vol. 33, no. 9

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXII

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER, 1968

Free Speech, Due Process

Eldridge Cleaver vs

Adult Authority

ACLUNC staff Counsel Marshall Krause intervened with

the California Adult Authority to obtain permission for

Peace and Freedom Party presidential candidate Eldridge

Cleaver to go to the Party's convention in Ann Arbor,

Michigan, to seek its nomination. Cleaver is still on parole

because of a number of past fel-

ony convictions and the Adult

Authority must approve his liv-

ing arrangements and_ travel

plans. The Authority granted

Cleaver permission to leave the

state on a number of occasions

and also refused it on others. At

At the time of ACLUNC's inter-

vention the Authority had re-

fused to allow him to go to Ann

Arbor.

Free Speech Issue

The Adult Authority explana-

tion of its position was based on

the belief that Cleaver would be

in a situation in which inflam-

matory speeches would be given

and that he might make inflam-

matory speeches thus violating

the conditions of his parole.

Therefore, for Cleaver's own

protection, the Authority had de-

cided against allowing him to

go to Michigan. After several

hours on the telephone, the de-

cision was reversed by the agen-

ey chief in Sacramento. ACLU-

NC pointed out that serious re-

strictions of speech were present-

ed by the decision,

candidacy for public office is a

valid reason {f6r travel which

should not be denied unless there

`voke

and that ~

is cause to believe that a parolee

will flee his parole supervision.

The Adult Authority admitted

that there was no cause to be-

lieve that Clever would do so.

Due Process

ACLUNC is also interested in

the proceedings seeking to re-

Mr. Cleaver's parole be-

cause of his involvement in a

shooting episode involving the

Oakland Police. It will present

a brief on this to the appellate

court supporting the decision of

the Solano County Superior

Court that Cleaver be released

on habeas corpus because the

Adult Authority unreasonably de-

layed giving him a hearing on

the revocation action. ACLUNC's

brief will point out that under

standard rules at revocation

hearings Cleaver will have no

opportunity to be represented

by counsel, to present witnesses

on the question of whether he

voilated his conditions of pro-

bation, and to examine the evi-

dence against him. This matter

will be argued before the Court

of Appeal, Division 1 of the First

Appellate District, September

24, 10 a.m.

Free Speech, Press Problems

The right to distribute litera-

ture in public and quasi-public

areas received a great deal of

attention last month, In three

separate places officials attempt-

ed to inhibit First Amendment

rights on the ground of absolute

control of "their" property.

Airport Cases

Two of these cases involved

distribution of anti-Vietnam war

literature to servicemen at the

San Francisco and Oakland In-

ternational Airports.

With the aid of Roger Kensil,

legal coordinator for the Oak-

land Area Council of ACLU, the

manager of the Oakland Airport

was persuaded to follow the state

Supreme Court decision in In re

Hoffman and to allow distribu-

tion of the literature. Until then

the manager had insisted on en-

forcing the rule that "No person

shall post, distribute or display

signs, advertisements, circulars,

printed or written matter at the

air terminals without prior writ-

ten permission of the ariport

manager." After Mr. Kensil drew

the manager's attention to the

Hoffman decision which found a

similar rule of the Los Angeles

Union Railroad terminal an un-

constitutional abridgment of free

speech, no further trouble was

encountered. Literature distribu-

tors were advised by the ACLU

that they could not block the

normal flow of persons at the

airport or interfere with the nor-

mal operation of the airport.

A virtually identical rule ob-

tains at the San Francisco Inter-

naitonal Airport which vests ab-

solute veto power without refer-

ence to standards with the air-

port manager, thus violating not

only the Hoffman decision, but

also due process of law.

ACLUNC staff counsel Marshall

Krause notified the manager in

writing that "any person enforc-

ing this rule against a person ex-

ercising his constitutional] rights

will be subjecting himself to

criminal and civil liability under

the federal civil rights statutues

. . , (and) we intend to press

such matters when they are

brought to our attention." No

further complaints have been

been made by persons distribut-

ing literature at the San Fran-

cisco Airport.

Shopping Center

The third case arose at Sun

Valley mall in Concord and was

successfully brought to a conclu-

sion by volunteer attorney Car-

roll P. O'Brien of the Mount Di-

ablo Chapter. The mall is a large

shopping center with a huge in-

door corridor giving access to

the numerous stores. It is im-

possible to reach customers shop-

ping at the stores without using

the corridor. Mr. Andy Baltzo

was removed from the premises

for soliciting signatures on a ini-

tiative petition. The owners of

the mall defended their action

as being within their right to

control access to their private

property. When informed of the

ruling judicial decisions that

such shopping centers are quasi-

public and forbidden to curtail

First Amendment rights, they

agreed to allow Mr. Baltzo to so-

licit signatures and distribute

literature within the corridor.

ATTORNEY WANTED

ACLUNC will have a vacancy

on its legal staff for a qualified

attorney abla to represent ACLU-

NC in Sacramento during legis-

lative sessicns. The balance of

his time will be spent in ACLU

litigation. Persons interested may

write, with full details, to Ernest

Besig, Executive Director, 503

Market St., San Francisco, Calif.

94105.

Victory in

Law Book Case

It has been almost two years

since the Department of Correc-

tions issued regulations limiting

greatly the availablility of law

books to prison inmates. Under

`those regulations prisoners can-

not have in their possession law

books not approved by the De-

partment of Corrections nor can

prison libraries contain unap-

proved books. ACLUNC. staff

counsel Marshall Krause com-

plained to the Department of

Corrections about the "book

burning" regulations at the time

of their adoption and when 89

San Quentin inmates filed suit

in federal court contesting the

validity of the regulation. ACL-

UNC joined in the litigation as

amicus curiae, contending that

the regulations were unreason-

able and infringed on the due

process right of reasonable ac-

cess to the courts by prisoners.

The litigation was ,stymied

when Federal District Judge Al-

bert Wollenberg rejected a re-

quest by the prisoners' attorney, ~

John Wahl, to convene a three-

judge federal court. Wollenberg

held that the suit did not raise

"a substantial federal question."

Wahl appealed Judge Wollen-

berg's ruling to the U.S. Court of

Appeals. ACLUNC, represented

by assistant staff counsel Paul

Halvonik, supported Wahl in his

attempt to overturn the ruling

On August 19 the Court of Ap-

peals reversed the District Court,

holding unanimously that: "The

Supreme Court has not yet spok-

en on the subject and the law

can hardly be said to be settled.

We conclude that the District

Court was in error in its ruling

that no substantial question of

constitutional law was present-

ed."

The law book case will now re-

turn to the District Court where

a three-judge court will be con-

vened to hear the prisoners con-

tentions.

