text:
In his Presidential Proclamation last month honoring National Native American Heritage Month, President Obama recommitted – to supporting tribal self-determination, security and prosperity for all Native Americans. He recognized that – [w]hile we cannot erase the scourges or broken promises of our past, we will move ahead together in writing a new, brighter chapter in our joint history.
It is in this spirit that the United States today proudly lends its support to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration). In September 2007, at the United Nations, 143 countries voted in favor of the Declaration. The United States did not. Today, in response to the many calls from Native Americans throughout this country and in order to further U.S. policy on indigenous issues, President Obama announced that the United States has changed its position. The United States supports the Declaration, which – while not legally binding or a statement of current international law – has both moral and political force. It expresses both the aspirations of indigenous peoples around the world and those of States in seeking to improve their relations with indigenous peoples. Most importantly, it expresses aspirations of the United States, aspirations that this country seeks to achieve within the structure of the U.S. Constitution, laws, and international obligations, while also seeking, where appropriate, to improve our laws and policies.
U.S. support for the Declaration goes hand in hand with the U.S. commitment to address the consequences of a history in which, as President Obama recognized, – few have been more marginalized and ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans – our First Americans.‖ That commitment is reflected in the many policies and programs that are being implemented by U.S. agencies in response to concerns raised by Native Americans, including poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, health care gaps, violent crime, and discrimination.
The decision to review the U.S. position on the Declaration came in response to calls from many tribes, individual Native Americans, civil society, and others in the United States, who believed that U.S. support for the Declaration would make an important contribution to U.S. policy and practice with respect to Native American issues. The decision by the United States to support the Declaration was the result of a thorough review of the Declaration by the relevant federal agencies.
In conducting its review of the Declaration, U.S. agencies consulted extensively with tribal leaders during three rounds of consultations, one in Rapid City, South Dakota, and two in Washington, D.C. In addition, the agencies conducted outreach to indigenous organizations, civil society, and other interested individuals. Tribal leaders and others contributed to the review through their attendance at the consultation and outreach sessions, participation in those sessions by means of conference calls, and written submissions. In total, over 3,000 written comments were received and reviewed.
Tribes, groups, and individuals who participated in the review of the U.S. position on the Declaration presented a wide range of views on the meaning and importance of the Declaration. While they could not all be directly reflected in the U.S. position on the Declaration, they were all considered in the process.
The United States is home to over two million Native Americans, 565 federally recognized Indian tribes, and other indigenous communities. U.S. support for the Declaration reflects the U.S. commitment to work with those tribes, individuals, and communities to address the many challenges they face. The United States aspires to improve relations with indigenous peoples by looking to the principles embodied in the Declaration in its dealings with federally recognized tribes, while also working, as appropriate, with all indigenous individuals and communities in the United States.
Moreover, the United States is committed to serving as a model in the international community in promoting and protecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples as well as the human rights of all individuals. The United States underlines its support for the Declaration’s recognition in the preamble that indigenous individuals are entitled without discrimination to all human rights recognized in international law, and that indigenous peoples possess certain additional, collective rights. The United States reads all of the provisions of the Declaration in light of this understanding of human rights and collective rights.
U.S. agencies are currently engaged in numerous initiatives to address the concerns raised by Native American leaders and issues addressed in the Declaration. Many involve the continuation of activities highlighted in the White House Tribal Nations Conference Progress Report released in June 2010. Additional efforts to strengthen the government-to-government relationship, protect lands and the environment and provide redress, address health care gaps, promote sustainable economic development, and protect Native American cultures are addressed below.
As President Obama noted: – Washington can’t – and shouldn’t – dictate a policy agenda for Indian Country. Tribal nations do better when they make their own decisions. The record over the forty years since the United States adopted its policy of greater tribal autonomy is clear – tribal self-determination has enabled tribal governments to establish, develop, and enhance tribal institutions and infrastructure ranging from those addressing the health, education, and welfare of their communities to those such as tribal courts, fire protection, and law enforcement. The clear lesson is that empowering tribes to deal with the challenges they face and that taking advantage of the available opportunities will result in tribal communities that thrive.
The United States is therefore pleased to support the Declaration’s call to promote the development of a new and distinct international concept of self-determination specific to indigenous peoples. The Declaration’s call is to promote the development of a concept of self-determination for indigenous peoples that is different from the existing right of self-determination in international law. The purpose of the Declaration was not to change or define the existing right of self-determination under international law. Further, as explained in Article 46, the Declaration does not imply any right to take any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States. For the United States, the Declaration’s concept of self-determination is consistent with the United States’ existing recognition of, and relationship with, federally recognized tribes as political entities that have inherent sovereign powers of self-governance. This recognition is the basis for the special legal and political relationship, including the government-to-government relationship, established between the United States and federally recognized tribes, pursuant to which the United States supports, protects, and promotes tribal governmental authority over a broad range of internal and territorial affairs, including membership, culture, language, religion, education, information, social welfare, community and public safety, family relations, economic activities, lands and resource management, environment and entry by non-members, as well as ways and means for financing these autonomous governmental functions.
Federal agencies are engaged in a wide range of activities to enhance tribal self-determination in areas crucial to the well-being of tribal members.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), for example, is deeply committed to strengthening tribal police and judicial systems. Accordingly, the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request provides $321 million to DOJ for tribal public safety initiatives, an increase of 42% over FY 2010. This includes $255.6 million for grants to Indian tribes for tribal law enforcement efforts. The FY 2011 Budget Request also sustains FY 2010 appropriations increases of over 21% for Bureau of Indian Affairs-funded public safety and law enforcement efforts and includes an additional $19 million to support 81 new FBI positions (45 agents) to investigate violent crimes in Indian Country. These increases build on over $250 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act) funds made available to tribes in FY 2009 to address criminal justice needs.
In addition, on July 29, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA). This comprehensive bill is aimed at improving public safety on tribal lands. The statute gives tribes greater authority to prosecute crimes and increases federal accountability for public safety in tribal communities. In conformity with the TLOA, the Attorney General established the Office of Tribal Justice as a separate component within the organizational structure of the Department of Justice. The Office has played, and will continue to play, a key role in DOJ’s ongoing initiative to improve public safety in Indian Country, and it serves as the primary channel for tribes to communicate their concerns to the Department, helps coordinate policy on Indian affairs both within DOJ and with other federal agencies, and seeks to ensure that DOJ and its components work with tribes on a government-to-government basis. The Departments of the Interior, Justice, and Health and Human Services are engaged in an unprecedented effort to consult with tribes to develop policy and implement this new law.
In response to tribal input, DOJ has also streamlined its grant-making process. The Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS) combines ten different grant programs into a single solicitation. In September 2010, hundreds of American Indian and Alaska Native communities received the first grants under CTAS – almost $127 million to enhance law enforcement, bolster justice systems, prevent youth substance abuse, serve sexual assault and elder abuse victims, and support other tribal efforts to combat crime.
During consultation sessions conducted by the Department of Education with over 350 tribal leaders in 2010, those leaders stressed the importance of greater tribal control over the education of Indian students. The Administration agrees. Therefore, the Department of Education has proposed changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to enhance the role of tribes in Indian education and allow greater flexibility in the use of federal education funds to meet the unique needs of Native American students.
Sixteen different tribes, from Maine to Alaska, participated this summer in the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs Water Training Program. The Training Program is taught by instructors from several Department of the Interior bureaus. The program strengthens tribal governments and prepares them to manage their own natural resources with qualified tribal government employees who have the necessary expertise to help alleviate the shortage of technical expertise on Indian reservations.
Other agency programs that enhance tribal self-determination are discussed in subsequent sections.
In addition to enhancing the self-determination of federally recognized tribes, the Obama Administration has supported the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which provides a process for forming a Native Hawaiian governing entity that would be recognized by, and have a government-to-government relationship with, the United States. Congress has also enacted many more narrowly focused statutes for Native Hawaiians similar to those for other native people, such as the National Historic Preservation Act, which provides protections to properties with religious and cultural importance to Native American Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians; the Native Hawaiian Education Act, which establishes programs to facilitate the education of Native Hawaiians; the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, which provides housing assistance in the form of grants and loans; and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which protects Native American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian gravesites.
