vol. 55, no. 1
Primary tabs
aclu news
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
PERMIT NO. 4424
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Volume LV
January/February 1991
No.1 _
Civil Liberties in Times of War
By Dorothy M. Ehrlich
uring times of tension and con-
D flict, governments are always
tempted to short-circuit citizens'
`rights under the guise of protecting
national security. As the ACLU NEWS
goes to press, war, and threats to civil lib-
erties grow more serious every day. In
response to this crisis, the ACLU of
Northern California, working in concert
with its national office and affiliates
,throughout the nation, is forming a
national network to monitor and to chal-
lenge violations of civil liberties.
The ACLU has condemned the FBI's
new practice of investigating and interro-
gating Arab-Americans solely on the basis
of their national ancestry. Insisting that
Arab-Americans not become the 1990s
equivalent of Japanese-Americans during
World War II, the ACLU has joined with a
coalition of Bay Area organizations to
protest the FBI's program as discrimina-
tory and illegal.
Surveillance Of Arab-Americans
This particular danger was highlighted
ACLU War Emergency Desk
See Page 2
this time of national cri-
sis. Specifically, this coa-
lition of groups and
individuals called upon
the FBI to put an immedi-
ate end to unwarranted
investigations of Arab-
Americans.
Unfortunately, the
FBI's role in singling out
Arab-Americans for
harassment may also be
_ helping to fuel a signifi-
cant increase in_ hate
crimes against people of
middle-eastern ancestry
throughout the nation.
The Right To Dissent
As history has shown
us, the vigilant protection
of First Amendment
rights becomes essential
during times of interna-
tional conflict. As anti-
war protests intensify, the
ACLU will work to
Ann Rushing ensure that the First
at press conferences on January 10th and
January 13th at which the ACLU-NC
joined Arab-Americans, church leaders,
and representatives from the San
Supreme Court
Reverses Prop. 115
Provision
key section of Proposition 115,
A the "Crime Victims Justice
Reform Act," constitutes "such a
far-reaching change in our governmental
structure as to amount to a qualitative con-
stitutional revision, an undertaking beyond
the reach of the initiative process," the
California Supreme Court unanimously
ruled on December 26. (Raven v.
Deukmejian.)
The Court's decision strikes down the
controversial section of the initiative that
prohibited California courts from inter-
preting numerous state constitutional
rights more broadly than parallel federal
rights in criminal proceedings.
Proposition 115, enacted at the June
primary, made numerous changes to
California laws and state constitutional
provisions affecting criminal procedure.
ACLU and other opponents of Proposition
115 voiced fears that the independent state
grounds limitation of the initiative might
eliminate such fundamental state rights as
the confidentiality of medical records, the
right to choose abortion, access to shop- .
ping centers for free speech activity and
the protection of worship services from
government surveillance.
Shortly after passage of Proposition
115, three Bay Area lawyers, represented
by Stephen Bomse and David Goodwin of
Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, chal-
lenged the measure in the Court of
Appeal. They argued that Proposition 115
was improperly enacted, because it accom-
plished a constitutional revision, which
must follow a more formal and delibera-
tive process than electoral vote on an ini-
tiative, and because it embraced multiple
unrelated topics in violation of a state con-
stitutional requirement that an initiative
address a single subject. :
The California Supreme Court trans-
ferred the petition to resolve its validity
' quickly. ACLU-NC, filed a friend of the
court brief in support of the petition assert-
ing that Proposition 115 accomplished a
constitutional revision, and violated the
single subject clause of the state constitu-
tion. The brief also argued that even if the
measure were valid, the court should inter-
pret it narrowly, so as to fulfill the repre-
sentations of those who wrote the
measure.
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice
Malcolm Lucas, the Court ruled that
Proposition 115 satisfied the single subject
requirement, but that the section of the
measure limiting independent state consti-
tutional interpretation made such far-
reaching changes to the state Constitution
as to accomplish a revision. Justice
Stanley Mosk dissented from the single
subject holding.
In concluding that the state constitu-
tional restriction of Proposition 115 consti-
tuted a revision, requiring action by the
legislature or a constitutional convention
prior to a vote of the people, the court
Continued on page 2
Francisco Human Rights Commission, the
Japanese-American Citizens League, and
many other groups in publicly agreeing to
work together to protect civil liberties at
Amendment right to dis-
sent be respected, and that those who
choose to challenge government policies
and practices not be treated as disloyal.
Continued on page 6
aclu news
jan-feb 1991
-ACLU-NC Defends Gay Sailor's Rights
ontinuing its challenges to the
6 military's anti-gay policies, the
ACLU-NC is assisting a gay man
who was forced to resign from the U.S.
Navy and is now being asked to repay
$22,000, half the cost of his training at
Annapolis.
Orlando Gotay, a lieutenant and 1987
graduate of the Naval Academy, was
aboard the battleship Belknap in the
Mediterranean in June, 1989 when he was
told that officers were investigating him
because he was gay. Although the investi-
gation found no evidence that Gotay was
gay, his commanding officer issued a letter
of warning after investigators charged him
with fraternizing with enlisted men.
"The charges were dismissed. I thought
everything was fine until I got a letter from
the: commander of naval personnel
demanding that I resign or face an officer's
separation board," said Gotay. "That's an
administrative procedure where I had the
burden of proof to show why I should
remain in the Navy."
Under this pressure, Gotay did resign
and received an honorable discharge in
March 1990. A week later he received a
letter from the military demanding that he
repay $22,949 of his education costs.
"By pressuring Gotay to resign, the
Navy deprived itself of the services of a
Orlando Gotay then...
to injury."
"T was shocked," Gotay said,
"They discriminate against you and
then they want you to pay for it."
In a letter to
Secretary of the
Navy H. Lawrence
Garrett III, Coles
stated that the Navy
was mistaken in its
belief that Gotay
resigned voluntarily.
"Gotay resigned at
the insistence of the
Department of the
Navy, which made it
relatively clear that it
wanted him to resign
because it suspected
that he was gay,"
Coles wrote.
Gotay has also
ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1989.batch ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1990.batch ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1991.batch ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log received
capable officer," said ACLU-NC staff
attorney Matthew Coles. "The Navy
should not make him pay for an education
it squandered by getting rid of him."
Gotay, a 26-year old native of Puerto
Rico who lives in San Francisco, said the
Navy's request for payment added "insult
Congressional sup-
port from Barbara
Boxer, Barney Frank, Nancy
Pelosi and Gerry Studds,
who have written to the
Navy demanding that they
drop their collection efforts.
