Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Funding Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate bill 303 asks for detailed reporting on federal funds routed to tribes through state programs; budget office warns timelines, definitions are unworkable
Summary
Senate Bill 303 would require state agencies to report how federal funds routed through the state reach tribes and what noncash or administrative assistance the state provides; tribal leaders back the idea, while the governor’s budget office warned the bill’s timeline and undefined terms are impractical.
Senator Jonathan Windiboy introduced Senate Bill 303 to require state agencies to report annually on federal funding the state passes through or uses to provide services to tribal governments and tribal members. Windiboy described the bill as a transparency and accountability measure to allow tribes and legislators to see how federal funds are distributed and what the state retains for administrative or indirect costs.
"When a million dollars comes down from the feds to the state ... 15% in one department stays here," Windiboy said, explaining he wants tribes and local officials to be able to compare federal receipts to state-reported services.
Supporters included tribal representatives and policy organizations. Patrick Yawaki (Blackfeet/Chippewa Cree) said the bill would "paint a better picture" of contribution flows and help identify where funding is lacking. Jay Bahr of the Montana Budget & Policy Center also urged support, calling the change a government-accountability step.
Amy Sassano, deputy budget director for the Office of Budget and Program Planning (OBPP), testified in opposition or with concerns. OBPP said it has no objection to transparency but raised three practical problems: an August 15 deadline is not workable because fiscal-year close procedures extend into July and agencies need time to validate numbers; the bill’s term "noncash assistance" is vague and would require manual, subjective determinations; and much of the requested material is already reported in the State-Tribal Relations Report compiled by the Director of Indian Affairs.
Sassano said sections of SB 303 — specifically the lines describing noncash assistance and other manual reporting items — would be difficult to assemble within the proposed deadlines and could duplicate existing reporting.
Committee members discussed possible solutions, including moving the reporting deadline to September 15 and narrowing or replacing "noncash assistance" with a clearer phrase such as "administrative costs" or the negotiated indirect cost rate. Windiboy signaled he would be amenable to adjusting the timeline and working on definitions to address OBPP’s concerns.
No committee vote occurred. The hearing produced competing priorities: tribal leaders and advocates seeking transparency in how federal money is used locally, and budget staff warning that the bill’s timeline and ambiguous categories would make production of the requested report impractical without further drafting.
Why it matters: The bill seeks to make visible the flow of federal funds that the state administers on behalf of tribes and the portion the state retains for administration or indirect costs, a matter of interest to tribal governments and legislators overseeing program effectiveness.
What’s next: Committee members suggested negotiating revised language on reporting timelines and definitions; sponsor indicated openness to amendments.
