vol. 48, no. 4

aclu ne

ws

Volume XLVIII

Landmark Victory

Involuntary Mental Patients Can Refuse Drugs

Involuntary mental patients at Napa

State Hospital cannot be treated with

antipsychotic drugs without their in- -

formed consent, according to a federal

court order approved on May 13 in San

Francisco.

The decree ending a five-year class ac-

tion lawsuit (Jamison v. Farabee) is the

first agreement of its kind in the United

States according to Golden Gate law

professor Mort Cohen representing the

plaintiffs.

At issue for over 1,000 involuntarily

committed Napa State patients are drugs

such as Thorazine and Prolixin. Painful

and sometimes permanent side effects of

these drugs include shaking, hallucina--

tions, apathy, restlessness, sexual in-

ability and painful muscular contrac-

tions.

One curable side effect, known as

tardive dyskinesia, involves persistent in-

voluntary movement of the tongue, (c)

mouth, face, hands, and feet.

Computer Error

May 1983

Cohen was joined in bringing the suit

by staff counsel for the American Civil

Liberties Union of Northern California

and ACLU cooperating attorneys from

the San Francisco law firm of Morrison

Foerster.

According to Cohen, "This agreement

is a breakthrough for the rights of in-

voluntary mental patients - by tradition

a thoroughly disenfranchised group. Up

until now, involuntary mental patients

had absolutely no right to refuse mind

altering medication. This is the first

recognition that involuntary mental pa-

tients have the right to make some

choices about their own treatment."'

The decree, approved by U.S. District

Court Judge William H. Orrick, pro-

vides for three exceptions to the gravely

disabled adult patient's right of refusal:

emergencies; substantial deterioration of

the incapable patient; or, in cases where

a conservator has been judicially em-

powered to consent for the patient, upon

Innocent Man Cleared

An innocent man who was arrested

and imprisoned because of a court

clerks's error entered into a computer

has won $1500 in damages and expunge-

ment of his record in an out-of-court set-

tlement negotiated by ACLU-NC staff

attorney Amitai Schwartz with the San

Francisco and Hillsborough Police

Departments.

Alson Tom was stopped by police late

one night in 1980 in Hillsborough for a

motor vehicle violation. When the ar-

resting officer made a warrant check on

Tom through the computerized Police

Information Network (PIN), informa-

tion came back that Tom was still

wanted for an ouitatieie bench war-

rant.

Despite the fact that Tom protested

that this was erroneous information, he

was booked, photographed, _finger-

printed and imprisoned based on the

PIN data. Bail was set for $500. The ar-

rest and imprisonment caused Tom loss

of wages and the cost of the bail bond as

well as great distress and loss of liberty.

All because of a clerk's error, magni-

fied by a police computer.

The ACLU filed suit in San Francisco

Superior Court on Tom's behalf, claim-

ing that his improper arrest and deten-

tion violated the Fourth Amendment -

the right to be free from unreasonable

search and seizure and from warrants

issued without probable cause.

ACLU attorney Schwartz explained,

"`We sued for money damages not only

for the sake of our plaintiff but because

we know that with the growth of com-

puterized police records this is not an

~ ment.

CB PLFA @ ae, ar-- -- so, oe =

BRE SA B"BO - KS =

ARR EP Hy (c) aE Boe GE a TT =

OBL PBA, WE AAS

isolated incident.

``An error working its way into a

police computer system is like a time-

bomb - it's only a matter of time before

it goes off. As the Tom case indicates,

the results to the innocent can be devas-

tating,' Schwartz added.

Schwartz was pleased with the settle-

"The expungement of this

mistaken arrest from Tom's records will

serve as protection from future harass-

ment which could result from the

arrest,"' he said.

The $1500 in damages awarded to

Tom is also significant, Schwartz noted.

"If the cities and counties have to pay

for these mistakes, then perhaps they will

be more careful in the future about ar-

resting innocent people."'

an independent reviewer's determination

that the drugs are necessary.

Defendants in the case were the Direc-

tors of the State Department of Mental

Health, Department of Developmental

Services, and Department of Health Ser-

vices. |

The suit was supported by Dr. Jerome

Lackner, Director of the state Depart-

ment of Health from 1975 to 1978.

In his declaration filed in the suit,

Lackner noted, ``The underlying

political reality of the treatment of men-

tally ill patients is that cost considera-

tions sometimes severely constrict the al-

ternative offered to patients . . Thora-

zine, Prolixin, and Haldol are quite in-

expensive compared with adequate staff-

ing levels."'

Lackner, a practicing internist, has

had direct experience with antipsychotic

medications. According to Lackner,

various studies of long-term medicated

patients show incidents of tardive dys-

kinesia ranging from 10 to 60 percent.

The class action suit was first filed in

1978 on behalf of mental patients at

Napa State Hospital. An April 1979

agreement in the suit provided that vol-

untary mental patients in all public and

private licensed health care institutions in

the state of California had the right to

refuse antipsychotic medication. This

decree affects all mentally ill persons de-

tained at Napa State Hospital due to in-

ability to care for themselves or because

they are dangerous to themselves and

others.

Informed consent

The settlement provides that patients

will be provided with sufficient informa-

tion with which to make a decision, and

the opportunity to consent, except in

Attorney Mort Cohen fought a six-year

lawsuit to win the rights of voluntary and

involuntary mental patients in California

to refuse mind altering drugs.

emergencies. "`This means that a// pa-

tients, no matter what their condition,

must be informed about reasonable al-

ternative treatment and the possible side

effects of the drugs, before the drugs can

be administered. That is what we mean

by informed consent,"' explained Cohen.