U.S. Government efforts to strengthen the government-to-government relationship with tribes cannot be limited to enhancing tribal self-determination. It is also crucial that U.S. agencies have the necessary input from tribal leaders before those agencies themselves take actions that have a significant impact on the tribes. It is for this reason that President Obama signed the Presidential Memorandum on the implementation of Executive Order 13175, – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and directed all federal agencies to develop detailed plans of action to implement the Executive Order. In this regard, the United States recognizes the significance of the Declaration’s provisions on free, prior and informed consent, which the United States understands to call for a process of meaningful consultation with tribal leaders, but not necessarily the agreement of those leaders, before the actions addressed in those consultations are taken.
The United States intends to continue to consult and cooperate in good faith with federally recognized tribes and, as applicable, Native Hawaiians, on policies that directly and substantially affect them and to improve our cooperation and consultation processes, in accordance with federal law and President Obama’s call for better implementation of Executive Order 13175. The United States does so with the firm policy objective, where possible, of obtaining the agreement of those tribes consistent with our democratic system and laws. At the same time, the United States intends to improve our engagement with other indigenous individuals and groups. The United States will also continue to implement the many U.S. laws that require the agreement of federally recognized tribes or indigenous groups before certain actions can be taken or that require redress for takings of property.
U.S. Government efforts in this area are numerous. Federal agencies have submitted the consultation plans required by the Presidential Memorandum and are currently implementing them. A number of agencies have created new offices to ensure proper implementation of their consultation policies. Examples are the Office of Tribal Government Relations in the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will be established in 2011, and the Office of Tribal Relations in the Department of Agriculture. Other agencies, like the Department of Energy, found it appropriate to establish a Tribal Steering Committee to analyze the agencies’ consultation practices. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services established a Secretary-level Tribal Advisory Committee to create a coordinated, department-wide strategy to improve consultations with Indian tribes. In addition, some agencies have experimented with – webinars‖ and other online technology to permit tribal leaders to participate in consultations without incurring the costs and time commitments of in-person sessions. These innovations show the seriousness with which federal agencies are taking consultations.
In addition, the Administration is continuing its multi-agency collaborations with tribal governments to develop comprehensive policy for Indian Country. Several agencies are working together on policy priorities and are coordinating on consultation sessions. For example, the Departments of the Interior and Education have been working closely to combine and coordinate their resources, and to maximize their efforts to impact Indian education. As part of the United States review of its position on the Declaration, fourteen federal agencies participated in tribal consultations, which included sessions held in Indian Country and at the State Department.
Federal agencies have put their consultation plans to work over the past year in a wide variety of contexts, and the valuable input received from tribal leaders is reflected throughout U.S. policies and programs in Indian Country.
The United States recognizes that some of the most grievous acts committed by the United States and many other States against indigenous peoples were with regard to their lands, territories, and natural resources. For this reason, the United States has taken many steps to ensure the protection of Native American lands and natural resources, and to provide redress where appropriate. It is also for this reason that the United States stresses the importance of the lands, territories, resources and redress provisions of the Declaration in calling on all States to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories, and natural resources. Consistent with its understanding of the intention of the States that negotiated and adopted the Declaration, the United States understands these provisions to call for the existence of national laws and mechanisms for the full legal recognition of the lands, territories, and natural resources indigenous peoples currently possess by reason of traditional ownership, occupation, or use as well as those that they have otherwise acquired. The Declaration further calls upon States to recognize, as appropriate, additional interests of indigenous peoples in traditional lands, territories, and natural resources. Consistent with that understanding, the United States intends to continue to work so that the laws and mechanisms it has put in place to recognize existing, and accommodate the acquisition of additional, land, territory, and natural resource rights under U.S. law function properly and to facilitate, as appropriate, access by indigenous peoples to the traditional lands, territories and natural resources in which they have an interest.
U.S. agency initiatives in this area are numerous.
Perhaps most significantly, the Obama Administration has acquired over 34,000 acres of land in trust on behalf of Indian tribes, which is a 225 percent increase since 2006. Lands held in trust for tribes are used for housing, economic development, government services, cultural and natural resource protection, and other critical purposes. Recovering and protecting the tribes’ land base is a hallmark objective of this Administration. After the recent Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, Congress introduced, and the Administration has fully supported, legislation to reaffirm the authority of the United States to take land into trust on behalf of all federally recognized Indian tribes.
In addition, the United States intervened in a federal suit, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan and United States v. Granholm, and worked to facilitate a settlement that recognizes the tribe’s entire reservation to be Indian Country, resolving over a century of disputes over the boundaries and existence of the reservation. The court approved that settlement on November 23, 2010. This settlement, which involves the tribe, the United States, the State of Michigan, and local governments, will promote greater intergovernmental cooperation and provide the clarity necessary for effective law enforcement and civil regulation on the reservation. The United States has also sought to protect tribal lands, and tribal jurisdiction over those lands, in several other court cases, including the City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, Cayuga Nation v. Gould, and Water Wheel v. LaRance.
Other agency initiatives include the release by the Forest Service of $37.3 million in Recovery Act funds directly to tribes for wild land fire management and the improvement of habitat and watersheds. Of the total Forest Service funding received under the Recovery Act, $213 million was provided to benefit tribes and tribal lands.
The Obama Administration has also made extensive efforts to resolve longstanding Native American legal claims against the United States and private entities related to lands, natural resources, and other issues.
In 2009, the United States reached an agreement for over $1.79 billion to address contamination at over 80 sites in 19 states pursuant to resolution of the American Smelting and Refining Company, LLC (ASARCO) bankruptcy. The settlement includes approximately $194 million for the recovery of wildlife, habitat, and other natural resources managed by the federal, state, and tribal governments at more than a dozen sites. The settlement is part of the largest environmental damage bankruptcy case in U.S. history, and resolves ASARCO’s environmental liabilities from mining and smelting operations that contaminated land, water, and wildlife resources on federal, state, tribal, and private land.
In late October 2010, the Administration reached a $760 million settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers, in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, a case alleging discrimination by the Department of Agriculture in loan programs. Under the agreement, the Department of Agriculture will pay $680 million in damages and forgive $80 million of outstanding farm loan debt. The federal government also agreed to create a 15-member Native American Farmer and Rancher Council to advise the Department, appoint a Department ombudsman, provide more technical assistance to Native American borrowers, and conduct a systematic review of farm loan program rules.
On December 9, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Claims Resolution Act, which includes the Cobell v. Salazar settlement agreement. In 1996, Elouise Cobell charged the Department of the Interior with failing to account for billions of dollars that it was supposed to collect on behalf of more than 300,000 individual Native Americans. After fourteen years of litigation, enactment of the Claims Resolution Act finally closes an unfortunate chapter in our history. The Act creates a fund of $1.5 billion dollars to address historic accounting and trust management issues, and it also allocates up to $1.9 billion dollars to convert some of the most highly fractionated individual Indian lands into land that can be managed for the broader benefit of the respective tribe. As part of the $1.9 billion, a trust fund of up to $60 million dollars is being created for a scholarship fund for Native Americans.
In addition, this law includes an unprecedented package of four water settlements benefitting seven tribes in Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico. This law finally gives the Crow, White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Pueblos of Taos, Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque, and San Ildefonso permanent access to secure water supplies year round.
As noted by Secretary of the Interior Salazar, – Congress’ approval of the Cobell settlement and the four Indian water rights settlements is nothing short of historic for Indian nations. He explained that the settlements – represent a major step forward in President Obama’s agenda to empower tribal governments, fulfill our trust responsibilities to tribal members and help tribal leaders build safer, stronger, healthier and more prosperous communities. They demonstrate not only that the United States has a well-developed court system that provides a means of redress for many wrongs suffered by U.S. citizens, residents and others – including federally recognized tribes and indigenous individuals and groups -- but also that redress is available from the U.S. Congress under appropriate circumstances. The United States will interpret the redress provisions of the Declaration to be consistent with the existing system for legal redress in the United States, while working to ensure that appropriate redress is in fact provided under U.S. law.
The Administration is likewise committed to protecting the environment, and recognizes that many indigenous peoples depend upon a healthy environment for subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering. The Administration therefore acknowledges the importance of the provisions of the Declaration that address environmental issues. While there is far more that needs to be done, the United States is taking many steps to address environmental challenges in Indian Country and beyond.
In July 2010, President Obama signed Executive Order 13547, Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great Lakes, drafted with substantial input from tribes, which established a Governance Coordination Committee with three tribal representatives, as well as tribal engagement in developing priority action areas. Of special interest are the priority areas of the Arctic and developing coastal and marine spatial plans.
