By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Civil Rights said it did not testify before a House panel on Thursday as it might hurt its efforts to claw back funds paid for a report on Native American boarding schools that it ultimately decided not to release.
The House Appropriations General Government Subcommittee invited the group that completed a $1.1 million study that was previously shelved by the Department of Civil Rights due to concerns of research methodology, according to reporting from The Detroit News.
Now, in written testimony to the subcommittee, the department said they are looking at pathways to receive recoupment of the funds spent to generate the report.
The Department of Civil Rights did not comment beyond their written testimony sent to the committee. It also declined the invitation to the committee due to the discussion possibly harming “the state’s ability to recoup some of the taxpayer funds through future litigation.”
Joann Kauffman, an author of the report, told the committee when her research was chosen in December 2023 as an exploratory study from the state, she was “amazed to see that any state would step forward to better understand the difficult topic of Indian boarding schools.”
She said the authors’ main priority was getting the study right, bringing in a team of 10 experts and including a tribal advisory group with representatives from 10 of the 12 federally recognized Michigan tribes.
With this, the study found the state had taken unique responsibility for one of the boarding schools from the federal government, as well as issues within the schools including language loss, abuse and family separation.
Kauffman said while they were concluding their research, the department changed their contract with the state while also putting new staff on the project, leading to new directives Kaufman said limited their role to create a responsible report. The changes, according to Kaufman, included deletion of county specific references, exclusion of testimony and reducing the analysis from 34 identified schools to five federal schools in Michigan.
“Removing or minimizing these voices not only compromises the methodological integrity of findings, but also violates the relational commitments made by participants who shared painful family histories in good faith,” Kaufman said. “Descendant voices are not incidental to this study, they are central to its purpose.”
The researchers documented these changes, many of which the researchers worried conflicted with tribal data sovereignty, in a letter to the Department of Attorney General and Executive Office. Kaufman said they never received a response and decided to restore all items inconsistent with their original contract, believing the report they put together in September 2024 was the most accurate version.
Kaufman said while the report is painful truth telling, they are “obligated to reflect the fullness of the historical record and the voices entrusted to bear witness to these historical events and generational impacts.” She urged the state to release the report in full.
One of the concerns of the report brought up was the creation of a promotional video for the report and the tribal advisory group.
Kaufman said they had secured signed consent for the videos, and when the individual who wanted to remove consent, they did so immediately.
The person who pulled their consent, Winnay Wemigwase, was in attendance at the committee. Her grandfather was a boarding school student, and she was a day student at the Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial Boarding School. She said she was angry when she first heard about the study because many times, researchers come in and reopen wounds just to leave.
She went to her tribal government center with the intention of being nosy and cavalier about the study but then ended up feeling comfortable enough with her tribal leaders and the researchers to be in a video interview. She said while the interview was almost two hours long full of sharing familial information and trauma, the only footage used was her talking about the sexual abuse suffered by her and her brother. She said she had no idea this would be used throughout the whole process of being part of the research.
Other issues with the report that Wemigwase brought to the attention of the Department of Civil Rights was that she felt it was sensationalized and that the report meandered in topics.
Wemigwase backed the department’s position to shelve the report to receive unredacted signed informed consent forms being withheld by the researchers to double-check if the participants are satisfied with how they are presented in the video.
Chesleigh Keene, vice president for Kauffman and Associates’ research and evaluation team, said they took the concerns at the consultation very seriously, extending the reconsenting process. Keense said the participants in the video are only the ones who verified their consent after consultation.
Kauffman said after this consultation meeting, communication with the staff at both departments dropped off and became less collaborative.
Keene also said there was not a lot of guidance on legal standards in the report from the Department of Attorney General including items for removal, leaving them to rely on their own protocols. She said they did not refuse or ignore any requests throughout the process.
Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Saginaw Township, said the conduct from the Department of Attorney General seems to be “terribly disruptive and out of out of the ordinary.”
Kim Bush, spokesperson for the Department of Attorney General’s office, said in a statement to Gongwer News Service that it is “shameful” that Chair Rep. Tom Kuhn, R-Troy, “weaponized his committee and exploited boarding school survivors in an attempt to smear this department.”
Bush said the only role in the report was to be legal counsel to the Department of Civil Rights, and in doing so, found “flagrant violations of privacy from the report’s authors.”
The department also turned down Kuhn’s invitation to the committee hearing.
The Department of Attorney General has also launched its own criminal investigation into what happened at Native American boarding schools. Bush said their investigation, “unlike the spectacle” in Thursday’s committee, they will “use our victim-centered, investigative approach to learn more.”
The written testimony argued adopting the draft reports would have risked further harm to impacted communities, a decision made after formal tribal consultation, and that the department was “as disappointed with this result as everyone else, but we remain committed to avoiding further harm” and share “the concern that taxpayer money was used on a study that did not result in an adoptable report and have contacted the Department of the Attorney General to assess legal options for recouping costs.”
The department said the draft failed to answer the Legislature’s questions, exceeding the scope of their expertise and did not focus on boarding schools in Michigan but instead treaty law, schools outside the state and federal policy.
The testimony also said they believed despite a small sample size, the authors tried to give the impression of an inflated sample size.
