vol. 55, no. 1

aclu news

NON-PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT NO. 4424

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Volume LV

January/February 1991

No.1 _

Civil Liberties in Times of War

By Dorothy M. Ehrlich

uring times of tension and con-

D flict, governments are always

tempted to short-circuit citizens'

`rights under the guise of protecting

national security. As the ACLU NEWS

goes to press, war, and threats to civil lib-

erties grow more serious every day. In

response to this crisis, the ACLU of

Northern California, working in concert

with its national office and affiliates

,throughout the nation, is forming a

national network to monitor and to chal-

lenge violations of civil liberties.

The ACLU has condemned the FBI's

new practice of investigating and interro-

gating Arab-Americans solely on the basis

of their national ancestry. Insisting that

Arab-Americans not become the 1990s

equivalent of Japanese-Americans during

World War II, the ACLU has joined with a

coalition of Bay Area organizations to

protest the FBI's program as discrimina-

tory and illegal.

Surveillance Of Arab-Americans

This particular danger was highlighted

ACLU War Emergency Desk

See Page 2

this time of national cri-

sis. Specifically, this coa-

lition of groups and

individuals called upon

the FBI to put an immedi-

ate end to unwarranted

investigations of Arab-

Americans.

Unfortunately, the

FBI's role in singling out

Arab-Americans for

harassment may also be

_ helping to fuel a signifi-

cant increase in_ hate

crimes against people of

middle-eastern ancestry

throughout the nation.

The Right To Dissent

As history has shown

us, the vigilant protection

of First Amendment

rights becomes essential

during times of interna-

tional conflict. As anti-

war protests intensify, the

ACLU will work to

Ann Rushing ensure that the First

at press conferences on January 10th and

January 13th at which the ACLU-NC

joined Arab-Americans, church leaders,

and representatives from the San

Supreme Court

Reverses Prop. 115

Provision

key section of Proposition 115,

A the "Crime Victims Justice

Reform Act," constitutes "such a

far-reaching change in our governmental

structure as to amount to a qualitative con-

stitutional revision, an undertaking beyond

the reach of the initiative process," the

California Supreme Court unanimously

ruled on December 26. (Raven v.

Deukmejian.)

The Court's decision strikes down the

controversial section of the initiative that

prohibited California courts from inter-

preting numerous state constitutional

rights more broadly than parallel federal

rights in criminal proceedings.

Proposition 115, enacted at the June

primary, made numerous changes to

California laws and state constitutional

provisions affecting criminal procedure.

ACLU and other opponents of Proposition

115 voiced fears that the independent state

grounds limitation of the initiative might

eliminate such fundamental state rights as

the confidentiality of medical records, the

right to choose abortion, access to shop- .

ping centers for free speech activity and

the protection of worship services from

government surveillance.

Shortly after passage of Proposition

115, three Bay Area lawyers, represented

by Stephen Bomse and David Goodwin of

Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, chal-

lenged the measure in the Court of

Appeal. They argued that Proposition 115

was improperly enacted, because it accom-

plished a constitutional revision, which

must follow a more formal and delibera-

tive process than electoral vote on an ini-

tiative, and because it embraced multiple

unrelated topics in violation of a state con-

stitutional requirement that an initiative

address a single subject. :

The California Supreme Court trans-

ferred the petition to resolve its validity

' quickly. ACLU-NC, filed a friend of the

court brief in support of the petition assert-

ing that Proposition 115 accomplished a

constitutional revision, and violated the

single subject clause of the state constitu-

tion. The brief also argued that even if the

measure were valid, the court should inter-

pret it narrowly, so as to fulfill the repre-

sentations of those who wrote the

measure.

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice

Malcolm Lucas, the Court ruled that

Proposition 115 satisfied the single subject

requirement, but that the section of the

measure limiting independent state consti-

tutional interpretation made such far-

reaching changes to the state Constitution

as to accomplish a revision. Justice

Stanley Mosk dissented from the single

subject holding.

In concluding that the state constitu-

tional restriction of Proposition 115 consti-

tuted a revision, requiring action by the

legislature or a constitutional convention

prior to a vote of the people, the court

Continued on page 2

Francisco Human Rights Commission, the

Japanese-American Citizens League, and

many other groups in publicly agreeing to

work together to protect civil liberties at

Amendment right to dis-

sent be respected, and that those who

choose to challenge government policies

and practices not be treated as disloyal.

Continued on page 6

aclu news

jan-feb 1991

-ACLU-NC Defends Gay Sailor's Rights

ontinuing its challenges to the

6 military's anti-gay policies, the

ACLU-NC is assisting a gay man

who was forced to resign from the U.S.

Navy and is now being asked to repay

$22,000, half the cost of his training at

Annapolis.

Orlando Gotay, a lieutenant and 1987

graduate of the Naval Academy, was

aboard the battleship Belknap in the

Mediterranean in June, 1989 when he was

told that officers were investigating him

because he was gay. Although the investi-

gation found no evidence that Gotay was

gay, his commanding officer issued a letter

of warning after investigators charged him

with fraternizing with enlisted men.

"The charges were dismissed. I thought

everything was fine until I got a letter from

the: commander of naval personnel

demanding that I resign or face an officer's

separation board," said Gotay. "That's an

administrative procedure where I had the

burden of proof to show why I should

remain in the Navy."

Under this pressure, Gotay did resign

and received an honorable discharge in

March 1990. A week later he received a

letter from the military demanding that he

repay $22,949 of his education costs.

"By pressuring Gotay to resign, the

Navy deprived itself of the services of a

Orlando Gotay then...

to injury."

"T was shocked," Gotay said,

"They discriminate against you and

then they want you to pay for it."

In a letter to

Secretary of the

Navy H. Lawrence

Garrett III, Coles

stated that the Navy

was mistaken in its

belief that Gotay

resigned voluntarily.

"Gotay resigned at

the insistence of the

Department of the

Navy, which made it

relatively clear that it

wanted him to resign

because it suspected

that he was gay,"

Coles wrote.

Gotay has also

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1989.batch ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1990.batch ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1991.batch 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 add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log received

capable officer," said ACLU-NC staff

attorney Matthew Coles. "The Navy

should not make him pay for an education

it squandered by getting rid of him."

Gotay, a 26-year old native of Puerto

Rico who lives in San Francisco, said the

Navy's request for payment added "insult

Congressional sup-

port from Barbara

Boxer, Barney Frank, Nancy

Pelosi and Gerry Studds,

who have written to the

Navy demanding that they

drop their collection efforts.

