vol. 40, no. 5

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

hand corner of your label, it means

that as of April 30 you had not

renewed for 1975 ... Please do it

_ today . . .and keep the ACLU News on

its way to you each month.

Volume XXXX

July-August 1975, San Francisco

No. 5

Pregnant policewoman sues for reinstatement

Ellen Lake, .ACLU Women's Rights Project

Attorney, with the assistance of Dorothy Berndt,

summer intern from Boalt Hall Law School, filed suit

last week in Federal District Court against the City of

San Mateo, seeking reinstatement of Gail N. Roller,

the only woman officer on the San Mateo Police

Department, who was forced to take an unpaid

" maternity leave after her third month of pregnancy.

Roller is only the second woman officer in the

- Department's history, and the first woman to un-.

dertake the identical duties assigned to male officers.

After two years as a traffic enforcement representative

and eleven months as a sworn officer assigned to

patrol duty, she informed the Department that she

was three months pregnant.

Roller's own obstetrician and the city doctor both

found her perfectly healthy and capable of continuing

to work "`light duty" until shortly before the child was

due. However, a few days after reporting her

pregnancy, Roller's commanding officer relieved her

of all duties `due to (her) physical condition

(Pregnancy)."'

The decision regarding' Roller proved to be ali the

more unfair when a copy of the San Mateo Police

Department's work assignment record was made

available. One of the Department's regulations is that

work assignments are rotated so each police officer is

required to serve one month out of each year doing'

office work. This regulation, however, has been loosely

_ enforced in the past so that male officers, suffering

from temporary disabilities which preclude them from

patrol assignment or other strenuous duty, are rotated

to office work positions or special projects.

When preparing the case, Lake found several of-

ficers who recounted numerous instances in which

male officers, who were so ill or injured that they were

forced to leave work entirely, have been permitted to

return before they were fully recovered and have been

assigned to office work or special projects. Lake

argues that "`by relieving Gail Roller of her sworn

duties solely on the basis of pregnancy and by denying

her the alternate light duty routinely given male of-

ficers who are disabled temporarily, the City of San

Mateo has clearly violated Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964."

Police officers on the force have reported on the

almost unanimous observation that the Department is

seriously short of patrol officers. Many of them feel

that to forbid Gail Roller the opportunity to work

light duty - which would leave more officers free to

continue on patrol duty - is an obvious waste of

policepower.

Immediately after the motion for preliminary in--

junction was filed, Lake began collecting testimony

for the trial. In seeking supplementary statements.

from officers who had already sworn to affidavits on

Roller's behalf, she found them fearful and hesitant.

Lake discovered that San Mateo Police officials were

attempting to harass those officers sympathetic to

Roller's case, and were threatening retaliation. Police

officials were accomplishing this harassment by

widely publicizing rarely enforced Department

regulations that require all officers to 1) confer with

the Division Commander and await the approval of

the Chief of Police before giving an affidavit in any

civil case; 2) forbidding voluntary testimony in any

civil case; and 3) requiring all subpoenaed testimony

to be discussed in advance with the Commanding

Officer and the City Attorney.

Such open infringement of free speech prompted

Lake to file a motion on July 9th requesting that a

restraining order be issued against the Police

Department to end this obvious harassment. On July

10th, Federal District Judge Samuel Conti signed the

protective order forbidding the Police Department

from publicizing the regulation or. threatening

retaliation. Judge Conti also ordered the San Mateo

police officials to appear in his court on July 18th to

show cause why he should not order Roller reinstated.

At the trial the City argued that the City Manager's

Directive #7 (CMD #7) dated February, 1974, ordering

that no employee "on sick leave or disability leave

(Workmen's Compensation leave)' would be given a

modified assignment, was still in force and should be

applied to Gail Roller, as it is applied to all police

officers.

Ellen Lake (1.) and Gail Roller discuss testimony

before the trial in Roller's case against San Mateo.

Lake attacked CMD #7 on three levels. First,

arguing that the Directive does not apply to Plaintiff

Roller since she was neither on sick leave or disability

leave when ordered to take an unpaid maternity leave,

and she stressed that the City, in answering her in-

terrogatories, admitted that CMD #7 constitutes no

change in Police Department policy. Finally, Lake

provided evidence that whatever the policy was in

theory, in practice, both prior to and after the

February, 1974 Directive, temporarily disabled male

officers have been given light duty assignment.