Gotay holds a degree in
political science from the | and now
Naval Academy and has served as a
Spanish and Italian language interpreter for
the admiral of the Sixth Fleet.
Ann Rushing
S.F. Homeless Regulations
Reconsidered
he San Francisco - Police
: Commission has ordered the crea-
tion of a new policy limiting the
Police Department's use of an ancient
anti-vagrancy statute against the city's
homeless people.
At issue is the police department's
enforcement of an 1872 law which prohib-
its people from "lodging in any building,
structure, vehicle, or place, whether public
or private, without the permission of the
owner."
The ACLU-NC joined the San
Francisco Human Rights Commission,
HomeBase, the Coalition on
Homelessness and the National Center on -
Institutions and Alternatives in asking the
Police Commission to define under what
circumstances a person could be consid-
ered to be illegally "lodging."
"The law was never intended for peo-
ple on the sidewalk," ACLU-NC staff
attorney John Crew told the San Francisco
Examiner. It has become, for the home-
less, a question of "use a blanket, go to
jail," according to Don Hesse a staff
worker for San Francisco's Human Rights
Commission.
Crew noted that, despite numerous
arrests under the 19th century statute this
year, there have been no convictions. "It is
misused to clear people from the streets,
and is a violation of homeless peoples'
rights," says Crew.
Police officials agreed that the new
policy should prohibit use of the law to
Monterey Nativity
Scene Removed
onterey city officials must
remove or alter the display of a
large nativity scene outside city
buildings, ordered United States District
Judge William Ingram on December 26.
The order came in an ACLU-NC case.
(Ringel v. City of Monterey.)
Over the protests of ACLU-NC's
Monterey Chapter, city officials voted in
early December to allow a local civic
organization to erect the Nativity Scene on
the lawn area outside Monterey's munici-
pal buildings. One of those historic build-
ings, Colton Hall, was the location of the
signing of the California Constitution.
The ACLU filed suit on behalf of
Victor Ringel, a 13-year-old Jewish boy,
Loretta Fisher, a Unitarian, the Rev. J.
Kevin Philips, an Episcopalian priest, and
the Rev. Margaret Keip and the Rev. Fred
Keip, two Unitarian ministers. The case
was handled by ACLU-NC cooperating
attorney Ethan Schulman of Howard,
Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and
Falk, ACLU-NC Monterey Chapter Legal
Committee Chair Michelle Welsh, and
ACLU-NC staff counsel Margaret Crosby.
The suit argued that the isolated dis-
play of a creche - depicting the central
drama of the Christian faith, the birth of
Christ - communicated a message of
governmental endorsement for Christian
doctrine in violation of the state and fed-
eral Constitutions. Monterey residents tes-
tified that the creche display was a
divisive presence that made people in
Monterey feel like outsiders in the com-
munity during the holiday season.
In compliance with the court order, the
nativity scene was removed. The case will
continue in United States District Court.
The ACLU goal is to obtain a permanent
injunction against future display of a soli-
tary religious symbol outside the seat of
government.
deny homeless people access to public
parks and places or against people merely
in possession of blankets or bedrolls.
However, discussions continue about the
remaining policy provisions.
Proposition 115 ...
Continued from page 1
wrote that the measure "would substan-
tially alter the substance and integrity of
the Constitution as a document of indepen-
dent force and effect." The Court noted
that historically, state constitutions pro-
vided the only protection for citizens' fun-
damental rights, and that the California
Constitution has accorded Californians -
substantial protection beyond those con-
tained in the federal Constitution.
"The decision protects fundamental
civil liberties in California," stated ACLU
attomey Margaret Crosby, who authored
the ACLU's brief. "Speaking with one
voice, the Court forcefully established that
certain enduring values may not be jetti-
soned in haste by a vote on an initiative
measure."
aclu news
8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July, August-
September and October/November.
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson
Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Elaine Elinson, Editor (on leave)
Larry Bensky, Acting Editor
Marcia Gallo, Field Page
ZesTop Publishing, Design and Production
1663 Mission St., 4th Floor
San Francisco, California 94103
(415) 621-2488
Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to theaclu news and 50
cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
aclu news
jan-feb 1991 3
New Law Protects Vietnamese
_ Fishermen's Rights
Congress, new legislation was passed
to allow fishermen who are not U.S.
citizens to legally own and pilot commer-
cial vessels off the California coast. The
measure, which was authored by
Congressman Norman Mineta (D-San
Jose) and lobbied for by the ACLU, was
initiated as a result of a lawsuit filed in
1989 on behalf-of Vietnamese fishermen
in California.
Under the bill, HR 4009, Vietnamese
fishermen who are permanent residents
but have not yet become citizens, are
allowed to own and pilot fishing boats off
the coast of California. The law will be in
effect for ten years.
"This is one of my happiest days," said
Chieu Pham, president of the Vietnamese
Fishermen Association of America, when
the measure was passed on a unanimous
I n the waning hours of the 101st
"The outright discrimination advanced
no national interest and only succeeded
in economically and socially displacing
hard-working, tax-paying members of
the community."
voice vote. "For me, it's like a dream
come true. Fishing is the only thing we
know. We want to be productive citizens
and now we have a chance to do it."
The legislation resolves the contro-
versy centering around Coast Guard
enforcement of a 200-year old law, the
Jones Act, which prohibits non-citizens
from owning and piloting large commer-
~ Redwood Summer
Update
n August 31, 1990, United States
District Judge Stanley Weigel
issued a Temporary Restraining
_Order allowing Redwood Summer protes-
tors to march through the City of Fortuna.
The Fortuna march was the culmina-
tion of a summer long series of environ-
mental protests. The march was threatened
when the City of Fortuna refused to give
Redwood Summer a permit, claiming that
the protestors had applied too late and had
failed to provide proof of liability insu-
rance.
Redwood Summer and Jim Squatter,
one of its organizers, filed suit in federal
court claiming that the city's refusal to
issue a permit violated their First
Amendment rights.
ACLU-NC staff attorneys Ed Chen
and Matt Coles claimed that the city's
requirement that permits be applied for 20
days before an event constituted an undue
burden on freedom of speech. They also
argued that the First Amendment demands
that insurance requirements be waived if
an organization is either too poor or too
controversial to get insurance.
After hearing the attorneys for both
sides, Judge Weigel indicated that he
thought Redwood Summer had a right to
march despite the insurance requirement
and its failure to apply 20 days in advance.
He asked the parties to confer and try to
agree on terms for the march.
