vol. 41, no. 5

aclu

Volume XLI

September 1976 , : No. 5

California

death penalty

challenged in

Supreme Court

~ The first challenge to the California

death penalty. statute in light of the

recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on

capital punishment handed down last

_ July, is that of Stephen Rockwell who is

on trial for murder in Ventura County.

The California Supreme Court has

agreed to determine whether Rockwell

can be tried for a capital offense. |

A joint amicus curiae brief was -

prepared and filed on August 31 by

ACLU Board members Jerome B. Falk,

Jr. and Anthony Amsterdam on behalf -

of the ACLU Foundation of Northern

California, the NAACP Legal Defense

Fund, the California Public Defenders -

Association and the California

Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Falk and Amsterdam argue that

California's death penalty statute,

Penal Code Sections 190-190.3, enacted

in 1973, violates the federal constitution

as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme

Court.

Penal Code Section 190 provides that

"every person guilty of murder in the

first degree shall suffer death if any one

or more of the special circumstances

enumerated in Section 190.2 have been

charged and found to be true in the

manner provided in Section 190.1."

Section 190.2 enumerates nine

special circumstances in which the

death penalty is required to be imposed.

Section 190.1 provides that a hearing be

held after the guilt phase of the trial at

which "`if the trier of facts finds. . . that

any one or more of the special cir-

cumstances enumerated in Section

190.2 as charged is true, the defendant

shall suffer the penalty of death."

These statutes enact a mandatory

death penalty that must be imposed in

every case where capital punishment is.

authorized by law, without con- |.

sideration of mitigating circumstances

peculiar to the particular offense or -

offender.

- However, in three of the U.S.

Supreme Court decisions, man-

datory death statutes were struck down

in North Carolina,

Oklahoma as violative of the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments because

such statutes did not permit a deter-

mination of the propriety of inflicting

capital punishment on the facts of each

particular case, in the light of the

character and record of each particular

defendant. =

In a companion Texas case, the

Court made unequivocally clear that

"an individualized sentencing deter-

mination is ... required by the Eighth

continued on page 2

Louisiana and.

Opening

"THE FRONT" stars Woody Allen

as a front man for blacklisted screen

writers who use his name to sell their

stories. Though it is fictional, the

Columbia Pictures presentation is

. based on a compilation of a great deal

_ of fact. The newsreel clips from the late

'40's and early '50's of the House Un-

American Activities Committee are

real. So are the experiences of the

` principals in the film.

Producer and Director' Martin Ritt.

was blacklisted in 1950. Zero Mostel

was blacklisted in 1948. Co-star Hershel

Bernardi was blacklisted in 1953.

Screenplay author Walter Bernstein

was blacklisted in 1950.

It was not until the 1960's before

Martin Ritt was allowed to establish his _

reputation using his own name. in

producing such praised movies as "The

Long, Hot Summer," "Hud," "The Spy

Who Came in from the Cold," and-

"Sounder." Bernstein in turn wrote the

scripts for "Heller in Pink Tights,"

"Fail Safe,' and "The Money Trap."

Ritt and Bernstein collaborated on the

controversial "`Paris Blues" in 1961 and

1970's `"`The Molly Maguires."" __

"THE FRONT" marks the first time

Woody Allen appears in a film he did

not at least partially co-create. It also

signifies his debut as an actor in a

straight drama. Zero Mostel plays a

renowned television comedian whose

career becomes traumatically affected

by the blacklist. Herschel Bernardi

portrays a harassed television producer.

As "the front," Allen's character

becomes celebrated and wealthy but

when Mostel is blacklisted, he agrees to

report the "fronts" activities to salvage'

his career. Finally, Allen too is sum-

moned to appear before an investigative

committee regarding his suspected

sympathies. His stand before the

committee brings about an unexpected

and dramatic conclusion.

"The Front"

What if there was a list? A list that said that some of

_ our most talented performers could not sing, act, write or

be funny? -

lt would be like America in the 1950`s.