Gotay holds a degree in

political science from the | and now

Naval Academy and has served as a

Spanish and Italian language interpreter for

the admiral of the Sixth Fleet.

Ann Rushing

S.F. Homeless Regulations

Reconsidered

he San Francisco - Police

: Commission has ordered the crea-

tion of a new policy limiting the

Police Department's use of an ancient

anti-vagrancy statute against the city's

homeless people.

At issue is the police department's

enforcement of an 1872 law which prohib-

its people from "lodging in any building,

structure, vehicle, or place, whether public

or private, without the permission of the

owner."

The ACLU-NC joined the San

Francisco Human Rights Commission,

HomeBase, the Coalition on

Homelessness and the National Center on -

Institutions and Alternatives in asking the

Police Commission to define under what

circumstances a person could be consid-

ered to be illegally "lodging."

"The law was never intended for peo-

ple on the sidewalk," ACLU-NC staff

attorney John Crew told the San Francisco

Examiner. It has become, for the home-

less, a question of "use a blanket, go to

jail," according to Don Hesse a staff

worker for San Francisco's Human Rights

Commission.

Crew noted that, despite numerous

arrests under the 19th century statute this

year, there have been no convictions. "It is

misused to clear people from the streets,

and is a violation of homeless peoples'

rights," says Crew.

Police officials agreed that the new

policy should prohibit use of the law to

Monterey Nativity

Scene Removed

onterey city officials must

remove or alter the display of a

large nativity scene outside city

buildings, ordered United States District

Judge William Ingram on December 26.

The order came in an ACLU-NC case.

(Ringel v. City of Monterey.)

Over the protests of ACLU-NC's

Monterey Chapter, city officials voted in

early December to allow a local civic

organization to erect the Nativity Scene on

the lawn area outside Monterey's munici-

pal buildings. One of those historic build-

ings, Colton Hall, was the location of the

signing of the California Constitution.

The ACLU filed suit on behalf of

Victor Ringel, a 13-year-old Jewish boy,

Loretta Fisher, a Unitarian, the Rev. J.

Kevin Philips, an Episcopalian priest, and

the Rev. Margaret Keip and the Rev. Fred

Keip, two Unitarian ministers. The case

was handled by ACLU-NC cooperating

attorney Ethan Schulman of Howard,

Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and

Falk, ACLU-NC Monterey Chapter Legal

Committee Chair Michelle Welsh, and

ACLU-NC staff counsel Margaret Crosby.

The suit argued that the isolated dis-

play of a creche - depicting the central

drama of the Christian faith, the birth of

Christ - communicated a message of

governmental endorsement for Christian

doctrine in violation of the state and fed-

eral Constitutions. Monterey residents tes-

tified that the creche display was a

divisive presence that made people in

Monterey feel like outsiders in the com-

munity during the holiday season.

In compliance with the court order, the

nativity scene was removed. The case will

continue in United States District Court.

The ACLU goal is to obtain a permanent

injunction against future display of a soli-

tary religious symbol outside the seat of

government.

deny homeless people access to public

parks and places or against people merely

in possession of blankets or bedrolls.

However, discussions continue about the

remaining policy provisions.

Proposition 115 ...

Continued from page 1

wrote that the measure "would substan-

tially alter the substance and integrity of

the Constitution as a document of indepen-

dent force and effect." The Court noted

that historically, state constitutions pro-

vided the only protection for citizens' fun-

damental rights, and that the California

Constitution has accorded Californians -

substantial protection beyond those con-

tained in the federal Constitution.

"The decision protects fundamental

civil liberties in California," stated ACLU

attomey Margaret Crosby, who authored

the ACLU's brief. "Speaking with one

voice, the Court forcefully established that

certain enduring values may not be jetti-

soned in haste by a vote on an initiative

measure."

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July, August-

September and October/November.

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor (on leave)

Larry Bensky, Acting Editor

Marcia Gallo, Field Page

ZesTop Publishing, Design and Production

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor

San Francisco, California 94103

(415) 621-2488

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to theaclu news and 50

cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

aclu news

jan-feb 1991 3

New Law Protects Vietnamese

_ Fishermen's Rights

Congress, new legislation was passed

to allow fishermen who are not U.S.

citizens to legally own and pilot commer-

cial vessels off the California coast. The

measure, which was authored by

Congressman Norman Mineta (D-San

Jose) and lobbied for by the ACLU, was

initiated as a result of a lawsuit filed in

1989 on behalf-of Vietnamese fishermen

in California.

Under the bill, HR 4009, Vietnamese

fishermen who are permanent residents

but have not yet become citizens, are

allowed to own and pilot fishing boats off

the coast of California. The law will be in

effect for ten years.

"This is one of my happiest days," said

Chieu Pham, president of the Vietnamese

Fishermen Association of America, when

the measure was passed on a unanimous

I n the waning hours of the 101st

"The outright discrimination advanced

no national interest and only succeeded

in economically and socially displacing

hard-working, tax-paying members of

the community."

voice vote. "For me, it's like a dream

come true. Fishing is the only thing we

know. We want to be productive citizens

and now we have a chance to do it."

The legislation resolves the contro-

versy centering around Coast Guard

enforcement of a 200-year old law, the

Jones Act, which prohibits non-citizens

from owning and piloting large commer-

~ Redwood Summer

Update

n August 31, 1990, United States

District Judge Stanley Weigel

issued a Temporary Restraining

_Order allowing Redwood Summer protes-

tors to march through the City of Fortuna.

The Fortuna march was the culmina-

tion of a summer long series of environ-

mental protests. The march was threatened

when the City of Fortuna refused to give

Redwood Summer a permit, claiming that

the protestors had applied too late and had

failed to provide proof of liability insu-

rance.

Redwood Summer and Jim Squatter,

one of its organizers, filed suit in federal

court claiming that the city's refusal to

issue a permit violated their First

Amendment rights.

ACLU-NC staff attorneys Ed Chen

and Matt Coles claimed that the city's

requirement that permits be applied for 20

days before an event constituted an undue

burden on freedom of speech. They also

argued that the First Amendment demands

that insurance requirements be waived if

an organization is either too poor or too

controversial to get insurance.

After hearing the attorneys for both

sides, Judge Weigel indicated that he

thought Redwood Summer had a right to

march despite the insurance requirement

and its failure to apply 20 days in advance.

He asked the parties to confer and try to

agree on terms for the march.