Gongwer News Service
The Department of Civil Rights said it did not testify before a House panel on Thursday as it might hurt its efforts to claw back funds paid for a report on Native American boarding schools that it ultimately decided not to release.
The House Appropriations General Government Subcommittee invited the group that completed a $1.1 million study that was previously shelved by the Department of Civil Rights due to concerns of research methodology, according to reporting from The Detroit News.
Now, in written testimony to the subcommittee, the department said they are looking at pathways to receive recoupment of the funds spent to generate the report.
The Department of Civil Rights did not comment beyond their written testimony sent to the committee. It also declined the invitation to the committee due to the discussion possibly harming “the state’s ability to recoup some of the taxpayer funds through future litigation.”
Joann Kauffman, an author of the report, told the committee when her research was chosen in December 2023 as an exploratory study from the state, she was “amazed to see that any state would step forward to better understand the difficult topic of Indian boarding schools.”
She said the authors’ main priority was getting the study right, bringing in a team of 10 experts and including a tribal advisory group with representatives from 10 of the 12 federally recognized Michigan tribes.
With this, the study found the state had taken unique responsibility for one of the boarding schools from the federal government, as well as issues within the schools including language loss, abuse and family separation.
Kauffman said while they were concluding their research, the department changed their contract with the state while also putting new staff on the project, leading to new directives Kaufman said limited their role to create a responsible report. The changes, according to Kaufman, included deletion of county specific references, exclusion of testimony and reducing the analysis from 34 identified schools to five federal schools in Michigan.
“Removing or minimizing these voices not only compromises the methodological integrity of findings, but also violates the relational commitments made by participants who shared painful family histories in good faith,” Kaufman said. “Descendant voices are not incidental to this study, they are central to its purpose.”
The researchers documented these changes, many of which the researchers worried conflicted with tribal data sovereignty, in a letter to the Department of Attorney General and Executive Office. Kaufman said they never received a response and decided to restore all items inconsistent with their original contract, believing the report they put together in September 2024 was the most accurate version.
Kaufman said while the report is painful truth telling, they are “obligated to reflect the fullness of the historical record and the voices entrusted to bear witness to these historical events and generational impacts.” She urged the state to release the report in full.
One of the concerns of the report brought up was the creation of a promotional video for the report and the tribal advisory group.
Kaufman said they had secured signed consent for the videos, and when the individual who wanted to remove consent, they did so immediately.
The person who pulled their consent, Winnay Wemigwase, was in attendance at the committee. Her grandfather was a boarding school student, and she was a day student at the Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial Boarding School. She said she was angry when she first heard about the study because many times, researchers come in and reopen wounds just to leave.
She went to her tribal government center with the intention of being nosy and cavalier about the study but then ended up feeling comfortable enough with her tribal leaders and the researchers to be in a video interview. She said while the interview was almost two hours long full of sharing familial information and trauma, the only footage used was her talking about the sexual abuse suffered by her and her brother. She said she had no idea this would be used throughout the whole process of being part of the research.
Other issues with the report that Wemigwase brought to the attention of the Department of Civil Rights was that she felt it was sensationalized and that the report meandered in topics.
Wemigwase backed the department’s position to shelve the report to receive unredacted signed informed consent forms being withheld by the researchers to double-check if the participants are satisfied with how they are presented in the video.
Chesleigh Keene, vice president for Kauffman and Associates’ research and evaluation team, said they took the concerns at the consultation very seriously, extending the reconsenting process. Keense said the participants in the video are only the ones who verified their consent after consultation.
Kauffman said after this consultation meeting, communication with the staff at both departments dropped off and became less collaborative.
Keene also said there was not a lot of guidance on legal standards in the report from the Department of Attorney General including items for removal, leaving them to rely on their own protocols. She said they did not refuse or ignore any requests throughout the process.
Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Saginaw Township, said the conduct from the Department of Attorney General seems to be “terribly disruptive and out of out of the ordinary.”
Kim Bush, spokesperson for the Department of Attorney General’s office, said in a statement to Gongwer News Service that it is “shameful” that Chair Rep. Tom Kuhn, R-Troy, “weaponized his committee and exploited boarding school survivors in an attempt to smear this department.”
Bush said the only role in the report was to be legal counsel to the Department of Civil Rights, and in doing so, found “flagrant violations of privacy from the report’s authors.”
The department also turned down Kuhn’s invitation to the committee hearing.
The Department of Attorney General has also launched its own criminal investigation into what happened at Native American boarding schools. Bush said their investigation, “unlike the spectacle” in Thursday’s committee, they will “use our victim-centered, investigative approach to learn more.”
The written testimony argued adopting the draft reports would have risked further harm to impacted communities, a decision made after formal tribal consultation, and that the department was “as disappointed with this result as everyone else, but we remain committed to avoiding further harm” and share “the concern that taxpayer money was used on a study that did not result in an adoptable report and have contacted the Department of the Attorney General to assess legal options for recouping costs.”
The department said the draft failed to answer the Legislature’s questions, exceeding the scope of their expertise and did not focus on boarding schools in Michigan but instead treaty law, schools outside the state and federal policy.
The testimony also said they believed despite a small sample size, the authors tried to give the impression of an inflated sample size.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
