MINUTES
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION
REVIEW COMMITTEE
TWENTY-FIFTH MEETING: MAY 9 AND 10, 2003
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

Background

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee
was established under the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., which was signed
into law by President George Bush on November 16, 1990.

Per the Review Committee’s charter --

"The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. Specifically, the
Committee will be responsible for:
"1. Monitoring and reviewing the implementation of the inventory and
identification processes and repatriation activities required under
sections 5, 6, and 7 of Public Law 101-601 to ensure a fair and
objective consideration and assessment of all available relevant
information and evidence;
"2. Reviewing and making findings relating to the identity or cultural
affiliation of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and
objects of cultural patrimony, or the repatriation of such items, upon
the request of any affected party;
"3. Facilitating the resolution of any disputes among Indian tribes,
Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal descendants, and Federal
agencies or museums relating to the repatriation of human remains,
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony,
including convening the parties to the dispute, if deemed desirable;
"4. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains
that are in the possession or control of each Federal agency and museum
and recommending specific actions for disposition of such remains;
"5. Consulting with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and
museums on matters pertaining to the work of the Committee affecting
such tribes or organizations;
"6. Consulting with the Secretary [of the Interior] in the development
of regulations to carry out Public Law 101-601;
"7. Performing such other related functions as the Secretary [of the
Interior] may assign to the Committee;
"8. Making recommendations, if appropriate, regarding future care of
human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of
cultural patrimony which are to be repatriated; and
"9. Submitting an annual report to Congress on the progress and any
barriers encountered in carrying out the Committee responsibilities
during the year.

The Review Committee is organized and administered according to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1994).

Per NAGPRA, Review Committee members are appointed by the Secretary of
the Interior from nominations by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian
organizations, traditional Native American religious leaders, national
museum organizations, and scientific organizations.

The Review Committee reports to the Secretary. Per the Review
Committee’s current charter, the Manager, National NAGPRA, National
Park Service (NPS) or, in the absence of the Manager, a designee serves
as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The DFO oversees the
activities of the Review Committee and through NPS provides
administrative and staff support to the Review Committee on behalf of
the Secretary.

Additional information about the Review Committee -- including the
Review Committee’s charter, membership, meeting procedures, review and
findings procedures, and dispute procedures -- is available at
the National NAGPRA Website, http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/ (select
"Review Committee").

Notice of the 25th meeting of the Review Committee was published in the
Federal Register on July 18, 2002 (vol. 67, no. 138, pages 47396-
47397), and April 8, 2003 (vol. 68, no. 67, pages 17082-17083).

The 25th Meeting of the Review Committee

The 25th meeting of the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Review Committee was called to order by Mr. Armand
Minthorn at 8:30 a.m., Friday, May 9, 2003, in the Town Square A Room,
Radisson City Center Hotel St. Paul, St. Paul, MN.

Review Committee members in attendance --
Mr. Armand Minthorn, Chair
Mr. Garrick Bailey
Mr. James Bradley
Mr. Lawrence Hart
Ms. Vera Metcalf
Mr. John O’Shea
Ms. Rosita Worl

Designated Federal Officer in attendance: Mr. John Robbins (Manager,
National NAGPRA, NPS, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
Washington, DC)

Attorney/Advisor in attendance:
Ms. Carla Mattix, DOI, Solicitor’s Office, Washington, DC

National NAGPRA (DOI, NPS, Washington, DC) staff in attendance --
Ms. Martha Graham, Program Officer
Mr. Timothy McKeown, Program Officer
Ms. Paula Molloy, Program Officer
Ms. Karen Mudar, Program Officer
Ms. Cynthia Murdock, Program Officer
Ms. Lesa Hagel, Consultant (Rapid City, SD)

Persons in attendance during part or all of the meeting (names and
affiliations as provided at the meeting by attendees) --
Ms. Lesly Awong, DOI, NPS, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI
Ms. Deborah Baptisto, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Maricopa, AZ
Ms. Malia Baron, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI
Mr. Timothy Begay, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department,
Window Rock, AZ
Mr. Joe Big Medicine, Jr., Southern Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of
Oklahoma, OK
Ms. Renee Boen, South Dakota Archeological Research Center, Rapid City,
SD
Mr. De Soto Brown, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI
Mr. William Brown, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI
Ms. Rosemary Caye, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT
Mr. Markly Chee, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department, Window
Rock, AZ
Mr. Joe Day, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, Bemidji, MN
Mr. Michael Evans, DOI, NPS, St. Paul, MN
Mr. Andrew Favorite, White Earth Reservation, Ponsford, MN
Ms. Myra Giesen, DOI, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Policy,
Lawrence, KS
Ms. Lynne Goldstein, Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian Repatriation
Review Committee; Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI
Mr. Wendell Greek, U.S. Department of Defense, Army, Army Reserve
Command, Fort McCoy, WI
Ms. Cynthia Kay Hall, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN
Mr. Robert Hommon, DOI, NPS, Pacific Island Support Office, Honolulu,
HI
Mr. William Latady, Bois Forte Heritage Center, Tower, MN
Mr. Russell Leighty, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY
Mr. Luc Litwinionek, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY
Ms. Cyd Martin, DOI, NPS, Intermountain Region, Moose, WY
Mr. Douglas McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville, OH
Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, Lucasville, OH
Ms. Nell Murphy, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY
Ms. Angela Neller, Wanapum Heritage Center, Grant County PUD,
Ellensburg, WA
Mr. William Pedro, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, OK
Mr. Patrick Pierre, Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Grand
Portage, MN
Ms. Victoria Raske, Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Grand
Portage, MN
Ms. Helen Robbins, Field Museum, Chicago, IL
Mr. Alonzo Sankey, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, OK
Ms. Vi Smith, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY
Mr. La’akea Suganuma, Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts,
Honolulu, HI
Mr. Jerry Walton, Alaska National Guard, Ft. Richardson, AK
Wapahasa, Dakota Oyate, Morton, MN
Mr. Joe Williams, Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe, Rosholt, SD
Ms. Karenne Wood, Association on American Indian Affairs, Rockville, MD
Mr. Larry Zimmerman, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN

Introduction

Mr. Minthorn welcomed the Review Committee and members of the audience
and stressed the importance of the public’s working with the Review
Committee in implementing NAGPRA. Mr. Williams, Sisseton-Wahpeton
Sioux Tribe, gave the opening invocation each day. Review Committee
members and NPS staff introduced themselves. Mr. Robbins thanked the
Review Committee members for their participation in the meeting. Mr.
Robbins said that the meeting met all FACA requirements and asked the
members of the audience to register as part of the meeting record.

Mr. Day, Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, extended an invitation for
the Review Committee, NPS staff, and public to attend a reception to be
held at Fort Snelling State Park on Saturday, May 10, 2003, 6:30 p.m.
The reception was hosted by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, the
Minnesota Historical Society, and the Upper Sioux Community.

Review of the Agenda

Mr. Minthorn reviewed the meeting agenda.