When the city again refused to grant a

~ permit on any terms, Judge Weigel issued

the Temporary Restraining Order, allow-

ing the march to go forward. The march

took place without incident.

In January, the City amended its ordi-

nance to change the time requirement

from 20 days to five. It also changed the

law to say that the insurance requirement

will be waived for those who can not pay

or who are otherwise unable to get insu-

rance. The case is likely to be settled once

the amendments take effect.

Head Shaving In Redwood Country

Following last summer's extensive

Redwood Summer protests in Northern

California, the ACLU-NC took action

together with cooperating attorneys Robert

Fries and Andrew Berman of Steinhardt

and Falconer and Mark Harris on behalf of

four Redwood Summer protestors. They

had had their heads shaven by the

Humboldt County Sheriff's Department

while they were in custody on trespass

_ charges. Redwood Summer, the coalition

which organized the protests against

cutting of old growth timber, also joined

as a plaintiff.

The Sheriff contends the plaintiffs'

heads were shaven because their long hair

was infested with lice which could not

otherwise be removed. In fact, the individ-

uals were never adequately examined for

lice, and the evidence suggests their heads

were shaven to punish them for their polit-

ical protests.

On December 4, 1990, the U.S.

District Court issued an injunction prohib-

iting the Sheriff from shaving the heads of

pre-trial detainees unless officials strictly

complied with specified medical proce-

dures. In particular, the order requires that

the detainee first be closely examined by a

medical professional; if lice is found,

medicated shampoo procedure is to be

used. Only if this treatment is proven inef-

fective, may haircutting be ordered. The

defendants have since stipulated that only

a physician can actually order head shav-

ing.

Barring an out of court settlement, the

case will proceed to trial on the issues of

damages for the injured plaintiffs and per-

manent injunction.

cial vessels. The Coast Guard only en-

forced the 1789 law against Vietnamese

fishermen. During 1989 many vessels

were stopped at sea and their crews were

prohibited from fishing.

The Association and several individual

fishermen sued the Coast Guard charging

that the statute is unconstitutional because

it violated the fishermen's right to equal

protection under the Fifth Amendment of

the Constitution. The suit, Vietnamese

Fishermen Association of America v. U.S.

Coast Guard, was filed in September,

1989 by ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed

Chen, Asian Law Caucus attorney Dennis

Hayashi, Alan Sparer and Carl

Blumenstein of Howard, Rice,

Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and Falk,

and Michael G. Lee of Minami, Lew,

Tamaki and Lee.

"We sued because this antique law

was being used to deprive these fishermen

not only of their civil rights, but of their

livelihood, for no rational reason," said

Chen. ;

Outright Discrimination

Blumenstein added, "The outright dis-

crimination advanced no national interest

and only succeeded in economically and

socially displacing hard working, tax-

paying members of the community."

Hayashi noted that this was the first

time that Vietnamese-Americans had gone

to Washington, D.C. to lobby for a domes-

tic issue. "This is historic legislation for

the Vietnamese community," he said,

"because it is the first time they have

politically been able to empower them-

selves through the legislative process."

Wade Henderson, Associate Director

of the ACLU's Washington Office agreed.

"The participation of Chieu Pham and

other members of the Association in lob-

bying for this bill really had a dramatic

effect on members of Congress," he said.

Chen said that when President Bush

signed the bill into law on November 16,

the lawsuit, which reached the U.S. Court

of Appeals in July of this year, was with-

drawn.

`Congressman Mineta announced the

victory at press conferences in San Jose

and on Fisherman's Wharf in San

Francisco.

"The issue was right, their cause was

right and there was recognition by

Congress of the injustice and inequity

they were facing," he said.

~ Berkeley Rejects

Loitering Ban

he Berkeley City Council, acting

T on the advice of the city's Police

Review Commission, has rejected

a proposed ordinance which would have

banned "loitering" in public and private

facilities.

ACLU-NC staff attomey John Crew

strongly opposed the ban as "clearly

unconstitutional." Police, Crew says,

could use the law to violate civil rights of

anyone they suspected of being in the

wrong place at the wrong time.

"A police officer is not qualified to

make an immediate judgment as to who is

loitering and who isn't," Crew continues.

"Law enforcement will have no reasonable

grounds to distinguish between . people

waiting for their laundry to get done, and

people waiting around to sell drugs."

A 1983 United States Supreme Court

ruling held that a California anti-loitering

statute was unconstitutional because it was

too vague, and likely to be used in a dis-

criminatory manner.

But a 1988 California Supreme Court

decision upheld a state law which bans loi-

tering around public toilets with intent to

commit illegal acts.

"The ACLU recognizes that there is a

devastating drug problem in the Bay

Area," Crew told the San Francisco

Chronicle. "But creating laws that are

going to invite arbitrary enforcement and

strain relations between police and the

community isn't going to solve the

problem."

7

in the past three years alone,

and tens of thousands have been

beaten, injured and imprisoned.

For the past 23 vears, our tax dollars

have paid for the Israeli military occupation of

the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

Hundreds of Palestinian civilians Israel's actions have been condemned by Amnesty -

have been killed by Israeli soldiers International, the International Red Cross, and the

United Nations. Nevertheless, in 1989 Congress again

voted to give Israel $3 billion in aid-$10 million a day!

And they did it again this year

Remember, @// Americans are paving for the Occupation!

lsntit time west

oppedd:

Sponsored by the Middle East Peace Network PO Box 21615, Oakland. C. 9 1620

STOP AID TO ISRAEL UNTIL IT AGREES TO END THE OCCUPATION " ISRAEL MUST NEGOTIATE WITH THE P

PALESTINE AND ISRAEL-TWO STATES FOR TWO PEOPLES LIVING IN PEACE so

Acting in response to a request from the Middle East Peace Network, the ACLU-NC strongly protested BART's removal

of this platform ad in late December. Following an urgent letter from ACLU staff attorney Alan Schlosser, BART and

advertising agency TDI replaced some of the ads in late December, and have agreed to replace the full complement of ads

in early February. BART claimed vandalism was their concern in removing the signs. Schlosser said their removal as a

ae of unlawful vandalism by opponents of the ads' message was a "`clear violation of First Amendment freedoms."

tas Mien,

ES

J

aclu news

jan-feb 1991

CRIMINAL JUSTICE _

SB 25 (Lockyer)

This measure completely rewrote the

sentencing laws with the purported aim of

clarifying a very complicated sentencing

structure. Unfortunately it was not sentenc-

ing neutral in that it would have resulted in

substantially longer prison sentences by,

among other things, the imposition of full

consecutive sentences.

