just so we look forward to working with the university and updating the committee following our next audit.

Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation. As now, we'll move to the next panel.

Our next panel's responses and comments by the University of California, Teresa Maldonado, Vice President for Research Innovation, University of California Office of the President. Richard Lyons, Chancellor, University of California Berkeley. Pradeep Khosla, Chancellor, University of California San Diego. S. Jack Hu, Chancellor, University of California Riverside, Garry Mac Pherson, Vice Chancellor of Administrative Service, University of California Santa Barbara. And I believe we'll start with the President's Office.

Is that right? We'll start with the president's office.

Yes.

Yep. Thank you.

Good morning. So good morning, Chair Ramos and Harabedian and members of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, respected tribal representatives and respected guests. Thank you for the invitation to speak today. So my name is Teresa Maldonado.

I serve as the Vice President for Research & Innovation at the UC Office of the President, which means I oversee research and innovation with the 10 campuses, three national labs, ag, and natural resources, and we partner with UC Health. I am here speaking on behalf of the UC Office of the President, my boss, Provost Catherine Newman, who joined you last year and but she recently announced that she's stepping down from her position next week. I'm also here representing President Milliken.

I am joined today by my colleague, Miss Glynis Echavari, who does tremendous amount of work in the background, as my office is the home to the NAGPRA policy. So she will be here she's here to answer questions as they come up as she knows the details working with the campuses.

I'm also joined by Chancellor Rich Lyons from UC Berkeley, Chancellor Pradeep Khosla from UC San Diego, Chancellor Jack Hu from UC Riverside, and he joined just a year ago and Vice Chancellor Garry Mac Pherson from UC Santa Barbara.

Since the California State Auditor released its report in April 2025, UC has been implementing audit recommendations while continuing the important work of moving repatriation forward. As the auditors noted, UC has not yet completed all recommendations, but we are working diligently to address each of them in full.

I acknowledge the university's historic role in the removal of Native American ancestors and cultural items from their rightful homes and resting places. For many years, as was pointed out, UC was slow to repatriate and regretfully did not always give due respect to tribal nations or their expert knowledge.

We stand accountable for the deep and ongoing harm that our arrogance, quite frankly, has caused tribal communities. On behalf of the University, I want to acknowledge the past and convey our sincere apology. The UC is committed to changing these practices.

Several pieces of state legislation, including some introduced by members of the Assembly, provided the impetus for UC to begin substantially revising the UC NAGPRA policy in 2019 and to holistically and completely reexamine our approach to repatriation.

Following three years of tribal consultation and an interim policy, UC's new NAGPRA policy was finally finalized in 2022.

Our policy now emphasizes the critical importance of meaningful consultation, seeking guidance on respectful storage and care of ancestors and belongings, and deferring to tribal traditional knowledge as expert opinion.

Today, UC does not permit research, teaching, nor loans of ancestors or any other Native American items without the free power of prior and informed consent of tribal nations.

The updated policy also requires the forming of system wide and campus level NAGPRA committees that consist of equal numbers of UC and tribal representatives as nominated by the Native American Heritage Commission. The campus native NAGPRA committees review and vote on all campus repatriation decisions.

We have also expanded NAGPRA staffing system wide to support these changes and increase the pace of work. The seven UC campuses with known Native American human remains and or cultural collections, each employ full time repatriation coordinators.

Since 2019, UC created more than 20 new positions solely dedicated to advancing repatriation. At the campus level, as you will hear in just a moment, each chancellor has a chancellor's designee for NAGPRA. First, to facilitate open communication with senior campus leadership, and second, to ensure NAGPRA programs receive adequate campus funds and other resources.

UC also compensates tribes for the cost of repatriation as we were as the previous panel was discussing. Too often, tribes bear the financial burden in bringing home their ancestors and belongings.

UC's goal and ethical responsibility is to cover tribal expenses to the greatest extent possible. In addition to campus resources, the Office of the President has allocated $3,000,000 exclusively to support tribes' costs for consultation, repatriation, and reburial. The reforms we enacted in recent years have resulted in a measurable increase in repatriation across the UC system.

Significant progress is being made in large part because of the dedication and commitment of tribal representatives who spend many, many hours consulting with our campuses and work through this process together. We are most grateful for their work. The relationships are very important as this work progresses.

As of June 2026, just a couple of months ago, the UC California UC has repatriated more than 9,000 of the approximately 17,000 Native American ancestors it originally held. As a system, we have also repatriated more than 280,000 associated funerary objects and 59,000 other cultural items.

In the first 28 years of NAGPRA, that is from 1990 to 2018, the university collectively published only 88 NAGPRA notices in the federal register. This is a required key step for repatriation process to begin.

By contrast, the university published 164 notices in the past eight years since UC began to reform its repatriation process. Similarly, there were only 57 instances of repatriation in those first 28 years. Since 2018, UC campuses have completed 191 repatriations. I hope these statistics demonstrate that genuine change at UC is resulting in material, substantial progress.

I am keenly aware that more work remains and that the ancestors and cultural items cannot be reduced to mere numbers. True change is an active and ongoing process that requires thoughtful change management. UC must continue meaningful engagement and open dialogue with tribal nations to ensure its repatriation practices remain respectful and responsive to tribal needs and priorities and not defensive posturing.

To that end, earlier this spring, the UC Office of the President, UC Berkeley, and Berkeley Law Center for Indigenous Law and Justice partnered to host an event, Righting Wrongs, Bringing Home the Ancestors from UC Berkeley Together. Over 100 representatives from 37 California tribal nations came together with university leadership for several days of candid dialogue about painful experiences, ongoing challenges, and how to make meaningful progress in repatriation and consultation.

This convening reinforced the fact that this work is about far more than statistics. At its heart, it is about honoring ancestors, acknowledging past harms, and building trust through transparency, accountability, humility, and genuine commitment. I emphasize that we do not take trust for granted. These conversations help improve UC practices, strengthen relationships, and prioritize the work that lies ahead.

UC also hosted three virtual listening sessions in late 2025 on the cost of repatriation. We plan to hold more of these sessions beginning with sessions on the draft updates to the UC policy.

We also hope to engage on other topics to be determined by the tribes, knowing that each tribe may also have unique issues or topics to bring to the table for us to address and move forward in a unique way to those common to all tribes. There is always room to improve and learn, and to do so, we must listen.

UC's future plans include expanding campus staff even further such that we can better serve tribes and increase our capacity for consultation and repatriation. System wide, there are nine new positions currently moving through the hiring process with many of these positions at UC Berkeley.

The Office of the President is also now actively recruiting for a new role, that is entitled senior adviser for NAGPRA, that reports to the president but delegated to my boss, Provost. The senior adviser will lead system wide oversight efforts and engage with tribal nations, the legislature, and UC campuses at the system wide leadership level. My office is also working on greater transparency and increased communication.

As an example, one of the outcomes of the listening sessions was a letter to all California tribes providing clear and consolidated information about UC funding and how to access the $3,000,000 allocated to support the tribes through the process of consultation and repatriation. Funding information has been added to the UCOP website, which is ucop.edu/nagpra.

We also recently redesigned and updated the UC repatriation dashboard to include a map of campus holdings and data visualizations for federal register notices and repatriations. We hope that these new features will provide more insight into UC's progress in current status.

However, we always welcome input and we are very willing to host further listening sessions to hear directly from the tribes on how the dashboard can be further improved to meet their needs. Finally, the University of California will continue to implement recommendations made by the State Auditor.

I want to conclude with deep gratitude to tribal nations for their contributions and their persistence, as well as the legislature and everyone here today.

We share a common goal of returning the ancestors and cultural belongings that have been held by the University of California for far too long. I look forward to comments and questions from you as well as in public comment later as and the tribe delegates here today. Thank you for your attention and for this opportunity to offer remarks.

Thank you so much for that, and I'd like to welcome Senator Cortese joining us today. Now we're gonna move to, I believe, Richard Lyons, Chancellor, University of California Berkeley.

Good morning, esteemed tribal leaders, Chairs Ramos, Harabedian, Cabaldon, Fong, and also members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

I'm here today to provide a transparent update on UC Berkeley's repatriation efforts and to report on the progress we have made since my last appearance before you a year ago. I want to begin by acknowledging there remains understandable wariness and suspicion among many tribes regarding how this university has fulfilled its repatriation responsibilities.

For far too long, UC Berkeley failed tribal nations and communities. The university participated in practices that caused profound harm and deep pain, harms that are not merely historical but continue to be felt today.

On behalf of the entire university, both past and present, I apologize for the atrocious acts of our past. While we cannot undo the harm that we have done, we carry an absolute moral and institutional obligation to sustain the changes we've made. True progress requires us to continue engaging with honesty and respect.

Compliance alone is insufficient. This work demands accountability, humility, and steadfast commitment to repatriation that respects tribal sovereignty and honors the ancestors. UC Berkeley's collection is large and geographically diverse, requiring consultation with tribes across The United States.

And we recognize that every tribal nation navigates this process from a different place as has been mentioned. With unique capabilities, priorities, and histories, Berkeley will continue to follow the lead of the tribal nations. As I stated last year, we have transformed our repatriation workflow at Berkeley.

