Senate Native American JLAC — 2026-08-04

Thank you. Thank you. .

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 going to 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 Pernell Director Tribal Cultural Resources Table Mountain Rancheria Charlene Nehma Chairwoman Mukama Ohlone Tribe Isaiah Vivanco Chairman Suboba Band of Lusenia Indians. Marianne Andreas, Tribal Council Member, Morongo Band of Mission Indians. We also have Mike Lopez, Vice Chairman, Santa Yanez Band of Chumash Indians. And Jack Potter, Chairman of Reading Rancheria. With that, I'd like to offer our chair from JLAC,

Thank you so much, Chair Ramos and Chair Harbideon, and really appreciate the work and efforts on this. efforts here. We know that despite years of external attention, the UC Office of the President has not effectively overseen the UC's compliance with NACPRA. 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 the scheduled timelines and things going forward. We know that there's still thousands and thousands of potential cultural 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. We know that's going to be a robust hearing going forward, but we must take the time to examine the progress that's been made, but the 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 year. I know we had one regarding the CSU system last year as well, and we look forward to the presentations here today. Thank you so much, Chair Ramos.

Good morning, Chairs Harabedian, Ramos, Fong, and Vice Chair Cabaldon. In April 2025, my office issued an audit report focusing on the UC system's efforts to comply with NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA. 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've consistently noted conditions that contribute to the UC's inability to promptly return the items in its possession, despite repeated audit reports, oversight hearings, and valid complaints and frustration from tribal leaders Some of those chronic conditions include the UC inability to identify the magnitude and locations of its various collections despite having more than 30 years since NAGPRA deadline to have all inventories identified by 1995. Historically, the UC system has not prioritized its compliance with NAGPRA or CalNAGPRA, and new, previously unaccounted for cultural items are routinely discovered. Just during our most recent audit, Santa Barbara found 1,500 potential cultural items 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 and inventory potential NAGPRA-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 and 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 know that 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 report's 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 a 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 the 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 coordinators 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 by June as planned, instead having 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 repatriate 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' 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, appropriation, 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 reintering cultural items that can't be repatriated because the affiliated tribe is not federally recognized. But fundamentally, moving away from the audit's 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, 11 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. Our latest audit noted that the four 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 million in unspent funding at the beginning of fiscal year 24-25. 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 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 23-24 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 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 costs 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 timelines for 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 10 to 20 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.

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 January 1, 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 that at the current rate of the work, the UC systems will likely take more than a decade to repatriate all collections. Given the fact that NAGPRA and CalNAGPRA 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 30 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 NIHC 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

Thank you, Assemblyman Ramos and honorary members of this subcommittee, joint committee, really appreciate your time. Aku Aku, meaning greetings. Hello, my name is Reginald Pagling, Chairman of the Native American Heritage Commission. I have served on the commission since 2013, and the last three years I've been the chairman. The commission is tasked with the protection of Native American cultural resources and is responsible for overseeing CalNAGPRA, including the tracking of progress of repatriation on the CalNAGPRA database, providing mediation of 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 going to go a little off script because I think we're talking about colleges and universities, And I want to 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. The last audit made it clear, at the current pace, UC would not fully complete repatriation in the next decade. I'd like to express my gratitude to Assemblymember 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 gather here today. I hope my testimony and the testimony of all here today lead us towards a positive change. The last part, I'm going to go ahead and go off the script one more time. And James has known this since he was formerly part of the Heritage Commission. All of us here, probably 90% of us are cultural bearers. My culture of error 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 14th of this month, we'll paddle again, young men, young women. And we instill on them 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 for your comments. And this is not the first time I've sat on the CECLEP 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, UC 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's an actual date and time? And we just heard from that other bodies have been able to do this. So if you can just speak to what are the consequences when a body does not comply?

Either.

May I just add that the Native American Heritage Commission is in the final stages of adopting regulations for enforcement, which will anticipate being effective July 1st of next year. So these will be the Cal Niagara enforcement regulations. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and for both our chairs and 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 ashamed to even be here hearing this again And California leads the way in so many things but it disturbing that we can lead the way in this

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 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 going to 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 actually come back here and we've actually made progress because the legislature has put things in place to ensure that it's getting done?