Amendments were incorporated to

authorize an intensive parole program to

allow for early release from prisons of cer-

tain non- violent offenders. The criminal

defense bar was strongly opposed to the

bill.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: It was vetoed by the governor

SB 1786 (Boatwright)

This bill would have expanded our for-

feiture law to permit the state to confiscate

a defendant's vehicle if that person was

found in possession of small amounts of

drugs - even if the defendant was never

' -convicted of the crime. The ACLU has

argued that the legislature should be focus-

ing its efforts at the underlying problems

which lead to drug abuse and providing

treatment and counselling for persons with

drug problems instead of seeking to confis-

cate their property.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage in committee

SB 2658 (Russell) and AB 3350

(Wyman)

These measures would have authorized

state licensing boards to suspend or revoke

_ the person's work license for a minimum

of three years if that person was convicted

of any drug related offense. Conviction for

possession of marijuana or other drug is

"not necessarily related to the qualifications

or duties of the business or profession for

which the license was issued. These types.

of laws are counterproductive and should

not be used to punish persons and their'

families through job forfeitures.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage in committee

SB 2897 (Russell)

This was an effort to recriminalize pos-

session of small amounts of marijuana by,

among other things, making possession of

between half an ounce to one ounce a fel-

ony. The ACLU favors decriminalization

of marijuana and strongly opposed this

bill.

ACLU Position: Oppose

Status: Failed passage in committee

SB 2315 (Lockyer)

This bill proposed a system of inten-

sive probation supervision, substance

abuse treatment programs, and other com-

munity-based options as alternatives to

State prisons for primarily nonviolent drug

offenders. The ACLU is supportive of leg-

islation which provides a rationale and

non-repressive solution to the "war on

drugs." -

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the governor

AB 3011 (Hunter); AB 3921 (Nolan);

AB 2165 (Pringle).

These bills sought to impose the death

penalty under the following circum-

stances: for death that occurs during an

1990 Legislati

unlawful drug transaction; for the inten-

tional killing of an emergency room

employee; for the killing of a child under

7 years of age.

The ACLU opposes the imposition of

the death penalty under any and all cir-

cumstances.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: All bills failed passage in

committee

AB 4291 (Bentley)

This bill sought major changes in

Habeus Corpus proceedings by eliminat-

ing legitimate grounds for appeal in death

penalty cases and by providing for execu-

tions the day after the expiration of any

Stay.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage in committee

AB 2813 (Floyd)

This measure sought to restore the 13

million dollar fund used by the state to

reimburse counties for the defense of indi-

gents facing the death penalty. Failure to

provide funds leaves certain counties

unable to provide indigent death penalty

defendants adequate funds to hire investi-

gators and experts. The lack of funds

would likely result in greater reversals on

appeal for failure to receive an adequate

defense.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the governor

AB 2613 (Eaves)

This bill permitted courts to admit

expert testimony in criminal cases con-

cerning the effects of battered person's

syndrome. The evidence could not be

offered against a defendant to prove the

occurrence of any alleged criminal act.

The ACLU argued that juries should be

entitled to consider evidence of this syn-

drome in domestic violence situations to

fully understand how a defendant genu-

inely believed she was in imminent danger

of seriously bodily injury.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Failed passage

SB 1745 (Seymour) And AB 3819

(Roos)

These proposals initially sought to for-

ward the names of all persons arrested

and/or convicted to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) for purposes

of determining their immigrant status. The

ACLU argued that forwarding thousands

of names to the INS would inevitably

result in citizens, permanent residents and

others being subjected to unlawful deten-

tion, deprivation of liberty and deportation

hearings. These due process concerns _

resulted in narrowing amendments so that

final version of the bill required the

Department of Corrections to forward to

the INS the names of all inmates convicted

of certain felonies.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: AB 3819 was dropped by

author; SB 1745 was vetoed by the

governor

POLICE PRACTICES

Sb 2764 (Killea)

This bill sought to close to the public

certain administrative hearings involving

disciplinary actions against law enforce-

ment personnel which are currently open

in some cities. Many of these hearing

result from citizen complaints about police

brutality. The ACLU argued that access by

the public and press increases the quality

and safeguards the integrity of the fact

finding process.

ACLU Position: Oppose

Status: Failed passage in committee

AB 3539 (Katz)

This bill would have expanded discov-

ery rights for peace officers in disciplinary

actions. ACLU was able to obtain an

aclu news

jan-feb 1991 5

Paul Anderson

exemption for citizen complaints from the

discovery process. Due to the costs

involved the measure was vetoed by the

Governor.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Vetoed by the governor

AB 2659 (Floyd)

This measure would have imposed a

civil fine on persons who intentionally

release to the public personal/confidential

information as contained in a police offi-

cers personnel file. Because current law is

unclear as to what is and is not confiden-

tial information, ACLU offered an amend-

ment which rewrote the definitional

section of the law.

ACLU Position: Oppose

Status: Failed passage in committee

REPRODUCTIVE

RIGHTS/PRIVACY

Medi-Cal Abortion Funding (1990-1991

Budget)

In a major victory for the ACLU both

the Assembly and the Senate for the first

time handily defeated proposed Budget

amendments containing restrictions on

Medi-Cal funded abortions. The post-

Webster grass roots effort by the ACLU

and other pro-choice advocates was instru-

mental in obtaining this major accomplish-

ment.

SB 2524 (Davis)

This was a proposal that would ban

abortions after 24 weeks. There is little, if

any, agreement among physicians as to

when viability begins. Twenty-four weeks

_ is an artificial deadline which has no medi-

cal basis. Strong opposition from the

ACLU and other pro-choice groups, as

well as pro-life groups (because the bill

permitted pre-24 week abortions), resulted

in this bills' defeat.

ACLU Position:oppose _

Status: Failed passage in committee

AB 3792 (Wyman)

This measure prohibited anyone from

performing an abortion for the purpose of

sex selection. The bill would have prohib-

ited women who fear a hereditary disease

from making decisions about ending a

pregnancy on the basis of the sex of the

fetus. .

