vol. 37, no. 6

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Volume XXXVII

San Francisco, July - August, 1972

No. 6

Bank Secrecy Act

Is Restrained

The nationwide temporary restraining

order, issued June 30 to prohibit im-

plementation of the Bank Secrecy Act,

was corttinued July 17 by a three-judge

Federal Court, which took the matter

under submission. The restraining order is

against the government disclosure

requirements only, allowing the

requirement of filmed records on all

checks until the merits of the con-

stitutional argument are ruled on.

U.S. District Judge William T.

Sweigert, who had issued the TRO, was

joined on the panel by U.S. District Judge

William G. East of Oregon and Oliver D.

Hamblin, U.S. Circuit Court Judge.

The Court heard from Legal Director

Charles Marson and from Board member

A plaintiff in the Bank Secrecy Act -

Suit is Fortney H. Stark, Jr., President

of Walnut Creek's Security National

Bank, Democratic Congressional

Candidate from the Eighth District,

and former ACLU-NC Board Member.

and volunteer attorney Neil Horton, who

said the act imposes ``wholesale invasion

of privacy on millions of individuals for the

government's purpose of obtaining in-

formation about a handful of tax or

criminal violators.'' arson said it

amounted to `"`exploitation of a regulated

industry to make banks government spies

on their customers.'' =

The California Bankers Association has

filed a companion suit, and the Court

heard their attorney John Anderson state

that compliance would

million checks a~ month in California

alone, at an estimated cost to the banks of

$50,000.

Anderson also pointed out that an

assurance of privacy is a bank service and

that they have no wish to violate it. He

said, ``We don't want to be a diarist of our

customers financial affairs, we don't want

to be someone's Boswell."'

In reply the attorney for Department of

Justice's tax division, John J. McCarthy,

simply stated that no right of privacy

exists for bank customers and_ their

financial records.

_ Ina legislative development to maintain

financial records privacy, California

Senator John V. Tunney introduced a bill

on July 20 which he described as ``an

insurance policy against unwarranted and

improper intrusion by anyone, including

government, into a person's bank-life.''

The bill would permit banks to provide

customers' records only:

involve 250

-When the customer gives his con-

sent, or

-When a subpoena is served on the

customer, or

-When a court order is issued, based

on a showing of ``probable cause.''

In reference to the government's

contention that bank customers have no

tight of privacy, Tunney states, ``It is

very apparent that our government, with

its insatiable appetite for information, has

an incredible lack of sensitivity concerning

the people's right to be let alone.''

Executive Director Jay A. Miller had

written both Senators Tunney and

Cranston in April calling for such

legislation following a Bay Area incident

of FBI surveillance of bank records

California Senator John V. Tunney

has introduced legislation which is

designed to prevent improper in-

trusion into financial records. More

details on the bill are on Page 7.

without proper authorization.

ACLU members will shortly be

receiving a letter from Senator Tunney

explainirly his bill, which is being sent

through ACLU's mailing house. More

details on the bill are on page 7.

The national ACLU has also filed suit

challenging the Bank Secrecy -Act, in

early July in Washington DC. They are in

conversation with the American Bankers

Association about filing a companion suit,

although no final decision has been

reached at this time.

ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier

sent letters to the nation's 100 largest

banks last April expressing concern over

the role banks have been playing in the

government's increasing surveillance of

citizens. He stated that, ``many banks

voluntarily allow agents of the govern-

ment - police, FBI agents, investigators

for Congressional committees - to

examine at will the records of individual

and organizational accounts, without the

permission or indeed the knowledge of any

of the people involved.''

ACLU's challenge to the Bank Secrecy

Act has received nationwide attention -

even worldwide, to quote Wirtschafts

publicist Dr. Eckard Paul Imhof, ``Nach-

demdie Jokale fresse uber die Klage der

ACLU berichtet hatte, die die Aufhenb-

vugeines angeblich verfassungswidri-

gen,' and he goes on like that for three or

four columns in the Basler Nachrichten.

Death Penalty:

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its

current session with a monumental

decision on June 29, Furman v. Georgia,

holding that the death penalty was a cruel

and unusual punishment forbidden by the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, at

least where death was imposed under

statutes authorizing its discretionary

imposition.

How They Voted

The five Justices comprising the

majority wrote separate opinions. Justices

Brennan and Marshall took the position

that ``the death penalty is constitutionally

impermissible in all circumstances under

the Eighth and Fourteenth Amend-

ments.' Mr. Justice Stewart, while

recognizing that the ``case is a strong

one' for this position found it ``un-

necessary to reach (that) . . . ultimate

question."' The ultimate question would

be raised, he wrote, if mandatory as well

as discretionary death sentences were

before the Court. Since they were not, he

concluded only that the discretionary form

of death-sentencing was unconstitutional.

`Mr. Justice Douglas also condemned

discretionary capital punishment,

reserving the question ``(w)hether a

mandatory death penalty would . . . be

constitutional'? assuming that it were

even-handedly enforced.

Finally, Mr. Justice White agreed that

the discretionary aspect of capital punish-

ment rendered it unconstitutionally cruel

and unusual, putting aside only the

question of ``the facial constitutionality of

statutes requiring the imposition of the

death penalty for first degree murder, for

more narrowly defined categories of

munder or for rape. 1

The conclusion is inescapable that the

Supreme Court of the United States -

however close the vote - has forbidden

discretionary death sentencing. ``This

much seems apparent,'' as the Chief

Justice wrote for the four dissenters, "`if

the legislatures are to continue to

authorize capital punishment for some

crimes, juries and judges can no longer be

permitted to make the sentencing

determination in the same manner they

have in the past."'

What About the

Initiative?

Coming immediately after an initiative

qualified to be placed on California's

November ballot to reinstate the death

penalty, the high court's decision raises

serious questions on its legality.

The initiative measure would resurrect

all of the California death penalty statutes

as they existed on February 17, 1972,

when the California Supreme Court struck

them down as violative of this state

constitution's ``cruel or unusual punish-

ment'' clause.

However, the principal death penalty

Death Penalty

_ Statutes the initiative seeks to reinstate - .

those under which no doubt over 90 per

cent of death sentences are imposed - are

statutes which allow for discretionary

death or imprisonment sentences for

murder, kidnaping or sabotage. These the

U.S. Supreme Court has clearly forbidden.

What would be the meaning or effect

of passage of the initiative?

No one really knows for sure. But it

seems clear to the ACLU that it is a waste

of taxpayer's money to vote on a measure

that is substantially unconstitutional and

one whose effect might be essentially quite

different from what many who favor it and

vote for it assume.

What can we do?

One action ACLU has taken was to file

Levit v. Brown on July 19 in the State

Supreme Court, requesting that the

initiative not be placed on the November

ballot.

Even those favoring the death penalty

agree that the initiative can not do what it

says, now that the Supreme Court ruled

Who Will Decide?

out discretionary death sentencing. But

they argue that passage of this measure

would reinstate mandatory death- sen-

tencing and that would make it

worthwhile.

Since mandatory death statutes are

mainly for some rather strange and

unusual crimes (no one has ever been

convicted under most of them), spending

tens of thousands of dollars to decide the

question would be a gross misuse of

taxpayer's money.

Those crimes which carry a mandatory

death penalty are:

e The seemingly impossible offense of

treason against the State of California;

@ That most astounding of all capital

offenses - which simultaneously admits

the fallibility of human judicial process

and attaches irremediable consequences to

it - the capital crime of procuring the

execution of an innocent man by perjury

in a capital case; :

e Deadly assault by a life-term inmate

on a non-inmate;

e Train-wrecking resulting in injury.

But the ballot proposition, as now

stated, would not provide a clear vote on

even this question. A voter who believes

' capital punishment should be permitted

only if the jury has the right to reduce the

penalty in specific cases might vote for the

initiative, since its language claims that is

its effect, not realizing that the Supreme

Court's decision has knocked the sections

out that he favored. A voter surely has the

right to expect that his vote will be

counted for or against a proposition as it

appears on the ballot, not on some revised

proposition to be reconstructed later from

bits and pieces of the original, giving it an

entirely different meaning.

The ACLU suit points out that courts

have previously held illegal such artificial

slicing up of initiatives to remove voided

portions that were an integral part of what

was voted on.

What else can we do?

On an issue as important as this one, we

must use all available means to insure

success. This means we have to get started

right away letting the public know the

facts on this ballot proposition. No money

is available for an expensive advertising

campaign. This means that the word must

get out by each of us telling his neighbors

and friends, by you requesting that we

send a speaker to your club or

organization, by the kind of grass roots

work that seems so slow and exhausting,

but has proven so successful in many

campaigns. _

The ACLU, through the Coalition to

End the Death Penalty, is now organizing

for such an effort. We need a lot of

volunteer help... your help. Let us know

you'll help. Call 781-2597 or mail us the

following coupon:

SS SS SS SS eS SS SE Se ey

| pound a

Rs |

ic = c

a . 5

| 0) = |

Qc n

| eo (c) ES

o oOo (c) 2 yn

| WE Os 3} A (R)

a 9 o S |

Soo = 8 ae

2 Sc a @ =

2 aaa Ss

(c)

Le fee pl

= ew g q

| a a ow z |

Le a os o

eS = i Ww

a = 2 on

c. 5 8 = Ro

Ww (R) a ~ bee

" oO = pound 2 oe |

= ee Eos eat

. Z

| Sg 2 - Bo s wots

e Ww 9 (R) So

ic is S Leow

a ec "4 a) EEO

ro S =) Us a ALY

Ww @ OO centd = QO+0ccent

o - cena c @oco

a5 x= z

FES os 2 wt Cn

wo es

0) 6 5 Ww ae ce ofu

ee a = Pee |

w Fk wu. eae

a 2G" ef 2 3 2

og CO 24 a 8 = |

| PRE 8 ee (c) 5

Se 3} a

of=fv Fi cS BE |

E sm oO 2S 0x00A7 3 o

CG o Oy = oO U |

MY oa OS =

Sf Ss a5 5 OS a

Sa 260 = Or= vo

Sa cS 5 ~*~ ow pound

QO (c) se 25 6 = 6

= So pound2 = = |

S o Deters wo Son

| = oS = go = acc CS

= = == "n

See 2 oe eo i |

ee Be eee

a 0 = (c) i

% Co One

l SS One cies Os

LEGAL

Recently, All Wins

We have had a string of wins this

summer by our volunteer and staff at-

torneys, which we are always pleased to

report.