Review of the Seattle, WA, Review Committee Meeting Minutes

Authority. Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) regulations 41 C.F.R.
Part 102-3.165: "(a) . . . The chairperson of each advisory committee
must certify the accuracy of all minutes of advisory committee
meetings," and "(c) The Designated Federal Officer (DFO) must ensure
that minutes are certified within 90 calendar days of the meeting to
which they relate."

Topic. The Seattle, WA, meeting minutes were reviewed by the Review
Committee. On February 10, 2003, the DFO certified the minutes as
required by FACA. The Review Committee chair signed the minutes as
approved on February 11, 2003. The Seattle, WA, meeting minutes are
posted on the National NAGPRA Website. Mr. Robbins explained that with
the Seattle, WA, meeting minutes, the format of the minutes was
changed for clarity from a narrative to an outline format.

Discussion/Recommended action. The Review Committee expressed
appreciation for the new format of the minutes.

Dispute: Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts and Bishop Museum

Authority. 25 U.S.C. 3006, Section 8, "(c) Responsibilities. -- The
[Review Committee] established under subsection (a) shall be
responsible for -- ... (4) facilitating the resolution of any disputes
among Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal
descendants and Federal agencies or museums relating to the return of
such items including convening the parties to the dispute if deemed
desirable." 43 C.F.R. Section 10.17, "(b) Review Committee Role. The
Review Committee may facilitate the informal resolution of disputes
relating to these regulations among interested parties that are not
resolved by good faith negotiations ..."

Topic. The Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts requested the
Review Committee’s assistance in facilitating the informal resolution
of a dispute with the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum regarding the manner
in which the museum transferred cultural items to 13 claimant
culturally affiliated Native Hawaiian organizations ("claimants") and
whether repatriation of the cultural items had occurred.

Introduction
Mr. O’Shea served as chair of the dispute at Mr. Minthorn’s request.
Mr. Robbins reported that the Review Committee received documentation
provided by the parties before the meeting with sufficient time for
adequate review. Mr. Minthorn stated that the DFO and Chair determined
that this dispute was appropriate to be heard by the Review Committee
per the Review Committee’s Dispute Procedures.

Ms. Worl asked if the parties to the dispute were present. Mr. O’Shea
stated that the parties were the Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional
Arts, Honolulu, HI, and the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, and both were
present at the meeting. Ms. Worl asked if all Native Hawaiian
organizations named in the published Federal Register notices under
discussion in the dispute (Federal Register 2000, volume 65, number 66;
FR Doc. 00-8350 and FR Doc. 00-8351), were formally notified. Mr.
Robbins stated that notice was given through publication of the meeting
in the Federal Register. Ms. Worl recommended notifying all
individuals or groups who may be involved in a dispute, even if they
are not direct parties.

Mr. Bradley explained that the Review Committee members received
correspondence from a Native Hawaiian organization questioning the
Review Committee’s authority to consider this dispute, and asked for
clarification from the Review Committee’s attorney-advisor. Ms. Mattix
stated that the Solicitor’s Office believed that it would be
appropriate for the Review Committee to consider the dispute. Ms.
Mattix also noted that the dispute process was advisory and attributes
no specific rights to any of the parties.

Presentations by the parties to the dispute
Mr. La’akea Suganuma, Royal Hawaiian Academy of Traditional Arts,
introduced himself and offered a blessing, both in Hawaiian and
English. Mr. Suganuma summarized the chronological record of the
return of 83 cultural items from the Kawaihae Caves Complex to Hui
Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei (Hui Malama) and subsequent actions by
Native Hawaiian organizations and the museum. The chronological
record, as well as a list of pertinent facts reviewed by Mr. Suganuma,
was summarized in a letter from Mr. Suganuma to Mr. Robbins dated March
18, 2002.

The basic facts of the case, as summarized by Mr. Suganuma --
1. On February 26, 2000, the museum in Honolulu, HI, loaned 83 items
from the Kawaihae Caves Complex collection to Hui Malama, 1 of 4 Native
Hawaiian organizations then recognized by the museum.
2. Hui Malama claimed to have sealed the 83 items in the Forbes Cave,
one of the Kawaihae Caves, on the island of Hawaii.
3. Attempts by the museum to recall the loan from Hui Malama were
unsuccessful.
4. An April 12, 2001, letter from the museum to the claimants stated
that the museum had completed the NAGPRA requirements for repatriation.
The academy and other claimants believe that repatriation did not take
place because the museum did not have control or possession of the 83
items and 12 of the 13 Native Hawaiian organizations never received the
83 cultural items.
5. Claimants continued to meet and developed the Document of Truth and
Agreement, which was faxed to the museum on August 4, 2001.
6. An August 7, 2001, letter from the museum to the claimants stated
the museum’s position: the museum considered its role and statutory
responsibility under Section 10.10(d) of NAGPRA to be completed since
the claimants could not decide on final disposition. The letter
further stated that since the museum repatriated the human remains and
funerary objects to the claimants on April 12, 2001, any action
involving final disposition became the sole discretion of the claimants
since the museum transferred legal ownership on April 12, 2001.
7. The academy continued to discuss the matter with the museum until
March 18, 2002, when the museum informed the academy that the museum
considered the matter closed. Also on March 18, 2002, the academy
requested that the Review Committee consider the dispute between the
academy and the museum.

Mr. Suganuma referenced a report by Roger Rose entitled, "The Enigma of
Forbes Cave." Mr. Rose was asked to prepare the report by DOI, NPS,
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, which also has objects from the
Kawaihae Caves Complex in the park collections. The academy had
provided the Review Committee with an excerpt of the report as part of
the academy’s documentation for the dispute. Mr. Suganuma expressed
concern that he was asked to verify his status as representative of the
academy. Both Mr. Suganuma and the academy provided written
verification of Mr. Suganuma’s status as the academy’s representative.

The academy asked the Review Committee to find or recommend that --
1. Repatriation of the cultural items from Kawaihae Caves Complex did
not occur.
2. Intentional errors were made in the loan process.
3. The museum’s process of claimant selection needs to be reviewed.
4. The definitions of funerary objects and objects of cultural
patrimony in NAGPRA do not necessarily fit Hawaiian culture.
5. The museum should apologize for its actions against the claimant
organizations and their spokesperson, Mr. Suganuma.

Mr. William Brown, Bishop Museum, read a prepared statement detailing
the museum’s position. The museum concluded that because of errors in
process, the repatriation of 83 items loaned by the museum to Hui
Malama on February 26, 2000, was not completed, and the museum’s April
12, 2001, letter to claimants of these items, which purported to
complete repatriation, was invalid. In light of this conclusion, the
museum intends to continue the repatriation process for the 13
claimants and work in close consultation with the claimants to secure
return of the items to the museum so that repatriation may move forward
without prejudice to final decision on disposition of the 83 items. To
this end, the museum intends to renew its request that Hui Malama
return the 83 items that were loaned to them on February 26, 2000, and
whose return was overdue. The museum asked the Review Committee to
support the museum’s conclusion and intended course of action. The
museum asked the Review Committee to recommend that Hui Malama return
the items to the museum immediately.