ACLU Position: Oppose

Status: Failed passage in committee

AB 2829 (Seastrand)

This legislation prohibited the use of

fetal tissue for research purposes. A ban on

the use of fetal tissue would have severely

retarded advancements in medical research

for certain life threatening diseases.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage in committee

AB 4274 (Ferguson)

This measure would extend current law

which authorizes bulletin board posting to

health care workers informing them that

state law allows them to refuse to partici-

pate in abortions. The ACLU argued that

abortions should not be treated differently

than any other type of medical procedure.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage in committee

AB 3585 (Moore) and AB 4140 (Eaves)

AB 3585 (MOORE) would have sub-

jected all 7th grade students to random

drug testing with parental consent. AB

4140 (EAVES) would have authorized pre

and post employment drug testing for all

intrastate commercial vehicle drivers. The

ACLU strongly opposed both bills and

drug testing legislation in general since it

constitutes an unreasonable search and sei-

zure under the 4th Amendment and it vio-

lates fundamental privacy rights under the

U.S. and State Constitutions.

ACLU Position: Opposed both bills

Status: Both bills failed passage in

committee

FIRST AMENDMENT

AB 2023 (Ferguson) and SB 1962

(Ayala)

These measures sought to censor sexu-

ally explicit materials and restrict what

adults can read by banning the sale of

harmful matter in vending machines

located in public areas. The bill substan-

tially infringed on adults' constitutional

right to purchase the materials in question.

Effective grass roots lobbying by ACLU

members was an instrumental reason for

these bills' defeat.

ACLU Position: Opposed both bills,

Status: Both failed passage in committee

SB 2313 (Lockyer)

This bill required plaintiffs to establish

they have a substantial probability of suc-

cess before proceeding with lawsuits

against persons for acts in furtherance of

free speech on a public issue. These so-

called SLAPP suits are usually filed to

deter persons from exercising their free-

speech rights and have become prevalent

in recent years.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the governor

AB 2646 (Eastin)

This bill proposed, in part, to tax the

sale of materials containing harmful matter

in order to finance school libraries. This

tax proposal was clearly an unconstitu-

tional content based regulation of speech.

Opposition by the ACLU resulted in this

tax provision being amended out of the

bill.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage in committee

SB 2475 (Craven)

This bill would require video retailers

to place advertisements of video record-

ings containing harmful matter in adult

only areas. It also requires distributors of

said films to inform video retailers of this

requirement. Both retailers and distribu-

tors would be subject to fines for failure to _

comply.

Opposition by the ACLU resulted in

narrowing amendments and removal of the

penalties.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Signed by governor

CIVIL RIGHTS

AB 3034 (Klehs) and AB _ 1742

(Friedman)

`Both measures attempted to deny state

support for large private clubs which dis-

criminate against women, minorities and

others. AB 3034 would have denied tax

exempt status to these private clubs, while

AB 1742 would have denied alcoholic

beverage licenses to similar private clubs.

ACLU Position: Support both bills

Status: AB 1742 Failed passage; AB

3034 Vetoed by the governor

SB 1027 (Petris)

This bill clarified that the Fair

Employment and Housing Agency

(FEHA) has jurisdiction to take sex dis-

crimination claims related to pregnancy.

The FEHA was refusing to process these

claims and hundreds of complaints were

annually being referred to the federal

EEOC. The remedies available under the

EEOC are substantially less than under

state law. The bill requires the FEHA to

process these claims.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Signed by the governor

AB 2577 (Katz)

This measure established a process for

the return of Native American remains and

associated grave artifacts from museums

and other institutions to descendants

requesting their return. The legislation

acknowledged the strong interest Native

Americans have expressed in acquiring

skeletal remains and other grave objects

for purposes of reinternment consistent

with tribal religious or cultural purposes.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the governor

SB 2241 (Watson)

This bill would require state boards

and commissions to reflect the numerical

composition of all segments of the state's

population, including women and ethnic

minorities, in order to achieve gender bal-

ance and ethnic parity on these appointive

bodies.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the governor

AB 77 (Moore)

This bill would enact a parental leave

law for the state of California. It would

require employers of 25 or more to grant

workers unpaid leave of up to four months

once every two years to care for a depen-

dent child or a sick parent.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by the governor

SJR 62 (Roberti)

This measure memorialized the sup-

port of the Califomia Legislature for the

Civil Rights Act of 1990 and other legisla-

tion intended to nullify the 1989 U.S.

Supreme Court civil rights decisions and

to clarify and strengthen federal civil

rights laws.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Resolution passed other

legislation

SB 2578 (Kopp)

This legislation, as introduced, would

have required tenants to deposit back rent

before they could defend unlawful

detainer actions. Strongly opposed by the

`ACLU and a long list of tenant organiza-

tions as a fundamental violation of due

process, the bill was subsequently

amended to authorize a trial within 12

days if the tenant fails to deposit rent.

ACLU Position: Opposed

Status: Failed passage

AB 190 (Bronzan) and SB 2784

(Presley)

These measures would have substan-

tially curtailed the right of involuntarily

committed mental patients their right to

refuse powerful psychotropic medication

except in emergencies or following a judi-

cial determination of the patient's incom-

petence to make an informed decision

about the drugs.

ACLU Position:opposed

Status: Failed passage

AB 328 (Margolin)

This measure sought to enact a pro-

gram to provide comprehensive health

care coverage for the 5.2 million

Californians who are medically uninsured.

This bill, along with various other health

care proposals, was debated throughout

the legislative year. No legislative consen-

sus could be reached on a final health care

package.

ACLU Position: Support

Status: Failed passage

aclu news

jan-feb 1991

Civil Liberties ...

Continued from page 1

Special attention will be focused on

police practices, to make certain that anti-

war protesters are protected from illegal

surveillance and other police abuses, and

to preserve access to public forums for the

communication of anti-war messages.

Press Freedom

Threats to the ability of the press to

cover news stories developing in the

Persian Gulf have also captured the

ACLU's attention. Press guidelines issued

by the Defense Department in early

January have come under fire by both the

ACLU and by many other leading organi-

zations concerned with preserving the

freedom to write and to publish.

The Pentagon guidelines would, for the

first time, officially require prior review

by military censors of all reports submit-

ted by journalists covering hostilities in

the Persian Gulf. In addition, the mili-

tary's control of information from the Gulf

would be further strengthened by the

Pentagon's insistence that only journalists

selected as part of a reporting "pool" will

be authorized to cover the hostilities.

Several media organizations are pro-

testing the guidelines, including all four

networks, the Reporters' Committee for

Freedom of the Press, and a group of dis-

tinguished journalists. Together with other

civil liberties groups, the national ACLU

has also signed a letter to Secretary of

Defense Richard Cheney condemning the

guidelines. Additional legal action is being

-considered.

