Thom K. Cope, Esq. or representative capacity and within the scope of their valid authority. Id. See Burlington Northern R. R. Co. v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 924 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 505 U.S. 1212 (1992). Ms. Morgan served as the NAGPRA Specialist (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) for the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska at all relevant times. During this period, as part of her official duties and responsibilities, she unequivocally vested with authority to speak about the treatment of the remains of Ponca ancestors. Therefore, she is immune from suit under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity in the first instance. was By all accounts, particularly the Lincoln Journal Star article entitled "Poncas protest destructive bone tests," published two days before your November 21 letter to Ms. Morgan, it appears that Dr. Reinhard is running scared, and has sought to shift the focus from possible unlawful conduct on his part (as well as on the part of the University) to Ms. Morgan's constitutionally-protected speech. However, threatening to bring a groundless lawsuit against a former tribal official does nothing to resolve what apparently has become another acrimonious relationship involving a state agency and indigenous Nebraska Indian tribes and their officials. This is particularly so where at least one of the tribes has indicated it is considering suit against the University. If anything, your client's November 21 bogus demand only serves to exacerbate a tense situation. As counsel for the Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma against the Nebraska State Historical Society in past repatriation matters, including litigation, I can assure you that spurious tactics such as those employed in your November 21 letter can backfire and cause sensitive matters such as this to explode, to the detriment of all concerned. In closing, we expect you, on Dr. Reinhard's behalf, to send a letter to Ms. Morgan retracting the unfounded and false allegations that Ms. Morgan "made slanderous and libelous statements about Dr. Reinhard, " as published in your November 21, 1995 letter. We expect copies of this retraction to be sent to John Dendy (713 S. Buckeye, Abilene KS 67410), Steven Holen, Tom Meyer, Joe Dugan of the Lincoln Journal-Star, and Fred LeRoy, chairman of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (Lincoln Field Office, 3341 Pioneers Blvd. Ste. 5, Lincoln, NE 68506). This demand for correction and retraction is sent pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25840.01, as set forth above. If we don't receive a copy of such letter within 21 days, Ms. Morgan will reluctantly consider initiating further action concerning Dr. Reinhard, which could ultimately implicate the University of Nebraska. At a minimum, this includes advising the Ponca Tribes of Nebraska and Oklahoma of his unredressed, hollow Thom K. Cope, Esq. threat of suit and concomitant attempt to intimidate and coerce her into abandoning her constitutionally-protected right of free speech to express her opinion about how Dr. Reinhard (and the University of Nebraska) mistreated the remains of her Ponca ancestors-mistreatment which a University attorney has already concluded was "clearly illegal" under federal law. Sincerely, Robert M. Peregon Robert M. Peregoy Enc cc w/enc: Ms. Judi Morgan, Director Nebraska Indian Commission The Honorable Fred LeRoy, Chairman Mr. Chuck Hasserbrook, Member Board of Regents, University of Nebraska Dr. James Moeser, Chancellor University of Nebraska, Lincoln Dr. Pricella Grew Vice Chancellor for Research, UNL Dr. Brian Foster, Dean College of Letters and Science, UNL Dr. Ray Hames, Chairman Anthropology Department, UNL Dr. Thomas P. Myers Repatriation Director, UNL Mr. John Wiltse, Esq. Associate General Counsel, UNL Dr. Steve Holen, Research Archaeologist Ms. Melanie J. Whittamore-Mantzios, Esq. STATEMENT OF KATHERINE H. STEVENSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP AND PARTNERSHIPS, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES SENATE, REGARDING THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT. December 6, 1995 Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to discuss the status of implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA was enacted on November 16, 1990, to address the rights of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony with which they are affiliated. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for Principal among the Secretary's implementation of the statute. responsibilities are: o developing regulations implementing the statute; o administering a program of grants to assist museums, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations in complying with their responsibilities under the statute; and o creating a review committee of seven private citizens to advise on regulations and assist in other aspects of implementation of the statute. In the five years since NAGPRA's enactment, the National Park Service (NPS) has taken a variety of steps on behalf of the Secretary to implement the statute. The NPS has the appropriate governmentwide mandate for working with other Federal agencies on this issue as the NPS represents the Secretary in matters related to collections management and care of archeological collections and has staff expertise in curation generally. Also, NPS has worked very closely with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to preserve and protect cultural resources related to tribes throughout the country. My predecessor, Jerry Rogers, provided information at this committee's previous oversight hearing on May 27, 1993. I would like to update the committee on activities since that time. Regulations: On May 28, 1993, proposed regulations implementing the statute were published for public review and comment in the Federal Register. Copies of the proposed rule were sent to the chief executive officers of all Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages and corporations, Native Hawaiian organizations, national Indian organizations and advocacy groups, national scientific and museum organizations, and state and Federal agency historic preservation officers and chief archaeologists. Eightytwo written comments were received, representing 89 separate organizations and individuals. These included thirteen Indian tribes, ten Native American organizations, nine museums, seven universities, three national scientific and museum organizations, eleven state agencies, nineteen Federal agencies, nine other organizations, and eight individuals. Several letters represented more than one organization. Comments addressed nearly all sections and appendices of the proposed rule. Further All comments were fully considered when revising the proposed rule in the final rulemaking. A draft of the final rule was evaluated and revised in consultation with the review committee at its September, 1993, meeting in Washington. consultation with the review committee occurred at subsequent meetings in Phoenix and Rapid City in February and May, 1994. The draft final rule, with an extensive preamble evaluating all substantive comments, was submitted for Departmental review in September, 1994. The review of these regulations within the Department of the Interior has been extensive and intensive. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Surface Mining, as well as several sections of the Office of the Solicitor and the Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs, Land and Minerals Management, and Water and Science took part in these discussions. The regulations were approved by Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, George T. Frampton, Jr., on September 20, 1995, and the final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 1995. Grants: Funds to institute the grants program were first requested and appropriated in FY 1994. The program was continued in FY 1995 and is included in the Conference Report in the |