When the city again refused to grant a
~ permit on any terms, Judge Weigel issued
the Temporary Restraining Order, allow-
ing the march to go forward. The march
took place without incident.
In January, the City amended its ordi-
nance to change the time requirement
from 20 days to five. It also changed the
law to say that the insurance requirement
will be waived for those who can not pay
or who are otherwise unable to get insu-
rance. The case is likely to be settled once
the amendments take effect.
Head Shaving In Redwood Country
Following last summer's extensive
Redwood Summer protests in Northern
California, the ACLU-NC took action
together with cooperating attorneys Robert
Fries and Andrew Berman of Steinhardt
and Falconer and Mark Harris on behalf of
four Redwood Summer protestors. They
had had their heads shaven by the
Humboldt County Sheriff's Department
while they were in custody on trespass
_ charges. Redwood Summer, the coalition
which organized the protests against
cutting of old growth timber, also joined
as a plaintiff.
The Sheriff contends the plaintiffs'
heads were shaven because their long hair
was infested with lice which could not
otherwise be removed. In fact, the individ-
uals were never adequately examined for
lice, and the evidence suggests their heads
were shaven to punish them for their polit-
ical protests.
On December 4, 1990, the U.S.
District Court issued an injunction prohib-
iting the Sheriff from shaving the heads of
pre-trial detainees unless officials strictly
complied with specified medical proce-
dures. In particular, the order requires that
the detainee first be closely examined by a
medical professional; if lice is found,
medicated shampoo procedure is to be
used. Only if this treatment is proven inef-
fective, may haircutting be ordered. The
defendants have since stipulated that only
a physician can actually order head shav-
ing.
Barring an out of court settlement, the
case will proceed to trial on the issues of
damages for the injured plaintiffs and per-
manent injunction.
cial vessels. The Coast Guard only en-
forced the 1789 law against Vietnamese
fishermen. During 1989 many vessels
were stopped at sea and their crews were
prohibited from fishing.
The Association and several individual
fishermen sued the Coast Guard charging
that the statute is unconstitutional because
it violated the fishermen's right to equal
protection under the Fifth Amendment of
the Constitution. The suit, Vietnamese
Fishermen Association of America v. U.S.
Coast Guard, was filed in September,
1989 by ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed
Chen, Asian Law Caucus attorney Dennis
Hayashi, Alan Sparer and Carl
Blumenstein of Howard, Rice,
Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and Falk,
and Michael G. Lee of Minami, Lew,
Tamaki and Lee.
"We sued because this antique law
was being used to deprive these fishermen
not only of their civil rights, but of their
livelihood, for no rational reason," said
Chen. ;
Outright Discrimination
Blumenstein added, "The outright dis-
crimination advanced no national interest
and only succeeded in economically and
socially displacing hard working, tax-
paying members of the community."
Hayashi noted that this was the first
time that Vietnamese-Americans had gone
to Washington, D.C. to lobby for a domes-
tic issue. "This is historic legislation for
the Vietnamese community," he said,
"because it is the first time they have
politically been able to empower them-
selves through the legislative process."
Wade Henderson, Associate Director
of the ACLU's Washington Office agreed.
"The participation of Chieu Pham and
other members of the Association in lob-
bying for this bill really had a dramatic
effect on members of Congress," he said.
Chen said that when President Bush
signed the bill into law on November 16,
the lawsuit, which reached the U.S. Court
of Appeals in July of this year, was with-
drawn.
`Congressman Mineta announced the
victory at press conferences in San Jose
and on Fisherman's Wharf in San
Francisco.
"The issue was right, their cause was
right and there was recognition by
Congress of the injustice and inequity
they were facing," he said.
~ Berkeley Rejects
Loitering Ban
he Berkeley City Council, acting
T on the advice of the city's Police
Review Commission, has rejected
a proposed ordinance which would have
banned "loitering" in public and private
facilities.
ACLU-NC staff attomey John Crew
strongly opposed the ban as "clearly
unconstitutional." Police, Crew says,
could use the law to violate civil rights of
anyone they suspected of being in the
wrong place at the wrong time.
"A police officer is not qualified to
make an immediate judgment as to who is
loitering and who isn't," Crew continues.
"Law enforcement will have no reasonable
grounds to distinguish between . people
waiting for their laundry to get done, and
people waiting around to sell drugs."
A 1983 United States Supreme Court
ruling held that a California anti-loitering
statute was unconstitutional because it was
too vague, and likely to be used in a dis-
criminatory manner.
But a 1988 California Supreme Court
decision upheld a state law which bans loi-
tering around public toilets with intent to
commit illegal acts.
"The ACLU recognizes that there is a
devastating drug problem in the Bay
Area," Crew told the San Francisco
Chronicle. "But creating laws that are
going to invite arbitrary enforcement and
strain relations between police and the
community isn't going to solve the
problem."
7
in the past three years alone,
and tens of thousands have been
beaten, injured and imprisoned.
For the past 23 vears, our tax dollars
have paid for the Israeli military occupation of
the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
Hundreds of Palestinian civilians Israel's actions have been condemned by Amnesty -
have been killed by Israeli soldiers International, the International Red Cross, and the
United Nations. Nevertheless, in 1989 Congress again
voted to give Israel $3 billion in aid-$10 million a day!
And they did it again this year
Remember, @// Americans are paving for the Occupation!
lsntit time west
oppedd:
Sponsored by the Middle East Peace Network PO Box 21615, Oakland. C. 9 1620
STOP AID TO ISRAEL UNTIL IT AGREES TO END THE OCCUPATION " ISRAEL MUST NEGOTIATE WITH THE P
PALESTINE AND ISRAEL-TWO STATES FOR TWO PEOPLES LIVING IN PEACE so
Acting in response to a request from the Middle East Peace Network, the ACLU-NC strongly protested BART's removal
of this platform ad in late December. Following an urgent letter from ACLU staff attorney Alan Schlosser, BART and
advertising agency TDI replaced some of the ads in late December, and have agreed to replace the full complement of ads
in early February. BART claimed vandalism was their concern in removing the signs. Schlosser said their removal as a
ae of unlawful vandalism by opponents of the ads' message was a "`clear violation of First Amendment freedoms."
tas Mien,
ES
J
aclu news
jan-feb 1991
CRIMINAL JUSTICE _
SB 25 (Lockyer)
This measure completely rewrote the
sentencing laws with the purported aim of
clarifying a very complicated sentencing
structure. Unfortunately it was not sentenc-
ing neutral in that it would have resulted in
substantially longer prison sentences by,
among other things, the imposition of full
consecutive sentences.