Questions by the Review Committee
The Review Committee asked questions of both parties to clarify
different issues involved in the dispute. The parties made the
following clarifications in response to questions by Review Committee.
Mr. Brown said that the museum agreed with the academy that the
repatriation process was flawed. He added that the most fundamental
error made by the museum was the loan of the items to Hui Malama,
during which process Hui Malama misrepresented the approval of the
other three claimants and the interim storage of the items. Both Mr.
Suganuma and Mr. Brown stated that Hui Malama claims to have returned
the items to a cave but there is no independent verification, as the
cave was sealed with a masonry wall. Mr. Brown stated that the 83
items, referred to as "human remains" and "funerary objects," are all
artifacts. The only human remains, pursuant to NAGPRA, were hair,
teeth, and bone incorporated into six of the 83 items. Mr. Suganuma
clarified that the reburied human remains (iwi) in the cave should not
be disturbed, but that the 83 items should be recovered.

Ms. Worl raised the possibility of further claimants and asked about
the definition of a Native Hawaiian organization pursuant to NAGPRA.
Mr. Brown stated that the museum considers itself to be a Native
Hawaiian organization but at this time does not intend to act as a
claimant in this issue. Mr. Suganuma stated that the Document of Truth
and Agreement was a result of an agreement to disagree among the
claimants in order to allow the museum to continue with its obligation
to recover the cultural items. Mr. Brown stated that the museum sent a
letter to each claimant detailing the museum’s position change on this
issue. Mr. Suganuma stated that a majority of the claimants share the
position that he represented at the meeting and have signed an
agreement to that effect, which was presented to the Review Committee
at the Tulsa, OK, meeting. Mr. Suganuma stated that many of the
claimants were not present at the St. Paul, MN, meeting for financial
reasons. Mr. Brown asked the Review Committee to endorse the museum’s
conclusion that the repatriation was not completed and support the
museum’s plan to invite all claimants to participate in further
consultation to try to reset the process and address the errors that
were made. Mr. Bailey stated that he saw no deterrent, under NAGPRA,
for these items’ being considered cultural patrimony.

Discussion/Recommended action
Mr. Bradley stated that this issue was based on museum compliance with
NAGPRA. Based on the parties’ presentations, the repatriation process
used by the museum was fundamentally flawed and therefore remains
incomplete. Ms. Worl stated that from her perspective, the
repatriation was concluded and ownership transferred after the
publication of the Federal Register notices and the lack of objection
during the 30-day waiting period, followed by the museum’s letter of
April 12, 2001, informing the claimants that ownership was transferred
and the museum’s NAGPRA requirements had been met. Ms. Worl stated
that the 13 claimants need to address this issue among themselves. She
expressed concern that the Review Committee’s involvement and findings
in this issue could set an undesirable precedent.

Mr. Minthorn stated that when the consultation process fails,
repatriations can be flawed. Errors were made during this repatriation
process, but through adequate consultation, the process could be
corrected. Ms. Metcalf stated her concern that all claimants were not
included in the dispute process. Mr. Hart referenced the diverse
traditional practices, considerations of spiritual power, and legal
issues that were involved in this case. Mr. Bailey stated that if the
Review Committee took no action then they were condoning what was at
best a morally questionable act by one claimant, as well as negating
the responsibility of the museum to implement NAGPRA. Mr. O’Shea
stated he was pleased with the museum’s willingness to correct this
situation, even at great cost to the museum. Mr. O’Shea supported
following the recommendations presented and agreed upon by both
parties.

The Review Committee asked Ms. Mattix to review NAGPRA’s requirements
for repatriation. Ms. Mattix stated that NAGPRA outlines a process of
repatriation although it does not define a point at which there is a
change in legal possession or control after transfer. Notification is
one step in the process and is not by itself legal transfer of
ownership of items. Ms. Mattix identified Section 10.10 as one useful
reference, in that it describes the repatriation process.

Findings and recommendations
Mr. Bradley proposed language for the Review Committee findings, which
the Review Committee discussed. While acknowledging the position of
the academy and the museum that the 83 cultural items at issue in this
dispute were objects and not human remains, Ms. Worl questioned whether
all of the claimants would agree with this position. Ms. Worl
recommended using a more precise definition of the 83 items in order to
avoid misidentification. Mr. Suganuma stated that the academy’s
dispute with the museum was limited to the 83 items and no claimants
would support the removal of any ancestral remains from the Forbes
Cave. Several Review Committee members stated that in order for all 13
claimants to have an equal voice in the disposition process, the museum
needs to reassert control over the cultural items. Ms. Worl stated
that she did not agree that the museum currently held title to the 83
items. Mr. O’Shea suggested specifically recommending that access to
the cultural items be granted to all claimants. The Review Committee
considered recommending that the museum and claimants reevaluate their
classification of the 83 items. Ms. Worl was not comfortable with the
recommendation and asked that the recommendation be deleted. Mr.
Bradley suggested that the following sentence commending the parties
for their willingness to continue to consult and seek appropriate
repatriation and disposition solutions.

The Review Committee findings and recommendations by a majority vote of
six to one --

"This dispute seeks to establish whether an appropriate repatriation
occurred between the Bishop Museum and 13 Native Hawaiian claimants for
83 items described as ‘human remains’ and ‘funerary objects’ recovered
from the Kawaihae Caves complex (Forbes Cave) in Hawaii in the early
20th Century. The 13 claimants are those listed in two Federal
Register notices: FR Doc. 01-5940 and FR Doc. 01-5941. The 83 items
are those listed in the Bishop Museum shipping invoice BP-20194, dated
February 26, 2000. In Federal Register notices published on behalf of
the Bishop Museum, the 83 items are desccribed as ‘human remains’ and
‘funerary objects.’

"Having reviewed documentation submitted by the Royal Hawaiian Academy
of Traditional Arts, one of the 13 claimants, and the Bishop Museum, as
well as having considered their oral presentations, the Review
Committee finds that -- One, the repatriation process used by the
Bishop Museum for the 83 items was flawed and remains incomplete. Two,
the place and manner of return for the 83 items has not been determined
consistent with the regulations. Three, the Bishop Museum is
responsible for the completion of the repatriation process for the 83
items.

"The Review Committee recommends that -- One, the Bishop Museum renew
the consultation process for repatriation of the 83 items. Two, the
Bishop Museum recall the loan of the 83 items to the Hui Malama I Na
Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei on February 26, 2000. Three, the 13 recognized
claimants in the consultation process be treated in a respectful and
equitable manner. Four, the 83 items be made available to all parties
in the consultation.

"The Review Committee commends the Royal Hawaiian Academy of
Traditional Arts and the Bishop Museum for their willingness to
continue consultation and for their positive attitude towards finding
the most appropriate repatriation and disposition solutions."