Judge Conti is expected to rule on the case within a

few weeks. Lake feels the case is substantial to the

fight for women's rights. "For years women have been

excluded from the Police Department because of sex

discrimination in employment. If newly admitted

police women are now required to take early maternity

leaves, it will be a major roadblock for women in

gaining full and eqaul status as police women."

In a broader sense, women have struggled to

overcome the traditional stereotype of feminine

weakness and inability to handle the difficulties of a

`"`man's job."' An unfavorable decision in this case will

only serve to resurrect the myth of a woman's frailty

and could have grave consequences for many other

women in traditionally male employment fields.

Reagan appointee on parole board challenged

In August 1974, approximately two

corrections

weeks prior to the scheduled ad-

journment of the California Senate,

former Governor Ronald Reagan

appointed Rudy Garcia to membership

on the Adult Authority. On August 31

(the last day the Senate was in session)

the appointment was approved without

debate.

California Penal Code Section $075

provides that:

Persons appointed to the Adult

Authority shall have a broad .

background in and ability for

appraisal of law offenders and

the circumstances of the offense

for which convicted. Insofar as

practicable members shall be

selected who have a varied and

sympathetic interest in

work lide

persons widely experienced in the

fields of corrections, sociology,

law, law enforcement, and -

education.

Garcia - who worked in various

public relations posts for the state

during the Reagan administration

(including duties as Assistant Press

Secretary to the Governor) - has little

in his background to meet the statutory

qualifications for membership on the

Adult Authority. His resume reflects

that from 1947 (when, at age 17, he

enlisted in the Navy) through 1974, his

only link with the criminal justice

system was through his duties as a

"Legal Assistance Officer" in the

United States Navy, in which capacity

he was occasionally called upon to

perform duties as a trial counsel,

defense counsel, member, or president

of special court martial boards. These

boards considered minor military

offenses, the maximum penalties for

which were up to six months' im-

prisonment and a_ bad _ conduct

discharge.

As a Naval officer, Garcia was

assigned these duties on a random,

selective and/or rotating basis with

other officers. Further examination of

his resume shows that he attended San

Diego City Evening College - where he

took courses in economics,. business

law, psychology, and radio and

television. His only educational contact

with criminal justice was attendance at

the Naval School of Justice (a seven-

week course on military justice

procedures and military crimes) and a

correspondence course in criminology

offered by the Armed Forces Institute.

After numerous out-of-court at-

tempts to contest Garcia's appointment

ended in failure, ACLUF-NC volunteer

attorney Peter Sheehan (on behalf of

the Committee for Prisoner Humanity

and Justice, the Prisoners' Union, and

ex-offender Willie Holder) applied to

California Attorney General Evelle

Younger for leave to sue "in quo

warranto"' for Garcia's removal.

A quo warranto action is a rarely

used legal proceeding in which a suit

may be brought by the Attorney

General in the name of the People of

California ` `upon his own information,

or upon a complaint of a private party,

continued on page (c)

aclu news

July-Aug.

LEGAL

Use of police weapons challenged

In October, 1971, Dennis and Brian Kortum, aged

18 and 22, broke into a pharmacy in Pleasant Hill.

Unknown to them, they tripped a silent burglar alarm

while inside the store. As they left the store through

the back door, Pleasant Hill police officers were

waiting for them. They were climbing over a fence

behind the store when the police opened fire from

behind and in front of them. Dennis Kortum was

killed. Brian was seriously injured. He later plead

guilty to burglary, a felony. Neither of the Kortums

were armed.

Police officers employed by the Pleasant Hill

Police Department are authorized and directed to use

deadly force, at their discretion, in the pursuit, ap-

prehension and arrest of fleeing felony suspects. The

police department regulations make no distinction

between violent or non-violent felonies. The officers

may discharge their firearms in the pursuit of

escaping persons charged with or known to have

committed any felony. :

Last month, the Northern California Police

Practices Project filed suit in Contra Costa County

Superior Court against the Pleasant Hill Police

Department. The complaint against the Department

is brought on behalf of Fred and Flora Kortum, the

parents of Dennis and Brian, and on behalf of two

residents and taxpayers of Pleasant Hill. The case was

prepared by volunteer attorney Nicholas Waranoff,

Police Practices Project Director Amitai Schwartz,

and Anthony Amsterdam, ACLU Board member and

Stanford Law Professor.