Flag Burning

The California 3rd District Court of

Appeal has struck down the state flag

desecration law in Alford v. Municipal

Court, a case argued over a year ago by

Sacramento volunteer Joseph Samuel.

The unanimous decision overturned

both Municipal and Superior Court

decisions, ruling the First Amendment

was violated by section 614(d) of the -

Military and Veterans Code which

provided that whoever ``Publicly

mutilates, defaces, defiles or tramples any

(American) flag'' is guilty of a

misdemeanor.

Presiding Justice Fred Pierce stated

that, ``Loyalty to the state of one's

residence is a usual and desirable social

behavior. But legislative prohibition of

defacement of a state flag has a First

Amendment implication. Any person has

the right to dislike the state within which

he lives and to say so."'

The court took note of the thousands of

flag-depicted articles, from auto decals, to

martini decorations, that made the law

suffer from overbreadth.

Michael L. Alford was one of two 19-

year-old Sacramentans accused of burning

an American flag on the steps of the state

Capitol Building during an anti-war

demonstration May 8, 1970.

Right to Transcript

The California Supreme Court also

ruled in our favor in March v. Municipal

Court, in which Legal Director Charles

Marson filed an amicus curiae brief. The

case was remanded to the trial court to

reconsider the indigent misdemeanant's

motion for a transcript at public expense,

with both reasons for its original denial

overturned.

This win was helped greatly by a

decision last December of the U. S.

Supreme Court in Mayer v. City of

Chicago, which had the effect of shifting

the burden of proof of need for a complete

transcript, versus some summary

alternative, from the indigent to the state.

This Court points out that Mayer reverses

Magezis on which the trial court's

decision -was based, a case we carried and

lost a couple of years ago.

The Court also flatly rejected the lower

Court's novel contention that Rachel

March. et al, arrestees from San Francisco

State College's ``mass bust,'' were not

indigents because they were students, and

could quit school, get a job, earn some

money and then afford to buy the tran-

script. The decision states, `"The relevant

consideration in determining indigency is

whether the petitioner's current financial

status affords him equal access to the legal

_ process. Such a determination cannot

include an evaluation of the appellant's

future earning potential or even his

present potential had he chosen to employ

himself in a more financially rewarding ~

manner."

Police Brutality

General Counsel Ephraim Margolin

reports success in a case he handled as an

ACLU volunteer attorney involving

Berkeley police brutality. The win took

the form of an out-of-court settlement for

the victim of $1250.

Details of the case are reminiscent of

charges of police brutality of the press at

last May's anti-war demonstrations in

Berkeley and San Francisco. It involves

New York Human Rights Commissioner

Jonathan Strong, who chanced to be in

Berkeley on May 5, 1970 at the scene of a

public gathering to which police were

called.

Strong had a camera with him, and took

pictures of police using what he considered

to be excessive force to detain someone.

The police then turned on him and took

his camera away, inflicting bruises and a

black eye in the process. Fortunately for

Strong, another bystander also had a

camera and caught this action.

Strong was highly appreciative of the

ACLU efforts on his behalf, and has made

a donation to the ACLU Foundation.

Long Hair

Michael C. Tobriner, California Rural

Legal Assistance attorney in Healdsburg,

advises that he and Sonoma County at-

torney Jay Cantor appeared as volunteer

ACLU counsel in a hearing on an

unemployment insurance claim for Robert

M. O'Brian of Santa Rosa.

The Referee's decision was that

O'Brian's long hair and beard did not

constitute an unwillingness to accept any

employment without restrictions, noting

that he had always been willing to alter his

"appearance to satisfy any potential em-

ployer's requirements, and had bought a

wig for that express purpose.

The decision pointed out that while a

Department survey showed some em-

ployers in O'Brian's field had a reluctance

to hire someone with long hair or a beard,

other employers indicate an indifference to

the worker's appearance and are primarily

concerned with production and good

work.

Reference was made to ACLU-NC's

favorable decision in Hugh King v.

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board,

which the California Supreme Court has

just upheld by denying hearing. In this

case the Court of Appeals stated ``A beard

for a man is an expression of his per-

sonality . . . a symbol of masculinity, of

authority, and of wisdom .. . (or) a symbol

of non-conformity and rebellion. Symbols

under appropriate circumstances merit

constitutional protection.'

Prison Rules

General Counsel Paul Halvonik was a

plaintiff in a suit won by Public Ad-

vocates, Inc., which challenged

rulemaking procedures of the Department

of Corrections and the Adult Authority.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge

William Gallagher held that these

agencies, which run California's prison

system, should promulgate new

regulations according to provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act (such as

holding public hearings), as other state

agencies must.

The attorneys bringing the suit ex-

plained that, in the past, even finding out

what regulations the two departments

have has been nearly impossible for at-

torneys representing prisoners.

Raymond Procunier, Director of the

Department of Corrections, has said that

`the state will appeal.

_ If the judge's ruling holds, all ae rules

and regulations of the prisons (many of |

which are very arbitrary and capricious)

will be struck cown. Halvonik feels that

because of the public scrutiny that will

now be on the rules, the departments may

abandon some of their ``Mickey Mouse

regulations."'

=

July - August

aclu NEWS

New Legal Staff

The office is filled this summer with

many new legal faces including one new

staff attorney and four summer interns.

Joining us full-time is Peter Sheehan,

who first came on the staff part-time last

winter on a Coro Foundation Internship.

This program provides young people,

many of whom are still students, with

practical public service experience while

they are receiving subsistence level in-

come. When the Internship expired the

experience was mutually satisfactory

enough that the ACLU Foundation

Fellowship was established, and Sheehan

became its first recipient. He was admitted

to the California Bar this January.

Sheehan was graduated from Boalt

Hall Law School last year, after re-

ceiving his B.A. in political science from

San Jose State in 1968. While at Boalt he

was on Law Review and did work with the

NAACP Legal Defense Fund, C.R.L.A.,

and a Criminal Law Reform Bail Project.

Making an important contribution to

our legal efforts this summer are four law

school summer interns. They are John

Oakley (Yale), Ann Hasse (Boalt), Erica

Grubb (Harvard) and Richard Gabrielli

(Yale). We will certainly miss the fine

work they have been doing as they return.

to school this Fall,

Black Panthers Win

San Francisco Municipal Court Judge

John J. Hopkins dismissed complaint on

July 28 against four Black Panther Party

members who were arrested for soliciting

for the free breakfast program, declaring

two criminal codes unconstitutional.

Representing the Panthers was Peter

Sheehan, Staff Attorney for the ACLU-NC

Overturned as an unconstitutional prior

restraint on free speech because it is vague

and without precise standards, is

Municipal Police Code 590, which

requires a permit from the Police Chief to

"*solicit memberships financial

assistance ... or to sell... any article...

on the plea, statement or representation

that such solicitation is for a charitable,

patriotic or philantropic purpose.'' A.

permit is to be issued only if the Chief is

satisfied that:

**Such purpose or object of such

solicitation is worthy and not incompatible

with public interest, and that the applicant

and other persons to be engaged in said

solicitation are of good character and that

the total costs and expenses of such

solicitation are not disproportionate to the

sum proposed to be collected thereby, and

that a permit should be issued there-

fore

Sheehan observes, ``Defendants and the

Chief of Police have deep and undoubtedly

sincere differences over what is a `worthy'

purpose. In fact, it seems quite likely there

would be very substantial differences

among Police Chiefs on such a subjective

standard. Most of the wording of the code

is similarly vague, such as `good

character' or `not incompatible with the

public interest.' This gives the police

dictatorial power over the content of ideas

advanced in public in San Francisco.

Also overturned was Penal Code No.

647(e), which the ACLU contended

violates the Fifth Amendment guarantee

against compulsory _ self-incrimination.

This code section requires citizens to

identify themselves and account for their

presence (at the scene of the questioning)

when required to do so by a peace officer,

under certain circumstances.

Sheehan points out that, ``Uhless police

"suspect a person of being involved in evil,

wrongful or improper conduct, they have

no right. to. question him. Therefore,

making it a crime not to answer places him

in a `Catch 22' situation. If he accounts

for his presence he may be actually giving

evidence which will in some way be used

against him. But if he refuses to answer,

this statute makes him guilty of a crime

anyway."

Defendants in the case were Victor

Grayson, Ronald V. Stallings, Glynn E.

Wheeler and Mack H. Wilson.

The Franklin

San Mateo Superior Court Judge Robert

Miller last week sustained claims by Bruce

and Jane Franklin to protection under the

First and Fifth Amendments from being

compelled to. discuss their political

associations and views as_ reluctant

prosecution witnesses in a trial of cae

alleged political associates.

The Franklins, members of the

organization Venceremos, were sub-

poenaed to testify for the prosecution in a

felony trial in which two defendants

(allegedly also members of Venceremos)

were on trial for knowing possession of an

explosive device, and one of them on the

additional charge of felony assault on an

officer. The explosive device consisted of

wires, switches, an alarm clock and a

buzzer. The charges grew out of a raid

conducted by police on a house on Chester

Street in Menlo Park.

