vol. 43, no. 1

January-February 1978

aclu news

FPPC v.

Mendelsohn

by David M. Fishlow

. Executive Director

Jullion custody" case

THE POSSIBILITY OF ACLU's

entering a friend-of-the-court brief in

appeals of the civil action filed by the

Fair Political Practices Commission

against former San Francisco County

Supervisor Robert Mendelsohn was

raised when the ACLU Board

authorized staff attorneys to file such a

brief if it becomes appropriate.

As is well known, Mendelsohn is

being sued by the FPPC under

provisions of the Fair Political Practices

Act ("Prop. 9"), which specifies that

anybody who ``intentionally or

negligently violates any of the reporting

requirements"' of the Act may be liable

for substantial penalties, in this case

amounting to some $30,000.

THE CIVIL LIBERTIES aspects of

the case are important and have a

potentially far-reaching effect on the

conduet of political campaigns in this

state in the future. Like many such

issues, it is easiest to understand when

considered outside the context of the

specific case at hand.

Mendelsohn is charged i in the FPPC's ~

civil complaint with `negligently or

_ intentionally" making a false report on

the source of $26,500 in contributions

_ to his campaign for state comptroller in

1974, -

Franklin

continued from page 1

Plaza speech and the Computation

Center incident was based on his. in-

terpretation of the U.S. Supreme |

-Court's Brandenburg doctrine. . In

Brandenburg v. Ohio the high court in

1969 held that in order for speech to be

punishable "`advocacy must be directed

"to inciting or producing imminent

lawless action, and .. . likely to produce

such action."

The ACLU contends that Franklin

was dismissed solely for pure speech

_and on the basis of the content of that

speech.

"All of Professor Franklin's

speeches,' . ACI.U Staff Attorney

Margaret Crosby maintains, - "were

within the protection of the free-speech

provisions of the U.S. and California

Constitutions."

"In view of the fact that Judge

Flaherty found that, with respect to one

speech, Stanford's punitive actions

against Franklin were constitutionally

impermissible, the given penalty of

dismissal was obviously inappropriate."

Judge Flaherty requested that Ms.

Crosby and counsel for Stanford

University submit arguments as to

whether he should return the case to

Stanford's Faculty Advisory Board in

light of his ruling, for reconsideration of

Franklin's firing six years ago.

A world-renowned American literature

scholar, H. Bruce Franklin is now a

tenured faculty member at Rutgers

University.

_ determining the

political practice,"

If it were clear that he had knowingly

made a false report, or that he had

concealed knowledge of the source of -

the contributions when he was required

to make disclosure, there would be an

arguable - and constitutional - legal

basis for the FPPC suit.

"Negligence," in such a situation,

however, is a troubling charge. The

Supreme Court has made it clear that

when statutes are designed to control

activities - such as political cam- |

paigning - which are protected by the

First Amendment, participants in such

activities should only be held to account

for intentional violations of the law.

"If candidates, and their committees,

are held to a legal standard which

requires them to trace the source of all

funds received - that is, requiring

them to question Contributor A to

determine whether the contribution is.

really from Person B - under pain ofa

civil penalty, then such a requirement

will have a severe chilling effect upon

the exercise of First Amendment

rights."

That paragraph from the ACLU staff

report to the Legal Committee sums it

up. In simplest terms, the 1 issue is this:

To what extent can political can-

didates. be `held' responsible for

"true source' of a

contribution? It is not difficult to

envision prosecutions under bribery,

conflict of interest, subornation, or

political reform laws, of an individual

who intentionally makes false reports or

conceals information which must be

disclosed.

If Mendelsohn were so Sharged, the

issue should be a factual one, for a

jury, rather than a civil liberties issue.

Instead, Mendelsohn is charged with a

vague kind of negligence. |

One can easily imagine cir-

cumstances in which a candidate, such

as a local candidate for school board or

city council, might receive contributions

which may have passed through several

hands before reaching the campaign

treasury.