Finally, it appears that free-lance jour-

nalists may be banned entirely from access

to the Persian Gulf. By manipulating the

terms of the embargo, as well as visa

requirements for entrance into Saudi

Arabia, the government has already been

successful in keeping free-lance journal-

ists from being able to bring the develop-

ing story of the war back home.

War Powers

The power of the Executive Branch to

wage war was also challenged recently

Ann Rushing

when the ACLU joined 51 national organi-

zations in calling on the President and

Congress to adhere to the constitutional

requirement that the President must

receive advance authorization from

Congress before entering a war. The

ACLU's position was expressed in a

friend of the court brief filed in the

Federal District Court in Washington,

D.C., in support of the lawsuit brought by

Bay Area Congressmember Ron Dellums

and 53 members of Congress.

"The constitution clearly requires

Congressional authorization prior to an

offensive military action by the

President," said Morton H. Halperin, the

Director of the ACLU Washington Office.

That authorization was obtained on

January 12th when the House and the

Senate approved separate resolutions call-

ing for the use of military force against

Iraq.

Conscientious Objectors

Now that Congress's authorization for

war has been secured, questions about the

treatment of conscientious objectors and

other war resisters within the military are

becoming more urgent. According to the

national ACLU office, a number of reserv-

ists who have been called to active duty

have filed conscientious objector claims

since the Gulf crisis began. The ACLU

supports the rights of conscientious objec-

tors, including those who enter the armed

forces but are either opposed to participa-

tion in combat training or service, or to a

particular armed conflict.

Currently, activated reservists cannot

have their conscientious objector claim

processed until they reach their permanent

duty station in the Persian Gulf.

Challenges to this policy have not been

successful.

In the meantime, rumors of a draft,

questions regarding the rights of lesbians

and gay men in the military, and com-

plaints about treatment of women soldiers

stationed in the Gulf are flooding ACLU

offices throughout the country.

: INS

An additional disturbing issue is the

potential treatment of Iraqi nationals in a

war situation. The ACLU is gravely con-

cerned that the Immigration and

Naturalization Service may employ regu-

latory practices based on the assumption

that Iraqi nationals in the United States

must be considered and treated as poten-

tial enemy agents.

Clearly, the current crisis in the Gulf

raises a multitude of civil liberties issues

that will require the attention, resources,

and the response of all of us. These issues

are not new to us; over the past 70 years

the ACLU has learned that in times of

war, the excuse of protecting national

security interests can be used as a weapon

to deny civil liberties. There is, moreover,

perhaps no time when civil liberties, par-

ticularly the right to dissent, become more

precious than during a time of interna-

tional crisis.

Bergman-Ramirez Case to

Continue?

wo police officers and a deputy

district attorney are not entitled to

a second libel trial against two

investigative reporters for articles pub-

lished in the San Francisco Examiner in

1975, ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby told the Court of Appeal at.a hear-

ing on December 13. (McCoy Vs. Hearst

Corporation.)

The ACLU took the appeal for Raul

Ramirez and Lowell Bergman in 1979

after a jury awarded a $1.6 million libel

judgment against them. The case stemmed

from a three-part series that questioned the

fairness of a murder conviction of a 19-

year-old Asian bank teller in a Chinatown

gang slaying.

In 1986, the California Supreme Court

unanimously ruled that the articles were

not published with constitutional malice

and were thus protected expression. The

United States Supreme Court refused to

hear the case.

In 1988, the plaintiffs claimed that .

they were entitled to a second trial because

the Supreme Court had not expressly

ordered the lower court to enter a final

judgment. They relied on California cases

that hold that the technical phrasing of an

appellate court's order dictates whether a

second trial will occur.

The ACLU argued that under modern

cases a second trial will be held only if the

appellate court intended it. The California

Supreme Court plainly never contem-

plated that the police officers and prosecu-

"Constitutional doctrine calls for early

dismissal of libel cases that lack merit,

because courts recognize the chilling

effect of burdensome libel trials on a

free American press."

tor would start all over again after a dec-

ade of litigation led to a unanimous ruling

that the articles were protected.

In March, 1989, San _ Francisco

Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollak agreed

with the ACLU and ordered judgment for

the defense. Plaintiffs appealed.

In arguing that the lower court order

should be affirmed, Crosby stated, "No

government official has ever been

afforded a second protracted libel trial

after having a full and fair opportunity to

prove the case at trial and failing to estab-

lish that the articles were published with

knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard

for the truth."

"Constitutional doctrine calls for early

dismissal of libel cases that lack merit,

because courts recognize the chilling

effect of burdensome libel trials on a free

American press.

"This case is a perfect example of the

problems caused by defamation litigation.

The reporters spent 18 months investigat-

ing an important story on our system of

criminal justice. They spent the next ten

years defending themselves against a libel

suit. The case seriously disrupted their

lives. They established that the articles

were constitutionally protected in the

state's highest court.

"Now these government officials seek

to launch a second round of libel trial and

appeals that would take this case into the

mid 1990s, 20 years after the original arti-

cles were published. This result would

discourage reporters from investigating

potential government misconduct. It

would be an unprecedented and unconsti-

tutional result that would dampen the

vigor of important investigative journal

ism."

Student

Athlete

Drug

Testing

Back in

Court

n December 20, 1990, the

California Supreme Court

granted review sought by the

NCAA in Hill v. NCAA. The Court of

Appeal had ruled in favor of Stanford ath-

letes represented by the ACLU-NC along

with cooperating attorneys Robert Van

Nest and Susan Harriman of the firm

Keker and Brockett. The Court of Appeal

had upheld a sweeping injunction issued

by the Santa Clara Superior Court barring

the NCAA from drug testing Stanford ath-

letes in post-season competition. Both the

Superior Court and Court of Appeal found

the NCAA testing program violative of the

right to privacy under the California'

Constitution.

The NCAA sought review of the Court

of Appeal's ruling. On a 4 to 3 vote, the

California Supreme Court decided to take

the case. This will be the first drug testing

case to be decided by the Califomia

Supreme Court. The Court previously

refused to hear three cases involving job

applicants and employees. Briefing will be

completed this Spring and the case will

then await oral argument.

aclu news

jan-feb 1991 7

ACLU Defends Lawyer's Speech Rights

hief Assistant Public Defender

Peter Keane cannot be disciplined

by the State Bar for criticizing

local judges, the ACLU-NC wrote in

response to a state bar complaint filed by

San Francisco judges. The State Bar sum-

marily dismissed the complaint in early

January.