The prosecution sought to establish

through the Franklins that the defendants -

Affair

had specific intent to use the device as a

bomb, on the theory that the Franklins

believe in bombs, the defendants associate

with the Franklins in Venceremos, and

therefore the defendants believe in bombs.

To this end the prosecutor sought to

compel answers to questions such as `` Are

you a member of Venceremos? Are you a

revolutionary? Did you write this book?

Did you write this paragraph?''

The Franklins were represented at the

trial by Legal Director Charles Marson,

who objected to the questions on the

grounds that they impermissibly intruded

into the Franklins' rights to free speech

and association and also, according to the

prosecution's guilt-by-association theory,

called for incriminating testimony. Judge

Miller held that both privileges were

properly claimed with respect to all

questions, and refused to compel answers.

This week the jury ee both

defendants.

aclu NEWS

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - April, July - August,

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

William Kane, Editor and Public Information Director

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-2750

Membership $10 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

Jay Miller, Executive Director

LEGAL

July - August

3 aclu NEWS

Free Speech Victory

In Fresno

Editor's Note; The following article

discusses the impact on the community

of Fresno of the firing of a planning

commissioner for his public criticism

of the board of supervisors, and his

reinstatement by the court, 0x00B0 as

_ reported in last month's aclu NEWS.

Paul D. Bush

Fresno Chapter Board Member

The principle that freedom of speech is a

cornerstone of democratic government has

seldom been more clearly demonstrated

than it was in a case recently decided in

the Superior Court of Fresno County.

Judge Matt Goldstein, ruling in Moore v.

Board. of Supervisors, found that the

Fresno County Board of Supervisors had

deprived planning commissioner Dr.

Heyward Moore, Jr. of his con-

stitutionally protected right of free speech.

The Board had summarily fired Dr.

Moore from the planning commission

because he had publicly criticized the

Board's record on county planning. The

case has become a cause celebre in the San

Joaquin Valley, and it has generated a

grassroots movement to bring about

reform in county government.

The case arose from a speech given by

Dr. Moore at a planning seminar held at

Fresno State College on August 28, 1971.

Moore is an associate professor of political

science at Fresno State College (now

designated as California State University

at Fresno), who, at the time, had served

almost two years of a three-year term on

the Fresno County Planning Commission.

In the course of his talk to the seminar,

Moore stated that local land developer

John Bonadelle had ``taken a weak and

very imperfect system and almost totally

corrupted it.' Moore also alleged that

Bonadelle had exerted ``undue influence''

on a majority of the Board of Supervisors.

On September 14, 1971, the Board of

Supervisors fired Moore from the planning

commission. They took this action solely

on the basis of the news report of Moore's

speech printed in the August 29, 1971

edition of the Fresno Bee. They made no

formal charges against Moore, nor did

they hold a hearing to determine whether

or not the report of Moore's speech was

accurate, or whether Moore's ability and

fitness to hold his position on the planning

commission were in any way adversely

affected by his exercise of free speech. So

precipitous was the move to fire him, the

matter was brought up unannounced in

the middle of a crowded morning's

agenda.

Without any apparent purpose for doing

so, Board Chairman John Ventura began

reading a curious statement of his reasons

for voting as ``he did'' (in the past tense)

to discharge Dr. Moore. To the em-

barrassment of his colleagues on the Board

and County Counsel Robert Wash, who

had drafted the statement, Ventura had

read his reasons for voting on a matter that

had not yet been placed before the Board.

When the motion was finally made,

Supervisors Wesley Craven, James O.

Cassidy and Joseph Reich voted with

Ventura to remove Moore. Only

Supervisor John Krebs, a Fresno attorney

and himself a former member of the

planning commission, voted against the

motion.

Krebs had long been at odds with his

colleagues on the Board. Two years

earlier, the other four supervisors had

voted not to reappoint Krebs to a second

term on the planning commission. Krebs

had been appointed by the late Supervisor

Dr. Heyward Moore, Jr.

| Jefferson Gene Hahesy. When members of

the Board refused even to second

Hahesy's renomination of Krebs, Hahesy

nominated Moore, and Moore received a

unanimous vote of appointment. Later

that year, Supervisor Hahesy was involved

in an automobile accident and suffered

injuries which left him in a comatose state

for several months, and ultimately proved

fatal. Krebs ran for Hahesy's seat on the

Board in a friendly recall election and won.

Both as a member of the planning com-

mission and as a member of the Board of

Supervisors, John Krebs had repeatedly

- voiced his opposition to the vested in-

terests. which~ sought to influence the

planning processes. He was' particularly

critical of millionaire Bonadelle's in-

fluence on the majority of the Board, and

his expression of this concern at Board

meetings often generated acrimonious

debates between himself and _ other

members of the Board.

Thus the issue of John Bonadelle's

influence on county government was a hot

political issue by the time Dr. Moore gave

his speech to the planning seminar at

Fresno State College. In his premature

statement of reasons for voting on a matter

which had not yet come before the Board,

Chairman Ventura justified his decision to

fire Moore on the grounds that in making

his remarks to the planning seminar,

Moore was ``undermining . .

confidence in this Board.'' Ventura

.charged that Moore's ``false implications,

innuendos, insinuations were highly

improper and unethical and either

malicious or showing such poor judgment

as to justify his removal from the Planning

Commission.'? Other members of the

Board concurred with Ventura and added

to the record their own expressions of

outrage over Moore's public criticisms of

the Board.

The public reaction to the news of

Moore's firing was one of general disbelief

and anger. When Dr. Moore decided, as a

matter of principle, that he would

challenge the Board's decision to fire him,

he received overwhelming financial and

moral support from all segments of the

community. The issues in the Moore case

ignited a broad-based citizens' movement

for reform in county government. It at-

tracted Democrats and Republicans,

middle class whites and the minority poor,

liberals and conservatives. And because of

the central importance of the planning

process to the issues of the case, all of the

county's ecological groups became deeply

involved in the movement. An ad hoc

group of citizens was formed to coordinate

the effort. It was called the Citizens for

Responsible Government.

As its first undertaking, the Committee

. public.

circulated a petition which read: ``We,

the undersigned believe that the removal

of Dr. Heyward Moore from the Fresno

County Planning Commission was an

unwarranted move to silence legitimate

criticism of the Board of Supervisors and

the planning process. We, therefore,

demand the immediate reinstatement of

Dr. Moore to the Commission.'' This

`petition, signed by over 2,000 citizens of

the county, was presented to the Board of

Supervisors on September 28, 1971.

Supervisor Krebs moved to reinstate Dr.

Moore, but his motion failed to receive a

second. The Board also refused Moore's

personal demand that he be reinstated.

This set the stage for Moore's suit.

Dr. Moore retained the San Francisco

firm of Penrod, Himmelstein, Savinar and

Sims, and he asked the ACLU-NC to

enter the suit as an amicus. Fresno at-

torneys Donald H. Glasrud and Lenore

Schreiber volunteered to write and present

the amicus brief for the ACLU.

The brief for a premptory writ of

mandate submitted by attorneys Penrod

and Sims was based upon the following

causes of action: 1) the Board had

violated Dr. Moore's freedom of speech in

firing him for making public criticisms of

the Board; 2) the Board violated Dr.

Moore's constitutional right to due

process when they failed to provide him

with notice of charges and an opportunity

to defend himself against those charges in

a fair hearing; 3) the county ordinance

cited by the Board as its authority for

firing Moore without a hearing is on its

face unconstitutional because it denies due

process of law; and, finally, 4) the Board

violated the Ralph M. Brown act, which

prohibits secret meetings of public bodies,

when two or more members of the

majority of the Board met in private and

clandestine meetings to decide Moore's

fate. oe

In the summary of his seventy-page

decision in the case, Judge Matt Goldstein

made the following observation on Dr.

Moore's testimony: `"The evidence

supports his conclusion that Bonadelle

was a powerful and menacing influence.

He used his influence successfully in the

exploitation of vast areas of virgin lands.

To Moore, and others who shared his

feelings, the name of `Bonadelle' had

become symbolic of an irresistible force,

species of Juggernaut that overwhelmed

its adversaries and successfully quenched

its thirst for unlimited control over vast

and poorly planned subdivisions in foothill

areas."

Other witnesses corroborated Moore's

detailed analysis of the corruption of the

planning process and expanded upon

Moore's charges that land-developer

Bonadelle had an undue influence on the

Board. Testimony was also given to effect

that Bonadelle had accomplished the

intimidation of officials in county

government who were responsible for

reviewing various aspects of his proposed

land developments.

One of these individuals, County

Health Director William DeFries, was

quoted by one witness as saying that he

believed that his job was in jeopardy unless

he compromised the County Health

Department's opposition to Bonadelle's

Wonder Valley mountain subdivision.

While DeRries denied he had ever ex-

~ pressed such fears, he admitted under oath

that he had destroyed numerous depart-

mental memoranda on Bonadelle sub-

divisions which other members of his staff

described as being highly critical of the

environmental health effects of

Bonadelle's mountain subdivisions.

During their testimony the majority of

the Board of Supervisors defended their

firing of Dr. Moore on the grounds that:

1) the county ordinances gave them the

authority to make such dismissals without

benefit of a hearing; 2) that Moore's

remarks were slanderous and thus tended

to undermine public confidence in the

Board; 3) that Moore's attendance

record had long been a matter of concern

to the Board; 4) that Moore had an-

`"`extremist'' voting record - that is, he

cast a rather high number of ``no'' votes

in planning commission meetings - and,

finally, 5) that Moore no longer enjoyed

the confidence of the Board and,

therefore, would not be able adequately to

perform his duties on the commission.

