Hundreds have been protesting since last fall the disbanding of a department that had overseen the repatriation of ancestral items under the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

The Hearst Museum houses more than 200,000 ancestral items - including more than 12,000 human remains - the second-largest Native collection in the nation. The conflict between tribes and the University reverberates across Indian country, where face-offs are constant between researchers and tribal members who want ancestral items returned.

Today, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 3191 of the State Capitol, the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization will hear testimony from a coalition of California tribal members and activists regarding the University’s refusal to consult with tribes prior to a summer reorganization that disbanded the NAGPRA department. Officials based their decision on a review made by two non-Native archeologists.

The Native coalition, representing 400,000 tribal members, said in a press release the reorganization ”essentially cedes control of the remains of over 12,000 Native individuals to scientists who conduct skeletal research that often violates tribal religious beliefs and frustrates Native Americans’ intense desire to bring ancestors home for a dignified reburial.”

Tribal leaders will also testify about preventative solutions to such problems in the future, including suggesting a formal consultation process between the UC system and tribal governments. For years Natives here have disputed the university’s claim that a majority of its Native collection cannot be directly linked to modern tribes.

The museum department at UC-Berkeley that had overseen NAGPRA responsibilities was unique to the University of California system, established in the late 1990s after concerns regarding UC-Berkeley’s compliance were addressed by the federal NAGPRA review committee.

Under NAGPRA, museums had to submit an inventory of their Native collections by 1996. The coalition says UC-Berkeley only identified 20 percent for repatriation, claiming all other items could not be directly linked to a modern tribe. Officials declined to provide a number.

After it failed to meet the deadline, UC-Berkeley was given until 2000 to comply. In November of 1999, the federal NAGPRA review committee expressed concern about difficulties Natives were having regarding UC-Berkeley’s lack of ”good faith consultation,” according to committee minutes.

Claims under NAGPRA are currently determined by the campus repatriation committee (which Natives here complain is dominated by research scientists), which in turn receives recommendations from the system-wide University of California Repatriation Committee.

UC-Berkeley now plans to follow the model of other universities by integrating NAGPRA responsibilities within museum operations, officials said. But members of the protest coalition have been requesting a complete reversal of the decision to disband the five-member NAGPRA department, three members of which were Native.

University officials have said the decision to eliminate the department was an in-house administrative decision, and the University is in compliance with federal law. But opponents argued tribes should have been consulted because they worked directly with the department.

UC-Berkeley Vice Chancellor of Research Beth Burnside and Associate Vice Chancellor of Research Robert Price will appear on behalf of Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who has declined to meet with the coalition. They are expected to testify regarding the reorganization.

Coalition members said they also hope to hear a response from Burnside regarding an email they mistakenly intercepted last year in which she wrote the University should “not go near the idea” that tribal representatives be on the review committee.

”That’s an absolute no,” she wrote.