In 2010, the Department of the Interior (DOI) provided grants worth more than $7 million through the Tribal Wildlife Grants Program for 42 Native American tribes to fund a wide range of conservation projects in sixteen states. The Tribal Wildlife Grants program has provided more than $50 million in the past eight years for 400 conservation projects administered by 162 federally-recognized tribes. The grants provide technical and financial assistance for the development and implementation of projects that benefit fish and wildlife resources and their habitat, including non-game species.
DOI has also engaged in numerous cooperative resource protection efforts with tribes, including a water quality and biologic condition assessments agreement with the Sac and Fox on the Iowa River, restoration of the Klamath River though possible dam removal and in partnership with the Klamath River Basin tribes, and assistance to the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to assess the impact of land use and climate change on wetlands.
Over the past year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded targeted grants to tribes for specific preventative tasks to address environmental degradation, including $150,000 to the Eight Northern Indian Pueblo Council to establish a Brownfields Tribal Response Program that will promote environmental health for several Pueblos and tribes in New Mexico and West Texas. Two additional grants were made for projects run by tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as a part of President Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a $475 million program that represents the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades. The grants are to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to develop a sustainable hazardous waste collection program to serve tribal and non-tribal community members, and help prevent toxic contaminants from entering Lake Superior, and to the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa to improve habitat and water quality in the Bear River Watershed, which directly affects waters flowing into Little Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan.
The Department of Agriculture also invested $84.8 million dollars in water and environmental projects benefitting tribal communities in the lower 48 U.S. states during FY 2010 and an additional $66.2 million dollars for similar projects benefitting tribal communities in Alaska through the Rural Alaska Village Grants program. A further $120.8 million was invested in essential community facilities benefitting tribal communities.
The Department of Energy (DOE) provides grants to many Indian communities to allow them to develop renewable energy resources and energy efficiency measures in their communities in ways that benefit not only those communities, but the whole planet, while serving as models for other U.S. communities. With DOE assistance, tribes are developing a wide-range of renewable energy resources and conservation measures, including geothermal, solar energy, wind and biomass technologies and comprehensive recycling programs. These programs reduce the carbon footprint of tribal communities, while creating jobs and reducing costs.
DOE has also worked closely with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to clean up contamination from Cold War storage of hazardous waste at the Idaho National Laboratory, the tribes’ ancestral home. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have the technical capabilities and qualifications, funded by a DOE-Idaho Cooperative Agreement, to assist the Department and the regulators in reviewing the effectiveness of the cleanup work and assuring that the environment, and particularly the Snake River Plain Aquifer, are not contaminated or threatened.
The Fisheries and the Northwest Protected Resources Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also consults formally and informally with the Northwest treaty tribes when considering the designation of critical habitat for endangered species, including salmon, to ensure the agency is informed of relevant tribal science and any potential impacts to the tribe that may arise from a designation of tribal lands as critical habitat. Documented information from these consultations with NOAA has ensured the protection of listed species and minimized any impact to tribal trust resources. Additionally, NOAA Fisheries and NOAA General Counsel for the Northwest consult with four tribes with ocean treaty fishing rights for groundfish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council process. An example of the success of this practice is that, in 2010, NOAA Fisheries adopted a tribal whiting allocation that was agreed to by all affected tribes and the State of Washington.
The Obama Administration understands the priority tribal leaders place on improving the delivery of health care services in their communities, as well as the significance of related provisions in the Declaration. The Administration has responded, as evidenced by the 13% increase in funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS) in FY 2010 and the 9% additional increase for IHS proposed in the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request. These increases are on top of $500 million provided to the IHS under the Recovery Act.
After President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in March, making permanent the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, IHS initiated consultations with tribal leaders to implement the Act and determine their priorities. Tribes identified long-term care, behavior health, and diabetes/dialysis as their primary concerns. IHS held a meeting on Long Term Care in Indian Country on November 1-2, 2010 to begin the conversation about implementation priorities with tribes. IHS is also continuing the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, a Congressionally-approved grant program now in its thirteenth year, which has resulted in increased control of diabetes in indigenous communities and decreasing rates of end stage renal disease. Related demonstration projects have also shown significant promise.
Tribes also stressed the need to improve the collaboration and coordination of services for veterans eligible for both the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and IHS services. The IHS Director met with VA Secretary Shinseki in May 2010, and they agreed to update the 2003 VA-IHS MOU governing their agencies’ cooperation. The updated MOU was signed in October 2010 and a letter to tribal leaders initiating a consultation on the implementation of the MOU was released in November 2010.
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of the Interior are working together to combat the problem of suicide in Indian Country. The two Departments launched a series of listening sessions between November 2010 and February 2011 to obtain the input of tribal leaders on how the agencies can effectively work within their communities to prevent suicide. The information gathered will inform a major Suicide Prevention Summit to be held in Spring 2011.
The Obama Administration has also taken numerous steps, consistent with the Declaration, to promote the economic wellbeing of indigenous peoples in the United States.
A priority for the Administration has been to combat unemployment in Indian Country as evidenced by the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request, which includes $55 million, representing a 4% increase over FY 2010 funding, for the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration’s Indian and Native American Program, which grants funding to tribes and Native American non-profits to provide employment and training services to unemployed and low-income Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Additionally, the Recovery Act allocated over $17 million for the Native American Supplemental Youth Service Program to support summer employment and training opportunities for disconnected youths.
In addition, this summer, the Department of Labor awarded approximately $53 million to 178 grantees to provide quality employment and training services specifically for Native American adults who are unemployed, underemployed and low-income individuals. It awarded an additional $13.8 million in grants to 78 tribes, tribal consortiums, and tribal non-profit organizations to offer summer employment and training activities for American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian youth between the ages of 14 and 21, residing on or near Indian reservations or Alaska Native villages. The youth program targets high school dropouts and youth in need of basic skills training and provides an array of employment and training services, including job placement assistance, work experience, and occupational skills training. In addition, the Recovery Act included $17.8 million in grant funding for Native American youth activities, including summer employment and training opportunities.
The Department of Labor has also been working to address the needs of Native Americans with disabilities. It has collaborated with tribal colleges and universities through the Workforce Recruitment Program to provide internship opportunities for students with federal employers. The Department, tribal colleges and universities, and the National Indian Health Board have worked together to develop a training curriculum for tribal members with disabilities that will provide the opportunity for them to become Community Health Aides. In addition, Add Us In, a new initiative sponsored by the Department, is designed to identify and develop strategies to increase employment opportunities within the small business community for individuals with disabilities. This initiative includes targeted Native American owned and operated small businesses.
In addition, the Treasury Department has a program to strengthen the economic health of Native American communities generally. The Native American Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Assistance Program, or NACA Program, now includes 57 certified Native CDFIs. CDFIs are non-government financial entities whose primary mission is to promote community development, principally by serving and being accountable to a low-income community, and by providing development services. Native participation in NACA increased significantly in 2009 and 2010, and on April 30, 2010, the CDFI Fund announced awards totaling $10.3 million to be used for small business/venture capital, affordable housing, and consumer loans.
Tribal leaders regularly identify the lack of adequate housing as a major impediment to economic development in their communities. To assist with addressing housing needs, the Recovery Act allocated $510 million to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Native American Housing Block Grant program for new housing construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and infrastructure development. By December 1, 2010, tribal recipients had already expended almost two-thirds of those funds for new construction, rehabilitations, energy-efficient improvements, and infrastructure development in Indian Country.
In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has a number of other housing initiatives.
On October 12, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Indian Veterans Housing Opportunity Act. The Act amends the definition of – income for HUD’s Indian Housing Block Grant program so that the determination of a family’s income excludes amounts received from the Department of Veterans Affairs for a service-related disability, dependency, or indemnity compensation. The new law will benefit disabled Native American veterans and their families who might otherwise be ineligible for low-income housing assistance under HUD’s program.
In 2011 and 2012, HUD will conduct a comprehensive, national Native American Housing Needs Assessment Study. Before field research begins, the Office of Native American Programs is sponsoring a series of seven regional outreach meetings with tribal housing stakeholders, including tribal leaders; federal agencies; and private sector, non-profit, and state entities to discuss the upcoming study and to lay the groundwork for maximum participation. These outreach meetings will provide a forum for discussing the community and economic impact housing has on tribal communities as well as identifying the needs for creating sustainable reservation communities and economies. These meetings will continue the ongoing dialogue between HUD and tribal leaders in Indian Country.
The Administration is also committed to supporting Native Americans’ success in K-12 and higher education. The Recovery Act invested $170.5 million in Indian education at the Department of Education and $277 million in Indian school construction at the Department of the Interior. The President’s FY 2011 Budget Request provides $31.7 million in funding for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Department of Education, a 5% increase over FY 2010. The Budget Request includes $127 million for postsecondary education for Native Americans under the Department of the Interior.