Carmel and

The Hippies

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea,

known for its beauty, its gardens,

and its clean white sand, now has

another attention-getting attrib-

ute; a war against hippies, In

July the council unanimously

passed an "urgency ordinance

., , to preserve the public peace

and safety" which states that the

city is suffering from "an ex-

traordinary influx of undesirable

and unsanitary visitors ... ., some-

times known as `hippies' and

.., the public parks and beaches

are in many cases rendered un-

fit for normal public use by the

unregulated and _ uncontrolled

conduct of the new transients."

Because of this "emergency"

it is now a crime to "climb any

(public) tree, stand or sit upon

monuments, sidewalks, steps,"

also to "protractedly lounge on

seats, benches, sidewalks, curbs,

planters, walls, lawns, or other

areas." It has also been made a

crime to dig and remove any

beach sand "except that this

shall not prohibit. the construc-

tion of sand castles or other simi-

lar sand structures on the beach,

utilizing natural materials found

on the beach."

ACLUNC's Monterey Chapter,

spearheaded by volunteer attor-

ney Francis Heisler, has prom-

ised to give careful attention to

the application of this ordinance

and to challenge it on constitu-

tional grounds when the oppor-

tunity presents itself. The chap-

ter is particularly concerned at

the singling out of a class of

citizens as "undesirable" and at

the obvious opportunity for

abuse of a criminal standard

Constitutional Rights

ACLUNC Enters

" Abortion Cases

ACLUNC is defending Drs. Allan Moss and Ronald

Smith, San Francisco obstretricians accused of performing

"criminal abortions,' and therefore subject to a charge of

"unprofessional conduct" by the State Board of Medical Ex-

aminers. The ACLUNC Branch Board has adopted a policy

that when an abortion is desired

by a pregnant woman and when

her physician advises her that

an abortion is medically indicat-

ed, there is a constitutional right

to terminate the pregnancy. Drs.

Moss and Smith performed the

operations in the midst of an

epidemic of German measles

some years ago and both their

patients had contracted the dis-

ease at a valunerable stage of

pregnancy. In such an event the

probabilities are very high that

the foetus will be deformed and

standard medical procedure, as

taught in medical schools indi-

cates an abortion if the woman

desires that the operation be

performed.

Nine physicians in San Fran-

cisco were charged last year with

performing such abortions, al-

though in each case the abortion

was first approved by a hospital

committee and no subterfuge

was involved. Why these .par-

ticular doctors were chosen, and

why only San Francisco physi-

cians were singled out, and why

the State Board of Medical Ex-

aminers delayed so long in act-

ing are questions which have

not yet been answered. Volun-

teer ACLUNC attorney Howard

Jewel defended Dr. Moss at his

August 15 hearing before Hear-

ing Officer Coleman Stewart who

will make a recommendation to

the State Board of Medical Ex-

Mr. Jewel raised the (c)

aminers.

above questions, contested the

constitutionality of the anti-abor-

tion law, and raised the issue of

privacy.

One of the other doctors, Dr.

Paul Shively, following an ear-

lier hearing was put on proba-

tion by the Board. He then filed

a court action and Superior

Court Judge Andrew J. Eyeman

overturned the Board's decision

but not on constitutional grounds,

since these issues were not

raised by Dr. Shively. It is prob-

able that the Board of Medical

Examiners will appeal this de-

cision.

Constitutional Issues

Drs, Moss and Smith are rais-

ing for the first time the con-

stitutional issue of privacy. Pre-

ceding the administrative hear-

Mustached

Policeman

Suspended

A Roseville policeman, Robert

Kolak, was suspended from ac-

tive duty for wearing a mus-

tache. The police chief informed

him that a mustache violated

personnel rules requring officers

to be "neat and clean in appear-

ance when on-duty." Kolak, con-

sidering this a tortured interpre-

tation of the regulation and an

invasion of his privacy, sought

the assistance of ACLUNC,

Negotiations between assistant

staff counsel Paul Halvonik and

Roseville city attorney William

Keiser have resulted in Kolak's

return, with mustache, to active

duty and promises that he will

receive the salary lost during

suspension plus expungement

from the personnel file of all

documents relating to the sus-

pension, Additionally, an an-

nouncement has appeared on the

police bulletin board declaring

that mustaches do not violate

personnel regulations.

such as "protractedly lounge."

Meanwhile, visitors to Carmel are

advised to keep moving, especial-

ly in the parks, if they wish to

avoid trouble.

ings, Mr. Jewel and staff counsel

Marshall W. Krause explained

ACLUNC's position as follows:

"1, Where the termination of

a pregnancy is desired by

the woman and medically in--

dicated under standard cri-

teria of professional judg-

ment the state may not make

the operation a crime as

every woman, as a matter of

her Fourteenth Amendment

guarantee to life, liberty and

privacy, has the right to

take the necessary steps to

protect her physical and

mental health.

"2. The decision of a woman

as to when to bear her chil-

dren and whether to bear

children at all is one which

must be made by private

conscience of the woman her-

self and by private consci-

ence of the doctor as to ter-

minate a pregnancy. Mere

moral dogma and especially

punitive repression of en-

joyment of sexual union are

insufficient governmental in-

terests to justify an interfer-

ence with these rights of

conscience.

"3 It is cruel and unusual

punishment, forbidden by

the Eighth Amendment, to a

woman, to the woman's

spouse and to her other

children to force her against

her desire to bear and raise

a cruelly deformed child

who will exhaust the emo-

tional and financial resour-

ces of her family."

It is hoped that these constitu-

tional issues will be reached by

any court considering the cases

of Drs. Moss and Smith, athough

the non-constitutional issue

raised in Dr. Shively's case will

also be urged.

Abortions Now Legal

Since the doctors performed

the operations the California law

on abortion has been modified.

The operations if performed to-

day under the same conditions

would be legal because the cur-

rent law provides that an abor-

tion may be performed where

there is grave danger to the

mental or physical health of the

mother.

There is considerable senti-

ment that a pregnant woman

should have the absolute choice

as to whether to carry a foetus

at least up to the point viability.

The Board of Directors of ACL-

UNC has not yet fully consider-

ed this question.

COMPLAINT

CENTER WORKSHOP

Saturday, September 21, Ber-

keley / Albany Chapter's Police

Conduct Complaint Committee

will hold a workship on the pur-

poses, objectives and operation

of centers to receive, record, and

investigate reports from persons

who believe they have complaints

against the police.

Featured speaker will be Har-

old Hart-Nibbrig, Director of the

Watts Police Malpractice Com-

plaint Center of ACLU of South-

ern California. Afternoon apd.

evening sessions will be held and

a modest fee charged. Interested

members outside the Chapter are

cordially invited. For information

about place and times call Diane

Scheerluke, 810 Keeler, `Berkeley,

telephone 527-3632.