While testifying to his reasons for voting

against Moore, Supervisor Wesley Craven

gave the additional reason that Moore was

`*connected with the liberal left at Fresno

State College'' and that he and Moore had

pholosophies of government that are

`*entirely opposed to each other.''

In spite of their claims that they had

reasons for firing Moore other than their

disapproval of his public remarks about

them, the Board failed to persuade the

Court that it was not in fact Moore's

public criticism of the Board which led

directly to his dismissal. Thus the issue

that had to be joined was whether Dr.

Moore's public remarks were protected or

whether the Board had the right to protect

governmental efficiency by removing

Moore.

The controlling case was Pickering v.

Board of Education. n that case the U. S.

Supreme Court held that a public em-

ployee has the right to criticize publicly

his ultimate employer as long as that

criticism cannot be shown to be

detrimental to governmental efficiency

and, following the New York Times case.

test for malice, that such statements

cannot be proven to be false statements

knowingly or recklessly made.

In the brief they filed for the ACLU,

volunteer attorneys Glasrud and Schreiber

argued that Moore's public utterances

met the standards of protection set forth in

Pickering. Accordingly, they wrote: ``A

democracy such as ours can only function

properly if its citizenry is as fully and

accurately informed as possible on matters

of public concern such as the viability of

the planning process and the integrity and

responsiveness to the public interest of

those officials through which it functions.

Therefore, if petitioner's statements were

true, it cannot be doubted that the

balancing scale of Pickering must tip

against any interest in reducing impaired

efficiency, and in favor of the extremely:

important public interest in the right to

know, not to mention the petitioner's

personal right to uninhibited freedom of

speech."'

Glasrud and Schreiber go on from this

point to argue that the Pickering decision

does not require that the statements in

. question be true, but only that they were

not knowingly false and that they are not

made with a reckless disregard of the.

truth.

Summarizing the ultimate significance

of the Moore case, Glasrud and Schreiber

make the following observation: ``Dr.

Moore has been punished after the fact for

the exercise of his right of free speech.

This is important enough. But perhaps

more important is the resulting im-

pairment of the public interest in the right

to know. Our democratic process requires

a freely and fully informed electorate. It is

essential that the public receive in-

formation upon the functioning of our

systems of government and those persons

placed into positions of responsibility by

the electorate.

**Fear of dismissal obviously did not |

deter Dr. Moore in his exercise of First

Amendment rights. But, what is most

important, his dismissal certainly had a

chilling effect upon the exercise of First

Amendment. rights by other public

employees and officials. Such persons

often have the best vantage point from

which to accurately and critically observe

the functioning of government. The

retaliatory firing of Dr. Moore

necessarily has had a chilling effect upon

Continued on next page

LEG AL

July - August

aclu NEWS

Another Fresno Firing | Student Project Ends

For Speech

On the heels of the court victory for

Fresno planning commissioner Heyward

Moore (see opposite page), another Fresno

public servant, fired for criticizing his

superiors, was restored to his job.

Fresno Narcotics Bureau chemist Joe.

Power Jr. was fired last September for

sending a letter a year earlier to Governor

Reagan in which he alleged that Bureau of

Narcotics Enforcement Area Supervisor

~ Robert P. Mannen was involved in

drinking and gambling in state offices,

drunk driving, falsification of reports,

illegal wiretapping and blackmail of

Mannen's boss Justice Deputy Director

Orville J. Hawkins, a high official in the

California Department of Justice.

ACLU-NC provided an amicus brief,

written by General Counsel Paul

Halvonik, with volunteer attorney Don

_,Glasrud attending the hearings.

The language of the Hearing Officer's

decision is important, because although he

tuled that Power was spreading false

rumors that a reasonable man would not

have believed to be true, ``there are

constitutional protections which

protect an employee in making his:

Suspicions known to appropriate

superiors, in the absence of malice or total

disregard of the truth.' _

Hearing Officer Bicknell J. Showers

states that he feels Power ``uncritically

accepted information from persons seeking

to impose upon him and permitted himself

Reversed

to become their dupe.'' His opinion is that

Power relied on a fellow agent for facts and

interpretation of events that ``at best

strained reasoning and sometimes bor-

dered on the bizarre.''

Regarding the charges against Mannen,

the decision states that some were shown |

to be untrue and others have no factual

support in the record, but that some do.

Specifically mentioned as untrue was the

blackmail charge, although Showers states

that Mannen did tape record a phone

conversation between himself and

Hawkins, without Hawkins' knowledge,

and he did make ``comments to the effect

that you have to protect yourself by having

something on everybody and that if he was

fired he would take a lot of people with

hina.

But Showers finds a conclusion of

blackmail on the evidence to be a ``chain

of reasoning'' that is ``tenuous at best.''

But Showers concludes that `` While the

proper functioning of the State cannot

condone the making of malicious and

unfounded statements about its officials, it

cannot safely establish a test of wisdom

and accuracy in regard to employees who

in good faith call even imagined

discrepancies to the attention of high

authority. Such a test may be difficult to

administer because honesty and sincerity

are difficult qualities to measure. Such a

policy may also be occasionally bur-

-densome to officials. But the alternative of

causing the employee to be not only

honest and sincere, but also to be right,

will effectively close the channels of

communication.'

Moore continued

Continued

the potential exercise of constitutional

rights by other officials and employees.''

""Not only do these `self-censored'

employees suffer a deprivation, but the,

electorate as well suffers the loss of well-

informed opinion and the information on

matters of public concern.'' -

The telling points in this ACLU brief

were not lost on the Committee for

Responsible Government. Shortly after

Judge Goldstein took the case under

submission, the Committee for

Responsible Government set out to find

men of integrity and ability to run against

those members of the majority of the

Board of Supervisors who were up for

reelection. The Committee also pledged

itself to campaign for the reelection of

Supervisor Krebs. During the spring

primary campaign, the Moore case figured

prominently in the supervisorial races.

Judge Goldstein's decision was filed on

May 3, 1972, shortly before the elections.

Finding that Dr. Moore's First Amend-

ment rights had been violated, he chose

not to rule on the other issues raised in the

case. In his decision, Judge Goldstein

wrote: ""If those public employees, who

courageously and in good faith, call to the

attention of the public what they honestly

and sincerely believe to be evil, unsound

and detrimental management of public

business by elected officials must pay the

heavy penalty of loss of employment as the

price of the candor, then the voices of

_ those best qualified to speak will be stilled

and silenced.''

**Public officials are not sacrosanct.

Lese Majesty is incompatible with

democracy. Practically every significant

improvement and change of direction in

government has resulted from harsh and

often obnoxious and offensive criticism.

Supine acquiescence by public employees

in mismanagement or improprieties leads

only to the perpetuation of evil.''

Supervisor John Krebs was reelected to

the Board in the primary election by

receiving well over fifty per cent of the

votes cast. His landslide victory after a

toughly fought campaign is viewed by

thoughtful observers as being a good index

of the voters' approval of Krebs' support

for Dr. Moore and the high principles

which both men seek to instill in county

government. The two supervisors who

voted to fire Moore and who were up for

reelection were dealt significant setbacks

at the polls.

Supervisor Reich was overwhelmingly

defeated in his bid for reelection. The

Committee for Responsible Government's

candidate, Armando Rodriquez, a Fresno

attorney and state-wide president of

MAPA, led the field of challengers and is

favored to win the run-off election for

Reich's seat on the Board.

Supervisor Wesley Craven was forced

into a run-off election in his district by Dr.

John Donaldson, a professor of physics at

California State University at Fresno.*

Donaldson also enjoyed the backing of the

_ Committee for Responsible Government.

Supervisors Ventura and Cassidy were

not up for reelection this year, but several

prominent community leaders in Ven-

tura's district are giving serious con-

sideration to mounting a recall election.

As this article is written, the Board of

Supervisors are still contemplating

whether or not to file an appeal against

Judge Goldstein's decision. In the event

that they do file an appeal, the ACLU of

Northern California will carry the case for

Dr. Moore. Whatever the future

disposition of the case, the citizens of

Fresno County have learned one of the

most important lessons of democratic

governance: the right of free speech can

be impaired only at the risk of tosing our

precious heritage of popular sovereignty.

Although we are still looking for new

funding sources for the Student Project, at

this time it seems likely to become a one-

year pilot project ending this Fall, rather

than a continuing activity.

Project Director Eva Jefferson will be -

leaving this month as planned, in any

event, to attend Boalt Hall Law School.

She is presently writing a manual on the

project so ACLU affiliates in other areas

can duplicate the project, and is planning

the project's last event - a seminar on

High School Bills of Rights, scheduled for

September 9 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at

Alternative Futures Center, 2012 Pine

Street, San Francisco.

The purpose of the seminar is to re-

energize students who are interested in

getting a bill of rights adopted by their

school district.

Eva Jefferson

All students invited are familiar with

the concept of a student bill of rights.

Some have formed committees that are

drafting rights documents. Others just

know of the idea and need more in-

formation on how to translate the concept

of a student bill of rights and respon-

sibilities into a political reality in their

respective school districts.

The conference will also give both

groups stimulation and encouragement to

sustain them during the coming year's

struggle.

The seminar will have the following

resource people:

a) Suzanne Martinez, an attorney

who works out of the offices of the

Youth Law Center, a San Francisco

Based organization. Ms. Martinez is

very knowledgeable in the area of

student rights.

b) Celso Santiago, Nick Plaisberg,

and Valerie Edwards, three San

Francisco students connected with

San Francisco's City-Wide Youth

Council. The City-Wide Youth

Council is the group responsible for

the organizing effort that resulted in

the adoption of a manual of student

rights and responsibilities for the

entire San Francisco Unified School

District. These students are now in

the process of organizing a state-wide

Student Union whose function would -

be working for the interests of

California students. c) Booker Neal of the San Francisco

Human Rights Commission who

played a major role in the negotiations

that led to the adoption of the manual

on student rights and responsibilities.