The controversy resulted from an arti-

cle published in San Francisco's legal

newspaper, The Recorder, about the par-

ticipation of major law firms in the volun-

teer public defender program.

Commenting on the program, Keane

stated: "Judges in the criminal court are

used to pushing criminal lawyers around.

They are bullies. When you bring in some-

one from a big firm, they are intimidated."

The judges of the criminal division of

the San Francisco Superior Court asked

the State Bar to discipline Keane for this

remark. They characterized the statement

as a violation of a California statute that

requires lawyers "to maintain the respect

due to the courts of justice and to judicial

officers."

The ACLU urged the State Bar to

reject the complaint summarily on the

grounds that Keane was exercising his

right of free speech.

"The judiciary, as an institution of

democratic government, is not immune

from criticism," wrote ACLU-NC staff

attorney Margaret Crosby in a letter dated

December 6. "Judges wield enormous

power in American society. Their deci-

sions will inevitably provoke caustic criti-

cism. They should be inured to the

occasional insult."

"Lawyers are the most knowledgeable

citizens about our system of justice. They

have an obligation to be unflinching in

speaking out against perceived injustice."

The ACLU also wrote that broadly and

literally interpreted, the law requiring

attorneys to maintain rope [oy JuGges

Peter Keane

would be unconstitutional.

"The hallmark of a free society is its

citizens' ability to denounce public offi-

cials. Americans: would consider a law

requiring a respectful atti-

tude toward legislators or

executive officials repres-

sive and ominous," Crosby

wrote.

The vague contours of

the law requiring respect for

| judges would presumably

allow the State Bar to disci-

pline the former Governor

concept of neutral principles

of law and claim that politi-

cal considerations influence

legal decisions, or lawyers

who write novels and televi-

sion shows with unflattering

pictures of judges.

The ACLU urged dis-

missal of the complaint to

protect public confidence in

the court system and to pre-

serve an independent and

unintimidated Bar.

Woman Sentenced to

Sterility

ACLU to

Appeal

Tulare County judge's order that

A a woman must accept contra-

ceptive surgery as a condition of

probation will be appealed by the ACLU-

NC.

Acting in conjunction with defense at-

torney Charles Rothbaum and the ACLU's

National Reproductive Freedom Project in

New York, the ACLU-NC appeal will

argue that the sentence violates the de-

fendant's constitutional right to privacy

and exceeds the court's probation author-

ity.

Tulare County Superior Court Judge

Howard Broadman sentenced 27-year old

Darlene Johnson of Tulare to one year in

jail and three years of conditional pro-

bation on January 2. Johnson pled guilty to

three felony counts of child abuse last Sep-

tember. Her probation was contingent

upon her acceptance of a surgically im-

planted contraceptive device. The device,

Norplant, is a new reproductive tech-

nology. Implantation of six rubber cap-

sules in a woman's arm releases chemicals

years.

"Both the state and federal constitu-

tions protect an individual's right to make

decisions about childbearing. A judge can-

not condition a defendant's liberty on her

agreeing not to'conceive, and a judge cer-

tainly cannot dictate that a defendant use a

certain form of birth control," commented

ACLU-NC attorney Margaret Crosby.

Rachel Pine, of the ACLU's Re-

productive Freedom Project in New York,

said the judge's order was "extremely

alarming." She noted that forcing contra-

ception on Johnson did nothing to help her

with problems of child abuse, and that

counseling would have been more ap-

propriate.

National and international attention has

focused on the case, which is potentially

an important test of the coercive use of this

new contraceptive device. Despite the me-

dia interest, Judge Broadman has refused

to modify his order, inviting a challenge |

on appeal. The ACLU-NC will assist in

that appeal. :

:

i A

cent

2 Vee

iN

a

F BL, MR.SMITH. WE'P LIKE TO

ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS,

JUST LAST JULY YOU WERE

OBSERVED LOBBYING CONGRESS

FOR Alb 7O THE IRAQIS,

a

ee

BUT IT WAS MY JOB! I WORK

FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT /

`

PON'T GET SMART WITH US, -

HOT SHOT. YOU'RE COMING ,

DOWNTOWN.

Hh

cn

ee

a

_ SOHN GRIMES

aclu news:

jan-feb 1991

"Taking Liberties"

A monthly radio

program

on civil liberties

KPFA 94.1 FM

and

KFCF 88.1 FM (Fresno)

Tune your radio dial to "T. aking IBIAS

Wednesday January 30

7 p.m.

Civil Liberties

in Time of War

Guest host Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive

Director of the ACLU-NC, examines civil

liberties issues in wartime. Press censor-

ship; freedom of assembly; harassment of

dissenters...all of these issues have been

problems in previous wartime circum-

stances. A very important program!

Wednesday, February 27

7 p.m.

The Future

of Reproductive Rights

In this 18th Anniversary year of Roe v.

Wade, hear about the current state of abor-

tion law in California and the challenges

that face the pro-choice movement. Guest

host Dorothy Ehrlich.

"Taking Liberties", explores how the

Bill of Rights affects our everyday lives.

The series is aired on KPFA and KFCF in

Presio. . -

The monthly program, hosted by

ACLU-NC Public Information Director

Elaine Elinson, includes expert guests on

cutting edge civil liberties questions. It

also features a special section with civil

liberties news updates and information on

how listeners can make their voices heard

on crucial civil liberties issues.

EZ

How Your Money Works

for Civil Liberties

Membership Contributions v.

Tax-Deductible Donations

a non-profit organization sup-

ported by its membership. Mem-

bership contributions are essential to the

ACLU's existence, providing about 25%

of the ACLU of Northern California's sup-

port. However, membership dues are not

tax-deductible because a significant part of

ACLU's work involves lobbying (before

Congress, the state Legislature, city coun-

cils and county boards of supervisors).

The IRS places restrictions on the use of

tax-deductible funds for lobbying.

A he ACLU was founded in 1920 as

The ACLU Foundation of Northern

California is a tax-exempt, tax-deductible

organization which finances litigation and

public education. Funds contributed to the

ACLU Foundation are not used to support

the ACLU's lobbying work. If you wish

to make a tax-deductible donation, you

may do so by making your gift payable to

the ACLU-NC Foundation.

Tax-Deductible Gifts

The ACLU-NC. Foundation conducts

four annual fundraising drives: the Major

Gifts Campaign, the Lawyers Council

Campaign, the Physicians Campaign for

Reproductive Rights and `the Bill of

- Rights Day Campaign. These campaigns

support the ACLU's legal program in

northern California and all donations are

tax-deductible.

