Native Americans: repatriation.
The impact of AB 1662 extends to the involvement and representation of Native American tribes in decisions regarding their cultural items and remains. By increasing the number of voting members from California tribes on the oversight committee, the bill promotes tribal representation in the repatriation process. This change is significant as it aligns with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 and supports the state's commitment to honoring Native American heritage and rights. It aims to facilitate better cooperation and communication between the University of California and the tribal communities regarding the management of cultural resources.
Assembly Bill No. 1662 focuses on the repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural items in California. It amends Section 8026 of the Health and Safety Code, which governs the handling and maintenance of such items by the University of California and other publicly funded agencies. The bill's primary aim is to ensure that the Regents of the University of California establish a systemwide Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Implementation and Oversight Committee (U.C. NAGPRA Committee) with an updated membership structure, reflecting a more inclusive representation of Native American tribes. Under the new provisions, the committee will now require three voting members from California tribes, an increase from the previous requirement of two.
The sentiment surrounding AB 1662 appears to be primarily positive, particularly among Native American advocacy groups and tribal representatives who view the bill as a step towards rectifying historical injustices regarding Native American cultural heritage. The support for greater tribal input in the decision-making processes related to repatriation is viewed as a meaningful acknowledgment of tribal sovereignty and rights. Conversely, there may be apprehensions from some academic institutions regarding the implications of increased oversight and potential restrictions on their ability to manage their collections effectively.
Notable points of contention regarding AB 1662 include the ongoing debate about the balance of authority between state entities and tribal sovereignty in matters of cultural heritage. Some institutions might perceive the changes as an increased burden, making it more complex to handle collections. There could be concerns regarding the adequacy of funding and resources to support the enhanced role of the U.C. NAGPRA Committee. Overall, the bill reflects a broader movement towards recognizing and upholding Native American rights and cultural revitalization.