It would be like the new movie, "THE FRONT,"

starring Woody Allen and Zero Mostel. By special

arrangement with Columbia Pictures, you are invited to

the San Francisco Premiere. It's on Tuesday, October 12

at 8:00 P.M. at the Cinema 21 Theater, 2141 Chestnut

(near Fillmore). : :

Besides seeing the movie, you will be invited to a

reception, the time and place of which will be announced

as soon as we have the details. Guest of honor for the.

"event will

be Lester Cole, one of the blacklisted -

screenwriters of the Hollywood Ten.

The cost? Just $10 per person, with the proceeds to

_benefit the ACLU Foundation of Northern California.

There is just one catch - there are a limited number of

tickets available. So hurry. Return the coupon below with

your check today. You don't have to be rich or famous to

go to this opening - you just have to be first!

2. et

Mail with payment to: ACLU Foundation, 814 Mission i

Street, San Francisco, 94103. | - |

( ) Please send me tickets at $10 each. GE l

tax deductible.) |

( ) | cannot attend, but enclosed is a tax deductible i

contribution. T

: |

NAME |

i

ADDRESS i

: Se I

CITY STATE ZIP

Sept. 1976

aclu news

LEGAL

Schlosser j joms legal staff

On July 15, the ACLU: of Northern

California warmly greeted the addition

of new staff counsel, Alan L.

Schlosser. Thanks to a matching

grant from. the LARAS Fund, an

additional position on the legal staff

has been created for one year. _

Before coming to the ACLU,

Schlosser was a member of the legal

staff of the United Farm Workers,

AFL-CIO. He worked primarily in New -

England and New York, directing

litigation stemming from the union's

nation-wide (c) organizing | and boycott.

activities. While in the East, he worked

closely with the New York Civil

Liberties Union on several picketing

and First Amendment cases.

Between 1971 and 1973, Schlosser

was a partner in the firm of Eiden,

Imhoff, Schlosser and Solomon in Santa

Barbara, California. Prior to that time,

Schlosser was a litigation associate in

the New York City firm of Paul, Weiss,

Goldberg, Rifkind, Wharton and

Garrison, and professor of Legal

Columbia University Law School.

In addition, Schlosser served briefly

Alan Schlosser

on the staff of Mayor John Lindsay,

working primarily on welfare and

manpower issues, and was a campaign

coordinator for Robert Kennedy.

Schlosser graduated from Williams

College and studied under a Fulbright

Scholarship at Gujarat University in'

Ahmedabad, India. In 1967, he

_ graduated Cum Laude from Harvard

Method and Constitutional Law at

Law School where he had been Urban

Affairs Editor of the Harvard Civil

Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

ACLU charges illegal ` `spying'

On July 20, ACLUNG, in its own

name, filed a major action against state _

Attorney General: Evelle- Younger' for:

access to documents expected to reveal -

illegal spying and recordkeeping on a (c)

massive scale.

- The suit, ACLU v. Younger, was filed

in the Sacramento Superior Court

under the California Public Records

Act, the California statute that most

nearly approximates the - federal

Freedom of Information Act. The suit

names as defendants Younger and

Charles Casey, head of the Justice

Department's semi-secret Organized

Crime and Criminal Intelligence

Branch (OCCIB). It demands nine

categories of records, including reports

to the Legislature that Younger has

labeled ``confidential", an inventory of

hardware capable of wiretapping,

eavesdropping, and other clandestine

surveillance, five confidential periodical

publications circulated to police by the

-OCCIB, and the first hundred entries in

two overlapping records systems called

the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit

and the Interstate Organized Crime -

Index.

At a Sacramento press conference,

ACLUNC Executive Director David

Fishlow and Legislative Representative

- Brent Barnhart charged that Younger

is operating a

Department of Justice. Pointing to

public reports that the Law

Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)

is a nationwide organization, -

headquartered in Younger's OCCIB,

which spies and collects dossiers on

individuals and groups (including

political groups) and trades both

surveillance services and dossiers

nationwide, Fishlow denounced

Younger's refusal to turn over the

materials and called for a legislative

investigation.

The next day Younger announced at

a press conference that, just

coincidentally, he had been talking with

"spy shop" in the -

the Speaker of the Assembly and was

not opposed to a standing. legislative

committee to oversee `state intelligence

activities. He denied unlawful spying

and dossier-keeping and asserted all

these activities are carried on for the

purpose of fighting "organized crime

and terrorism."