The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act increases the maximum Pell Grant award by the Consumer Price Index, which is estimated to raise the award from $5,550 to $5,975, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In addition, the law provides $300 million for Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, $50 million for Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions, and $150 million for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions over the next ten years. These investments will be made in order to renew, reform, and expand programming so that students at these institutions are given every chance to reach their full potentials. These efforts respond to the concerns of Native American leaders as well as priorities identified in the Declaration.
In addition, President Obama appointed members to the Department of Education’s National Advisory Council on Indian Education (Council), as authorized by the ESEA, who met for the first time on November 3, 2010. The current Council consists of fourteen members who are Native Americans. The Council is required to advise the Secretary of Education concerning the funding and administration of Department programs that include or may benefit American Indians and Alaska Natives, make recommendations to the Secretary of Education for filling the position of Director of Indian Education, and submit a report to Congress on any recommendations that the Council considers appropriate for the improvement of federal education programs that include or may benefit Native Americans.
The Department of Education is also working to combat discrimination against Native Americans in education. In March 2011, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights will provide technical assistance on civil rights issues that affect Native American communities in California, with particular focus on national origin and race discrimination, harassment, and bullying, to an audience of parents, activists, tribal leaders, teachers, and school leaders. Together with the Department of Health and Human Services, it will also provide in Fall 2011 technical assistance to parents and students, as well as social outreach service providers for the Native American communities, on civil rights issues that affect Native American communities in Minnesota and North Dakota.
The Administration is also working with tribal leaders to bring their communities into the 21st Century by equipping them with high speed access to the Internet. Both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce have programs to do so.
The Department of Agriculture recently awarded $32 million to bring high speed, affordable broadband to the Navajo Nation. The Department of Agriculture also received Recovery Act funds to expand broadband access. It provided grants and loans totaling over $158 million to expand broadband access in tribal communities through the Broadband Initiatives Program. This included ten infrastructure investments directly to tribes and tribally-owned businesses and eleven technical assistance awards to tribes to assist with regional broadband plans to promote economic development.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce awarded almost 30 percent of the $4.7 billion that the Department received from the Recovery Act to Indian tribes and recipients that indicated that their projects will benefit tribal areas. This funding will be used to increase access to broadband services in underserved areas of the country.
Similarly, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development office made $216.3 million in Recovery Act investments benefiting American Indian and Alaska Native populations, including $36.3 million for community water and wastewater infrastructure, $97.5 million for community facilities, and $81.1 million for single family housing (691 home loans). In addition, the Recovery Act allocated $310 million to the Department of Transportation for the Indian Reservation Roads Program and over $142 million to the Department of the Interior for roads maintenance.
As President Obama has recognized, the indigenous peoples of North America have – invaluable cultural knowledge and rich traditions, which continue to thrive in Native American communities across our country. The many facets of Native American cultures – including their religions, languages, traditions and arts – need to be protected, as reflected in multiple provisions of the Declaration.
Because of the breadth and depth of Native American cultures, they affect and are affected by the activities of many U.S. agencies. Some of those agencies’ efforts are noted in this section.
In July, President Obama signed into law the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act to strengthen the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which makes it illegal to sell, offer, or display for sale any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian-produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian tribe. The new act empowers all federal law enforcement officers to enforce this prohibition and differentiates among penalties based on the price of the goods involved in the offense. The total market for American Indian and Alaska Native arts and crafts in the United States is estimated at a billion dollars, with an unknown but substantial amount of those sales going to misrepresented, non-authentic works.
The Secretary of Agriculture, in a letter of July 2, 2010, directed the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Tribal Relations and the Forest Service to begin a process of review of all Forest Service policies and to consult with interested tribes about how the Department and the Forest Service can do a better job addressing sacred site issues while simultaneously balancing pursuit of the agency’s mission to deliver forest goods and services for current and future generations. He emphasized the need to examine the effectiveness of existing laws and regulations in ensuring a consistent level of sacred site protection that is more acceptable to the tribes.
On July 30, 2010, the United Nations inscribed the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as the first mixed (natural and cultural) World Heritage Site in the United States. The Department of the Interior played a leading role in coordinating the development of the nomination dossier and successful inscription by the World Heritage Committee. Papahānaumokuākea’s inscription as a World Heritage Site is important to Native Hawaiians because it recognizes and incorporates the richness of the habitat and wildlife with the living, indigenous, cultural connections to the sea – where modern Hawaiian wayfinders (non-instrument navigators) still voyage for navigational training on traditional double-hulled sailing canoes; an aspect of inscription unique to Papahānaumokuākea. Additionally, World Heritage status places this traditional skill, which was used to navigate across the world’s largest ocean – one of the greatest feats of human kind – onto the world stage.
Since April 2010 the Department of Education has held six regional consultations with tribal officials regarding reauthorization of the ESEA. Among the statements heard time and time again were those on the importance of preserving Native languages. In response, the Administration has proposed changes to the ESEA that support, among other things, flexibility in the use of federal education funds to allow funding for Native language immersion and Native language restoration programs.
Due to joint efforts of federal agencies and tribes, 152 notices of decisions to repatriate human remains and cultural items were published in the Federal Register in 2010. Each of these notices is a direct consequence of museums and federal agencies consulting with tribes concerning the repatriation of human remains and cultural items previously held in collections. These notices account for 1,628 human remains and 9,062 associated funerary objects, an additional 2,052 funerary objects not associated with an individual, 11 sacred objects, 10 objects of cultural patrimony, and an additional 388 items that are both sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. In addition, the Forest Service is exercising its authority to assist tribes over the next several years in reburial of over 3,000 sets of human remains and their associated cultural items that had been removed from National Forests.
The Department of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service, has also begun efforts with tribes to facilitate eagle feather possession for cultural and traditional uses and to promote coordination in wildlife investigations and enforcement efforts to protect golden and bald eagles.
Moreover, the Department of the Interior awarded over $8 million to support historic preservation programs and projects for Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian organizations. $7,250,000 was awarded to 100 Tribal Historic Preservation Officer programs, and $899,316 to 26 communities for a broad range of cultural heritage projects.
The United States has made great strides in improving its relationship with Native Americans and indigenous peoples around the world. However, much remains to be done. U.S. agencies look forward to continuing to work with tribal leaders, and all interested stakeholders, so that the United States can be a better model for the international community in protecting and promoting the rights of indigenous peoples.


Overview (table of contents) Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Test Forms Purpose the holding of samples, etc.
Chapter 5 curriculum requirements for Chapter 6 diploma, etc.
Chapter 7 complaints about samples, etc.
Chapter 8 Other rules Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Examiner Corps Censors entry into force and transitional provisions The full text of the notice of examination and evaluation by university education (exam notice) pursuant to § 8 (1) and (2), section 8 (a), paragraph 1, and section 34, paragraph 1, of the law on universities (University law), see. lovbekendtgørelse nr. 754 of 17. June 2010, fixed: § 1. The notice shall apply for the exam and censorship by bachelor's and master's degrees as well as masters courses and other part-time education after University Act, unless otherwise specified in the notice for the training.
(2). The rules on first year test at bachelor's program, see. §§ 15-17, and on the retaken and ill try, see. § 18, does not apply to students who are admitted to the bachelor's and master's programmes in accordance with the rules on part-time education, see. notice of part-time education at the universities (part-time Executive order).
Title I Chapter 1 purpose of section 2 of the Exam. The purpose of the exam is to assess to what extent the students meet the academic goals set for education courses/elements in the curriculum. The final sample provides the basis for the issue of the diploma, without prejudice. Article 29, paragraph 1.
(2). The University provides the curriculum for training precise's specifications and criteria for the assessment of targets for individual subjects/elements, culminating in a sample, see. notice on the grading scale and the other judgement by university education (nature of the notice).
Chapter 2 Sample Forms section 3. Sample form to accommodate the individual subjects/fagelements purpose.
(2). The samples have to be organised as individual samples, see. However, paragraph 6.
(3). By individual samples shall be taken to mean: 1) Examination and the reply will be done individually, see. However, paragraph 5.
2) to be made an individual assessment and individual characters.
(4). There can only be a separate character for a written task response, prepared by several students, if the individual student's contributions cannot be ascertained, such as to ensure that an individual assessment takes place.
(5). If is not given a separate character for a written task response, prepared by several students, can exam paper included in assessment by a subsequent individual oral or other sample of each student, see. section 4, paragraph 2.