Ms. Worl stated that she was unable to support the findings and
recommendations. Ms. Worl stated that repatriation occurred and title
passed from the museum to the 13 claimants with the Notice of Intent to
Repatriate published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2001, and the
lapse of 30 days in which no objection was made. Ms. Worl stated she
would write a minority opinion. The Review Committee agreed that the
notice of the findings and recommendations published in the Federal
Register would include the Ms. Worl’s minority opinion.

Conclusion
National NAGPRA will publish the Review Committee’s findings and
recommendations and the minority report subsequent to receipt of the
minority report text from Ms. Worl.

National NAGPRA Reports

Mr. Robbins stated that the reporting period for the current National
NAGPRA reports was October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. The
reports were in the Review Committee members’ binders, available for
the public at the meeting, and available on the National NAGPRA
Website. The National NAGPRA has set two standard reporting periods
for each year -- October 1 through March 31 and April 1 through
September 30 -- which correspond with the Federal fiscal year (FY).
[The National NAGPRA Reports distributed at the St. Paul NAGPRA Review
Committee meeting are available on the National NAGPRA Website:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/, select "National NAGPRA Reports," then
select "St. Paul Meeting Report."]

The Review Committee discussed the following National NAGPRA reports --

NAGPRA Grants
Ms. Worl asked about the variance in the amount of money reprogrammed
from the grants appropriation for FYs 1997-2003. Mr. Robbins explained
that the reprogrammed amount has been fairly consistent at
approximately 10 percent of the total grants appropriation. In FY
2001, the National NAGPRA received supplemental funding from NPS to
address the notice backlog, which accounted for the lower reprogrammed
amount in FY2001.

Disputes
Ms. Worl recommended that a summary of the Review Committee’s findings
and recommendations be included in the Action section for each dispute.

Action List
Ms. Worl referred to item 6.a. on the Action List, which reported on
the Review Committee’s request for the U.S. Department of Justice’s
process/model of consultation. Ms. Worl said that the Review Committee
has an obligation to consult and asked that the National NAGPRA develop
a process to meet this obligation.

Federal Agency Implementation
Mr. Minthorn stated that Federal agency implementation remains a high
priority. Mr. Minthorn stated that local Federal agencies need to be
invited to attend Review Committee meetings and report on their work
with Indian tribes, accomplishments, and concerns. Mr. Minthorn added
that local Federal agencies should be invited to the Albuquerque
meeting to allow for a direct dialogue with the Review Committee.
Mr. Robbins stated that the Review Committee would have the most
success in hearing from Federal agencies if the Review Committee would
frame specific topic areas or questions. Mr. Bradley recommended
that the Review Committee members list the specific Federal agencies
and topics they would like to have on the Albuquerque meeting agenda,
including policies for inadvertent discoveries and policies for working
with Indian tribes. Ms. Worl stated she would be interested in hearing
about reburial policies.

Ms. Mudar reported that the National NAGPRA plans to hold a series of
meetings with Federal agencies to discuss Federal agency reporting to
the Review Committee and regulation section 10.7, disposition of
unclaimed human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects
of cultural patrimony.

Outreach and Training
Ms. Molloy stated that mandated travel budget cuts may affect the
outreach and training activities of National NAGPRA. National NAGPRA
is looking at cost-effective methods to continue to implement these
activities.

Contaminated Collections
Authority. 43 CFR 10.10 (e). "[as part of the repatriation process,
the] museum official or Federal agency official must inform the
recipients of repatriations of any presently known treatment of the
human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural
patrimony with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that
represent a potential hazard to the objects or to persons handling the
objects."

Mr. Minthorn asked if any Indian tribes were involved with the DOI
Contaminated Collections Work Group. Ms. Molloy, a member of the work
group, explained that the work group was comprised of DOI staff members
who work with Indian tribes on the issue of contaminated collections.
Ms. Molloy agreed to relay Mr. Minthorn’s statement to the work group
that the work group should contain Native American representation. Ms.
Worl asked if the work group was going to develop advice addressing the
issues of potential risk and hazards. Ms. Molloy stated that the work
group members recognize the importance of the issues and understand
that the solutions will need to be developed on a case-by-case basis
through consultation. Ms. Metcalf asked if museums and Federal
agencies would be required to submit new summaries, with information
regarding contamination, to Native communities. Ms. Molloy stated that
notification of potential contamination was not a summary requirement
in the regulations. The regulations require museums and Federal
agencies to make recipients of cultural items aware of any known
treatments, but the work group encourages institutions to share new
information and encourages notification early in the repatriation
process.

International Repatriation
Background. National NAGPRA prepared an initial report on
international repatriation in response to questions raised repeatedly
at Review Committee meetings.

Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for the report. Ms. Metcalf asked
if NAGPRA grants could be used to facilitate international
repatriation. Ms. Molloy stated that the issue would be placed on the
Action List for study. The Review Committee asked what Federal
agencies’ responsibilities would be for the collections outside of the
United States that had been removed from lands that were Federal or
tribal lands at the time of collection. Mr. Robbins stated that the
question would be added to the Action List for study.

Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human Remains
Authority. 3 C.F.R. 10.10, Repatriation. "(g) Culturally
unidentifiable human remains. If the cultural affiliation of human
remains cannot be established pursuant to these regulations, the human
remains must be considered culturally unidentifiable. Museum and
Federal agency officials must report the inventory information
regarding such human remains in their holdings to the Departmental
Consulting Archeologist who will transmit this information to the
Review Committee. The Review Committee is responsible for compiling an
inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains in the possession
or control of each museum and Federal agency and for recommending to
the Secretary specific actions for disposition of such human remains."

Ms. Murdock presented an interactive sample of the culturally
unidentifiable human remains database and described both the contents
and the user-friendly capabilities of the database. The sample
database contained information from 18 museums and universities (3
Federal agencies withdrew from the project due to projected inventory
revisions) and represented 9,567 human remains and 16,399 associated
funerary objects. The database contains information (when known) on
State, county, minimum number of individuals, associated funerary
objects, age, and a Notes section with information on site name,
accession number, and culture. Institutions will be able to submit
revisions to National NAGPRA. Ms. Murdock stated that 86 percent of
institutions that have submitted an inventory have been entered into
the database, representing an estimated 65 percent of the total
information. Some institutions with large collections have yet to be
entered, accounting for the difference in percentages. The figure of
86 percent was an increase from the estimated 40 percent reported at
the Seattle meeting. Ms. Murdock proposed making the accession number
a searchable field to aid museums in the review process. In response
to a question by Mr. O’Shea, Ms. Murdock stated that the age
information was entered only when provided by the institution and was
based on a before-present date from 1950. Mr. O’Shea stated that the
information could be misleading to people who assume that those dates
correspond to true radiometric information, when in fact many of them
are estimates based on cultural information. Ms. Murdock stated that
she would be open to suggestions by the Review Committee regarding the
database structure and contents.