Alameda Co. D.A. Rapped

Prejudice Found in Exclusion

Of Negro Jurors from Trial

On July 9, Superior Court Judge George W. Phillips, Jr.,

ordered the discharge of the 12 jurors and three alternates

selected to try five Negro defendants accused of the felonious

assault of a fellow-prisoner at Santa Rita Rehabilitation

Center.

In his order discharging the

all-white jury, Judge Phillips ad-

dressed the five defendants:

"This opinion simply delays your

day in court. You will be tried

for this alleged crime, But in

whatever court your case is heard

you will be guaranteed a jury

drawn from a cross section of the

community, from which there

will be no systematic exclusion

of any group or category of citi-

zens."

Question of Intent

The judge found that in Depu-

ty District Attorney Vukota's

use of peremptory challenges

to excuse without explanation

26 out of 82 potential jurors

there was "a conscious intent...

to exclude non-whites as a

group" from the jury. Noting

that intent is rarely susceptible

of direct proof, he concluded

that the facts and circumstances

showed this was so. He conclud-

ed that the five defense attorneys

had also exercised their 15 per-

emptory challenges with the con-

scious intent to obtain some Ne-

gro jurors.

U. S. Constitution Violated

The Court ruled that despite

the fact that the Deputy D.A.

was authorized by California law

to use the peremptory challenge

at his discretion, in this instance

he had violated the constitution-

ally protected rights of the de-

fendants to an "impartial" jury.

The judge reasoned that a con-

scious attempt to exclude a dis-

tinct group of citizens on the

ground of their membership in

the group violated the constitu-

tion.

Panel Fairly Drawn

No issue was taken by the

Court with the process of select-

ing the full panel of potential

jurors. Judge Phillips found that

the Jury Commissioner had com-

plied with the Sixth Amend-

ment requirement of an impar-

tial jury by presenting a panel

representing a comprehensive-

cross section of the community.

District Attorney J. F. Coak-

ley subsequently issued a state-

ment vigorously attacking Judge

Phillips and defending Deputy

Vukota, Mr. Coakley accused

Judge Phillips of lack of impar-

.tiality, of misleading Mr. Vukota

during the jury selection process,

and of subsequently `"sandbag-

ging" him with an unprecedented

ruling. It appears certain that

the decision will have a salutory

effect on the selection of juries

in Alameda County and other

areas of the state.

Wearing of

Beards Legal

In U.S. Navy

The summary court martial

conviction of Richard R. Merick,

a member of the U.S. Navy, for

refusing to shave his beard was

reversed last month by Rear Ad-

miral J, B, Osborn, Commander

of the U.S, Naval Support Ac-

tivity in DaNang, Republic of

Vietnam. Merick was convicted

on April 1, 1968 at Camp Shields,

Chu Lai.

The decision by Admiral Os-

born said, "It has been deter-

mined that the wearing of beards

by U.S. Navy personnel is per-

missive and that therefore an

order requiring shaving is il-

legal."

Letters to the Editor

Gun Control

Editor:

I am shocked at the tone of

the letters that appeared in the

August issue of the ACLU News.

It is hard to believe that the

sentiments expressed are those

of defenders of individual lib-

erties by legal means. Rather

they express the sentiments of

the purveyors of anarchy-the

rule of force and violence, but

not the supporters of a society

governed by law and order.

If it is not possible to depend

upon the police force to main-

tain law and order, then it is

time to examine the structure of

that police force, of our laws, and

of the fabric of society, but not

to take law into our own hands

Let's do everything possible to

prevent the invader of the home

from obtaining weapons rather

than arm the innocent housewife

valiantly trying to defend herself

and her children with an over-

size pistol. Guns can indeed be

"superb equalizers" as one let-

ter expressed, but they are prob-

ably much more frequently even

better "unequalizers." Not only

do the letters express the need

to use weapons for defense

against criminals but also against

the police themselves. Who then

is to be the one who should de-

cide right and wrong, the use or

the non-use of guns? Under such

circumstances, where have law

and order gone? And what role

could ACLU possibly play in

such a society, other than to arm

its officers and defend its prem-

ises and its members?

I do not imply that I consider

that police action has `reached

the epitome of justice. Civilian

police review boards are a safe-

guard for society. I would also

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1968

Page 2

subscribe to the decision of the

Board of Directors of the North-

ern California Chapter of ACLU

"that police use of deadly force

in the absence of an immediate

threat to another life violates

the 14th Amendment of the Con-

stitution by taking life, with-

out due process of law."

Returning to the letters in the

August issue, I am still shocked

to read such emotional and irra-

tional letters from members of

ACLU.

_-F, Weston Starrat,

Larkspur

Editor:

I feel that the ACLU has made

a serious error in endorsing gun

control laws. Let me add that I

don't intend cancelling my mem-

bership because of your stand

on the issue.

I am afraid of firearms and

doubt that I would ever use a

gun for self defense even if I

had access to one. It was only

after many years of real neces-

sity that my husband finally pur-

chased a 22 single shot. Until re-

cently we were beholden to bor-

rowing a gun whenever we had

to destroy an unwanted animal.

(We have a small goat herd and

it seems that nature often pro-

duces a surplus of bucks).

In all the letters and furor

over gun laws, nobody seems to

think of the responsibilty of the

manufacturer of firearms. Is he

to go scot free and continue

manufacturing `an unlimited num-

ber of assorted guns to be sold

illegally if necessary, because re-

member his profits must con-

tinue.

Unless and until we, including

the citizens world wide, are edu-

cated to see this problem in the

context of the total world not one

part of the world is ready for

gun control laws.

-Mrs. Tillie Smith,

Redding

Justice Stanley Mosk on "Coddling

Of Criminals" by Judiciary

California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk's speech

to Town Hall, Los Angeles, June 18, 1968 included the follow-

ing remarks about the so-called coddling of criminals by the

judiciary:

No doubt you, as leaders of

your communities, have friends

who will hear a TV commentator

or read a headline and demand

`that you explain why courts are

soft and coddling criminals.

The United States Senate re-

cently adopted the same attitude

in a bill originally designed to

assist state and local governments

in reducing the incidence of crime

and increasing the effectiveness

and fairness of law enforcement

and criminal justice. To that

measure a coalition of reaction-

ary and timid senators appended

amendments in a deliberate at-

tempt to undermine decisions of

the United States Supreme

Court. All voluntary confessions

and eyewitness identifications,

regardless of whether a suspect

has been informed of his rights

to counsel would be admitted in

federal trials. Evidence could be

admitted even if there was un-

reasonable delay between the

time of arrest and arraignment.

Warren Court - Target

These amendments do more

than strike at constitutional safe-

guards of due process. The tar-

get was really the Warren court,

which has had the audacity to

defend the Bill of Rights. In a

larger sense, it is an attack on

the system of checks and balan-

ces.

