Fall 1975 Special San Francisco Chapter Edition

=

We're Moving

The ACLU is moving. Our new address will be-

814 Mission Street

(3rd Floor) |

San Francisco, Ca. 94103

Che FOCon.

news

ee

NYHA NYS Buik Rate Permit

GT OL22 4424

ORNS Mailed in

San Francisco, 94101

_ FALL 1975

Dear Members,

I, for one, breathed a sigh of relief a little over a year

ago when Nixon resigned. I thought I didn't have to

be on guard all the time, that I wouldn't have to -

work as hard as I had, and worry all the time about

what horrendous thing: was lurking in_ the

background to deprive you and me of our

"inalienable rights."

But, even though the surface menace is removed,

our work as civil libertarians is endless.

We are faced withS.1,the bill in Washington which

allegedly tightens our criminal law and procedure

but in effect is unbelievably oppressive in many ways

and supported by some of our most intelligent

representatives who should know better. We are

faced with the overwhelming problems created by

the power shortage and struggle, particularly the

issue of nuclear reactors; and on a local level the

issues raised by the police strike and the power of

our Mayor.

All of these problems contain fundamental civil

liberties issues. These things sometimes appear to be

beyond our control, but we must constantly and

persistently make our voices heard. We can exert

pressure for change for the good. We have done it in

the past and we must do it now, and in the future.

We need be "troublemakers" as our founding

patriots were called 200 years ago.

Yours,

~ Ruth Jacobs, President

Essay Contest

The Chapter is sponsoring its Second Annual

Essay Contest for San Francisco Senior High School

students. Within the next few weeks, the contest will

gain momentum. Judges are being selected. Watch

for details in our column of the ACLU News.

Keep The Date!

The 184th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights will

be celebrated by the ACLU-NC Foundation,

Sunday, December 14th, 1975 in the Grand

Ballroom of the Sheraton-Palace Hotel. A no-host

cocktail party is scheduled for 7 p.m. Program will

start at 8 p.m.

This celebration is an expression of our belief in

civil liberties, and so, it is at that time we will present

the 3rd Annual Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award to

a Northern Californian (or Californians) for

contributions to civil liberties by word, act and

deed. A smashing program of skits and music is in

the making, concerned with WOMEN and THEIR

civil liberties. .

Watch for details in the forthcoming ACLU-NC

NEWS.

VOL. 2 NO. 2

Special San Francisco Chapter Edition

HEAR YE!

COME ONE! COME ALL!

SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER PRESENTS

LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

FESTIVAL SATURDAY AND SUNDAY

OCTOBER 4 and 5

10a.m.to6p.m.

FORT MASON, PIER AREA

(Laguna Street entrance at Marina Green)

MUSIC, ENTERTAINMENT,

FLORAL EXHIBITS

ARTISTS, CRAFTSPEOPLE, FOOD.

PARKING AVAILABLE

FREE...FREE...FREE...FREE.

COME ONE! COME ALL! ALL WELCOME! (c)

Reserve These Dates:

CUETO SER.

SoM WES

4

5 =

ee 5)

igh 5 16-17 18

1 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29

San Francisco Chapter

Annual Meeting

and

Mover Candidate's Forum

Sunday, October 19, 4 p.m.

Fireman's Fund Auditorium

3333 California Street

Chapter members and guests will have the

opportunity to meet the candidates for Mayor, and

to hear how they stand on civil liberties issues.

Ample time will be allotted for questions, answers

and discussion.

Chapter members will have the opportunity to

exercise their vote for the Chapter's Board of

Directors. There are ten vacancies. Nominees are

Arthur Brunwasser* Anson Moran*

Ernest Fleischman* Norman Posner*

John Hansen* Richard Rogers*

Lillian Kiskaddon* Peggy Sarasohn*

Bernice Krook Frances Strauss*

Nina Lathrop" Bacurbents

Peter Levy

Civil Liberties and

the Mayoral Campaign

Committee _

Andy Moran, Chairperson

For the past six months this committee has been

busy developing an extensive questionnaire for

Mayoral candidates, bludgeoning recalcitrant can-

didates into cesponding,- compiling the summary

presented here and organizing a Candidate's Forum

for our Annual Meeting, October 19, 4 p.m..

Fireman's Fund Auditorium, 3333 California Street.

