vol. 40, no. 4

If there is no ``R" in the upper right

hand corner of your label, it means

that as of April 30 you had not |

renewed for 1975 ... Please do it

today .. .and keep the ACLU News on

its way to you each month.

ac

~ Volume XXXX

lu

Op

news

May-June 1975, San Francisco

No. 4

SLA trial security challenged in state, federal courts

Six weeks ago, ACLU-NC Staff

~~ Counsel Joseph Remcho sent a letter to

Sacramento County Sheriff Duane

Lowe, protesting various security

measures being employed against

spectators at the Russel Little and

Joseph Remiro murder _ trial.

Specifically, Remcho objected to the

Sheriff's practice of fingerprinting,

photographing, questioning

running warrant checks on persons

wishing to attend the trial.

Sheriff Lowe's response was swift

and angry. At a press conference the

day after he received Remcho's letter,

Lowe claimed his security scheme was

entirely proper and went on to attack

the ACLU: "It is nothing new for the

American Civil Liberties Union, which

is a socially permissive-oriented

organization comprised of an im-

pudent corps of pseudo-constitutional

lawyers, to completely misrepresent the

facts during the organization's attack

and discredit. upon law enforcement."

(Spiro Agnew's speech-writer has

apparently surfaced again.) _

Lowe did little talking at the press

conference about the trial security but

he had much more to say about the

ACLU. At one point he intoned, "I

think it is high time the responsible

people of the United States express

their indignation and speak out against

these self-annointed messiahs who

espouse their legal honkus-pokus and

who believe that no one else in society

has enough common sense to read and

interpret the Constitution.

"I suspect that if the architects of

the Constitution could be with us today

the ACLU,

and -

_ Edwards

to witness the subversion of the

Constitution in the name of justice by

they would hang their

heads in shame and feel as empty and

futile as do I.... I don't give a damn

what the American Civil Liberties

Union has to say today, tomorrow, or

ever.'

Obviously, such a response, being

somewhat less than conciliatory, meant

that some legal action would be

necessary. Within a couple of days,

Remcho and volunteer attorneys Kip

and Gus Reichbach had

prepared a complaint on behalf of

several persons who wished to attend

the trial but were denied access after

refusing to submit to the fingerprinting

and other requirements.

Remcho and Reichbach appeared

before Little and Remiro trial judge

Elvin Sheehy to argue that the iden-

tification procedures be stopped. The

attorneys asserted that the extensive

weapons searches, which were not

_ being challenged in this suit, were

sufficient to insure the security of the

courtroom. The further security

measures, however, were both not

necessary but also that they serve to

intimidate citizens attempting to

exercise their constitutional right to

observe a public trial.

The ACLU brief added that for any

limitation of constitutional rights

imposed by the government, there

must be compelling state interest in the

limitation and the least restrictive

means of interfering with those rights

must be employed. In this case,

Remcho and Reichbach argued that

the weapons search was the least

both state and federal,

restrictive means and that any other

security measures were a violation of

the constitutional rights of defendants,

the spectators and any _ potential

spectators at the trial.

They noted that the fingerprinting

and photographing requirements

forced spectators to condition the right

to. attend a public trial on the for-

feiture of rights of privacy and freedom

from unreasonable searches and

seizures without probable cause.

After hearing the arguments, Judge

Sheehy discontinued the fingerprinting

but maintained the other identification

procedures. In addition, Sheriff Lowe

announced that he was not running

warrant checks on people attending the

trial.

Since that ruling by Judge Sheehy,

the case has moved in rapid fire

succession through six other courts,

without the

merits of the case being heard even

once. No court has yet commented on

the legal issues involved.

Reichbach, Edwards, Remcho. and

ACLU Legislative Representative Brent

Barnhart have prepared pleadings

upon pleadings and have made ap-

pearance after appearance without ever

receiving a hearing on the validity of

the ACLU arguments. Apparently the

courts have decided that the issue is

just too hot.

Following Judge Sheehy's decision,

the suit was filed in the U.S. District

Court in Sacramento. There, Judge

McBride refused to take jurisdiction

until the matter had been settled by

the state courts. While Judge McBride

was being asked to reconsider, the case

was being filed in the State District

Court of Appeal. That court denied the

petition for a temporary restraining

order against the Sheriff without a

hearing. Almost immediately, an

appeal was lodged with the California

Supreme Court.