This structural overhaul is driven significant advancements led by a team that understands that repatriation is not a bureaucratic task, but a process of genuine care and consultation, I would like to highlight three key areas of progress.

One, acceleration. Two, dialogue. And three, support. First, on acceleration, we have accelerated federal notices and the return of ancestors. As of this year, Berkeley has published over 80% of all ancestors held in our care within the federal register.

This includes a landmark notice published in October 2023 covering over 40% of all the ancestors held and their belongings. In 2025, a single year, through close collaboration with our tribes, we successfully repatriated in that year over 20% of the ancestors originally held by the campus, returning them to 8 tribes across 10 California counties in that one year. Our compliance staff are currently finalizing consultations and inventories for ancestors and belongings from over 15 California counties with forthcoming repatriations across five US states.

Second, we have scaled our proactive outreach to maintain active and open dialogue. So the first of these elements, acceleration, the second dialogue, our NAGPRA staff are currently engaged in active consultation across over half of California's counties and with tribes spanning nine states.

Since 2021, we have expanded our outreach to include invitations to consult with all tribes in California under Cal NAGPRA with further outreach to over 80% of tribes on the California Native American Heritage Commission contact list this past year.

The volume of our engagement has increased substantially in the twelve months from July 2025 to this June, the campus conducted over 400 consultation activities ranging from in person meetings and virtual sessions to formal claim reviews. Beyond the numbers, we are prioritizing relationship building.

In May of this year, we hosted, as was mentioned by Teresa, a two day convening called, "Righting wrongs, colon, bringing home the ancestors from UC Berkeley together" This was for all California tribes to discuss how we can improve our processes.

This served as a transparent forum for tribes to consult with our staff, question our policies, and for us to listen to listen to their needs. The third area of progress beyond acceleration and dialogue is support. We have institutionalized direct support for tribes throughout this process. Repatriation should not be a financial burden on the communities we armed. Berkeley provides point one, upfront stipends to assist with travel and the reimbursement of staffing time and expertise.

Point two on support, full coverage of costs associated with respectful rehousing, materials, and packing, and also shipping. Point three, a logistical support that includes lodging and meals for visiting tribal representatives and the costs of reuniting items moved between UC campuses. And a fourth element of support, trust arrangements, providing space for items held in trust as requested by tribes.

At Berkeley, there has been a substantial increase in funding over recent years to $3,400,000 at Berkeley alone just next year and over 15 at Berkeley, over 15 dedicated NAGPRA staff. This underscores the university's ongoing commitment to fulfilling its responsibilities under NAGPRA and investing in the resources needed to carry this important work forward.

For reburial, we actively consult with tribes about the possibility of using land owned by UC Berkeley or owned by the UC system. Finally, I want to express my gratitude to Alex Lucas and the entire repatriation team at Berkeley. Alex has grown this operation from a one person office to a dedicated staff of nine full time professionals with more currently being recruited. This growth is what has made our current pace possible. I have full confidence in the team and in Berkeley's commitment to do what is right.

To summarize, three points. First, we will meet our deadline. We are fully on track to meet the UC and federal deadline to publish all remaining ancestors for return to the federal register by January 2029. That's thirty months away. We are counting.

Second, we have made much progress over recent years, having published notices for 80 over 80%, 82% specifically of all the ancestors that we've held ever held at Berkeley, and fully completing repatriation of nearly all, nearly half of all ancestors.

Third, we want this process to work exactly as you and the tribes intend. That is grounded in respect, dignity, transparency, and meaningful collaboration to the tribal nations and communities. We want you to feel supported.

If you do not yet feel as as supported as you need to be, we ask you to tell us so so we can improve.

We will do better. We're committed to that. We've received much valuable feedback over recent years. Thank you. This work requires honesty, patience, and deep listening.

I'm personally committed to ensuring that Berkeley fulfills this moral obligation. The NAGPRA team reports directly into me. Thank you, Chair Ramos, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to continue this critical work together.

Thank you, for your presentation. As now, we will move to Pradeep Khosla, Chancellor, University of California, San Diego.

Good morning, Chairs Ramos and Harabedian. Thank you for inviting me here today, and good morning to the members of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs, Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Native American nation representatives, and the respective guests.

I'm Pradeep Khosla. I'm the Chancellor of UC San Diego, and I thank you for this invitation and the opportunity to share UC San Diego's progress regarding NAGPRA compliance. I'd like to begin my testimony with an apology for UC San Diego's past violations and wrongdoings.

I also acknowledge that UC San Diego has contributed to the challenges that native nations face today in relation to delayed repatriation. I recognize that these past actions fell short of the values we strive to uphold, and I understand that these actions also violated spiritual and cultural beliefs of our indigenous communities.

We regret the harm and the pain caused by these actions. Learning from history, we now operate diligently under the auspice of reflective practice, understanding that change comes with action, not words.

In the spirit of action, I'm pleased to update both committees on our NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA compliance efforts that have taken place since UC San Diego testified before you in August of last year.

So we have focused our efforts on five high priority areas to improve not only UC San Diego's repatriation efforts, but also to better support tribal nations who have suffered from our past actions and inactions.

First, regarding staffing. UC San Diego strengthened and accelerated our repatriation efforts through strategic hiring. We have an added another full time staff support member and now have two full time members dedicated to our repatriation efforts.

Second, UC San Diego has made enormous progress regarding repatriation in the past year alone. Since last year's hearings, UC San Diego has repatriated an additional 226 ancestors, 27 associated funerary objects, 14 unassociated funerary objects, and 181 objects of cultural patrimony.

Furthermore, since 2021, UC San Diego has repatriated 73% of Native American human remains in total, including 713 ancestors as well as approximately 53% of cultural items, including 525 associated funerary objects, 12,675 unassociated funerary objects, and 347 objects of cultural patrimony and four sacred objects.

Third, UC San Diego increased in person reviews of faculty labs and storage spaces. Over the past year, our repatriation program has collaborated with various departments to complete extensive in person reviews of approximately 40 buildings, labs, and storage spaces considered to be high risk to identify and report any previously undiscovered potential cultural items.

Fourth, UC San Diego has increased our proactive outreach to requesting consultations with tribes and native nations. The repatriation program is engaged in proactive outreach and has sent 550 consultation invitations, including re invitations to native nations, which has resulted in 31 additional consultation sessions over the past year.

And finally, UC San Diego has engaged in proactive outreach to faculty, staff, and students to ensure compliance with NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA. We continue to work with the UC San Diego community for NAGPRA compliance via a newly developed learning module available through our UC learning center.

The learning module navigates the viewer through the basics of NAGPRA, highlights state and federal law as well as UC policy and oh, I'm sorry. And educates, and educates a viewer on how to report any potential cultural resources.

This module is now available to anyone with UC credentials and is scheduled for an official launch in the fall. I'd like to acknowledge the good progress UC San Diego has made while remaining mindful of the responsibility that still lies ahead. All of the findings in last year's audit from the California State Auditor were not director at UC San Diego.

Our campus has independently been work working to achieve all of the auditors' recommendations. I am personally committed to this work, the native nations, and the ancestors who are waiting to be returned home.

Thank you again, Chair Ramos and Chair Harabedian, for this opportunity to share UC San Diego's progress with you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now we go to S. Jack Hu, Chancellor, University of California Riverside.

Good morning, Chair Ramos, Chair Harabedian, distinguished committee members, tribal leaders, and honored guests. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. As you heard, I have been serving as Chancellor at UC Riverside since July 2025. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss UC Riverside's work under NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA.

Even though I'm relatively new to the University of California, I have experience working with NAGPRA in other institutions that I serve. I understand the importance of this work.

Before I provide my update, I also want to apologize as Chancellor of UC Riverside for the harm our university caused in disrespecting tribal ancestors and belief. We recognize that our institution did not move with urgency during the early phases of NAGPRA to return their ancestors to their final resting places. Furthermore, we acknowledge and apologize for any trauma this has caused.

Native American repatriation is among the university's most important responsibilities because it concerns not only legal compliance, but also respect for tribal sovereignty. And for the California pride, we have long been valued partners of UC Riverside. Simply put, California pride deserve better.

Today, I hope you will see that we offer more than words and have turned apology into action. Over the last four and a half years, we have fundamentally changed how this work is carried out at UC Riverside. For those four and a half years, we have supported this work with full time staff, which include a repatriation coordinator and a full time NAGPRA specialist.

We have also strengthened campus oversight through our NAGPRA governance structure, expanded consultation with tribes, and allocated additional institutional resources to accelerate our repatriation effort.

Together, those actions result in measurable progress. Today, nearly all Native American ancestors in our care have either been repatriated or formally noticed in the federal register. And virtually, all known associated funerary objects have been repatriated or noticed for repatriation.

Since the state auditors report from the 2024 data, UC Riverside has increased completed repatriation from 21 to about a 100.

Those efforts reflect the dedicated work of our staff and most importantly, the guidance and partnership of tribal representative throughout this process. Several members of the UC Riverside NAGPRA team are here today. While we're encouraged by this progress, we know our work is not finished. Repatriation is about respect for ancestors and California tribes, not numbers. We remain committed to fulfilling our NAGPRA and Cal NAGPRA obligation with urgency while respecting tribal priorities, knowledge, and timelines.