Committee members are: Clarence Blanken-

ship, Marina and Valerie Devoulin, Virginia Goff,

Howard Jones, Nancy Kramer, Chuck Ortmeyer and

Phil Stevenson. All did an outstanding job and I

thank them warmly. :

What follows is this report regulting from the

Committee's efforts. -

Introduction

Civil liberties aren't usually thought of in local

terms, but there is every reason to do so. The

promise of government under our Constitution and

Bill of Rights is two-fold; first, that there are limits |

beyond which even government will not go in the

exercise of its power, and second, that the

- government will be responsive to the will of the

people. The Zebra searches are evidence that local

government can and will go beyond those limits, and

we read daily that groups of people have had to take

to the streets to achieve redress of their grievances.

The San Francisco Chapter of the ACLU

believes that the need has never been greater for

citizens to be alert to government's tendency to

erode our freedom. We are convinced that local

government has an important and immediate impact

on individual liberties. Moreover, we are concerned

that the Mayor, through the exercise of executive

power, has a tremendous influence over our

personal freedom.

In mid-June, all announced Mayoral candidates

were sent a questionnaire of 88 questions covering a

broad range of civil liberties issues. A compilation of

their answers follows. Conclusions are left to the

reader; our effort has been to present the

candidates' responses in as neutral a manner as

possible. Some of their answers raise additional

questions. The Candidates Forum on October 19 wil:

give you an opportunity to raise such questions

yourself.

continued on page 2 :

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

Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board

David M. Fishiow, Executive Director

Mike Callahan, Editor and Assistant Executive Director

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

| Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee

for aclu News

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_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch 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 Nee 4

continued from page I

As is the case with most civil liberties questions,

the ones asked have few "correct" answers. Accord-

ingly, no attempt has been made to grade the

candidates' responses. The dilemmas reflected in the

questions cannot be solved. But answers are demand- |

ed in the day to day functioning of government, and

are found, whether through action or inadvertance.

The purpose of asking the questions is to make the

search for answers open and more intentional.

Questionnaires were sent to and completed by

the following:

Judge John Ertola

Hon. Dianne Feinstein

Ms. Josie-Lee Kuhlman

Sen. Milton Marks

Hon. John Barbagelata

Mr. Nicolas Benton

Mr. Ray Cunningham

Mr. John Diamante |

Mr. Donald Donaldson Sen. George Moscone

Mr. Victor D`Orazi Mr. Roland Sheppard

The only element of non-comparability

between individual candidates' responses stems from

factors of timing. Candidates Barbagelata, Benton,

D`Orazi, Ertola, Feinstein, Kuhlman, Marks,

Moscone, and Sheppard all received questionnaires

through the June mailing, and were requested

to submit their responses by July 15th.

Cunningham, Donaldson and Diamante received

questionnaires as we became aware of their

candidacy. Returns from Moscone, Kuhlman,

D`Orazi, and Sheppard were received in July.

Feinstein, Ertola, Benton and Cunningham returned

theirs in August. Returns from Barbagelata,

Donaldson, Diamante, and Marks were received in

September.

Police Practices

Of all the uses of governmental power, the

exercise of coercive power is potentially the most

abusive. As the instrument of the State's coercive

power, the police are often at the cutting edge of

civil liberties issues. Roughly half the questionnaire

dealt with police practices. Attention was focused

on intelligence operations, criminal history dossiers,

move-on orders, Operation Zebra, police officers'

rights, and the licensing of private police.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS

Because police intelligence operations are

directed at crime which might happen, not at crime

which has happened, it is highly suspect from a civil

liberties standpoint. It involves the investigation of

and collection of data about people who may or may

not be criminal, but who are considered dangerous.

That danger, in turn, may be real or imagined,

criminal or political.

These practices were recently at issue before

the Police Commission as they considered the

adoption of a new Manual of Police Conduct and

Rules. The concern of the ACLU over the proposed

manual's provisions covering intelligence operations

was two-fold. First, that, such activity would be

intrinsically intrusive on rights to privacy and

second, that the manual's enumeration of areas of

permitted intelligence activity was so broad that

such activity could exist without restriction and

expand without limit. The following are questions

which relate to police intelligence operations which

were posed to the candidates, and their responses:

Q: The Manual of Police Conduct and Rules,

currently on review before the Police Commission,

states that the Intelligence Bureau "shall be

responsible for the production and dissemination of

information" concerning espionage, labor disputes,

riots, sabotage, secret societies, subversive acti-

vities, treason offenses, vice and drug traffic. (Note:

no definition for these terms is given in the manual.

ed.)

