Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Native American Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances bill to create state Native American coordinating board, adopts amendment to include higher‑education representation
Summary
House Bill 141 establishes a state Native American coordinating board to integrate services across agencies and state government; members accepted a friendly amendment to include the State Board of Regents' appointment process and debated fiscal impacts and use of existing FTEs.
House Bill 141, introduced on Jan. 31, 1996, would establish a state Native American coordinating board intended to integrate the state's programs and relationships with tribal leadership amid federal downsizing of Indian programs. Representative Shirley V. Jensen (sponsor as recorded in the transcript) described the bill as creating a coordinating board that would bring together departmental staff to work jointly on Native American issues instead of operating in separate silos.
An amendment offered by Representative Johnson (pink sheet dated 01/31/1996 10:13 AM) would add the State Board of Regents' appointment process (via the Commissioner of Higher Education) to the board's membership. The sponsor characterized the amendment as "definitely a friendly amendment and an improvement," and members accepted it.
Floor questions focused on two recurring issues: 1) whether the Division of Indian Affairs is included (the sponsor pointed to statutory references and a section of the bill naming the division and its director), and 2) the fiscal impact of creating the coordinating board. Sponsor statements and committee chairs said participating departments had identified staff (FTEs) already in place who would serve on the board and that the committee did not initially file a fiscal note because departments intended to assign existing positions.
Supporters argued the board would allow coordinated responses to anticipated federal block grants and help prevent disputes from escalating into costly litigation in school districts and other agencies. Critics pressed for a fiscal note and cautioned against implicit government growth if new FTEs or budgets were later requested.
Procedural outcome: the transcript records the amendment being adopted by voice vote and later shows a recorded tally for a related bill entry in the same stretch of proceedings. The transcript records a voting line later in the session showing "72 yes votes and 1 no vote" for a bill read at that point; the transcript formatting makes cross‑reference to the bill number in that later line ambiguous, so the article reports amendment adoption and advancement and notes the transcript record of the later tally.