With our current rate of repatriation, I'm confident that we'll complete the repatriation at UC Riverside way before 2041. I'm grateful to the many tribal leaders who have partnered with UC Riverside in recent years. We appreciate your time and advisement. I welcome the chance to continue learning and listening from you as we move this work forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. As now, we move to, Gary McPherson, Vice Chancellor of Administration Services, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Good morning, Chair Ramos, Chair Rabian, members of the Committee on Native American affairs, and members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and tribal representatives. My name is Gary McPherson, and I serve as the Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services and the Chancellor's NAGPRA designee at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Thank you for the invitation to speak today and to provide an update on the status of repatriation at UC Santa Barbara and to respond to any questions or concerns you may have.

Today, I want to begin with a simple message. UC Santa Barbara has fundamentally evolved in its approach to repatriation.

We recognize that our institution did not meet its responsibilities under NAGPRA for many years. Over the past three years, we have permanently restructured how repatriation is supported, managed, and prioritized. We have built the staffing, leadership, and institutional accountability necessary to ensure those shortcomings are not repeated. Last year, we described the actions UC Santa Barbara intended to take to accelerate repatriation. Today, I am pleased to report that we have followed through on those commitments, and I would like to share the progress we have made.

In recent years, UC Santa Barbara has corrected past deficiencies by ensuring that every collection of Native American cultural materials and ancestral human remains in its holdings is reported to potentially affiliated tribes and by extending an open invitation to consult and pursue repatriation. Over the past year, tribes from across California and beyond have responded to these consultation invitations, resulting in extensive collaboration and information sharing. These consultations have strengthened our relationships with tribal nations through transparency and ongoing dialogue.

While repatriation milestones are important, we also view the trust we are building with consulting tribes as one of the clearest measures of our progress. Since last year's hearing, UC Santa Barbara has continued to publish numerous federal register notices, complete transfers of control, and return native ancestors, funerary objects, and other cultural items to claimant tribes.

Our responsibility does not end with the legal transfer of control. At the request of claimant tribes, UC Santa Barbara continues to provide temporary care through care and trust agreements while supporting reburial planning, physical transfer, and other repatriation activities until tribes are ready to bring their ancestors and cultural items home. Last year, UC Santa Barbara committed to accelerating its repatriation plan. Since then, we have made significant progress on each stated goal. These accomplishments represent more than completed projects.

They reflect permanent change to the way UC Santa Barbara supports repatriation. Let me share a couple of those efforts. We have expanded our NAGPRA department to now include four full-time staff members and one part-time employee. This is a major improvement to the staffing compared to the part-time staff operating in place for the previous decades. We've transferred financial oversight of the NAGPRA program to the chancellor designee's Chief Financial Officer and financial services staff.

We have implemented a modern museum collections database that has significantly improved our ability to share collection information with consulting tribes, track consultation and repatriation activities, and maintain accurate records of the physical location and status of collections. We have recalled all outstanding loans to ensure cultural materials are on campus, available for consultation, and are stored to the standards listed in the UC policy. We have conducted systematic review of high-risk areas throughout campus spaces to identify unreported native ancestors, or potential cultural items.

We have revised our repatriation implementation plan to include clear timelines and benchmarks for accountability, and lastly, provided tribal support for consultation and reburial. Together, these changes have created a much stronger foundation for the future.

Although meaningful progress has been made, significant work remains. We remain committed to completing repatriation responsibly in partnership with tribal nations. We recognize that trust is earned through consistent action over time, and we will continue to strengthen that trust through consultation, transparency, and partnership with tribes. One year ago, UC Santa Barbara appeared before this committee to describe how we intended to accelerate repatriation. Today, we are proud to report that we have followed through on those commitments.

We recognize there's still more to do. We have built the staffing, leadership, and institutional support necessary to ensure that shortcomings of the past are not repeated. Every ancestor returned, every consultation completed, and every relationship strengthened is another step toward correcting decades of institutional failure and restoring native ancestors and cultural heritage to the communities to whom they belong. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you so much for your, presentations. Just now we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments, questions, concerns, Assembly member Ahrens...Rogers.

Everybody just wants to make me as cool as Patrick, and I appreciate it. No, I wanted to make a comment that I didn't feel like it was appropriate in the first panel because it is the UCs that need to hear this. And my colleague was talking about how disappointing it is that new members of the legislature will term out before some of these timelines. I was thinking about it in context of my kid who was running around on our floor yesterday.

He's two, and some of these timelines that you're talking about, he'll be applying to hopefully go to your institutions by the time you meet that. As a UC alum, that's so embarrassing. Why do we have to sit up here talking about having the best education system in the world while we're hearing that there are other universities that have figured this out?

And I understand that the UCs are apologizing that they haven't taken this seriously in the thirty years that the federal law has has been in place until the last three or four, but that's not an excuse. My understanding is that none of these universities are spending even 50% of the funds allocated by the legislature for this work.

And while I hear that there are nine new positions that are being hired, my understanding is that you have open positions to do this work as well currently. So hiring new positions when you haven't filled the existing ones doesn't seem like it's gonna be as much of a net benefit. You have an auditor who seems to imply, I don't wanna put words in his mouth, that the UC system doesn't see this as a priority and hasn't taken this seriously.

So I guess my question for all of you is, one, what part of this work takes the longest? Two, how do you convince the tribes that you say you are trying to build a better relationship with that having listening sessions is building that relationship better than actually accomplishing the goal.

And then three, since I'm mentioning my son as a parent who's still trying to learn how to get him to comply with things. You have a legislature that doesn't think that you're taking this seriously. So if you were us, how would you respond? And I'll kick it over to you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rogers. All very good questions. I think something that hasn't been part of this conversation is that institutions and repatriation is not and should not be unilateral. It's something that we do with tribes very much so, and we believe this should be a tribally led process. And we are, I think of this in terms of what are the internal and external factors.

There are many things that us, as university, can do to be ready for repatriation, and that's our obligation, whether it's filling those positions, whether it's, you know, implementing the museum databases. But we need to be ready as soon as tribes approach us, are ready for consultation, ready for reburial.

And we know that resources are limited for tribes as well, and that's something that we we mentioned in the report that was sent out last week on the cost of repatriation that we can cover, you know, all the expenses related to UC and our, you know, our interactions, our consultation. But what about before or after that that process? There is a need there.

Tribes are, we are but one institution in the country. Right? As we pointed out, there are many, many other institutions accompanying this. So, I was, you know, try to understand that when we contact tribal representatives, we send one email, one we're one institution, and there are thousand in this country. So, it's our job to be ready.

It's our job to do as much as possible. But, you know, historically, right, the power and agency of tribes, the sovereign nations was denied. And it is, you know, our practice now really to follow the lead of tribes. So, you asked, you know, which portion takes the longest. And I have to say, really, every repatriation is unique.

Sometimes we have, you know, documentation, in a row, and we can provide that immediately. But sometimes we are, you know, dealing with, archaeologists in the past who didn't care to write down anything. They didn't have enough regard or respect for the ancestors to document that. And so we have to make sure that, you know, tribes have the information needed to make those decisions. You know, how do we accomplish this?

How do we go about that? The consultation process can take a while as well, and that's something we take very seriously, and needs to be embedded throughout NAGPRA, is that deep meaningful consultation. You know, there are certain campuses or where ancestors who are from an area where there, you know, is one tribe and it's fairly an ambiguous as to who the campus should work with and repatriate to.

But we also have, you know, shared territories, overlapping traditional territories, tribes who will work jointly in coalitions to do that, but sometimes, you know, that's not the case. And then, reburial as well can sometime, preparing for reburial, can take years.

We'll do, you know, again, everything that we can, but, we've heard that, you know, sometimes there's a preference to wait for ancestors from multiple institutions to be repatriated so that one reburial can occur at once. And I really emphasize, you know, we've talked about the financial cost, but the spiritual and emotional costs of repatriation are profound. It takes, you know, every ancestry buried, It takes a toll.

So it's not, that's something that has to be prepared for, as well, by tribal elders and spiritual leaders.

So, I wish I had the exact time frame as to how long each phase takes, but, you know, we must take seriously and fulfill our responsibilities. But ultimately, tribes need to be, you know, leading, though we need to be following those needs and preferences.

So I completely agree with that. But what we hear from tribes is that they're waiting on the UC system. Right? And understanding that you have especially smaller tribes that don't have as many resources, whether the actual reburial happens on their timeline, they can take as much time as they want. My concern is the UC system not being prepared to move at the speed that the tribes would like to move at.

And, has the UC system prioritized the remains, and have you been able to categorize which remains you've been able to identify and partnership with tribes for that purpose? And how many you have not yet been able to identify. Because to me, while both important, obviously, the speed at which the UC system can move in one of those cases versus the others is different.

And can we, at least, prioritize making sure that tribes are able to, if they would like, do reburials for their ancestors, prior to 2041 when we have already identified that that's who the bodies belong to.

Yeah. Absolutely. I think it is very much true that UC, for many years, was not moving at the pace of tribes. So, something that I think all of our witnesses have mentioned today is the resources that have been invested in the past few years to really be able to get there. So, of course, staffing and, but even, you know, yeah.