Again without a hearing, the petition

was denied. Thus having run the

gamut of state courts, Reichbach,

Edwards and Remcho prepared to

return to Judge McBride in the U.S.

`District Court. McBride was on

vacation so the case went to Judge

Wilkins. Wilkins then announced that

he is a good friend of Judge Sheehy

and disqualified himself, thereby

refusing to hear the case. .

Judge Wilkins reassigned the case to

Judge Crocker in the U.S. District

Court in Fresno. Judge Crocker

promptly denied the petition also and

set the matter for a hearing on a

preliminary injunction for June 16th

back before Judge McBride in

Sacramento. So a hearing is finally set

but the Little and Remiro trial is ex-

pected to end before that, which means

that the case would probably be

dismissed for mootness.

Still not giving up, Reichbach filed

an emergency motion for a TRO before

the federal Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals just last week.

With all that legal manuevering, the

case still has not been heard and no

relief is in the offing. Everyone knows

that justice is slow, but in this case, it

has been downright evasive.

Homosexual's security clearance case appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

The case of Allan Rock, the electronics engineer

who has had his TOP SECRET security clearance

revoked by the Defense Department because he is a

homosexual, has finally gone to the U.S. Supreme

Court. Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho filed the appeal

last month.

The petition to the high court came after the Ninth -

Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn the

denial of a permanent injunction by federal district

court Judge Samuel Conti. Rock currently retains his

`security clearance however under a stay issued by

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan yas a

hearing before the full court.

While preparing for an earlier hearing in the

district court two months ago, the Defense Depart-

ment made an interesting admission to Remcho.

' Eyer since a hearing examiner ruled that Rock's

clearance should be revoked last year, the Defense

Department has maintained that it has no general

policy barring homosexuals from having security

clearances. -

Nevertheless, the Department had never granted a

clearance to a known homosexual, while maintaining

that each case was reviewed individually and it was

just an accident that no homosexual had ever been

cleared.

In March, however, Remcho received an answer to

an interrogatory he had submitted to David Henretta,

Jr., the Acting Director of the Industrial Security

Clearance Review office. In his answer, Henretta

stated that Richard Farr, the hearing examiner that

originally ruled against Rock, had been preparing to

be deposed in Rock's case when he ``apparently

discovered the memorandum in the records of the

Western Field Office."'

The memorandum was issued from the office of

the Assistant Secretary of Defense. Section VI read:

Homosexuals. As previously announced, proof of

recent homosexual activities establishes conclusively,

as a matter of present policy, that the applicant

cannot be granted access authorization.

`In some instances, the applicant acknowledges

the status, recognizes that it is publicly known, and

argues that since he cannot te blackmailed, he

presents no security risk. In this case, Department

Counsel will have little to do but emphasize the proof

that the applicant is a homosexual. The Field Board

will act in accordance with established policy as

stated in the preceding paragraph."

Henretta's statement hastened to add that shortly

after the memorandum was "discovered,'' Examiner

Farr "made a favorable determination as to the

security clearance eligibility of an applicant engaging

in on-going homosexual activity." This was the first

time Farr had ever ruled in favor of a homosexual

but Henretta offered it as proof that the Department

judged each case on the merits and really had no

policy against homosexuals.

So, after two years of administrative hearings and

litigation, the Department has finally admitted that

it has a long standing directive not to grant security

clearance to homosexuals. The Department has

denied the fact all along but finally had to confess

under court compulsion to answer Remcho's in-

terrogatories.

Even with this, Judge Conti and' the Ninth Circuit

refused to restore Rock's clearance. Now it is up to

the U.S. Supreme Court. And thanks to Justice

Brennan's order, Rock will maintain his clearance

and his job until the Court makes a decision.

aclu news

May-June '75

LEGAL

Women's rights cases won without court action

Usually, it is rare when the government concedes

to the ACLU on any case. Women's Rights Project

Attorney Ellen Lake however, is finding it difficult to

even get to court. Every time she threatens to sue

some agency for sex discrimination, the agency

officials agree that her claim is right and that they

will change their sexist practices or policies. Perhaps

this is an indication that the consciousness is

spreading.

One recent case involved Margaret Anderson who

sought to file a dissolution petition in Sonoma

_ County Superior Court using her birth name which -

she has used continuously for one and a half years.

The county clerk warned that she would have to file

an amended petition using her husband's surname

since the judges prefer, `for administrative con-

`venience,' to cope with only one name in dissolution

proceedings. An amicus brief was prepared by Lake (c)

but after the case was, _ publicized, Anderson was

. permitted to proceed in her birth name.