Do you feel that intelligence gathering is a

legitimate concern of local police?

If you feel that it is a legitimate concern would

you indicate below those areas where concern is

justified.

Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Donaldson were the only

candidates who indicated that intelligence gathering

was not a legitimate concern of local police. All

other candidates approved of some degree of

intelligence activity.

Barbagelata approved of intelligence in all

stated areas. ee |

Judge Ertola was also permissive, indicating

disapproval only of intelligence gathering of secret

societies, and limited approval of such activity in

labor disputes.

Sen. Moscone and Mr. Diamante were the most

restrictive, Moscone indicating only approval of

intelligence gathering in the area of drug traffic, and

Diamante approving it for sabotage.

Ms. Feinstein mentioned a Supreme Court

holding that "intelligence gathering is a legitimate

activity of an agency when it is directly related and

necessary to its legislative purpose and function."

She goes on to approve such activity when

concentrated on Part I crimes and Hard Drug

traffic. "Such activity must be strictly limited in

scope and duration."

Sen. Marks approved of intelligence activity in

the areas of espionage, riots, and sabotage;

disapproved in the area of labor disputes; and

offered no opinion on the other areas.

Mr. Benton approved of such activity in the

areas of espionage, riots, sabotage, secret societies,

subversive activities, vice, drug traffic and other

area.

Mr. Gumanicien approved only in the areas of

riots and sabotage.

Mr. D`Orazi approved of reporting the

enumerated offenses but approved of more

extensive intelligence gathering only for vice and

drug traffic.

Ms. Kulhman vat restrict such activity only

in the areas of labor disputes and secret societies.

Q: Which if any of the following police activities

do you feel are proper at a public meeting or

gathering where there has been no indication that a -

crime has been committed or is being committed?

Traffic control (inc. pedestrian access), photo-

graphic surveillance, stop and question, stop and

search?

All candidates except Sheppard stated that

traffic control was. proper. Diamante exempted

_ pedestrian access from his approval.

Feinstein, Moscone, Benton, Cunningham,

Diamante, Donaldson and Sheppard responded that

photographic surveillance, stop and question, and

stop and search activity by the police at such

gathering would not be proper.

Ertola indicated that they would not be proper

"other than court room security problems and where

prospective crime (is) likely."

Marks indicated only that

surveillance would be proper.

D`Orazi and Kuhlman felt that photographic

surveillance is proper.

Barbagelata and Donaldson agreed that stop

and question activities would be proper.

Q: Do you favor the operation of "eye in the

sky" TV cameras like those in use at 5th and

Mission?

Only Kulhman answered "yes."

Barbagelata, Ertola, Scare

Benton, Diamante and Sheppard said, 0x00B0

_ Cunningham does not favor their use on public

property.

Donaldson did not offer an opinion because he

"(does) not know of its effectiveness;" and Marks did

not offer an opinion.

CRIMINAL HISTORY DOSSIERS

The San Francisco Police maintain extensive

manual and computerized criminal history records.

photographic

ae

~The history of legal distribution of these records

forces the conclusion that a person's

"debt to

society" cannot be considered "paid" as long as the

individual's record persists. The threat that such

records pose to one's freedom of movement and

ability to obtain employment cannot be discounted.

In April 1975 Captain Andrew Kristensen of the

San Francisco Police Department announced the

Department's revised standards for retention of

various classes of police records pertaining to

individuals.

eFelony arrest records with convictions are

retained forever.

eFelony arrest records with no convictions are

held for seven years and then destroyed,

assuming no further entries on their record.

eMisdemeanor arrest records with or without

conviction are held for five years, then

destroyed.

eArrest cards (where no charges are filed) and

FALL 1975

Field Interrogation cards (such as used in the

Zebra and juvenile sweeps) are held one year,

then destroyed.

Each of the candidates was asked to agree or

disagree with the stated Police policy, and were

further asked whether they thought that the police

should be allowed to keep records on persons

arrested but not convicted.

Ertola and Benton agreed fully with the ceed

Police Department policy, including the retention of

records on persons arrested but not convicted.

D`Orazi agreed in the main, but said that felony

records should be destroyed after seven years.

Donaldson also agreed in the main, but favored

indefinite retention of felony convictions only for

hardened criminals.

Marks said that arrest records without

convictions should be kept but for a limited time and

under strict security.

Feinstein, Moscone and Cunningham each

favored destruction of arrest records not supported

by convictions with various stipulations as to record

retention while the case is in progress.