Thank you so much for those comments. Assemblymember Colosa.

Any other comments, questions from the dais? No. Oh, so Member Ransom.

Did you want to go ahead? 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, rebarying them. And so we made a recommendation in 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. 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 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.

Just one more comment on that. One of the things you mentioned was storage, And I think that's ideal if each of the universities 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 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 UC campus, allowing tribes to I mean, I think it's essential. These are some of the resources tribes don't have, and we really appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ardor, I wanted to follow up on sort of your top-line recommendation with respect to what to do about it. I'm looking forward to the university's response on all the content issues. But the and I'm hoping that you'll be able to flesh out some of your ideas around how the how the budget might work in this way. I want to flag, though, that the Supreme Court and several districts of the appellate court over the last 75 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 university's constitutional autonomy extends to the budget. It doesn't mean that we can't make incremental changes on the margin, but we can't earmark the base budget. So I'm hopeful that either now or later you can share with us some of the concepts that you're suggesting here around how we might add additional resources on that margin, because I think I've been here only a year and a half, but I've been 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 hope that you can give us a more fine-grained set of suggestions about how we might use the levers that we constitutionally do have available to us to impel more effective action by the university in this regard.

All right. I guess what I'd like to request is, in addition to that, because I'll also be happy to send over 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 fine-grained, constitutionally valid approach to dealing with the appropriations. 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 budget 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, Mr. Chairman. And just to echo my colleagues' comments, we know that a lot more work needs to be done and the urgency of the UC system to push on this is so critical. So I heard from the grand auditor different timelines. UC San Diego is the 2037. I forgot what UCR, but then UC Santa Barbara is the 2053 and UC Berkeley 2089. And you mentioned in your remarks that San Diego 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 our 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 efficiency?

My name is Grayson Huff the senior auditor evaluator and was the team lead on this project So the state auditor was referring to UC San Diego repatriation plan which we reviewed during the audit report and essentially 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.

So campuses have established, according to the Office of the President, in 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.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. 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 a 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?

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?

Thank you so much for that. And I just want to 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 unattentive to that they're not even being implemented or even discussed.

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

Other places where there's not agreement by two bodies, a neutral body steps in, you would say. Maybe that is a role for this legislature to get engaged to find out where the disagreement truly is, or else we're going to continue to hear of noncompliance from the UC system. And I do have to echo Assemblymember Jackson's comments. We're talking about loved ones, remains of a people, not prized possessions on someone's shelves 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 still urging compliance in the state of California for California first people And I do have to say that if it was any other people out there there would be task force assembled There would be marches taking place in the state of California, especially when other states are complying and California is not. We have to start to understand 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 million allocated, I wasn't sure to which university, but yet that budget was unspent. And the purpose was for NAGPRA positions, and I believe it was Berkeley, is that right?

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 million, but yet was unspent. So are we to assume that the priority of NAGPRA, CalNAGPRA, is not a top priority? 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 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 those answers to some of those questions to the next panel. There was, at the last hearing, a bold statement from the UC saying that they disagreed with a lot of these timeframes, and they were putting out there that a 2028 timeframe was more realistic, that they would comply with repatriation coming back. I'm going to 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 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.

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 1.4 million that's been identified.