Another example is the case of two female cnident

at El Camino High school in South San Francisco

who complained that the dress code allows boys to

wear blue jeans but not girls. The assistant principal

justified the practice on the ground that a survey of

students, faculty, parents and employers showed the

parents and employers opposed to blue jeans for

girls. The students and faculty favored equal

_ treatment. The assistant principal said the rule was

made because the school did not want to antagonize

the future employers of the students. Negotiations

resulted in the schools' voluntary abandonment of

the ban on blue jeans for girls.

U.C. Criminology professor challenges

tenure denial

Trial was held in the Alameda

County Superior Court last month in'

already been recommended for tenure

by every appropriate faculty review

In Vallejo, Otis Watson, an elementary school

principal, wanted to enroll in an adult education

sewing class. The district deputy superintendant

"explained" that males would not be admitted

because of the absence of separate dressing~ rooms.

He also predicted that Watson would face much

hostility from the teacher and other students in the

class. After negotiations, partitions were set up in the

dressing rooms and Watson was permitted to enroll. -

Another case resolved without court action in-.

volved Barbara Gross who applied for a position with

the California State Police. Her application was -

rejected because she is only 5'4", and under rules -

established by the State Personnel Board, all ap-

plicants must be 5'7''. The State Police Division has .

never had a woman officer. After negotiations with

the State Police Chief, he successfully lobbied the

Personnel Board to drop the height requirement.

Additionally, after Lake questioned the nature of the

interviewing process by which applicants are ranked,

the ACLU was invited to supply names of persons

who might participate in the interviewing process.

Finally, Sandy Freitas, who was_ receiving

unemployment insurance benefits, was notified that

her benefits would be terminated because of her

refusal to take a `"`suitable work offer.'' The ``suitable

work offer" was a job in which, at the interview the

employer continually sexually propositioned her.

After negotiations, her benefits were restored.

Many other problems of this nature have been

resolved by the Women's Rights Project without any

litigation. At least one case that was actually filed in

court appears to be nearing a settlement since the

In 1972, sailors aboard the U.S.S.

U.S.S. Midway

attempted to circulate petitions on the

Hancock and the

government concedes the issue. Equal rights are not

here yet, but it seems the distance is getting a little

shorter.

Marin judge orders

equal treatment of

women in jail

Marin County Superior Court Judge David :

Menary, Jr. issued a preliminary injunction last week

_ which orders the county to provide a minimum

security facility for eligible female offenders by

August 15, 1975. In addition, Judge Menary com-

manded that no sentenced women be sent to the

regular county jail who would qualify for minimum

security.

Judge Menary's order also provides that female

inmates who do not qualify for minimum security

and must go to the jail are entitled to the same

privileges, such as exercise yard and telephone

opportunities, that are available to the male inmates.

The Marin County Counsel agreed to the

provisions of the court's order and the county is

already seeking an appropriate facility to serve as a

half-way house for women inmates. Under earlier

agreements in the case, no women have been sen-

tenced to county jail time since March 7, 1975.

The order, issued last week, comes in a case filed

by -Ellen Lake, attorney for the Women's Rights

Project of ACLU-NC, and Erica Black Grubb, staff _

counsel for Public Advocates, Inc.

Sailors seek right to petition

Robert F. Peckham. ACLU Staff

Counsel Joseph Remcho, volunteer

attorney David Cobin and National

Guild President ~- Doron

the case of U.C. Berkeley Criminology

Professor Anthony Piatt. He was

_fepresented at the trial by ACLU-NC

Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho.

Platt was scheduled to receive tenure

in 1971 when he was arrested at one of

the People's Park demonstrations in

Berkeley. The charges were dropped

against him and he eventually won a

settlement from the police for false

arrest. Nevertheless, this was enough

provocation to have then Chancellor

Roger Heyns remove Platt's name from

the tenure list which was to be ae

mitted to the Regents.

University officials agreed finally

that tenure denial. because of the false

arrest was improper. By then Albert

Bowker was the Chancellor at

Berkeley. Before resubmitting Platt's

name however, he announced that he

would review the case again. Platt had

Renew Today

members have renewed as of April 30.

The remaining one-third of you have

already received three renewal notices

from us. Every notice we send you

diverts money from civil liberties work

into the wasteful expense of printing

and postage.