Negotiations with teachers and ad-

ministrators proved crucial to the

organizing process because teacher

and administrative opposition had to

be neutralized before the S.F. school

board approved the manual. The

experiences, advice, and insights that

will be shared by the resource people

should prove invaluable to the

students who attend the seminar.

d) Pelton Stewart, who worked onthe

S.F. Manual on student rights and

responsibilities for three years while

he was a student at Balboa High. He is

;Mow:a.college stud@nti/:: 05 (.0ios:

Time will be allotted for the students to

interact with each other. In past seminars,

this time has often proven to be most

interesting, stimulating, and valuable to

the students. The exchange of ideas,

techniques, experiences, etc., can be very

productive. Students will discover what

has proven effective in other schools and

can try to apply it to their own school

systems.

Victimless Crimes $

Good news .. . a promise of a $15,000

grant for our victimless crimes project by

the Van Loben Sels Foundation, which

will become actual money when we locate

a source for an additonal $15,000 for one

year's operation and find a suitable

director.

The grant resulted from a May meeting

between Sec. Treas. Richard De Lancie

and Jay Miller with the Foundation.

Grand Jury Projection

General Counsel Paul Halvonik is

heading for national ACLU the newly

created Grand Jury Project.

The basic purpose of this project is to

protect the rights of persons called to

testify before grand juries. Over the past

few years, grand juries have been in-

creasingly used as an extension of the FBI

and other police agencies and for political

intelligence gathering. The Project will

organize a coordinated litigation attack on

the oppresive operation of grand juries.

The project will concentrate on such

issues as:

e Racial, sexual, occupational and age

discrimination in grand jury selection;

@ Subpoenas based on illegally obtained

evidence, e.g. unauthorized wiretapping;

e Extension of right to counsel to

include the right of witnesses to be ac-

companied by an attorney while in the

grand jury room;

e Resistance to grants of immunity;

extension and protection of rights against

compulsory testimony under the Fifth

Amendment, the right of free association

under the First Amendment, marital,

attorney-client, doctor-patient and other

privileges, as well as the general right of

privacy.

e Expansion of the right to discovery,

especially by criminal defendants, of grand

jury minutes.

The project will assist the affiliates

throughout the US, in cases involving

these issues and others which will arise. It'

will also seek the assistance of the affiliates

in organizing affirmative lawsuits directed

towards those issues. The Project will

produce and distribute monographs for

lawyers setting out the legal status and

powers of the grand jury, and model

pleadings and briefs.

There is currently available from

ACLU-NC for 30 cents a 21-page

pamphlet entitled Your Rights Before the

Grand Jury. The pamphlet is written for

laymen but is also footnoted for use by

lawyers.

COMMENT

First in Jeopardy

By Alan M. Dershowitz

Harvard Law Professor

The American dollar is not the only bill

that has been shrinking in value over the

past few years. The American Bill of

Rights, our most precious national

resource, is also in the process of being

significantly devalued. The civil liberties

of all Americans - the right to be free

from unwarranted Government intrusion,

to speak critically of those in power, to be

treated fairly and with due process - have

been seriously curtailed over the past few

years. As the chief counsel to the Senate

subcommittee on constitutional rights

recently put it: ``The only part of the Bill

of Rights that the Administration hasn't

either rewritten or violated is the only one

it should have - the `right to bear

acs.

The First Amendment's ``right of the

people peaceably to assemble and to

petition'' was emasculated last year when

the Government indiscriminately rounded

up more than 10,000 war protestors,

most of whom - as the courts later held

- were engaging in entirely legal

behavior. Freedom of speech and press has

also been endangered by the Vice

President's thinly veiled threats against

the broadcast media.

The Administration has also taken aim

at the Fourth Amendment's protection

against `"`unreasonable searches and

seizures.' It has audaciously claimed to be

exempt from the requirement that a court-

approved warrant be obtained before it

may tap or bug conversations involving

the national security; and it has defined

""national security'' in the most expansive

possible way to include American citizens

engaged in what the Administration

regards as radical activities. In 1969 and-

1970 alone, more than 40,000 days of

tapping and bugging were conducted

without court approval. Fortunately, a

unanimous Supreme Court has rebuffed

the Administration on this practice.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments have

fared no better. The privilege against self-

incrimination and the right to counsel -

the bulwarks of our adversary system of

justice - may well become dead-letter if

the Administration succeeds in its express

goal of abrogating the constitutional rule

under which illegally obtained evidence is

excluded from trial; the ``exclusionary''

-ghetoric of

rule is the only presently effective

protection against unlawful police

behavior.

The Eighth Amendment's right to

reasonable bail has also been undercut by

the Administration's preventive detention

law, which authorizes the imprisonment:

of suspects, not because of what they have

done but because of what it is predicted

they might do at some future time.

Though the statute has been used only

twenty times in its ten-month history (and

is thus, obviously, not a critical weapon in

the law-enforcement arsenal), the im-

plications of preventive imprisonment

based on future predictions are frightening

to contemplate.

Despite these setbacks to liberty in

recent years, it would be wrong to con-

clude - as many radicals have asserted -

that we have become a repressive society,

or even that we are on the road to

becoming one. We are still among the

freest and least repressive societies in the

history of the world. It would also be

wrong to assume - as some politicians

have argued - that attempts to erode the

Bill of Rights are unique to the Nixon

Administration. All administrations seek

to expand the power of Government at the

expense of constitutional safeguards.

But it is widely felt by lawyers and civil

libertarians that the Bill of Rights is in

greater danger today than it has been in

recent decades. This administration has

consciously set out to weaken the powers

of the other branches of Government. It

has demeaned the Supreme Court by

considering for appointment some lawyers

whose only apparent qualifications have

_ been a thorough distaste for the provisions

of the Bill of Rights. It has encouraged the

repression. Finally, and

perhaps more important, there seems to

be a mood of repression, of intolerance, in

the air.

The American people seem to have lost

some of the vigilance that we have

traditionally exercised in defending our

sacred rights. We owe it to ourselves and

to our children to see that our noble

experiment with liberty - our Bill of

Rights - is kept strong as we enter into

our third century of nationhood.

c 1972 by The New York Times.

Reprinted by permission.

Do Women Face

Credit Discrimination?

By Rikki Grubb

ACLU-NC Summer Intern

The answer heard at May hearings

before the National Commission on

Consumer Finance is a resounding YES!

No matter what her stage of life a female

can expect credit discrimination at the

hands of almost any lender she encounters

- banks, credit-card companies, finance

companies, retail stores, and even the

Federal Government.

Single women with ample incomes are

denied mortgages and bank loans because

"`they might get married.'' Evidently,

creditors believe that once a woman

marries, her entire sense of responsibility

is thrown to the winds.

Married women encounter even

greater problems. Retail stores, even those

which cater especially to women, will

issue credit cards only in the husband's

name. Banks either discount the working

wife's income by fifty percent, or don't

count it at all in evaluating the loan ap- .

plications submitted by working couples.

Of course, sex discrimination by purely

private organizations is beyond the reach

of the Bill of Rights protection, but

enough sex discrimination goes on by

government and its regulated industries to

keep the ACLU quite busy. For example,

the Veterans' Administration requires all

women of childbearing age (twenty

through about thirty- eight) to obtain a

doctor's certificate that they cannot bear

children, or to sign an affidavit stating that

they are practicing birth control under the

supervision of a doctor, before the V.A.

will take their income into consideration _

in mortgage applications.

Widows, divorcees, and separated

women ate perhaps in the worst position

because credit records are never

established in their own names during the

marriage. Thus, it is the husband who

retains fine credit when a couple is

divorced, and the woman is forced to start

establishing credit-responsibility from

`scratch. This is virtually impossible

because merchants and banks assume that

women who cannot make a go of their

marriages will inevitably abdicate their

financial responsibilities.

This situation affects widows in a most

bizarre fashion. One case involved a

woman whose husband died six years ago.

Continued on Page 8

July - August.

aclu NEWS

Left to Right: Howard Jewel - ACLU-NC Chairman; Masao Satow - National

Director JACL; Edison Uno - Co-chairman JACL Committee to Repeal

Detention Camp Legislation; Jay Miller - ACLU-NC Executive Director.

Award Acceptance

Speech

Following are acceptance remarks of

Edison -Uno, Co-Chairman of the

National Committee To Repeal. The

Emergency Detention Act, made at the

June 4 presentation of the first Alexander

Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Award to the

Japanese American Citizens League.

`*This is indeed an auspicious occasion

and an honor for me to accept the first

annual Alexander Meiklejohn Civil

Liberties Award on behalf of the Japanese

- American Citizens League. ~

``For those of you who may not recall

the memories of the past 30 years when

110,000 Japanese, two-thirds of them

were American citizens, were subject to

the grossest injustices and deprivations of

civil rights, it was the ACLU who had the

courage to publicly oppose our wartime

treatment.

""It was the ACLU who protested the

internment of 913 aliens and citizens from

Hawaii in the Spring of 1942 and was

successful in having them returned from

Camp McCoy to their island homes.

`*It was the ACLU who posted the bail

and provided legal counsel to Fred

Korematsu when he protested the

Evacuation.

""It was the ACLU who obtained the

release of 375 evacuees from the stockades

in Tule Lake Relocation Camp in the

Spring of 1944.

"It was the ACLU who actively

supported the return of evacuees to their

West Coast homes in 1945. :

""It was the ACLU who filed for the

reinstatement of 4,322 U.S. citizens who

renounced their citizenship under

government duress.