How much checking - don't forget |

the individual is running for office, not

out to offend contributors - is enough?

Unless the "`negligence'' standard is

strictly defined, no candidate will ever

be sure.

. When candidates cannot determine,

from the rules and regulations, what is

required, they cannot be held to ac-

count for having neglected to do

something.

Not under a constitutional system,

anyway More and more

frequently we see situations in which

the FPPC, in an attempt to ensure "fair

may be introducing

civil liberties problems of some

magnitude into the political process.

We should be watchful. In this case, as

in most of our cases, the issue is not the

particular defendant in a lawsuit, but

the principles which an unfortunate

decision might lock into law.

consequently will

AGL opposes secret hearing

The ACLU is prepared to argue

against an anticipated move by the

Alameda County Superior Court to bar

`the press and the public froma child:

custody hearing scheduled for January

17.

The issue in the custody hearing is

whether the court will grant Jeanne

Jullion, a lesbian mother, permanent

custody of her two children. Ms.

Jullion's petition for custody has been

contested by the children's father,

Gianfranco Ceccarelli. Alameda

County Superior Court Judge Gordon

Minder in May awarded Ceccarelli

temporary custody of the ee one

a 3-day closed hearing.

Judge Minder, claiming that there

had already been publicity in the media

and that an open courtroom would not

be in the best interest of the children,

had closed the hearing over the

objection of Ms. Jullion's counsel. -

Prior to the temporary custody -

hearing Ms. Jullion feared that her

lesbianism might become the focus of

the trial. She based this concern on an -

initial hearing held in February and on

a report issued by the probation

department which presumed that a

stigma would result from the children

living with a gay parent. She therefore:

took the public position that the

custody dispute should be decided on

the basis of her ability as a parent, and

- not on her professed sexual preference.

--. Her views drew widespread support

from women's and~- gay rights

organizations, community groups and -

local public officials. The controversial

issue with its many notable supporters

was covered widely by the media.

At the January 17 permanent custody

trial, counsel for Ms. Jullion will resist

any attempt by the. Alameda County

Superior Court Judge to forbid the.

public and the press from attending.

ACLU staff counsel Alan Schlosser will

represent Jullion's claim as a friend of

the court.

ACLU has successfully maintained

that there is a constitutional right to an _

open trial in criminal cases, and

press for `this

doctrine's application in this civil action

as well, claiming that the right to an

open trial is an`integral part of the

constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.

Schlosser said that,

significant because when there are an

estimated 1.5 million gay mothers in

the United States the public is entitled

mere act of closing a

gay parent.

"this case is -

- to Brow how the courts are dealing with

the sexual preference issue in child

custody disputes.

- The right to an open trial,'' he

explained, `

means to suppress political and

religious minorities. In view of society's

past treatment of homosexuals,. the

custody

proceeding involving a homosexual

parent cannot help but raise queso

"andfears." a

After lengthy consideration of the

Jullion case in November by the (c)

ACLU's Legal Committee and the -

Board of Directors, it was determined

that the ACLU should argue that if the

court were to consider banning the.

public and the press from the custody

proceedings, that decision must be

made in accordance .with - certain

_ constitutional principles.

According to the policy adopted by

| the ACLU's Board, the Court must.

determine, after a hearing, whether an:

open trial would be harmful to the

children, and base such a decision on -

facts, rather than. on a presumption

that Ms. Jullion's sexual preference is,

per se, harmful to her children.

`Furthermore, ACLU attorney

Schlosser maintains that, ``if the court

at the outset of the trial excludes the

public by conclusively presuming that

Ms. Jullion's lesbianism will create a

~ stigma detrimental to the best interest

of the children, then this, in effect,

prejudges the merits of the case. For

once a stigma adverse to the children's

best interests is presumed to justify

closing the courtroom, such a presumed

- $tigma will lead inexorably to a decision

that it would not be in the best interest

of the children to award custody to the

"In this case,' Schlosser said, "`the

court has no reason to speculate about

the effects of publicity. There has

already been publicity regarding the

hearing held last year, which the Court

could examine and therefore ascertain

whether the media's treatment of the

issue did in fact harm the children."'

