"neither you nor I have even the vaguest idea what that was."

I realize that this listserv is not a court of law, but the question I ask is not difficult and it is the thrust behind King's point.  Perhaps you have mastered the skill of not talking with someone and then convincing yourself down the line that you actually did (usually when it's convenient), but I have not yet mastered that aspect of the properly blinkered eye.

Before presuming to lecture me, know this:  on this subject, I know what I am talking about.  I have the battle scars to prove it.

flm

On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:29 PM, "Branstner, Mark C" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dr. McGhee,
> 
> Your stated question is NOT a yes or no question -- there is nothing pro
> forma about it -- based on the response that you presumably just read from
> Ian.  Without knowing exactly what role Dr. Sebastian had in this process,
> there is no way to reply to your question. There is no reason to assume
> that she did or did not speak directly to various stakeholders, nor
> whether there was any reason for her to have spoken with them.  It is
> entirely dependent on what defined role she had in the process, and
> neither you nor I have even the vaguest idea what that was.
> 
> Please get off you soapbox and move on.
> 
> Mark
> ___________________________________
> 
> Mark C. Branstner, RPA
> Historical Archaeologist
> 
> Illinois State Archaeological Survey
> Prairie Research Institute
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
> 23 East Stadium Drive
> Champaign, IL 61820
> 
> Phone: 217.244.0892
> Fax: 217.244.7458
> Cell: 217.549.6990
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> "Mongo only pawn in game of life."  Mongo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/4/13 3:57 PM, "Fred McGhee" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> This response to the article and the blog is appreciated, but it seems to
>> me that it still skirts the main point of King's critique.
>> 
>> Did Dr. Sebastian actually speak with any American Indians before making
>> the professional recommendations that she did?  Stated more broadly, did
>> she take the time to talk with people who were not paying her money and
>> who might have a different point of view than her client(s)?  This is a
>> simple yes or no question.  If the answer is no, the next question is pro
>> forma:  why not?
>> 
>> There's no need to regurgitate discussion of how Section 106 and NAGPRA
>> are supposed to be about "balance."  Native Americans and African
>> Americans have heard that song and dance routine many times before.  The
>> scale is far from balanced.
>> 
>> flm
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 2:51 PM, ian Burrow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> This is information addressing the specifics of the matters raised by
>>> Dr Tom
>>> King and the Indian County Today article.  It was provided to me by
>>> Terry
>>> Klein of the SRI Foundation and is used with his permission.  I post it
>>> in
>>> order that readers can see both sides of the particular matters raised
>>> by
>>> those parties and judge for themselves.
>>> 
>>> "Dr. Lynne Sebastian cannot respond to the material on Dr. Tom King's
>>> blog
>>> because it is his rebuttal testimony in an alternative energy licensing
>>> case
>>> that is currently in the process of being heard before the California
>>> Energy
>>> Commission.  As an expert witness in this matter, it is inappropriate
>>> for
>>> Dr. Sebastian to discuss her testimony in the case before the hearings
>>> are
>>> completed and the Commission has made its decision.
>>> 
>>> As for the Indian Country Today article, it references two cases in
>>> which
>>> Dr. King and Dr. Sebastian served as expert witnesses for different
>>> parties.
>>> The first case, a proposed mine near Yuma, Arizona, was a federal
>>> undertaking; the second case, a proposed gravel quarry, was a county
>>> permitting hearing in Riverside County, California.  In both cases,
>>> government- to-government tribal consultation (for the federal
>>> undertaking)
>>> and opportunities for tribal input, testimony, and submission of written
>>> materials (the local government proceedings) had already taken place
>>> before
>>> Dr. Sebastian became involved.
>>> In both cases, Dr. Sebastian was asked to review the administrative
>>> record,
>>> including the information provided by the tribes, and offer opinions
>>> about
>>> procedural questions having to do with compliance with Section 106 of
>>> the
>>> National Historic Preservation Act in the federal case, and about
>>> National
>>> Register of Historic Places requirements in the local government case.
>>> In
>>> neither case did Dr. Sebastian offer opinions on the cultural value of
>>> sacred places or tribal history or religious beliefs.
>>> 
>>> Section 106 is about balancing preservation and development.  Many
>>> different
>>> parties have the right to participate in Section 106 consultations and
>>> to
>>> have their views heard and considered.  No one party should be allowed
>>> to
>>> prevent the views of another party from being heard and considered
>>> under the
>>> Section 106 process."
>>> 
>>> Ian Burrow