Kuhlman recommended retention of felony arrest

records for two years without conviction.

Ertola, Feinstein, Marks, Benton, and

Cunningham (except for non-victim felony) agreed

with the PD's policy of keeping felony conviction

records forever. Other candidates responded as

follows: Moscone, 5; D`Orazi, 7; and Kulhman

during incarceration and parole only.

Ertola, Benton, Cunningham, and D`Orazi

~ agreed with the PD's policy of keeping misdemeanor

conviction records for five years. Marks recom-

mended less; Moscone, two years; and Kulhman,

one year.

Diamante did not respond to the policies

specifically but did indicate that he did not favor the

police keeping records of arrests - without

convictions.

- Barbagelata did not respond to the question on

retention period, but indicated that records without

convictions should be kept for felons.

- Benton and D`Orazi agreed with the one year

retention of discharged arrests and Field Inter-

rogation cards. All other candidates responding said

`that such records should not be kept.

Sheppard favored no retention of such records.

MOVE-ON ORDERS

The best protection against the abuse of power

is that its exercise be public. It is for that reason that

police blotters are public information in spite of the

fact that arrest records are considered confidential.

In the same vein, considerable emphasis has been

placed on protecting the right of citizens to view

arrests. Restriction of that right by an officer

demanding that by-standers "move-on" cannot be

considered a harmless convenience `to the officer;

they are an encroachment on the public's right to

observe their police operate publicly.

Q: There are currently no policy guidelines to

guide a police officer in making a decision to

demand that a person watching an arrest move on. |

Should clear, written policy be established in

this area?

Should move-on orders be strictly limited to

situations where there is a clear and real danger to

suspect, officer, or citizen?

Under what other situations should a police

officer be allowed to deny a citizen's right to watch

an arrest?

All candidates except Benton and Diamante

favored clear written policy. Diamante favored "oral

tradition."

All candidates except Ertola indicated that

move-on orders should be strictly limited to

situations where there is a clear and real danger to

suspect, officer, or citizen. His position was that

they should be permitted "where arriving citizens

provide the Potential) for making a minor incident a

major one.'

Feinstein, in agreeing that move-on orders

should be used only "when there is a clear physical

danger," stated that, "a police officer's arrest should

be in compliance with the law . . .Citizens serve as a ~

check on police officers."

- OPERATION ZEBRA

Operation Zebra, as much as any other factor,

provided the incentive for the San Francisco

ee a eee ie eee ae eS

FALL 1975 | 3

Chapter of the ACLU to question mayoral Ertola said: "a child should be subject to become law and will become effective on January 1,

candidates. It was proof positive of municipal parental love, care and control and not just the ever 1976.)

government's ability and willingness to extend the

use of its power beyond consitutional limits, and

highlighted the power of the mayor in such activity.

Before Operation Zebra was declared uncon-

`stitutional, hundreds of people were subjected to

unwarranted search of their persons because they

were black and male. The only law enforcement

purpose served by the searches was a series of minor

arrests totally unrelated to the ostensible purposes of

the procedure.

The candidates were asked if they would "ever

authorize a Zebra-like search program," and if so

under what circumstances.

Candidates Feinstein, Marks, Moscone,

Benton, Cunningham and Sheppard indicated that

they would never authorize such a search program.

Diamante indicated that he would in the case of

nuclear or CBW (chemical and biological warfare.

ed.) terror.

Kulhman said she would if "citizens' safety is

gravely threatened."

Barbagaleta and Donaldson agreed.

D`Orazi would "only when the party searched is

known to be a member of a known public enemy

(group)," or is a known public enemy.

Ertola states that he couldn't imagine

circumstances under which he would, "but

everything is possible."

POLICE OFFICERS' RIGHTS

It is one of the ironies of civil liberties that

police officers surrender more of their civil liberties

by virtue of their employment as police officers than

most employees. Aside from the constitutional

issues involved, it seems unwise to establish the

police asa sub-section of society for which the rest _

of society's rules do not apply, and at the same time

expect them to justly enforce the society's rules.

The candidates were asked if they would favor

the extension of police officers' rights to include: the

right to write and speak on controversial issues, the

right to strike, and the right to hearing prior to

suspension or other disciplinary action resulting in

loss of pay or position.

All candidates answered that police officers

should have the right to "write and speak on

controversial issues.'

