vol. 50, no. 5

ACLU of Northern California 1663 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103

NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

PERMIT NO. 4424

aclu new

Volume XLXI

June/July 1985

No. 5

Court Wars: Whither ACLU?

So. million dollars will be spent over the next 16 months

J to "save" or "destroy" the California Supreme Court. The

1986 confirmation election for Chief Justice Rose Bird and

four Associate Justices will have a profound impact on the

civil liberties of all Californians.

For many decades this state's top court has had an outstanding and often

pioneering record of expanding and protecting civil liberties.

The Court's 1979 decision expanding free speech rights for political protestors

on privately owned shopping centers-on state, not federal, constitutional

grounds-is typical of the California Supreme Court's unique record.

Now that record, and the present Court, and Justice Bird in particular,

are under a well-organized and well-financed attack. The New York Times

has called the attack "ferocious".

National Policy

The ACLU and its members face a very difficult dilemma: whether or

not to maintain the ACLU's traditionally "non-partisan" role in taking positions

on elective and appointive government offices. That role is defined by national

ACLU policy #524.

Reflecting the traditional ACLU position, ACLU founder Roger Baldwin,

writing to the national Board in 1971, said that to "enter the area of personalities

in public office would inject the Union into politics and divert us from principles

to men"; the ACLU has to work with all public officials and "to do so effectively

we should not divide them into friends we supported and opponents we had

tried to defeat." ;

Usually, the question is presented in terms of opposing a particular appointee:

Last year, the national ACLU Board debated and declined to take a position

on the appointment of Edwin Meese as Attorney General.

But, fourteen years earlier, by a 30-26 roll call vote, the 1971 national

Board did oppose the Supreme Court appointment of William Rhenquist

with this cautious preample, "In this situation, under these circumstances,

without making reference to future policy, we oppose..."

A year later, faced with the appointment of Richard Kleindienst to replace

John Mitchell as Attorney General, the Board backed off and took a different

tack instructing the staff to prepare a public "report" on Kleindienst's civil

liberties record. `The ACLU, it would be argued, chose to attack the record

rather than the man (or woman). If this report on the record was considered

daring in 1971, such reports on public officials are routine for the ACLU

today.

California Twist

Judicial confirmation by popular vote presents the ACLU with another

problem involving not only the merits of a particular justice under attack

and the merits of that attack, but also the merits of the confirmation method

itself.

Originally, all California justices stood for election in partisan races. Next,

the races became non-partisan, but still contested.

A 1934 state constitutional amendment instituted the present system

providing for gubernatorial appointment of state appellate judges, review of

that appointment by the three-member Commission on Judicial Qualifications,

and periodic "yes-no" confirmation elections. The official voters' handbook

promised that under this system "judges would be free from political influence."

For 40 years, confirmation was usually routine and political influence was

minimal. However, with Chief Justice Bird's first test with the electorate in

1978 there was public opposition.

Then the Northern California ACLU Board voted to "condemn the campaign

against Chief Justice Rose Bird as an attack on the independence of the

judiciary" in her confirmation campaign, but stopped short of urging a "yes"

vote on confirmation itself.

Current Debate

The ACLU-NC Board of Directors will formally consider the present

confirmation election on Saturday, August 24, at a Board meeting to be

held in conjunction with the Annual Conference in Santa Cruz (see ad, p.

8).

At the August meeting the Board will hear (at least) two positions. The

first will represent the majority position of the "Ad Hoc Committee on the

Independence of the Judiciary" which favors no position on the question

of confirmation but urges that the ACLU engage in a vigorous public education

program concerning the role of the courts.

A minority report will urge that the ACLU formally endorse confirmation

for all five justices.

The ACLU News has asked committee Chair H. Lee Haltermanto present

the majority argument and committee members Richard Criley and Jim

Morales to present the minority position. Articles begin on page 2.

National ACLU Policy #524

Political Non-Partisanship

The Union does not endorse or oppose

candidates for elective office or lend its

membership lists to individuals or to

political organizations for use in political

campaigns. ACLU electoral lists, ocntain-

ing the names and addresses of affiliate

boards of directors and the national Board

of Directors, and the National Advisory

Council address list shall not be made

available to individuals or political

organizations for use in campaigns other

than the national Board election. Nor does

the Union criticize public officials except

when they follow a course of action in

violation of civil liberties. (Board Minutes,

September 29, 1936; January 10, 1938;

October 21, 1963; April 3-5, 1982.)

The ACLU and its affiliates and

chapters may, during political campaigns,

utilize various methods of advancing

political discourse. This can take such

forms as candidate questionnaires,

interviews, published statements and

public forums. However, whatever

method is used, to advance expression of

candidates' views, every precaution should

be taken to avoid either the fact or the

appearance of partisanship or the

exclusion of minor party and independent

candidates. (Board Minutes, January 17-

118, 1981.)

No public meetings should be held and

no bulletins or publications should be

- issued by an affiliate presenting issues

other than civil liberties. (Board Minutes,

December 19, 1955.)

The present policy does not prohibit

publication by the ACLU of civil liberties

records of any officers of government at

any level, federal or state. (Board Minutes,

April 8, 1972.)

Cox to Speak on Judiciary

The San Francisco Chapter of the

ACLU-NC will present a six-forum

public education series highlighting the

importance of judicial independence.

_ The series begins September 6 with

an address by Archibald Cox, president

of Common Cause and former Water-

gate special prosecutor. Former

Attorney General Ramsey Clark and

California pollster Mervin Field will

be featured in future forums.

The purpose of these lectures and

debates featuring prominent public

Jigures is to provide "in a positive and

stimulating way," said series co-

organizer Suzanne Donovan, "a kind

of civics course in the history and

purpose of an independent judiciary."

ACLU News

June-July 1985

What Role for ACLU in Confirmation Battle

Retention "Yes"

To do less than the maximum within our power is a

negation of our responsibility to defend the precious

liberties of the people of California in a moment of

crises.

by Richard Criley

and James Morales

For almost half a century, California has

enjoyed one of the best functioning judicial

systems in the nation. Through the adminis-

trations of Republican and Democratic

governers alike, the state courts, headed by'

the California Supreme Court, have stood as

an independent bulwark of our constitutional

democracy and the rights of our citizens.

All this could be changed by the 1986

elections. A highly organized and financed

operation is seeking to utilize the judicial

retention ballot to remove the Chief Justice

and several Associates because of rulings they

have made relating to due process, the death

penalty, Medi-Cal payments for abortions and

other controversial matters.

The California judicial retention ballot was

intended to serve as a measure of last resort

for the removal of incompetent or corrupt

justices. When this ballot is used to impose

a partisan political test for holding judicial

office, it constitutes a flagrant misuse of the

referendum and an assault on the fundamental

constitutional principle of an independent and

non-partisan judiciary.

National Movement

This partisan attack upon members of the

California judiciary is part of a national

movement to destroy the independence of the

judicial branch, which is taking place on all

levels of the court system. .If these movements

create a new partisan condition for holding

office in which judges are compelled to look

over their shoulders at the latest public opinion

poll, or the demands of a political lynch mob

before making a decision, the rule of law may

not survive.

Our entire system of constitutional rights

would crumble without an independent judicial

system, as the courts would be reduced to an

adjunct to the prosecutor's office. From the

"hanging judges" of 18th century England to

modern police states, the absence of an

independent judicial system has undermined

the meaningful exercise of civil rights and

liberties.

Under the Reagan Administration, executive

branch agencies are being re-tooled as

machines for repression of constitutional

rights. In this context, every step taken to

undermine the checks and balances provided

by the judicial branch has grave and potentially

irreversible consequences. :

The Ad Hoc Committee was unanimous in

its opinion that an independent judiciary

constitutes one of the mainstays in the defense

of civil rights and liberties, and that the current

partisan challenge to the tenure of California

Supreme Court justices threatens this essential

independence. We joined in the hope that the

outcome of the 1986 vote on the retention

ballot would result in the retention of all

Supreme Court justices, including the

Deukmejian appointee who will be on the

ballot.

We disagreed, however, as to what position

should be taken by the ACLU in the 1986

election and, most importantly, what role

might be played by the ACLU Board, its

chapters and members in Northern California.