Amendments were incorporated to
authorize an intensive parole program to
allow for early release from prisons of cer-
tain non- violent offenders. The criminal
defense bar was strongly opposed to the
bill.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: It was vetoed by the governor
SB 1786 (Boatwright)
This bill would have expanded our for-
feiture law to permit the state to confiscate
a defendant's vehicle if that person was
found in possession of small amounts of
drugs - even if the defendant was never
' -convicted of the crime. The ACLU has
argued that the legislature should be focus-
ing its efforts at the underlying problems
which lead to drug abuse and providing
treatment and counselling for persons with
drug problems instead of seeking to confis-
cate their property.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage in committee
SB 2658 (Russell) and AB 3350
(Wyman)
These measures would have authorized
state licensing boards to suspend or revoke
_ the person's work license for a minimum
of three years if that person was convicted
of any drug related offense. Conviction for
possession of marijuana or other drug is
"not necessarily related to the qualifications
or duties of the business or profession for
which the license was issued. These types.
of laws are counterproductive and should
not be used to punish persons and their'
families through job forfeitures.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage in committee
SB 2897 (Russell)
This was an effort to recriminalize pos-
session of small amounts of marijuana by,
among other things, making possession of
between half an ounce to one ounce a fel-
ony. The ACLU favors decriminalization
of marijuana and strongly opposed this
bill.
ACLU Position: Oppose
Status: Failed passage in committee
SB 2315 (Lockyer)
This bill proposed a system of inten-
sive probation supervision, substance
abuse treatment programs, and other com-
munity-based options as alternatives to
State prisons for primarily nonviolent drug
offenders. The ACLU is supportive of leg-
islation which provides a rationale and
non-repressive solution to the "war on
drugs." -
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Vetoed by the governor
AB 3011 (Hunter); AB 3921 (Nolan);
AB 2165 (Pringle).
These bills sought to impose the death
penalty under the following circum-
stances: for death that occurs during an
1990 Legislati
unlawful drug transaction; for the inten-
tional killing of an emergency room
employee; for the killing of a child under
7 years of age.
The ACLU opposes the imposition of
the death penalty under any and all cir-
cumstances.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: All bills failed passage in
committee
AB 4291 (Bentley)
This bill sought major changes in
Habeus Corpus proceedings by eliminat-
ing legitimate grounds for appeal in death
penalty cases and by providing for execu-
tions the day after the expiration of any
Stay.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage in committee
AB 2813 (Floyd)
This measure sought to restore the 13
million dollar fund used by the state to
reimburse counties for the defense of indi-
gents facing the death penalty. Failure to
provide funds leaves certain counties
unable to provide indigent death penalty
defendants adequate funds to hire investi-
gators and experts. The lack of funds
would likely result in greater reversals on
appeal for failure to receive an adequate
defense.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Vetoed by the governor
AB 2613 (Eaves)
This bill permitted courts to admit
expert testimony in criminal cases con-
cerning the effects of battered person's
syndrome. The evidence could not be
offered against a defendant to prove the
occurrence of any alleged criminal act.
The ACLU argued that juries should be
entitled to consider evidence of this syn-
drome in domestic violence situations to
fully understand how a defendant genu-
inely believed she was in imminent danger
of seriously bodily injury.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Failed passage
SB 1745 (Seymour) And AB 3819
(Roos)
These proposals initially sought to for-
ward the names of all persons arrested
and/or convicted to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) for purposes
of determining their immigrant status. The
ACLU argued that forwarding thousands
of names to the INS would inevitably
result in citizens, permanent residents and
others being subjected to unlawful deten-
tion, deprivation of liberty and deportation
hearings. These due process concerns _
resulted in narrowing amendments so that
final version of the bill required the
Department of Corrections to forward to
the INS the names of all inmates convicted
of certain felonies.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: AB 3819 was dropped by
author; SB 1745 was vetoed by the
governor
POLICE PRACTICES
Sb 2764 (Killea)
This bill sought to close to the public
certain administrative hearings involving
disciplinary actions against law enforce-
ment personnel which are currently open
in some cities. Many of these hearing
result from citizen complaints about police
brutality. The ACLU argued that access by
the public and press increases the quality
and safeguards the integrity of the fact
finding process.
ACLU Position: Oppose
Status: Failed passage in committee
AB 3539 (Katz)
This bill would have expanded discov-
ery rights for peace officers in disciplinary
actions. ACLU was able to obtain an
aclu news
jan-feb 1991 5
Paul Anderson
exemption for citizen complaints from the
discovery process. Due to the costs
involved the measure was vetoed by the
Governor.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Vetoed by the governor
AB 2659 (Floyd)
This measure would have imposed a
civil fine on persons who intentionally
release to the public personal/confidential
information as contained in a police offi-
cers personnel file. Because current law is
unclear as to what is and is not confiden-
tial information, ACLU offered an amend-
ment which rewrote the definitional
section of the law.
ACLU Position: Oppose
Status: Failed passage in committee
REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS/PRIVACY
Medi-Cal Abortion Funding (1990-1991
Budget)
In a major victory for the ACLU both
the Assembly and the Senate for the first
time handily defeated proposed Budget
amendments containing restrictions on
Medi-Cal funded abortions. The post-
Webster grass roots effort by the ACLU
and other pro-choice advocates was instru-
mental in obtaining this major accomplish-
ment.
SB 2524 (Davis)
This was a proposal that would ban
abortions after 24 weeks. There is little, if
any, agreement among physicians as to
when viability begins. Twenty-four weeks
_ is an artificial deadline which has no medi-
cal basis. Strong opposition from the
ACLU and other pro-choice groups, as
well as pro-life groups (because the bill
permitted pre-24 week abortions), resulted
in this bills' defeat.
ACLU Position:oppose _
Status: Failed passage in committee
AB 3792 (Wyman)
This measure prohibited anyone from
performing an abortion for the purpose of
sex selection. The bill would have prohib-
ited women who fear a hereditary disease
from making decisions about ending a
pregnancy on the basis of the sex of the
fetus. .
