The second sentence of this section appears to preclude the Commission’s careful vetting of evidence for meeting the criteria for recognition.  It is highly unlikely that a petitioner will submit a petition that does not contain “explanations and supporting documentation that establishes a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts.”  It should be the Commission’s responsibility to independently verify the evidence submitted, including conducting its own research and providing for a public review process that would include public hearings whereby evidence to the contrary may be submitted to the Commission before they render their final decision.  Without a public process of some kind, how would anyone other than the petitioner, the Commission, and the traditional Native American council it assembles to advise it even know that a petition for state recognition has been submitted?  The Commission’s apparent acceptance of only what the petitioner gives the Commission as factual without seeking evidence to the contrary could lead to misinformed decisions that would border on outright negligence.

             We are also concerned about the make-up of the traditional Native American council mentioned in Section 185.04(B).  This section of the bill does not specify how the members of this council are to be selected by the Commission, who is eligible to serve on the council, what might be used as proof of Native American ancestry and how much is necessary, the length of their term, their compensation (if any), or how the council will operate.  Given the obvious importance of this council to the Commission’s duties with respect to state recognition, we feel that the make-up of the council and how it operates should be clarified in the bill.

            Additionally, we believe that like any other group petitioning the state for recognition as an “Indian Tribe” in Ohio, the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band should be required to demonstrate that they also meet the criteria for state recognition outlined in Section 185.05 of the bill, and should not be grandfathered into the bill under Section 185.021, notwithstanding Am. Sub. H.J. R. 8 of the 113^th General Assembly, which was only honorific in nature and not intended to be used for the purposes of this bill.

            We would also like clarification as to why, under Section 185.05(A), the year 1900 is used as the beginning date for which a petitioner must show that it has been “on a substantially continuing basis” identified as a Native American tribe in Ohio.  Why not 1950, 1850, or 1803 when Ohio became a state?  What is the basis for using 1900?  In Sections 185.05(B) and (C) the term “historical times” is used.  By “historical times” does the bill mean since 1900?  The last official government removal of Native Americans from Ohio was conducted in 1843 with the final removal of Wyandotte from the state.  Perhaps this date should be considered as the start of “historical times” or as the beginning date for petitioners to show that they have been identified as a “Native American tribe” in Ohio as opposed to 1900.  Whatever the justification is behind a date established as a reference point in this bill, that rationale should be clarified and validated with historical reasoning and references.

             Among other things that the Finance and Financial Institutions Committee should consider as this bill is discussed and debated among the Committee is the potential impact that State recognition of Indian Tribes can have in relation to Federal laws as specified in Section 185.03 of the bill.  Such recognition of Indian tribes by the state of Ohio could provide an avenue by which these tribes may make claims under various federal laws and executive orders including the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-608) and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-341) that could create additional financial and administrative burdens to the state.

While we believe the intent behind SB 149 is admirable, we feel there are many sections of this bill that need to be revised providing clarification of the matters we have brought to your attention before it is further considered or voted upon by the Committee.  The OAC remains committed to insuring that SB 149 is workable and will honor any request for additional information from the Committee that our organization can provide.

Sincerely,

Jarrod Burks, PhD

President