If we're not already working at that pace, which the campuses, to our extent and are monitoring, we do understand that they are meeting that pace then, where that's not happening, that's something that we do need to do better at and that we will, you know, consultation is as I said, you know, is where we understand those gaps and how to fill them. And you mentioned the listening sessions as well.

That's why, it's something we need to do concurrent with repatriation. So, of course, you know, we are moving through that, but how do we go about repatriation?

How do we go about those consultations is something that we need to keep listening to. And, yes, we have, you know, done the work to identify, you know, where ancestors were taken from and who needs to be talked to, where they need to be reburied. So, we, you know, there is more information that can be got there. For example, are there, you know, are there other ancestors from the area that that should be where they need to be reburied together and other institutions?

I think a significant amount of time actually that I have not mentioned is spent working with other institutions because, again, these, the people who took these ancestors, in the past, did not have the regard and will send, you know, items or even ancestors to other institutions for research.

And, you know, as awful as that sounds, so we have to reunite ancestors as well, right, with items. So that's part of the process as well. So, then that is another piece that we have to match where the state agencies and federal agencies are at. But, yes, that's absolutely the goal is to match the piece of the tribes, and where we're not doing that is what we need to hear and we need to rectify.

Yeah. To punctuate the point, decisions about waiting until you have multiple ancestors for reburial, reuniting with items, that should be up to the tribe, not the UCs.

Yes, that's right, absolutely.

Just wanna make sure that that's very clear.

Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

Right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Rogers. Assemblymember Ransom?

Yes. Thank you. So thank you all. I appreciate, you know, the acknowledgment of the wrongdoing. Appreciate hearing about, like, the commitment.

Appreciate the listening sessions, but I really, I guess, I struggle to look at us as world class educators not being able to solve this problem when we graduate from all over the world, people to solve problems to, you know, be doctors and to the anthropologists and archaeologist, all of these different things.

And and I did, you know, do some research and try to see, well, are we using doctoral and graduate students to help, you know, create not just plans, but to make sure that we are moving forward with outcomes. Because what I did see in the audit is that it seems like some of the plans were flexible. The plans evolved, and they changed. And, ultimately, there were no outcomes.

And so, I guess I'm wondering, I do understand that every tribe is different. All of the different, you know, whether they're artifacts or the remains of the tribal members. You know, each situation is different. The resources of the tribes are different.

But without even having a plan an executable, like, plan, not just, you know, talking about the problems and hearing what people would like, but saying, yes, we we get that you have dates and deadlines, but those dates are so far in the future that who's going to even be able to be accountable for those things, first of all.

But second of all, like, where are the milestones along the way that will actually be able to solve this issue? And so, I get that it's a multi-step process, and I get that we have to work with the tribes and they're all different. But why are we not or and maybe you can correct me. Maybe you have said, you know, this tribe needs it done this way. And so, we're just gonna go ahead and do it.

And whether we need to, yes, we're hiring people, but in bureaucracies and universities also have bureaucracies. Right? We hire people to just keep talking about the problem and keep talking about how we're gonna solve the problem. So, at what point do we say, you know, maybe we build around our graduate programs.

I don't know. Just some thoughts that, as I was reading, do we, like, incentivize some of our graduate programs who really care about this issue to really help us move this forward and help us expedite these dates and help us create plans for the tribes that don't have the resources. I just wanna know, like, you introduced yourself and you said you're from the innovation. Yeah. I don't hear the innovation.

Right.

And that's what I would like to hear is, like, how are we going to really innovate, remove the bureaucracy, remove the excuses, and just if the tribes are ready, let's do it now. And if they're not ready, I would love to see the plan to get them ready and the steps that it's gonna take to get them ready.

And, yes, the dollars have not been spent, but I wonder if it's because we don't really have a plan on how we're going to do these things. Right? So, I really think that this plan is lacking.

It says even in the audit, it's like, there's no performance goals. There's, like, loose plans. Like, I plan to move to a bigger house one day, but I I don't really have any detail. Like, I don't have any steps or any plans in place. I haven't picked out where it's gonna be.

I haven't, you know what I'm saying? You have to, you can't just have a loosely put together plan. And I really expect and I think we all expect our universities to do better. And I think as a legislature, we need to look at how we can be more of an accountability partner and helping you when we normally should ask you to help us.

But helping you put together something that's more solid and that where we can check-in not just to see, you know, we don't want just an update of your plan.

We want an update of, like, deliverables. And did we achieve the goals that we set out, not just change the plan because we didn't achieve the goals? Because that's also a thing. And so I don't know if you wanna to speak to, like, your willingness to work with us to create a more outcome-based plan. And you have these departments and these different, I saw at Santa Barbara,

I think I also saw at Berkeley. You have students that are interested in tribal issues. Why are we not incentivizing our, you know, capstone programs and things like that to be able to help us move this forward? So, we can do better, and that's all. At the end of the day, that's what I'm saying is we can and shall do better.

And I would like to see us as a legislature be more prescriptive, if you will, into what the outcomes need to look like because this is not okay. Thank you.

Yes. So, the well, thank you for your comments and, you know, agreed on all counts. So that was one of the other recommendations is that, you know, clear plans with solid timelines. That is something that the campuses updated and submitted to us in February of this year. We heard earlier that the auditor considers, you know, part of those or some of those recommendations partially implemented.

We have not yet had the opportunity to really sit down with the, you know, the audit team to understand kind of where those gaps are, Their assessment came a few weeks ago, but that's absolutely something that we, you know, we wanna sit and understand, you know, how do we match, you know, the audit recommendations and what they want to see.

We are, I think, for the ancestors and their associated items, there is a very clear timeline because it is laid out in the federal regulations as well, right, of January 2029. And that's for the institution to take it and publish to take it all the way to publishing in the federal register. And then as you said, you know, reburials, that is a tribally-led decision.

And then there are, there is a separate process in the law for other types of cultural items like sacred objects. And, that is one, you know, very much so where, tribes have to identify with a sacred, that's not something that we as UC can say at all. So, it is a timeline that is less concrete. I think we can set our own. Absolutely.

And that's reflected in the plans that I'm, you know, I'm also happy to meet and go over with those who are interested. And, but it really, I think, for that process, because, it strives to say, you know, this is sacred, this is cultural patrimony, then it's our job to be ready for that as, as we said.

And, you know, I absolutely agree about our students where, you know, I I think that as the educational institution that, you know, I'm very proud of all our students and their abilities and to achieve, and we certainly have hired into some of these positions, recent graduates. Certain programs also have, even have undergraduate students assisting in, you know, with things like entering to databases and so on.

Where that's appropriate, you know, there isn't always, sometimes there's a preference to not to not have students involved.

But, and, yes, so there is also, it was mentioned a bit last year about having a NAGPRA related certificate at the University of Los Angeles, and that's something that is currently in consultation as well.

It'll, the home for it will be in the American Indian Center in a program called the Sovereign Tribes Academy, and they have, you know, just hired, actually a graduate assistant to help them plan in advance, you know, a curriculum, a program that is informed and led, you know, with consultation, led by tribes. I think what our opportunity here is to, for tribes to be able to say this is what a NAGPRA program should be.

This is what you need to know as an institution or, also to invest in NAGPRA, you know, training and people for those who want to work at tribes because they have, you know, we have issues, finding the amount of people who have that unique set of skills, and we've heard that that's the same for some tribal offices as well having to find, you know, graduates with those credentials. So, yes, plenty to do, plenty that we can do better at.

Okay. When you're having these listening sessions, how many of the, how much of the things that you're learning or the desires of the tribes or things that they're bringing that they feel would help this process?

Are you actually able to I guess, you can get percentage, like, to walk away from and implement, because, you know, if you're gonna take the time to engage and people are gonna show up, it's important that we are actually making good use of, not only their time, but respect their wishes and how we treat the process. Have you had success in implementing any of the things that you've learned in these listening sessions?

Yes. And I I don't wanna overstate the amount of, sort of listening sessions we've done. A lot of this is commitments for the future. So we did have three listening sessions relating to the cost of repatriation, that we've written about, and those, everything that was brought up were, you know, incorporated or addressed. And then we had that event at Berkeley as well.

Thank you.

That was a much larger, sort of, conversation about different parts of the process, where the holdups are. And, I believe that where there were very concrete specific, you know, things to implement from that discussion, which had to do with, you know, a better outreach or improved outreach, those have been implemented. But largely, it was, you know, a broader consultation about what are the shared challenges that institutions and, tribes are running into.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Caloza.

Thank you so much, Chair Ramos. Thank you to the representatives of the UC. Thank you to the chancellors, who were here, and for sharing some of the updates to what each of your campuses, have been doing. I know that one of the reasons why it was really important for us to to have this hearing again.

And as somebody who's a proud member of the Native American Affairs Select Committee as well as the Native American Affairs Caucus, I know that there is a real disconnect from what we hear from the UC and the experiences of tribal leaders, tribal members, what we hear when we hear from tribal voices themselves.