Schlosser also indicated that, ``in

light of societal prejudices against

lesbianism, a causative connection

between sexual preference and harm to (c)

the children must be drawn by the court

on the basis of evidence - not on

presumptions. Otherwise Ms. Jullion

will be precluded from a fair hearing."

aclu news a6

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

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

_ Warren Saltzman, Chairperson. David M. Fishlow, Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich, Editor

`Publication Number 018040

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

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

and S0 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

`in part is based on the ~

traditional distrust for secret trials asa

January-February 1978

aclu news

S -143 7 a from page 1

practices which so nearly wiped out the

substance of democracy. Dangerously

repressive provisions should not be

accepted because they are alleged to be

mere restatements of existing law. The

need for codification does not justify the -

sacrifice of essential constitutional

freedoms as the price of making it

: acceptable to Congressional right--

wingers.

_ For adhering to these guidelines, the

- American Civil Liberties Union, the

National Committee Against Repressive (c)

; Legislation and other civil liberties

groups have become the targets of a .

major public campaign by S.1437

supporters, headed by Senator Edward

Kennedy, the bill's chief sponsor.

Former California Governor "Pat"

Brown has assumed the role of chief

advocate for S.1437 and chastiser of the

"spoilers" from the "civil liberties

establishment.'' As the former

: chairperson of the National Com-

`mission on Revision of Federal

Criminal Law (Brown Commission), his

- name was attached to the initial draft

code submitted to Congress in 1971. In

an article in

Examiner (12/13/77) he attempts to

cash in one his past liberal credentials

to excoriate ``the short-sightedness of

the opposition propaganda" which, he -

threatens to defeat ``a

incomplete set of

declares, .

splendid though uy

improvements."

S.1" as a "`smear.'' Like Senator

Kennedy, he accuses us of taking "`an

all-or-nothing position."

Because of the length and complexity

of S.1437 (382 pages plus technical and

conforming amendments) and _ the

convolutions of its legislative history, it

is difficult for the public to form an

objective judgment of the validity of

Brown's statements. A detailed critique

of the repressive features of S.1437 is

available in the national publications of

the ACLU, Civil Liberties and

NCARL's publication. Space does not

permit their restatement. But a review

of former Gov. Brown's shifting and

inconsistent positions is sufficient to

discredit his claim to leadership as a

defender of civil liberties.

Two initial draft codes were sub-

mitted to the U.S. Senate in 1973. The

first was prepared by Senators

McClellan and Hruska, the two ultra-

conservative dissenters from the

majority of the Brown Commission. The

second was drafted by the Justice

Department then headed by Nixon

appointees John Mitchell, Richard

Kleindeinst and Robert Mardian.

Because the attention of Congress and

the public was soon focussed on the

Watergate investigation and im-

peachment, the draft codes died almost

unnoticed. Only when their major

features were incorporated in S.1 did

the public become aware of this drastic

measure to impose government cen-

sorship, limit the First Amendment

freedoms, and generally wreak havoc on

constitutional rights.

The protest movement which erupted

across the country blocked the progress

of S.1 through the Senate. Although S.1

negated major recommendations of the

Brown Commission, former Gov.

Brown was notably absent from the

- movement to stop S.1.

When S.1 was all but dead, however,

the San Francisco |

He denounces our.

designation of S: 1437 as the ``son of (c)

a letter appeared in the New York -

Times signed by Brown. In it he stated

that 95% of S.1 was non-controversial,

and that with a dozen deletions or

changes, it could be made acceptable in

toto. With these changes, Brown

declared, it should be given a new bill

number and presented to the public "`as

a brand new bill." Then Senate

Majority Leader Mike Mansfield

embraced Brown's formula to salvage

S.1, as did Senator Kennedy with some

reservations. The public did not fall for

this shallow "compromise."

backed away, and S.1 died with the

adjournment of the 94th Congress. In

his Examiner article, Brown spoke of

"the infamous and tyrannical S.1,

`which fortunately was defeated by the

previous Congresses." He failed to

mention that its defeat came about

despite his own last minute effort to

- secure its passage.