The defendants have answered the

suit admitting that the OCCIB

regularly engages in surveillance,

recordkeeping and covert operations

buy denying any illegalities. Calling all

the files related to "`organized crime"' or .

"terrorism'', defendants claim that the

court should immediately conduct an in

camera hearing (out of the presence of

the plaintiff) and declare all the

materials exempt from disclosure under

an exemption to the Public Records Act

for ``records of intelligence

information."

The defendants gave up on some

documents but held firm on others, and |

- repeated these arguments on August 23

before Sacramento Superior Court

Judge Frances Kerr. ACLUNC Legal

Director Charles Marson countered

these arguments by indicating that in

the documents they did yield, the

defendants define `organized crime"

and ``terrorism" to include any threat

of violence by anybody and thereby

permit themselves to spy freely while

misleading the public into thinking they

are only spying on groups like the Mafia

and the SLA. ACLUNC, the plaintiff in

the case, has demanded the deposition

of Charles Casey, the head of the

OCCIB; The Attorney General has

moved for an order preventing the

taking of the. deposition.

- Judge Kerr took the matter under

- submission, announcing from the

bench she would probably let Casey be

deposed, perhaps subject to some

restrictions yet to be announced.

Meanwhile the Assembly Criminal

Justice Committee has announced that

this fall it will hold hearings on the

}

Death penalty challenged

`continued from page 1

and Fourteenth Amendments," and

that ``mandatory laws imposing the

death penalty are therefore ... un-

constitutional."' :

Oklahoma and North Carolina both

had death statutes similar to

California's which imposed mandatory

death for certain categories of crime. |

Falk and Amsterdam point out that the -

Court specifically rejected the notion

that the listing of categories of capital

crimes sufficed as _ provisions for

discretion and compassion in the

determination of sentencing. -

They note that "the California

procedure necessarily entails one or

both of the reciprocal vices condemned

by the Supreme Court. Juries must

either obey the law and return capital

verdicts where contemporary com-

munity standards would not sustain

condemnation of a particular defen-

dant; or they must disregard the trial

judge's instructions and act lawlessly so

as to nullify the naudatory death

penalty."

In California, there is currently a

the discretion to reduce a death sen-

tence to life imprisonment. Falk and

Amsterdam argue that if such

discretion exists, it violates the earlier

death penalty opinions of the U.S.

Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia in

1972. There, the Court found that such

unconfined and undirected discretion is

also unconstitutional since it must be

"limited so as to minimize the risk of

_ wholly arbitrary and capricious action."

The court has also stated that death

sentences must be "rationally

reviewable" in a court with statewide

jurisdiction ``to promote the

evenhanded and consistent imposition

of death sentences under law." Falk

and Amsterdam urge that the

California law is therefore additionally

unconstitutional since it explicitly

`prohibits meaningtul appellate review

of death sentences.

They conclude that California Penal -

Code Sections 190-190.3 violate the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the Constitution and that the California

Supreme `Court should issue a writ of

prohibition preventing a hearing to

impose the death sentence in Rock-

well's trial.

dispute as to whether a trial judge has

. By David Fishlow .

Executive Director

board or commission? These questions

| in the next few months.

Anyone who applied to incoming San

`Francisco Mayor George Moscone for

appointment to a city commission this

year was handed a form with oe

following statement:

"Current law requires that ap-

pointees submit a disclosure statement

business interests that might con-

| interest."

That statement happens to be false,

but more about that later. It was

followed by the following question,

which had to be answered in the af-

firmative if the applicant was to be

considered further:

"Do you agree to file before ap-

pointment whatever disclosure

i statement may be required by law or by

policy of Mayor George Moscone?" __

The initial statement was indeed not

them permits public agencies to require

financial disclosure from their ``of-

ficers."" San Francisco had not done so

at the time, and though the Mayor's

personal requirement was probably

legal, it was his, and not, as the form

stated, required by ``current law."