They argue that directives which do not limit the

use of firearms to situations in which the fleeing

felony suspect poses a substantial risk of death or

serious bodily harm by his crime, or by his flight, are

unconstitutional. They add that the regulations confer

upon the police officers impermissible discretion to

use their guns without any clear, regular, or ascer-

tainable standards to govern their decisions.

Brian and Dennis Kortum had committed a felony.

_ However, their crime nor their flight gave no in-

dication that they had or that they would harm either

the police or an innocent bystander. They were fired

upon simply because they had met the one criteria the

police needed to use their guns - they were fleeing

after committing a felony.

Waranoff, Schwartz and Amsterdam contend that

police practices authorizing such discretionary use of

deadly force violate both the federal and state con-

stitutional protections against unreasonable and

illegal seizures in effecting arrests. They add that the

police department directives violate the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they

fail to provide adequate standards delineating the

proper circumstances under which deadly force can be

used.

Attorneys in the case further allege that this broad

authorization to use firearms-imposes cruel and

unusual punishment and denies the right of a person

suspected of a felony to a trial.

The suit seeks a declaration from the Court that the

present directives of the Pleasant Hill Police

Department regarding deadly force are un-

constitutional. It further seeks an order barring the

use of `deadly force in effecting the arrest of felony

suspects if neither the felony, nor the suspect's

conduct, nor the suspect' s flight poses a substantial

risk of death or serious bodily harm to any person."

Finally, the plaintiffs ask that the department be

_ forced to formulate new rules outlining the cir-

cumstances under which the police may lawfully use

deadly force and that regulations for enforcing those

rules be adopted.

One of the greatest problems in attempting to

control police abuses is that so much discretion is

routinely left in the hands of the officer in the street.

What this case seeks is a declaration that such

discretion per se is unconstitutional - no individual

_ in this society, whether police officer or private citizen,

should be authorized by the state to shoot and kill

someone at their discretion. That is what `due

_process'' is all about.

Volunteer attorneys win court cases

Last month the ACLU News reported

Hightower was abruptly dismissed as an

1975 the California Supreme Court

"Contra Costa County in a _ case

the work of Kip Edwards as a volunteer

in Jordan v. Lowe, the Sacramento trial

security case, and on the work of David

. Cobin in Allan v. Monger, the aircraft

~ earrier right- -to-petition case. Following

are brief summaries of other recent

activity by volunteer attorneys. |

Ron Sinoway of San Francisco under

the supervision of ACLU-NC General

Counsel Ephraim Margolin recently

filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the

case of U.S. v. Hodge and Zweig.

Sinoway and Margolin are challenging

subpoenas by IRS of financial records

of two attorneys who have represented a

number of drug defendants, arguing

that IRS's broad power to investigate

tax matters may not be used to collect

information for purposes unrelated to

enforcement of the tax laws. They argue

that the use of the IRS subpoena in this

case is an effort to sidestep the

requirements of the Fourth Amend-

ment and the attorney-client privilege.

General Counsel Margolin is also

before the United States Supreme

Court and the California Supreme

Court on ACLU matters this month.

He prepared an amicus brief in People

v. Walters - asking the California

Supreme Court to require speedy and

meaningful pre-trial hearings in

misdemeanor cases. He asks that judges

speedily determine whether police had

probable cause to arrest and whether

they may continue to hold an in-

dividual. The case could have far-

reaching impact on the rights of

misdemeanor criminal defendants. In

an amicus brief in U.S. v Michaelson,

Margolin. urges the United States

Supreme Court to void a grand jury

contempt citation against an attorney

who refused to discuss confidential

attorney- -client matters before a federal

grand jury.

Eric Danoff of San Francisco is

representing George Hightower in his

action against Laney College.

instructor at Laney and the College

claimed it had no duty to even explain

why, let alone provide a hearing.

Hightower was originally represented

by ACLU-NC attorney Susan Sawyer

who filed an action for reinstatement

_ and back pay in the Alameda Superior

Court. Sawyer then left to take a

position in Sacramento and Danoff

assumed responsibility for the case.

After a full Superior Court hearing

Danoff secured an order that the

college must reinstate Hightower with

back pay and provide a full hearing if

they again attempt to dismiss him.

Hightower, a black man, had asserted

that his firing was in retaliation for his

political beliefs and organizing" ac-

tivities.

Last year Joel Zeldin of San Fran-

cisco filed an amicus brief on behalf of

ACLU-NC in the case of Gee v. Brown.

