Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tribal Recognition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears dispute over HB43 after tribal leaders warn address change could sever recognition
Summary
State Planning & Community Affairs debated HB43, which would codify mailing addresses and guarantee council seats for state‑recognized tribes; tribal leaders told the committee that changing a listed PO box could effectively terminate recognition and cut members off from programs, and the committee tabled the bill for revision.
State Planning & Community Affairs heard more than an hour of testimony on HB43 (LC442156), a bill the sponsor described as an "administrative" update to ensure each state‑recognized tribe has a seat on the Council on American Indian Concerns and that the tribes’ codified mailing addresses are current. Representative Lim said the bill seeks to "ensure proper artifact preservation, promote cultural heritage, and support the economic development of our indigenous Americans in the state."
Tribal leaders said the proposed address changes are not clerical and warned of real consequences. Richard Botts, who identified himself as chairman of the Georgia Tribe of Eastern Cherokee, told the committee that the bill’s language would change the tribe’s mailing address without the tribe’s consent and "in essence, this bill is termination." Botts testified the tribe has used PO Box 1993 since recognition and said members could lose access to USDA programs, grants and other benefits tied to that listing.
Other witnesses pressed the committee on historical and administrative details: witnesses said a postmaster’s sworn testimony and court materials show a later change in post office boxes and that competing groups have long disputed names and addresses. Donald Kirkland, vice chair of the Georgia Council on American Indian Concerns, told the committee the council’s role is advisory and that the legislature, not the council, has the formal authority to recognize tribes.
After extended questioning and competing proposals (including an offer to add a separate recognition path for an additional group), Representative McLean moved to table HB43 so staff and interested parties could draft an amended approach; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. Committee members asked parties to work on a revised mechanism that would address name/address disputes and the council’s recommendations before bringing a new bill back to the committee.