Another Government Code provision

Does the citizen who goes to work for

a public agency retain any right to

privacy about financial matters? What

about one who is appointed to a public

will arise again and again in California

indicating any assets, employments, or -

ceivably involve them in a conflict of

true. Two provisions of the Government -

Code apply to public disclosure. One of

OCCIB, its surveillance and

recordkeeping practices, and its control

over the nationwide LEIU organization,

which appears to link together local

police "intelligence" squads. from all

over the country.

Disclosure econ rights

requires disclosure by certain specified

officials, but most commissioners were

not included on the list. Again, it was -

not current law, but the policy of the

Mayor to require the disclosure.

Some applicants refused to sign the

agreement, either because of con-

stitutional scruples or for business

reasons. Whether they should have

been denied further consideration is

open to discussion.

Now, however, the same questions

about financial disclosure and personal

privacy are facing public employees.

Proposition 9, passed by the

electorate in June of 1974, required that

every governmental agency - state and

local - in California adopt a conflict of

interest code which would specify which |

of its employees make decisions in-

volving potential conflicts of interest,

and would require disclosure from

those employees of any financial.

holdings which could be materially

affected by their official decisions.

Hundreds of agencies have complied,

-and in a number of them, debate was

hot:

To what level should disclosure -

requirements extend? Department

heads? Assistant heads of depart-

`ments? Middle or low-level managers?

A typist's wife could own property

which could rise or fall in value

depending on decisions made in the

department where he types. Should

every typist be required to disclose his

own, his wife's, and his children's

property?

Conflict of interest laws are on the

books already. In theory, disclosure

requirements such as those imposed by

Moscone are designed to aid in their

enforcement. He, incidentally, has

apparently directed his staff to ignore

ACLU mail, but in one of our unan-

swered inquiries about the application

continued on page 4

LEGISLATIVE

Sept. 1976.

aclu news .

Legislature abolishes indeterminate sentencing

By Brent Barnhart'

Legislative Representative

At the eleventh hour of the 1975-76

Legislative Session, the California

Legislature abolished the 60 year-old

indeterminate sentencing system, and

enacted a new Determinate Sentencing

Law authored by Senator John Nejedly

of Walnut Creek. The new law, if signed

by the Governor, will take effect July 1,

1977... =

The enactment of a determinate

sentencing system -has been a primary

focus of the ACLU/NC Legislative

Office throughout the two-year session.

The cruelty and human destruction

inherent in a system that places con-

victed persons in prison with sometimes

no certainty whether they will ever be

released; and, if-they are to be released,

no certainty when they will be released

from prison, moved prisoners' groups,

the American Friends Service Com-

mittee, the ACLU and other groups

concerned with prison conditions, to

call for the abolition of indeterminate

sentencing.

However, while 1976 has seen the

fruition of years of work to abolish the

indeterminate sentence, it has also seen

the spread of virtual panic over public

_ fear of crime. That fear infects the

Legislature, and the vast majority of |

legislators tumble over one another in

their efforts to assure the electorate that

they'll do something to stop crime.

From the outset, therefore, SB 42 has

been subject to massive pressure from

the "get tough on crime'' advocates to

become a vehicle for more repressive

provisions, and harsher penalties. As a

result, the actual time served by in-

mates in California prisons will

probably go up as a result of SB 42.

This when the average time served by

California prisoners is already twice

that of the national average according

to National Council on Crime and

Delinquency figures.

The greatest danger posed by the

Determinate Sentencing Act lies in the |

future however, as was dramatically

displayed on the Assembly floor on the

date of SB 42's passage. Time-served

under' the indeterminate sentencing

system was ultimately decided by an

often arbitrary and infuriatingly in-

sensitive Adult Authority - a board -

nevertheless insulated from the daily

political storms that rock the

Legislature, and influenced in part by

the impersonal bureaucratic pressure to .

move bodies out of the prison system to

make room for new ones moving in.

_'Time-served under SB 42, however,

will be: directly decided by the

Legislature. Time-served thus becomes

the direct rather than the indirect

product of legislators' ambitions and

political needs. / :

As SB 42, /was- presented on the

Assembly floor on August 31st it was

met by a barrage of amendments which

sought to make the measure even

harsher than the compromise which

cleared the Assembly Criminal Justice

and Ways and Means Committees, and

was produced by the shuttle-diplomacy

of J. Anthony Kline, Governor Brown's

`Legal Affairs Assistant. Republicans

John Briggs, Mike Antonovich and

Robert Cline were outdone in their

fervor for harsher sentences by

Democrat Alister McAlister.