And I think that's one of the things that is really concerning that I'm continuing to grapple with. And, when I think of the UC as being a graduate from UC San Diego, as I mentioned, I just, you know, one, think of, of course, the tremendous public institution that it is.

And I also think of, you know, the cost of that, of what it took to build this legacy and all the things that we have to do to continue to correct that, especially as it relates to making sure that we fully acknowledge not just the wrongs that have been done to our tribal communities, but the work that we have to do. And one of the most recent actions that we took a few weeks ago was voting on our budget, which we talked about.

I know that the operating budget of the UC annually is 61.6 billion dollars, across all of your campuses.

That is your operating budget. And we also, in addition to what you have, also voted to give the UC an additional 5 billion dollars in taxpayer money. And so, I think that is really, you know, what we bring to the table of why we are not just concerned, but, deeply upset.

And, you know, one of the things that I know is important to the UC and how you've all managed to expand your growth, your individual campuses, is really what you have been able to, put on paper, in each of your strategic plans. So my first question, and open to whoever would like to answer, but is compliance with Cal, and NAGPRA, is this, actually embedded into the strategic plans of the Office of the President, each of your individual campuses?

Is this something that you've put on paper as a priority for your campuses? And that's open for whoever would like to respond.

Okay. Since you're a UC San Diego alumni, may I take the, okay, so I can tell you without any doubt, at UC San Diego, noncompliance with NAGPRA will not be tolerated. Even though many nations believe that faculty are noncompliant, but I can tell you, we have a strong program in place.

And the leader of our repatriation process, Iva Trujillo, who's sitting right here, knows that I'm completely behind her, and there's gonna be nobody tolerating noncompliance with NAGPRA, so that's an important thing. Secondly, we also have, like, clear goals for year 26-27, 27-28, happy to talk about them, but I can tell you that we are completely committed to making sure we are making progress on a daily basis.

Being an engineer, I actually really believe if I cannot measure it, I cannot control it.

And this is a process we wanna be able to both measure and accelerate and get to the time, the deadline, ASAP. Lastly, let me just say one more thing. I think Glen has mentioned this. This process is not a unilateral UC process. We need to be respectful to the tribes.

So, when we talk to the tribes, they tell us two things. They say, look, it's repatriate ASAP. At the same time, be aware that you are not the only one we're dealing with. We have hundreds of other institutions that we are dealing with.

So we have time pressures and limitations, so you need to be respectful of that. So, I think in that sense, you heard me say that in my testimony, that Eva has sent out requests and re-requests for consultation. We cannot one way take the remains and go to a tribal location and say, okay, here's what we got. So we need to be very respectful of that, and I think that's what causes a little bit of delay every so often.

So I just want us to be aware that there is a level of respect needed when we deal with the nations and the tribal leaders. So thank you.

Any others on that, on our question?

Maybe if the Office of the President can answer, is this in the strategic plan? I know that was one of the things that was identified by the state auditor was that there needs to be more statewide accountability within the UC system as managed by the Office of the President in each of the campuses. Is this in the strategic plan to ensure that this is an accountability measure in which you are looking at for all the campuses that are involved?

From my perspective, a formal strategic plan, I would say no, but it is absolutely embedded in practices. And, my boss who is getting ready to step down, she has been, very much engaged with the president of the university who's been with us a year now and the previous president, and working with, her provost across the campuses to figure out system wide activities. But to formalize it in a plan, no.

That's the same way...

It's an important comment.

And the reason why I asked that question very specifically is because I know the UC has a very extensive strategic plan. And unless this is in your plan, we're not gonna see the full compliance that we're asking for, and it can't just be the state auditor's report. It has to be implemented into your operating budget, into your overall vision for what these campuses are meant to stand for.

And so that's something, you know, I would strongly recommend if that's something that the Chair agrees with to ensure that that's really embedded within your institution's strategic plan. And then the the last question I wanted to ask was, has the UC put together an official response to the audit?

And I ask that because I know that a lot of our chancellors, all the representatives here shared some really important critical data points about the progress that has been made, which are verbal updates, which are great, but that's you know, again, we wanna be able to track and measure the real progress that's being made. So have you all responded officially with these numbers?

And can you also share whether or not you have made any official commitments to expedite the timelines that we've heard from the state auditor, from each of the projected timelines for repatriation that we heard from 2037 to UC San Diego all the way to 2089 for UC Berkeley. You can respond.

I can yield to Glynis for some of the quantitative information you're seeking, but the I don't even wanna sound like I'm making excuses, but internally, there have been funds allocated and you heard about some of them today. But, yes, there has been a response to the audit. I don't know how often you talk to the auditor directly. But I do know there's constant dialogue going with the campuses and and the provost, etcetera.

But I love your question about the strategic plan and formalizing that, and it communicates priority.

Yeah, and so yeah. I'll add that in terms of, you know, institutional planning. This is, repatriation is absolutely in incorporated into the institutional budget. So I will say that, you know, each of the chancellors here has made multiyear funding commitments to their NAGPRA programs. That's something that we absolutely monitor very closely is, you know, how much is projected, and also specifically, how much of that will be going to tribes right?

How much of that will be coming from Office of the President versus the campuses. So, it is, there have been, you know, accounting for this in future year budgets. And then in terms of reporting to the auditor, there is, you know, a cadence that follows after each audit.

So we issued our sort of, our president at the time, Michael Drake, you know, issued a response to the audit, and then we have provided updates at the cadence of, I believe, sixty days, six months, and a year.

So the update that was given earlier, you know, was based on that one-year check-in, in April 2025 I'm sorry, 2026. And, you know, we have continued to work since then. Something that the, you know, is available to the public is our dashboard and the website that we've mentioned. So the dashboard is really where all those numbers are.

You know, we try to hold also still the, you know, humanity and sacred importance of ancestors and items because it can be very jarring to just look at numbers. So we do bear that in mind. But we have a a dashboard that is updated every six months. So it follows the the cadence of the campus biannual reports. And, you know, even the format of that dashboard and the types of information and the way it's shared is something that, you know, I think we have heard needs consultation.

But that's publicly available and then, in terms of the goals that were set, that was an audit recommendation as well as that we have posted those on our website, explicitly what the goals are and have a regular update as to our progress on those goals. So, yes, we are responding to and working with the auditor, and then there's public information available as well.

Thank you, so much for for those questions. I do have a a couple follow-up questions on the timelines and then the implementation of plans. It was, stated here in an earlier, hearing, not this one, but a earlier hearing that there would be campus implementation plans. Am I hearing that those are informal plans, not actually adopted policy plans? Can you elaborate a little more on the discrepancy on that?

And also, I do wanna thank the universities that did apologize for past practices and how we're moving forward together. But I do wanna also ask the time frames, the disagreements between what the auditor is saying, UC Berkeley 2089, and others. And the way you present it was that you're streamlining straight to get these things done by a certain time. It was stated at another hearing that 2028 would be compliance.

And so I wanted to get clarity on that because now we're hearing 2029 from individual universities and moving that forward.

And so I do wanna get clarity on that. And when you talk about 80% of, compliance by 2029 to, Berkeley, is that only the federal aspect of it and not so much the other, remains that are there that don't have the federal recognition tied to them. So all that, I'm trying to summarize.

Yes. I'll try to get to all that. So to be clear, the campus NAGPRA programs all do have formalized and updated, recently updated implementation plans. And those are things that we, you know, we'll continue to monitor and update and they report on on a quarterly basis.

So there are, you know, for the NAGPRA programs, there are official, and these are plans that were, also, developed with the input of the campus NAGPRA committees, which you talked about earlier, that have tribal representatives and as well as UC representatives.

So, yes. So those plans are very much, you know, ones that have been submitted and are revised and worked on with the committees and will be implemented or reported on regularly. And then in terms of those date lines, all the dates that are floating out there, so the 2029 one that we spoke of last year is still one that we hold to absolutely.

But the action that will be taken to that date is to complete the inventories as in the, which is the language and the federal regulations, you know, because the repatriation and, you know, returning, reburial, that's something where, you know, tribes will submit claims.

So we get to that point where, you know, we are ready and sort of available for repatriation. That's, what is both our commitment and the federal deadline as well. So that, to be clear, that's the 2028 one. The 2029 federal deadline is January, 2029. So I think they're spoken of as, like, relatively interchangeable, but, that is, you know, December 28, January 29.

And then those dates that are, that have been talked about earlier, sort of the 2041 or 2089 for, for the campuses, are ones that, you know, as the auditor shared were based on calculations from, 2022-2024. And something that we have seen, a trend that we've seen, and this is on our, you can get it from our public information as well, is that there has been a steep acceleration.

So, you know, in 2022, the auditor noted that there were nine repatriations done system wide, and, you know, there were 52 last year. So we don't believe that it will take until 2041 or 2089. We are really stepping up the pace of that work.

It is difficult to, you know, take those two years and, you know, look at the next 50. So we will get things done sooner than that. And, you know, we know that repatriation is not, it's not a linear process. You know, every repatriation, as you said, is unique.

It could be one ancestor or 4,000. And, you know, on that point, actually, the the 80% number that we've talked about in relation to UC Berkeley is actually, where we are now. So the goal is for a 100% by 2028, but, you know, the system and the institution are at that 80% of ancestors that have been, ancestors and their associated items that have been published in the federal register.