Status of NAGPRA Regulations
Background. When drafting the statute, Congress assigned
responsibility for promulgating NAGPRA regulations to the Secretary of
the Interior, who delegated drafting responsibility to NPS. Proposed
NAGPRA regulations were published in the Federal Register in 1993; 43
C.F.R. 10 was published in 1995, with five reserved sections --
Section 10.7, disposition of unclaimed human remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony. Ms. Mudar reported
that she is scheduling a series of consultation meetings with Native
American groups, museum and scientific organizations, and the Review
Committee toward the development of this section. Ms. Mudar stated
that National NAGPRA would provide a provisional consultation schedule
at the next Review Committee meeting. In response to a question by Mr.
O’Shea, Ms. Mudar stated that Section 10.7 is contained in 25 U.S.C.
3002 (b) and pertains to a specific category of human remains and other
cultural items. Ms. Worl stated that Section 10.7 needs to clearly
include Native Hawaiian organizations and should consider the Executive
Order mandating consultation with Indian tribes.

Section 10.11, Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains.
Mr. Robbins stated that a sample database was created and reviewed by
the museums and institutions to be used as part of the regulation
review process (see "Culturally Unidentifiable Native American Human
Remains" above).

Section 10.12. Civil penalties. The final civil penalties regulations
were published on April 3, 2003 and went into effect on May 5, 2003.
Mr. Robbins reported that a technical correction (replacing the interim
regulation rather than adding to the interim regulation) was pending.
National NAGPRA was currently developing internal procedures for
implementing the civil penalties regulations.

Section 10.13. Future applicability. Mr. Robbins stated that a draft
regulation was ready for his review.

Section 10.15(b). Failure to claim where no repatriation or
disposition has occurred. Mr. Robbins stated that Ms. Mudar was
assigned to this regulation.

Other National NAGPRA Business
Per the Review Committee’s request, Mr. Robbins addressed the following
four topics --

Financial Update. In FY 2003, National NAGPRA operates with four
accounts, the grants account ($2,201,000), the grants administration
account ($177,000), program funding ($353,000), and funds reprogrammed
from the appropriated grants funding ($250,000). Ms. Worl requested
that National NAGPRA report on the program’s financial status at each
meeting.

Program Manager. Mr. Robbins is currently the program manager for
National NAGPRA. NPS will not consider staffing changes for the
program until at least the end of FY 2003.

Associate Director, Cultural Resources. The Acting Associate Director,
Cultural Resources is Mr. deTeel Patterson Tiller. The position
(vacant since January 2003) has been advertised. Applications were due
on April 4, 2003. Mr. Minthorn requested that an invitation be extended
to the Director of NPS and the Associate Director, Cultural Resources
to attend upcoming Review Committee meetings.

Spirit Cave Dispute. The Review Committee requested an update on the
status of the Spirit Cave situation. Mr. Robbins reported that
National NAGPRA was not able to contact Ms. Stephanie Damadio, National
Curator for the U.S. DOI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), during the
meeting. Mr. Minthorn asked National NAGPRA to report on the status of
the Review Committee’s recommendations regarding the Spirit Cave
dispute and on the status of the human remains that were the subject of
the dispute at the next Review Committee meeting.

Conclusion
1. National NAGPRA will incorporate the Review Committee’s
recommendations into subsequent National NAGPRA reports.
2. National NAGPRA will invite local Federal agencies to the
Albuquerque meeting.
3. National NAGPRA will address the Review Committee’s questions
regarding --
a. whether NAGPRA grants could be used to facilitate international
repatriation, and
b. Federal agencies’ responsibilities for collections outside of the
United States that were removed from Federal or tribal lands.
4. Ms. Murdock will continue to oversee the development of the
culturally unidentifiable human remains database. The Review Committee
approved the database changes that Ms.
Murdock proposed.
5. Mr. Robbins will provide the Review Committee with a financial
update at Review Committee meetings.
6. Mr. Robbins will extend the Review Committee’s invitation to the
Director of NPS and the Associate Director, Cultural Resources.
7. National NAGPRA will try to determine the status of the Spirit Cave
dispute and associated human remains and report to the Review
Committee.

Review Committee Business

Report to the Congress
Authority. 25 U.S.C. 3006, Section 8 (h), requires -- "Annual Report -
- The committee established under subsection (a) shall submit an annual
report to the Congress on the progress made, and any barriers
encountered, in implementing this section during the previous year."

Report to the Congress for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Mr. Robbins stated
that the Report to the Congress for 1999, 2000, and 2001 was completed
and ready for distribution. Copies were provided to the Review
Committee and were available at the meeting for the public. Mr.
Robbins stated that the report would be available on the National
NAGPRA Website (http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/, select "Review
Committee," then select "Reports to the Congress"). He asked that
Review Committee members provide suggestions for additional
distribution of the report. National NAGPRA is responsible for
distribution to the appropriate members of Congress.

Report to the Congress for 2002. For the Report to the Congress for
2002, Mr. Robbins suggested that Review Committee should draft the text
for the topics covered in pages 4 through 11 of the Report to the
Congress for 1999, 2000, and 2001. National NAGPRA was prepared to
insert updated statistical information. Mr. Robbins stated that if the
draft was ready for final discussion at the Albuquerque meeting, the
final document could be produced by the end of the calendar year.

Discussion/Recommended action. The Review Committee expressed
appreciation for the final Report to the Congress for 1999, 2000, and
2001. Mr. Bradley suggested that Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
receive a copy of the report. Ms. Worl suggested that regional tribal
organizations in Alaska and Hawaii receive a copy of the report.

Conclusion
1. National NAGPRA will distribute the Report to the Congress for 1999,
2000, and 2001 as the Review Committee requested at the meeting. Mr.
Robbins invited Review Committee members to individually submit names
and addresses for additional recipients.
2. Ms. Worl and Mr. Bailey will draft the Report to the Congress for
2002 for discussion at the Albuquerque meeting.

Charter
Background. The current charter of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Review Committee was signed by the
Secretary of the Interior on May 2, 2003, and is in effect from
November 16, 2002, to November 16, 2004.

Topic. Mr. Robbins described the changes between the previous charter
and the current charter. The changes include --
1. Item D.1. Clarification of the role of the individual members.
2. Item D.2. Change in terms of appointment to 4 years for new
appointments and 2 years for reappointed incumbents.
3. Item D.4. Change in reimbursement of Review Committee members to
the daily rate for Level IV of the Executive Schedule.
4. Item E. Addition of a new section, "Ethics Responsibilities for
Members."
5. Item F.2. Change of Designated Federal Officer to Manager, National
NAGPRA program.
6. Item F.5. Addition of sentence, "No Advisory Committee members, and
no member of any subgroup of this Committee, shall participate in any
matter in which the member has a financial interest."
7. Item F.6. Change in wording from committee to subcommittee, "The
Committee may create subcommittees from its membership ..."

Discussion/Recommended action. In response to a question by Mr.
Bailey, Mr. Robbins explained that 2-year charters are standard for
Federal advisory committees. Ms. Worl asked if dispute hearings were
included in item F.5. Mr. Robbins stated that the intention of that
section was to include all aspects of the Review Committee’s work.