Our difference flows from interpretations of

national policy #524, which prohibits the

ACLU from endorsing or opposing candidates

for elective or appointive office. The Ad Hoc

Committee majority interprets policy #524 as

a bar to taking any position in regard to the

vote on the retention ballot, thus limiting the

ACLU's role to one of public education on

the issue of the independence of the judiciary.

Policy Not Applicable

The minority believe that policy #524 is not

applicable to a recommended position that all

judges on the retention ballot be retained. This

is not a partisan position, supportive of any

particular justice or group of justices per se.

It is a position to counter the misuse of the

retention ballot for partisan purposes. Such

a vote is the only way in which the public

can record a position in support of the principle

of an independent judiciary.

ACLU policy permits and encourages us to

take positions and to actively campaign on

ballot propositions, and we have frequently

done so. To advocate a position that the

retention ballot should serve only for removal

of clearly unqualified judges, and to oppose

the politicizing of the bench is analogous to

a recommendation on a ballot proposition.

To properly interpret policy #524, we must

analyze its intent and purpose. This is to

maintain the public position of the ACLU as

a non-partisan champion of constitutional

rights. Since the ACLU frequently litigates

before the Supreme Court, it is important to

avoid impropriety by establishing a partisan

political relationship with any justice. Were the

ACLU to pick and choose on the retention

ballot, it would clearly violate policy #524. To

support a blanket retention of all justices,

except in cases of unqualified ones, does not

violate the intent of this policy, nor, in our

opinion, its letter.

Practicality

Our belief that the ACLU should publicly

endorse a yes vote on the retention ballot is

both a matter of principle and practicality. We

believe that the winning of the retention of

all justices is an issue of such paramount

importance that the ACLU as a guardian of

our civil liberties cannot afford to arbitrarily

limit its effectiveness nor the clarity of its

message. Since all members of the Committee

agree on what is the desired outcome of the

popular vote, it seems somewhat less than

honest not to say so.

The practical consequences of not taking a

position on the ballot are considerable. The

formation of coalition movements to defend

the independence of the judiciary will be based

upon a common position for a yes vote. To

bar ourselves from taking a position publicly,

which we in fact share in private, is to exclude

ourselves from all coalitions and all coalition

building processes. We may not officially

circulate any campaign materials which carry

the punch line of instruction to the voter. In

our ACLU roles, we are barred from

participation in precinct work or other direct

election appeals.

The majority argue that the ACLU can

render a valuable service in a_ general

educational campaign. While we need to carry

through all the public education in the world,

we will never be able to do the maximum nor

to become, as ACLU members, full participants

in the struggle if we do not have a ballot

position.

It is impossible to overstate the long-term

importance of this campaign. To enter it with

the self-imposed handicap of one arm tied

behind one's back is foolish and irresponsible.

To do less than the maximum within our power:

is a negation of our responsibility to defend

the precious liberties of the people of California

in a moment of crisis. @

No Position

Many have joined the ACLU precisely because it

stands aside from electoral politics, because it can be

counted on to challenge issues rather than

personalities.

by H. Lee Halterman

This August the Board of Directors will

decide what posture the ACLU of Northern

California will take in the upcoming confir-

mation battle facing several of our California

Supreme Court justices. The question will not

be between doing something and doing

nothing. Rather, the Board must decide how

we, the ACLU, can best meet the challenge

of protecting the judiciary from unwarranted

political attack.

As alluring as the mythical Sirens' song,

temptation calls to make an endorsement, to

join the fray as a central player in the political

campaign. But, like that ancient melody, this

allure is fraught with difficulty and danger.

Sailing through the seas of this decision will

test the mettle of our organization as we call

upon our strengths and seek to avoid our

weaknesses.

Unprincipled Attack

No doubt exists that the radical night and

its allies in the Republican Party have joined

together to remove justices from the State's

highest bench solely because of their personal

displeasure with the Court's decisions. No

doubt exists that the decisions to which they

object represent those that guardians of civil

rights and liberties have often cheered.

Little doubt remains, either, as to the

character and intensity of the campaign that

the opponents of the "liberal" justices will

undertake to achieve their ends. Distortion,

innuendo and outright falsehood will take

center stage in an expensive, well-orchestrated

campaign to sway public opinion against the

Court.

The nature of the fight came sharply into

focus for the Ad-hoc Committee on the

Independence of the Judiciary. Thus, we

concluded that the ACLU-NC must become

actively involved in educating the public as to

the nature of this threat. With that conclusion,

we easily met half of our charge to recommend

a policy to the Board as to how the ACLU-

NC could advance our concerns for an

independent judiciary. A consensus as to the

choice of strategy and tactics to meet that fight

remained more elusive.

The view that the ACLU-NC should endorse

the justices, join in coalitions engaged in

traditional political work and thereby deviate

from national policy proscribing endorsements

will be eloquently argued elsewhere in this issue.

My own view, arrived at by listening to the

varied positions of my colleagues on the Ad-

hoc Committee, holds that the ACLU can do

much, and do it much better, by playing its

traditional role and leaving the voter

registration, precinct work and get-out-the-

vote efforts to more political organizations and

coalitions, of which there will be many.

The No Endorsement Policy

ACLU national policy #524 lingered in the

background of our several conversations. This

policy, first embodied in a resolution in 1936,

states that the "Union does not endorse or

oppose candidates for elective or appointive

office ..." Over the years, elections and

appointments of vital concern to civil

libertarians have arisen. At every juncture,

except one, the Union has rigidly adhered to

policy #524, even as it has amended the policy

to meet new situations.

The one exception to the policy occurred

when the Union undertook to oppose the

appointment of Supreme Court designee

William Rhenquist. In breaching the 524

policy, the Board closely construed its own

narrow action.

Quickly the Board retreated from the

Rhenquist exception, turning back every

subsequent effort to take a position on the

appointment or election of any public official.

In 1981, the National Board unanimously

adopted the Executive Committee interpreta-

tion that "Policy #524 applies without

exception to all elective and appointive offices

and precludes the ACLU from endorsing a

candidate for any office." (Emphasis added.)

Organizational Integrity

For five decades the ACLU-NC has striven

to rise above fear, distaste and simple

expediency in making policy. Even when it

meant challenging the national office's own

timidity in the face of stern constitutional

challenges, we Shave sought to decide issues

solely on their merit and as they affect civil

liberties.

I would suggest two concerns should come

to the fore in considering any exception, and

we must not delude ourselves into believing

it would not be an exception, to the no

endorsement policy. The first is to the public

and membership perception of such a change.

The second is to its net efficacy. I believe that

the argument for an exception to the policy

for uncontested judicial races fails on both

grounds.

Many will view a decision to make such

an exception as an act of changing the rules

in the middle of the game. They will rightly

perceive that our goal is solely to support the

election of certain personalities, rather than to

make a policy decision calculated to enhance

the effectiveness of the organization.

Many have joined the ACLU precisely

because it stands aside from electoral politics,

because it can be counted on to challenge issues

rather than personalities. They will rightly

perceive this as a retreat from that principle.

Many marginally sympathetic people

Continued on page 2

Michael P. Miller, Editor

aclu news

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

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page

Elaine Elinson, Scribe

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

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 the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

ACLU News

June-July 1985

Union Resists Mall Ban

The Solano Mall's ban on leafletting

by union members in a labor dispute with

their employer was halted on June 26

when the Solano County Superior Court

granted the ACLU-NC's request for a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

~ ACLU-NC attorney Alan Schlosser

filed the lawsuit challenging the Fairfield

shopping center's refusal to allow

members of the Northern California

Newspaper Organizing Committee (NOC-

NOC) to leaflet mall patrons about

NOCNOC's labor dispute with the Daily

Republic in Fairfield.

Schlosser asked the court to issue the

TRO and a preliminary injunction |

allowing NOCNOC representatives to

leaflet at the mall in an attempt to educate

the public about their labor dispute and

about the unfair labor practices committed

by the newspaper's management.

According to ACLU-NC attorney

Schlosser, who has successfully challenged

numerous shopping centers in Northern

California which refused to allow access

for free speech activities, "Information

_ about labor disputes is entitled to the same

degree of free speech protection as

information about an election issue.