With the Native American Heritage Commission, Chairman Pagnelly, 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, and 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 probably might speak on behalf of many tribes here, 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 feather flags. There's such beautiful work that's been done. As we talk about what it is that Native Americans have been, we've been those scientists. We've been those mathematicians. All that we've done, and you 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 going to say it goes so far as a state to state but I will go ahead and say yeah there's different institutions that have different priorities and there shouldn't be an issue with California, UC and CSU systems doing the same and not to throw everybody under the bus, I think there are some universities that open up some of those rooms so that we can have those repositories but I'd like to see that common that knowledge to 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 some of the barriers, some of the walls, and just that chance to have that point 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 it would be interesting to see other states and compliance institutions, private, public, if there is a certain accountability matrix that meets the specifics of judicial analysis there. Mr. Director Drew Alejandro, you mentioned that you believe that CalNAGPRA and NAGPRA and then the amendment at the federal law 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 become an excuse to not comply As I mentioned you know these have been in place for 30 years plus if that And with this change, it just seems that this has been a way to kind of compromise and delay the repatriation and the process of getting the ancestors and cultural items back to their rightful owners. Thank you for that. And I do want to reiterate that this isn't new. The audits, since we've gotten to the state legislature, we've had audits move forward. Certainly your predecessor and now yourself, Mr. Parks, we've been tackling this issue. But this is an issue that has plagued California Indian people, this nation's first people, from time immemorial. And a lot of us, myself included, are still cultural bearers that do reburials still. So when Chairman Pagano is talking about that, we've carried those boxes and did the reburials. So this isn't something that 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 harp and to make sure that 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 Cal NAGPRA process 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 this committee, of this legislature, to make sure that we expedite those remains back to all Indian people in the state of California. Do you have comments on that from the Heritage Commission or anyone up on the dais? I guess I'm just trying to put it into context. It's a pretty tough one to go ahead and address, but I know that just from the consultation process, the staff, the Andrew, that the attorneys, some of the commissioners have gone through has been not only exhausting, but enlightening. So I think we're obviously open to, I think you mentioned 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 want to see is the lowering of standards for the people that are part of that Danker committee at UC Systems. I think we need to stay on top of that. I've always, and I'm sure we've had this conversation before, Asimov 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 want to go ahead and seek. And you and I are on that same page. We want to go ahead and make sure our answers are good 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 criteria that's there, I guess, with the educational documentation. I did run an earlier bill that talked about cultural bearers being equal to museum directors at one point for repatriation and cultural knowledge and bearer. Do you believe that some of those stipulations is what's hindering some of those appointments that are going towards the UC system? Good job. So as far as the criteria, you know, I think 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 should be required. and I think that 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 where it needs to be 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 that 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.

And I believe we'll start with the President's office. Is that right? We'll start with the President's office. Yes. Thank you. Good morning. So good morning, Chair Ramos and Parabedian and members of the Select Committee on Native American Affairs

Thank you so much for that, and I'd like to welcome Senator Cortese joining us today. Now we're going to move to, I believe, Richard Lyons, Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley. Good morning, esteemed tribal leaders, Chair Ramos, Jaravedian, Kavaldan, 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 has 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 eight 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 U.S. 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 CalNAGRA, with further outreach to over 80 percent of tribes on the California Native American Heritage Commission contact list this past year. The volume of our engagement has increased substantially. In the 12 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, quote, writing wrongs, colon, bringing home the ancestors from UC Berkeley together, end quote. 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 1. Upfront stipends to assist with travel and the reimbursement of staffing, time, and expertise. 2. 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 reuniting. requested by tribes. At Berkeley, there has been a substantial increase in funding over recent years to $3.4 million 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 30 months away. We are counting. Second, we have made much progress over recent years, having published notices for over 80 percent, 82 percent specifically of all the ancestors that we've ever held at Berkeley, and fully completing repatriation of 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 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 NAGPHA 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.

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

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

Thank you so much for your presentations. As now we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments, questions, concerns. Assemblymember Aarons.

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 a university can do to be ready for repatriation. and that's our obligation, whether it's filling those positions, whether it's 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 mentioned in the report that was sent out last week on the cost of repatriation, and that we can cover all the expenses related to UC and our interactions, our consultation. But what about before or after 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 always try to understand that when we contact tribal representatives, we send one email, We one institution and there are a thousand in this country So it our job to be ready It our job to do as much as possible But you know historically right the power and agency of tribes as 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 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 tribes have the information needed to make those decisions. 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 where ancestors who are from an area where there is one tribe and it's fairly unambiguous as to who the campus should work with and repatriate to, but we also have shared territories, overlapping traditional territories, tribes who will work jointly in coalitions to do that, but sometimes that's not the case. And then reburial as well can sometimes, 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 costs, 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 timeframe 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 the way we need to be following those needs and preferences.

