Committee tables bill after competing testimony over tribal mailing address and recognition

Representative Lim brought HB43 to the State Planning & Community Affairs committee, saying the bill would ensure each state‑recognized tribe has representation and would update the codified addresses used to contact tribes. “I reintroduced this bill this year to ensure that the council's membership will always have representation by at least one member from each of our state‑recognized tribes,” Representative Lim told the committee.

The bill prompted sharply divergent testimony over a PO Box listed in state law. Richard Botts, chairman of the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, said his group has used PO Box 1993 since recognition in 1993 and that changing the address without consent would cut the tribe off from grant and program access. “If you take state recognition away, it kinda cuts us out of that equation,” Botts said, arguing that altering the statute could harm members’ access to USDA programs, census benefits and other services.

Wallace Seabolt, a tribal council member, and Johnny Chattin echoed that concern and presented documents they said support the tribe’s long use of PO Box 1993, including USPTO filings and other paperwork. Seabolt said a for‑profit entity, GTEC Federal Services Company, filed an address that the tribe did not authorize and called that action inappropriate.

Donald Kirkland, vice chair of the Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns, told the committee the council lacks statutory authority to recognize tribes and said the legislature is the authorizing body. Kirkland said the council’s records — including sworn statements and a superior court ruling — indicate the PO Box now in statute may not have existed at the time of the 1993 recognition and that other documentation shows the group that requested the address change may differ from the group testifying in opposition.

Members repeatedly pressed witnesses about who is the principal chief and whether federal recognition exists. Witnesses acknowledged there is no federal recognition for the groups in question and described long‑running disputes over names and leadership dating decades. Several speakers urged that any change to recognition or codified listings proceed through the formal study and recommendation process the council and legislature use for these matters.

After extended testimony and discussion, Representative McLean moved to table HB43 so the authors and stakeholders could draft revisions and, if needed, submit a separate bill to add a fourth state‑recognized tribe. The motion to table was seconded and approved by voice vote. The chair directed sponsors and council representatives to pursue a mechanism for addressing name and address disputes and to return with a clarified legislative approach.

The committee did not reach a final determination on whether a different group legitimately holds the contested PO Box; witnesses for both sides said they would supply additional documentation. The committee moved on to other business after tabling HB43.