"The California Supreme Court's

decision in the landmark Pruneyard case

established that people of this state have

the constitutional right to exercise free

speech in private shopping centers. The

California Constitution prohibits discrim-

ination on the basis of the content of

speech, yet this is exactly what has been

done by excluding NOCNOC from the

mall."

Schlosser also noted that the rules

governing how free speech rights at

Solano Mall may be exercised are unduly

burdensome and in conflict with consti-

tutional and statutory law.

The management of Solano Mall

refused to allow the leafletters on mall

property, arguing that labor issues and

labor negotiations were not "political

expression," and thus labor activists could

be excluded from the Mall.

Top Court OK's

Sidewalk Sweeps

On June 20, the California Supreme

Court denied a hearing in the ACLU-NC

appeal of a lower court ruling upholding

the San Francisco police practice of using

obstruction of the sidewalk laws as a

means of detaining persons who would

not otherwise be punished by legal means.

The high court's denial of review in the

case of Ramey v. Murphy means that the

Court of Appeal decision upholding the

practice will stand.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Amitai

Schwartz had sought an injunction and

a declaration that the enforcement by the

police of Section 647c of the state Penal

Code was unconstitutional. Evidence

produced at the 1982 trial indicated that

94% of the people arrested under the

statute have their charges droped at their

first appearance in court and that less than

one in 200 persons is actually convicted

of obstruction.

The ACLU argued that since the courts

have struck down vagrancy and loitering

laws, the police still sweep the streets of

"undesirables" as they did under the old

laws, but just avoid submitting the arrests

for prosecution.

No Position

Continued from page 2

begrudgingly view the ACLU as an organi-

zation devoted to the good fight, and not the

partisan fray. They will question this devotion

when they judge our future conduct on issues

we might otherwise convince them to support.

Education

The second concern flows from the first. As

an organization devoted to principle, we can

take the floor during the debate over

confirmation and seek to set the record straight.

We can seek to educate our membership and

the voters as to how we see this campaign

undermining the independent judiciary that

must stand if their rights are to be preserved.

By taking the high ground, we might even gain

an opportunity to sway public opinion on the

substantive judicial and constitutional issues

that the campaign might address.

Through this strategy, we can hopefully play

a role in convincing the electorate that the men

and women who sit on the bench each meet

' the only bona fide criteria for confirmation

or reconfirmation: they are competent and they

have conducted themselves honestly in the

discharge of their offices. The alternative

strategy, I would suggest, invites the public

to question our every statement as being

motivated solely by a desire to gain a partisan

victory through the confirmation of our

endorsed candidates.

Thus, I come to the view that we enhance

the net efficacy of our conduct during the

campaign by not endorsing.

Given this, it strikes me that we would create

needless organizational friction if we took an

exception to policy #524. Far more important

issues will arise on which we will have

disagreement. Let us save some good will for

then.

Election Continuum

The confirmation of judges lies somewhere

on the continuum that stretches between the

gubernatorial election and votes on local ballot

propositions. This continuum, though, has a

natural dividing line between personality and

non-personality. The injection of personality

onto the ballot immutably changes the

characteristic of the voters' choice, a fact that

provides the basis for policy #524.

It has also been argued that the viciously

partisan campaign undercuts what should be

viewed essentially as an impeachment vote.

Unfortunately, the California Constitution

provides both for the impeachment and the

election and confirmation of judges. Whether

we like it or not, and until the Constitution

is changed, it remains-the view of the people

that they hold the power to reject judges and

justices for any reason whatsoever.

It becomes our job to convince them that

their interests are served by the maintenance

of a judiciary free from political attack. Our

strongest and most fervent arguments can be

made from the high ground of non-

endorsement, deploring the attack and

educating the public. Let us seize that high

ground and preserve our strength; let us not

slip down into the valley of partisanship, losing

the strength and efficacy of our position in

both the short and the long term.

Legal Briefs

Prison Mothers

Keep Custody

Pregnant women and mothers incarcer-

ated in California prisons will be reunited

with their babies following a June 5 court

order from Sacramento Superior Court

in a lawsuit filed by Legal Services for

Prisoners with Children and the ACLU

affiliates of Northern and Southern

California.

The lawsuit charges that the state

Department of Corrections has failed to

abide by a California Penal Code

provision that qualified inmate mothers

of children under six years old be placed

in the special Community Prisoner

Mother-Infant Care Program. Out of

2000 mothers imprisoned in the state,

fewer than 12 had been placed in the

Mother-Infant Program.

The suit was filed on behalf of four

pregnant women. The Temporary Res-

training Order issued by Judge John Ford

will prevent these mothers-to-be from

being wrongfully separated from their

infants immediately after birth.

"Frivolous" Tax

Protests Out

A dozen war tax resisters who chal-

lenged a 1982 amendment to the Internal

Revenue Code which imposes a $500

penalty on persons who file a "frivolous"

income tax return lost their case in the

U.S. Court of Appeals on May 21.

The ACLU-NC asserted that the term

"frivolous" is unconstitutionally vague and

that the IRS violated due process by

requiring payment of the penalty without |

prior notice and hearing.

Abortion Funds

Cut Again

Once again the ACLU-NC is preparing

to do battle with the California Legislature

over Medi-Cal funding for abortion. For

the eighth time in as many years the

California Legislature has passed a Budget

Act severely restricting state funding for

abortion.

As of press time, the Budget Act was

on Governor Deukmejian's desk awaiting

his expected signature.

When it is signed, ACLU-NC staff

attorney Margaret Crosby, who has

successfully challenged the budget cuts for

the last seven years, is prepared to file

a lawsuit asking the Court of Appeal to

prohibit the state from implementing

Budget Act restrictions and from mailing

out notifications of proposed cutbacks to

Medi-Cal recipients.

Solely because of the ACLU-NC

litigation, Medi-Cal funding for abortions

has continued uninterrupted since 1978 for

the 100,000 women who seek such aid each

year in this state.

San Francisco Chapter

~ ACLU of Northern California

Presents a series of forums

An

American Tradition:

Our Independent

Courts

Se SS

6:00 P.M. Friday, September 6

Back to Fundamentals

Philosophy, Politics and

A Little History, Too

Former Watergate Special Prosecutor

Archibald Cox

Who's Judging Whom?

The Media, the People,

and the Judiciary

December, 1985

Justice Under Stress

The National Perspective

February, 1986

Golden Gate

University

Auditorium, 2nd

Floor

536 Mission Street

San Francisco

Location:

Tickets: $5.00 general public;

$3.00 students,

ACLU, and SF Bar

Association members;

available at BASS

outlets and at the door.

Information: call 415-621-2493.

(Three additional forums to be

announced)

Co-sponsors: The Bar Association of

San Francisco and

Golden Gate University

School of Law

ACLU News

June-July 1985

Immigration Expert Joins Board

Immigration attorney William R.

Tamayo has been selected to fill an interim

vacancy on the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors. Tamayo, a staff attorney with

the Asian Law Caucus, is currently co-

counsel with the ACLU-NC, MALDEF

and CRLA in Molders v. Nelson, a federal

lawsuit challenging INS raids of factories

and agricultural worksites in northern

California. 5 :

`Tamayo, who served as Co-coordinator

of the Bay Area Committee Against the

Simpson-Mazzoli bill from 1982-85, is

President of the Board of Directors of

Filipino Immigrant Services in Oakland.

He also sits on the boards of the

International Institute of San Francisco

and the Center for Third World

Organizing.

"As immigrants' rights issues become

a major civil liberties focus in the 0x00B080's,

we are proud to bring onto the ACLU-

NC Board one of the leading immigration

experts in the area," said Marshall Krause,

chair of the Board Nominating

Committee.

Tamayo, who has wide experience in

the field of immigrant rights and race

discrimination litigation, is co-counsel in

the current lawsuit against the city of San

Francisco challenging its affirmative

action program for minority contractors.

He will take his seat on the Board in

July.

Letter

Editor:

On behalf of the California Association

of Police and Sheriffs as well as the San

Francisco Police Officers' Association, we

object to the biased and one-sided

portrayal of the San Francisco Police

Department that was published in the

ACLU News of May 1985.

