Tribe, County struggle to agree on what “consultation” means
Tribal preservationist officers and county elected officials found out again at the second workshop held at the Inyo County Board of Supervisors on Tribal consultation that they have very different ideas on what the word “consultation” means.
Ironically, only two tribal representatives, one from Bishop and another from Lone Pine, attended Tuesday’s workshop. Apparently a number of conflicting meetings were taking place, which again brought up the concern expressed in the last workshop by the tribal communities about timeliness and consultation in planning, including scheduling workshops.
No one seems to have any issues with the definition of consultation in the draft document, which is straight out of the recent state law requiring the consultation with tribes. The sticking point is how consultation can be handled without running afoul of California’s Brown Act, which dictates how public business must be conducted. Tribal representatives are saying that they want direct consultation with the elected supervisors and spoke several times about how well they worked with the National Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. However, neither the tribes nor federal agencies are constrained by the Brown Act as is the Board of Supervisors.
Every public speaker representing the tribes at both Draft Tribal Consultation Workshops (September and again this week) complained about timeliness in receiving the documentation and notices. They also noted that they felt it ironic that the “consultation” was absent in the preparation of the BOS workshop and in the draft document prepared for the workshops by the County Planning Department. The county insists that it is only a framework for developing a board policy and an outline for discussion, and that nothing has been set in stone.
Planning Department Director Josh Hart presented the board with a presentation that under state laws Senate Bill 18 and the more recent Assembly Bill 52, there are to be intergovernmental consultation between the County and local tribes with respect to General Plans so that tribal historic, paleontological and archaeological features are protected. The Planning Department again presented the supervisors with a draft copy of a proposed “Policy & Protocol for Tribal Consultation,” which was essentially unchanged from last month’s workshop as the county had not received any comments from the tribes.
Raymond Andrews, the Bishop Paiute Tribal Historic Preservation Officer confounded 5th District County Supervisor and Board Chairman Matt Kingsley with the revelation that he still had not read the Draft proposal, claiming that not doing so was a matter of principle. Andrews told the board that before the document was even put together by the Planning Department, that the county and the tribes should have come up with the draft proposal together.
The main sticking point is that it appears the tribes want direct consultations with the five elected county supervisors. The Supervisors clearly seem to feel that this is exactly the purpose of holding public workshops. They were clear that they had no problem with conforming the Brown Act, but they are concerned on how they could meet the expectations presented to them by the tribes without running afoul of it {Brown Act].
At the September workshop the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe in Death Valley, Barbara Durham, told the board that there “was not enough notice to really read it” and she feel that “confidentiality” is a big problem. They found themselves trying to play catch up, noting that “the document is already done. It would have been good for you to involve the tribes from the beginning and have our input. Sometimes we have different terminology.”
Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone Reservation Tribe Trustee Loretta Howard expressed concerns about receiving documents from the county in a timely manner during last month’s workshop and about the concerns the tribes have over confidentiality. As she noted, “One of my tribal members expressed concern about some information where archeological sites were being put out there. We don’t want that information being sold in a book on Main Street.”
Another workshop has been tentatively scheduled for December 15.