"There is no liberty if the pow-

er of judging be not separated

from the legislative and execu-

tive powers," Montesquieu wrote

in "The Spirit of the Laws' be-

fore our constitution was adopt-

ed, And it was underscored by

Alexander Hamilton in "The

Federalist,' when he wrote that

checks and balances "can be pre-

served in practice no other way

than through the medium of

courts of justice."

In the context of today's prob-

lems, blaming all our ills on the

courts is too simple a solution.

As David Acheson, former U.S.

_Attorney for the District of Co-

lumbia, put it, court decisions

"have about the same effect on

the crime rate as an aspirin

would have on a tumor of the

brain." But let me suggest some

more detailed answers for those

queries you get.

Certainly crime is a problem.

Here is a clipping from the Sac-

ramento Bee, one of California's

leading newspapers:

"Never wah high crime rifer

in California than now. Highway

robbery and open murder are an

everyday occurrence. A _ strict

enforcement of the laws. may

check this, but we consider the

laxity of the courts and indif-

ference of prosecuting officers

and jurors in such cases as the

`immediate cause which had led

to many of the crimes now being

committed against life and prop-

erty."

That item was not from the

newspaper of last week, last

month, or last year. It appeared

in the issue of October 24, 1860.

All of which indicates there have

always been alarmists.

I do not mean to suggest crime

is not a serious dilemma. Indeed

it is. But it is a problem that

cannot be solved by superficial

reaction. It requires facing up to

fundamental ills in our whole

society - to sociological, psycho-

logical, educational and moral

needs of young people and their

parents. More badges and guns,

more prisons and more execu-

tions-these are not the answer.

Better Police Work

Nevertheless, there are still

many court critics who cite sta-

tistics showing increases in

crime, and they then attribute

these to court decisions. It is true

there have been court decisions

on constitutional issues. And it

is true that more efficient police

work and more accurate crime

reporting have resulted in crime

statistics steadily rising. But the

two facts have no relationship

whatever to each other.

That's like saying we are meet-

ing here now and I had Wheaties

for breakfast. Both are true, but

they are hardly related.

As Justice Tom Clark of the

United States Supreme Court re-

cently put it: "To say that a

bank robber reads our cases be-

fore he robs the bank in order to

develop a loophole to his con-

viction is ridiculous."

Bear in mind that crime sta-

tistics are based on the number

of arrests, and arrests depend

upon effectiveness of police

work, Figures go up-that means

more crimes, but it also means

better law enforcement.

The effect of court decisions

on crime and criminals is deter-

mined by the results after ar-

rest. The test is not how many

arrests are made, but whether

defendants charged with serious

crimes are now being turned

loose. An analysis of this subject

reveals that there has been no

effect whatever upon criminal

convictions by recent landmark

decisions.

I realize that figures are dull

-or perhaps it's the people who

use them who are boring. Never-

theless, I hope you will forgive

me for giving you some tangible

indication that decisions by the

United States Supreme Court,

and by the California Supreme

Court, have not in the slightest

hampered prosecution of crimi-

nals.

More Convictions

At the end of World War II,

the year 1947, there were 10,-

209 persons convicted of felonies

in the 58 counties of California.

By 1950, the number was up to

12,375. From that year until this,

there has been an increase - I

emphasize, increase, not decrease

-in the total number of criminal

convictions in California, de-

spite all the controversial court

decisions that are supposed to (c)

be handcuffing our police. In

1955, there were 15,236 convic-

tions; 1960, 24,816; 1965, 30.840;

and in 1966, the last year for

which we have complete figures,

a new high was reached: 32,000

convictions of felonies.

Well you might ask, is this in-

crease attributable to our popu-

lation growth? A fair question.

To reply, I take the percentage

of persons charged with felonies

who were actually convicted. In

1947, 80.5 percent of those ac-

cused and tried of felonies were'

convicted. In 1950, the figure

was about the same, 80.6 percent.

But then, instead of dropping as

a result of landmark court de-

cisions, the percentage of con-

victions has generally gone up-

I emphasize, up, not down-each

year. In 1955, the percentage of

convictions was 85.4; in 1960, a

new high was reached: 87.4. For

each succeeding year, the fig-

ure fluctuated between 85 to

87 percent.

. .. let me explode another

myth repeated by doomsday at-

tackers of our courts. The recent

United States Supreme Court de-

cisions-known as the Escobedo

and Miranda cases - require po-

lice to give certain very specific

admonitions to arrested suspects,

advising them among others mat

ters that they need not submit

to interrogation by the police

without their own or an appoint-

ed lawyer being present. Many

law enforcement people, news

commentators, editorial writers

and assorted politicians wailed

that no longer would suspects

confess or plead guilty.

More Guilty Pleas

Here again, figures disprove

the apprehensions. In 1947, 8,190

criminal defendants pleaded guil-

ty. In 1950, the number was up

to 9,914; in 1955, the figure was

up again: 11,930. By 1960, the

number jumped way up-and I

City Job Vacated

Over Car Sticker

Recently an engineer employed

by the City of Pinole resigned

after a closed city council dis-

cussion of the "Free Huey" bum-

per sticker on his personal auto-

mobile. :

According to the Richmond In-

dependent, previous to his forced

resignation the employee had

obeyed his supervisor's direct or-

der to either tape a flap over the

sticker so that it would be cov-

ered while the car was parked

in the city lot and while it was in

use on city business, or remove

it. He chose to cover the sticker,

but the issue came to a boil when

he stopped doing so. The same

newspaper quoted the Director

of Public Works as objecting

only to stickers that "create tur-

moil in people's minds," and as

putting the "Free Huey" sticker

in that category, along with one

reading "Elect George Wallace

President."

ACLUNC Executive Director

Ernest Besig offered to assist the

engineer if he proposed to chal-

lenge the ruling. Besig also pro-

tested in writing to the City

Council against this curtailment

of the civil liberties of its em-

ployees and notified it of ACL-

UNC's readiness to intervene.

The employee affected in this

particular case decided not to

make an issue of it because he

no longer wished to work for

the City of Pinole.

stress up, not down- to 18,619

defendants who pleaded guilty.

And 1966, our last complete rec-

ord, shows the highest number

in our state's history, 23,089 de-

fendants pleaded guilty.

From 1947 to 1966, percentage-

wise, between 61 and 69 percent

of all persons charged with fel-

onies pleatied guilty, regardless

of prevailing protective court de-

cisions.

What do all these figures in-

dicate? They show that from 1947

to 1966, the number of convic-

tions of defendants in California

rose from 10,000 to 32,000-more

than tripled. While our popula-

tion has risen, it has never

reached that astronomical rate.