McAlister's eclectic package

reflected little understanding of the

structure | jcreated by SB 42 - some

amendments either undermining one

another, or making specific sentencing

provisions unreadable. Nevertheless,

the frightening aspect of the McAlister

assault was the way in which the

`majority of Assembly legislators were

stampeded. The stampede did coincide

with the temporary absence-of the

Democratic leadership from the floor:

Speaker, Leo McCarthy, Majority

Leader , (Boward Berman and Speaker

Pro Tem John Knox had been called' to

the Governor's Office to meet Vice

Presidental Candidate Walter Mon-

dale. Nevertheless, hordes of Assembly

legislators were caught up in a lynch

mob atmosphere which the mere ab-

sence of the elected leadership could

not explain away. All thoughtfulness

and inquiry fled the floor as the mob

instinct made all but a few apparently

afraid to buck the tide in an election

year.

Some few, like Asschatiimen Vic

Fazio, John Vasconcellos, Ken Meade.

and Ken Maddy stood up to the lynch

mob, but even thoughtful legislators

such as Barry Keene and Michael

Wornum moved with McAlister' Ss

mindless mob.

The message for next year is not

pleasant. We can hardly assume that

violent crime will be on the decrease

next year nor that the public at large

will suddenly comprehend the heavy

penalties inflicted on a few persons do

not deter criminal activity by other

persons who only face such penalties if

they are caught, arrested, and con-

victed. ACLU members can expect the

lynch mob to return next year with

stacks of measures hiking SB 42's

considerable penalties even higher.

nuclear policy | Help needed on wiretap bill .

Board adopts

Late last year, after adopting a -

position of opposition to nuclear power

development, the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors reconsidered and asked a

committee of the Board to study the

matter further.

After several months of work,

committee members Neil Horton

(chair), Mike Harris, Lola Hanzel,

and Virginia Fabian submitted their

report and recommendations. The

following is the report as adopted by the

Board of Directors:

In deciding whether to take a stand

on the development of nuclear power,

the ACLU-NC is faced with the

question of the extent to which it should

depart from its position of fighting

against specific present violations of

constitutional rights. If ACLU-NC were (c)

to oppose further nuclear development,

it would have to do so primarily on the

basis of_ potential violations arising

from future, and not always predic-

table, activity.

A major fear is what will occur if

plutonium recycling replaces present

systems. Plutonium recycling involves

the use of an extremely hazardous

substance requiring intensified

safeguards to prevent theft, sabotage, -

and terroristic attacks. These threats in

turn may provoke counter-measures

that are so potentially destructive of

civil liberties that some contend ACLU-

NC should oppose the process of

plutonium recycling in nuclear power

plants. Opponents. of nuclear power

`plants point to the following areas of

concern for civil liberties:

1. The rights of employees in the

nuclear industry. They point to

problems of security clearances, per-

sonnel reliability programs, on- the-job

searches and limitations on union

activity.

:

x e

% y : :

2. The rights of the general public in

the event of a "nuclear incident". The

question is what measures the govern-

ment would take in such situations as

accident in a nuclear power plant,

- sabotage, a discovered theft of nuclear

materials, or terrorist threats. The

response could involve area searches,

wiretapping, detention of known

dissidents, surveillance of various

kinds, all without regard to established

constitutional safeguards.

3. The process by which government

-atrives at its decisions concerning

nuclear development. The concern here

is the extent to which government

precludes the public from participating

in decisions through secrecy and the

partial release of information.

There are recognized risks in nuclear

power. There are important en-

vironmental, technical and economic

factors involved, some of which already

may have rendered the breeder reactor

obsolete. It is also worth noting that

there are risks inherent in any program

that would enforce mandatory

reduction in the consumption of energy.

What is most troublesome about

nuclear power from a civil liberties

point of view is the potential reaction of

government to the perceived threat to

our physical security from the improper

use of dangerous material. ACLU-NC

should not regard such a possibility of

government over-reaction lightly and

should attack these abuses if they

occur.