The California Supreme Court had

previously held that a person on parole

has a right to a full hearing before

parole can be revoked and the in-

dividual returned to prison.

subsequent decision they applied that

right to cases in which a parole date had

been set and prison authorities sought

to rescind the parole date; and in an

earlier case the Court had ruled that a

parolee had a "conditional" right to

counsel in cases where "he asserts

. complex matters in mitigation." In

Gee, Zeldin argued that the ``con-

ditional" right to counsel must con-

stitutionally extend to cases in which a

parole date is rescinded, as well as to

cases in which parole is revoked. He

asserted that there is no significant

distinction between the two cases, since

the person who is not released on a

certain date is just as aggrieved as a

_ person who is returned to prison - in

both cases they are in prison, and in

both cases effective assistance of

counsel might have brought out facts

which could have persuaded the Adult

Authority to rule otherwise. On May 5,

mental

_ disordered sex offenders'' (MDSOs) are

in a

agreed. :

In another significant decision in

which ACLU-NC participated, the

`California Supreme Court ruled last

month that persons committed to state

institutions as `mentally

entitled to the right to trial by jury

before commitment and that the jury

verdict must be unanimous. The Court

further ruled that persons may not be so

committed unless the. evidence con-

vinces the jury beyond a reasonable

doubt. Our amicus brief was prepared

by ACLU-NC Board member and

Chairman of the Legal Committee,

Jerold B. Falk, Jr. Falk argued that the

deprivation of liberty in MDSO cases is

just as substantial, and in many cases

more substantial than the deprivation

of liberty `inherent in a _ standard

criminal trial since these defendants

can be held in mental hospitals for

years without ever going before a jury.

The Court's holding in People v.

Feagley extends the right to jury trial to

MDSOs.

Feagley and Gee hold that con-

stitutional rights ought to be provided

whenever the effect of a proceeding is a

significant deprivation of liberty,

regardless of the label the state puts on

the proceeding.

- Neil Horton, a newly elected Board

member and Oakland attorney, has

apparently reached an agreement with -

challenging the application of a penal

code section requiring persons who are

represented by public defenders to pay

the county for the cost of the

representation. In a series of cases

ACLU staff and volunteer attorneys -

have challenged the constitutionality of

the statute. Ultimately the California

Supreme Court upheld its con-

stitutionality, but required safeguards

including full notice to defendants

before trial that recoupment of costs

might be attempted by the county. As

the law now stands, counties may

recoup costs if they give prior notice

before trial and such recoupment may

be based only upon the person's ability

to pay at the time of a post-trial

hearing. With the law now settled,

Horton has worked out an agreement

allowing the ACLU-NC clients in his

case to continue to live in their home

(which the county was about to seize as

payment for public defender fees).

Robert Baines of the Santa Clara

Chapter recently won a Superior Court

victory in People v. Desmond, a case in

which ACLU-NC's clients advertised

that they would provide forms and

assistance in preparing papers for

divorce proceedings. The District

Attorney sought to enjoin publication of

the advertisement claiming that it

violated a 19th century statute

prohibiting publication of materials

continued: on page 3

_9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March-April, July-August,

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board, David M. F ishlow, Executive Director

Mike Callahan, Editor and Assistant Executive Director

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

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

LEGISLATIVE

aclu news

July-Aug. 3

S. I: Beyond Joe McCarthy

By IRVING R. COHEN

Under the reasonable and perhaps

even faintly attractive name of Criminal

Code Revision, a bill now before the

Senate Judiciary Committee would:

@ Restore the death penalty in a

variety of circumstances

e Bring back the anti-Communist

Smith Act in an even more virulent and

widespread form

e Sharply curtail the functioning of a

free press

e@ Reverse the trend towards

elimination of victimless crimes by

setting stiff penalties for the possession

of marijuana, making the "crime" of

prostitution a federal offense

e Impose mandatory terms for' a'

.tange of criminal offenses, a proposal

publicly embraced by the President

e Turn peaceful assemblages into

acts of sabotage

And, as if all these were not enough, |

_ this mis-shapen offspring of Nixon

(Richard) and McCarthy (Joseph) would

write into law what is already being

called ``the Watergate Defense'':

e Federal officials would be free

from criminal penalties for any illegal

acts as long as they believed "the

conduct charged was required or

authorized by law."'