We need you now. Please send in

_your 1975 renewal today. If you have

any questions, please call the ACLU-

NC Membership Department at (415)

433-2750.

Approximately two-thirds of our

committee, but Bowker said he would

conduct his own review. On the basis

of his review, he decided to reverse the

recommendation for tenure.

Bowker wrote that his chief reasons

for opposing Platt's tenure were that

he had on several occasions been

critical of the police, and that his

major book, The Child Savers, a study

of the juvenile justice system, read like

"the Communist manifesto."

Several faculty committees again -

reviewed the case in the light of the

Chancellor's actions. They all con-

cluded that Bowker's decision severely

threatened academic freedom and that

he used improper, political and extra-

academic procedures for withdrawing

Platt' $s nomination.

Following this setback, Bowker

appointed his own Ad Hoc Review

Committee which, not surprisingly,

found that Bowker acted properly

shortly before the trial started last

`month. Having exhausted all available

administrative remedies (at least twice),

Platt was left with asking the Superior

Court to order the University to grant

_him tenure.

At the trial, Bowker conceded that it

was improper for him to deny tenure

because of Platt's political views or his

criticism of the police. Instead, the

Chancellor claimed he was now against

tenure because Platt's scholarship was

poor. This despite the fact that faculty

pes in Platt's field - Criminology

- rated his work as excellent. Bowker

hawenee whose field is Statistics,

disagrees.

A decision from the courts is still

pending.

ships which were to be addressed to

Congresspersons. The Hancock

petition claimed that the ship was too

old to go to Vietnam and asked for a

Congressional investigation of the ship

and of the policy of sending the ship to

Vietnam after U.S. involvement had

supposedly ended there.

The Midway petition criticized the

government for sending the ship to be

home-ported in Japan and also asked

for a congressional investigation. In

both cases, the commanders of the Bay

Area based aircraft carriers refused to

permit the circulation of petitions,

saying. they would be bad for morale.

One seaman was disciplined and then

discharged by the Navy for circulating

the petition.

The ACLU Foundation filed suit in

the Federal District Court on behalf of

the sailors seeking a permanent in-

junction forcing the captains of the

ships to allow circulation of the

petitions.

Trial was held last month on the

case before federal district court judge

"Lawyers

Weinberg represented the seamen at

the trial.

Highlight of the testimony was that

of the two ship captains who

prohibited the petitions. Both are now

rear admirals. They each admitted that

under other circumstances, - they

probably would have allowed the

petitions. Specifically, it turned out

that the circumstances they objected to

were that the petitions were addressed

to Congresspersons.

Later, the U.S. Attorney defending

the Navy repeatedly attempted to argue

that the petitions were properly banned

since they were promulgated by an

anti-war group. His insistence that this

was relevant to the case prompted

Judge Peckham to query: "Don't you

know that the First Amendment is

sacred?"' The U.S. Atturney dropped

the issue.

A ruling is expected on the sailors'

motion for a permanent injunction in

the near future which would protect

their rights to circulate petitions

aboard ship.

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

Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board, Irving R. Cohen, Acting Director

Mike Callahan, Editor and Public Information Director

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 9410S - 433-2750

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

LEGISLATIVE

aclu news

May-June '75 3

ACLU principles in conflict in several

proposed state laws

By BRENT BARNHART

Legislative Representative

The efforts which the ACLU makes

in the furtherance of civil. liberties,

whether by education, litigation or

_ legislation, are based on_ strong

principles which are refined to the |

point that we normally know with some

certainty where we stand as an

organization, and in what direction

staff and members should direct their

efforts.

However, a number of legislative

controversies before the California

Legislature this session provide the

setting for a collision of competing

principles, and principled enthusiasm

alone provides fuel without direction.

A subcommittee of ACLU-NC's

Legal Committee headed by Sandy

Rosen is presently engaged in a careful

analysis of Proposition 9 to present to

the Board recommendations regarding

what position our Affiliate should take

in regard to that landmark political

reform effort. There we have one very

importat interest to which we subscribe

- freedom of government information,

and an electorate sufficiently informed

to act meaningfully with respect to its

voting rights - possibly in conflict

with a series of other interests which

we have also regarded as paramount -

e.g., the chilling effect on First

Amendment rights caused by

disclosure requirements (as in NAACP

vs. Alabama), and the Right of Privacy,

which is now an essential part of the

California Constitution.