Our Department has in many respects

been one of the most progressive and

innovative police agencies in the United

States with the task of policing a most

diverse city.

In addition, the San Francisco Police

Officers' Association has supported many

progressive programs both organization-

ally and financially such as the community

relations unit, Project SAFE, senior escort

services and scores of instances where we

have supported community oriented

programs.

Our total record on mass demonstra-

tions, use of deadly force, excessive force

and other indicators shows the San

Francisco Police Department with an

exemplary record when compared to

other major urban departments.

We are particularly concerned about

your statistics on complaints by citizens

as other departments do not categorize

many complaints in their statistics,

whereas in San Francisco any complaint,

however unfounded or anonymous, is

included in our statistics.

We urge you to look at the total record

and not certain celebrated events that in

our view do not have a common thread.

Signed

Paul C. Chignell

Mr. Chignell is a member of the Board

of Directors of the California Organiza-

tion of Police and Sheriffs.

New ACLU-NC Board member Bill Tamayo

` Photo: Asian Law Caucus

ACLU-NC Starts Reform Debate

Northern California board members

and staff took the national ACLU Biennial

Conference by storm joining over 500

delegates in Boulder, Colorado, in mid-

June for four days of debate, education

and socializing.

Led by Board Chair Nancy Pemberton

and Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich,

the ACLU NC delegation came very close

to persuading the Conference to adopt an

affirmative action proposal for the

national ACLU Board of Directors which

would have limited the terms of both at

large and affiliate national ACLU board

members. There are now no limits.

ACLU-NC by-laws limit board

members to six consecutive years of

service in order to promote diversity and

a steady influx of new individuals and

ideas onto the board. The Biennial

proposal, which lost by less than 10 votes,

would have limited national Board

members to no more than 12 years service

in any period of 15 consecutive years.

ACLU-NC Participants

The Biennial conference agenda fea-

tured a number of ACLU-NC delegates

and staff members who had been invited

to make formal presentations.

Former ACLU-NC chair Drucilla

Ramey, now Executive Director of the'

San Francisco Bar Association, spoke in

support of comparable worth.

Staff Counsel Margaret Crosby outlined

the ACLU-NC's legal agenda under the

California Constitution to a meeting of

ACLU attorneys from around the

country. ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate.

Margory Schwartz joined the panel on

lobbying for civil liberties.

As part of pre-Biennial ACLU staff

meetings, Executive Director Ehrlich

helped organize and moderated a panel

on public education for civil liberties.

Former ACLU-NC Board Chair Davis

Riemer spoke to two sessions on affiliate

fundraising. Field Representative Marcia

Gallo outlined how ACLU-NC's annual

Bill of Rights Campaign raised $90,000

last year through chapter and volunteer

efforts.

Associate Director Michael Miller

helped organize a number of pre-Biennial

workshops for affiliate staff and fundrais-

ing volunteers.

Other members of the ACLU-NC

delegation included National Board

Representative Anne Jennings; Develop-

ment Chair Barbara Brenner; board

members Patsy Fulcher, Debbie Lee, and

Milton Estes; Bill of Rights Campaign

Chair Richard Grosboll; and Legal

Committee member Robert Taren.

Staff Counsel Alan Schlosser and

Media Coordinator Jean Hom also

attended the Biennial.

The Biennial delegates did approve

resolutions endorsing comparable worth,

expansion of civil liberties to the private

workplace, ACLU South African dives-

titure, and a resolution stating that the

nuclear arms race poses an inherent threa

to civil liberties. :

On the Playing Field

The northern and southern California

affiliates joined to challenge the national

ACLU staff and New York delegations

to a softball game. But, the "California

Cools" won by default when the "New

York Slicks," led by national ACLU

Executive Director Ira Glasser, lost their

way to the playing field. This could start

a tradition of ugly "grudge matches" noted

ACLU-NC Chair Pemberton.

The 1988 ACLU Biennial Conference

is scheduled for Philadelphia to coincide

with the 200th anniversary of the signing

of the United States Constitution.

Voting

Information

Who is eligible to vote?

The by-laws of the ACLU of

Northern California call for the at-large

Directors of the Board to be elected

by the general membership. The

_ general membership are those members

in good standing who have renewed

their membership within the last twelve

months.

The label affixed to this issue of the

ACLU News indicates the year and

month in the top line when your

membership expires. You are eligible

to vote unless your membership has

expired.

If you are not eligible to vote, you

may choose to renew your membership

at the same time you submit your ballot

and resume your membership in good

standing.

If you share a joint membership,

each individual is entitled to vote

separately-two spaces are provided

on the ballot.

How. are candidates nominated to run

for the Board of Directors?

The ACLU-NC by-laws permit two

methods of nomination. Candidates

may be nominated by the present

Board of Directors after consideration

of the Nominating Committee's recom-

mendations. Candidates may also be

nominated by petition bearing the

signatures of at least fifteen ACLU-NC

members in good standing.

How to vote

Candidates are listed on these pages

in alphabetical order. After marking

your ballot, clip it and enclose the ballot

and your address label from this issue

of the ACLU News in an envelope.

Your address label must be included

in order to insure voter eligibility.

Address the envelope to:

Elections Committee

ACLU of Northern California

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460

San Francisco, California 94103

If you have a joint membership, you

may use both of the columns provided,

and each of the members may vote

separately.

If you wish to insure the confiden-

tiality of your vote, insert your ballot

in a double envelope with the special

mailing label in the outer one. The

envelope will be separated before the

counting of the ballot.

Ballots must be returned to the

ACLU office by noon on August 1,

1985.

- There are ten candidates running to

fill ten vacancies on the Board. You

may vote for up to ten candidates.

For your consideration, the following

statements were submitted by the candi-

dates for election to the Board of

Directors.

ACLU News

June-July 1985

1985 Board of Directors Elections -

Marsha S. Berzon

I have been involved with the

ACLU-NC for many years, as a

member of the Legal Committee and

of various other committees relating to

women's rights, as a volunteer attorney,

and, recently, as an attorney for the

ACLU-NC in the case successfully

challenging the ballot initiative which

would have called for a federal

constitutional convention. In addition,

as a lawyer representing the national

AFL-CIO, I am often involved in civil

liberties issues, both locally and

nationally and have worked with the

ACLU-NC and with the National

ACLU in trying to protect constitu-

tional rights of employees, of women,

of labor unions, and of citizens

generally. As a Board member, I would

like to build on my previous work on

behalf of the ACLU and of civil

liberties, with a particular emphasis on

the rights of women and on workplace

rights.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Richard Grosboll

My involvement with the ACLU-NC

began in 1980 when I served as a legal

intern for a year, after which I was

temporary Development Assistant for

nine months. I have served at various

times on the Pro-Choice Task Force,

the Immigration Working Group, the

Bill of Rights Campaign Committee,

and the Field Committee. I was Chair

of the 1984 Bill of Rights Campaign

and am currently Co-Chair of the Pro-

Choice Task Force.

With the many challenges ahead,

given the anti-civil liberties climate that -

is pervading this state and country, and

which is being led by Governor

Deukmejian and President Reagan, I

am quite excited about joining the

ACLU-NC Board at this time.

I look forward to continuing my

work in development and pro-choice,

and working toward more community

outreach and education about civil

liberties and civil rights.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

(R)

aclu

H. Lee Halterman

I am pleased and honored to have

been nominated for election to the

Board of Directors. I have served on

the Board since 1983, working on the

major gifts campaigns, serving on the

- Legislative Committee, and chairing

the Ad-Hoc Committees on Sanctuary

Policy and on the Independence of the

Judiciary.

I look forward to the opportunity

to continue working with the Board

and membership in meeting the

challenges that will lead us into the next

decade. The ACLU's defense and

expansion of civil rights and liberties

through teaching, organizing, and

litigating were never more urgently

needed. I am particularly interested in

expanding our utilization of the

growing body of international human

rights law as a vehicle for enhancing

domestic civil rights and liberties.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Lisa Honig

I was born and raised in. San

Francisco. I have served on the ACLU-

NC Board of Directors for the past

six years and have served as ACLU-

NC Treasurer for the past three years.