With the support of the ACLU, the

three House members who served on

the Brown Commission (Represen-

tatives Kastenmeier,

Mikva) introduced an alternative code

which restored the substance of the -

Brown Commission's recom-

. mendations. Reintroduced in the House

as H.R. 2311, it is now before the House

Judiciary Subcommittee along with

S.1437. Lacking the support of Sen.

Kennedy (or Brown), it was never in-

_troduced.in the Senate.

With the election of Jimmy: Carter,

who opposed S.1 in his campaign

statements, it was hoped that a draft

_ code

Edwards-Mikva bill would be brought

`similar to the -Kastenmeier-

forth by the Carter Administration.

Instead, with the appointment' of

Griffin Bell as Attorney General, the.

same Justice Department lawyers who

drafted S.1 and its predecessor for the

Nixon and Ford Administrations, were

assigned to prepare the new code. Small

wonder that it bore the heavy imprint of _

S.1. Some additional changes were

added by Kennedy and agreed to by the

late Sen. McClellan. Thus S$.1437

emerged. as the `masterly com-

promise."

Through the work of the ACLU and

other groups,

a large number of

amendments were brought to the

Senate Judiciary Committee's mark-up

sessions. Some of these were adopted,

but the general negative estimate of

S.1437 remains unchanged. _

In the amending process, Pat Brown

played no role. When Sen. Abourezk

and others on the Judiciary tried un-

successfully to amend many of the most

dangerous provisions of S.1437, Brown

was too concerned with preserving the

"compromise'' to lend a hand. So much

for Brown's credentials as one who

claims to have "fought for civil liberties

There is strong liklihood that the

Senate will pass S.1437 in the near

future. Only a vast outpouring of public

opposition can change the sentiment of

the Senate, or even delay its approval.

Even winning time is crucial since the

legislative time-table may determine the

fate of S.1437 in the present Congress.

Richard Criley is the Northern California Direc-

tor of the National Committee Against Repressive

Legislation (NCARL) and is currently the President

of the ACLU's ee Chapter.

Kennedy

Edwards, and-

_ State FOIA reform proposed

By Brent A. Barahert

ACLU Legislative Representative

California's Public Record Act - the -

state equivalent of the federal Freedom

-of Information Act - is the subject of

placed before the.

amendments

Assembly by member Willie Brown (D-

San Francisco), incorporating revisions

drafted: by ACLU staff attorney Amitai

Schwartz. _

Though the Public Records Act

(PRA) is designed to insure that every

citizen has access. to information

`concerning the conduct of the people's

business,"' it provides enough so-called

"exceptions" to allow state officials to

withhold much information.

Considered together the even greater

shortcomings of the Information

Practices Act of 1977 (SB 170-Roberti),

which goes into effect on July 1, ex-

tensive revision of the PRA seems to be

ACLU's best course in achieving the

public access desired.

Both current California statutes,

Public Records Act and the Infor-

mation Practices Act contain massive

exemptions . for law enforcement

"investigations" and "intelligence''

records. Exempt records include

surveillance records maintained by the

California Department of Justice and

- other state and [oval agencies on social

and political movements, controversial

_ public figures, and their associates. The

Information Practices Act not only

exempts such records, but takes a step

further than the Public Record Act,

declaring intelligence records to be

"confidential'' - i.e., essentially

outside the scope of the constitutional

right of privacy, much as the U.S.

Supreme Court has declared "obscene"'

speech to be outside the scope of the

. First Amendment.