(6). University and property agency may exempt from the provisions of paragraph 2, if it is essential to document the achievement of fagelementets purposes. However, this does not apply, as regards paragraph 3, nr. 2. Paragraph 7. If each student so wishes, should the University ensure that the student will have the opportunity to deliver an individual writing task response instead of a task response, prepared by several students, see. paragraphs 4 and 5. However, this does not apply for tests, where the Agency has exempted in accordance with paragraph 6.
§ 4. The training must include a variety of sample forms to reflect the teaching contents and forms of work, and which may be 1) oral, written and practical tests, 2) participation in education, courses, exercises, etc., 3) combinations of nr. 1-2, or 4) project-oriented course, possibly related to areas outside the University in Denmark or abroad.
(2). It can be determined in the curriculum, to be preceded by the assessment of the task response to be held lecture on or oral defense of the exam paper. The assessment is done when on the basis of an overall assessment of the written task response and the oral performance, see. section 3, paragraph 5.
Chapter 3 the holding of samples, etc.
§ 5. Oral tests are public, see. However, paragraphs 2 and 3, unless they are subject to an agreement under section 43 (2).
(3). The University may derogate from the provisions of paragraph 1, if there are special circumstances, including where the interests of the students speak for it. In addition, the University can limit access to try the premises of space reasons, and individuals can be denied entry or expelled if found necessary in order to ensure the necessary calmness and order in connection with the sample.
(4). There is a lecture about or oral defense of a task response, see. section 4, paragraph 2, or take the test based on a task response and is the answer prepared by several students, these students must not be present in the Chamber, before they will be examined.
(5). Audio and/or video recordings during a trial is not allowed, unless the footage included as part of the test cycle. The recordings made since by the University.
(6). Only the examiner and examiner must be present during their deliberations at the oral tests, see. § 20. The University may, however, provide that future examiners must attend an assessment.
§ 6. In education, offered in Danish, conducting tests on Danish, see. However, paragraphs 2 and 3, unless it is part of the test designed to demonstrate the student's skills in a foreign language. Tests may, however, be in Swedish and Norwegian, rather than Danish, unless it is part of the purpose of the test to demonstrate proficiency in Danish.
(2). The University may, incidentally, where conditions make it possible, allow students to take a test in a foreign language. It shall not, however, apply if it is part of the purpose of the test to demonstrate proficiency in Danish or in a particular second foreign language.
(3). Teaching in a profession has been carried out in a foreign language, must undergo a test in that language, unless it is part of the test designed to demonstrate the student's skills in a second language. The University may derogate from this rule.
(4). In education, offered in English or other foreign languages, conducting tests on the offered language, unless it is part of the test designed to demonstrate the student's skills in a second language. The University may derogate from this rule.
§ 7. The University offers special test conditions for students with physical or mental impairments and to students with a mother tongue other than Danish, when the University believes that it is necessary to equate these with other students in the test situation. It is a prerequisite that the offer is no change of the test level.
§ 8. The University may conduct examinations as video conferencing or using other technical measures. The University must ensure that the security measures in connection with the organisation of such a test similar to what commonly applies to the conduct of the test. University appoints or approves supervisor, who should be with the students during the test. Examiner and examiner can reside anywhere other than the student, but to examine and give its assessment in accordance with the applicable rules in General.
§ 9. The University lays down rules concerning disciplinary measures in cases of exam cheating and disruptive behaviour by exam.
§ 10. The University may establish rules on the use of computers by the samples in the curriculum.
Samples abroad section 11. The University may conduct examinations on a Danish representation or other places abroad, when this is justified by the fact that the students for practical or economic reasons cannot take part in the University's examinations in Denmark, and when the student and he or she try place is consent. Organisation of Danish samples abroad shall take place in accordance with the Executive order rules in General.
(2). The University shall appoint or approve the supervisors and other persons who are to be responsible for the practical execution of the test abroad.
§ 12. The University holds the Special costs associated with sample organisation abroad.
(3). The University may leave the student wholly or partially pay for the expenses incurred by the University has incurred in connection with the test organization. It is a condition that the student in advance in writing, have declared themselves willing to pay those costs. The University can make sample holding of that amount must be paid in advance.
Number of sample tests section 13. A passed test cannot be taken on, see. nature of the order.
(2). The students have 3 sample attempts to pass a test, etc., see. However, section 15. The University may allow additional testing, if there are exceptional circumstances. Lack of suitability of the study is not an unusual ratio.
(3). A student who second time must have its educational participation judged without prejudice. § 4 (1) (8). 2 may require to audition instead. Educational participation, which is linked to practical exercises, however, can not be replaced by a test.
(4). A student receiving an offer of catch-up session pursuant to section 19, paragraph 3, article 34, paragraph 1, no. 2, or section 39 (1) (8). 3, shall not be regarded as an trial testing in accordance with paragraph 2.
Registration for the samples section 14. At registration of the student for a course/module, etc., which are associated with one or more tests, the student is automatically enrolled to the sample or samples. The University establishes at the same time, a deadline for timely cancellation from the sample, see. However, paragraph 3.
(2). If cancellation is not available, the test shall be considered timely with respect to number of sample tests have been started, see. section 13, paragraph 2.
(3). When the University has set a deadline for graduate thesis, see. bekendtgørelse om bachelor-and master's programmes at the universities (Education Ordinance), can (UN) does not take place, and there is used a try attempt, see. section 13, paragraph 2, if the student does not return the thesis within the prescribed time limit.
(4). The University may grant a derogation from paragraphs 1 to 3, including the time-limits laid down, if there are exceptional circumstances.
First year test at bachelor's degree § 15. The University provides the curriculum for the bachelor's degree programme, which tests the student must participate in before the end of the first year of study after study start (first year examinations). The student must pass the tests, which included the latest in first year examinations, before the end of the student's second academic year following the academic year in order that the students can continue training. This applies regardless of whether the student at the time, have conducted 3 test trials, without prejudice. section 13, paragraph 2.
§ 16. For undergraduate courses beginning 1. September, the result of the first trial experiments, see. section 15, at the latest, be granted the students before the 1. August the following year. If the test is not passed, the student can register for latest catch-up session in august, the result of which must be notified to the students by the end of september.
(2). For undergraduate courses beginning 1. February, the outcome of the first trial experiments, see. § 15, be communicated to the student within the 1. February the following year.
§ 17. The University can grant a derogation from the time limits laid down in section 15 and section 16, if there are exceptional circumstances.
Retaken and ill try § 18. On education, where there is exam term at the end of the fall semester, students who have participated in an ordinary trial without passing this, have the opportunity to go to retaken in the same exam termin or in immediate extension, however at the latest in February. On education, where there is exam term at the end of the spring semester, students who have participated in an ordinary trial without passing this, have the opportunity to go to retaken in the same exam termin or in immediate extension, however, most recently in august. Similarly, if students have been prevented from taking part in an ordinary trial due to illness.
(2). On education, where there are several exam deadlines than in paragraph 1, the students who have participated in an ordinary trial without passing this, have the opportunity to go to catch-up session as soon as possible, but not later than 6 months after the holding of the annual test. Similarly, if students have been prevented from taking part in an ordinary trial due to illness.
(3). The students have not passed a catch-up session or ill try to be held according to the rules laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2, the students have the opportunity to participate in the next annual examination.
(4). It can be determined in the curriculum, to omprøven or diseased sample has another trial or evaluation form than the regular test, see. section 4, paragraph 1, and article 20. It shall not, however, apply to the bachelor project, Master thesis or master's project.
Errors or defects in the sample, etc.
§ 19. The University will be in connection with a sample point out errors and omissions, acting University, where appropriate after consultation of the competent authority or for sample responsible, decision on how the fault or defect can be remedied.
(2). By errors or omissions of the particularly serious nature, or where it may be considered the most correct way to remedy the defect or lack of, can the University to cancel the test and arrange an extraordinary retaken.
(3). By other significant deficiencies than those referred to in paragraph 2 may provide University offer of an extraordinary retaken. The offer must in this case be given to all students whose trial suffers from the specific error or deficiency. A student who has participated in the extraordinary catch-up session, can choose to keep the originally given rating.
§ 20. The samples are either internal or external.
(2). Internal tests shall be carried out by the assessment of one or more trainers (examiners) appointed by the University among teachers at the University.
(3). By the external evaluation tests shall be carried out by one or more examiners and of one or more examiners, who are appointed by the University and property agency, see. section II on censorship.