I have worked as a fundraiser for

organizations seeking social change

through the legal system for eight years

and am planning to begin law school

this fall. My involvement in the ACLU

as an organization that will protect her

own and others' civil liberties stems

from the 1960's and continues to this

day.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Steven L. Mayer

I have been on the ACLU-NC Board

since 1980, and am presently one of

four Vice-Chairpersons. I have been on

the ACLU-NC Legal Committee since

1977, and am now its Chairman. In

1983-84, I headed the Board's com-

mittee to develop a policy on jail and

prison construction; the policy we

adopted was subsequently endorsed by

the Board and has served as a model

for national ACLU policy. I have also

been a cooperating attorney in several

ACLU-NC cases.

If re-elected, I plan to continue my

involvement with the ACLU-NC's legal

program, and to do my share of fund-

raising. As for priorities, the ACLU

should do more in the areas of

immigration, the rights of the poor, and

the rights of workers.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Howard Moore, Jr.

Our nation's tradition and system of

civil liberties is at risk. From expected

and unexpected sources, calls to chill

the exercise of fundamental rights

accorded by the Bill of Rights are

heard. From lofty Ivory Towers, censor-

ship of the music performed by a

college band at a football half-time

show is imposed. Others trek the halls

of Congress and pray the Supreme

Court to allow the state to intrude into

religious affairs and control essential

private choices and preferences. Still

others justify aerial bombardment of

urban areas and surveillance of

farmlands. National security is extolled

to permit press censorship, confiscation

of royalties, and to curb the free flow

of ideas across international borders.

At this period in our nation's devel-

opment, service as a Board member

of the ACLU-NC is a duty as well as

a privilege.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Davis Riemer

I have served in the ACLU-NC in

a variety of capacities, having started

as an active member of the Earl Warren

Chapter. Following a term as the

Chapter's Chairperson, I represented

them to the Affiliate Board. Following

that, I was elected at large to the

Affiliate Board. During the years of

my Board membership, I have been

privileged to serve both as Treasurer

and as Chairperson. The great majority

of my time has been spent in the areas

of development and finance, and

organizational matters. I would expect

that to remain the same if I am re-

elected. I am self employed in the

investment and investment advisory

field, in Oakland. I ask for your

support. Thank you.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Alberto Saldamando

It's difficult to state, in 125 words

or less, qualifications to serve on the

ACLU-NC board.

I would hope that they could include

the very personal connection drawn by

a Chicano Peace Corps volunteer

between a black nation's youth lined

up in front of a recruiting depot in

Lesotho, Southern Africa, for work in

the mines of the Republic of South

Africa, and the "hoyos" of rural

America set up to recruit farmworkers.

Or what I've learned: that there is

a difference between repression neces-

sary for a just and equitable society

and "surplus" or unnecessary repres-

sion. The ACLU is one of the very

few organizations which recognizes the

distinction. I am proud and honored

to. be considered for service to it in

this endeavor.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Linda Weiner

Les Schmidt

It is my firm belief that there are

no greater challenges before us than

the challenge to resist the erosion of

our civil liberties. To maintain and

strengthen the ACLU's resistance to

this erosion, the directors of the ACLU

must continue to be a strong voice in

the community. I want to be elected

to the Board of Directors so that I

might contribute to that voice.

In the past ten years, I have been

associated with the ACLU-NC. First

as a Staff member, and more recently

as a member of the Budget-Manage-

ment committee and chair of its Invest-

ment sub-committee. As a CPA, I feel

that I will be able to contribute signifi-

cantly to the money management and

financial planning issues facing the

organization.

Incumbent: No

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Linda Weiner

I have been a member of ACLU for

12 years, having served on both the

San Francisco Chapter Board and the

ACLU-NC Board. I've been a member

of many different committees, both

substantive and administrative, and

presently serve on the Executive

Committee.

I work as a filmmaker in health

education and bring to ACLU a back-

ground in civil rights, the peace move-

ment and women's rights.

The last several years have seen a

frightening repression of many civil

liberties that we've taken for granted.

ACLU is needed now more than ever

to defend these basic rights, in the legis-

lature as well as in the courtroom. If

elected, I will continue to defend these

rights vigorously by helping to broaden

the membership base of support.

Incumbent: Yes

Nominated by: Board of Directors

Ballot

Vote for no more than ten candidates.

Joint members use both columns.

Please read voting instructions before

completing ballot.

Marsha S. Berzon

Richard Grosboll

H. Lee Halterman

Lisa Honig

Steven L. Mayer

Howard Moore, ur.

Davis Riemer

Alberto Salamando

Les Schmidt

a) |) 9 ed

tel ad ted el el el cal a]

ACLU News

June-July 1985

Voices from the

Underground Railroad

Organizer' Notebook

Last January, Immigration and Naturalization Service agents arrested 60 Salvadoran

and Guatamalan refugees who had passed through the Arizona Sanctuary Movement.

Also indicted were 12 sanctuary workers, including 2 Mexican citizens, 2 priests,

a nun and a Protestant minister, on 71 counts of conspiracy to "transport, harbor,

and abet illegal aliens."

To develop the indictments, INS agents and informers infiltrated and monitored

the sanctuary workers' organization and their churches, resulting in over 40,000 pages

of transcripts.

The government's actions raise very serious church-state, free speech, and search

and seizure questions for the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief challenging the

legality of the government's evidence.

A pre-trial hearing on these issues began on May 21 in U.S. District Court in

Phoenix. The trial is scheduled for September 17. -

The Phoenix Sanctuary Committee asked the ACLU-NC for the help of staff

"scribe" and former ACLU News editor Elaine Elinson. Elinson spent ten days in

Phoenix in early May developing press strategies, planting several national stories,

and training Committee workers to conduct their own professional media campaign.

by Elaine Elinson

My journey to Phoenix started with an hour-

and-a-half plane ride reading back issues of

Basta!, a sanctuary movement newsletter, and

a stack of news clippings. Unsure what to

expect, I entered the intense heat-literally and

figuratively-of Phoenix.

Exiting into a strange airport, I cautiously

held up a Basta! photo of Phoenix sanctuary

movement marchers, hoping someone would

figure out who I was. But, slightly paranoid

from all I had just read about churches being

infiltrated, refugees and their supporters being

tailed, and INS and FBI agents taking down

license plate numbers at all sanctuary

movement events, I changed my mind and

tucked the photo surreptitiously under my arm.

No one looked familiar.

As I headed down to the baggage claim,

I was stopped by a very straight-looking man

in business clothes. "Recognize anyone?" he

asked.

With a grin, he pointed out his likeness in

the photo I was carrying. This was Reverend

Gene Lefebvre, pastor of the Sunrise

Presbyterian Church and chair of the Arizona

Sanctuary Defense Fund. A service held at

his church to welcome Salvadoran refugees to

Phoenix had been taped by a government

informer wearing a body bug. The transcript

was now part of 40,000 pages of prosecution

evidence against the sanctuary workers.

Starting from Scratch

The Sanctuary Movement is headquartered

in the backroom of the Central Presbyterian

Church on East Indian School Road near the

center of Phoenix. The church, which has a

largely Native American congregation, is a low

stucco building facing the massive high school

run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

In the church parking lot I noticed a small

Datsun with a bumper sticker "Smuggling is

not just a job-it's an adventure!" I looked

forward to meeting its owner.

The office is a tiny room, shared with

CAMBIO, a Central America information

center, overflowing with news clippings,

pamphlets and other literature on sanctuary,

El Salvador, and the upcoming trial. The two

phones ring constantly: an emergency room

nurse has baby food and formula to donate

to the refugees; a local TV reporter wants to

interview a Salvadoran family; a priest needs

to know what time the Sanctuary Committee

meeting is taking place; a volunteer needs to

know how to say "Do not mix with water"

in Spanish...