The need for corrective surgery on

California's access statutes is un-

derscored by the experience ACLU has

had in seeking access to intelligence

information maintained by Attorney

General Younger's Organized Crime

and Criminal Intelligence Branch,

(OCCIB), and in the nature and the

chilling scope of the information that

we already know is maintained by

OCCIB.* -

The OCCIB's primary function is to

gather, analyze and store intelligence

_ pertaining to "`organized crime," and to

provide that intelligence to local, state,

and federal law enforcement units. _

Though it is funded by the State of

California to the tune of approximately

$2,500,000 pet year, it also serves as the

continued on page 4

constricting the

Assault continued from pase .

- Recent federal legal developments

threaten to reinforce these and other

forms of discrimination. Congressional

_cutoff of abortion funds, conjoined with

`Supreme Court decisions upholding the

death penalty, depriving poor women of _

- abortions, immunizing state sodomy -

laws from constitutional challenge, and

equal protection

guarantee where racial discrimination

is at issue, contribute to the need to

provide the means of legal redress to

these groups at the state level. The

proposed initiatives, oppositely, would

complete the matrix of legal disen-

franchisements that those federal laws

and decisions have begun.

The negative and punitive character

of these proposed initiatives identifies a

treacherous relationship among them.

Instead of presenting initiatives to

California voters which seek to assure

equal treatment of the convicted, the

pregnant, the unpopular, each of the

proposed initiatives is designed and

intended to engender inequality of

ballot.

NAME

_ Join us in a significant lobbying campaign to stem the tide of regression. The next time an im-

portant measure goes before the California Legislature, the U.S. Congress or to the people as a

ballot measure we don't want to fail solely because lawmakers measured the mail and the voices

from the ``other side' as one hundred-to-one against ours. There's just too much at stake.

Many of the issues discussed: in this issue of ACLU News require immediate ACLU action.

Where initiative petitions are being circulated currently, we're watching. And the groundwork

must be laid for future pore to oppose those measures if they appear on the November

Can we count on you to help mobilize support for civil liberties?

treatment and deprivation of basic

rights.

Of first priority, these initiatives must

be defeated. In the process voters need

and deserve to be educated concerning

the political movements that have

sponsored these initiatives and con-

cerning the dangerous and inhumane

consequences of each. The facts -

including the fact that each initiative

entails waste of human potential and

economic resources - must be

gathered, disseminated, discussed.

Elsewise, the levels of ignorance and

vindictiveness that have fostered these

proposed attacks upon _ convicts,

schoolchildren, pregnant women and

members of sexual minorites will

remain unaltered, and the next wave of

repressive, reactionary laws will_be just

a matter of time.

Mary Dunlap is the Chairperson of the

Equality Committee of the ACLU's Board of

Directors which has chosen the issues below as

priority items for action in 1978. Ms. Dunlap is an

attorney with Equal Rights Advocates, Inc. in San

ae sec

ADDRESS

PHONE (day) -

Your legislators: Assemblymember: _~

State Senator:

(eve) 3

; Representative in Congress:

Please fill out, clip and return this form to the attention of the Equality Committee, ACLU, 814 ]

Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisca 94103.

January- February 1978

aclu news

Oakland

The Oakland Chapter's Board of

Directors have continued their monthly

meetings, and are developing programs

for the coming year. If you have areas of

`concern in which you feel the local

chapter can be of help, -or if you are

curious about what goes on at these

meetings, plan to attend one. Board

meetings are held the first Wednesday

of every month, and are always open.

To find out the location of the next

meeting, call any board member or 534-

2258.

Because of some vacancies on the

Board, we are searching for people who |

are interested in becoming interim

Board members. Board members are

expected to attend monthly Board

meetings; terms of office run through

the end of June. If you are interested in

being appointed to the Board, call

Lloyd Perry at 569-3454.

Our chapter is currently awaiting

approval by the affiliate of a name

change. Because the Oakland Chapter

now comprises all of Alameda County,

exept Berkeley and Albany, we hope to

become known as the Earl Warren

Chapter. Watch for this new heading in

future issues of ACLU News.