The rise in criminal convictions

disproves critics' complaints that

court decisions have been a han-

dicap to the administration of

criminal justice. Quite the con-

trary, the figures establish thaf

firm and severe justice is being

dispensed in California today.

Criminals Not Freed

Let me clear up one other com-

mon misunderstanding. When the

Supreme Court reverses a con-

viction, many newspaper and

television commentators speak

of defendants being turned loose

and going free. That is not so.

A. reversal means that the de-

fendant is to be tried again, ab-

sent the prejudicial errors com-

mitted the first time by the

prosecutor or trial judge. And

let me tell you further that, up-

on retrial, more than 95 per-

cent of all such defendants are

then properly convicted. So, do

not be alarmed that guilty de-

fendants are benig loosed upon

society when a high court rever-

ses a conviction.

Courts in Great Tradition

Thus, on the whole, a dispas-

sionate study should convince

anyone that our courts are more

effective, deterring crime more

vigorously, and convicting more

guilty defendants than ever be-

fore in our history. It is com-

forting to know that this is being

dene while our Supreme Courts

in Washington and in California

remain alert to the guarantees of

the Bill of Rights bequeathed to

us by our Founding Fathers. It

will be a sorry day for America

if demagogic politicians or hy-

sterical commentators affect our

American judical process and

persuade our courts to be any

less concerned over individual

constitutional rights.

In conclusion, let me assure

you that while the current courts

may have been more noticeably

-Continued on Page 3

t

Membership

memberships.

New Memberships

Non-Member

Results of 1968 Membership Campaign

Note: 1. Membership figures include family members. The totals, therefore, do not reflect the number of new individ-

ual memberships. The number of new student members is shown in

2. Only the names of chairmen and volunteers who undertook overall responsibility for the campaign within

chapters and specified areas are given. They were assisted by volunteers, too numerous to list, whose efforts

are deeply appreciated.

New Subscribers

Record Breaking 1968

Campaign

The rise in ACLUNC membership as the result of its

annual membership drives continues steadily and holds the

promise that in a year or two the drive will top 1000 new

members gained.

The 1968 campaign got off to a slow start because of an

initially poor response from

members to the appeal for

names of prospects. This and a

press blackout about the drive

and the annual meeting in San

Francisco, caused some alarm.

However, the response from the

prospective members was good

and they, in turn, supplied the

names of other excellent pros-

pects, with the final result that

988 new memberships were

gained, of which 341 were stu-

dents. Although the drive ended

June 30, new memberships are

continuing to trickle in.

The Berkeley/Albany Chapter

led all chapter and non-chapter

areas in terms of new member-

ships gained, while San Fran-

cisco led in terms of total in-

come.

Chapters

Because of annual turnover in

boards and offices just prior to

the drive, chapters are tradition-

ally somewhat delayed in allocat-

ing responsibility for the drive,

rounding up volunteer tele-

phoners and organizing the fol-

low-up. This year except for

three, the chapters were unable

to get sufficently well organized

to meet the gains they scored

last. year, either for this reason

or because of a local community

loss of enthusiasm about civil

liberties issues. On the other

hand, two chapters - Berkeley/

Albany and Mid-Peninsula, and

the Sonoma County Council,

showed the results of early and

excellent organization. Stockton

organized late, overcame its dif-

ficulties and ended with a gain.

The Berkeley/Albany Chapter

scored a remarkable gain in the

student membership category.

Not reflected in: the tabulation

is the concurrent successful ef-

forts to revive inactive members

carried out by the Mid-Peninsula

Chapter and the Sonoma County

Council, Activation of dead and

dormant members is as vital a

task as recruiting new members.

(Membership is like trying to fill

a bathtub with the taps turned

on and the drain open at the

same time).

Non-Chapter Areas

Modesto and Napa where local

interest in civil liberties has

been so low in past years that

both communities have been put

in the Miscellaneous category,

under enthusiastic leadership

(together with a large public

meeting in Modesto), progressed

enough to rate independent list-

ing in the accompanying table.

Oakland, reflecting a heightened

concern for civil liberities

(which has resulted in the for-

mation of a chapter organizing

group), shows a gain of 23 mem-

bers over last year. The El Cer-

rito/Richmond area's modest

gain may also reflect a similar

sentiment in a traditionally diffi-

cult area of ACLUNC recruit-

ment. The San Mateo potential,

evidenced by a gain over last

year, awaits developmeant. De-

spite a vast amount of energy

poured into San Francisco it suf-

fered a decline from last year. In

1967 San Francisco scored a not-

able gain in student member-

Ships. This year's toll may be

ascribable to the campus and

other crises which have agitated

students and deflected their in-

terest from ACLU.

While the net income from all

sources is higher than last year's

drive, it only barely topped it

by $397-a figure which is not

commensurate with the 88 mem-

berships by which 1963 topped

1967. Because ACLUNC has

switched to a system whereby all

memberships expire at the same

time, a special pro-rated sched-

ule of dues was offered all new

members to avoid penalizing

them,

Volunteers are indispensable

to every membership drive and

ACLUNC was fortunate in 1968

in the number and dedication of

the volunteers who helped. They

worked in the Office at many

dull but essential tasks. In the

chapters and non-chapter areas

large numbers of other volun-

teers followed up the prospects.

We are indebted to each and

every one of them. Special

thanks are due to Miss Faith

Perkins and Mrs. Murray Persky

for publicity and to Mrs. Eileen

Keech who assisted in overall co-

ordination of the drive.

Contributors to NEWS Total

Chapters : No. (Students) Dollars No. Dollars No. Dollars Income

Berkeley/Albany .......... 257 ~=(c)(164) 1624 10 129 6 14 1767

Fresno = 15. ( 2) 114 -_ - _- - 114

Marin. 57 4) 550 3 21 1 2 573

Mid-Peninsula ........ ...... 84 ( 25) 855 5 65.50 2 2 922.50

Monterey _...................... 11 (Ay) 114 1 1 1 2 117

Mount Diablo ................ 24. ( 4) 194 - - 1 1 195

Sacramento .................... 64 = ( 26) 478 1 5 1 2 485

Santa Clara... 30... (= 9) 266 ey 33 be 2 301

Santa Cruz 2.2 4 (2) 66 - - _- - 66

Stockton _....2....0.....cc0... 12 (- 89 - - _- - 89

Sonoma Co. Council ... 25 ( 7) 166 ~ -_ 1 3 169

Non-chapter areas and miscellaneous

El Cerrito/Richmond.... 21 ( 7) 189 1 10 _- - 199

Modesto ............2.....2--.-.-- 19 ( 6) 149 - - _- - 149

Napa. ee a. 14 (3) 111 3 10 -_-_ - 121

Oakland Area 66 (27) 515 2 15 4M 91589

San Francisco 189 (23) 184450 9 95 5 12 1951.50

San Mateo .......... SoS 38 (7) 311 1 10 _-_ - 321

Southern Alameda Co... 25 ( 6) 211 1 2 1 3 216

Miscellaneous ................ 23 (:10) 164 3 25 10 1% 206

TOTAL 2 988 (341) 8010.50 42 42150 34 69 $8501.00

Campus Demonstrations

parentheses next to the column of total

`Membership Chairman

Mrs. Diane Schroerluke

Mr. Ronald Waidtlow

Mrs. Eve Citrin

Mmes. Marlene Levenson/

Judith Burgess

Mr. Vern Beck

Dr. Jack Lewis/Mrs. M.

