A bill that would transfer ownership of the Shawnee Indian Mission to a Native tribe has been put to bed for now.
The Kansas House of Representatives’ committee on federal and state affairs voted on Tuesday against House Bill 2384, which would convey the state historical site in Fairway to the Shawnee Tribe.
The statehouse committee’s decision marks an end for the years-long debate — which called into question who should own the state historic site — in the 2025-26 legislative session.
Despite the committee killing the bill, Shawnee Tribe Chief Ben Barnes said the tribe is “undeterred” and will continue education efforts to “save this historic site for future generations.”
“We are obviously disappointed in the vote today, but we’ve known from the beginning that this might be a long road,” Barnes said in an emailed statement. “We remain undeterred.”
In a newsletter emailed on Tuesday afternoon, city of Fairway officials thanked the committee for “overwhelmingly voting against HB 2384.” Leading up to the committee meeting, the city sent out multiple calls to action, asking community members to reach out to their legislators and urge them to vote no. City officials believe their campaign impacted the committee’s Tuesday decision.
“We, along with the Kansas Historical Society and the Shawnee Indian Mission Foundation, look forward to continuing and expanding our collective efforts with many Tribal Nations and leaders to grow our knowledge of the Mission and work collaboratively to share its many stories,” the March 18 newsletter reads.
How did we get here?
The ownership of the Shawnee Indian Mission, a 12-acre national historic landmark in Fairway, has been the root of a growing rift between the Shawnee Tribe and the city.
Years ago, the tribe and the city announced a partnership to investigate the Shawnee Indian Mission’s history as a boarding school for Native children from the 1830s to the 1860s.
That potential partnership quickly fizzled out within a year after the Shawnee Tribe raised concerns that the search for unmarked graves of Native children on the site was not being handled with requisite cultural sensitivity.
The tribe then commissioned a study of its own that found the national historic landmark to be in “deep distress,” which the city and the Shawnee Indian Mission Foundation strongly dispute.
The release of that tribe-commissioned study led to Chief Barnes calling for the tribe to take ownership of the site.
Since then, multiple bills have entered the Kansas Legislature — once in 2023 and again in 2025.
While a hearing was held in the same committee in 2024, no action was ever formally taken, so that first iteration of a bill died.
The now-dead HB 2384 this year again aimed to transfer the ownership of the site to the Shawnee Tribe. It also required the tribe to consult on the future of the site with the four federally recognized tribes of Kansas and other tribes that sent children to the Shawnee Indian Manual Labor School in the 1800s.
“A site of cultural genocide”
The committee on federal and state affairs ultimately killed HB 2384 on Tuesday morning, with at least two legislators vocalizing support of it.
Rep. Brooklynne Mosley, a Democrat representing neighboring Douglas County, supported HB 2384 because it is “a site of cultural genocide.”
Mosley said that when she toured the Shawnee Indian Mission, she was told that the tribe “was already assimilated when they came here.” Mosley said “assimilation is an act of violence.”
In the end, the Shawnee Indian Mission’s calendar of activities such as yoga classes solidified Mosley’s support to transfer the site to the Shawnee Tribe.
“We’re lucky that all they want is just this site,” Mosley added. She also said that it is problematic to mention casinos when discussing transferring a site to a tribal nation.
Rep. Clarke Sanders, a Republican representing Saline County in central Kansas, said that early on, he gave his word to support HB 2384.
Rep. Louis Ruiz, a Democrat representing neighboring Wyandotte County, said “to insinuate that the tribe can’t be trusted, I find that insulting,” he said in reference to previous discussions about the bill. He did not specify his vote.
JoCo legislators, others speak against HB 2384
Some like Rep. Steve Huebert, a Republican representing Sedgwick County, and Rep. Ron Bryce, a Republican representing Montgomery County in southeastern Kansas, said they were initially supportive of the effort to transfer the site to the tribe.
Both indicated that they planned to vote against HB 2384. Huebert said he saw problematic language in the bill, while Bryce said he simply had a change of heart after visiting the Shawnee Indian Mission, seeing volunteers at work and realizing the site is not blighted.
Johnson County legislators like Rep. Dan Osman and Rep. Stephanie Sawyer Clayton, both Democrats, spoke against HB 2384.
Osman said he received nearly 500 emails asking him to vote against HB 2384. More than that, Osman said he doesn’t believe there is a legitimate argument that the Shawnee Tribe has sole claim to the Shawnee Indian Mission site.
Sawyer Clayton said the site is “tremendously important to northeast Johnson County.” Additionally, Sawyer Clayton said she wants to see the state send more money to its historical sites such as the Shawnee Indian Mission.
Keep reading statehouse news: ‘Common sense’ or ‘based on fear?’ Kansas senators weigh sex offender bill sparked by Blue Valley incident