This past week `an analogous con-

troversy was joined in the Assembly

Government Operations committee,

regarding AB 23 sponsored by

Assemblyman Leon Ralph. The Ralph

bill attempts to open up records and

papers maintained by the Legislature

to the public, but a provision relating

to access to constituent correspondence

met stiff resistance. While represen-

tatives from the California Newspaper

Publishers and Common Cause argued

that such mail required public access,

Committee Chairman Bill Wilson (D)

of San Diego and other members of the

Committee insisted that they felt

bound as a matter of conscience to

maintain the confidentiality of such

correspondence. While on the one

hand such `confidentiality'? evokes

_ thoughts that the correspondence

being held out of the public view

may well include correspondence of

large business interests and fat cats

who influence on legislators should be

known to the public; on the other

hand, we should not lose sight of the

possible chilling effect that lifting

confidentiality might have on the

willingness of average citizens to -

petition their legislators with their

grievances.

Other examples abound in the

general area of public records, e.g., a

laudable piece of legislation submitted

by Assemblyman Dixon (AB 255) to

prohibit employers from compelling

their employees to disclose arrest

information (in line with our amicus

position before the California Supreme

Court in Loder v. Municipal Court),

has met determined opposition from

the California Newspaper Publishers.

They maintain that the effect can be a

1984-ish `"`memory hole'' situation,

with a harassed person later being

unable to prove that he or she was ever

arrested - law enforcement

authorities hiding behind the public's

interest in sealing or expunging such

records.

In each case it seems possible to

carve legislation with sufficient care so

as to observe each of the principles

which we espouse, but a note of

caution and a plea for thorough

analysis in. such situations seems

essential. I would welcome the

thoughts of the membership regarding

these, matters. The address of the

Affiliate's legislative office is: 1220

"H" Street, Suite 103, Sacramento, CA

95814.

Board names

David Fishlow

Exec. Director

The long and extensive search for an

Executive Director for ACLU-NC has

finally come to an end. At a special

Board meeting held May 22, the

Executive Director Search Committee

recommended that the position be

offered to David M. Fishlow and the

Board did so by acclamation.

Fishlow has accepted the offer and -

will begin working around August 1.

He is currently the Director of

Membership and Development for

National ACLU in New York. Prior to

taking that position, he was the Field

Director responsible for development

and organization of ACLU affiliates

throughout the country. He also served

as the ACLU dinpenehment Campaign

Coordinator.

Fishlow's first staff wasion with

ACLU began in 1973 when he became

the director of the Mountain States

Regional Office in Boulder, Colorado

where he helped strengthen the ACLU

in ten western states.

From 1969 to 1972, he was the editor

and publisher of YA MERO/, a

Spanish-language weekly newspaper in

the Rio Grande Valley, an area which

is the "home base'"' of some 100,000

migrant farm laborers. He was also

active in the Texas Civil Liberties

Union and Texas Rural Legal Aid.

In 1970, Fishlow worked as an

assistant to the press director on the

re-election campaign of Senator Ralph

W. Yarborough. Prior to that, he spent

two years on the staff of the United

Farm Workers. He was first a hiring

hall administrator in Hollister,

DAVID M. FISHLOW

California and then head of the

Union's publications department and

editor of its newspaper, E/ Malcriado.

Fishlow is fluent in Spanish. He

went to Claremont High School in

Claremont, California and attended

Pomona College and San Diego State

College.

Board members and staff alike are

excited about Fishlow's acceptance and

are looking forward to working with

him. He too is anxious to start and his

background will provide valuable

experience for the job he faces.

The Search Committee worked very

hard for many months on this matter

and deserve the thanks of all

ACLUer's. The committee members

were Zora Gross, Emily Skolnick,

Warren Saltzman, Jerry Berg and

Dorothy Patterson. Richard DeLancie, -

Howard Jewel, Joseph Remcho and

Nancy Russell were ex-officio mem-

bers.

Irving Cohen, who has been serving

as acting executive director since

February has decided to leave that

position on July 1. The Board has

named assistant director Mike

Callahan to fill in until Fishlow begins

his duties.