And then finally, I think your last point about well, as I know, you know, the, ancestors, you know, through the the federal process versus outside of that. So our understanding, you know, working with, National NAGPRA, which is the federal regulatory agency, and we've checked in with the Heritage Commission as well, is that all ancestral remains, all Native American ancestors are subject, you know, first and foremost to that federal process.

When we have reached that point in the federal register and maybe if we don't have we're not able to move forward at this time with a federally recognized tribe. That's something that, you know, I think we're gonna continue to consult on. We will find a way. We are not going to sit and rest and say, you know, oh, we've we've gotten to this point, we're done.

You know? It's something that, if where there are, might be any obstacles, that's something that we are trying to very creatively address, you know, explore what are the avenues that we can do that. But that is a significant issue at Berkeley is that, you know, we do know that landmark notice that was mentioned, those 4,000 ancestors, they have not yet been repatriated.

They still are at the campus because we have, you know, we've have not yet received a claim from a federally recognized tribe. We know that there are many reasons for that, and we have the limitation in federal law about that nonfederally recognized tribes are not involved in that process.

But, you know, we will, we're actively working. This is not something we're going to throw our hands up and say, you know, oh, we're stuck. It's not at all. We're continuing to have those conversations.

Thank you for that. And the formal strategic plan, hearing that it's more of an informal plan rather than an adoptive plan. I have to go back and research the audit to find out if there was a recommendation. I know we talked about overall system-wide plan, but I think maybe we have to be more specific in what type of plan that is.

But, I do believe that there is a nexus for that plan to be done that there's been recommendation for it.

And so we'll look into that. And if not, then this body is now looking into making sure that, from the top down, that there is some type of formal strategic plan moving forward with the requirements that are there. We do continue to hear discrepancies between what the auditor timeline is and what the campus' individual timeline is as well as the UC system overall. And so we're gonna keep an eye on that.

And I wanna thank you all for being here as now we move to our last panel.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our last panel will be Bob Purnell, Tribal Cultural Resources, Table Mountain Rancheria, Charlene Nijmeh, chairwoman, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Isaiah Vivanco, Chairman Suboba, Mary Ann Andreas, Tribal Council Member Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Chairman Leo Sisco from Santa Rosa Tachi, and Chairman Jack Potter, Redding Rancheria. Is it? It's hot outside.

Let the ladies go first.

But thank you so much. And we'll start with former chairperson, Mary Ann Andreas. Morongo, travel group.

Beauty. Good morning. Good morning. Chair Ramos, members of the select committee, and distinguished guests, I'm freezing, so please excuse me. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

Today, I come before you as a descendant of those whose remains in sacred cultural belongings have languished in storage rooms and display cases across this state for decades. I wanna be direct with this committee. Tribes are frustrated and we are exhausted. We're exhausted by the broken promises. We're exhausted by the studies.

We're exhausted by the audits that confirm what we already know year after year, only to be followed by more audits confirming the same failures. NAGPRA was signed into federal law in 1990. Cal Mangro has been the law of the state since 2001. We are now twenty five years into a legal obligation that institutions across California continue to treat as voluntary. This is not compliance.

This is delay after delay, and it must stop. Progress that requires a tribe to fight this hard for this long is not a functioning system. It is a system that has placed the entire burden of its own enforcement on the very communities it was designed to protect. There are numerous obstacles that must be addressed. First, the lack of consistent funding must be addressed.

The cost of repatriation work should never be a barrier for tribes. This cost must fall on the institutions. Tribes should not have to adapt to the individual practices and preferences of committees on different campuses. The law is the same everywhere. The process should be too.

Campus committee should be standardized to ensure continuity and consistency for tribes. Fourth, transparency is not optional. Tribes deserve consistent reports from institutions that are timely, honest, and easily accessible. How can tribes trust institutions when they continually fail to demonstrate their progress and commitment to repatriation. If an institution announces its commitment to repatriation, but fails to complete a single transfer in a given year, that commitment is meaningless.

Finally, institutions must partner with tribes to ensure that tribal needs and priorities are addressed. Tribal partnership must mean partnership for all tribes and not just those with the most resources. Frankly speaking, tribal consultation should be the foundation of all decisions made regarding NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA. Time and time again, institutions demand the supportive tribes in consultation and repatriation, but then they fail to fulfill their end of the bargain by ensuring repatriation occurs. Repatriation is not some favor that institutions grant tribes at the institution's discretion.

Institutions cannot fulfill their responsibilities without real long term investment from the government. Meaningful repatriation cannot occur when there is no meaningful monetary investment. Support is measured in action and policies that prioritize and guarantee funding where institutions and tribes are long overdue. Second, the lack of accountability. Intentions are only meaningful and measurable action is demonstrated.

Never mistake activity for achievement. While audits have occurred across institutions for decades, it is time to demand that measurable progress be made. While many institutions state the intent to repatriate, intent without results is simply another broken promise to tribes. Third, there is a need for institutional continuity and standardization. Audits need to be measurable, standardized, and publicly available across all the institutions.

An institution's commitment to repatriation should never be dependent on one person, and institutions must remain committed following leadership changes. Compliance requires obligation for an entire institution and its leadership, not just NAGPRA staff. Repatriation is a legal obligation and a moral responsibility. And for our people, it is a matter of healing, of bringing our ancestors home after decades of displacement and indignity. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians will continue this work within its framework and in good faith.

We will continue to show up, travel the miles, sit in the meetings, review inventories, and follow the process. We demand that institutions be held to the same standard. It's my feeling that, I've seen Native Americans, when they fail to comply with the law, they are punished. And I believe that it's time that this should be criminalized. And if they fail to comply with the law, they should be punished as well.

The time for action is now. I thank you, Mister chairman, for your strong voice on behalf of tribes. We couldn't survive without it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Chairwoman. Mary Ann Andreas, former chairwoman. Now we move to, chairwoman from Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, Charlene Nijmeh.

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to be here. Charlene Nijmeh. San Francisco Bay Area. I greet you in my native Chochenyo language.

My name is Charlene Nizhme, and I'm the chairwoman for the Muwekma Ohlone tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, a sovereign tribe previously recognized as the Verona Band of the Alameda County, never terminated by any act of Congress. We are still the first peoples of the San Francisco Bay Area since time immemorial. We stand before you as the living embodiment of a people who have survived missionization, genocide, forced assimilation, and the deliberate erasure of our federal recognition.

Today, I speak on the California State Auditor's report 2024-047. The University of California lacks the accountability and urgency necessary to promptly return Native American remains and cultural items.

Before I go into the analysis of this report, I wanna reflect on this morning's statements. Chairman, your statement about we come back and we continue to talk about the same issue about repatriation. From my own living experience, even way before I was born, I'm 53 years old, this has been going on for my people going back to the early sixties to protect our Ohlone Cemetery in Fremont.

Our people have protested, have been arrested, have lost their belongings over this issue because this is how serious we take this. It is our obligation to protect our people that are have come out of the ground, thousands of our people at sitting at UC Berkeley, and other institutions that have the same collection.

They're all over the place. So this isn't over. We are the next generation standing before this body. We're not going anywhere. I'm that next generation.

The people behind me are the next generation. We teach our children that this is our sacred obligation as a people today to continue these efforts to make sure our ancestors are returned respectfully into the ground. I also want to acknowledge chairman Potter's statement about we are all California Indians. We've all been touched by genocide, missionization, and also been touched by having our status either terminated or not acknowledged. We are these people today now still fighting.

And I say we still fight because of the area we're in. The land is too valuable. They don't want Indians. I've heard it from our politicians. You know, I heard it around the elders.

They don't want us here. They will continue to try to erase us. That was first contact. That's how what we all face, that erasure of our language, our names. It's still happening today.

But we will continue to remind everybody we are still here, and we are fighting because that's what our ancestors did. We are fighters, and we believe in who we are. We are the people of the land, and we're just here to remind everyone here that we are. So I wanna continue with this analysis of this report.

I wanna begin by saying even though Muwekma has been excluded by some institutions in regards to repatriation, But others, like Stanford University, repatriated thousands of our ancestors to us before NAGPRA became law.

And although UC Berkeley and others refused to have a conversation with us over forty five years ago, I must acknowledge when institutions start moving in the right direction. I do believe many universities, including use of UC Berkeley want to do the right thing now. And I'm only speaking for myself and our people. I am not speaking for other people's experiences. The auditor has spoken plainly.

What we, the Muwekma Ohlone, and so many unrecognized tribes have cried out for decades. The UC system lacks accountability and urgency. It documents the staggering scale thousands of our ancestors' remains, and hundreds of thousands of cultural items still held across the campuses, particularly at UC Berkeley and our own ancestral territory of Huchun, the Chochenyo Ohlone lands. And when I mean thousands, I was just there with my relatives, visiting our relatives. The scale that's there of our people, the Ohlone people, is massive.

And when one of the Assembly members talked about the disgrace, disgusting, I looked at this and said, what human being decided to do this? Who did this to our people like this that they're still here intact? All of them are intact. Children and elders and adults are intact. Hundreds of them, thousands of them.