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. but even if we're not already working at that pace which the campuses to our extent and our monitoring we do understand that they are meeting that pace where that's not happening that's something that we do need to do better at consultation as I said 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, 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 done the work to identify where ancestors were taken from and who needs to be talked to, where they need to be reburied. So there is more information that can be got there. For example, are there other ancestors from the area 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, the people who took these ancestors in the past did not have the regard and it would send items or even ancestors to other institutions for research. And 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 we, and 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 for the tribes. and where we're not doing that is what we need to hear and we need to rectify.

Yes, yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Rogers. Assemblymember Ranson?

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 audit 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, 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, you know, we want to 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 we've said, reburials. That is a tribally-led decision. And then there is a separate process in the law for other types of cultural items like sacred objects and that is one very much so where tribes have to identify what is 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 also happy to meet and go over with those who are interested. But really, I think for that process, because it's tribes to say, you know, this is sacred, this is object of cultural patrimony, then it's our job to be ready for that, as we said. And I absolutely agree about our students, where I think that as an educational institution that I'm very proud of all our students and their abilities to achieve. And we certainly have hired into some of these positions, recent graduates. Certain programs also even have undergraduate students assisting with things like entering to databases and so on. And where that's appropriate, you know, there isn't always, sometimes there's a preference to not have students involved. But, and yes, so there is also, and 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. The home for it will be in the American Indian Center in a program called the Sovereign Tribes Academy. and they have just hired actually a graduate assistant to help and plan and advance a curriculum, a program that is informed and led, a consultation led by tribes. I think what our opportunity here is 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 we have issues finding the amount of people who have that unique set of skills and we heard that that the same for some tribal offices as well, having to find graduates with those credentials. So yes, plenty to do, plenty that we can do better at.

Yes, and I don't want to 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 everything that was brought up were incorporated or addressed. and then we had that event at Berkeley as well. That was a much larger sort of decision about, sorry, 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, better outreach or improved outreach, those have been implemented. But largely it was, you know, a broader consultation consultation about what are the shared challenges that institutions and tribes are running into. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Chair Ramos. Thank you to the representatives of the UC. Thank you to the chancellors who are 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 have this hearing again, and as somebody who is 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 billion 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 in taxpayer money. And so I think that is really 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, NAGPRA, 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... Sure.

Any others on our question?

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.

I can yield to Glynis for some of the quantitative information you're seeking. But the I don't even want to 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 the provost, et cetera. 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 incorporated into the institutional budget.

Thank you so much for those questions. I do have a couple follow-up questions on the timelines and then the implementation of plans. It was stated here at an earlier hearing, not this one, but an 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 want to thank the universities that did apologize for past practices and how we're moving forward together. But I do want to also ask the timeframes, 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 want to 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

Thank you for that. The formal strategic plan, hearing that it's more of an informal plan rather than an adopted 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's individual timeline is, as well as the UC system overall. And so we're going to keep an eye on that.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

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 and sacred cultural belongings have languished in storage rooms and display cases across this state for decades. I want to 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 Niagara has been the law of this state since 2001. We are now 25 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 committees 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? 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 support of 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 for institutions and tribes are long overdue. Second, the lack of accountability. Intentions are only meaningful when 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 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 NAGPHA 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 Moronga 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 is 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, Mr. Chairman, for your strong voice on behalf of tribes. We couldn't survive without it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to be here. I greet you in my native Chochenyo language. My name is Charlene Nishma, and I'm the chairwoman for the Moekma 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 want to 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 60s 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 have come out of the ground, thousands of our people 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 statement about we are all California Indians We 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 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 want to continue with this analysis of this report. I want to 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 NAGRA became law. And although UC Berkeley and others refused to have a conversation with us over 45 years ago, I must acknowledge when institutions start moving in the right direction. I do believe many universities, including 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 Tumwekma it appears their hands have been tied The report names the 2024 federal NAGPRA regulation changes as a direct threat to Cal NAGPRA promise to all California tribes including wrongfully non-federally 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, and how they were stolen, who stole them, the institutional powers who enabled the desecration. those stories of desecrated shell 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 are 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 NACPRA changes sever the lifeline CalNACPRA 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 unidentified 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.