More than sixty people representing thirteen chapter boards: throughout

Northern California attended the fourth annual Board-Chapter Conference

last week in Modesto. Those who attended seemed to agree that the con-

ference was beneficial to affiliate and chapters alike and that there are

many signs of increased chapter strength and activity. The focus of the

conference was action and there was a good deal of optimism about the

prospects for the future. A journal of recommendations and workshop

reports is being prepared and will be provided to all chapters. Further

details on the various workshops and general sessions will appear in the

next issue of the ACLU News. Here, conferees are attending the final session

of the conference discussing what must be accomplished through the

chapter committee in the coming year. There was strong feeling that every

chapter should get involved in the chapter committee's work.

NOTA BENE

Homes for summer interns

Two of the law students who will be

spending the summer in San Francisco

working for A CLU as interns are from

out of state. Naturally, theyo will be

receiving only subsistence sdlaries or

work study money and they can't

afford to move all their belongings out

here.

While in this area, they need a place

to live. Members can help out if they

plan to be away for the summer and

would like to leave tneir homes to a

student.

If you would like to volunteer your

house for our interns, please call

Nancy Russell at the ACLU office,

781-2597.

Privacy Show

On Saturday, June 7, a multi-media

program on invasion of privacy and the

technology of control wili be presented

to the public. The showing will be at

the First Unitarian Church (1187

Franklin Street) from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The exhibit was developed by the

ACLU of New Mexico and the Institute

for Regional Education. A_ special

showing and discussion session are

scheduled for 3:30 p.m.

The exhibit consists of a three-screen

slide show, film nd several sculptured

environments. Plan to attend!

e

Oakland Chapter Garage Sale

June 14th and 15th - 10:00 a.m. - 4:00.

p.m.

6036 LaSalle Ave.

Montclair, California

Anyone wishing to devote items

please call 547-1267 or 530-1221

(evenings). Delivery of items can be

made Saturday, June 14th at 9:30 a.m.

Specials: plants, pink ceramic

bathroom sink, Hoyt 40 gal. water

heater, whirlpool clothes washer.

Come to the Garage sale and then

browse at the Montclair Sidewalk Art

Show.

Turn in your friends

ACLU members are the most loyal,

dedicated voluntary contributors to any

organization in the country. Never-

theless, we still lose fifteen to twenty

percent of our members each year

because they move away, or they forget

to renew, or they just cannot afford it.

To continue growing and to meet the

civil liberties responsibilities of today,

`we need to replace those members with

new ones. We have found that the

single, most effective and least ex-

pensive way of doing that is by asking

your friends and acquaintances.

Last month you received a prospect

referral form from us. Please take a

moment to fill it in and return it to us

right now. Our greatest strength is our

membership. Please help.

D-

ee

aclu news

May-June '75

CHAPTERS

Sonoma

At its last meeting, the Chapter

Board heard a complaint from tenants

living in an apartment complex in

Rohnert Park. The tenants complained

that their apartments had been entered

by an employee of Storer Cable

Television with the knowledge and

consent of the apartment manager.

After compaining to the management

about the illegal entry, two tenants

were served with eviction notices.

Chapter chairperson Lynn Young

advised the tenants that `retaliatory

eviction" is illegal and could be

grounds for a lawsuit. The chapter

board will write letters to the owner of

the apartment complex and to Storer

Cable Television.

Bernie Sugarman read a letter from

Roy Mikalson, President, Santa Rosa

Junior College, in regards to the

college's policy on nepotism. In his

letter, President Mikalson stated "I

have conferred with the County

Counsel's office concerning our

~ nepotism policy and am recommending

to the Board that we modify this policy

to one which concerns nepotism within

a department or in the atea of one

close relative supervising another. I am

enclosing a. copy of the proposed

modification of the policy for your

information." The chapter board voted

to take a wait-and-see position on the

matter for the time being.

Dick Blair read a letter from Dr.

Mitchell Soso, Superintendent of

Schools, Santa Rosa City Schools,

concerning the `"`flag salute" problem

reported last month. In his letter, Dr.

Soso writes ``I have been well aware of

not only the opinion of the Attorney

General of the State of California but

earlier edicts from the United States

Supreme Court. I should also assume

that the principal of Cook Junior High

School would be aware of the material

on page 70 of Law in the School." Dr.

Soso's concluding statement was "*.. . I

do hope that this letter, along with

your letter channeled to Mr. Burgess

and his faculty will solve the problem."'

Blair contacted Mr.

principal, again about the problem of

compelling everyone to stand and

recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr.

Burgess stated that he had personally

instructed all the department heads to

inform their departments that, in the

future, students will not be compelled

to stand or recite the Pledge. Blair

advised that we take a wait-and-see

approach to find if they are complying.