The weight of that is severe here. The report exposes incomplete searches for all undiscovered collections and improper care, unretrieved loans, and outright thefts. And although UC Berkeley seems to be sincere in their newfound desire to repatriate to Muwekma, it appears their hands have been tied. The report names the 2024 federal NAGPRA regulation changes as a direct threat to Cal NAGPRA's promise to all California tribes, including wrongfully nonfederally recognized tribes like ours.

This report validates that our elders have documented through petitions, protests, and prayers.

It provides data and timelines that we can use in our advocacy, Yet the weakness are glaring and painful. The report, while thorough in auditing processes, remains too clinical, too detached from the human, and more importantly, the spiritual cost. It quantifies remains in boxes, but does not fully convey the desecration of our ancestors. The spirit denied the proper return to mother earth for our reburial ceremonies that restore balance.

For our people who pray to our ancestors, who seek their guidance, and who hear their teaching, this is no small matter.

This report highlights UC Berkeley's massive holdings, thousands of Ohlone remains, and hundreds of thousands of burial items, but offers limited specifics on how the collections will be returned, worse and how they were stolen, who stole them, the institutional powers who enabled the desecration. Those stories of desecrated shaw mounds and village sites have yet to reckon to be reckoned with with full telling of that dark and destructive history. Furthermore, there is insufficient urgency around the unique barriers forced faced by unrecognized tribes.

The report calls for goals and metrics, but without enforceable consequences or dedicated funding tied directly to tribal led reinterment. These remain recommendations on paper.

Most importantly, the report acknowledges the catch 22 of federal rules but stops short of demanding immediate state level remedies for pathways for tribes like Muwekma to receive our ancestors without navigating the impossible federal affiliation hoops. The 2024 NAGPRA changes severed the lifeline Cal NAGPRA was supposed to provide. The impacts on unrecognized tribes are immediate and brutal. Under the 2024 rule, museums and federal agencies can no longer repatriate human remains or associated funeral objects directly to us.

Cultural affiliation is now defined almost exclusively through the lens of federally recognized tribes.

The old pathways for items previously labeled culturally unidentifiable are gone. Our only remaining option is to beg our recognized tribes to include us in a joint claim, an arrangement that places our sovereignty and our ancestors at the mercy of another government's goodwill. This is not theoretical. UC Berkeley's 2023 notice covering more than 4,400 remains and 25,000 items from the San Francisco Bay Area sites, items our tribe has claimed as direct lineal ancestors now hangs in limbo precisely because of this rule.

Ancestors excavated from our shell mounds and village sites in Huichun and the Chichenu Ohlone lands cannot come home under federal law.

The same university that sits on our territory continues to hold them while the federal regulations invented new barriers. This federal change has gutted the practical force of CalNAGPRA. California's law was written to close the exact federal gap CalNAGPRA left open for non federally recognized California tribes. The 2024 regulations create a federal supremacy conflict that makes Cal NAGPRA's good intentions nearly impossible to implement for human remains and associated funerary objects. Institutions to both laws now default to the narrow federal rule.

The California state auditor's report itself names this conflict as a threat to Cal NAGPRA's promise. The auditor is correct. The federal rule change has turned a state law meant to protect all California tribes in a California tribes and a largely empty promise for those of us still fighting for recognition. In every struggle, there are opportunities. Congress can act.

And the 2024 regulatory exclusion can be reversed by statute. The only clean, practical, and just solution is a California specific carve out. Amend the federal Native American Grace Protection Act by incorporating the operative text and principles of Cal NAGPRA as a California specific provision. This has been done before in Indian country. Public law 280 is one clear example of a California specific federal carve out.

It can and must be done again. Such an amendment would void the effect of the 2024 rule for California tribes, restore direct pathways for unrecognized tribes, resolve the federal supremacy conflict, and finally allow Cal NAGPRA to function as a legislator intended. To the Assembly members in this committee, I urge you to begin calling on Senator Padilla and Senator Schiff to introduce and advance this amendment. Stop treating our exclusion as a technicality. Elevate to the federal legislator process.

Assembly member Ramos, I want to thank you for convening this hearing and then inviting me to be a part of this hearing to discuss this issue because it's very important to all of us. I look forward to working with you to make sure Padilla and Schiff hears our calls. He's Shor Shekinan. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you so much for your comments. Now we'll move to Isaiah Vivanco, chairman, Soboba Band Of Luiseno Indians.

Good afternoon, chairman and members. My name is Isaiah Vivanco, and I am the chairman of the Soboba Band Of Luiseno Indians. Thank you for inviting us to participate in today's hearing. NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA are are about more than inventories and administrative procedures. They are about correcting a historic wrong and restoring to tribal nations which should have never which should have never been separated from them.

Our ancestors are not specimens. Our cultural belongings are not merely research material. They carry identity, history, ceremony, and responsibility. How they are cared for, documented, and returned matters deeply to our people. Sobobas experience with the University of California has not been as extensive or as difficult as experiences some other tribal nations may describe today.

We wanna be honest about that. We have encountered UC staff to have worked diligently and in good faith, but we have also seen the quality of process can vary significantly from one campus and sometimes from one individual to another. That inconsistency in itself is a problem. A tribal nation's rights should not depend on which campus holds a collection or whether a particular employee decides to go beyond the minimum. The University of California is one public institution.

Tribes should be able to expect one clear and consistently enforced standard throughout the system. Suboba would like to focus on three practical issues. The first is storage, management, and preservation of collections. The university has a responsibility to care properly for the ancestors and cultural items in its possession, whether or not a tribe has already filed a repatriation claim. Appropriate care cannot begin only after an item is formally identified or a claim reaches its final stage.

By then, damage may already have occurred. Collections should be maintained in in accordance to recognized professional standards, including applicable standards established by the secretary of interior. Campuses should also have clear plans to protect them from fire, flooding, theft, deterioration, and other foreseeable risks. This is a basic duty of care. Any an institution cannot claim to respect repatriation while failing to protect what is obligated to return.

The second issue is access to complete records. A list of items is not always enough for meaningful consultations. Tribes may need archaeological reports, site records, accession files, field notes, loan records, photographs, correspondence, and any other information explaining where an item came from, how it was acquired, and what happened to it afterward. Soboba has seen a positive example of this. During one consultation, a UC NAGPRA coordinator took the initiative to locate archeological reports connected to a specific site number through CRIS, the state's historic resources information system.

That additional effort gave Soboba more complete information and made the consultation more meaningful. We appreciate that effort, but it should not be exceptional. Every campus should be required to make a diligent search for all reasonable available associated records and provide them to consulting tribes. A tribal nation should not have to guess which records exist, request documents on one at a time, or rely on initiative of a single employee.

The third issue is the possibility of presence of toxic chemicals on both ancestors as well as cultural items.

For many years, museums and universities used substances containing arsenic, mercury, lead, and other chemicals to protect organic materials and textiles from insects and deterioration. In many cases, records of these those treatments are incomplete or missing. That creates a serious health and safety concern when ancestors are returned and finally laid to rest, as well as when items are handled, used in ceremony, or reburied after repatriation. A tribe should not discover after an item has been returned that it may expose tribal members to toxic substances.

The university should disclose all known treatment records and use available nondestructive testing, such as X-ray fluorescent testing when contamination may be present.

Testing and safety planning must be conducted in consultation with tribes. Protecting tribal members should not become a new excuse for delaying repatriation. These three issues, proper care, complete records, and chemical safety, may sound technical, but they are not. Each one determines whether repatriation is carried out respectfully, safely, and consistently with the government to government relationship between California and tribal nations. The state auditor's work demonstrates why statewide oversight remains necessary.

Policies on paper are not enough when implementation varies from campus to campus. Progress cannot depend on voluntary best practices or the dedication of individual employees. There must be clear duties, measurable time lines, and accountability. We ask the legislature and the universities of California to ensure that these basic responsibilities are applied consistently across every campus. Repatriation is not complete simply because an ancestor or cultural item is removed from a university inventory.

It is complete when an ancestor or cultural item is returned safely and respectfully together with records and safety information the tribal nation needs to receive and care for it properly. Soboba appreciates the work of the committees, the state auditor, and the UC employees who have approached this responsibility in good faith. We are ready to continue working with all of you, but the standard cannot be good intentions. The standard must be results. Our ancestors and our cultural heritage have already waited long enough.

I wanna add that I've sat here and listened to testimony from the two previous panels, and I've heard the legislatures moving and addressing the issue of funding to some extent, making sure the universities and the colleges have the funding necessary to carry out these actions. For lack of better terms, I've also heard excuses why those are not being done or not being carried out. Here's a thought.

Maybe we can look at redirecting some of those tribes to the some of those funds to the tribes with a mandate that these universities released all the ancestors and objects or resources to tribes, and we can do what's proper what's needed properly. We would invite that discussion.

We look forward to it. I would like to thank you. Thank you for your time, and thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you, so much, for your comments. There is now we'll move to, chairman Sisco, chairman Santa Rosa Tachi Tribe.

Good afternoon, chairman Ramos. Thank you again for the opportunity and for the invite to come here and, speak about this very important issue. My name is Leo Sisco. I'm the tribal member of Santa Rosa Rancheria of Tachi Yokuts. And just a little bit about I had the blessing of being raised by my grandmother.

