Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Recognition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to change appointments to state Commission on Native American Affairs draws wide, sometimes emotional testimony
Summary
House Bill 161 would change how members are appointed to the state Commission on Native American Affairs and add a request for a study of recognition. Proponents said the bill would ensure tribal nominees are appointed; opponents said it would cede state appointment authority, exclude existing New Hampshire residents and reduce oversight.
Sherry Gould and Representative Carol McGuire presented House Bill 161 to the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee as a statutory change focused on how members are appointed to the New Hampshire Commission on Native American Affairs and on asking the commission to study state recognition processes.
Why it matters
The bill would modify the commission’s membership process and specify that nominees must be enrolled tribal citizens who reside in New Hampshire and be nominated by chiefs of "state recognized Abenaki or federally recognized tribes in New England." Supporters said the change clarifies a confusing nomination process and would allow recognized tribal governments to nominate residents. Opponents said the draft would cede appointment authority to out‑of‑state tribal organizations, exclude many New Hampshire residents and remove administrative oversight currently provided by state agencies.
What witnesses said
Sherry Gould, a genealogist and former member and chair of the state commission, told the committee the bill is meant to tighten and clarify appointment language after years of contentious appointments. "I'm gonna try to keep my testimony to the scope of the bill, which is simply how we appoint, members to the Commission on Native Affairs," she said.
Several current and former commission members, including representatives of multiple Abenaki groups, urged rejection or revision. The full commission submitted a unanimous roll‑call vote requesting the committee find the bill inexpedient to legislate, citing concerns that the draft would remove the governor’s appointment authority and administrative attachment to the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources and other state bodies.
Opponents told the panel the proposal would effectively hand appointment control over to organizations outside New Hampshire, risk excluding established New Hampshire Native leaders and reduce the commission’s ability to work with state departments on issues such as the Indian Arts and Crafts federal statute, child‑welfare protections and cultural resource protections.
Supporters representing tribal governments that are recognized by the state of Vermont said their tribal members who live in New Hampshire need a guaranteed route to representation on the commission and that delays in the governor’s appointment process have left vacant seats.
Votes and next steps
Committee members said the bill raises complex legal questions about tribal recognition and state authority. Several members said they expect subcommittee work; the committee did not take a final vote at the hearing.
Ending
Witnesses asked the committee to engage IH law experts and state legal counsel to help draft language that preserves oversight, protects New Hampshire residents’ appointment access, and addresses recognition and enrollment questions.
