AB 2665 Hearings

Tue Apr 18 06:17:11 UTC 2006

Hearings for AB 2665 The California American Indian Education  
Commission have been changed to next week 4/26/06.  See the Bill @:  
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/bills/AB_2665/
To submit information please contact:

California State Assembly Committee on Education
(916) 319-2087
1020 N Street Room 159
Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax # (916) 319-2187

The consultant to contact about AB 2665 is Misty Padilla:
misty.padilla at asm.ca.gov

To comment electronically go to: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/ 
acsframeset2text.htm
Type in Bill Number 2665 and it will walk you through the process.

Committee Members:

Jackie Goldberg, Chair
(916) 319-2045
Assemblymember.Goldberg at assembly.ca.gov

Mark Wyland, Vice Chair
(916) 319-2074
Assemblymember.Wyland at assembly.ca.gov

Juan Arambula
Dem-31
(916) 319-2031
Joe Coto
(916) 319-2023
assemblymember.coto at assembly.ca.gov

Loni Hancock
(916) 319-2014
Assemblymember.hancock at assembly.ca.gov

Bob Huff
Phone: (916) 319-2060
assemblymember.huff at assembly.ca.gov

Carol Liu
(916) 319-2044
assemblymember.liu at assembly.ca.gov

Gene Mullin
(916) 319-2019
Assemblymember.mullin at assembly.ca.gov

Fran Pavley
(916) 319-2041
Assemblymember.Pavley at assembly.ca.gov

Keith Richman
(916) 319-2038
Assemblymember.Richman at assembly.ca.gov

Tom Umberg
(916) 319-2069

My response:

Here is my own personal response to the Goldberg (California AB 2665)  
Indian Education Commission Bill.  The Bill can be found @: http:// 
www.aroundthecapitol.com/bills/AB_2665/

I encourage you to look at this Bill carefully.  All in all it is a  
good initial concept, but I think it is being submitted far too early  
and with out enough clarity to ensure adequate controls, community  
discussion or steady funding for long-term stability.

I am concerned how much power it puts into an independent agency.  I  
am not implying that Natives do not have the capability to administer  
programs in our own best interests; in fact I am a staunch supporter  
of Tribal Sovereignty.  This Bill puts Indian Education in California  
in the hands of 13 individuals with unknown personal and political  
agendas.

The way the Commission is proposed leaves several issues unanswered  
for me:

•	Why do we need the state to authorize and fund what is basically a  
Private Foundation or non-profit corporation to go out and seek  
funds?  What other Foundation is authorized and financed by the  
State?  If Natives in California need a foundation then they should  
form one (with a fair contribution coming from CNIGA).

•	Why should the California Department of Education (CDE) and other  
appropriate agencies not maintain administrative oversight of  
programs supported by the Tax Payer?

•	This Bill makes no clear provision for representing the Urban  
Native population. There are five representatives to the Commission  
appointed by Tribes and one each representing an accredited Tribal  
College (of which there are none now), CSU, UC, Community Colleges,  
CDE AIEC, BIA, and Title VII.  This could well serve to  
disenfranchise the majority of Natives who come from tribes outside  
of California. The Bill cites the statistic that California has the  
largest population of American Indians in the Nation, many of them  
are here as a result of reallocation policies of the Federal Government.

•	The Bill does not even mention the large number of non-federally  
recognized Natives in California.

•	If an “Advisory Council on Indian Education was established within  
the CDE for the purpose of providing educational recommendations, but  
is no longer functioning” why do we not just revive it?  That would  
be much simpler, less costly and wouldn’t even need an assembly bill.

•	The Bill states, “American Indian pupils deserve additional and  
appropriate support to meet the challenges of the No Child Left  
Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 6301 et seq.) in a manner  
consistent with tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.”  I  
agree, but it is the Feds that implemented and under funded NCLB.   
How is a California Commission going to impact this?  And what will  
be the purpose when NCLB is gone in a few years?

•	The bill enables the Commission to “Formalize the government-to- 
government relationship between the state and California's tribes and  
expand the relationships with any entities that serve American Indian  
pupils.”  I believe this should be left to the Tribal governments not  
a Commission.  This will be a detriment to true government-to- 
government relationships by putting in place an intermediary body  
between the Governor’s Office and the duly elected Tribal Council.   
13 Commissioners cannot, nor should not, try to represent the 109  
Federally recognized tribes in California.

•	One of the Commission members is “A representative of the  
department, whose background includes vocational and early childhood  
education and who is appointed by the Superintendent.”  Why just  
those specific areas?  Why not Higher Education, American Indian  
Education, Evaluation Design, Curriculum Development or any of the  
other fields that are also critical for Native student success.

•	The Bill mentions Public Hearings but has held none so far in  
regard to the creation of this Commission.  It has not been done in  
consultation with Tribes, or Native Organizations as far as I am  
aware.  What is the rush?  Take it to the people for input to make  
sure this is the best approach available.

•	The Bill discusses the importance of Tribal Languages, but has no  
specifics about approaches, funding sources or curriculum to support  
languages.  There are no linguists that are associated with advising  
the board.  As there are over 100 Native languages spoken in  
California this could be an issue that consumes many resources.

I agree with many of the tenets outlined within the Bill.  I just do  
not see how a Commission is the most efficient way of accomplishing  
that.  The Commission, as proposed, is too vaguely defined and given  
far too broad of authority to oversee what it sounds like can be just  
about anything they choose to define as being related to Indian  
Education.  We do not need another state boondoggle*, we need to  
effectively use the resources currently available and hold the state  
and federal government accountable to their treaty, trust and moral  
obligations to Native Americans.  The money that would be used in  
creating, staffing and operating this Commission could be best put  
into funding existing programs and services to make a more direct,  
immediate, impact on Native students.  Another bureaucratic and  
potentially overt political body is not the panacea for the  
educational issues in the Native Community.

I welcome your replies or comments.
André P. Cramblit
andre.p.cramblit.86 at alum.dartmouth.org

* From The Oxford English Dictionary:
boondoggle : noun
1)	work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the  
appearance of having value : writing off the cold fusion phenomenon  
as a boondoggle best buried in literature.
2)	a public project of questionable merit that typically involves  
political patronage and graft: they each drew $600,000 in the final  
months of the great boondoggle.
verb [ intrans. ]
waste money or time on such projects.
ORIGIN 1930s: of unknown origin.