Okay? And I remember as a young boy, I would walk across the rancheria with my grandma, and she would go sit down with her auntie. And at the time, she was probably in her nineties. And they would sit there until the almost the sun went down, and they would sit there and tell stories in their language. And this went on for a number of years until her aunt went on her journey.

But later, I understood that my grandmother was making a connection with her past. And it was very important to her that I was with her and that she passed that along to myself. And at the same time, you know, we as us as tribal people, that is our responsibility to pass it on to the next generation. But it also showed me that there was honor in looking looking back and respecting our past.

As hurtful as it is, you know, we sit here in these rooms and we talk.

And, you know, I was here last year. And it seems like it's, it goes, upon deaf ears. But like many other tribal leaders and many of native people will say they're more than just sitting in boxes, You know? I can my question to the UC system, do you know where our ancestors are at? You know?

And because we don't know. At the same time, we want these answers. But most importantly, we want our ancestors home where they rightfully belong. You know, we are survivors of these ancestors, and, those I would call those are my heroes. Because if it wasn't for them, you know, anybody would agree here, they we wouldn't be here.

But, you know, what's worse than the tragedy our ancestors endured? It's forgetting about them. And, it's forgetting the atrocities ever happened. It's forgetting that we ever existed. But as painful again as the past has been, you know, our ancestors had to had to endure with state and federal federally sponsored genocide.

Again, we are survivors of that genocide. You know? And I want you to to make sure it's important that people understand, you know, people are watching. Our youth are watching. And, you know, we're dealing with some of the most prominent universities in the state of California and the country.

So it's puzzling to me and to our tribe is that why hasn't something been done long time ago? You know, it's these are prominent universities that have it together with the exception of our people. Are we angry? No. Yeah.

We're angry. You know, and but, you know, what do we do at this point? And I would like to welcome the UC system to put our put yourselves in our shoes. You know, what would you do if it was your ancestors? You know, we could be here angry, cuss, and be disrespectful, but that's not how our ancestors would want this done.

You know, we're here because they can't speak for themselves. And we're exactly where all of us are supposed to be at this very moment in time because of our ancestors. You know, they come up, they pop up, but they're talking to us. And we had an incident not too long ago where we get a call from our sheriff's department and say, hey, they found a box of your box of bones near your area. So my vice chairman and I went to go see, sure, they're right there in the shoe box. Forgotten.

If it wasn't for the humanity of some of the detectives that were in the area, we would have never known. But I see levees getting dug, not caring about the the California's first people. But with the with the audits, I think the we need to have these conversations. You know? And like chairman Vivanco said, you know, our experiences with some are not as bad as others.

But you wanna show genuine commitment? We've had genuine commitment from Cal State University, Fresno. Doctor Saul Jimenez Sandoval. We meet quarterly in person in his chambers with the president, and it's discussed travel priorities and align with the university initiatives. That's a genuine commitment.

That's a genuine concern. In his words, these ancestors do not belong to the university. And the thing is is that we want to have the best and want to pass on the information, the truth to our people, to our ancestor to the stories of our ancestors. You know, when the genocide occurred, they took our songs. They took our, they took our stories.

So we we gotta we gotta keep that alive. And I think it's it's vital that we share that with our youth. And I've said this before in prior testimonies. You know, I don't wanna lie to our youth. So I would expect the UC system to be honest.

You have our ancestors in boxes. You have them tagged. You have them numbered. Why don't you tell them when our kids visit your university and let them know this is what this is what you're gonna be experiencing. Knowing our youth knowing that their ancestors are sitting in boxes in the university.

How do you think that's gonna make them feel? It's gonna make it's not gonna make them feel very good at all. But it's important that the tribes be involved in the conversations. You know, I heard the 2089 date, That is inexcusable. And I was in that hearing last year when the she said 2028.

And I said, well, be mindful as native people. We'll hold you to that. You know, many of you that have our general council meetings, you'll see. They will hold you to it, and so will we. And to show that the importance of it, to make them a priority and have a formal plan, you know.

And I don't remember exactly what was the details of our last hearing, but there should be a formal plan. Have that in their budget. You know, if it's if money is a problem, talk with the tribes. We are the experts. I can't say that enough.

You know, yes, you're educated. You know? But I was taught at a very young age, education comes in many forms. You know, education when you go through school, education learn about yourself and your history of your people. That should not go unnoticed.

And I thank you for for the opportunity to speak today, Chair Ramos, and, you know, I look forward to further conversations. And I can assure you that the Tachi Yokuts tribe will be here till the end until all our ancestors are home. So thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll move to Jack Potter. This room is reserved for another hearing at 01:30, so we'll try to wrap up. Not a Then we actually have Room 437 that we can move to if we need to, but we're hoping to get through it.

Good morning, and thank you, Assemblymember Ramos. As I've sat in here and sleeping back there connecting with the spirits, the dreamers, and the people that give us these messages, I was still able to hear some of the previous panels. And it's sad that, like, chairman Sisco was saying, you know, those time frames, 2089 and stuff, that's unacceptable. We're not even gonna be here.

As we get closer to our days that are here, we know we're gonna have to pass these things on to our younger people, but we do it.

I find beauty when Shasta Lake is dry and empty and all the white people are freaking out and panicking. They don't have no water. But I see the beauty in that because I'm able to go back to those old burial places that my grandmother talked about our village sites and told me right there is where our people were dug up. Right there is where our people's village was. And sometimes we have to hold on to these remains when we get them back, but we do it.

And I feel guilty that they're sitting on my shelves, but I wait until that lake goes down so I could really put them home and take them back. Because my grandma said that's what we have to do, get them back to where they came from. And sometimes we have to change things to adapt to these modern things in life, but we do it. But at the end, we still get the job done, and it's hard on us spiritually. It drains us.

It affects us mentally, but we will continue to do that. And I heard the previous panel talked about maybe a certificate course in NAGPRA and stuff. We don't need no certificate. We have a heart. And maybe that's what their institution's all about is creating these certificate things and everything.

We have knowledge that don't need a certificate. We have knowledge that don't need a degree. Like chairman Sisco was saying, as a child, we walked with our grandmothers and went to those aunties houses and listened. That's our degrees. That's our certificates.

And if they wanna know about us, look at this expertise around these tables today. You don't gotta study our bones. Come talk to me. I could answer you. I could speak to you, and I could tell you what I've learned from every generation before me because we still have that knowledge.

We have that expertise. And I still can't figure out why they just can't hand them over. It's a heart thing. And I would hope they have a heart. Or is it just a certificate that they have, or is it just a degree that they have, and those things killed their heart?

Because I've went as far as sixth grade, but look where I'm at in life. I don't need a degree. I don't need a certificate because I have a heart. And that's what got me to where I am, and that's what's gonna get me where I'm at tomorrow. And I feel good to know that my grandchildren know everything that I was taught, and that's without having those things.

But I would hope they continue on and get those other finer things, have a nice certificate hang on their wall. I create mine. Good thing for AIA.

Yeah.

But, you know, I just hope that they can get to a point and just get our people home because it is affecting me spiritually. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And our our last speaker is Bob Pennell, director, cultural resources, Table Mountain.

Thank you, Assemblyman Ramos, and thank you for having me here today in select committee. My name is Bob Pennell, culture resources at Tapa Mountain Rancheria. I'm I was asked I'm I explained I'm not Native American, but I was asked to attend today by our tribal council at Table Mountain Rancheria because of my thirty years of working with NAGPRA at Table Mountain Rancheria. We've worked, closely with UC Berkeley and, more recently, UC Davis, CSU Fresno, beginning to work with CSU Stanislaus and CSU Sac State on NAGPRA.

And I this morning, Chairman Potter reminded the people at the news conference of the history of California and the physical atrocities that native people were subject to in the nineteenth century.

Physical atrocities on elders, men, women, children, babies, which extended into the twentieth century also. And then we, I think it's important for the non native members of the select committee and the UC system to understand the the cultural atrocities that people have been native people have been subject to in California throughout the twentieth century and now into the twenty first century.

I'll never forget, working with previous NAGPRA staff at UC Berkeley and, members of the tribes that formed the Yokuts Central California Yokuts NAGPRA Coalition in 2012. 2016 and '17, we were consulting at UC Berkeley on, ancestors and objects. And I'm never forget having to see elders and tribal leaders step over sandbags and, electrical cords and duck under, water pipes and hardware as they're placed in a it wasn't really a room.

It was more of a dimly lit space under the pool. Eventually, after a few consultations there, we were given new space, still under the basement. And then now under the current staff at UC Berkeley, they've set aside the conference room at the old P. B. Hearst Museum, which is much more respectful for consultation.

But it's important to understand what the communities have gone through to get to where we are today. And I know I have to make this quick. The

I just need to make an announcement that we're gonna be moving to 437. Okay. And then we're gonna finalize our comments over there, and then we'll have public comment there. Apologize for that. This hearing went longer than anticipated, but each and every one of your voices is important to get on the record.

So we'll move over to 437, which is right across the way. It'll continue to have the recording of the of the state legislature.