Meeting Procedures
Mr. Robbins described the changes between the previous Meeting Protocol
document and the draft Meeting Procedures document. The changes
include --
1. Title change from "Meeting Protocol" to "Meeting Procedures,"
consistent with the NPS Office of Policy terminology.
2. Item I. Addition of a new section, "Authority," detailing the
authority under which meetings occur.
3. Item III. Addition of a new section, "Agenda," describing how the
Review Committee chair and DFO will determine the agenda.
4. Item IV. "Public Notice" no longer requires public notice of
meetings 90 days in advance of the meeting. Notices will be published
with as much advance notice as possible. [FACA regulations 41 C.F.R.
Part 102-3.150 (a) requires that a Federal Register notice be published
at least 15 calendar days prior to an advisory committee meeting.]
5. Item V. Addition of a new section, "Distribution of Meeting
Materials," describing the process for distributing materials and the
meeting agenda to the Review Committee members and public.
6. Item VI. "Public Participation," additional clarification of the
process for written and public comment.
7. Item VII. Addition of a new section, "Transcripts," detailing the
process for producing the meeting record.
8. Item VIII. Addition of a new section, "Minutes," detailing the
process for producing the meeting minutes.

Discussion/Recommended action. For Item V, Ms. Worl asked that the
practice of allowing all Review Committee members to comment on the
agenda be included in the Meeting Procedures. For Item VII, Mr. O’Shea
asked that the practice of providing electronic copies of the meeting
transcript be included in the Meeting Procedures. For Item VIII, Ms.
Worl asked that the minutes of each meeting be included on the agenda
for the subsequent meeting for possible comment.

Conclusion. Mr. Robbins revised the Meeting Procedures with the
requested changes. The Review Committee chair signed the revised
procedures before the meeting adjourned on May 10, 2003.

Nominations
Authority. 25 U.S.C. 3006, Section 8: "(b), Membership -- (1) The
Committee established under subsection (a) shall be composed of 7
members, (A) 3 of whom shall be appointed by the Secretary from
nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations,
and traditional Native American religious leaders with at least 2 of
such persons being traditional Indian religious leaders; (B) 3 of whom
shall be appointed by the Secretary from nominations submitted by
national museum organizations and scientific organizations; and (C) 1
who shall be appointed by the Secretary from a list of persons
developed and consented to by all of the members appointed pursuant to
subparagraphs (A) and (B)."

Topic. Mr. Robbins explained that one position on the Review Committee
was currently vacant. Mr. Hart’s term expired in September 2001, and
Mr. Hart has continued in the position as provided in the Review
Committee’s charter. This vacancy was advertised in the Federal
Register. Nominations were received and were currently under review
within the DOI for appointment. Three positions would become vacant in
June 2003 -- those held by Mr. Bradley, Mr. Minthorn, and Mr. O’Shea --
and the notice for soliciting nominations for those positions is in
process towards publication in the Federal Register. Mr. Hart and Mr.
Minthorn were nominated pursuant to Section 8 (b)(1)(A). Mr. Bradley
and Mr. O’Shea were nominated pursuant to Section 8 (b)(1)(B).

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. Bailey asked how the notice
soliciting nominations will be distributed. Mr. Robbins explained that
the notice would be published in the Federal Register. National NAGPRA
also will feature the solicitation on the National NAGPRA Website and
distribute a paper copy of the published notice to Indian tribes,
museums, and museum and scientific organizations.

The Review Committee expressed concern that more than half of the
Review Committee positions could be filled with new members by the next
meeting, potentially causing lack of continuity and delays in progress
of the Review Committee’s business.

Conclusion. Ms. Worl and Mr. Minthorn will draft a letter from the
Review Committee to the Secretary of the Interior detailing the Review
Committee’s concerns.

Review and Findings Procedures
Authority. 25 U.S.C. 3006 (c)(3): "[The Review Committee shall be
responsible for --] upon the request of any affected party, of
reviewing and making findings related to -- A. the identity or cultural
affiliation of Native American human remains and other cultural items,
or B. the return of human remains and other cultural items."

Topic. Mr. Robbins explained that the proposed Review and Findings
Procedures document was new and directly addresses the issue of
affected party.

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. O’Shea stated that the Review
Committee defined affected party at the Seattle, WA, meeting and was
prepared at that point to move forward with that language. Mr. Robbins
requested clarification on the definition of affected party --
specifically regarding nonfederally recognized tribes, donors, and
nontribal organizations or individuals representing groups of either
tribes or tribal individuals. Ms. Worl stated that she was happy with
the definition developed at the Seattle meeting, but not the language
presented at the St. Paul meeting. Mr. O’Shea suggested deleting the
final sentence of the definition, "Such an organization may include
individuals, groups, organizations, etc. that are not an ‘affected
party’ as defined here." The Review Committee agreed to keep the
Review and Findings Procedures document separate from the Dispute
Procedures document.

Conclusion. Mr. Robbins revised the Review and Findings Procedures
with the requested changes. The Review Committee chair signed the
revised procedures before the meeting adjourned on May 10, 2003.

Dispute Procedures
Authority. 25 U.S.C. 3006 (c)(4): "[The Review Committee shall be
responsible for --] facilitating the resolution of disputes among
Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or lineal descendants and
Federal agencies or museum relating to the return of human remains and
other cultural items, including convening the parties to the dispute if
deemed desirable."

Topic. Mr. Robbins described the changes between the previous Dispute
Resolution Procedures document and the proposed Dispute Procedures.
The changes include --
1. Title change from "Dispute Resolution Procedures" to "Dispute
Procedures."
2. Item II.B., addition of definition of "Interested party," a term
used in the regulations at 43 CFR 10.17 (b).

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. O’Shea suggested deleting the last
sentence of the definition of interested party, "Such an organization
may include individuals, groups, organizations, etc., that are not an
‘interested party’ as defined here." Ms. Worl requested that a section
be added to the Dispute Procedures document indicating that all
claimants to a particular action will be notified of a pending dispute.
Mr. Hart requested that a section be added to the Dispute Procedures
directing parties to a dispute to contact the Review Committee only
through the DFO.

Conclusion. Mr. Robbins revised the Dispute Procedures with the
requested changes. The Review Committee chair signed the revised
procedures before the meeting adjourned on May 10, 2003.

Governance
Background. Mr. Robbins reviewed the draft Governance document, which
provides guidance on the administration of the Review Committee.

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. O’Shea stated that item IV,
Officers, differs from the standard practice of the Review Committee
and suggested that references to officer terms and the establishment of
a vice-chair should be removed. Mr. O’Shea expressed concern regarding
item IV.C.2.(e), which provides for the DFO’s chairing the meeting at
the discretion of the Director of the NPS, and item VIII, which
provides for the DFO’s revising the by-laws independently of the Review
Committee. Mr. Robbins stated that those provisions came from the FACA
regulations. Mr. O’Shea stated that these provisions may be provided
by FACA but do not need to be part of the Review Committee’s by-laws
and should be removed. The other Review Committee members agreed with
the changes proposed by Mr. O’Shea.