If S.1 sounds like a nightmare in

which the Nixon-Mitchell Law and

Order Gang is still in possession of the

White House, it is because the bill

largely derives from the period of that

monarchy. The current bill is an

amalgam of a Nixon Administration

ng Ig Fg

IRVING R. COHEN is an

ACLU-NC Board Member. He

served as Acting Executive

Director from February to July

and is a former Chairperson of the

Marin Chapter of ACLU.

a a |

bill and one introduced by three

Senators: Hruska, McClellan and ina

fascinating irony,

current version, one of several, was

introduced into the 94th Congress by

Senator Hruska; the House counterpart

(H.R. 3907) is being sponsored by Rep.

Charles Wiggins, the Horatius-At-The-

Bridge of the House Judiciary Com-

mittee hearings on Impeachment.

The Obill's origins lie in, the

Congressional establishment of the

National Commission on the Reform of

Federal Criminal Laws. The 12-

member committee, approximately

balanced between liberal and con-

servative, a la Gilbert and Sullivan, was

headed by ex-Governor Pat Brown. In

its original form, the Committee's

report was considered largely ac-

ceptable by the ACLU, but in view of

Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, it

is no longer such (that version is still

before the House in H.R. 333.)

THREE ASPECTS

S.1 presents the most serious legal

threat to civil liberties since the days of

the Smith Act, the Mundt-Nixon bill,

and similar effluvia; in content, if

passed as presented, it goes far beyond

them in what it would do to con-

stitutionally-guaranteed liberties. The

bill goes about its butchering of the Bill

of Rights in three ways:

1. The re-introduction of legislation

once considered dead or at least

seriously injured, as in the case of a new

version of the Smith Act. In this re-

writing, fines up to $100,000 and a

prison term up to 15 years for mem-

bership in an organization which

_alledgedly advocates the incitement of

others to an action which at some

unspecified time in the future would

facilitate the destruction of the

_ government of the U.S. It is important

' that full credit be given here for

authorship: the term "`facilitate'' is a

key aspect of the actual language of the

bill.

2. The use of increased deterrent and

repressive measures, as if history did

- not exist. The reversal in the treatment

of use -of marijuana is only one

example; perhaps we shall yet return to

hanging thieving 7-year olds as a

deterrent to other 7-year olds.

3. The desperate plunge into new

waters, perhaps the most chilling of the

three areas. The term "national defense

information'? as used without precise

definition in the bill, in effect places

into being an "Official Secrets Act."'

Devices of this sort pose the gravest

dangers to the democratic concept of

the free flow of information. Section

1121 of the Senate Bill, for example,

provides exceptionally severe prison

terms for one "who knowingly collects

- national defense information" while at

the same time knowing "it may be used

to the prejudice of the safety or interest

Sam Ervin. The ~-

We need you

S.1 is only one piece of legislation. It

will require a good deal of work, time,

and resources to defeat it. There are

thousands of other bills under` con-

sideration in Washington, and

thousands more in Sacramento, all of

which must be read, evaluated, followed

-and, in many cases, lobbied on.

More and more of ACLU's resources

are going to legislative activity. Just as

the great advances for civil liberties

came from the courts in the '50's and

'60's, we must rely heavily on the

legislatures in the '70's.

Last week you received a letter from

us and a special appeal for help for our

legislative programs. Please read the

package you received and respond

TODAY. SEND US A CHECK RIGHT

NOW.

Letters

Editor's Note: For some time now we

have not been running letters to the

editor. Starting with the September

issue, we hope to begin running a

regular letters column. If you want to

write a letter about an article in the

ACLU News, or about something the

ACLU did or did not do, or about a civil

liberties isstyene, send your letter to:

Editor, ACLU News, 593 Market

Street, San Francisco 94105.

(While it is not required, it would be

very helpful if your letters are typed and

double-spaced.)

of the United States." Taking the

vagueness of the terms used, and

combining them with the repressive

intent of the bill, it becomes clear that

revelation of Mai Lai or CIA in-

volvement in assassination attempts

would come under the proposed law.

TACTICAL PROBLEMS

There are two tactics being used

against the bill: (1) an attempt to defeat

the bill as a whole, in the view that it is

such a bad bill that it is unamendable,

and (2) that efforts should be made to

amend and delete the more vicious

aspects of it.

The second carries many dangers.

. There are already liberal Senators who

at least partially back the bill (Birch

Bayh, D., Ind., for example), and who

may be willing to sacrifice certain areas

to either salvage the usable portions of

the bill, or in an effort to avert total

loss.