We recommend that the ACLU- NC

take the following steps:

1. Register our grave concern about the

civil liberties dangers inherent in the

development of plutonium recycling

and other dangerous forms of nuclear

development.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Act of 1976, S. 3197, requires your

immediate attention. The crucial vote

on the Senate floor will take place any

. day now. Call, write or telegram your

legislator today!

S. 3197 is a license for. government

wiretapping carefully disguised as a

measure for controlling just such

surveillance. The bill vould authorize

almost any wiretaps as long as its

purpose would be the obtaining of

information helpful to the conduct of

foreign affairs. This troadly worded

and vague charter is not limited to

surveillance where there is any probable

cause to believe that any crime has

been, or is being, :ommitted.

S. 3197 passed the Senate Judiciary

Committee on June 15 by a vote of 11-1,

_ with Senator John Tunney of California.

providing the sole dissent despite

enormous pressure from fellow

"liberals" (i.e., Kennedy) in the Senate.

The measure was then considered by -

the Select Committee on Intelligence

which offered only minor amendments. |

Consideration by the full Senate might

begin on September 15.

In the, meantime, the Subcomimilies

on Courts, Civil Liberties and

Administration of Justice of the House

Judiciary Committee has been holding

hearings on the two companion bills to

S. 3197, HR 12750 and HR 13376, on-

the House side. The aubeomntnittes is |

chaired by Representative Robert

Kastenmeier of Wisconsin.

If the Senate votes affirmatively on S.

3197, it is expected that Kastenmeier's

subcommittee might well report the

House bills out favorably also.

Our legislators must be cautioned

against hasty election - year

consideration of bills as dangerous to

civil liberties as S. 3197, HR 12750 and

HR 13376. .

IMMEDIATE ACTION RE S. 3197:

Contact .Senator John Tunney |

commending him for his lone no vote in |

the Senate Judiciary Committee when

the bill was first introduced and now for

his leadership of the opposition to the

bill.

Contact: Senator Alan Cranston

urging him to fight against S. 3197 on

the Senate floor. :

Senators' address: Senate Office

Building, Washington D.C. 20510. San |

Francisco office phones: Cranston 556-

8440, Tunney 556-4000.

ACTION RE HR 12750 and HR

13376: Contact Representative Don

Edwards (San Jose), only Northern

California) member of the House

`Judiciary Committee where the bills are

now. Address: House Office Building,

Washington D.C. 20515. San Jose office |

phone (408) 296-7456. : /

2. Continue to `oppose government

censorship of information and take

appropriate steps to permit the public

to participate in government decisions

concerning nuclear power.

3. Work for a statute requiring that

government agencies in making energy

decisions assess the effect of their acts

on civil liberties, hold public hearings

and publish their findings.

4. Pursue a program of litigation,

where appropriate.

5. Work closely with other

organizations concerned with the

possible civil liberties abuses associated

with nuclear power.

6. Continue using the ACLU NEWS

when appropriate to present the civil

`liberties aspects of the nuclear power

issue.

- Sept. 1976.

aclu news

_CHAPTERS

Oakland

The Oakland chapter of the

American Civil Liberties Union will

present Oakland Municipal judge

Marilyn Patel on Wednesday, Sep-

tember 15, 7:30 PM at the Lakesview

School (across from the Grand Lake

Theater) auditorium. This is the first

event of the chapter's "`Civil Liberties,

A Perspective from the Bench" series.

This event is free and the public is

invited. Plenty of free parking around

back.

Judge Patel, a graduate of Fordham

University Law School, specializes in

employment discrimination law. She

will speak on current issues in civil

liberties.

After her presentation there will be

an open audience participation period.

Refreshments will be served.

contact

For further information,

Geoff McLennan at 547-1955 or 655-

5525.

e Sg '

M id-Peninsula

The Mid-Peninsula Chapter an-

nounces that the featured speaker at

the Chapter's Annual Meeting will be

Congressman Don Edwards on

Thursday, October 14, 1976. The

meeting will be held at Cubberly

Auditorium on the Stanford campus.