All also agreed that police officers should have

the right to "hearing prior to suspension or other

disciplinary action resulting in loss of pay or

Position. " Feinstein allowed for temporary suspen-

sions when "there is possible danger for the

individual officer and/or others." She further

indicated that such suspension "would be limited in

duration to the first meeting of the Police

Commission immediately following the incident."

The candidates are split on the issue of whether

the police should have the right to strike. Candidates

Barbagelata, Ertola, Feinstein, Cunningham,

Donaldson and Kulhman said that they should not.

Moscone, Benton and Sheppard said they should.

Marks favored binding arbitration; Diamante

favored "bargain(ing) with elected representatives;"

D`Orazi said they should have the right to strike

while "leaving minimum crews."

JUVENILE RIGHTS

Juveniles occupy a special, "protected," and

uncomfortable place in the law. People of humane

sensibilities are reluctant to surrender juveniles to

the full range of life's vagaries, and have sought

refuge in protection by the State. That protection

has not always proved benign. The juvenile justice

system is tribute to the fact that the State makes a _

poor parent.

In order to determine just how far each

candidate thought the State should go to protect

juveniles from themselves, and to what degree

society should take advantage of juveniles' special

status to protect itself from rampaging juveniles, the

following questions were asked.

Q: Do you feel that juveniles should enjoy the

same civil rights (liberties) as adults?

Feinstein, Marks, Moscone, Cunningham,

Donaldson, D`Orazi, Kulhman and Sheppard

answered, "yes." Diamante said, "largely."

Barbagelata said "yes .

. . as well as the same

responsibilities." -

present state."

Cunningham and Benton said no.

Q: Should truancy laws be under the jurisdiction

of the police or some other agency?

_ _ (Would you support new truancy laws to enable

authorities to take faster action against juvenile

violators?

Barbagelata, Benton, Donaldson, and D`Orazi

considered truancy laws to properly belong in the

jurisdiction of the police. Other suggestions for

appropriate agencies were: Ertola: school truant

officers; Feinstein: a social service agency; Marks:

Social Services; Moscone: Board of Education;

Cunningham: parents; Diamante: peers; Kuhlman:

Children's Bureau of Social Welfare; Sheppard:

School Boards elected by the black and minority

communities.

Barbagelata, Ertola, and Donaldson favor

additional truancy laws ``to take faster action against

juvenile violators."

Ertola commented that such action,

the innocent."

Those not favoring new truancy laws were:

Feinstein, Marks, Moscone, Benton, Cunningham,

Diamante, D`Orazi, Kulhman, and Sheppard.

Q: Do you agree with the necessity for and

propriety of the curfew laws?

(Would you support) a new law to prevent three

or more persons under 21 from congregating on the

streets between 8:00 PM and daylight?

(Would you support) a curfew law to control

juveniles on the street after 11PM. _

Favoring curfew laws were Barbagelata and

Donaldson.

-D`Orazi agreed, "but only for limited periods,

where an actual emergency exists."

Ertola agreed, depending on the time.

No candidate favored the 8:00 PM to dawn

curfew, but Barbagelata and Donaldson favored the

11:00 PM curfew.

Q: Should juveniles be arrested and processed

through the juvenile justice system for offenses not

considered criminal for adults (e.g., juvenile truancy

laws, runaway laws, being beyond parental control)?

Benton, Donaldson and D`Orazi

juveniles arrested for such charges should be

"protects

processed through the juvenile justice system.

Barbagelata, Ertola, Feinstein, Moscone, Cun-

ningham, Diamante and Kulhman thought that they

should not. Marks and Sheppard did not respond to

the question.

Q: State law authorizes charter cities to transfer

jurisdiction from Juvenile Court to the Department

of Social Services for those persons under 21 who

fall under Welfare and Institutions codes 0x00A7 600 a, b

and c. Would you favor taking these "shelter" cases

out of the juvenile justice system?

Ertola, Feinstein, Marks, Moscone, Cunning-

ham, Diamante, D`Orzai, and Kulhman agreed in

favoring such a transfer. Barbagelata did also but

with the concurrence of the social services system.

Benton did not agree; Donaldson and Sheppard did

not respond to the question.

VICTIMLESS CRIMES

The prosecution of victimless crimes is an

affront to civil liberties and a waste of municipal

resources. The candidates were questioned re:

consenting adults legislation, marijuana legislation,

-enforcement of prose aey laws and resource

allocation.

SB 489 (the "consenting adults bill") was

recently signed by Governor Brown. Do you support

the provisions of this legislation?