**And it was the ACLU who supported

and provided legal advice in the

Evacuation claims cases in the 1950s.

"T could go on and on as to the history

of what your organization has done for all

persons of Japanese descent. Our struggle

has been your struggle and we are eter-

nally grateful to your membership.

""We are also very appreciative for this

special recognition for the successful

campaign to repeal Title II of the Internal

Security Act of 1950, the statutory

provisions which would have revived

detention camps in America. On Sep-

tember 25, 1971 the President signed the

repeal bill which the JACL initiated four

years ago. We were told at that time by

experienced Congressional authorities that

the repeal of Title II ``could not be done''

especially since the sentiments of this

administration and Congress were

unlikely to repeal any type of repressive

legislation in view of the agitation of

student activists, political dissentients,

and anti-war protesters.'

`The repeal of detention camp legisla-

tion was the inspiration of one individual.

The determination and dedication of this

one person was the key to the successful

legislative process. The fact that one

person, with one objective, worked with

unceasing energy and vigor made the

repeal campaign a classic example that

participatory democracy can work. I regret

that I cannot personally pay tribute to the

one individual who deserves the credit for

making this all possible and who changed

history by his courage. Our country, our

society, and all people are greatly in-

debted to this one individual, the co-

chairman of the JACL repeal committee,

- Ray Okamura of Berkeley. He is not with

us tonight because he dislikes recognition.

`"`T cannot accept this award without

also giving credit to the many committee

members who gave so generously of their

time and effort, they were the backbone of

the campaign effort. Without their support

we would have failed. We wish to

acknowledge the co-authors of the repeal

bills, Senator Daniel Inouye and

Congressman Spark Matsunaga and to

thank the ACLU and hundreds of other

organizations and individuals who were

effective in their support, both locally and

nationally.

"*In conclusion, I would like to remind

all of us that the repeal of Title II was

merely a symbolic victory. For we know

too well that there was no Title II in 1942

when by Executive Order 9066 we were

incarcerated in American concentration

camps.

*"We may have eliminated the statutory

provisions for detention camps, but we

must always remember it takes eternal

vigilance to improve Democracy and we

must struggle to eliminate the camps of

poverty, ignorance, unemployment, sub-

standard housing, poor health care, and

the psychological concentration camps of

fear, hate, racism, and oppression.

`In the living spirit of the great

Alexander Meiklejohn who left us a legacy

of civil liberties and human dignity, the

Japanese American Citizens League

accepts this honor as an inspiration to

continue the fight for freedom, equality,

and justice. Thank you."'

POLICY

July - August

(R) aclu NEWS

Biennial Conference Passes

8 Policy -Binding Resolutions

At the June conference in Colorado,

eight Policy-Binding Resolutions were

passed which will now go to the National

Board for ratification.

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Unless the actual vote is reported, the

resolutions adopted or defeated were of a

sufficiently large margin not to require a

tally count.

Exclusionary Zoning

`*Zoning and other land use controls

may not be applied in a fashion which

substantially conflicts with the op-

portunity of low and moderate income

persons to secure minimally adequate

housing in an economically and racially

integrated environment.

``Exclusionary zoning and land use

practices by government have become a

major source of segregation, both racial

and economic, in residential areas of the

United States. The pattern of legally

enforced segregation which has come to

characterize our use of land conflicts

radically with the goal of equal op-

portunity in employment as increasing

numbers of business enterprises move to

areas where there is no low and moderate

income housing; so too it conflicts with

equal opportunity in education where

whole cities are fast becoming either all

black or white; so too, it conflicts with the

goal of decent and integrated housing for

all Americans, when segments of our

population are confined to the crowded

and substandard housing of our ghettoes.

"Local governments are creatures of

and delegates of the states. The state is

constitutionally obliged to assure its

citizens of equal treatment - at the hands

of the state and of its delegates. The

delegation of local autonomy over matters

of zoning and land use must be ac-

companied by legal assurances that the

authority so delegated will not be em-

ployed so as to defeat the needs of the

whole classes of the state's citizens.

`Tt is the policy of the ACLU that the

state and its delegated agents may not

establish a regime of restraints or policies

which prevents the allocation of

residential land to low and moderate

income housing or which in any way

discriminates against low or moderate

income people.

``Utilizing federal, state, and local

governmental powers-such as land-use

permits, grants, tax incentives, and traffic

planning, government has the respon-

sibility of positive action to encourage the

development of racially and economically

integrated communities. Adopted by a

vote of 124-5 (the statement represents a

synthesis of the proposal by Larry Sager

and the New York Civil Liberties Union

statement, incorporating suggestions from

various workshops, and amended from the

floor)."'

Women's Rights

""Be it resolved that, in order to im-

plement the present ACLU policy (316A)

on the rights of women, a Status of

Women Steering Committee be selected in

a manner to be determined by the

National Board.''

Rights of the Poor

"*The American Civil Liberties Union

holds that the United States Constitution

and proper Government policy require

government at every level to assure every

person in the United States an adequate '

standard of living. Adopted, by a vote of

110-50

Development Staffing

`*Fight years ago, in this same setting,

ACLU set a new direction - the ACLU

version of the `power to the people.'

_**`Rather than now taking a step back-

ward, we do now hereby reaffirm that

`great leap forward' and move that the

first priority of this Biennial is to expand

the national development staff to assist

affiliates in fund-raising both on the hard

money and soft money sides.

`*The function of these people is to aid

and advise affiliates in the skills and

techniques needed to develope resources

for the civil liberties struggle locally as

well as nationally.

"*The thrust of this motion is to in-

crease the financial pie available to af-

filiates as well as national ACLU, so that

the substantial work of the Union may

move forward vigorously - unhampered

by insufficient financial undergirding.''

Dues Structure

The following revision of the dues

structure was adopted:

1972 1973

Member $1000 $1000

Sponsoring Member 100 100

Co-operating Member 50 _ eliminate

Sustaining Member 35 500x00B0

Supporting Member 25 __ eliminate,

Joint Member 15 2

Basic Member 10 15

(The lowest category, now designed

Student/Limited Income at $5, was

referred to the Steering Committee for

recommendation to the Board regarding

the renaming of the category and changing

the amount.)

In considering this issue, the Con-

ference adopted by a 101-59 vote a

proposal that the Student category be

eliminated. It also approved a motion that

``the Biennial Conference supports the

principle of a broadened membership base,

and directs the staff to study the impact of

financial resources to broaden the base.''

Crisis Area Fund

`*That Crisis Area Fund contributions

be made mandatory upon every affiliate;

that contributions are to be 5 percent of

the affiliate share of `shared and affiliate

new income'.''

Powers of the Biennial Conference

In a preferential vote, the Conference

recommended that the purpose of the

Biennial Conference, with certain

structural changes, be retained. This

proposal received 107 votes. A -second

At a meeting of the California caucus

at the Biennial, Marvin Schacter, the'

President of ACLU of Southern

California presides, while ACLU-NC

delegates Eva Jefferson, Jay Miller and

Howard Jewel listen.

ACLU-NC delegates Carol Burke and

Henry Ramsey (on left) participate in

small group discussions.

ACLU delegates at biennial are Paul

Halvonik, Harriet Katz (southern

California), Stan Stevens and Richard

DeLancie.

proposal, to strip the Conference of its

policy making powers and to substitute an

affiliate initiative-referendum procedure,

received 30 votes. A third proposal, to

turn the Conference into a convention

with binding policy making powers,

received 22 votes.

The following resolutions concerning

structural changes and requiring con-

stitutional amendment were approved: '

1) Insert the words ``The substance

of'? before the words ``Any recom-

mendation'' at the beginning of Section

10(C).

b) `*That the Constitution of the Union

be amended to provide that if the rejection '

by the Board of Directors of a Biennial

Conference recommendation is over-

ridden in a referendum held thereon by a

majority vote (instead of the two-thirds

vote now provided for in the Constitution

(Sec. 10(C) ) then the Board shall adopt

the Conference recommendation. Ap-

proved by a 99-49 vote.

c) **That the Constitution of the Union

be amended to provide that the policy-

influencing recommendation of a Biennial

Conference become binding unless

rejected by the Board of Directors within

12 months after the adjournment of the

Biennial Conference (instead of the 18

month period after adjournment now

provided for in the Constitution (Sec.

10(C) ). Approved by a 85-59 vote.

d) ``That the Constitution Committee

be directed to formulate and present to the

Board a Constitutional amendment to

provide for a system of initiative and

referendum on policy by affiliate boards.''

Weighted Voting

The Conference approved two proposed

Constitutional amendments regarding

. weighted voting in the election of National

at-large Board members. The amend-

ments would change Section 7(c) (1) (ii) as

follows:

(The electors shall be the following'

persons, voting by mail:)

"*(a) The members of the boards of the

affiliates voting individually at a meeting

specially called for that purpose and each

casting a number of votes equal to the

number of members in his or her affiliate

divided by the number of affiliate board

members voting.'' Approved by a vote of

70-65, it was understood that there must '

be a quorum of affiliate board members

present at the specially-called meeting.

`*(b) The members of the national

Board of Directors voting individually and

each casting as many votes as one-third of

the membership of the Union divided by

the actual membership of the national

Board of Directors. . .'? Approved by a

vote of 100-41.

LEGISLATIVE

Contact Your

Congressman Now

Two issues of great importance to Civil

Liberties may be voted on before the break

for the Republican convention -

estimated at August 18.

Please let your representative know how

you feel by telephone or wire on school

busing and the Subversive Activities

Control Board.

Following is an analysis of these issues

by our Washington Legislative Office.

School Busing

`It is quite clear now that President

Nixon plans to re-kindle emotions over

the school busing issue. He will use it as

his top domestic ploy, creating a phony

issue in much the same way as he created

straw men of Ramsey Clark and the courts

for his ``law n' order'' smears in 1968.