ACLU Position: Oppose
Status: Failed passage in committee
AB 2829 (Seastrand)
This legislation prohibited the use of
fetal tissue for research purposes. A ban on
the use of fetal tissue would have severely
retarded advancements in medical research
for certain life threatening diseases.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage in committee
AB 4274 (Ferguson)
This measure would extend current law
which authorizes bulletin board posting to
health care workers informing them that
state law allows them to refuse to partici-
pate in abortions. The ACLU argued that
abortions should not be treated differently
than any other type of medical procedure.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage in committee
AB 3585 (Moore) and AB 4140 (Eaves)
AB 3585 (MOORE) would have sub-
jected all 7th grade students to random
drug testing with parental consent. AB
4140 (EAVES) would have authorized pre
and post employment drug testing for all
intrastate commercial vehicle drivers. The
ACLU strongly opposed both bills and
drug testing legislation in general since it
constitutes an unreasonable search and sei-
zure under the 4th Amendment and it vio-
lates fundamental privacy rights under the
U.S. and State Constitutions.
ACLU Position: Opposed both bills
Status: Both bills failed passage in
committee
FIRST AMENDMENT
AB 2023 (Ferguson) and SB 1962
(Ayala)
These measures sought to censor sexu-
ally explicit materials and restrict what
adults can read by banning the sale of
harmful matter in vending machines
located in public areas. The bill substan-
tially infringed on adults' constitutional
right to purchase the materials in question.
Effective grass roots lobbying by ACLU
members was an instrumental reason for
these bills' defeat.
ACLU Position: Opposed both bills,
Status: Both failed passage in committee
SB 2313 (Lockyer)
This bill required plaintiffs to establish
they have a substantial probability of suc-
cess before proceeding with lawsuits
against persons for acts in furtherance of
free speech on a public issue. These so-
called SLAPP suits are usually filed to
deter persons from exercising their free-
speech rights and have become prevalent
in recent years.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Vetoed by the governor
AB 2646 (Eastin)
This bill proposed, in part, to tax the
sale of materials containing harmful matter
in order to finance school libraries. This
tax proposal was clearly an unconstitu-
tional content based regulation of speech.
Opposition by the ACLU resulted in this
tax provision being amended out of the
bill.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage in committee
SB 2475 (Craven)
This bill would require video retailers
to place advertisements of video record-
ings containing harmful matter in adult
only areas. It also requires distributors of
said films to inform video retailers of this
requirement. Both retailers and distribu-
tors would be subject to fines for failure to _
comply.
Opposition by the ACLU resulted in
narrowing amendments and removal of the
penalties.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Signed by governor
CIVIL RIGHTS
AB 3034 (Klehs) and AB _ 1742
(Friedman)
`Both measures attempted to deny state
support for large private clubs which dis-
criminate against women, minorities and
others. AB 3034 would have denied tax
exempt status to these private clubs, while
AB 1742 would have denied alcoholic
beverage licenses to similar private clubs.
ACLU Position: Support both bills
Status: AB 1742 Failed passage; AB
3034 Vetoed by the governor
SB 1027 (Petris)
This bill clarified that the Fair
Employment and Housing Agency
(FEHA) has jurisdiction to take sex dis-
crimination claims related to pregnancy.
The FEHA was refusing to process these
claims and hundreds of complaints were
annually being referred to the federal
EEOC. The remedies available under the
EEOC are substantially less than under
state law. The bill requires the FEHA to
process these claims.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Signed by the governor
AB 2577 (Katz)
This measure established a process for
the return of Native American remains and
associated grave artifacts from museums
and other institutions to descendants
requesting their return. The legislation
acknowledged the strong interest Native
Americans have expressed in acquiring
skeletal remains and other grave objects
for purposes of reinternment consistent
with tribal religious or cultural purposes.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Vetoed by the governor
SB 2241 (Watson)
This bill would require state boards
and commissions to reflect the numerical
composition of all segments of the state's
population, including women and ethnic
minorities, in order to achieve gender bal-
ance and ethnic parity on these appointive
bodies.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Vetoed by the governor
AB 77 (Moore)
This bill would enact a parental leave
law for the state of California. It would
require employers of 25 or more to grant
workers unpaid leave of up to four months
once every two years to care for a depen-
dent child or a sick parent.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Vetoed by the governor
SJR 62 (Roberti)
This measure memorialized the sup-
port of the Califomia Legislature for the
Civil Rights Act of 1990 and other legisla-
tion intended to nullify the 1989 U.S.
Supreme Court civil rights decisions and
to clarify and strengthen federal civil
rights laws.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Resolution passed other
legislation
SB 2578 (Kopp)
This legislation, as introduced, would
have required tenants to deposit back rent
before they could defend unlawful
detainer actions. Strongly opposed by the
`ACLU and a long list of tenant organiza-
tions as a fundamental violation of due
process, the bill was subsequently
amended to authorize a trial within 12
days if the tenant fails to deposit rent.
ACLU Position: Opposed
Status: Failed passage
AB 190 (Bronzan) and SB 2784
(Presley)
These measures would have substan-
tially curtailed the right of involuntarily
committed mental patients their right to
refuse powerful psychotropic medication
except in emergencies or following a judi-
cial determination of the patient's incom-
petence to make an informed decision
about the drugs.
ACLU Position:opposed
Status: Failed passage
AB 328 (Margolin)
This measure sought to enact a pro-
gram to provide comprehensive health
care coverage for the 5.2 million
Californians who are medically uninsured.
This bill, along with various other health
care proposals, was debated throughout
the legislative year. No legislative consen-
sus could be reached on a final health care
package.
ACLU Position: Support
Status: Failed passage
aclu news
jan-feb 1991
Civil Liberties ...
Continued from page 1
Special attention will be focused on
police practices, to make certain that anti-
war protesters are protected from illegal
surveillance and other police abuses, and
to preserve access to public forums for the
communication of anti-war messages.
Press Freedom
Threats to the ability of the press to
cover news stories developing in the
Persian Gulf have also captured the
ACLU's attention. Press guidelines issued
by the Defense Department in early
January have come under fire by both the
ACLU and by many other leading organi-
zations concerned with preserving the
freedom to write and to publish.
The Pentagon guidelines would, for the
first time, officially require prior review
by military censors of all reports submit-
ted by journalists covering hostilities in
the Persian Gulf. In addition, the mili-
tary's control of information from the Gulf
would be further strengthened by the
Pentagon's insistence that only journalists
selected as part of a reporting "pool" will
be authorized to cover the hostilities.
Several media organizations are pro-
testing the guidelines, including all four
networks, the Reporters' Committee for
Freedom of the Press, and a group of dis-
tinguished journalists. Together with other
civil liberties groups, the national ACLU
has also signed a letter to Secretary of
Defense Richard Cheney condemning the
guidelines. Additional legal action is being
-considered.