Q: In what respects, if any, do you disagree?

Supporting candidates were: Ertola, Feinstein,

Marks, Moscone (co-author of the bill), Benton,

Cunningham, Diamante and Kulhman. Donaldson

supports the bill but feels that adultery should not be

legalized. Barbagelata does not support the bill

stating that his objections are, "too many to relate."

Sheppard and D`Orazi did not respond.

Q: A bill in the California Legislature, SB 95,

eliminates criminal penalties for the private use and

possession of small amounts of marijuana (similar to

existing Oregon law). Do you support this bill.

(Since the questionnaire was drafted, SB 95 has.

felt that .

Supporting this legislation were: Feinstein,

`Marks, Moscone (author of the bill), Cunningham,

Donaldson and Kulhman. Diamante indicates that

while he is not familiar with SB 95, he has favored.

similar legislation in the past. D`Orazi supports the

bill, "with limitations."

Barbagelata and Benton do not support the bill.

Ertola favors diversion, noting that the "new

law may increase arrests" and that "supporters now

challenge it.'

Q: Alameda Superior Judge Avakian recently

ruled that the practice of enforcing prostitution law -

discriminating against women and not men was

illegal. He ordered equal treatment by the police of

both parties.

Without commenting on the merits of the

specific case, do you agree that both prostitute and

client should be treated equally with respect to :

pretrial detention and pressing of charges?

All candidates favor equality of enforcement

with the exception of D`Orazi who answered "no

and indicated that he would favor decriminalization

of prostitution. Moscone, Cunningham, Sheppard

also indicated that they would favor the

non-criminal treatment of prostitution although that

question was not specifically asked.

Q: Different areas of law enforcement receive

different amounts of resource. Do you believe that

the San Francisco Police Department's current

allocation of resources in the following areas is

appropriate: Prostitution, drug usage, gambling,

homosexual solicitation, and public intoxication?

Benton thought that the current allocation was

about right.

Cunningham, Donaldson, Kuhlman and

Sheppard said that the current allocation in all

enumerated areas was high.

Feinstein considers allocation of resources for

prostitution, gambling, and homosexual solicitation

high; for drug traffic, low; and did not respond to

public intoxication.

Marks called allocatiofis to prostitution and

homosexual solicitation, high; to drug usage and

gambling, about right; and said that public

intoxication probably does not belong in the

criminal justice system.

Moscone considered all allocations high, but

indicated that the current allocation to drug usage

_was unknown to him.

Ertola considers allocation to prostitution and

_ drug usage about right, and the other areas high.

Diamante called prostitution, drug usage, and

homosexual solicitation high, and indicated that he

was not familiar with departmental particulars.

D`Orazi considered prostitution and public

intoxication emphasis high, the rest about right.

Barbagelata did not respond, indicating that

"without a current SF budget, this is impossible to

answer. Only with a program budget process can this

be accomplished." -

PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE

A recent report by a committee of the San

Francisco Bar Association pointed out that the

Public Defender's Office was severely underfunded.

One indicator cited was the fact that San Francisco's

Public Defender's annual caseload of 768 mixed

felony and misdemeanor cases per attorney in 1974

was substantially in excess of the 200-400 per

attorney recommended by the President's Com-

mission, and of the 350-450 per attorney of the three

major neighboring counties.

Q: What is your opinion of the operation of the

Public Defender's Office? Do you feel that they are

providing adequate legal defense for its clients?

What non-budgetary changes to the office do you

feel should be made? Please be specific.

Would you favor increased funding for the

Public Defender's Office?

Within the realities of municipal finance, what

are the chances that an increase in the Public

Defender's budget could occur during your

administration as Mayor?

Barbagelata holds the Public Defender s Office

in high regard and feels that it provides an adequate

continued on page 4

4

continued from page 3

defense for its clients. He doubts that many

non-budgetary improvements can be made and

stated that increased funding "depends on needs."

Ertola feels that the office "has a good

operation," especially in the area of felony defense.

He favors increased funding and indicates that a

"very careful appraisal will be made."

Feinstein stated that "the caseload per Public

Defender should be compared each fiscal year to the

caseload per District Attorney and the budget

_ should provide for an appropriate number of Public

Defenders." She also suggests increased use of

paralegals and law students; and will favor increased

funding after the current budgetary crisis is ended.

Marks says that the office is "trying to do a good

job" and that he would favor increased funding.