Public respect for the courts will again

be weakened by the upcoming Nixon

strategy, and the courts themselves will

indeed face a very real threat, through

legislation aiming to hamstring the

courts' ability to remedy violations of the

constitution.

The sad irony in all this is that anti-

busing mail to Congress had decreased

drastically, even during the weeks before

the vote on the Higher Education Act,

with its strong (but undoubtedly un-

constitutional) anti-busing, anti-transfer

amendment.

The Nixon strategy should work

something like this: first, an attempt to

get Congress to pass his Busing ~

Moratorium bill. Failing this, an effort to

win passage of his so-called Equal

Educational Opportunities: bill.

Failing this, Nixon will issue a thun-

dering blast at Congress for failing to stop

the courts from busing little children all

over the map, and will call for passage of

nothing less than, the proposed con-

stitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 620)

which would eliminate a// devices for

school desegregation.

Most of these developments will focus

on the House. The discharge petition for

the constitutional amendment, e.g., now

has 158 of the 217 signatures needed to

force H.J. Res. 620 out of committee to

the floor for a vote.

But in the Senate, Sen. Griffin (Mich.),

does have plans of his own: he will

reintroduce his own anti-busing measure

as an amendment to some upcoming piece

of legislation.

Action: We need your help promptly, |

especially if you are from the states of

Indiana, Missouri, Mass., California,

Florida, Hawaii, `Up eee, New York,

Texas or Illinois.

This is because we have a rare op-

portunity for some concentrated lobbying

on a handful of Congressmen who can

have a major impact on Round One of the

Nixon plan. The plan is for Rep. William

Colmer of Mississippi to insist, in early

August, that the House Judiciary

Committee either report Nixon's Busing

Moratorium bill to the floor, or Colmer's

Rules Committee will preempt the bill and

itself vote it out for floor action.

The Rules Committee has 15 members.

Democrats, besides Colmer, include

Madden (Ind.), Delaney (N.Y.), Bolling

(Mo.), O'Neill (Mass.), Sisk (Calif.),

Young (Texas), Pepper (Fla.), Matsunaga

(Hawaii) and Anderson (Tenn.).

Republicans on the Rules Committee

include Smith (Calif.), Anderson (IIl.),

Martin (Neb.), Quillen (Tenn.) and Latta

(Ohio).

The members we should concentrate on

in urging a ``no'' vote in the Rules

Committee - thus keeping jurisdiction of

the bill with the Judiciary Committee -

are Madden, Delaney, Bolling, O'Neill,

Sisk, Young, Pepper, Matsunaga, and

both Andersons.

Although you can undoubtedly provide

good reasons of your own in urging a

"*no'' vote of these members, here are a

few others:

@ The Judiciary Committee has held

hundreds of hours of hearing on the bill,

and is thus the only committee truly

qualified to evaluate it.

@ For the Democrats: their Party

Convention, which is being hailed as one

of the most thoughtful, responsible and

serious political conventions ever held in

this country, included a platform plank

endorsing busing as one means of school

desegregation. It would certainly behoove

Democratic Congressmen to consistently

back their platform. Moreover, there has

been very little reaction generated by the

plank, which is evidence that the issue Nas

been exaggerated.

e@ This vote represents an important

opportunity to defuse the busing issue. It

was defusing itself, anyway, until Nixon

strategists began their drive to revive it.

This should be evidence to Congressmen

that (a) busing i is a phony issue, (b) it is

mot an issue on which elections will be

lost, (c) it is time to act responsibly, and

this is a place where the anti-busing

controversy can begin the road to a quiet

death.

Because this vote can be such an im-

portant psychological victory if we win it

(at the moment the odds are against us,

but your work can turn this around), I ask

that each of you make a special effort to see

that the following Congressmen receive

letters:

Madden, Delaney, Bolling, O'Neill,

Sisk, Young, Pepper, Matsunaga and

both Andersons.

As you can see, we must win eight (8)

votes. Heavy pressure on the 10

possibilities above may bring about a

milestone.

Good luck, and please get the mail

going quickly. It would be best if your and

writers write as citizens, not as members

of the AGQLU or other civil liberties-civil

rights oriented groups.

Subversive Activities Control Board

We have won a crucial round in our

fight to deprive the Subversive Activities

Control Board of its funds. On June 15,

the Senate cast a very strong vote - 42 to

25 -- to delete from the fiscal 1973 ap-

propriations bill all funds proposed for the

SACB. Our victory is not yet safe and we

have two more very important hurdles to

overcome.

You will recall that we lost in the House

which in May voted 206-106 to give the

SACB $450,000. (Even that was a partial

defeat as the Administration had

requested $706,000.) Now that the

Senate has voted no money, the entire

appropriations bill (H.R. 14989) goes to a

Senate-House Conference to resolve this

and other differences. The House Con-

ferees have all supported the SACB. The

Senate Conferees include both supporters

and opponents. We anticipate, therefore,

that we will not be satisfied with the

results of the Conference. Fortunately,

Senator Ervin has vowed a floor fight if the

Conference votes any money at all for the

SACB.

Time is of the essence. The Senate-

House Conference and the floor fight (see

below) could come this week and will

certainly come before August 18 when

Congress adjourns for the Republican

July - August

aclu NEWS

Senator Tunney's Bill

On Financial Disclosure

Following are Senator Tunney's

remarks of introduction of his bill S. 3814,

the Financial Records Privacy Act, as

found in the Congressional Record for July

20, 1972:

Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. President, the bill

is designed to be an insurance policy

against unwarranted and' improper in-

trusions by person's banking life.

At the same time it will relieve the

banks from the uncomfortable and con-

flicting position of having to please both

the Government as well as the customer.

The bill is designed to cover all varieties

of financial institutions including banks, |

savings and loan associations, credit card

companies and the like. It prohibits un-

warranted disclosure of financial records

showing individual transactions in or with:

respect to a particular account. This

includes checks, invoices, or similar

instruments drawn on, issued, payable, or

billable by a financial institution.

The bill permits disclosure of the

protected information only upon certain

very well-defined conditions: First, when

the account holder has consented to it;

second, when a subpena has been served

| requiring those records; third, or when a

``probable cause'' hearing has been held

resulting in a court order requiring

disclosure of those records.

In the event a subpena is the means by

which the records are to be obtained, the

bill requires service to be made upon the

account holder himself in order that he

will have notice of its issuance thereby

affording him an opportunity to demand a

court hearing in the event he believes the

subpena to be improperly issued.

By requiring direct service of subpena

on the account holder, no longer will the

bank have to worry about whether it

should notify the account holder when a

subpena is served or whether it should

challenge the Government in court on the

customer's behalf.

Mr. President, I might add that the

Library of Congress has informed me that

there are over 100 different administrative

subpoenas which can be issued by Federal

governmental agencies and departments.

This incredible number of subpoenas

available to Government agents

demonstrates clearly the need to give

notice to the account holder, if we are

going to protect from improper intrusion

the right of banking privacy that

Americans have a right to expect.

The bill also provides, however, that

when a probable cause hearing has been

undergone which results in the issuance of

a court order for any particular bank

records, no such notice to the account

holder will be required on the part of law

enforcement agencies.

There is good reason for allowing law

enforcement authorities this method. If a

court determines there is probable cause

that a crime has been committed and that

the evidence will be found among the bank

records, the Constitutional fourth

`amendment protection will have been

safeguarded, and then enforcement

authorities should be allowed to utilize the

element of surprise.

The bill will allow the Federal- Deposit

Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of

the Currency, and similar agencies to

preform periodic examination or audit of

financial records pursuant to -

statutory authority.

The bill prohibits for the most part any

such agency or, indeed, any other

governmental department or agency

obtaining records pursuant to the

procedures outlined in the bill, to use or

retain the disclosed information for any

purpose other than the specific statutory

purpose for which the information was

originally sought. This protection is

subject to one exception: Such in-

formation may be used and retained where

it provides evidence giving rise to com-

plaint or indictment within 6 months of

obtaining such information. This will have

the effect of precluding the accumulation

of such information for any noncriminal

investigatory purpose, but will not require

the Government to wear blinders in the

event some highly incriminating evidence

is disclosed.

The bill provides for civil remedies

against the financial institution, the

United States, or any other person or

agency violating the act as well as criminal

penalties. It also allows injunctive relief to

be available to persons who are affected by

violations of the act.

Tunney's staff wanted to draw particular

attention to the bill's section on Civil

Penalties.

*"CIVIL PENALTIES

**SEC. 7. (a) For each willful violation

of this title, the person to whom such

records relate may recover from such

financial institution, The United States or

any other person willfully violating this

title an amount equal to the sum of-

`*(1) any actual damages sustained by

such person as a result of the violation;

**(2) such punitive damages as the court

may allow; but not less than $5,000; and

**(3) in the event of any successful

action to enforce liability under this

section, the cost of the action together

with a reasonable attorney's fee as

determined by the court.

`"`(b) For every other violation of this

Act, the person to whom such records

relate may recover from such financial

institution, the United States, or any

other person violating this title an amount

equal to the sum of-

`*(1) any actual damages sustained by

such person or the sum of $1,000,

whichever is greater; and

**"(2) in the event of any successful

action to enforce liability under this

section, the cost of the action together.

with a reasonable attorney's fee as

determined by the court.

"*(c) An action to enforce any liability

under this Act may be brought in any

appropriate United States district court

without regard to the amount in con-

troversy, or in any other court of com-

petent jurisdiction, within three years

from the date on which the liability arises,

or the date of discovery of such liability,

whichever is longer.''

Convention. We desperately need

everyone to immediately write letters.

