Hi Anita, 
  Could you please unsubscribe me from this list. Thank you!

Sent from my iPod

On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:57 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