New Act Requires Native Hawaiian Expertise on Arts and Culture Grant Boards

The newly proposed Native Arts and Culture Promotion Act is short, but it packs a punch when it comes to how federal grants for Native Hawaiian art and culture are managed. Think of it as a governance tune-up intended to put the people closest to the culture in charge of the funding.

Putting Cultural Experts in the Driver’s Seat

This bill amends the existing American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Culture and Art Development Act. The biggest change focuses squarely on the governing board that hands out grants for Native Hawaiian art and culture. Currently, the law is less specific about who has to be on that board. Under the new proposal, the law would require that the board must include Native Hawaiians and individuals who are widely recognized in the field of Native Hawaiian art and culture (SEC. 2). This means that when decisions are made about funding traditional crafts, language preservation, or contemporary Native Hawaiian art, the people making the call will have the necessary cultural context and expertise. For a Native Hawaiian artist trying to secure funding for a community project, this change means their application will be reviewed by people who truly understand the work's significance.

The Accountability Upgrade

The second major structural change is all about accountability and turnover. The bill mandates that these board members must serve for a fixed term (SEC. 2). If you’ve ever sat on a non-profit board, you know that fixed terms are crucial for ensuring fresh perspectives and preventing the same few people from holding power indefinitely. This provision ensures that the board remains dynamic and responsive, preventing the grant process from getting stale or insulated over time. Essentially, it’s a standard good-governance practice being applied to ensure the grant program stays focused on its mission.

Minor, But Important, Housekeeping

There are also a couple of administrative tweaks. The bill removes the word "private" from one section of the existing law (SEC. 2). While we don't have the full context of the original section, generally, removing qualifiers like "private" can broaden the scope of the entities or activities covered by the Act, perhaps allowing for more public or mixed-entity involvement. Additionally, it makes a minor technical change by striking and redesignating a subparagraph within the grant regulations. These are the kind of clean-up edits that policy wonks love, designed to make the law clearer and easier to administer without changing the core function.