If you are interested in other ways

you can donate to the ACLU, or if you

would like to name the ACLU in your

will, please send your inquiry to Cheri

Bryant, Development Director, ACLU-

NC, 1663 Mission Street, #460, San

Francisco 94103 or call 415/621-2493.

Confused About Your Contribution?

Many members welcome the op-

portunity to support civil liberties by mak-

ing special contributions to the ACLU

throughout the year, in addition to re-

newing their membership. Some support-

ers send their gifts to the national ACLU

office as well as the ACLU of Northern

California office. Combined with the four

fundraising campaigns mentioned above,

it's easy to see how gifts could be in-

correctly applied.

If you think your contributions have

not been accurately recorded, please ~

write or call; Sandy Holmes, Member-

ship Department, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion Street, #460, San Francisco, CA

94103; 415/621-2493.

Volunteers Needed

olunteers with a deep commit-

ment to the protection of civil lib-

erties are always welcome at the

ACLU-NC!

Complaint Counselors

Complaint Desk Counselors duties

include screening phone calls for civil lib-

erties issues, giving information and refer-

rals to the public, and some peer counsel-

ing. Volunteers must be able to commit to

staffing the Complaint Desk one day a

week for at least six months, have a good

telephone manner, and a desire to work

with the public. Training will be provided

by experienced Complaint Counselors.

Contact: Lisa Maldonado, Complaint

Desk Coordinator, at 415/621-2493.

Chapter

Meetings

(Chapter meetings are open to all

interested members. Contact the chapter

activist listed for your area.)

B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Rich-

mond-Kensington) Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Thursday) Meeting on

Thursday, February 28, 1991 in

Berkeley. Contact Julie Houk, 415/848-

4752, for further information.

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda

County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually

second Wednesday) Meeting on

Wednesday, February 13, 1991. Focus

on Police Practices. For time and

address of meetings, please call Irv

Kermish, 415/836-4036 or Abe

Feinberg, 415/451-1122.

Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Monday) Meeting on Monday,

February 18, 1991 at San Joaquin Law

School. New members always welcome!

For time and address of meetings,

please call the Chapter Hotline 209/

225-7380 or contact Gary Waldron,

209/221-1114 (eve.).

Gay Rights Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first. Thursday) Meet Tuesday,

February 5, 1991. Meeting at the ACLU

Office, 1663 Mission, 460, San

Francisco at 7:00 PM. Volunteers wel-

ing at 5:00 PM. Refreshments will be

served. For more information, contact

Mike Williams, 415/845-4777.

Marin County Chapter Meeting:

(Third Monday) Meet Monday,

February 18, 1991 at 7:30 PM,

Westamerica Bank, Community Room,

Strawberry Shopping Center, Mill

Valley. For more information, contact

Bernie Moss, 415/332-3153.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually first

Thursday) Chapter Pot-Luck on

Thursday, February 7, 1991 7:00 PM

New members welcome! For more

information, contact Harry Anisgard,

415/856-9186.

Monterey County Chapter

Meeting: The Monterey County

Chapter will have their Board Meeting

on Tuesday, February 5, 1991 at 7:30

PM at the Monterey Library, Pacific and

Madison Streets, Monterey. For more

information, contact Richard Criley,

408/624-7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth

Thursday) For more information, con-

tact Mildred Starkie, 415/934-0557.

Calling all teachers: are you interested

in working with the chapter on a "civil

liberties essay contest" for students? If

so, contact Mildred Starkie, number

above.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third

Monday) Meet at Bank of America,

Third and El Camino, San Mateo. For

more information, contact Emily

Field Program Monthly

Meetings

come to mailing party on 2/5/91, start-

Skolnick, 340-9834. Note: The North

Pen Chapter has a new Hotline num-

ber: 579-1789. The Chapter Student

Outreach Committee needs help organiz-

ing a high school essay contest on the

Bill of Rights. Contact Neil Kelly, 415/

593-6156 (eves). :

North Valley (Shasta, Siskiyou,

Tehema, and _ Trinity Counties)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth

Wednesday) For more information con-

tact Frank Treadway, 916/365-4336 or

916/241-7725.

Sacramento Valley Chapter

Meeting: (Usually second Wednesday)

Meet Wednesday, February 13, 1991.

For location and more information, con-

tact Ruth Ordas, 916/488-9950

San Francisco Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Monday) Meet

Wednesday, February 20, 1991 7:00 PM.

at ACLU office, 1663 Mission, 460, San

Francisco. Meeting day will go back to

Monday in March. RSVP to 415/621-

2493.

Santa Clara Valley Chapter

Meeting: (Usually first Tuesday) Meet

February 5, 1991 at Commerce Bank

Building, 111 West St. John Street, 2nd

Floor Conference Room, San _ Jose.

Contact John Holly, 408/554-9478, for

further information.

Santa Cruz County Chapter

Meeting: (Usually second Wednesday)

Meet Wednesday, February 13, 1991 at

7:15 PM. Chapter will continue to work

on combating Hate Crimes. Contact

Keith Lesar, 408/688-1666, for further

information.

Sonoma County Chapter Meeting:

(Third Thursday of the month) Meet

Thursday, February 21, 1991 7:30 PM,

821 Mendocino Ave, Santa Rosa. All

members welcome. Contact Fran Byrn,

7071546-3237.

Yolo County Chapter Meeting:

(Third Thursday of the month) For more

information, contact Doug Powers, 916/

756-8274.

Field

Committee

Meetings

(All meetings except those noted

will be held at the ACLU-NC Office,

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San

Francisco. To RSVP, or for more infor-

mation, contact Marcia Gallo or

Michele Hurtado at the ACLU-NC 415/

621-2493.)

Student Outreach Committee:

(Usually third Saturday) Contact

Marcia Gallo, number above, for more

information.

Pro-Choice Action Campaign:

(Usually third Tuesday) Contact Marcia

Gallo, number above, for more informa-

tion.

Death Penalty Action Campaign:

Contact Marcia Gallo, number above,

for more information.

Library Researchers

The ACLU-NC has annual volunteer

research positions available in the

Development Department, which raises

funds to support our litigation and public

education program. :

Researchers are responsible for exten-

sive biographical research on funding

sources.

Volunteers for this position must be

responsible, well-organized, _ detail-

oriented, able to handle confidential mate-

rials, and have experience in library -

research. Flexible hours. Contact: Jean

Hom, Volunteer Coordinator, at 415/

621-2493.