The danger in that approach,

especially given the temper of the

country, is that the more spectacular

assaults will be withdrawn in exchange

for the harsher "law and order"

elements. That danger is intensified. by

the approach of the Presidential

election, since it can be safely, if

unhappily, prophesied that all serious

candidates are likely to be beating that

particular drum from "piano" to

"forte'', regardless of party.

- WHAT TO DO

As the bill emerges from hearings

and into the public consciousness,

growing numbers of opposition groups

are likely to coalesce, especially on

single issues such as press freedom.

Meanwhile, however, whatever the

role of either National ACLU, or

ACLU-NC, it is of great importance

that individual voices be heard clearly

and sharply at this juncture. Letters Zo

both California Senators are of key

importance (Tunney is a membe cent of the

Senate Judiciary Committee); in ad-

dition, letters to other members of the

Committee such as Bayh of Indiana, ~

Burdick of N. Dakota, Hart of

Michigan, Kennedy of Mass. and

Mathias of Maryland are of especial

importance at this stage of the battle,

since they need either pushing or

strengthening as opposite pressures will

be put upon them. And it is not too

early to write to Representatives from

your area. ;

As the Washington Legislative Office

of ACLU points out, editorials in

newspapers against S.1 are of large use;

chapter boards are urged to talk to local

editors to this end. Articles about S.1

have already appeared in The New

York Times, The Wall Street Journal,

Fhe Village. Voice, Human Events and

others.

When writing to Senators, ask for

copies of S.1, and publicize the threat

the bill contains to the Bill of Rights. It

must be defeated; even a compromise |

_- bill-would move us further away from

traditional civil liberties and closer to a

repressive society.

More volunteer cases

continued from page 2

that might encourage divorce. Attitudes

about divorce may have changed since

then, but the statute has not. No

allegations were made that Desmond

was improperly giving legal advice or

defrauding anyone. Baines successfully

argued that the statute infringed upon

the First Amendment rights of his

clients.

Steve Koslow of San Francisco filed

an action in federal district court last

year challenging Yellow Cab's re-

strictions on the hair length of male |

cab drivers - Hansen v. Yellow Cab.

Since the company permits women to

drive cabs and places no restrictions on

the length of their hair, Koslow argued

that regulation of the length of male

hair constituted unlawful discrimi-

nation on the basis of sex. It is

an argument with great logical force,

but before the district court reached a

decision the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals rejected a similar contention.

The District Court felt bound by the.

ruling of the higher court and ruled

against the ACLU-NC position.

Peter Sheehan of Berkeley who

formerly headed ACLU-NC's Prison

Project has been doing a tremendous

amount of work in a variety of prison

cases. When the Project died for lack of

funds he volunteered to continue

working on many of his cases and has

filed several new cases as-a volunteer. In

Walker v. Procunier he challenged the

right of the Department of Corrections

to transfer prisoners and remove

substantial benefits without providing

hearing.

them with a hearing to determine the

propriety of the transfer. The case has'

involved substantial discovery of

Department materials and _ several

lengthy hearings and has resulted in a

preliminary ruling in Sheehan's favor.

Sheehan has also taken a similar appeal

to the Ninth Circuit. In Committee for

Prison Humanity and Justice v . Craven,

Sheehan is challenging the refusal of

Folsom Prison authorities to permit

inmates to receive certain literature. On

June 2 he had an extensive hearing

before the United States District Court

in Sacramento and the matter is under

submission. In several other cases,

Sheehan filed actions in both state and

federal courts to permit prison inmates

to marry. After he filed the latest suit on

the issue last month, the Department of

Corrections abruptly changed its policy.

Sheehan reports that the right to marry

was a major concern expressed in

prison letters he received and that it

had become extremely important to

prisoners to be able to formalize ties to

loved ones on the outside. In another

case, Sheehan filed an amicus brief

before the federal district court in San

Francisco in Lipp v. Procunier. The

Plaintiffs in Lipp argued that the

Department of Corrections could not

refuse to give inmates the right to

worship as they chose simply because

the church they believed in supported

`homosexuality. A three judge district

court has agreed with the major con-

tentions and has scheduled a further

aclu: news

4 ale

Mid-Peninsula

On Friday, September 12, at 8:30

p-m., the Mid-Peninsula Chapter will.

sponsor a theater party at the

Manhattan Playhouse, Manhattan

Avenue and West Bayshore in Palo

Alto.