Pennebaker

Mrs. Myra Schimke

Mr. Argo Gherardi

Mr. Stanley Stevens

Mr. Frank Jones

Mrs. Linda Macpherson

Messrs. M. Mills, Tom Dick

- and Mrs. Emily Light

Mrs. Jane Jackson

Mr. George Link, Mrs.

Greta Slater

Miss K. Conneely; Messrs.

M. Everson; W. Loretz

Mrs. Eileen Keech

Office,

aided by

Mrs. Keech

ACLU Criticizes Students,

Faculties, Administrations

In a statement on campus demonstrations, issued June

25, the National ACLU severely criticized students, facul-

ties and administrators. It declared that the various out-

breaks on college campuses show a serious malaise in Amer-

ican academic life, and in society at large. It concluded that

a' full review of the structure

and internal relations of each

university is overdue,

In ACLU's view, the upheavals

cannot simply be dismissed as

due to jmmaturity, alienation, ir-

responsibility or conspiracy, be-

cause their causes are complex

and involve other groups besides

students. It noted that on many

campuses there have been grave

violations of the principles of

sound academic governance by

administrations which have de-

nied students reasonable parti-

cipation in policy matters clear-

ly involving their interests; by

faculties which have been indif-

ferent to the needs and aspira-

tioons of the students; and by

students who by various actions

have interfered with the pro-

cesses of teaching, learning, and

free speech.

Police Use

ACLU said that the instances

where police were summoned

reflect a complete breakdown

in the internal discipline of the

university. It warned that to in-

vite civil authorities onto the

campus endangers the autonomy

of the institution, and should be

resorted to only after all other

avenues have failed, and then

preferably under strict proce-

dural rules agreed to by the ad-

ministration, the faculty, and the

students. The brutality of some

police actions gives urgent pri-

ority to the formulation of such

rules.

The Union noted that any

group sufficiently bent on dis-

ruption can presumably force po-

lice intervention, In ACLU's

opinion such groups represent a

small minority among the stu-

dents-a minority which could

not prevail were there a mani-

fest unity of interest among fac-

ulty, students and administration.

Violence

Some of the demonstrations

the Union condemned as dis-

proportionate to the students'

grievances, and as categorically

in violation of basic principles of

academic freedom. "The fact that

significant reforms may be won

by violent action does not jus-

tify the resort to violence, even

if such action seems plausible to

some in a society marked by

violence both internally and in

its external actions, and even if

an apparent justification after

the fact seems to be provided by

a violent response,'' it said.

Confrontation politics, the

ACLU statement declared, in-

vites and is intended to invite a

police action, but so far as it

seeks its ends by means which

infringe on the liberties of

others it is not in keeping with

the principles and purposes for

which the university exists.

Grievances

ACLU stated that after review-

ing the demonstrations against

compulsory. ROTC, suspensions

of politically active students,

neglect of Negro students, al-

leged mistreatment of contro-

versial faculty members, the use

of slum parkland for a univer-

sity facility and that university's

ties with military-related re-

search, and others, it had con-

cluded that in a majority of

eases the students had obvious

justification for their concern,

if not for their manner of ex-

pressing it. However, ACLU

pointed out that those causes

have sometimes been used by

students as excuses for the ex-

pression of hostilities arising

from frustration and disillusion-

ment with Washington's foreign

and domestic policies.

Changes

According to ACLU, in the

midst of changes in the nature

of the student body and its re-

lations with faculty and admini-

stration, the universities have

neglected the principle of full

and open communication among

all their elements, and have re-

versed priorties by placing finan-

cial and organizational considera-

tions above academic and human

ones, ACLU sees these two fac-

tors as underlying the demon-

strations and noted that faculties

and administrations have been

largely unaware of the change

Marine

Reservist

Freed

In July U.S. District Judge

William P. Sweigert filed an

opinion in Mader v. Clark Clif-

ford, et al, holding that. William

H. Mader could not be ordered

to active duty by the Marine

Corps because the Marines, hav-

ing initially turned him over to

his local draft board as a per-

son who failed to cooperate in

the Marine Reserve program,

could no longer order him to

report for active duty as a pen-

alty for the alleged failure to

cooperate in the Reserves, This

position was urged upon the

Court by ACLUNC, which ap-

peared amicus curiae through a

brief filed by staff counsel Mar-

shall W, Krause.

C.O. Status Sought

Mader became a conscientious

objector while in the Marine

Corps Reserve, However the Ma-

rines refused to recognize his

status and turned him over to

his loca] draft board for imme-

diate induction as a non-coopera-

tor. Subsequently the Corps re-

versed itself and ordered him to

active duty. Mader refused to re-

port for active duty and was be-

ing sought as a deserter when

his attorney, Gordon Lapides,

filed an injuction action in fed-

eral district court. ACLUNC then

filed its brief and the matter

was taken under submission.

Judge Sweigert ruled that the

federal district court has juris-

diction to determine whether an

enlisted man is being retained in

the armed forces in violation of

the laws of the United States.

He then applied the rule that

once the government starts on a

given procedure it must fully and

fairly pursue it, Since the Ma-

rine Corps failed to follow

through with the draft board pro-

cedure (where Madei would

have had a chance to prove his

conscientious objector claim), it

could not treat him as a deserter.

More '`Coddling'

Continued from Page 2-

active than their predecessors,

they have been true to the his-

toric role of the judiciary. It has

been one of the genuine glories

of American history that our

highest courts in the state and

nation have ever been places to

which come men, usually able

and dedicated, gathering to de-

liberate on fundamental prob-

lems of the American people.

One may not always be satisfied

with the result, whatever it may

be, and still be grateful for tke

existence of the process itself.

The fundamental triumph of our

courts from John Marshall to

Earl Warren has been the integ-

rity of that process. Anyone of

independent point of view is cer-

tain to find what he regards as

error in some portions of a

court's work, but he will find

little that it is ignoble. It is for

this reason that while courts may

often be subject to hysterical at-

tack, history will vindicate the

judical process.

in their relations with the stu-

dents. Important aspects of this

change listed by ACLU are: the

demographic shift to a younger

population, the extension of the

period of formal training (there-

fore of dependence), and the low-

ering of the age of social matur-

ity. The passivity of many facul-

ties has allowed most of the pow-

er in the university to pass into.

the hands of the administration,

which has been only too ready to

accept and exercise it in an es-

sentially managerial way. ce

Activist students have played

a useful role in drawing atten-

tion to the imbalance of power

within the university, and to the

increasing identification of the

university with the interest of a

social order of which it should

be the critic and conscierice.