Thank you so much for your comments. Now we'll move to Isaiah Vivaco, Chairman Sebova, Band of Luceno Indians.

Thank you so much for your comments there. as now we'll move to Chairman Sisco, Chairman Santa Rosa, Tachi Tribe.

Thank you so much. We'll move to Jack Potter. This room is reserved for another hearing at 1.30, so we'll try to wrap it up.

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 Siska was saying, you know, those timeframes, 2089 and stuff, that's unacceptable. We're not even going to be here. As we get closer to our days that are here, we know we're going to 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 have no water But I see the beauty in that because I 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 Siska 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 want to know about us, look at this expertise around these tables today. You don't got to 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 going to 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. 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, Assemblyman Ramos, and thank you for having me here today in the select committee. My name is Bob Pinnell, the Cultural Resources at Tepe Mountain Rancheria. I was asked, I explained I'm not Native American, but I was asked to attend today by our Tribal Council at Tepe Mountain Rancheria because of my 30 years of working with NAGPRA at Tepe Mountain Rancheria. We 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 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 19th century. Physical atrocities on elders, men, women, children, babies, which extended into the 20th century also. And then I think it's important for the non-Native members of the select committee and the UC system to understand the cultural atrocities that Native people have been subject to in California throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st century. I'll never forget working with previous NAGPRA staff at UC Berkeley and members of the tribes that formed the Central California NAGPRA coalition in 2012. 2016 and 17, we were consulting at UC Berkeley on ancestors and objects. And I'll 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 V.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.

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

I could like to finish if that's okay.

Bob Pinnell Culture Resources at Table Mountain Rancheria I was asked to speak here today on behalf of our tribal council to touch bases on the 30 years of consultation that Table Mountain Rancheria has been involved in under NAGPRA Yeah. We had some significant struggles in consulting with UC Berkeley over the decades, especially 2015, 16, 17. The tribes had a significant breakthrough in 2018, working with Santa Rosa Rancheria, Table Mountain Rancheria, Picayon Rancheria, Tejon tribe, and the Tule River tribe with the repatriation of ancestors from Kings County. There was a breakdown or the university staff at the time after years of consultation and work with neighboring tribes, had asked Santa Rosa Rancheria to now prove that the ancestors from Kings County were Native American. Fifty-two representatives from the five tribes convened and met at UC Berkeley with what we thought was the director of the Phoebe Hearst Museum, and who was supposedly in charge of NAGPRA. At that day, we understood that there was a change and that the Phoebe Hearst Museum was no longer in charge of NAGPRA, and the control for NAGPRA had been transitioned over to the office of the vice chancellor for research. the chairwoman of the Yokots and Agra Coalition at the time, Beverly J. Hunter who was honored yesterday by the state assembly spoke to the vice chancellor and told him specifically that she wasn't angry with him but she was going to pray for him and he assured the five tribes there that day that he would personally ensure that the consultation, that the repatriation for the ancestors from Kings County were completed by 2018, and they were. There was a significant change since after that, beginning in 2021 with your passage of AB 275, and the same week with the changes in the University of California Office of the President's repatriation policy, which previously had been repatriation policy in title only, which then became actual repatriation policy the same week that AB 275 was passed. Since then, significant changes have taken place. And we've read the audit, read the audit last year, read it again this year, and share concerns with a few recommendations. There are some open positions and have been open positions for quite a long time with the staff at UC Berkeley. And the suggestion is that those positions be filled and that those staff positions be empowered to get the job done. We understand that there's been some challenges and well, backtrack just a minute. the security at UC Berkeley over the decades in the 20th century and a little bit in the 21st century with collections of ancestors and objects, cultural objects, has been very loose, was very loose at best. The staff at Berkeley seems to have had some challenges in tracking down ancestors that were given to other departments, professors at UC Berkeley on loan for research over the decades. although recently the staff has brought forth new information to the tribes about additional collections and ancestors that have been discovered at UC Berkeley at different offices. But they seem to be having some challenges in getting full access to properties on the campus. And I think the staff needs to be fully empowered to be able to conduct those searches as they are required to by law. I also wanted to acknowledge the staff on the ground at UC Berkeley and UC Davis, the current staff, current NAGPRA staff. The staff at UC Berkeley and UC Davis, the current staff has been working diligently, passionately, emotionally sometimes to help the tribes. And we did meet with once this last year and early this year with Chancellor Lyons who came in to meet with the tribes briefly. And I think it would be helpful both for the tribes and for the staff, especially at UC Berkeley, for the chancellor's office to be more involved in direct discussions, direct consultation, personal communications with tribal leaders for the tribes that are involved in NAGPRA. And I think that would also empower the staff to do their job more efficiently at the university. So I appreciate and we appreciate those people on the ground level assisting these tribes. I'd like to close with one comment with what we see as a new threat coming on the horizon for tribes and states. A week and a half ago, the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation in Washington, D.C. approved sweeping changes to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that requires state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, and tribes to be consulted by federal agencies when their undertakings could affect historic properties or sacred sites. These sweeping changes that were approved by the Advisory Council are now with the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C. And if those are approved, they'll be published in the Federal Register for a 30-day public notice. These sweeping changes that have been proposed, as the regulations currently require, the federal agencies are required to consult with State Historic Preservation Officers, CHIPOs, and tribal historic preservation officers, TIPOs, and federal-recognized tribes, the recommended changes make it optional and reduce the involvement of SHIPOs, TIPOs, and federal-recognized tribes on federal undertakings that could affect sacred sites and burial places I think we see this as a significant threat on the horizon for Native American remains Thank you for your time today