Upcoming Review Committee meetings
The Review Committee discussed possible venues for future Review
Committee meetings. Ms. Worl reminded the Review Committee that she
had extended an invitation for the Review Committee to meet in
Juneau, AK.

The Review Committee confirmed the next meeting will be November 21-22,
2003, in Albuquerque, NM. The Review Committee tentatively set the
subsequent meeting for May 2004 in Washington, DC.

Correspondence from Hui Malama I Na Kupuna O Hawai’i Nei
The Review Committee agreed that Mr. Minthorn would send an e-mail
response to Hui Malama regarding their correspondence on the dispute
between the academy and the museum.

Scheduled Presentations and Public Comment

Native American Alliance of Ohio
Topic. Ms. Jean McCoard, Native American Alliance of Ohio, updated the
Review Committee on the status of the Fernald Reinterment Project and
presented information packets to the Review Committee. The project
continues to move forward. The new head of the U.S. Department of
Energy Ohio Field Office will soon sign a position paper that will
offer land at Fernald for the reinterment of repatriated human remains.
The Ohio Field Office will work with Native American tribes and groups
to develop a plan for routine inspections and maintenance. Once the
position paper is in effect, Native Americans will develop an oversight
board. Ms. McCoard stated that despite progress made in NAGPRA, the
law is still misunderstood. Nonfederally recognized Indian groups face
additional challenges. Ms. McCoard stated that the Native American
Alliance of Ohio would like to thank the Review Committee for
addressing the organization’s concerns in the Review Committee’s Report
to the Congress for 1999-2001.

The Native American Alliance of Ohio extended an invitation to host a
Review Committee meeting in Newark, OH, in fall 2005. Ms. McCoard
proposed holding the meeting in conjunction with a conference for
representatives from States without federally recognized tribes. The
purpose of the conference would be to develop strategies to facilitate
compliance with NAGPRA in these States, consider regional solutions,
clarify NAGPRA issues regarding cultural affiliation and nonfederally
recognized tribes, and suggest reasonable amendments to NAGPRA or
revisions to NAGPRA regulations.

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. Minthorn acknowledged the
invitation and asked Mr. Robbins to consider the invitation, as well as
consider supporting the conference on NAGPRA issues for nonfederally
recognized Indian groups. In response to a question by Mr. Hart, Ms.
McCoard stated that the Fernald site is environmentally clean. Mr.
Minthorn requested that the DOE be invited to report on their success
regarding this collaborative project at the Albuquerque meeting.

National Park Service Implementation Update
Background. Mr. Frank McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archeologist,
NPS, Archeology and Ethnography program, provided a status report on
three Park NAGPRA topics. The report was presented by Ms. Paula
Molloy.

Actions to implement recommendations from the National Park System
Advisory Board on determinations of cultural affiliation under NAGPRA.
The National Park System Advisory Board’s recommendations will be
implemented by expanding and improving guidance for NPS staff on making
determinations of cultural affiliation. Text will be developed to
enhance the existing NPS technical guidance on NAGPRA implementation,
specifically Appendix R of the Cultural Resource Management Guideline.
Revisions to Appendix R are scheduled for completion in February 2004.

Status of NPS’s response to the Hopi tribal chairman regarding a
request for the NPS Director’s review of determinations of cultural
affiliation of Aztec Ruins National Monument, Chaco Culture National
Historical Park, and Mesa Verde National Park. NPS staff have provided
assessments of the tribal chairman’s request for review and the
determinations made by the park managers. Possible responses have been
drafted and are under discussion. No final decisions have been made by
the Deputy Director and Director of NPS.

Status of DOI and NPS activities in the Kennewick Man case. DOI
attorneys Ms. Carla Mattix, Ms. Mary Anne Kenworthy, and Mr. Jason
Roberts continue to consult with the Department of Justice as the case
progresses. Mr. Frank McManamon continues to provide technical advice
for the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Government has filed its brief appealing the decision of District
Court Judge John Jelderks with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The
coalition of claimant tribes has also filed their brief with the 9th
Circuit Court. Ms. Mattix stated that oral arguments in the appeals
could be heard in late summer 2003.

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. Minthorn requested a copy of the
Mr. McManamon’s report. Mr. Minthorn asked about the status of the
Review Committee’s recommendations in the dispute between the Hopi
Tribe and Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Mr. Robbins reported
that NPS has made a substantial effort to address the issue of how
determinations of cultural affiliation are made Servicewide, and has a
plan for developing guidance for NPS staff. NPS’s Director currently
is making decisions regarding the park’s reassessment of cultural
affiliation.

Minnesota Historical Society’s Report on Implementation in Minnesota
Presentation. Mr. Larry Zimmerman, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS),
introduced himself as the head of MHS’s department of archeology. Mr.
Zimmerman said that he has been with MHS for 6 months and was pleased
with MHS’s NAGPRA implementation efforts. The archeological
collections at MHS were acquired primarily through archeological work
and donations. MHS has more than 6,000 Native American objects in the
historical collection and approximately 60 percent of the more than one
million objects in the archeological collections originated from
American Indian heritage sites. MHS sent copies of NAGPRA summaries
and inventories to all Native American groups represented by the
collections. MHS has had 37 official consultation visits with 22
different Native American groups. MHS has several pending repatriation
claims in process. Mr. Zimmerman described MHS’s successful
consultation and repatriation experiences. Mr. Zimmerman credited part
of MHS’s NAGPRA implementation success to MHS’s Indian Advisory
Committee, which is comprised of tribally appointed members from each
recognized Indian tribe or band and from the Minnesota Indian Affairs
Commission (MIAC). Mr. Zimmerman stated that MHS will experience
significant budget and staffing cuts and hoped that MHS would be able
to continue to meet its NAGPRA obligations.

Discussion/Recommended action. The Review Committee commended MHS’s
positive efforts at NAGPRA implementation. Mr. Bailey asked about
future cooperative relationships with local Indian groups and
organizations. Mr. Zimmerman stated that MHS would like to expand this
cooperation, although these efforts may be hampered by budget cuts.
Mr. Zimmerman gave examples of the cooperative efforts, including a
museum jointly operated between the Mille Lacs Tribe and MHS.

Minnesota Indian Affairs Commission’s Report on Implementation in
Minnesota Presentation. Mr. Joe Day, executive director of the
Minnesota Indian Affairs Commission (MIAC), stated that the good
working relationship between MIAC and MHS began in the early 1970s.
Protocols were developed to address discoveries of human remains. Over
100 years ago, early surveyors mapped over 10,000 burial mounds, which
are still on record today. This record is useful when planning
development projects to avoid burial mounds. Mr. Day described the
early efforts of MIAC to meet NAGPRA requirements. Mr. Day stated that
MIAC repatriated 1,068 culturally unidentifiable human remains
subsequent to the Review Committee’s recommendation in 1998. MIAC
currently has 325 individuals in its custody, including 186 that have
been inventoried and for which notices have been published in the
Federal Register, 50 individuals yet to be identified, 30 individuals
awaiting repatriation, 30 individuals for which the Review Committee
requested additional information prior to recommending repatriation,
and several individuals awaiting the identification process. Mr. Day
reported that, under Minnesota law, to knowingly disturb a cemetery is
a felony. All burial sites in Minnesota are considered cemeteries.