Finally, it appears that free-lance jour-
nalists may be banned entirely from access
to the Persian Gulf. By manipulating the
terms of the embargo, as well as visa
requirements for entrance into Saudi
Arabia, the government has already been
successful in keeping free-lance journal-
ists from being able to bring the develop-
ing story of the war back home.
War Powers
The power of the Executive Branch to
wage war was also challenged recently
Ann Rushing
when the ACLU joined 51 national organi-
zations in calling on the President and
Congress to adhere to the constitutional
requirement that the President must
receive advance authorization from
Congress before entering a war. The
ACLU's position was expressed in a
friend of the court brief filed in the
Federal District Court in Washington,
D.C., in support of the lawsuit brought by
Bay Area Congressmember Ron Dellums
and 53 members of Congress.
"The constitution clearly requires
Congressional authorization prior to an
offensive military action by the
President," said Morton H. Halperin, the
Director of the ACLU Washington Office.
That authorization was obtained on
January 12th when the House and the
Senate approved separate resolutions call-
ing for the use of military force against
Iraq.
Conscientious Objectors
Now that Congress's authorization for
war has been secured, questions about the
treatment of conscientious objectors and
other war resisters within the military are
becoming more urgent. According to the
national ACLU office, a number of reserv-
ists who have been called to active duty
have filed conscientious objector claims
since the Gulf crisis began. The ACLU
supports the rights of conscientious objec-
tors, including those who enter the armed
forces but are either opposed to participa-
tion in combat training or service, or to a
particular armed conflict.
Currently, activated reservists cannot
have their conscientious objector claim
processed until they reach their permanent
duty station in the Persian Gulf.
Challenges to this policy have not been
successful.
In the meantime, rumors of a draft,
questions regarding the rights of lesbians
and gay men in the military, and com-
plaints about treatment of women soldiers
stationed in the Gulf are flooding ACLU
offices throughout the country.
: INS
An additional disturbing issue is the
potential treatment of Iraqi nationals in a
war situation. The ACLU is gravely con-
cerned that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service may employ regu-
latory practices based on the assumption
that Iraqi nationals in the United States
must be considered and treated as poten-
tial enemy agents.
Clearly, the current crisis in the Gulf
raises a multitude of civil liberties issues
that will require the attention, resources,
and the response of all of us. These issues
are not new to us; over the past 70 years
the ACLU has learned that in times of
war, the excuse of protecting national
security interests can be used as a weapon
to deny civil liberties. There is, moreover,
perhaps no time when civil liberties, par-
ticularly the right to dissent, become more
precious than during a time of interna-
tional crisis.
Bergman-Ramirez Case to
Continue?
wo police officers and a deputy
district attorney are not entitled to
a second libel trial against two
investigative reporters for articles pub-
lished in the San Francisco Examiner in
1975, ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret
Crosby told the Court of Appeal at.a hear-
ing on December 13. (McCoy Vs. Hearst
Corporation.)
The ACLU took the appeal for Raul
Ramirez and Lowell Bergman in 1979
after a jury awarded a $1.6 million libel
judgment against them. The case stemmed
from a three-part series that questioned the
fairness of a murder conviction of a 19-
year-old Asian bank teller in a Chinatown
gang slaying.
In 1986, the California Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that the articles were
not published with constitutional malice
and were thus protected expression. The
United States Supreme Court refused to
hear the case.
In 1988, the plaintiffs claimed that .
they were entitled to a second trial because
the Supreme Court had not expressly
ordered the lower court to enter a final
judgment. They relied on California cases
that hold that the technical phrasing of an
appellate court's order dictates whether a
second trial will occur.
The ACLU argued that under modern
cases a second trial will be held only if the
appellate court intended it. The California
Supreme Court plainly never contem-
plated that the police officers and prosecu-
"Constitutional doctrine calls for early
dismissal of libel cases that lack merit,
because courts recognize the chilling
effect of burdensome libel trials on a
free American press."
tor would start all over again after a dec-
ade of litigation led to a unanimous ruling
that the articles were protected.
In March, 1989, San _ Francisco
Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollak agreed
with the ACLU and ordered judgment for
the defense. Plaintiffs appealed.
In arguing that the lower court order
should be affirmed, Crosby stated, "No
government official has ever been
afforded a second protracted libel trial
after having a full and fair opportunity to
prove the case at trial and failing to estab-
lish that the articles were published with
knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard
for the truth."
"Constitutional doctrine calls for early
dismissal of libel cases that lack merit,
because courts recognize the chilling
effect of burdensome libel trials on a free
American press.
"This case is a perfect example of the
problems caused by defamation litigation.
The reporters spent 18 months investigat-
ing an important story on our system of
criminal justice. They spent the next ten
years defending themselves against a libel
suit. The case seriously disrupted their
lives. They established that the articles
were constitutionally protected in the
state's highest court.
"Now these government officials seek
to launch a second round of libel trial and
appeals that would take this case into the
mid 1990s, 20 years after the original arti-
cles were published. This result would
discourage reporters from investigating
potential government misconduct. It
would be an unprecedented and unconsti-
tutional result that would dampen the
vigor of important investigative journal
ism."
Student
Athlete
Drug
Testing
Back in
Court
n December 20, 1990, the
California Supreme Court
granted review sought by the
NCAA in Hill v. NCAA. The Court of
Appeal had ruled in favor of Stanford ath-
letes represented by the ACLU-NC along
with cooperating attorneys Robert Van
Nest and Susan Harriman of the firm
Keker and Brockett. The Court of Appeal
had upheld a sweeping injunction issued
by the Santa Clara Superior Court barring
the NCAA from drug testing Stanford ath-
letes in post-season competition. Both the
Superior Court and Court of Appeal found
the NCAA testing program violative of the
right to privacy under the California'
Constitution.
The NCAA sought review of the Court
of Appeal's ruling. On a 4 to 3 vote, the
California Supreme Court decided to take
the case. This will be the first drug testing
case to be decided by the Califomia
Supreme Court. The Court previously
refused to hear three cases involving job
applicants and employees. Briefing will be
completed this Spring and the case will
then await oral argument.
aclu news
jan-feb 1991 7
ACLU Defends Lawyer's Speech Rights
hief Assistant Public Defender
Peter Keane cannot be disciplined
by the State Bar for criticizing
local judges, the ACLU-NC wrote in
response to a state bar complaint filed by
San Francisco judges. The State Bar sum-
marily dismissed the complaint in early
January.
The controversy resulted from an arti-
cle published in San Francisco's legal
newspaper, The Recorder, about the par-
ticipation of major law firms in the volun-
teer public defender program.