No, they took it all. So why is there such barriers to the resistance of returning those remains to California's first people that do share a unique history in the state of California? One of atrocities, one of bounties being put out. And so we're still dealing with those issues here in the state of California. But one of the questions actually is back to the UCs in writing through the committee if the law schools at the UCs can they chime in on the authority of punitive damages and the decipher of federal law versus state law Maybe that one thing we push back to them When we dealt with the UC Hastings and the change name, in that bill, we talked about work that would start to move forward to help Round Valley out. And they started moving on that. There was an article out in paper a couple months back. So maybe it's time we start to find some of those solutions rather than have departments of innovation come up, but let's start to have innovation. And I think the words of the tribal leaders start to build some of that dialogue that needs to be there. And the cultural knowledge of our people has always been there. The cultural knowledge of our people, of the land, of journeys that have taken place that continue to move forward within our people, all people in the state of California. Our people know our culture and our history. What has happened is now there's requirements that are out there based on a paternal approach from a governmental system that says, here's what we'll agree to and here's what we won't. But yet the mechanism that's not there is the voice of our own people saying, here's what's true. I think in 2026, we need to start affording that voice of our own people to be part of that equation, not just to come to the table and check the box, but to truly listen. Our cultural bearers truly do know what should go with remains that should be repatriated back. And there was another comment, and I'm bringing these up because I'm going to be turning the meeting over to Harbidion for public comment, but why is there a difference? And when tribal leaders, tribal chairs, are coming to the universities to talk about remains remains in the repatriation process, should it be viewed as a government-to-government with the head of that institution or the head of that body meeting the tribal chairs head-to-head, right there, giving that same courtesy that has been talked about on all the panels. Apologies were made. But isn't it time we give that true respect to the tribal community as a whole? Now, being former tribal leader, we know government-to-government areas, consultation. We know there we served as the body to the state and the federal government, which meant the governor and the president of the United States. Why isn't that respect being done at the UC levels when our people show up? So those are things that I see and the timelines that are there. We are going to look into the recommendations from the auditor on the 12 that there seems to be some discussion around. But I do want to acknowledge that since 2018, there has been some movement with repatriation. Now dates of 2089 versus 2028 2029 I still not clear if that only pertains to the federally component of the law which means that there still is going to be a lot of remains that still remain So there is those things that we still are concerned about And we truly are concerned that there has not been an adopted policy. And why I'm saying that is because there has been changes in personnel at the UC level. There's been changes in personnel within tribal governments also. But if we had a strategic plan that's embedded in the policies of the UC system, and something that the tribes also have, that gives us a level playing field to continue the work moving forward. We still have a long way to go. I would like to say that we're on our way to full repatriation here in the state of California, but we still have a long way to go. Are we further along than when we first had our first hearing? I think there's some headway moving forward, but as the auditors reported, there still is a long way to go. We had a hearing where we seen that only 7% of remains were being repatriated. I'm not sure where we're at now, I hear all the commitments. I hear all that we're moving forward. We're working with the tribes. But yet every step of the way, if a law is changed, it becomes a roadblock. And again, where was the law when our people were dug up? Where was the law when we might find that some of those remains that are in those archives were murders against our