Here is a description (the NAC website is here):
Thursday, December 22, 2011– Disenrollment Dividing Tribes:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to freedom of speech. Recently, seven members of a California tribe were banned from tribal lands for up to 10 years, allegedly for speaking out against the current tribal administration. Should a tribe be able to use its status as a sovereign nation to remove unwanted members from their tribal rolls, with no recourse? Does simply speaking out against your tribal leaders give them the right to kick you out of the tribe? Guests include former chairwoman Jessica Tavares (United Auburn Indian Community).
This will be my second time on the program (the first was about Carcieri).
Turtle Talk 
When rights are inherent, no one has the right to dissolve or dilute them. The issue on freedom of speech is important to the communication of thoughts; only when one learns something new does their opinion change. An opinion is just that, not grounds for disenrollment.
The US Supreme Court decreed in 1972 that Rights cannot be taken or given away (even by their owners), only privileges can.Disenrollment is just plain stupid, & it is not The Indn Way in any culture I know of (several) – Generosity is most valued, & one of the worst slams is to say a person behaves as if s/he has no relatives – i.e., is greedy & ungenerous. I get nothing from my tribe, along with 48 others. When we asked the 309 who get a per cap to share 1 year’s per cap with us, they turned us down. Their economic hardship would have been to struggle along on only $289,000 for that year, the poor things. Those aren’t Indns – they are only enrolled. My grandmother was right – either everyone gets a per cap or no one does because otherwise greed sets in in spades & the Traditional Ways get hurt. It’s embarrassing to be from the same “nation” as such greedy people. I have my Indn pride, & they don’t.. but so long as they do nothing special with the money, they are just apples & should turn in their enrollment cards. Oh but wait – then they wouldn’t get those per caps. Catch 22.
While I generally oppose disenrollments, especially when due to prevailing internal politics, is the argument set forth above intending to imply that the U.S. constitution’s Bill of Rights applies against native nation governments? (Incidently, the ‘first amendment’ to the last native nation constitution I read addressed removing the BIA from approving their resolutions, and had nothing to do citizen free speech.)
Regarding the “with no recourse’: what is the suggested recourse? Already the BIA meddles in these kinds of things, even to the point of applying the US Bill of Rights in its analyses. Now, last I checked, the BIA is part of the federal government, so if the US Supreme Court says it will not apply the US Bill of Rights against native nation governments, how can the BIA do that? Aren’t BIA’s decision revewiable by the US Supreme Court? So if the BIA’s decision is based on the US Bill of Rights, and that decision is reviewable by the US Supreme Court, it now seem like, through the back door, the US Supreme Court will review the BIA’s and the Native nation’s actions using US Bill of Rights. A back door to undermining, if not rendering wholly impotent, the Santa Clara/Martinez decision.
Ironically, disenorlled native nation citizens were once enrolled; indeed some were elected leaders. Did they think about establishing recourse then? A separate administrative process for enrolling and disenrolling? An administrative process requring due process? A decision subject to judicial review? Not to castigate: we all get more focused and concerned whren its our rights on the line, BUT – FIX THESE THINGS NOW … before its too late.