Commenting on the program, Keane
stated: "Judges in the criminal court are
used to pushing criminal lawyers around.
They are bullies. When you bring in some-
one from a big firm, they are intimidated."
The judges of the criminal division of
the San Francisco Superior Court asked
the State Bar to discipline Keane for this
remark. They characterized the statement
as a violation of a California statute that
requires lawyers "to maintain the respect
due to the courts of justice and to judicial
officers."
The ACLU urged the State Bar to
reject the complaint summarily on the
grounds that Keane was exercising his
right of free speech.
"The judiciary, as an institution of
democratic government, is not immune
from criticism," wrote ACLU-NC staff
attorney Margaret Crosby in a letter dated
December 6. "Judges wield enormous
power in American society. Their deci-
sions will inevitably provoke caustic criti-
cism. They should be inured to the
occasional insult."
"Lawyers are the most knowledgeable
citizens about our system of justice. They
have an obligation to be unflinching in
speaking out against perceived injustice."
The ACLU also wrote that broadly and
literally interpreted, the law requiring
attorneys to maintain rope [oy JuGges
Peter Keane
would be unconstitutional.
"The hallmark of a free society is its
citizens' ability to denounce public offi-
cials. Americans: would consider a law
requiring a respectful atti-
tude toward legislators or
executive officials repres-
sive and ominous," Crosby
wrote.
The vague contours of
the law requiring respect for
| judges would presumably
allow the State Bar to disci-
pline the former Governor
concept of neutral principles
of law and claim that politi-
cal considerations influence
legal decisions, or lawyers
who write novels and televi-
sion shows with unflattering
pictures of judges.
The ACLU urged dis-
missal of the complaint to
protect public confidence in
the court system and to pre-
serve an independent and
unintimidated Bar.
Woman Sentenced to
Sterility
ACLU to
Appeal
Tulare County judge's order that
A a woman must accept contra-
ceptive surgery as a condition of
probation will be appealed by the ACLU-
NC.
Acting in conjunction with defense at-
torney Charles Rothbaum and the ACLU's
National Reproductive Freedom Project in
New York, the ACLU-NC appeal will
argue that the sentence violates the de-
fendant's constitutional right to privacy
and exceeds the court's probation author-
ity.
Tulare County Superior Court Judge
Howard Broadman sentenced 27-year old
Darlene Johnson of Tulare to one year in
jail and three years of conditional pro-
bation on January 2. Johnson pled guilty to
three felony counts of child abuse last Sep-
tember. Her probation was contingent
upon her acceptance of a surgically im-
planted contraceptive device. The device,
Norplant, is a new reproductive tech-
nology. Implantation of six rubber cap-
sules in a woman's arm releases chemicals
years.
"Both the state and federal constitu-
tions protect an individual's right to make
decisions about childbearing. A judge can-
not condition a defendant's liberty on her
agreeing not to'conceive, and a judge cer-
tainly cannot dictate that a defendant use a
certain form of birth control," commented
ACLU-NC attorney Margaret Crosby.
Rachel Pine, of the ACLU's Re-
productive Freedom Project in New York,
said the judge's order was "extremely
alarming." She noted that forcing contra-
ception on Johnson did nothing to help her
with problems of child abuse, and that
counseling would have been more ap-
propriate.
National and international attention has
focused on the case, which is potentially
an important test of the coercive use of this
new contraceptive device. Despite the me-
dia interest, Judge Broadman has refused
to modify his order, inviting a challenge |
on appeal. The ACLU-NC will assist in
that appeal. :
:
i A
cent
2 Vee
iN
a
F BL, MR.SMITH. WE'P LIKE TO
ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS,
JUST LAST JULY YOU WERE
OBSERVED LOBBYING CONGRESS
FOR Alb 7O THE IRAQIS,
a
ee
BUT IT WAS MY JOB! I WORK
FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT /
`
PON'T GET SMART WITH US, -
HOT SHOT. YOU'RE COMING ,
DOWNTOWN.
Hh
cn
ee
a
_ SOHN GRIMES
aclu news:
jan-feb 1991
"Taking Liberties"
A monthly radio
program
on civil liberties
KPFA 94.1 FM
and
KFCF 88.1 FM (Fresno)
Tune your radio dial to "T. aking IBIAS
Wednesday January 30
7 p.m.
Civil Liberties
in Time of War
Guest host Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive
Director of the ACLU-NC, examines civil
liberties issues in wartime. Press censor-
ship; freedom of assembly; harassment of
dissenters...all of these issues have been
problems in previous wartime circum-
stances. A very important program!
Wednesday, February 27
7 p.m.
The Future
of Reproductive Rights
In this 18th Anniversary year of Roe v.
Wade, hear about the current state of abor-
tion law in California and the challenges
that face the pro-choice movement. Guest
host Dorothy Ehrlich.
"Taking Liberties", explores how the
Bill of Rights affects our everyday lives.
The series is aired on KPFA and KFCF in
Presio. . -
The monthly program, hosted by
ACLU-NC Public Information Director
Elaine Elinson, includes expert guests on
cutting edge civil liberties questions. It
also features a special section with civil
liberties news updates and information on
how listeners can make their voices heard
on crucial civil liberties issues.
EZ
How Your Money Works
for Civil Liberties
Membership Contributions v.
Tax-Deductible Donations
a non-profit organization sup-
ported by its membership. Mem-
bership contributions are essential to the
ACLU's existence, providing about 25%
of the ACLU of Northern California's sup-
port. However, membership dues are not
tax-deductible because a significant part of
ACLU's work involves lobbying (before
Congress, the state Legislature, city coun-
cils and county boards of supervisors).
The IRS places restrictions on the use of
tax-deductible funds for lobbying.
A he ACLU was founded in 1920 as
The ACLU Foundation of Northern
California is a tax-exempt, tax-deductible
organization which finances litigation and
public education. Funds contributed to the
ACLU Foundation are not used to support
the ACLU's lobbying work. If you wish
to make a tax-deductible donation, you
may do so by making your gift payable to
the ACLU-NC Foundation.
Tax-Deductible Gifts
The ACLU-NC. Foundation conducts
four annual fundraising drives: the Major
Gifts Campaign, the Lawyers Council
Campaign, the Physicians Campaign for
Reproductive Rights and `the Bill of
- Rights Day Campaign. These campaigns
support the ACLU's legal program in
northern California and all donations are
tax-deductible.