Marin

The directors of the Marin Chapter

have been approached again by

representatives of houseboat owners in

the Gate 5 area of Sausalito who believe

that gross violations of civil liberties

have occurred during recent (and well-

publicized) engagements

houseboaters and officers of the Marin

County Sheriffs department. Much of

the December meeting of the Marin

Chapter was taken up with discussion

of these issues, which arise from

prolonged efforts by commercial

developers to erect piers in Waldo Point

Harbor.

The Marin Board was especially

concerned by three allegations made in

response to recent police actions:

failure of due process; illegal entry, and

excessive force as well as harassment.

The Board voted to send its Chair-

person to the Dec. 20th meeting of the

Marin Board of Supervisors, where the

Supervisors agreed that the Marin

County Counsel should notify the

_ Chapter Chairperson in the event of any

future police actions at Gate 5, and also

agreed to permit an ACLU observer to

be PEEselt at any such action.

of Rights Day |

honors dissenter

Dr. Linus Pauling (left) congratulates Francis Heisler, recipient of the 1977 Earl Warren Civil

Liberties award. ,

More than 700 people joined with the

ACLU Foundation to celebrate the

186th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights

-and to honor Francis Heisler, recipient

of the 1977 Earl Warren Civil Liberties

Award in San Francisco on December

-

Heisler, an ACLU Board member,

was honored for his more than five

decades of zealous advocacy on behalf

of individual rights.

Jessica Mitford, Dr. Linus and Ava

Helen Pauling, Monterey County

Superior Court Judge Richard Silver,

labor leader Leonard Levy and jour-

nalist Milton Mayer joined in the

tribute to the determined civil liberties

lawyer.

A special taped message from Joan

Baez was presented, highlighted by a

slide presentation by the San Francisco

photography firm of De Lancie/ Mayer.

For the fifth consecutive year ACLU

Board member Frances Strauss coor-

dinated the successful event, which

brought together many friends of civil

liberties to pay tribute to Heisler and

the evening's theme - the First Amen-

dment's guarantee of the right to

dissent.

between .

_Judy Ehrlich

It was a fitting theme for Heisler who.

has defended clients from labor

organizers to conscientious objectors:

in thousands of cases for freedom.

His vibrant and creative legal career

was warmly recounted by the program

participants - many of whom had been

his clients.

The traditional celebration also

marks the culmination of the ACLU

Foundation's annual fund-raising cam-

paign, proceeds from which go to sup-

port ACLU's legal program.

Names of contributors to the Foun-

dation appear in a commemorative

program booklet issued each year for

the occasion, held this year in the

Grand Ballroom of the Sheraton Palace

Hotel.

Sacramento

The Sacramento Chapter of the

ACLU had a table for distribution of

ACLU literature at the convention of

the California Junior Statesmen in

December. Interest in this literature

and the ACLU was high and very little

was left unsold after the meeting.

A notice was placed in the Teacher's

Newsletter for Sacramento City High

Schools offering ACLU speakers for

their classrooms upon request.

Brent Barnhart, ACLU legislative

representative, and Wayne Harbarger,

a lawyer and member of the

Sacramento Chapter presided at a

panel discussion with the Criminal Law

Forum at McGeorge Law School in

Sacramento. The group which at-

tended, mostly composed of future

prosecutors, was surprisingly un-

familiar with the methods and purposes

of the ACLU, but they were very in-

terested, and a lively discussion took

place. :

Sacramento Chapter's Board of

Directors meets the fourth Wednesday

of each month at 7:30 p.m. All

members are invited to attend.

Gay Rights

The Chapter's annual meeting will

begin at 7:30 p.m., on Wednesday,

January 25, 1978, and will be held in the

offices of the ACLU, 814 Mission

Street, Suite 301, San Francisco. ;

The first item of business will be the

election of members to the chapter

Board of Directors. The names of

approved nominees were included in

the Chapter's January 1978 ACLU

Bulletin. Information on how others

may become candidates was also in-

cluded. Any ACLU member interested

in our newest Chapter's activities may

request a copy of the ACLU Bulletin by

calling the ACLU office at 777-4545.