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1968

Page 3 |

a

Chapter Activities

Berkeley / Albany

ACADEMIC FREEDOM COMMITTEE

__ A workshop will be held, September 10, 8:00 pm. at the home

of Ying Kelley, 862 Euclid, Berkeley, on the need for re-evaluatior,

of ACLUNC's role in terms of today's campus crisis, The Chapter

will make an in-depth study and recommendations to the Branch

Board. Standards by which ACLU has traditionally judged threats

to academic freedom are under challenge on the campus where the

polarization afflicting the whole society is critically manifest. Many

civil libertarians seriously wonder whether academic institutions as

we know them will survive, and whether ACLU's concepts of aca-

demic freedom should be reshaped as its intervention is requested

by opposing campus factions.

- In addition to Berkeley Chapter members, all interested Oakland

area members are specifically invited to attend the meeting.

POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE

At a public meeting in August the Committee reported on the

Chapter's newly created Police Complaint Center. Noting that 177

complaints were received as a result of the police-activist confronta-

tion and ensuing curfew, June 28-July 3, the Committee described

the operation of the Center, the complaints, and the assistance given.

The Legal Panel described two legal challenges in preparation re-

garding the complaints: (1) A civil suit involving a number of per-

sons; (2) A challenge of the constitutionality of the curfew ordinance

on the basis of vagueness and overbreadth, its improper delegation

of authority, and the fact that the area is pre-empted by state and

federal law. Attorneys Alber Bendich, Larry Duga, and Chaper legal

coordinator Ken Kawaichi will argue a demurrer on the curfew in

Berkeley Municipal Court, September 10.

The Police Conduct Complaint Center has submitted a report

with specific recommendations to the City Council. The Police Prac-

tices arm of the PCRC is investigating police manuals, policies, and

standards and has issued a checklist. The checklist and report to

the City Council are available from the Chapter Office, 1919 Berkeley

Way. :

FLEA MARKET

Cast-offs and miscellaneous articles to be sold for the benefit of

the Chapter are being collected. Members wishing to donate items

are asked to telephone the Chapter Office: 548-1322.

Oakland Area Council

The Council will meet September 5, 8:00 p.m. at the Atkinson

home, 1075 Longridge Road, Oakland. Agenda includes repor{s

from the Police-Community Relations Committee (which expects to

open Police Complaint Centers in East and West Oakland in Sep-

tember), and from the Legal, Public School and Membership Com-

mittees.

Educational projects and public events calling attention te cae

`Bill of Rights and its local implementation will be planned. Oakland

area members who have suggesions or ideas are urged to attend

or to call the Atkinsons in advance at 832-3719. The Steering Com-

mittee would like to embark on a vigorous program this fall. To

do so the participation of interested members is vital.

The Membership Chairman asks each Alameda, Emeryville,

Oakland and Piedmont member to send the names of at least two

prospective members to the Branch Office before September 15

_and to try to recruit at least one new member personally.

Free Press and Fair Trial

Freedom of the Press is guar-

anteed by the First Amendment,

the right to a fair trial by the

Sixth and Fourteenth Amend-

ments. The two occasionally con-

flict.

That a trial can be prejudiced

by the treatment accorded the

accused in the press is self-evi-

dent. The duty of the courts to

provide an accused with a fair

trial, therefore, will require a

judge, in certain circumstances,

to make some information un-

available to the press. It is then

that the conflict arises. "Scarce-

ly any political question arises in

the United States" de Toqueville

observed as early as 1835 "that

is not resolved, sooner or later,

into a judical question." Trials,

by focusing public attention on

particular events and particular

personalities, make the signifi-

cance of the conflicts of the

times easier to grasp. They re-

duce abstractions to the concrete.

Any restraint on full press cov-

erage of trials and cognate pro-

ceedings has a potential for in-

terfering with knowledgeable

public discussion of public is-

sues.

An accommodation of the con-

flicting values of free press and

fair trial will have to come from

the judiciary, confirming, once

again de Toqueville's dictum,

A case that raises the pertin-

ent issues, Craemer v, Superior

Court, is currently under sub-

mission before the Court of Ap-

peal. In that case petioners, who

are newspapermen, have been

denied access to a grand jury

transcript under an order of

Marin Superior Court Judge Jo-

seph Wilson.

ACLUNC, participating as a

friend of the court, has urged

the Court of Appeal neither to

' ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1968

Page 4

affirm nor vacate Judge Wilson's

order but, instead, to return the

case to Judge Wilson for fur-

ther findings of fact. ACLUNC

takes the position that access to

information otherwise available

to the press can only be restrict-

ed under a narrowly drawn or-

der that does no more than pro-

tect against the divulgence of

matter that can be classified as

prejudicial. Accordingly, the AC-

LUNC brief suggests the fol-

lowing procedure:

"The order now under attack

can stand only until such time

as there is a hearing on the sub-

ject of interference with a fair

trial by an impartial jury from

the material contained in the

particular transcripts. This hear-

ing should be a closed hearing

with counsel and the parties.

Counsel should be given a rea-

sonable opportunity to examine

the transcripts and discuss them

with their clients prior to the

hearing. The presence of evi-

dence which is arguably inad-

missable, such as coerced admis-

sions or confessions, prior ar-

rests, and illegally seized evi-

dence, should be sufficient to

justify a sealing order where a

jury trial is likely and the case

has sufficient public interest to

be publicized. In highly publi-

cized cases, and especially in

smal] counties such as Marin, the

trial judge should have greater

latitude, especially when given

the opinion-fixing possibilities

of the completely one-sided grand

jury testimony. The trial court

should be required to make a

specific, though undetailed,

finding of pre-trial prejudice to

sustain a sealing order through

the trial period."

ACLUNC is represented in the

Craemer case by staff counsel

Marshall Krause who has been

assisted by Pau] Halvonik and

volunteer attorney Theodore

Lachelt of the Marin Chapter.

Teachers'

Oath Killed

Since 1945 all teachers seeking

certification documents have had

to sign the following oath re-

quired by Education Code sec-

tion 13121:

"IT solemnly swear (or affirm)

that I will support the Consti-

tution of the United States of

America, he Constitution of

the State of California, and the

laws of the United States and

the State of California, and

will by precept and example

promote respect for the flag

and the statutes of the United

States and of he Sate of Cali-

fornia, reverence for law and

order, and undivided allegiance

to the Government of the Un-

ited States of America." (em-

phasis supplied)

This oath has been required

in addition to the regular oath

of allegiance to the laws and the

Constitution and in addition to

the special Levering Act loyalty

oath regarding "subversive" af-

filiations, enacted in 1952 and

declared unconstitutional by the

State Supreme Court in an AC-

LU case late last year.