Around a card table in the corridor, we hold

an initial meeting to try to sort out a plan

of action for the pre-trial media work. With

Lefebvre are Reverend Jim Oines, pastor of

the Alzona Lutheran Church where Sunday

night Bible classes for refugees were bugged

for several months, robust Reverend Joedd

Miller, pastor of the church in which we are

meeting, Sally Schwartz, an outgoing connois-

seur of the local Phoenix media, Sister Darlene

Nicgorski, a Catholic nun whose work in

Guatemala brought harassment from the

Guatemalan government and whose work with

refugees in Arizona brought her a multiple-

count indictment from her own government

and which could put her in prison for years.

Sister Darlene owned the Datsun. "My

brother found the bumper sticker for me

somewhere," she laughed. I was to learn that

Sister Darlene had many hidden resources,

which stood her well in organizing the detailed

and wide-ranging logistics of helping hundreds

of Central American refugees reach safe havens

from California to New England. :

So. much to learn. My notebook quickly

filled with background information on the

sanctuary movement; who's who in Phoenix,

Tucson, Texas; which lawyers are defending

which defendants; the relevance of the U.N.

Protocol on Refugees, the Nuremburg

Conventions, the Refugee Act of 1980; when

- is the candlelight vigil; when is the fundraiser.

Sister Darlene, who has kept careful records

of the sanctuary activity ever since federal

agents searched her Phoenix apartment and

videotaped everything from her closet to her

passport, handed me a thick file of articles-

mostly hostile-from the local press and some

badly Xeroxed copies of national stories from

the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times

and the National Catholic Reporter.

Hard Stories

The coverage was impressive. The focus of

all the interviews was the refugees themselves:

a Salvadoran woman whose two brothers were

murdered by the death squads two weeks

before she crossed the Sonora Desert to refuge

- in Tucson; a widow who was repeatedly raped

by a death squad after witnessing the

assassination of her husband, a_ peasant

organizer; a teenage boy who shepherded his

3 younger brothers past the Guatemalan Army

after their parents were killed. Through the

prism of the trial, the previously invisible stories

get told. The grisly histories have very human

faces. The stories, that is, of those who survive

the desert crossing. Many have perished from

thirst and exposure.

How do we get these very compelling stories

out further into the national press? I pulled

out my files of national press contacts, religion

writers, Spanish language media. I made a

mental note of different angles to try out with

different reporters and of the background

materials we would need to prepare for the

press packets.

We could order more background informa-

tion on deportation, human rights in El

Salvador and political asylum legislation from

national ACLU lobbyist Wade Henderson. The

ACLU Political Asylum Project also has

valuable materials documenting the fate of

Salvadorans who are deported, including the

names and addresses of 50 who were killed

after their forced return home. The materials

become key components of the press packets.

Address book in hand, I asked, "Where is

the press office?" Everyone smiled.

The Committee

The Phoenix Sanctuary Committee meets

in the church hall at Central Presbyterian on

Tuesday evenings: a former cloistered Carmelite

nun, a retired IBM executive, a priest who

works on an Indian reservation, clergy with

and without clerical collars, a farmworker

organizer, a cashier at a local Chinese

restaurant. Seated on folding chairs in a circle

in front of a simple altar, the Committee

hammers out legal strategies, support work for

the refugees, fundraising events, educational

forums and special events-such as the (c)

candlelight vigil which will mark the opening

of the pre-trial hearings.

The legal defense team includes some of

Arizona's top criminal defense attorneys,

lawyers from the Center for Constitutional

Rights, Morrison and Foerster in San Francisco

and a professor at ASU Law School. One is

a former government prosecutor who opposed

sanctuary until Southside Presbyterian Church

in Tucson, the first sanctuary church in

Arizona, asked him to become involved.

Slowly I learned the "real-life" identities of

this handful of committed sanctuary workers

who have followed both conscience and the

law by providing shelter to refugees when their

government would not.

As we leave the church, the desert air is

cooling slightly. Indian drummers and

musicians are rehearsing in the parking lot.

media contact, improve the coverage in the

Phoenix press, and establish systematic contact

with the national press.

The May pre-trial hearings would be crucial

to the defense. The government had filed a

motion to prevent any testimony or evidence

from the defense concerning international

human rights law, the Refugee Act of 1980,

the conditions of war in Central America from

which the refugees flee, or religious intent; in

other words, to eliminate the defense itself.

In an amicus brief opposing this motion,

the prestigious Phoenix law firm of Lewis and

Roca responded, "In this instance, the

Government's motion is directed at the

proposition that these defendants should not

tell the truth, certainly should not tell the whole

truth, and indeed, are to be required to tell

anything but the truth.

"This is an unappealing position," amicus

added wryly.

The defense had lined up a battery of expert

witnesses in the fields of international law,

religion, and Central America to testify at the

pre-trial hearings. During the week, we learned

that U.S. District Court Judge Earl Carroll

had shortened the hearings from a week to

two days, and that none of these hard-sought

expert witnessees might be able to testify.

(Later, the hearings were extended for several

days in June, but still many of the witnesses

were unable to speak in court.)

We quickly arranged for talk show

appearances, forums, house meetings and

impromptu press conferences so that if the

witnesses could not be heard inside the |

courtroom they would be heard outside. The

attempt to silence this movement will be fought

wherever we can find a forum.

ree Wen Y

FROM FENCES TO FRIENDSHIP

ARIZONA SANCTUARY DEFENSE FUND

ea! wm

eeemeanen ita tte eae

Transport

I buzzed around Phoenix in a huge white

60's vintage AMC sedan, courtesy of indictee

Wendy LeWin. I admired her Spanish and she -

told me that her first job out of college was

translating for the "Marielitos," the Cubans

who opposed the government and left on the

Mariel boatlift. It was that experience, said

LeWin, that opened her eyes to the realities

of Central America and the Caribbean, and

where she began to question the legitimacy of

U.S. government policy in the region.

After crisscrossing Phoenix from the

Franciscan retreat, to the ACLU office to a

reception for Dr. Charlie Clements who has

come to help raise money for the Sanctuary

Defense Fund, I notice the gas tank is on

empty. I watch in awe as Wendy's boat guzzles

up $20. This car, and others like it, I'm sure,

have helped refugees travel long distances from

the barbed wire border to safe havens in

Arizona, Kansas, Pennsylvania and beyond.

No Defense?

In church halls, living rooms and fast food

restaurants we began to forge the goals for

the media work. We set three priorities: -

- organize a central press office and train a local

Rule 88

Another attempt to silence the defense

stemmed from the Arizona federal court's

"Rule 88" which was served to the defendants

(and their attorneys) with the indictment. It

basically says that no attorney in a criminal

case before the court can speak about details

of the case "to anyone whom they believe

would further its dissemination," that is, the

media.

We went round and round on this one: how'

can we explain the legal aspects of the case,

in particular to court reporters, if the defense

attorneys are muzzled.

The problem was immediate. We were

planning a press conference with two of the

defense team attorneys when they returned

from a trip to El Salvador and Guatemala.

We wanted to use the press conference not

only for them to speak about the conditions

they witnessed there, but also to remind: the

press about the upcoming pre-trial hearings.

We pushed ahead with the press conference,

and it was covered widely in the Phoenix

media. Other attorneys close to the case but

not defending individual indictees stepped

forward to answer some of the legal questions.

Dealing with the Phoenix media is not easy.

ACLU News

June-July 1985

Voices Continued from page 6

To say that they are unsympathetic to the

sanctuary movement is an understatement.

And yet, the local press is the key to educating

potential jurors.

The major daily is the Arizona Republic,

which also publishes the afternoon Phoenix

Gazette. An editorial in the Republic just after

the indictments were handed down in January

entitled "Tiresome Rhetoric" lashed out at the

sanctuary movement: "The histrionics and

pompous moralizations [of the sanctuary

movement] have already begun. The rhetoric

will surely warm as the case progresses, and

the sanctuary moralists must be rejoicing over

the publicity they are receiving.

"The rest of us will just have to put up with

the overblown, theological verbiage, the

histrionic posturing, the oversimplified

moralisms and the political naivete."

Five months later, they had not altered their

stance. In a May column entitled "Democracy

is the Only True Sanctuary for Salvadorans,"

editorial writer Richard Lessner opined, "What

the sanctuary supporters do not want to face

is the fact that the situation in El Salvador

today is steadily improving..."