(4). External tests will cover essential areas of education including bachelor thesis, master's thesis and master project. At least 1/3 of a training total ECTS credits must be documented by external tests. It does not apply to merit-borne samples, see. section 30.
(5). The assessment of a student's educational participation, without prejudice. § 4 (1) (8). 2, carried out by the instructor by the concerned education.
§ 21. Examiner and examiner must during their deliberations take notes on rendering and character setting to use for treatment of a potential appeal. The notes must be kept for at least one year, and in addition, until a potential appeal is completed.
§ 22. When a trial is begun, must be given a rating, unless the test is interrupted due to illness that warrant medical test.
(2). Aborting a try due to eviction, there must not be given a rating, and the student has used a test trials, without prejudice. section 13, paragraph 2.
§ 23. By rating be given grades according to the 7-step-scale or the assessment pass/fail or Approved/Not approved, without prejudice. nature of the order. Bachelor thesis, master's thesis and master project be judged according to the 7-step-scale. For educational participation, etc., see. § 4 (1) (8). 2, given the assessment pass/fail or Approved/Not approved. In the curriculum lays down rules on the extent to which the student must have participated in education, etc.
(2). The assessment pass/fail or Approved/Not approved may be used by tests that covers 1/3 of the ECTS credits. It does not apply to merit transferred the samples, see. section 30.
§ 24. In the assessment of bachelor thesis, master's thesis, master's project and other major written assignments must be in addition to the professional content also places emphasis on the student's spelling and formulation capacity, see. § 6. In the curriculum lays down rules on how the spelling and eloquence are part of the overall assessment of exam performance, as the professional content, however, weighting the longest one, unless the subject/fagelementet is language or foreign language.
(2). Bachelor thesis, master's thesis and master project must be provided with a summary in a foreign language. If the bachelor thesis, master's thesis or master's project is written in a foreign language, except for the Norwegian and Swedish, the summary is written in Danish. In the curriculum lays down how the summary is included in the overall assessment of academic achievement, and the language in which the summary can or should be written on.
(3). The University may grant derogations from paragraph 1 for students who demonstrate a relevant specific disability, unless the spelling and eloquence are an essential part of the test purpose.
§ 25. The University may impose rules on printing and converting the price tasks.
(2). The University may, in respect of each education stipulate that a thesis can be converted to a specialty. A thesis that has got the gold medal, will be converted to grade 12.
Publication of the assessment section 26. By samples, where the rating is not communicated to the students immediately after the test, the University shall determine a date for when the evaluation will be published.
(2). The date referred to in paragraph 1 must be within 4 weeks after the test organization, see. However, section 16 and shall be communicated to the students at the same time with the announcement of the test organisation either by opening or otherwise. In the calculation of the 4 weeks July not included.
(3). For bachelor thesis, master's thesis and master project assessment, however, must be published within 2 months after that the project/thesis is submitted for assessment. In the calculation of the 2 months July not included.
(4). The University may grant an exception in paragraph 1-3 period prescribed, if there are special circumstances. If the assessment cannot be implemented for the prescribed date, the University must notify the student thereof as soon as possible with a justification and an indication of when the evaluation will be published.
1) Rules of sample forms, including whether the sample is oral or written, and whether the student may choose between several sample forms, as well as the number of students who must participate in a task response, see. § 3 and § 4, paragraph 1.
2) rules on participation in education, etc., and delivery of written assignments, etc., which is a prerequisite to participate in the sample or a part of the sample referred to in article 6. § 3 and § 4, paragraph 1.
3) Any rules on organization of lecture or oral defense of a task response, see. section 4, paragraph 2.
4) rules for exam language, see. § 6.
5) any rules about special test conditions for students, see. § 7.
6) any rules on the use of the computer by the samples, see. § 10.
7) rules on the location of the samples in the educational process, including which tests the student must participate in before the end of the first year of study at the bachelor's degree programme, see. § 15.
8) rules on the retaken and ill try, see. § 18.
9) Rules about which tests there are external, see. Article 20, paragraph 4.
10) Rules about which tests are given characters, and by which samples provided the assessment pass/fail or Approved/Not approved, without prejudice. § 23.
11) rules on the extent to which the student must have participated in teaching by teaching the participation form, see sample. Article 23, paragraph 1, last paragraph.
12) Rules on how the student's spelling and verbal ability are included in the overall assessment of exam performance, see. Article 24, paragraph 1.
13) Rules on how the summary included in assessment, and the language in which the summary can or should be written on the meaning. Article 24, paragraph 2.
14) rules on subsamples, beståkrav, exam result, etc., see. character of the Executive order on Chapter 3.
(2). It must be reflected in the curriculum, the University, if there are exceptional circumstances, may grant derogations from the rules in the curriculum, there only is provided by the University.
Orientation of the students about exam regulations, section 28. It is the responsibility of the University to inform and guide the students about the exam rules, which apply to the individual training.
section 29. The University issuing the diploma for completed education, see. (2). The proof must be sent to the graduates within 2 months after the evaluation of the final test is published. In the calculation of the 2 months July not included.
(2). The certificate shall be drawn up in the Danish, see. However, paragraph 4, and shall at least specify: 1) The name and social security number of graduates or other similar unique identifier.
3) The designation training gives a right to on Danish/latin and English.
4) Education standardisation specified in ECTS credits, including any propædeutisk teaching.
5) The bachelor's degree or other training that forms the basis for the master's degree.
6) The elements that are carried out at the test in, or which in any other way is documented, with an indication of the extent of ECTS credits.
7) Merit-borne samples, see. section 30.
8) Exam language, if the sample is carried out in a foreign language, see. § 6.
9) They achieved ratings, see. Article 23, paragraph 1, and, where appropriate, the average of the total exam score, see. nature of the order.
10) a competency profile, which describes the training.
(3). If the University issuing the diploma for a training which is conducted as a parallel course and joint training, also applies to rules laid down in the Ordinance on parallel courses and joint training. If the University issuing the diploma of an Erasmus Mundus master's degree, also applies to the rules of the Executive order on classified teaching and Erasmus Mundus master's programmes at the universities.
(4). The graduates can expect to get his diploma, drawn up in English.
(5). As an annex to the diploma issuing an English-language University Diploma Supplement in accordance with the model developed on the basis of the EU-Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES's standard model, which describes the education and professional direction, content, level and aim as well as providing information about the University and about its means education and placement in the Danish educational system.
(6). The certificate must not contain information on specific test conditions, see. § 7 and § 24, paragraph 3.
(7). Total proof of training which is carried out by several universities and other educational institutions, issued by the University where the student is admitted and enrolled for that training.
(8). Leaving the student training without completing the University shall issue, at the request of the student documentation for the successful parts of the training specified in ECTS credits.
section 30. The University has approved that a passed courses/course/module from a Danish or foreign higher education institution merit transferred, should the assessment be transferred as pass/Approved. If that course/module is assessed according to the 7-step-scale by both educational institutions, transferred the assessment with the characters. If a subject/course/module is carried out by a foreign educational institution, it must be set out in an annex to the diploma, which nature has been achieved after the grading scale used by that institution, as well as a summary of the grading scale used.
section 31. The University holds the information needed to issue certificates in 30 years after the end of the test or exam. Next, the information shall be returned to the State Archives.
section 32. Complaints about the tests or other assessment, included in the examination shall be submitted by the student to the University. The complaint must be in writing and reasoned.
(2). The complaint must be submitted within 2 weeks after the assessment has been published. However, this period shall begin at the earliest from the date provided for the publication of the basic regulation. section 26.
(3). The University may grant derogations from the appeal time limit referred to in paragraph 2, if there are exceptional circumstances.
section 33. That can, among other things. complaints: 1) Legal questions.
2) Examination base (questions, tasks and the like).
(2). If the complaint relates to the assessment or other matters relating to the evaluators, submit to the University immediately appeal for evaluators, which shall have a period of 2 weeks to issue an opinion on the rating guides etc. in the complaint. The University may provide that examiners are given a longer period, if there are special circumstances. In the calculation of the Examiners ' time limit included July not. The complainant shall be given the opportunity to comment on the Examiners ' opinion within a time limit of at least 1 week.
(3). The University shall take a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, see. (2) on the basis of the opinion of the evaluators and the complainant's comments on the opinion.
(4). The University will be in dealing with a complaint, point out errors or defects in a sample, find the rules in section 19 shall apply.
§ 34. The University's decision, which must be in writing and reasoned, can go out on 1) offer of new rating (reassessment), oral tests, 2) bid for new trial (retaken), or 3) to the complainant not dismissed in the complaint.