The program for the event will be

either Eugene O'Neill's "Long Days

Journey into Night" or _ARaES "A

Doll's House'.

The evening promises to be an en- -

joyable occasion and gives all ACLU

members on the Peninsula an op-'

portunity to meet other ACLU

members and at the same time support

the efforts of the local chapter. Mark

September 12 and on your cates and

plan to attend.

Tickets for the evening are $3.50 each

and may be ordered by phoning: Larry.

Sleizer - 326-5280; Betty Mitchell - 327-

7499; or Bernice Fischer - - 2288.

Please call today.

San Cae

Elections to the Board of Directors of

the San Francisco Chapter are governed

by a section of the By-Laws which

provide that ample notice be given to

the membership to suggest names to the

Nominating Committee for election at

the Annual Meeting to be held Sunday,

October 17, 4 P.M. at Firemen's Fund

Auditorium, California and Presidio,

San Francisco.

Please send your suggestions to the

Nominating Committee at the Chapter

`office, 593 Market Street, San Fran-

cisco, 94105, giving as much _ bio-

graphical information about your

candidate as possible. In making your

suggestions, please bear in mind that

Board members must be ready to

defend the civil liberties of ALL persons

without distinction; that they are

required to attend monthly board

meetings the last Wednesday evening of

each month, serve on committees and of

course, must be members of ACLU of.

Northern California for at least one

year.

Committees which need enlarging

through member participation are:

Public Defender Project; Legislative

Committee; Finance Committee; and

Membership Committee. Any chapter

member interested in participating and

working on one of the above mentioned

committees, please call the chapter

office at 433-2750. YOU ARE

NEEDED.

MEMBERSHIP AND MEM-

BERSHIP RENEWAL are the

lifeblood of the organization. If you

have not renewed, please do so. If you

have a friend, an acquaintance who you .

feel should be a member, enroll that

person now. The office personnel will be.

happy to send you membership in-

formation and applications, properly

coded (N) for San Francisco.

If you've heard some public service

radio spot announcements lately, it's

because we've asked the stations to give

us public service time. ACLU is the only

non-partisan, non-profit organization

which guards our civil liberties, and the

best way to protect those rights is by

educating the public to cherish them.

Yolo

Things are looking up for the Yolo

County Chapter. With the election of a

new chairperson, Jonathan Lewis, and

the addition of seven new board

members the Chapter is moving into

high gear. Due to the Bicentennial

Celebration approaching both new and

veteran Yolo County ACLU members

are pulling together to shape a new

ACLU image of active and vigorous

Civil Liberty protection in Yolo County.

High on the list of many priorities

that the Board is promoting is the need

to expand Yolo County ACLU mem-

bership over a much larger cross section

of the County. At a recent Chapter

board meeting, a telephone committee

to contact people who haven't renewed

their membership was established with

Barbara Leidigh as committee

chairperson.

In addition to a renewed membership

drive, Tom Frankel, a Yolo County

attorney, has taken responsibility for

organizing attorneys and law students

in a co-ordinated effort to seek out civil

liberty violations and provide legal aid

to all who need help in Yolo County.

Frankel intends to establish an on-

going process of case review and

selection in order to pursue civil liberty

violations to a just conclusion.

Chairperson Jonathan Lewis noted at

the June 25th board meeting that the

Legal Affairs Committee headed by

Frankel and the membership drive

coordinated by Leidigh were only the

beginning of the many programs he

hoped would be pursued. He went on to

state that these would include county

government monitoring, housing and

farm labor problems, along with a

complete program of public education

linked to the Bicentennial Celebration.

Commission sets msurance sex discrimination

At the urging of Ellen Lake, attorney

for the Foundation's Women's Rights

Project, the California State Insurance

Commission is proposing

regulations barring sex discrimination

in insurance coverage and rates.

In San Francisco on September 3 at

9:30, and in Los Angeles on Sep-

several |

tember 5 at 10 a.m., the Commission

will hold hearings on the proposals.

Those new regulations would ban

discrimination based on both sex and

marital status in disability, health,

auto, and homeowners/renters in-

surance. The San Francisco hearings

will be held at the Board of Education

Board of Governors in 1973.

chemistry research.

Planning Commission

Committee.