The Refugees

A few days before the May editorial

appeared, a family of Salvadoran refugees

spoke at a day long forum on sanctuary

sponsored by the Franciscans. Clad in the crisp

white cotton of the Salvadoran countryside,

they nervously mounted the stage of the huge

vaulted auditorium of Xavier High School and

faced an audience of 500 Catholic Phoenicians,

curious about the sanctuary movement.

Wearing a red bandana to mask her identity

(one of the rules of the sanctuary movement

to protect their families back home) and

speaking through an interpreter, 17-year old

Erminda stepped to the microphone. "The

government forces came to my house and

raped my 22-year-old sister. They dragged my

18-year-old brother out of the house and then

they raped me. I was 13 years old.

"A few days later we found my brother's

body. He had been tortured and killed. We

decided we had to leave."

Her husband Ernesto held their 18-month-

old baby. "I was an organizer for the Christian

base communities in San Salvador-and for

that I was called a terrorist. 1 was imprisoned

for 4 months and tortured. After my release,

the death squads came twice to my house to

look for me. I had to flee to Mexico."

No reporters from the Republic covered the

event.

60. Minutes-Just in Time

Though we had begun collecting resources

for the newly anointed Phoenix Sanctuary

Committee Press Office-ordering phones and

newspapers, commandeering a desk and an

operable electric typewriter-we still decided

to hold our informal gathering with local

reporters around the card table in the corridor.

At least we would be out of earshot of the

constantly ringing telephone.

Our purpose was to confer with the half

dozen or so local reporters who had been

YS .

covering the sanctuary movement for some

time to find out from them what they needed

to do their stories better. The criteria that Sally

(who had now been formally designated the

local press contact) and I had set as the basis

for being invited were based on the reporters'

familiarity with the case, not whether they had

given sympathetic coverage. Therefore, we

found ourselves facing a mixed bag of friendly

and unfriendly local writers, including a

particularly knowledgable one from the

Republic.

The discussion-which ranged from iden-

tifying exactly who were the indictees to how

to organize interviews with non-English

speaking refugees on camera-was fruitful. I

kept stressing during the meeting that this was

a case of national importance, and that the

national media was going to take a great deal

of interest in this story happening in their own

backyard. This assertion was greeted with some

skepticism.

In the middle of the meeting, I was

summoned to the phone. Eager not to be

interrupted, I hedged. "Who is it?" I yelled.

"Joel Bernstein from 60 Minutes," my co-

worker called.

Bernstein was calling to let us know that

a segment on sanctuary that was "in the can"

was going to be aired prior to the pre-trial

hearings as we had urged. A national TV piece

addressing many of the questions that may

not get heard in the courtroom was extremely

important to us.

The local reporters were suitably impressed.

"World News"

The issue of government tactics-infiltration,

bugging, surveillance, a whole host of 4th

Amendment violations-seemed to be one of

the most shocking aspects of the case. If I was

stunned at what I had learned in Phoenix,

surely others would be, too. On the advice

of national ACLU Public Information

Director Trudi Schutz, I called a few key

contacts at the national TV networks. One of

them, Susan Aasen at ABC World News

Tonight was equally shocked and decided to

pursue the story.

Hoping that the ABC report would also air

prior to the hearings, we provided Susan with

lots of materials, contacts and leads. She and

reporter Karen Burne headed out to Phoenix

and in a few days we heard Peter Jennings

inviting viewers to tune in on Monday, May

27 for a "special look" at the sanctuary

movement.

The four-minute piece was long for the half-

hour national news show and touched several

crucial points: the search of Sister Darlene's

apartment, the taping of the Bible classes and

the church services, and an interview with INS

Director Alan Nelson interspersed with

comments from Reverend Gerald Roseberry

of Camelback Presbyterian Church.

"Everyone knows that in Nazi Germany

there were Gestapo agents sitting out in the

congregations of German churches," said

Roseberry. "We don't know when we come

to our churches that there might be some

government spy there with a tape recorder."

The INS Commissioner did not like the

comparison.

Magtelee

Tht GpRLTE Thue ER

Going to Count

As the pre-trial approached, meetings

became more frequent. The day before I left,

we held a training and brainstorming session

for all those who might be called on to talk

to the press. ~

"How do we make it clear that we are not

breaking the law-that, in fact, we are

upholding refugee and humanitarian laws that

our government is bound by, but does not

enforce?"

"Make sure we tell the press that the U.S.

is the only signer of the U.N. Protocol on

Refugees that actually deports people to El

Salvador," said an indictee from Tucson. "And

that less than 3% of Salvadorans and fewer

than 1% of Guatemalans receive political

asylum here-as opposed to 30% from all other

countries."

"Reporters always ask how do we know that

we're not letting `terrorists'in when we provide

transportation or shelter to refugees."

"How do we make sure that the press also

interviews refugees? And keep from being

made into media `personalities?"

"We have to show that we are acting in

; accordance with U.S. law," said Reverend

Roseberry, "and our religious principles give

us faith to act."

"If they won't listen to the refugees' stories,

we have to tell them ourselves," said Sister

Darlene, who, in offering home, food, clothes,

and moral support to hundreds from El

Salvador and Guatemala knew-and shared-

many sad stories."

"If we keep saying `illegitimate', `illegitimate,'

`illegitimate' enough times when we talk about

Reagan's policies, pretty soon people will think

`Bastard!'," thundered Reverend Miller, who

was now chair of the Media Committee.

Determination

We planned a press conference for the eve

of the pre-trial hearings to announce that

Alzona Luthern Church, where Bible classes

for refugees had been taped by government

informers, was going to become the first church

in Phoenix to offer public sanctuary to

refugees.

"The government doesn't care if they put

any of us in jail," said Alzona's pastor Jim

Oines, "as long as they can succeed in making

us afraid."

The next morning as the indictees, their

attorneys and supporters marched up the

courthouse steps, a forest of cameras and mikes

caught their determined smiles and statements.

COMPUTER

NEEDED

The ACLU of Northern California

| needs the following equipment for use

by the legal, field, public information,

| and development departments:

} centNorthStar "Advantage" microcom-

| puters, a hard disk, printers, and

modems;

_e Heavy duty paper cutter (up to 100

sheets):

:cent Legal-sized metal file drawers;

e Paper folding machine.

Tax deductions available-call

Michael Miller, 415-621-2493.

Press Monitor Needed

The ACLU-NC Public Information

Department needs your help to keep

track of what the press is saying about

civil liberties. If you can volunteer one

day a week at the ACLU-NC office

to scan local and national newspapers

and clip stories on ACLU issues, please

call Jean Hom at the ACLU-NC office:

more Briefs

Parents `Io Keep

Disabled Kids -

As the result of a settlement between

Legal Services for Children, the ACLU,

and the San Francisco Unified School

District, parents of severely disabled

children need no longer give up custody

of their children to provide for their

education.

After almost three years of negotiation,

the San Francisco Unified School District

agreed in May to provide 24-hour-a-day

residential care for children who need it

without removing the children from their

parents' custody.

In December 1980, the national ACLU

Children's Rights Project and the ACLU-

NC joined the San Francisco based Legal

Services for Children in bringing a class

action suit against the San Francisco

School District and the State Department

of Social Services on behalf of "Christoper

T." and all other severely disabled children

and their parents. The suit charged that

school and social service policies denied

children in their jurisdiction the right to

free, appropriate education as provided

in the federal Education for All Handi-

capped Children Act of 1975.

The settlement will affect 200-300

children in San Francisco and is also

expected to impact school districts around

the state.

VOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAID

PRESIANT.A6 LONG AS YOU ARE POOR.

N

ATENCION

_ NUEVA EDICION

Reproductive Rights brochure

available in Spanish!

The first Spanish edition of the popular

ACLU-NC brochure on reproductive rights

of women in the state of California has

just been published.

Written in an easy to use question-and-

answer format, the brochure provides

straightforward answers to questions like:

Do | need my husband's/parents' consent

to get an abortion or birth control? Will

Medi-Cal pay for contraception or

abortion? Can a doctor or hospital refuse

my request to have an abortion? And, if

| decide to have a baby, will Medi-Cal

cover the medical expenses?