Los Angeles Case

Now the State Department of

Education has acquiesced to a

Los Angeles Superior Court de-

cision that the emphasized por-

tion of the oath above is uncon-

stitutional because it is too broad

and too vague in the area of free-

dom of belief and association.

The decision came in a case

handled by ACLU of Southern

California, McManmon vy. State

Department of Education, After

the court ruled that McManmon

should get his credential al-

though he had refused to sign

the special oath, the State Board

of Education declined to appeal

and granted the credential. We

are informed that the State At-

torney General has advised the

Board of Education that it can

no longer require execution of

the oath.

The finding of a loyalty oath

as unconstitutional does not end

the problem, however. If ex-

perience with the Levering Act

oath is any indicator, the Board

of Education will try to contin-

ue to use the invalid oath on the

ground that it is merely using

up its existing stock of forms.

Any applicant for a credential

who receives a demand that he

sign the void oath should im-

mediately write to the Board of

Education objecting to the re-

quest and he should also inform

ACLUNC so that ew can take

steps to require the Board to

cross out the oath on all its

existing forms and follow the

law.

Censorship:

"The Beard'

Argument

The question of whether the

actor and actress who were ar-

rested for "lewd and dissolute

conduct" after they performed

their parts in Michael McClure's

play "The Beard' can be sub-

jected to a criminal trial under

section 647(a) of the Penal Code

will be argued before the Court

of Appeal on September 20 at

10 a.m,

ACLUNC staff counsel Mar-

shall Krause will defend Supe-

rior Court Judge Joseph Ka-

resh's decision that this Penal

Code section is not applicable

to theatrical performances and

that the two performers may

not be charged with this crime.

ACLUNC's position on the play,

which involves the simulation of

a sexual act, is that if there is

any prosecution it must be under

the anti-obscenity laws where

First Amendment standards are

in force and where the signifi-

cance of the play as First

Amendment expression can be

explored, rather than under a

Penal Code section, such as

647(a), which does not allow a

First Amendment defense,

Your Nominations, Please

Election to the Board of Directors of the ACLUNC

of members at-large is governed by a section of the

By-Laws which provides that, "Every year, the Septem-

ber issue of the ACLU NEWS shall carry an invitation

to the Union's membership to suggest names to the

nominating committee, and such names must reach the

Union's office not later than September 30 in order to

receive consideration."

The Board has a maximum membership of 30 mem-

bers at-large who are eligible to serve two consecutive

full three-year terms, after which they become inelig-

ible for one year. The terms of the 30 members at-large

are staggered so that ten offices expire each year.

Three incumbents are ineligible for re-election since

they have served two consecutive three-year terms,

namely, Rabbi Alvin I. Fine, Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross

and Mr. Richard J. Werthimer.

Eligible Incumbents

Two members have been serving unexpired one-

year terms and are now eligible for election to three-

year terms, namely, the Rev. Hamilton Boswell and

Dr. Martin Mills. The following board members have

served one full three-year term and consequently are

eligible for election to a second three-year term: Prof.

Albert M. Bendich, Prof. John Edwards, Mr. Evelio

Grillo, Mr. Howard H. Jewel, Mr. Ephraim Margolin

and Mrs. Emily Skolnick.

Five Additional Vacancies

In addition to the eight positions to which board

members are eligible for re-election for terms expiring

in 1972 five vacancies will have to be filled: one in the

Class of '70; two in the Class of '71 and two in the Class

of 72.

Alternate Method of Nomination

The By-Laws also provide that `In addition to the

foregoing method of proposing names to the nominat-

ing committee, members may make nominations di-

rectly to the Board of Directors in the following man-

ner: Not later than January 2 of each vear, nomina-

tions may be submitted by the membershin directly to

the Board of Directors, provided each nomination be

supported by the signatures of 15 or more members in

good standing and be accompanied by a summary of

qualifications and the written consent of the nominee."

Please send your suggestions for Board members

to the ACLU, 503 Market Street, San Francisco, Cali-

fornia 94105, before September 30, giving as much

biographical information about your candidate as pos-

sible. In making your suggestions please bear in mind

that Board members must be ready to defend the civil

liberties of ALL persons without distinction; that they

ate required to attend noon meetings in San Francisco

the sezond Thursday of each month except August,

of ACLUNC.

serve on committees and, of course, must be members

The nominating committee, to be appointed by

Chairman Van Dusen Kennedy on Sentember 12, will be

composed of two Board and three non-Board members.

Protestor Ruled

Eligible for

Post Office Work

Six months after her applica-

tion, San Francisco resident Ka-

ren Lofstrom has finally been in-

formed that she is "acceptable"'

for appointment to the position

of clerk-carrier in the Post Of-

fice Department. Miss Lofstrom,

a Ghandian pacifist, engaged in

civil disobedience in December

by sitting in front of the Oakland

Induction Center to express her

opposition to the war and the

draft. She served 20 days in jail

and the U.S. Civil Service Com-:

mission decided that the offense

also merited further checking

into her "suitability" for federal

employment as a postal clerk.

For several months she was un-

able to get any word on how the

investigation was _ proceeding.

Finally, ACLUNC Executive Di-

rector Ernest Besig wrote to the

Civil Service Commission re-

questing prompt action.

Last month Mr. Besig received

a letter from the Civil Service

Commission stating that Miss

Lofstrom had been approved as

eligible for federal employment,

but that the letter so informing

her was mislaid for about a

month "through clerical error."

Thus, even though the federal

government has a stated policy

against use of misdemeanor con-

victions to bar persons from fed-

eral employment, harassment

and delay can still be expected.

Chapter Director Wanted

ACLUNC has an opening for

Chapte: Director to replace Mrs.

Marcia Lang who is moving from

the Bay Area.

Some of the duties of the

Chapter Director are: serving as

liaison between the Branch and

the ten chapters and two provis-

ionary chapters; providing staff

service for the Branch Chapter

Committee; attending evening

meetings; visiting chapters fre-

quently; and meeting locally' with

groups interested in organizing

new chapters.

This is a half-time position

and when it was created in No-

vember 1965 paid $3750.

Interested persons are invited.

te write to Ernest Besig, Executive

Director, 503 Market St., San

Francisco, Calif. 94105. Personal

interviews will then be arranged

with qualified applicants.

SE BS PTO RTI LST UU Ge

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California.

ERNEST BESIG... Editor

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

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy

151

lh

'