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. Bailey expressed appreciation for
Minnesota’s progressive cemetery laws. Mr. Day stated that he
recognized the problems of States with no federally recognized tribes,
described earlier by Ms. McCoard, and that the negotiations necessary
to implement such laws are worth the effort. Mr. Bailey stated that
Native Americans in other States could consider using State law in a
similar manner to help implement NAGPRA.

South Dakota Archeological Research Center Discussion/Recommended
action. Due to a schedule change, Ms. Renee Boen of the South Dakota
Archeological Research Center (SARC) was not present when this agenda
item was called. Mr. Hart addressed the issue of the repatriation
request by the SARC for 70 sets of culturally unidentifiable human
remains. Mr. Hart stated that not all tribal groups who were in the
geographical regions represented by this request were adequately
consulted, and cited his people, the Southern Cheyenne, as an example.
Mr. O’Shea stated that this case was very similar to the repatriation
request approved for the State of Minnesota in 1998 and suggested that
the SARC use that situation as a model for their consultation and
repatriation efforts. Mr. Bailey urged that all consultation be
conducted in a formal, documented manner to preserve the record. Mr.
Hart stated that he meant no disrespect to those individuals who worked
long and hard on this issue, and specifically commended the efforts of
Mr. Allen and Mr. Red Wing. Ms. Worl requested that the Review
Committee’s past recommendation to the State of Minnesota be
incorporated into the letter to the SARC and that an apology be offered
for the agenda change, as well as an invitation to the Albuquerque
meeting.

Ms. Boen appeared before the Review Committee subsequent to the above
discussion. Mr. Minthorn summarized the earlier discussions of the
Review Committee and their recommendations. Ms. Boen stated that the
SARC would fulfill the Review Committee’s recommendations, including
additional consultation.

Navajo Nation
Topic. Mr. Timothy Begay, Navajo Nation, addressed the Review
Committee regarding the definition of affected party. Mr. Begay said
that the concerns of the Navajo Nation had been addressed in the Review
Committee’s earlier discussion on affected party.

Mr. Markly Chee, Navajo Nation, read a prepared statement by Mr. Alan
Downer, Director, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department,
addressing the issue of affected party with specific reference to three
shields that are referred to as the Pectol shields. According to Mr.
Downer’s statement, the shields currently are needed by traditional
Navajo religious leaders for the practice of traditional Navajo
religious ceremonies. The superintendent of Capitol Reef National Park
published a notice in the Federal Register indicating the park’s intent
to repatriate the shields to the Navajo Nation. Descendants of Mr.
Ephraim P. Pectol, who removed the shields from Federal land in 1926,
objected to the superintendent’s determination and contacted National
NAGPRA. The superintendent contacted National NAGPRA and stated that
he was advised not to repatriate the shields to the Navajo Nation
pending the Review Committee’s determination of the definition of
affected party and interested party.

Discussion/Recommended action. Mr. Robbins explained that he had
corresponded with descendants of Mr. Pectol and he would inform them of
the Review Committee’s discussion of affected party. The Review
Committee suggested that Mr. Robbins provide a copy of the letter to
the Navajo Nation. Mr. Robbins stated that once the Review Committee’s
procedures are finalized and posted on the Website, National NAGPRA
would respond to the appropriate parties detailing the outcome of this
issue.

Conclusion. Mr. Robbins will write letters to descendants of Mr.
Pectol and to Mr. Downer informing them of the Review Committee’s
decision on the definition of affected party.

Public Comment
Mr. Joe Big Medicine, Jr., Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, said he
represented the Southern Cheyenne and agreed with Mr. Hart’s comments
regarding the repatriation request by the SARC, as well as sentiments
expressed at the meeting that consultation is the heart of
repatriation.

Ms. Myra Giesen, Bureau of Reclamation, requested that the culturally
unidentifiable human remains database include fields identifying both
the possessing and controlling museum or Federal agency.

Mr. William Pedro, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, stated that the
main purpose of NAGPRA was to return ancestors back to rest, and he was
happy with the additional consultation requirements regarding the
repatriation request by the SARC.

Mr. Alonzo Sankey, Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, stated that he
and Mr. Pedro were the official NAGPRA representatives for their tribe
and would be reporting back to tribal members on the meeting. Mr.
Sankey agreed with Mr. Pedro regarding the additional consultation
requirements for the repatriation request by the SARC.

Mr. Joe Williams, Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe, described the success of
repatriating over 3,000 human remains. Mr. Williams apologized for any
tribes that were overlooked in the consultation process involving the
repatriation request by the SARC. Mr. Williams stated that they would
do what the Review Committee requested. Mr. Williams asked for the
support of the Review Committee in gaining protection for sacred sites
nationwide.

Meeting Adjournment

Mr. Bradley expressed appreciation for his tenure on the Review
Committee and the knowledge he has gained. Ms. Worl stated she was
pleased with the direction of the Review Committee and its progress.
Ms. Worl commended the National NAGPRA staff on the improved reporting
system. Ms. Metcalf commented on the excellent material preparation by
the National NAGPRA staff and encouraged continued progress on the
NAGPRA regulations. Ms. Metcalf described local efforts at knowledge
repatriation return of pictures, documents, and oral diaries and
recommended that other groups consider this source of information. Mr.
Hart expressed appreciation for the cooperative efforts of the parties
involved in the dispute, and attributed the good results in part to the
sacred pipe utilized in the invocation and daily prayer at the meeting.
Mr. Hart stated he had a good experience serving on the Review
Committee and thanked his colleagues on the Review Committee and the
National NAGPRA staff. Mr. O’Shea stated he was privileged to have
served on the Review Committee and participate in the NAGPRA process.
Mr. Minthorn summarized his experience on the Review Committee and
expressed his willingness to continue to serve the efforts of NAGPRA on
the Review Committee. Mr. Minthorn stressed the importance of public
participation in providing guidance to the Review Committee toward the
implementation of NAGPRA.

Mr. Robbins thanked the Review Committee members whose terms would
expire prior to the next meeting -- Mr. Bradley, Mr. Hart, Mr. Minthorn
and Mr. O’Shea -- for their service on the Review Committee.

The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. on Saturday, May 10, 2003.

Certified --

/s/ Mr. John Robbins, Date: August 7, 2003
Assistant Director, Cultural Resources
Manager, National NAGPRA
Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Review Committee

Approved on behalf of the Review Committee --

/s/ Mr. Armand Minthorn, Date: August 13, 2003
Chair, Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Review Committee