A useful tool for. schools, clinics, and

women's centers, ten thousand copies of

the English language version (first pub-

lished in 1982 and revised in 1984) have

already been distributed by the ACLU-NC.

Individual copies are free of charge;

bulk orders cost $10 per 100

brochures. To order, write: Como Me

Decido?, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St.,

San Francisco, CA 94103. (Bulk orders

must be prepaid. Checks or money

orders should be made out to ACLU-

NC.) Copies of the English language

brochure How Do | Make My Choice?

ery

`Yeah, | used to be into social work - you know, taking care of your tired, your poor, your huddled

are available at the same rate.

masses, but now ... now I'm in the border patrol!'

621-2493.

ACLU News

June-July 1985

Meet the people who are

making a difference!

1985 ACLU of Northern California

Conference

Friday, August 23 - Sunday, August 25

University of California, Santa Cruz

Workshops... Panels... Debates featuring

cent Limits on Dissent

Dennis Brutus, exiled South African poet and activist _

0x00B0 The Sanctuary Movement

Bishop Gustav Schultz, East Bay Sanctuary Movement

Sister Darlene Nicgorski, Phoenix sanctuary activist and indictee

0x00B0 Pornography: A Violation of Women's Civil Rights?

Nan Hunter, Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force;

ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

Catherine Mac Kinnon, professor of law; creator of

Minneapolis-style anti-pornography ordinances

cent Preserving an Independent Court

The Hon. Cruz Reynoso, Associate Justice, California

Supreme Court

Sessions on International Law and Civil Liberties . . . FBI Harassment of Anti-

Intervention Activists .. . Taking Back the Initiative on Reproductive

Rights . . . Draft Opposition and Counter-Recruitment Strategies .. . Abuse of

Power: the INS and Undocumented Workers . . . Justice and Ideology: Judges

Under Attack . . . "Resorts for Sex Perverts": a history of government censorship of

gay/lesbian bars and bookstores

Entertainment... Dancing... Films

The University of California, Santa Cruz, is a wheelchair accessible facility.

For additional information about the 1985 ACLU-NC Conference, contact Marcia Gallo

at ACLU-NC, 415/621-2494. Sponsored by the ACLU-NC Field Committee.

B.A.R.K.-BOARD MEETING: (Usually

fourth Thursday of each month.) Volunteers

are needed to staff hotline. Watch for more

information on Berkeley City Politics

Forum. Contact Joe Dorst, 415/654-4163.

~ EARL WARREN-BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wednesday each month.) Contact

Larry Polansky, 415/530-4553.

FRESNO-BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Wednesday each month.) Contact:

Sam Gitchel, 209/486-2411 (days), 209/

442-0941 (eves).

GAY RIGHTS-BOARD MEETING:

(First Tuesday each month.) Tuesday,

August 6, 7:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission

Street, #460, S.F Watch for announcement

of Annual Meeting in September. Contact:

Doug Warner, 415/621-2493.

MARIN COUNTY-BOARD MEET-

ING: (Third Monday each month.)

Monday, July 15 at 7:30 p.m. at Citicorp

Bank. Election of Officers. No meeting in

August. Monday, September 16, at 7:30

p.m. New Contact: Milton Estes 415/

383-6622 or 415/383-8405 (eves).

MID-PENINSULA-BOARD MEET-

ING: (Usually last Wednesday of each

month.) No meetings in July or August.

Contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

MONTEREY-BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Tuesday each month.) Tuesday,

July 23, 7:30 p.m. Contact: Richard Criley,

408/624-7562. Saturday, July 20 Workshop.

Subject: "Reagan's War on the Right to

Disagree." Co-sponsored by the Right to

Dissent Subcommittee of ACLU-NC,

Monterey Chapter, Salinas Valley Demo

Club, and Latin American Solidarity Com-

mittee. At Hebberon Heights Neighbor-

hood Center, 683 Freemont in Salinas. 9:00

a.m.-noon.

MT. DIABLO-BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Wednesday of every month.)

Annual Meeting on Saturday, August 18th,

5:00 p.m. Potluck. Call Hot Line for details.

415/939-ACLU.

NORTH PENINSULA-BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Monday of every month.)

Sears Bank, San Mateo, 8:00 p.m. Contact

Sid Schieber, 415/345-8603. Had very suc-

cessful ACLU Brunch on May 19th.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY-BOARD

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday

each month.) Contact Mary Gill, 916/

457-4088.

SAN FRANCISCO-BOARD MEET-

ING: (Usually fourth Tuesday each month.)

Contact Chandler Visher, 415/391-0222.

ee

See special ad in this issue for special event.

SANTA CLARA-BOARD MEETING:

_(First Tuesday of each month.) Tuesday,

July 2, Pre-board meeting at 5:45 p.m.

Dinner at the "famous" Pacific Fish

Company located on San Pedro Square,

San Jose. The board meeting will follow

at 7:00 p.m. at usual location. Tuesday,

August 6, at 7:00 p.m.-usual location.

Contact Steve Alpers, 415/792-5110.

SANTA CRUZ-BOARD MEETING:

(Usually second Wednesday each month.)

Wednesday, July 10 and Wednesday,

August 14 at 7:30 p.m. at the Louden

Nelson Community Center, Santa Cruz.

Contact: Bob Taren, 408/429-9880.

SONOMA-BOARD MEETING: Con-

tact Andrea Learned, 707/544-6911.

STOCKTON-BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wednesday each month.) Contact

Bart Harloe, 209/946-2431 (days).

YOLO COUNTY-BOARD MEETING:

Contact Dan Abramson, 916/758-2762 or

916/446-7701.

FIELD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wednes-

day, July 10, at 6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663

Mission Street, 4th Floor, S.E Guest

Speakers: Mary Luke, Executive Director

of SF-Alameda Planned Parenthood and

Daphne Macklin, ACLU-NC Legislative

Advocate in Sacramento. Join us for discus-

sion on Effective Responses to the anti-

abortion film "The Silent Scream," Ways

of Discussing Reproductive Rights with

Young People, and The New Anti-choice/

Anti-funding Initiative sponsored by the

American Life Lobby for the 1986 Ballot.

All Pro-Choice and supporters and friends

welcome. Contact: Marcia Gallo or

"Deborah Shibley at 415/621-2493 for infor-

mation and for August and September

meetings.

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-

TEE: Wednesday, July 17, 6:00 p.m.,

ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor, S.F

Guest speaker on Grand Jury Abuse.

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2494.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

(Usually second Tuesday of each month.)

Contact Judy Newman for Palo Alto loca-

tion: 415/567-1527.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Thursday, July 11 at 6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663

Mission Street, 4th Floor, S.F Special

session on the Sanctuary Movement and

the Moakley-DeConcini bill. Contact

Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2494.

CO ee ee |

1985 ACLU-NC Conference Regist ation Form

Name(s)

Address

Telephone: Day Evening

- I/We enclose $ for

Cost: (A) Weekend with lodging $75.00 per person

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Two nights lodging, single or double occupancy;* six meals; all conference sessions and mate-

rials; use of grounds and recreational facilities

(B) Weekend without lodging $50.00 per person

Six meals; all conference sessions and materials, use of grounds and recreational facilities

(C) One day only $25.00 per person

1-3 meals (depending on day); conference sessions and materials for one day; use of roe

and recreational facilities for one day

(D) Young people $50.00 per person (17 and under)

$25.00 per person (2 and under)

Two nights lodging; six meals; childcare throughout conference

except at mealtimes and overnight

I/We would like to arrange for:

Childcare (number and ages of children: )

Vegetarian meals -

Other

Please assign me/us a

single room _ double room

_______ wheelchair accessible room/bathroom

"Accommodations are in single- and double-room dormitories. Bathroom facilities are shared.

DEADLINE FOR ADVANCE REGISTRATION:

FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1985

Please make all checks or money orders payable to: ACLU-NC. Mail with registration

form to Marcia Gallo, Annual Conference, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, #460, San

Francisco, CA 94103.

Your Civil Liberties .

Ignore them

and they'll

go away!

Jom the ACLU

Joint $30

( ) Individual $20 EE)

and an additional contribution of s$----

( ) This is a gift membership from

Name

Zip