(2). The University shall, as soon as possible, give the complainant and the examiners, see. section 33 (2), notice of the decision.
section 35. The complainant shall, within 2 weeks after the University's decision is communicated to the complainant, accept offers of reassessment or retaken. Reassessment or catch-up session must take place as soon as possible. If the diploma is issued, without prejudice. Article 29, paragraph 1, should the University involve proof until the assessment is available, and, where appropriate, issue a new certificate.
(2). By reassessment and retaken appointed new examiners and examiners, see. section 59 (1). 4, of the censor-in-Office.
(3). By reassessment must be provided by presenting the documents in the case, including the reviewers task, the answer to the complaint, the original bedømmeres, opinion, the complainant's comments and the University's decision.
(4). The assessment by the reassessment and catch-up session, which can result in a lower nature, shall be notified to the University by the evaluators. By reassessment of written tests shall attach to the examiners a written justification for the rating. Assessment after reassessment and catch-up session cannot be brought before another administrative authority, see. However, section 42, paragraph 1.
Appeals Board § 36. A complainant who has not upheld the complaint without prejudice. section 34 (1). 3, may refer the decision of the University academic question, see. section 33 (1). 2-4, for one of the University Appeals Board set up, see. § 37, acting.
(2). The complainant shall submit the appeal to the University. The appeal must be in writing and reasoned.
(3). The appeal must be submitted within 2 weeks after the University's decision is communicated to the complainant.
(4). The University may grant a derogation from the time limit referred to in paragraph 3, if there are exceptional circumstances.
section 37. University reduces the appeal as soon as possible after the submission of an appeal. There may be reduced permanent Appeals Board.
(3). Censor-in-Office referred to in article 6. section 49, paragraph 1, shall be appointed by the two censors. The President shall appoint an examiner of the censors, as Chairman of the Board. The President can appoint himself as censor censor or as President.
(4). The University shall be appointed by the teacher and the student.
(5). The Appeals Board company covered by the Act on administrative procedures, including the rules on conflict of interest and confidentiality.
section 38. To the Appeals Board can be a quorum, all Committee members participate in the Board's discussion, and all the documents in the case be sent to all members. The discussion can be carried out in writing, including by electronic means, if there is a consensus among the Committee members about the written treatment of the basic regulation. However, paragraph 2. The discussion must be carried out in such a way, that the complainant's personal information is protected (confidential communications).
(3). The Appeals Board shall take a decision in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, see. (2) on the basis of the material that formed the basis for the University's decision and on the basis of the reasoned appeals.
(4). The Appeals Board will be in the context of the examination of an appeal point out errors or defects in a sample will inform the University accordingly, and the rules laid down in section 19 shall apply.
§ 39. Appeal Board's decision, which must be in writing and reasoned, can go out on 1) offer, to the Appeals Board judge sample, including increases and decreases the character or change the assessment pass/Not Pass and not authorized/approved for another assessment, oral tests, 2) offer of new rating (reassessment) by different assessors, oral tests, 3) bid for new trial (retaken) by different assessors or 4) that the complainant not dismissed in the complaint.
(2). Reassessment and retaken follow the rules in section 35, and assessment cannot be brought before another administrative authority, see. However, section 42, paragraph 1.
§ 40. The decision of the Appeals Board shall be notified to the University as soon as possible and at the latest 2 months after the appeal has been filed. In the calculation of the 2 months July not included.
(2). Appeal can not be processed within the time limit laid down in paragraph 1, to the University as soon as possible, inform the complainant accordingly with a statement of the reasons therefor and information about when the appeal is expected to be finalised.
§ 41. The University gives the complainant as soon as possible, notice of appeal the Board's decision.
(2). The Appeals Board decision cannot be brought before another administrative authority, see. However, section 42, paragraph 1.
§ 42. Appeal against decisions under section 33, paragraph 3, article 35, paragraph 4, or section 38, paragraph 3, may be brought before the University, if the complaint concerns the legal issues.
(2). The complaint must be lodged with the University no later than 2 weeks after the decision is communicated to the student.
(3). The University may grant a derogation from paragraph 2, where there are exceptional circumstances.
(4). The University's decision pursuant to paragraph 1 may be referred to the University and property agency, see. § 46.
Chapter 8 Other rules § 43. The University must respect the student's intellectual property rights to the results, and similar products obtained in connection with a trial.
(2). If rehearsal involving parties outside the University, including enterprises, institutions, etc., it is agreed between the University, the students and the third party, the extent to which the University, the student or the third party under respect of applicable intellectual property rules are eligible to use the results, products and the like, obtained during the test process, including any information relating to the third party's conditions that occur in the task, must be published.
§ 44. The student can continue training under the University's handling of a complaint or appeal in accordance with Chapter 7.
§ 45. University and property agency may exempt from the Executive order rules in section i of the exam when it is justified by exceptional circumstances.
Complaints about the University's decisions section 46. The University's final decisions in accordance with section I of the exam in this Ordinance may be brought before the University and property agency of it, the decision relates (the complainant), when the complaint relates to legal questions. The closing date for the submission of the complaint is 2 weeks from the day the decision is communicated to the complainant.
Title II Chapter 9 external examiners Censorship section 47. University and property agency counsel nationwide Corps of Examiners (external examiners with the appointed censors).
(2). An external examiners include bachelor's and master's degrees as well as masters courses and other part-time education after University law within the same professional or related area, as one or more universities are authorized to provide. For the humanities, natural sciences and social sciences undergraduate and graduate programmes, consisting of a central subjects, see. the Education Ordinance, there may, however, create an external examiners for each subject.
(3). Before the Accreditation Council approves an education/central subjects, see. law on Accreditation institution of higher education to establish University and property agency, which external examiners training/core subjects should be linked.
(4). An overview of external examiners are available in University and building Administration website.
section 48. External evaluator Corps must be composed in such a way that the total Corps 1) covers all the subjects/elements included in education/key subjects, and the employment areas, such as education and training aims, 2) that included persons who have their main employment outside the University on one of the areas of employment, education and training aims, 3) to achieve an even distribution of female and male censors, and 4) that, for the training/core subjects where appropriate, included censors assigned to foreign universities.
§ 49. For each external examiners shall be elected by and among the censors, see. Chapter 10, a Presidency, consisting of a Chairman and one or more Vice-Presidents of the examiner. The previous censor Presidency is organising the elections.
(2). Censor the Presidency represents the censors in the examiner Corps over for universities and University and property agency.
(3). The new censor Presidency inform universities ' rectors and University and property agency about the elections in accordance with paragraph 1.
(4). By appointment of new external examiners, see. section 47, paragraph 1, shall be chaired the function in paragraph 1, and section 56 (1), the first time by the University or universities in the community.
§ 50. Censor the presidency after consultation with the University or universities allocate tasks for censorship among the censors in nanotoxicology, see. However, § 56, paragraph 4. Censor the Presidency distributes tasks, how to censor the censors regularly and at least every second year is assigned the external examiners ' tasks. Where the examiner Corps covers several universities, the censors, as far as possible, be assigned tasks by more than a University examiner in appointment period, see. section 56 (3). In the allocation shall take account of any special conditions with regard to the second examiner in fagkyndighed in connection with the individual samples.
(2). Censor the Presidency must as part of quality assurance of education test and exam system 1) set the censors to appoint, in accordance with article 3. section 56 (1), (2)) to advise universities on the test form and content, see. section 59 (1). 2, 3) submit an annual report to the universities on the basis of reports, see censorernes. section 59 (1). 3, 4) respond to consultations on programme regulations and major changes in education curricula, which affect test and exam system, and 5), incidentally, be available to the University, including customer panels, through the development of new test forms.
(3). Censor Presidency contributes to an ongoing dialogue on the development of test and examination system's quality, including exam tasks quality, at least every two years to hold the external examiners ' meetings with censors in nanotoxicology and contact meetings between the universities, including customer panels, and censors.
§ 51. The censors shall not be employed by the University or by the faculty, if the University is divided into the main areas where they will act as censors, unless there is another training/core subjects, than the censoren researcher and lecturer at. The University's Rector, deans, directors, Department managers and others in similar positions may not, however, act as censors at the University. It should be avoided to the extent possible, that examiners performing censorship functions for each other (mutual censorship).
(2). Censorernes work covered by the Act on administrative procedures, including the rules on conflict of interest and confidentiality.
§ 52. By a second examiner in decay, where it has not been possible to summon a second examiner, may appoint a person as University examiner, which meets the requirements of section 55.