Ralph was a native of Georgetown, |

Massachusettes, and graduated from

M.I.T. in chemical engineering. He

received a Masters from California

Institute of Technology. When he was

with the Eastman-Kodak, Co., Ralph

perfected color film. He later set up his

own laboratory where he did photo

In Monterey, he was a trustee and

president of the Monterey Peninsula

Community College District and a

member of the Monterey County

Advisory

Since his retirement in

Ralph Atkinson 1908- 1975 _

The ACLU lost a dear friend last

month. Ralph Atkinson, a dedicated

member of the ACLU for twenty-five

years, was `killed in an automobile

accident near his Monterey home on

June 11 at the age of 67. Ralph served

on the Board of Directors of the ACLU

of Southern California from 1956 to

| 1960. He has been on the Northern

California Board since 1962. He was

Chairman of the ACLU-NC Foundation

Ralph Atkinson

1973, he has been sculpting, traveling,

and working with the Monterey

Foundation. :

Ralph was a hard worker and

supporter for ACLU as well as a

valuable and concerned citizen in his

community. He will be missed by all in

the ACLU family and we send our

condolences to his wife Dorothy and his

three sons.

Auditorium, 170 Fell St., Room 30. The

L.A. hearing will be in the State

Building, Room 1138, 107 Broadway.

The Commission has also agreed to

bar the widespread exclusions usually

imposed on women in _ disability

coverage for complications arising from

pregnancy, abortion or other diseases of

the female reproductive system.

Pending the completion of a study

now in progress in New York, the

Commission may propose new

regulations on discrimination in in-

surance rates as opposed fo coverage.

Saar

Sonoma

The Sonoma County ACLU held its

regular meeting at 1000 Sonoma

Avenue in Santa Rosa at 7:30 p.m. on

Thursday, June 19, 1975. Before the

meeting officially started, the chapter

board members heard a short talk from

Mike. Callahan, Assistant Executive

Director for ACLU-NC. Mike gave an

outstanding informative talk about the

historical development of the American

Civil Liberties Union: its early

beginnings, its present problems, etc.

He passed around an interesting report

entitled, ``A Guide to ACLU Action."'

There was a discussion about the

difficulty in determining just what

constitutes a "civil liberties" problem

and whether or not we can take every

civil liberties case that "comes down the

pike." A question-and-answer session

followed. ;

Wietcikk

In one of his first official acts as

ACLU-NC's new Executive Director,

David Fishlow attended the Sonoma

Chapter Picnic and Art Auction on July

27. Women's Rights Project Attorney

Ellen Lake and he were the scheduled

speakers. A raffle was held during the

event and when the winner was named

for second prize, a half-gallon of

Seagram's ey it was David

Fishlow.

Since starting the new job two weeks

ago, David has been concentrating on

ACLU's financial woes and a search

for new office space. (He keeps mut-

tering something about a wrecker's ball

outside his window.)

Well, he was warned that the job

would drive him to drink - one way or

the other.

he: e is

Depending on the circumstances,

women who in the past have been

discriminated against and have since

become uninsurable because of physical

disabilities may be able to petition the

Commissioner for coverage that they

would have been eligible for earlier had

the companies not been discriminating

against women in coverage.

Witnesses who have encountered

discrimination in insurance either

because of their sex or their marital

status should contact Les Schmidt at

the ACLU office, (415) 781-2597.

Reagan appointee

continued from page |

against any person who usurps, in-

trudes into, or unlawfully holds or

exercises any public office ...'' and

must be brought whenever the Attorney

General "`has reason to believe that any

such office ..

truded into, or unlawfully held or

exercised by any person.' (California

Code of Civil Procedure Section 803.)

Sheehan submitted the application to

the Attorney General on January 6,

1975, with extensive

authorities

background and lack of qualification,

the current fuctions performed by

Adult Authority members, and the

legislative history of the statute

authorizing California's Adult

Authority.

After a five-month: review Younger.

denied leave to sue, contending that:

. has been usurped, in- -

points and

concerning Garcia's

1) ``the determination as to the

presence or absence of the required

qualifications is a highly subjective one

and [as a result], the courts are in no

better position to make the deter-

mination than is the Governor when

acting with the advice and consent of

the Senate;" and 2) it must be assumed

that the Governor and/or the Senate

made a conclusive finding of fact as to.

Garcia's qualifications either prior to,

or by the fact of, his confirmation.

On July 9, Sheehan petitioned the

California Supreme Court for a writ of

mandate, asserting that Garcia's case

"is a classic example of a patronage

appointment of a totally unqualified

individual to a parole board'' and

asking that the Court direct the

Attorney General to grant leave to sue

for Garcia's removal.