people. We haven't even touched that as far as looking into cold cases and how far back a cold case goes. But we do know that as Indian people, putting differences aside, that we all agree that those remains should be back into the ground for proper reburial, never disturbed again. So those are the issues that I'm taking away from this hearing. Those are the issues that we're going to continue to work on. And by all means, we don't need to have a hearing if there is outreach to my office to talk about these issues that we move forward on before I move forward on a piece of legislation. I want to make a point. Every time, and we've been to Berkeley three or four times, every time we've gone, we're told there are no human remains. Berkeley testified today that there is human remains and that they're going to on track by 2029 to get, I believe, the federal register component of it done. So they're admitting that there is remains there. So maybe the UC Berkeley or the president's office can meet with Marianne Andreas, former chairperson of Morongo tribal government, to iron that out, to make sure that there truly is understanding what remains are there to make sure that that voice is being heard. And that's not unprecedented. Our first hearing with Chairman Siskiyou and one of the institutions, we opened up that dialogue for repatriation to happen. So we're going to be asking the president's office to talk with Marianne Andreas to clarify some of those stipulations. The other thing is our visits to the Banquist Library, we're told that those items are not to be included in repatriation because of intellectual properties. They have recordings. We have a creation story. They have wax cylinders. They have other recordings. They have lots of paperwork, lots of photographs that we understand are not to be included in repatriation. Let us know what it is you're running into, and then we could actually start to inquire about it. You know, of the desert Cahoea, the past Cahoea, the mountain Cahoea, and even Serrano, Ernie put out a thing earlier this week about Serrano was declared by Wikipedia as being extinct and past Kauia. Well, we found virtual dictionaries there, not by archaeologists, but by Kauia people that would be so valuable in a revitalization of our language. But apparently that's intellectual property and we can't have that. I know the judicial process has been talked about throughout this hearing as far as punitive damages, but also the rights of California's first people is something that could be warranted. And at the UC level, we do have law students there. Maybe there is a way to look into some of these issues. And we would deeply appreciate any feedback on that. Thank you so much. I do have to run. I do have to run. And so the public comment component of it, we're going to turn over to Chair Harbidion. But before that, is there any questions, comments from those on the dais for our panel?

Agreed I would just also just like to say thank you Thank you for taking the time And for many of you this has been one of many iterations of being here and testifying And I just we so grateful And it meaningful because we are going to ensure that it means progress So thank you I know it a long day a long couple days I appreciate the UC Office of the President for staying to listen. The auditor's office is here, and they are listening as well. And that doesn't get caught on the video of the hearing. But I think that's important to note that everyone is actually listening. And this video will be an archived hearing where folks can learn from it going forward. So thank you very much. And with that, we will now move to public comment. I know a lot of folks have been here for hours waiting to testify with their own public comments. So as this panel retreats, please feel free to come forward, state your name, affiliation, and please put your public comment on the record.

Is it afternoon?

any other public comment

I'm Marcos Aguilara. I'm Marcos Aguilara, Executive Director and Co-Founder of Anahuacalmecac. We're an Indigenous Peoples School in Los Angeles County, K-12 Charter School. I've been involved with the issues around repatriation since I was about 18 years old and first got to UCLA. Learned about what was happening in Haynes Hall at UCLA. It's a tragedy to hear that this is still continuing to this day, even with strong federal and state legislation. So I would urge you to take all action necessary to enforce the law and make the UC and CSU system comply. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.