(2). The University will inform as soon as possible censor the Presidency for the designation in accordance with paragraph 1.
§ 53. The University creates websites, where the examiner Corps members have access to up-to-date information about the courses/core subjects that are relevant to them, including this notice, nature of the notice and training curriculum, as well as other material relevant to the censorernes company.
(2). The University must prior to individual censorship tasks provide the censors with the material necessary for the censors to perform tasks.
§ 54. The universities shall bear the cost of censor of the Presidency and censorernes work, see. Staffing Agency's circular on hourly paid teaching as well as circular on remuneration of the examiner. Universities provide, subject to prior agreement with the censor Presidency administrative and practical assistance.
Chapter 10 the censors § 55. In order to be appointed as examiner must the person have 1) a relevant research-based education at the graduate level, 2) incoming and current knowledge of scientific disciplines, including to the subject's theory and methods, 3) specific competence in one or more academic areas, which are included in the training/central subjects and 4) current knowledge of education/central subject uses, including knowledge of the purchaser's situation and needs.
section 56. University and property agency appoints the censors on the recommendation of the external examiners ' Presidency.
(2). Censor the Presidency shall consult with the universities in setting is happening, taking into account the provisions of section 48 and section 55.
(3). External examiners are appointed for 4 years at a time, see. However, paragraph 4. For each new appointment period replaced at least one quarter of the censors in nanotoxicology. There may, within the period are hereby appointed additional censors, including in those cases where new approved courses you want to associate the nanotoxicology, see. section 47, paragraph 3.
(4). Censor the Presidency may in exceptional cases appoint censors for stand-alone censorship tasks.
(5). Following a reasoned recommendation from the Presidency or a University examiner may University and property agency bring an end to the qualification in the external examiners ' period, if the Presidency considers that a second examiner in the University or work is not satisfactory.
§ 57. Censor topics can be found by a proposal from the Presidency, censor censor Corps, universities and by opening in trade journals, periodicals, etc.
§ 58. Examiner must ensure that the requirements for the contents of 1) of training samples are consistent with the objectives and other requirements laid down for training, including in the Education Ordinance and in the curriculum, 2) to the tests carried out in accordance with the applicable rules, and 3) that students are given a uniform and fair treatment that their performance get a reliable appraisal, that is in accordance with the rules for scoring in the nature of the notice including rules laid down to that effect in the education curriculum, and other rules for the training.
section 59. An examiner must 1) Act as external examiner at training/central subject external samples, see. Article 20, paragraph 3, 2) advise on the test system, including its form and content, and whether it works for its intended purpose and in accordance with the training/central subject and teaching goals, 3) at the end of the make a report about terminens exam exam course for the University and the Presidency, and 4) involved in the processing of complaints and anchor of samples, see. section 33, paragraph 2, article 35, paragraph 2, and section 37, paragraph 2.
(2). Notes censor that the circumstances referred to in section 58, not met, or get the censor presumption of substantial problems or deficiencies in the University's conduct of a training, the censor reporting thereon to the University, with a copy to the external examiners ' Presidency.
Title III entry into force and transitional provisions Chapter 11 entry into force and transitional provisions section 60. The notice shall enter into force on the 1. September 2010.
(2). At the same time repealed Executive Order No. 867 of 19. August 2004 on the exam at university education (exam notice), see. However, paragraph 3.
(3). Executive Order No. 867 of 19. August 2004 on the exam at university education (exam notice) shall continue to apply for complaints about the tests, in which the test will be held before 1 May 2004. September 2010.


text:
7.06 Arbitration of civil actions.
7.08 Assignment for benefit of creditors.
7.16 Certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.
7.24 Uniform declaratory judgments act.
7.25 Declaratory judgments of local bond issues.
7.68 Victims of crimes—Compensation, assistance.
7.69 Crime victims, survivors, and witnesses.
7.69A Child victims and witnesses.
7.69B Crime victims and witnesses—Dependent persons.
7.70 Actions for injuries resulting from health care.
7.70A Arbitration of health care actions.
7.71 Health care peer review.
7.77 Uniform collaborative law act.
7.88 Confidentiality of financial institution compliance review information.
7.90 Sexual assault protection order act.
7.92 Jennifer Paulson stalking protection order act.
7.94 Extreme risk protection order act.
7.96 Uniform correction or clarification of defamation act.
7.98 Alien victims of crime.
7.100 Foreclosure and abandonment of residential real property—Nuisance abatement.
Abortion clinics, interference with: Chapter 9A.50 RCW.
Animals, trespass: Chapter 16.04 RCW.
Arbitration, labor disputes: Chapter 49.08 RCW.
action to establish and mark: Chapter 58.04 RCW.
Certiorari: State Constitution Art. 4 §§ 4, 6 (Amendment 28).
Civil rights, law against discrimination: Chapter 49.60 RCW.
cities and towns: Chapters 35.23, 35.31 RCW.
Corporations, dissolution: Chapter 23B.14 RCW.
Dissolution, legal separation: Chapter 26.09 RCW.
District courts: Titles 3, 12 RCW.
Eminent domain: Title 8 RCW; State Constitution Art. 1 § 16 (Amendment 9); Art. 12 § 10.
sales, redemptions: Chapters 6.21, 6.23 RCW.
Families, abandonment or nonsupport: Chapter 26.20 RCW.
Forcible and unlawful detainer: Chapter 59.12 RCW.
chattel mortgages: Chapter 62A.9A RCW.
Garnishment: Chapters 6.26, 6.27 RCW.
Habeas corpus: State Constitution Art. 1 § 13; Art. 4 §§ 4, 6 (Amendment 28).
Imprisonment for debt: State Constitution Art. 1 § 17.
Individuals with mental illness, proceedings as to: Chapter 71.05 RCW.
Injunction: State Constitution Art. 4 § 6 (Amendment 28).
Injunctions, labor disputes: Chapter 49.32 RCW.
Judgments, enforcement: Title 6 RCW.
Justice (district) courts: State Constitution Art. 4 §§ 6, 10 (Amendment 28).
Juveniles, courts and offenders: Title 13 RCW.
Lakes, outflow regulation: Chapter 90.24 RCW.
proceedings, transfer from justice (district) court: RCW 12.20.070.
registration (Torrens Act): Chapter 65.12 RCW.
Legal notices, publication: Chapter 65.16 RCW.
enforcement of, against vessels: RCW 60.36.020.
provision as to foreclosure of various: Title 60 RCW.
search and seizure: Chapter 66.32 RCW.
Mandamus: State Constitution Art. 4 §§ 4, 6 (Amendment 28).
Medical facilities, interference with: Chapter 9A.50 RCW.
Military, tribunals, trials, etc.: Title 38 RCW.
Name, change of—Fees: RCW 4.24.130.
Parentage, Uniform Act: Chapter 26.26 RCW.
Prohibition: State Constitution Art. 4 §§ 4, 6 (Amendment 28).
adverse claims to levy: Chapter 6.19 RCW.
lost and found: Chapter 63.21 RCW.
unclaimed, uniform act: Chapter 63.29 RCW.
unclaimed in city police's hands: Chapter 63.32 RCW.
Prosecution by information: State Constitution Art. 1 § 25.
Quo warranto: State Constitution Art. 4 § 6 (Amendment 28).
Real property, conveyances: Title 64 RCW.
Records, lost: Chapter 5.48 RCW.
Rent, actions to collect forty dollars a month or less: Chapter 59.08 RCW.
Small claims courts: Chapter 12.40 RCW.
Superior court: State Constitution Art. 4 §§ 3(a) (Amendment 25), 6, 10 (Amendment 28).
Supreme court: State Constitution Art. 4 § 3(a) (Amendment 25).
Television, subscription services, unlawful sale or theft, civil cause of action: RCW 9A.56.250.
Unemployment compensation, review, etc.: Chapter 50.32 RCW.
Veterans—Uniform guardianship act: Chapter 73.36 RCW.
Warehouse operator's lien: Chapter 62A.7 RCW.
Water rights, determination: RCW 90.03.110 through 90.03.240.
Waters, public ground, regulation of: Chapter 90.44 RCW.
Workers' compensation cases: Title 51 RCW.

matches:
Art. 4
Art. 1
§ 16
Art. 12
§ 10
Art. 1
§ 13
Art. 4
Art. 1
§ 17
Art. 4
§ 6
Art. 4
Art. 4
Art. 4
Art. 1
§ 25
Art. 4
§ 6
Art. 4
Art. 4
§ 3