Moscone indicated that the primary problem

with the office is budgetary and stated that "they will

be increased."

Benton also promises that the budget will be_

increased.

Cunningham states, "government defense of an

individual against prosecution by that government

cannot be considered justice. Legal defense of

indigent persons must come from purely private

welfare sources." D`Orazi also favors a private

funding of legal services on a basis similar to medical

insurance. Neither favored uncreased funding.

Diamante asks, "what are the chances of

converting an acre of asphalt?"

Donaldson suspects that "too many people who

can afford legal protection illegally are represented

by the Public Defender," that public defenders don't

work too hard, and that the office should not be

given increased funding.

Kulhman feels that the Public Defender is

providing inadequate legal defense, and favors more

training and outreach. She rates the chances for

increased funding under her administration as the

"same chance as many other items - financial

patterning and those services depend on priorities."

Sheppard did not respond.

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

As the largest employer in the City, San

Francisco Municipal Government's employment

policies assume tremendous importance.

Q: Do you feel public employees should have

the right to: bargain collectively, strike, due process

in major (i.e., any action involving a loss of pay or

position) disciplinary matters?

Those favoring municipal employee's right to

strike were: Feinstein (except police, fire, and

emergency departments), Marks (except police and

fire which should have binding arbitration),

Moscone, Benton, and Sheppard (no exceptions),

1975 Highlights

San Francisco Chapter

ACLU

to our usual "housekeeping"

functions, e.g., fund raising, membership drives,

medio eee `legislative advocacy before city

boards and agenices, etc., the San Francisco

Chapter through the Board of Directors and

participating members undertook four major

_ projects during 1975, which are summarized below.

Weare also completing our first full year with a

salaried chapter coordinator. The availability of

staff support of this nature has made it possible for

the Chapter to undertake some of the major,

long-term projects discussed.

Budget

For the first time in its existence, the Chapter

Board adopted a budget for its proposed 1975

income and expenditures. The need for the budget

was the result of our successful fund-raising efforts

and the Northern California Affiliate's revenue-

sharing program. The proposed budget of $6,800

represented a 50% increase over 1974 expenditures.

At the beginning of September, the Chapter was

"on-schedule" in raising funds to meet the budget,

with the October 4-5 crafts fair being the major

source for funds for the rest of the year. The Fair is

In addition

D`Orazi ("with restrictions").

Those opposed to the right to strike were:

Barbagelata, Ertola, Cunningham, Donaldson and

Kulhman.

It should be noted that the only candidates who

took a different position on the right of policemen to

strike, and the right of other municipal employees to

strike, were: Feinstein, Marks and Diamante.

The right to bargain collectively were supported

by: Ertola, Feinstein, Marks, Moscone, Benton,

Diamante, D`Orazi ("with restrictions') and

Sheppard. Donaldson would favor collective

bargaining "only when the tax paying public (the

electorate) are given the same rights and

representation (certainly not the Board of

Supervisors or Mayor)." Bargabelata would favor it,

"with certain guidelines."

Cunningham does not favor it, objecting to

labor's "privileged" position. Kulhman does not

favor it at all.

Q: Are you personally committed to the City

being an equal opportunity employer?

Please describe what you believe the City must

do in order to be an equal opportunity employer.

Does that require changes in municipal personnel

practices? If so what changes would you propose?

All candidates indicated that they were

personally committed to the City being an equal

opportunity employer.

Ertola, Moscone and Siteppard called for

affirmative action programs. Ertola indicated that

such a program would have to go beyond the "simple

statement of policy adopted by the Board of

Supervisors." Moscone attached a copy of SB 700

which he authored and which outlined, in legislative

detail, an affirmative action program. Sheppard

indicated the need for a "super-seniority" system to

avoid last hired, first fired policies from getting the

gains of affirmative action programs.

Barbagelata, Feinstein, Marks, Benton,

Cunningham, and D`Orazi all pointed to the Civil

Service for maintaining equality of employment

oppportunity. Barbagelata said that "if those in

charge of Civil Service cannot guarantee this, they

will not be in charge long." Feinstein said that her

administration "will vigorously advocate and

mandate the opening of City positions, especially

managerial position, to women and minorities. (She)

will expand the Civil Service Commission from three

to five members, at least one of whom must be a

woman." Marks called for increased job related

educational opportunities.

Kulhman called for a major overhaul of the

Civil Service System saying that, "some of the

techniques are archaic (i.e., rule of one)."

discussed elsewhere.