Analyzing the votes cast in the June 16

Senate vote along with the absentees, we

have an absolute majority. However, the

SACB is only one item in a $4.6 million

appropriation bill and Senators will be

under pressure to go along. Our job is to

see that they stand firm against funding

the SACB, even if it means delaying the

appropriation bill. Again, the basic points

to make are that the SACB's blacklisting

activities violate the First Amendment

and that continued funding, despite

repeated court decisions ruling their work

unconstitutional, constitutes a massive

waste of the taxpayers' money.

Action: All Senators should be con-

tacted, informed that a Senate floor fight is

likely, and urged to vote to reject any

Conference Report which contains money

for the SACB.

a

CETERA

News of the

Sacramento

A public forum which the Chapter

sponsored on "`Women and the Media'',

was taped by KPFA FM radio when it was

done on June 14, and will be broadcast on

August 16th from 9-10 p.m. over KPFA,

94.1 on the FM dial.

Some of the issues which were debated

were the portrayal of women in news and

in media advertising, coverage of

women's issues, employment ratios of

women to men in the media, and whether

local newspapers and television are

responding to the needs of the local

community.

One of the panelists is ACLU-NC staff.

attorney Deborah Hinkle.

Others are Sigrid Peek, Sacramento

Bee; Roy Heatly, KRON-TV, San

Francisco; Rose King, Sacramento State;

and Bill Dorman, Sacramento State, who

moderates the program.

Berkeley-Albany

The Berkeley-Albany Chapter wants

`members to run fof its Board. A

Nominating Committee (Mike Rappaport,

Addie Collins, Carolyn Cowan, Eileen

Keech. and Hans Sluis) will accept

nominations bearing signatures of five (5)

Chapter members. Send nominations to

P.O. Box 121, Berkeley, 94701 by

August 21. The nominee must consent to

run. If you have questions, phone 548-

1322,

Santa Clara

Robert Baines, volunteer ACLU at-

torney, has charged the county youth

authorities with ``unconstitutional

censorship'' of younsters' mail in county

juvenile facilities.

He contended the practice of reading all

incoming and outgoing mail written by

and to inmates at the Juvenile Center and

the boys' and girls' ranches violates the

First, Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth

amendment rights of free speech, free

association to petition the government,

to counsel, privacy and freedom from

illegal search and seizure.

Richard Bothman, acting chief juvenile

probation officer, said the mail is indeed

6ecent

read, in an attempt to intercept ``con-

traband'' such as narcotics and to look for

""deleterious'' action, such as escape,

planned by inmates of the youth facilities.

He said the practice may be temporarily

suspended pending a county counsel's

ruling and would be halted if ruled un-

constitutional.

Baines said ACLU would ``pursue all

remedies available to us'' to end the

practice.

_@

Marin |

A picnic is planned for the Saturday

afternoon of September 16 at Stolte Grove

in Mill Valley. If the Death Penalty

Initiative is on the November Ballot, this

will be the subject of the day. Members

will receive more details in the next few

weeks.

Mt. Diablo

The Mt. Diablo Chapter has been

among several Contra Costa County

citizens groups who have questioned the

need for the proposed 500-inmate

maximum security county jail and has

requested a delay in its planning.

Last April, the board of supervisors

voted to proceed with plans for the new

jail, even as they hired the Bay Area

Social Planning Council to explore the

various alternatives to the jail.

The ACLU, in a_ letter to the board

deplored ``the waste of taxpayers' money

in continuing to pay any further architects

fees'? and asked suspension of jailing

_ planning until the study is completed. .

Johnson Clark, writing for ACLU's jail

study committee says, ``There is a strong

possibility the council will find a $12

million jail an unnecessary burden on the

county taxpayers and an obstacle to the

rehabilitation of prisoners, which should

be the aim of civilized society.''

San Francisco

Following a couple of inquiries by the

Chapter's Employment Rights Com-

mittee, the Public Utilities Commission

has changed its policy of having its

Assistant Manager function as both

prosecutor and judge at hearings of

departmental charges against Muni

employees.

The PUC justified its policy first as

mandated by the San Francisco City

Charter, then by a `doctrine of

necessity,'' and finally changed the policy

after ``objections were raised by `people

like you."

July - August

$B aclu NEWS

Need oi ( Help

In this issue of aclu NEWS there are six

opportunities for you to get involved in

ACLU activities - actions we want to

take that will only happen if members like

you pitch in and help. Which ones can we

count on you for?

-Death Penalty Initiative Campaign

(page 1)

-National legislative issues (page 7)

-Renew and refer for ACLU (page 8)

-Watch KQED (page 8)

-Listen to KPFA (page 8)

-Send rich friends to fund projects

(page 3)

Q Guard Fired Over Hair

Legal Director Chuck Marson recently

filed an appeal in the California Court of

Appeals on behalf of Mr. Danniel H.

Kientz, former San Quentin Guard. .

Kientz was fired because he refused to

comply with his superior's order to trim

his sideburns. The dismissal was justified

on the grounds that he violated a rule

requiring him to be ``neat and clean.''

The State Personnel Board has upheld

his dismissal on the grounds that ``The

limited restraint on the appellant's

constitutional rights to appear as he

pleased is outweighed by the benefit'' to

San Quentin of having such a rule in a

`"semi-military organization.''

Following the Personnel Board's

decision, Mr. Kienz petitioned the court

for a Writ of Mandate under a section of

the Code of Civil Procedure. The court

however, denied the petition stating that

the decision of the State Personnel Board

would be upheld.

_ The A.C.L.U. brief states that the order

of the Personnel Board was not ``sup-

ported by the findings'' and that the

`findings were not supported by the

evidence.'' It points out that ``California

law holds that a public employee has a

fundamental right based upon the first and

fourteenth amendment to groom himself

as he pleases, subject only to compelling

countervailing interests not present in Mr.

Kientz' case.''

The suit also claims that the standard of

grooming enforced against Mr. Kienz was

unconstitutionally vague as applied to

him.

The length of Mr. Kienz' sideburns;

one half inch below his ear, may seem

trivial, but his firing is not, the brief

asserts.

Renew and Refer

We are very pleased that nearly all

members have now renewed for 1972. But

there is still a thousand or two of you out

there that we haven't heard from yet.

Certainly hope your support will

continue at this critical time. We are now

engaged in some of the most important

battles in our history: the major suit

challenging the Bank Secrecy Act, for

one; and the fight in Sacramento over the

Women's Equal Rights Amendment, for

another. We also face an unprecedented

number of state initiative fights: the death

penalty, busing, marijuana, obscenity and

privacy.

We need your support NOW.

Many who have renewed have received

a request for names of friends who might

join ACLU. Eventually, all will be asked.

Thanks very much to those who have

responded so enthusiastically. Some

people have emptied out their address

books. Good. That's just what we need.

We have contacted some of your friends

already, although most will be written this

Fall, when they've returned from

vacations, etc. Again, thanks.

Radio Listening

Note

ACLU completed its third COM-

MENTARY program of KPFA FM

radio on July 28, with Jay Miller and

Summer Intern Rikki Grubb discussing

civil liberties and the women's rights

movement.

Next program will be Friday, Aug. 25

at 5 p.m. That's KPFA radio, at 94 on

your FM dial.

TV Viewing Note

KQED TV, Channel 9, will air an

hour panel discussion of the decisions

of the 1971-72 U.S. Supreme Court on

August 30, at 8:30 p.m.

Moderator for the show is former

ACLU-NC_ Staff Counsel Marshall

Krause. Panel members are ACLU-NCeuro

General Counsel Paul Halvonik,

ACLU-NC Legal Committee Co-

Chairman Jerry Falk, and Stanford Law

Professor Gerald Gunther.

Women continued

Continued from page 5

She was completely unable to change the

credit cards to her own name at the time of

her husband's death. Ultimately, she kept

. his charge accounts, and even opened new

ones in his name, because it became

obvious that a man who has been dead for

six years has a higher credit standing than

a woman widowed and working.

As the director of Women's Affairs in

the. Minnesota Department of Human

Rights stated at the Commission hearings:

"If you're married and in your

childbearing years, you're a bad credit

risk; if you're divorced, you're a bad

credit risk; if you're single, you're a bad

credit risk. Men are bad credit risks when

they don't pay their bills. Women - just

because they are women."'

The ACLU has received many calls

from angry women who are rebuffed in

their attempts to obtain credit, loans, and

mortgages. In fact, complaints about sex

discrimination in the extenstion of credit

come to our attention more frequently

than any others in the area of women's

rights.

Unfortunately, the issue does not lend

itself to easy resolution, by the ACLU or

any other attorneys.

One problem in obtaining judicial relief

has always been that no existing

legislation clearly prohibits sex

discrimination in credit. Congresswoman

Abzug has introduced several bills which

would bar sex discrimination in credit

and mortgage transactions. And

Congresswoman Green submitted a

similar bill concerning the availability and

scope of insurance coverage for women.

But for the moment, any legal challenge is

without the benefit of supportive

precedent or a legislative mandate.

ACLU-NC staff feel strongly that credit

discrimination contravenes a developing

national policy against sex discrimination,

declared in Title VII of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act, and the recently passed Equal

_ Rights Amendment. We would like to

broaden this public policy to sustain a

judicial challenge to the above-

mentioned practices. ACLU members

should: write their U.S. Congressional

representatives, to register support for the

proposed legislation. And they should

protest those agencies who invoke sex-

discriminatory policies.

Women's rights has been designated a

high priority project by ACLU-NC and a

proposal is being prepared to obtain

foundation funding for such a project. In

the meantime, such litigative, legislative

and educational action will continue as is

possible with existing staff.

Anyone with ideas on possible funding

sources for a women's rights project give

Jay Miller a call at 433-2750.