Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Consultation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tribes urge formal consultation standards as Montana revisits SB 379
Summary
Federal‑recognized tribal leaders and tribal liaisons told the State Tribal Relations Committee that meaningful consultation must be early, documented and resourced; panelists recommended written policies, agency tribal liaisons and clearer remedies as lawmakers consider building on MCA 2‑15‑142 and past SB 379 efforts.
Chair Tyson RunningWolf opened a hybrid meeting of the State Tribal Relations Committee on Feb. 22, where a panel of tribal leaders urged the Legislature to move beyond the guiding principles in Montana law toward enforceable processes for state–tribal consultation.
Casey Pallister, staff lead for the committee, framed the discussion by describing earlier research and the role Senate Bill 379 played in the prior session: the bill would have asked state agencies to adopt written consultation policies and identify tribal liaisons but passed the Senate only. Pallister said the committee convened the panel to bring more tribal voices into the research and planning process.
Speakers from several tribal nations said a statutory framework should mean early engagement, consistent points of contact and clear documentation of how tribal input was used. Delina Cuts the Rope, delegated by Fort Belknap’s tribal president, said meaningful consultation “is a good‑faith process that engages the Fort Belknap community early in the decision‑making process” and recommended a “tribal task order template” and follow‑up explaining why tribal input was or was not incorporated. Cher Old Elk, an attorney for Fort Belknap, urged minimum standards that include designated agency liaisons with defined authority, standardized tribal public notices and mechanisms for dispute resolution or remedies when agencies fail to consult.
Panelists offered examples of success and failure. Stephen Small of Northern Cheyenne said consultation has worked when it was “early, ongoing and government‑to‑government” and urged annual training and public reporting. Members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes described staff‑to‑staff relationships and model MOUs — such as tribal‑state agreements on transportation and hunting — as practical templates for predictable collaboration.
Committee members pressed staff and panelists on whether a single statutory definition of consultation would be workable across Montana’s eight tribes, how to trigger consultation for particular projects, and whether legislation should include penalties for noncompliance. Several panelists and the Oregon task‑force presenter, Patrick Flanagan, said tribes generally prefer adopting federal best‑practice definitions as a baseline but want flexibility to tailor processes through MOUs or agency‑level protocols.
Pallister said the committee will follow up with agencies and with tribes that could not attend, and the Oregon task force will report results as it finalizes a proposed definition and whether it seeks enforceability. The committee did not take formal action at the hearing; members directed staff to collect additional information and to invite the MMIP advisory council and relevant state agency staff for follow‑up sessions.
The committee is scheduled to hold travel meetings April 7–8 (Flathead Reservation and Browning) and June 17–18 (Rocky Boy and Fort Belknap) to gather further tribal input.