Berkeley-Albany-

Kensington

The B-A-K Chapter elected the

following new Board members at its

annual meeting held on November 30:

Tony Valladolid, Elaine Gerstler,

Richard Riffer, Walter J. Edwards, and

Dorothy Legarreta. In addition, in-.

cumbent Board members- Michael.

DeVito and Marjorie Gelb were elected

to a second three-year term. The Board

meets the fourth Thursday of every

month, 8:00 p.m., at the Friends

Educational Center on Vine - and

Walnut. All members are welcomed to

attend these meetings.

An Information and Referral Service

sponsored by the B-A-K Chapter is

pleased to announce that it has

openings for more volunteers to answer

civil liberties questions for the East Bay.

The Information and Referral Service is

the most important function of our

Chapter and volunteers are given

detailed instruction in answering and

analyzing civil liberties and other legal

problems. All volunteers work closely

with ACLU. volunteer attorneys.

Anyone interested in this important job

should call Eileen Keech, 848-0089.

Following the election, ACLU-NC

Executive Director David M. Fishlow

will talk about the ACLU role in

organizing support for America's new

"human rights'? movement: for the

reproductive rights of women, against

discrimination - because of sexual

gender, sexual orientation, age,

disability or race, and opposition to the

death penalty.

Members are cordially urged to

attend and to bring guests to this

meeting since our Executive Director

and the Chapter's officers will all be

available to answer questions about the

ACLU, and the Gay Rights Chapter.

FOIA continued from page 3

national clearinghouse for a "`private''

interstate network of police intelligence

units called the Law Enforcement

- Intelligence Unit (LEIU).

Records generated by this interstate

network monitor not only the activities

of political and social organizations,

but also profile attorneys who represent

suspect individuals, and the personal

expression, life styles and beliefs of

business associates, family members

and friends of such persons.

The only viable check that can be

placed on such activity is to require

public access to information main-

tained by government agencies. The

usefulness of: such access in un-

derstanding the extent of government

intrusion on personal lives has been well

dramatized in the disclosures made

under the Freedom of Information Act

concerning the FBI, the CIA and other.

federal agencies. But while attention

has been focused on federal agencies,

no comparable disclosure provisions

exist which adequately expose the

unlawful activities of state and in-

_ terstate networks such as LEIU.

The impetus to spy and to engage in

``pro-active'' law enforcement is far too

strong to be thwarted solely by the

explosure of the unlawful activities of

federal agencies. Though the Sorcerer's

Apprentice has axed the first dancing

broom, a thousand

replaced it, each mindlessly advancing

in the same relentless pattern. It's

therefore essential that the machinery

and substantive provisions of state

access provisions be amended to

perform on the state and interstate

level, the same role so well performed

federally by the Freedom of Infor-

mation Act.

*On July 20, 1976, ACLU of Northern California brought

an action against Attorney General Evelle Younger under

the California Public Records Act after the Attorney

General refused to honor the ACLU's demand to inspect

records maintained by the OCCIB. That act is still

pending: ACLU v. Younger, Superior Court of Sacramento.

County, No. 262181.

Election continued from page 1

Directors' Nominating Committee.

The ballot will appear in a special

May issue of ACLU News.

The following by-law governs

ACLU's Board of Directors'

nominating process:

3. Recommendations and Nominations by

Members of the Union.

Members of the Union shall have the right to

suggest names for consideration to the committee

appointed to nominate members-at-large to the Board -

of Directors. Furthermore, any fifteen or more

members of the Union in good standing may

themselves submit a nomination to be included

among those voted upon by the general membership

by submitting a written petition to the Board not later

than May ist of each year. No member of the Union

may sign more than one such petition and each such

nomination shall be accompanied by a summary of

qualifications and the written consent of the nominee.

This provision of the By-laws shall be printed on the

first page of each January issue of the ACLU News,

together with an article advising members of their -

rights in the nominating process..

splinters have