The other day I posted a note from Curt Hoffman about supporting this bill, along with the full text of the bill. Since then, I received a message that the bill may not be quite right. Looks like we all should read the thing. Here is the new concern, from "Al"
***
Here's the link to Greg's email:
The Commonwealth is Back Big Time with New Proposed Legislation – Nayyag Preserve
He's saying that this is a re-introduction of a similar bill which it lay dormant since 2014 after public opposition and if I understand correctly his concerns are both whether the final bill will give the state full ownership and control of all sites and artifacts discovered in Massachusetts and to what extent indigenous folks will actually be involved in the process of crafting the bill this time. He writes the following which I find concerning given that the bill is already quietly working its way through the legislature:
"I spoke to John Brown, Chief Tribal Preservation Officer of the Narragansett, and he said he had not been made aware that the bill was reintroduced. No consultation. Mark Andrews of the Aquinnah Wampanoag – same thing."
Again, given his experience over the past year in leading the public opposition to the roundabout project in Northampton (which has for now succeeded in stopping the destruction of a rare Archaic habitation site although the artifacts recovered are still stored somewhere and have yet to be made accessible to the public, last I heard) I trust Greg has good reason to be drawing our attention to this. If you click the "subscribe" link at the top of his page you can sign up to receive updates as he learns more:
Summing up, I just wanted to be sure you're aware of the situation. I believe adding the link to Greg's letter to your post will be of interest to others and I'd be interested in reading any knowledgeable replies. Hopefully the more attention paid to the process will result in a bill acceptable to everyone.
1 comment :
Blogger pwax said...
I (finally) read the thing and it is pretty vague about important aspects of the committee membership and seems to take a pretty strong position on controlling archeology and geology resources.
I worry that the word "may" allows the committee to ignore input and the proposed cast of characters could be pretty toxic, without knowing who does the appointing.
In the end, there are several places this bill could be re-written. Specifically, the four tribal members should be appointed by the tribes. Also, it is clear that the rest of the committee could be stacked with people appointed by the destroyers of archeology.
The bill could use a "requirements" section describing its overall goals - public benefit, etc.
Post a Comment