The chapter board agreed. The chapter

board also voted to send a "thank you"'

letter to Dr. Mitchell Soso.

Oakland

The Oakland Chapter's new Board

of Directors have been nominated and

the slate will be voted on at the June

18th meeting.

Nominees for the 75-76 Oakland

Board are: Chairperson: Dennis Roth-

baar; Vice Chairperson; Louise Roth-

man-Riemer; Treasurer: Michael

Coppersmith; Secretary: Janice

Lapidez; Affiliate Representative:

Davis Riemer; members at large are:

aS and Chrys Dougherty, Bernard

Carpenter, Rose Bonhag, Mark

Glukstein, Catherine Noonan, Gladys

Levine, Arlette Poland and Diane

Bhjilarducci.

The Chapter will hold its annual

Burgess, fhe.

garage sale at 6036 La Salle Ave.,

Montclair the weekend of June 14th

and 15th. See box for more details.

Help! Attorneys! Oakland needs to

reactivate its Legal Panel. We need

lawyers to staff it and someone in

particular to head it up. Anyone in-

terested call 452-4726.

To make the Oakland Chapter

happen in a bigger and better way way

a part-time coordinator is being

considered. The position, although

mainly volunteer, will have some small

amount of compensation.

Three new committees are getting

underway in the Chapter - a com-

mittee on political repression, rights of

the mentally handicapped and court

observers.

The Committee on Political

Repression is being formed for

members concerned about the

systematic and widespread violations

by. federal intelligence and law en-

forcement agencies of the civil liberties

of individuals, particularly of those in

minority and _ political dissenting

groups. The committee will look into

civil liberties violations by the IRS, the

Alcohol, Tobacco and _ Firearms

(AT F), Bureau of the Treasury

Department, the Justice Pe parma;

the FBI, and the CIA.

The purpose of the committee will

be to promote legal action and public

awareness on behalf of the victims of

such unconstitutional government

activities. In addition, we hope to prod

the Congressional committees in-

vestigating the FBI and CIA to do a

thorough job and to produce

meaningful legislation aimed at

preventing such activities in the future.

People interested in working with

this committee should contact Chrys

Dougherty or Molly Dougherty at 893-

2454, and/or come to the committee's

organizational meeting on Tuesday,

June 10, 7:30 p.m., at the law office of

Harvey Kletz, 5510 College Ave., in

Oakland.

Anyone interested in the committees

should write the chapter, P.O. Box

1865 Oakland, 94604, or attend the

June 18th meeting, or call 547-1267.

A speaker on the Rights of the

Mentally Handicapped and Mental

Health will be featured June 18th at

7:30 p.m. at the Sumitomo Bank, 20th

at Franklin, in downtown Oakland.

Everyone is invited.

Yolo

The chapter held its annual meeting

earlier this month. State Senator John

Dunlap addressed the meeting,

speaking on "Civil Liberties Issues _

Facing the California Legislature."

Dunlap summarized the legislature's

record on civil liberties as "holding the

line'' on encroachments to liberties

rather than "moving ahead." He

discussed several bills now pending in

Sacramento which would affect civil

liberties.

The membership present at the

meeting elected Jonathan Lewis as

Chairperson for the coming year and

Fran DuBois as_ Vice-chairperson.

Newly elected Board members are

Susan Benjamin, Mike Gilson,

Marjories Le. Donne, Bob Lieger, Jon

Kardassakis, Tom Frankel, and Grant

Noda.

Incoming chairperson Jonathon

Lewis gave a short talk on the future

activities of the chapter. He noted that

one of the priorities for the coming

year would be establishment of a

Committee on Legal Affairs to review

and screen civil liberties cases. Projects

involving county government

monitoring, housing, farm labor

problems, and the-Bicentennial are

also planned.

Santa Glara

Murray Whitaker, chapter board

member and professor of sociology at

San Jose State University, presented

before the Juvenile Information System

Policy Committee, arguments in op-

position to the juvenile information

computer system being proposed for

Santa Clara County. Part of this plan

is the Behavior Severity Classification

System for predicting future criminal

behavior. The committee, headed by

the chief juvenile probation officer, has

in the past been reprimanded by the

County Board of Supervisors for

holding closed meetings.

Students Rights chairman Steve

Siner prepared a _ constitutional

analysis and a statement of ACLU

views on the proposed system, to be

delivered to the Board of Supervisors.