Refreshments will be served from 7:15

to 8:00 and the meeting will begin at

8:00. Congressman Edwards, a member

of the House Judiciary Committee, will

speak on Civil Liberties and_ the

Congress.

All are invited. Mark your calendars

today and plan to attend.

_ The regular meeting of the Chapter

Board will be held on Thursday,

September 30 at 8:00 at the All Saints

Episcopal Church, at the corner of

letter writing campaigns.

"past we

Hamilton and Waverly in Palo Alto.

For further information, contact

Leonard Edwards at 287-6193.

San Francisco

San Francisco is an exciting place for

civil libertarians to be these days. We

have a new mayor who distinguished

himself in Sacramento by his vigorous |

defense of civil liberties; a new police

chief. who is clearly not cut out of the

same old cloth; a police commission

that is considering removing review of

police misconduct from the police

department; a school board which is

still in turmoil over desegregation, and

`much much more.

Frankly, we need help keeping on top

of it all, and in making our voice heard.

We need people to-help us study

specific issues as they come up: to

organize an ACLU Phone Tree: to

testify at public hearings: to organize

We are

planning a get together over coffee-tea

on the evening of September 29, to

organize oursleves and to accomplish

- the considerable work that we forsee. If

you have volunteered your help in the

will be inviting you

automatically. If you would like to

volunteer now, or if our machinery fouls

up and you don't get an invitation,

please call Esther Faingold at the

ACLU office for time and place ...

777-4880.

DATES TO REMEMBER:

October 21 - IN PURSUIT OF

PRIVACY, a multi-media film dealing

with constitutional right of privacy of

the individual to be shown Thursday

October 21 at 2 and 8 p.m. at the

McKenna Theater at San Francisco

State University. ACLU members will.

_ be panelists.

November 20 - CHAPTER

WORKSHOP AND ANNUAL

MEETING. Unitarian Church ... 11

a.m. to 4 p.m. Program to be an-

nounced next issue.

Progress on oles bias

Early this year, the ACLU News

reported the filing of a class action

lawsuit by National ACLU against the

Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration charging LEAA with

non-enforcement of its cwvil rights

Disclosure...

continued from page 2

form described here, we pointed out

that:

"It may be less convenient to enforce |

the Conflict of Interest Act without

regular financial disclosure reports, but

certainly the constitutional right to

privacy cannot be ignored merely for

reasons of convenience.'

The problem is not one which

"reform'' politicians are going to want

to address, but they are very real. One

of the tasks of the ACLU's Northern

California Privacy Project is to evaluate

the conflict of interest codes recently

passed by the various agencies in

compliance with Proposition 9. Political -

clean-up campaigns have apparently

raised some undesirable constitutional ~

side effects.

- has

guidelines. Two a the named plaintiffs -

in the case are Raymond Clark of the

Oakland Police Department and Oliver

Glover of the Richmond Police

Department. LEAA is required to deny

funds to any law enforcement agency

which discriminates

promotions on the basis of race or sex.

The ACLU claims that has never been

done despite repeated complaints about

_ numerous police departments.

Since the filing of the suit, some of

the plaintiffs have received varying

degrees of relief, not from the court but

from LEAA itself. For example, LEAA

forced the elimination of

discriminatory height requirements

maintained by police departments in -

New Orleans, Honolulu, and Iowa.

Also, LEAA has complied with an

ACLU motion by taking specific

action against those law enforcement -

agencies which LEAA has already

found to be discriminatory most

notably in Philadelphia.

The legislation which created LEAA

expires this year and the agency is

clearly trying to do just enough civil

rights enforcement to assure a five peat

extension from COnEreSS:

in hiring or .

Berkeley-A eae

Kensington

The

Chapter plans a special event in

October to generate discussion on the

jury. Special guests on the panel are

Howard Moore, one of the Angela

Davis defense attorneys, and Mary

Timothy, the foreperson of the jury in

that case. The discussion will be

moderated by David Weitzman and will

cover how the jury is chosen, what

rights the members have during trial,

and jury deliberations. There will be a

no-host bar. Time and place: October

9, 1976, 4-6 P.M. Home of the DeVito

Family, 879 Indian Rock, Berkeley.