If you are interested in other ways
you can donate to the ACLU, or if you
would like to name the ACLU in your
will, please send your inquiry to Cheri
Bryant, Development Director, ACLU-
NC, 1663 Mission Street, #460, San
Francisco 94103 or call 415/621-2493.
Confused About Your Contribution?
Many members welcome the op-
portunity to support civil liberties by mak-
ing special contributions to the ACLU
throughout the year, in addition to re-
newing their membership. Some support-
ers send their gifts to the national ACLU
office as well as the ACLU of Northern
California office. Combined with the four
fundraising campaigns mentioned above,
it's easy to see how gifts could be in-
correctly applied.
If you think your contributions have
not been accurately recorded, please ~
write or call; Sandy Holmes, Member-
ship Department, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-
sion Street, #460, San Francisco, CA
94103; 415/621-2493.
Volunteers Needed
olunteers with a deep commit-
ment to the protection of civil lib-
erties are always welcome at the
ACLU-NC!
Complaint Counselors
Complaint Desk Counselors duties
include screening phone calls for civil lib-
erties issues, giving information and refer-
rals to the public, and some peer counsel-
ing. Volunteers must be able to commit to
staffing the Complaint Desk one day a
week for at least six months, have a good
telephone manner, and a desire to work
with the public. Training will be provided
by experienced Complaint Counselors.
Contact: Lisa Maldonado, Complaint
Desk Coordinator, at 415/621-2493.
Chapter
Meetings
(Chapter meetings are open to all
interested members. Contact the chapter
activist listed for your area.)
B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Rich-
mond-Kensington) Chapter Meeting:
(Usually fourth Thursday) Meeting on
Thursday, February 28, 1991 in
Berkeley. Contact Julie Houk, 415/848-
4752, for further information.
Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda
County) Chapter Meeting: (Usually
second Wednesday) Meeting on
Wednesday, February 13, 1991. Focus
on Police Practices. For time and
address of meetings, please call Irv
Kermish, 415/836-4036 or Abe
Feinberg, 415/451-1122.
Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually
third Monday) Meeting on Monday,
February 18, 1991 at San Joaquin Law
School. New members always welcome!
For time and address of meetings,
please call the Chapter Hotline 209/
225-7380 or contact Gary Waldron,
209/221-1114 (eve.).
Gay Rights Chapter Meeting:
(Usually first. Thursday) Meet Tuesday,
February 5, 1991. Meeting at the ACLU
Office, 1663 Mission, 460, San
Francisco at 7:00 PM. Volunteers wel-
ing at 5:00 PM. Refreshments will be
served. For more information, contact
Mike Williams, 415/845-4777.
Marin County Chapter Meeting:
(Third Monday) Meet Monday,
February 18, 1991 at 7:30 PM,
Westamerica Bank, Community Room,
Strawberry Shopping Center, Mill
Valley. For more information, contact
Bernie Moss, 415/332-3153.
Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually first
Thursday) Chapter Pot-Luck on
Thursday, February 7, 1991 7:00 PM
New members welcome! For more
information, contact Harry Anisgard,
415/856-9186.
Monterey County Chapter
Meeting: The Monterey County
Chapter will have their Board Meeting
on Tuesday, February 5, 1991 at 7:30
PM at the Monterey Library, Pacific and
Madison Streets, Monterey. For more
information, contact Richard Criley,
408/624-7562.
Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth
Thursday) For more information, con-
tact Mildred Starkie, 415/934-0557.
Calling all teachers: are you interested
in working with the chapter on a "civil
liberties essay contest" for students? If
so, contact Mildred Starkie, number
above.
North Peninsula (San Mateo area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually third
Monday) Meet at Bank of America,
Third and El Camino, San Mateo. For
more information, contact Emily
Field Program Monthly
Meetings
come to mailing party on 2/5/91, start-
Skolnick, 340-9834. Note: The North
Pen Chapter has a new Hotline num-
ber: 579-1789. The Chapter Student
Outreach Committee needs help organiz-
ing a high school essay contest on the
Bill of Rights. Contact Neil Kelly, 415/
593-6156 (eves). :
North Valley (Shasta, Siskiyou,
Tehema, and _ Trinity Counties)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth
Wednesday) For more information con-
tact Frank Treadway, 916/365-4336 or
916/241-7725.
Sacramento Valley Chapter
Meeting: (Usually second Wednesday)
Meet Wednesday, February 13, 1991.
For location and more information, con-
tact Ruth Ordas, 916/488-9950
San Francisco Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Monday) Meet
Wednesday, February 20, 1991 7:00 PM.
at ACLU office, 1663 Mission, 460, San
Francisco. Meeting day will go back to
Monday in March. RSVP to 415/621-
2493.
Santa Clara Valley Chapter
Meeting: (Usually first Tuesday) Meet
February 5, 1991 at Commerce Bank
Building, 111 West St. John Street, 2nd
Floor Conference Room, San _ Jose.
Contact John Holly, 408/554-9478, for
further information.
Santa Cruz County Chapter
Meeting: (Usually second Wednesday)
Meet Wednesday, February 13, 1991 at
7:15 PM. Chapter will continue to work
on combating Hate Crimes. Contact
Keith Lesar, 408/688-1666, for further
information.
Sonoma County Chapter Meeting:
(Third Thursday of the month) Meet
Thursday, February 21, 1991 7:30 PM,
821 Mendocino Ave, Santa Rosa. All
members welcome. Contact Fran Byrn,
7071546-3237.
Yolo County Chapter Meeting:
(Third Thursday of the month) For more
information, contact Doug Powers, 916/
756-8274.
Field
Committee
Meetings
(All meetings except those noted
will be held at the ACLU-NC Office,
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San
Francisco. To RSVP, or for more infor-
mation, contact Marcia Gallo or
Michele Hurtado at the ACLU-NC 415/
621-2493.)
Student Outreach Committee:
(Usually third Saturday) Contact
Marcia Gallo, number above, for more
information.
Pro-Choice Action Campaign:
(Usually third Tuesday) Contact Marcia
Gallo, number above, for more informa-
tion.
Death Penalty Action Campaign:
Contact Marcia Gallo, number above,
for more information.
Library Researchers
The ACLU-NC has annual volunteer
research positions available in the
Development Department, which raises
funds to support our litigation and public
education program. :
Researchers are responsible for exten-
sive biographical research on funding
sources.
Volunteers for this position must be
responsible, well-organized, _ detail-
oriented, able to handle confidential mate-
rials, and have experience in library -
research. Flexible hours. Contact: Jean
Hom, Volunteer Coordinator, at 415/
621-2493.