Neighborhood Meetings -

The S.F. Chapter Board initiated a series of

"Neighborhood Meetings" to bring together

face-to-face members of the chapter and members

of the Board to discuss concerns and priorities of the

membership.

The meetings were highly praised by those in

attendance, although turnout was lower than hoped.

Another series of meetings will be scheduled for early ;

1976. Board members who attended the meetings

were excited by the level of interest and awareness

of the membership in civil liberties issues and

ACLU's response to them.

Manual of Police Conduct and Rules

In co-operation with Amatai Schwartz, Legal

Director of the Northern California Police Practices

Project, S.F. ACLU and other interested groups

forced the San Francisco Police Commission to

make public its proposed new Police Manual and to

hold public hearings prior to the adoption of the

same. ACLU representatives appeared and testified

at the hearing on the Manual, focusing on several

portions considered repugnant to the civil liberties

of both police officers and citizens.

While this effort may not have changed the

content of the manual eventually adopted, it did set

an important precedent regarding secrecy and the

Police Commission operations, as well as giving

citizens a look into the internal operations of the San

Francisco Police Department for the first time.

ACLU-S.F. intends to press forward for some

_ Diamante,

a = FALL 1975

COMMISSIONS

Most of the questions asked were about

attitudes, beliefs, and positions on civil liberties. A

few questions asked the candidates how they would

get something done. Time and time again they

pointed to the commissions as their mechanism for

action. The attitudes toward the commissions

- ranged from their being obsolete and disfunctional

to their being of prime importance. The

preponderance of opinion, however, held that they

were of prime importance.

The commissions probably have a great deal of

power. Whether that power is available to the

Mayor is a matter of question. The Mayor's single

greatest handhold on the commisssions is the power

of appointment. Under the Charter, it would take a

Mayor almost two full terms in office (all that is

allowed) to replace all commissioners if there had

been no resignations.

Nearly all the candidates claimed this power of

appointment as the tool by which they would

accomplish change. Most indicated obscurely that

their influence would extend beyond appointments

and two (Barbagelata, Moscone) indicated that they

would have the power to manipulate the

commissions and their actions at will.

The prevailing flavor of their responses,

however, was that the commissions, once

appointed, would be largely independent, capable of

being worked with, but not controlled. This was true

of Ertola, Marks, Benton, Cunningham, Diamante,

D`Orazi and Kulhman. .

Feinstein proposed that the Police and Civil

Service Commissions should be expanded from

three members to five, at least one of whom should

be a woman. The implication is that a change in

structure would bring a change in effectiveness; that

the specific change would maintain the commis-

sions' effectiveness; independance and make them

more broadly representative.

Our questions did not probe the functioning

commissions, but they did probe the appointive

process.

Asked about the adequacy of citizen input and

review of municipal agencies provided by the

commissions, Ertola, Feinstein, Marks, Moscone,

Donaldson, D`Orazi, Kulhman and

Sheppard made a resounding proclamation that the

commissions were not adequately serving these

functions. Benton and Cunningham dissented.

Barbagelata said that "citizen input must be

provided on a committee level prior to legislative

review by the Board of Supervisors."

All the candidates except Donaldson,

Diamante, and Sheppard agree that commissioners (c)

should continue to be appointed by the Mayor.

Pret

much-needed reforms in this area, the need for

which was never readily apparent before. Among

our projects is continued support for a Charter

amendment introduced by Superior John Molinari

to require all city commissions to hold public

hearings.

Campaign for S.F. Mayor

Perhaps the most ambitious project of 1975 was

the S.F. Mayor's Campaign project, whereby the

S.F. ACLU Chapter set out to make civil liberties an

issue in the 1975 campaign for mayor.

The project so far has had three major parts to

it.

First, the Board and a joint board/member

committee (headed by Anson Moran) developed an

extensive civil liberties questionnaire which focuses

on all the identifiable civil liberties facing San

Francisco where the Mayor will have any direct or

indirect involvement.

The questionnaire was sent to all candidates for

mayor, almost all of whom completed and returned

it. A digest appears in this issue.

Second, ACLU has scheduled a Mayor

Candidates' Forum in conjunction with the annual

membership meeting, where most, if not all

candidates are expected to appear and answer

questions.

Third, ACLU has established contact with other

community groups interested in the election, so that

we can share information and also assure that groups

with multi-interests include civil liberties in their list _

of priorities.