To their everlasting credit, the

supervisors rejected the "`computer''

plan. With the constant vigilance of

this chapter and of other community

organizations, the Bill of Rights may

indeed survive in Santa Clara County.

Representatives of the chapter's

Police Complaint committee met with -

Commission -

Human Pelations

members, the San Jose Ombudsman

and attorneys from the Public

Defender's office to discuss reported

harrassment of transexual people by

the San Jose Police. Complaints in-

clude nuisance arrests, provocation to

commit misdemeanors resulting in

`arrest and temporary detention, verbal

land physical abuse, shining of

spotlights on homes of transexuals,

dumping of purse contents on the

street and shouting at "`straights'"" who

are in the company of transexuals on

the streets of downtown San Jose. The

complaints were duly noted.

In line with establishing better

communications and working

relationships with people in local

government, a committee consisting of

Murray Whitaker, Lisa Kalvelage,

Madeline Norman, Mike Chatzky and

Sabre Gilmartin visited San Jose

Mayor Janet Grey Hayes on May S.

Police harrassment of Transexuals,

homosexuals and police treatment of

students were some of the topics under

discussion.

Board member, Attorney Bob

Baines, in a hearing before Judge

Ingrahm, won the right of a young

man with long hair to receive

unemployment insurance payments

when no other work is available. The

man will receive some back payments

due him, as well as current payments.

: e

Marin

The Marin Chapter held its annual

meeting on Sunday, May 18, in Mill

Valley. About forty members heard

Paul Halvonik, past Legal Director of

ACLUNC, speak on the activities of.

the new administration in Sacramento

in civil liberties. Halvonik is now

Executive Assistant to Governor

Brown. Incumbents Leon Ginsberg,

Ruth Lederman, and Gus Ohlson were

elected to two-year terms on the Marin

Chapter Board; incumbents Leonard

Karpmen, and Kimo Campbell to

three-year terms. New Board members,

all elected for three years, are Rob

Begley, Eve Citrin, Max Awner, Bill

Luft, Bernard Moss, and Dora Knell.

Lola Hanzel is the new Marin

representative to the ACLUNC Board.

Stockton

The annual fund-raising Pancake

Breakfast of the Stockton Chapter is

being planned for June 8th from 9 to 1

in the garden of Mr. and Mrs. James

Riddles, 1821 Princeton. A long-time

member of ACLU and a recently

elected board member, Frank

Palmares, was selected ``Senior Man

for 1975" by the Senior Citizens Action

Now (SCAN) Committee. Mr. Palmares

was proposed for the award by the

Stockton ACLU on the basis of his

years of work with local Filipino

organizations and the Democratic

party. In addition to continuing its

answering service, the Chapter is

hoping to expand its services to include

regular meetings in South and East

Stockton community centers in

coordination with local attorneys.

San Francisco

June is membership renewal month,

that is if you've not already renewed

your membership for 1975. Your

renewal assures us of your continued

and abiding interest in guarding our

personal liberty.

There is still more that you can do.

You can become involved :.. com-

mittees which could use your talent

and time are: Civil Liberties and the

Mayor's Campaign; Membership

Development; Finance; Legislative;

Goals and Priorities. WE NEED YOU.

Please call Esther Faingold at the.

Chapter office, 433-2750 Monday or

Wednesday and VOLUNTEER.

Four neighborhood meetings held

last month were well attended. The

ideas and suggestions from the

membership reflected the need for

more such meetings. We will have

them! Among the areas of concern

expressed were: police practices, or-

dinances proposed by the Board of

Supervisors which would place

stringent rules for fund raising

organizations; invasion of privacy.

Newly appointed Board member

Ernest Fleischman addressed a group

at the Lighthouse for t!.2 Blind; sat as

"judge'' at State University Meiklejohn

Civil Liberties Debate.

Appearing before the San Francisco

Police Commission's open hearing last -

month were Board members Ruth

Jacobs, Anson Moran and _ Tony

Rothschild. Jacobs told the body that

ACLU was concerned in particular

with proposed regulations for me

Intelligence Unit.

Following the City Anerney

decision that all Commissions conduct

open hearings, Supervisor Molinari.

introduced a charter amendment to the

Board of Supervisors which would

make it mandatory for all city

governmental commissions to conduct

open hearings in compliance with the

Brown Act. The Board of Directors of

the San Francisco Chapter supports

this amendment.