HELP. One of the most vital links in

the chain linking the chapter to the

general public needs strengthening.

The Chapter needs volunteers to help

respond to the incoming calls received

by our answering service. The advice

and aid offered by our volunteers are an

indispensable part of our service. It is

some of the most exciting and creative

work done by the Chapter, and we need

more good people to train and to be

able to count on. There's plenty of

attorney back-up for the thornier

problems. If you have a little time,

please call Eileen Keech: 848-0089.

The Nominations Committee. is

preparing a list of nominees for Board

Membership to be elected in November.

Any chapter member may call Gary

Bostwick, 527-5094, to suggest a

nominee. Also, a petition signed by 15

chapter members received by the Board

by October 15 is sufficient to place a

member's name on the ballot. Address:

ACLU; PO Box 955; Berkeley 94701.

Marin

The Marin Chapter is planning a big

Civil Liberties Fair to be held Saturday,

October 23, at the San Rafael

Improvement Club at Fifth Avenue and

~H Street, San Rafael. This will be the

first Marin fund-raiser in two years and

all the chapter members and those of

other chapters are Ales to help make

it a success. .

The affair is planned to last all af-

ternoon and into the evening and will

include such attractions as:

An art show of the works of Marin

artists, some of which will be auctioned

off by Alice Yarish, columnist for the

Pacific Sun.

Raffles of valuable items, one of them

open to new members only.

Gourmet food and rare wines for sale

for consumption on the premises or to

take home.

- A flea market and white elephant |

Sale. :

In addition, the chapter plans to -

Berkeley-Albany-Kensington

`Karen Angel

announce the results of a questionaire

on civil liberties issues sent to can-

didates in the November election. A_

prominent speaker, yet to be chosen,

will be asked to comment on the replies.

_ Fran Miller, new chapter chair, urges

all members to help this fund raising

effort - by donating items to the sales,

by becoming telephone volunteers and

by helping out at the fair itself. Her

phone number is 454-8062. |

The Marin chapter now has available

a 24-minute video tape about ACLU's

part in opening the Marin County

Honor Farm to women prisoners of the

county jail. The honor farm used to be

available to men prisoners only and

women, no matter how much they

deserved honor treatment, were con- -

fined in the jail at the Civic Center.

After ACLU threatened to sue in behalf

of equal treatment for women, the

county arranged for women also to be

housed at the honor farm.

`The tape has been shown on Marin

Community Video, the local cable

outlet, and is now available for other

showings. Fran Miller is the one to call

if you are interested.

Yolo

The Yolo Chapter, represented by

Mitzi Ayala, has developed a two-part

public lecture series in-cooperation with

The Unitarian Church and U.C. Davis

Extension. Barry Commoner, Director

of the Center for the Biology of Natural.

Sciences, Washington University and

author of Poverty of Power and The

Closing Circle, will be the first lecturer

on October 22, 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. -

Veteran's Memorial Building, Davis.

Admission is $3.50 with the exception

of $2.00 for U.C. Davis students.

At the Annual Membership Meeting

in May, the Chapter elected members to

the Board of Directors and Officers.

Serving for the 1976-1977 year are

(Chairperson), Mitzi

Ayala, Glenn Burch, Neil Colwell, Janet -

Glandfelter, Ramela Grove, Dianna

Hoffman, Gini Hinken, Marjorie Le

. Donne, Rudy Lester, Robert Lieber -

(Treasurer), Paul Meyer, Nadine

Noelting (Secretary), Grant Noda,

David Rosenberg, Baek Thayer and

Tom Vasey.

~ Neil Colwell is serving as Board

liason to the Legal Affairs Committee

chaired by Norm Kulla. The Com-

mittee, composed of lawyers, responds

to requests for assistance generated

through the Chapter's answering

service - (916) 758-1301. The purpose

of the lawyer's response to the caller is

to determine whether a civil liberties

issue does exist, the case is referred

from the Committee to Yolo County

ACLU Board of Directors for further

consideration.

Oisstles 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. Fishlow, Executive Director

Mike Callahan, Editor and Assistant Executive Director

814 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

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