In the case of patients who are in-

voluntarily detained for an initial 72

hours or an additional 14 days as pre-

scribed by state law, the decree provides

that if these patients refuse drugs because

of side effects, their choice cannot be ig-

nored even if the treating psysician be-

lieves that their condition is substantially

deteriorating.

The settlement provides that where a

committed person has lost the power to

continued on page 6

New Board Members

Urban Affairs Consultant Patsy Ful-

cher. and attorney Steven Swig were

elected at the May Board meeting to fill

unexpired terms on the ACLU-NC

Board of Directors created by the resig-

nations of Jerome B. Falk, Jr. and

Eleanor Friedman.

Fulcher is a co-founder of Black

Women Organized for Action and is an

Urban Affairs Consultant with Aileen

Hernandez and Associates. Fulcher has

been active in pro-choice organizing and

was a panelist in the Reproductive Rights

Workshop at the ACLU-NC 1982 An-

nual Conference. |

Swig, an attorney with the firm of Tit-

chell, Maltzman, Marks, Bass, Ohleyer

Mischel, is active in political and com-

munity affairs in San Francisco. He

serves on the Boards of the American

Jewish Committee, the Jewish Home for

the Aged and St. Francis Hospital.

Fulcher and Swig will begin service on

the Board in June and will fill terms until

June 1984, when they will be eligible to

stand for general election.

Board Elections

The 1983 Board elections will take

place through the June-July issue of

ACLU News. In the Election Issue there

will be statements by candidates

nominated by the Board and by petition

as well as a ballot which all members are

encouraged to fill in and mail for selec-

tion of next year's Board of Directors.

Be sure to watch these pages so that

you can participate in electing the

1983-84 ACLU-NC Board of Directors.

aclu news"

may 1983

Can demonstrators be charged a fee for police services? What if it is

a very big rally, with corresponding crowd control and traffic prob-

lems? Or if a city is truly strapped for funds in this post-Proposition 13

climate - and there is no money available in the city budget for police

services which are less than ``essential?'' How about for groups like

the Ku Klux Klan, since their presence on the streets is likely to trigger

counter-demonstrators and thus the need for additional police ser-

vices? Who pays these bills? Is it permissible to require groups to

secure insurance against all potential inquiries occurring during

political demonstrations?

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich addresses these

pressing First Amendment questions, which, particularly since the

passage of Proposition 13, have repeatedly been brought to the

`ACLU-NC.

The ACLU-NC has consistently in-

formed city attorneys, police chiefs and

`even the Mayor of San Francisco that

there can be no price tag attached to the

exercise of First Amendment rights. In

hearly every instance ACLU-NC staff

counsel have been successful in persuad-

ing government officials to remove such

illegal price tags.

The First Amendment arguments are

straightforward. To allow the govern-

ment to bill people for the exercise of

First Amendment rights is impermissible

~ because it limits the right of protest to

only those groups or individuals who can

afford to pay. More importantly, who

sets the fees and how are they estab-

lished? If you mobilize 10,000 people to

join your group's protest could you fear -

an extraordinary bill? What if only twen-

ty people actually attend your march,

but their picket signs are provocative and

snarl traffic?

Would the rule be established based

on numbers, or must the bill be paid in

advance - so you could scale down the

demonstration or the message to corres-

pond with your group's fiscal limita-

tions? Clearly, financial considerations

begin to conflict directly with the First

Amendment's guarantee that individuals

and groups have a constitutional right to

peacefully communicate their message.

Selective Application

Time and time again, arbitrary deci-

sions are made about what group is

charged a fee versus what event is

honored by government officials with a

free pass. (In San Francisco, for in-

stance, the distributor of the film Cruis-

ing was presented with a bill from the

City and County of San Francisco be-

cause of the need for police to control a

peaceful crowd protesting the release of

the movie in 1980. However, when the (c)

49'ers were welcomed back to San Fran-

cisco after they won the Super Bowl, the

City agreed to foot a bill which exceeded

$50,000 for police services in managing

an impromptu victory parade.)

Recent incidents vividly illustrate the

problem. In March of this year, when

the KKK approached the City Council

of Oakdale for a parade permit, their re-

quest was granted. However, following

agreement to grant the permit came a

new resolution from the Council which

allowed the police chief discretion to

selectively bill groups for police services.

The Council applied the new rule to the

Klan and set the tab at $761.03 to be paid

in advance.

The organizers did not have the

money, nor did they believe that the city .

had the right to demand payment; as the

After many days of negotiating,

ACLU-NC staff counsel with the aid of

the Earl Warren Chapter persuaded city

officials to allow the march to go for- -

ward as planned, leaving aside for a later

date the final settlement of the tab. To

date, no bill has been received, although

there is no assurance that such a practice

will not be arbitrarily enforced in the

future. And what about groups who do

not call ACLU-NC for action? -

Exception

Through negotiation, the ACLU-NC

has succeeded in paving the way for

many groups to exercise First Amend-

What Price Free Speech? -

fee was imposed, the lawsuit charges,

should be declared unconstitutional.

Are First Amendment rights in danger

of being strangled by government purse

strings? It was in fact President Reagan's

State of the Union address in January,

1983 outlining his administration's plans -

to cut back essential poverty programs

which provoked the African National

Reparations Organization's protest

demonstration in Oakland.

Surely hard times and shrinking bud-

gets provide even greater justification for

ACLU-NC's insistence that the principle

of free speech not be abridged, for it is

precisely this kind of public debate, on

the public streets during times of crises,

| ESCALATO R?

cane areca

_iecea pr DEORE

w On 0x00A7

area ae

euro

| | "SRee"

SPEECH "RECESSION SPECIAL"

date of the demonstration drew near,

they called the ACLU-NC for assistance.

ACLU-NC staff counsel was able to

resolve the matter in 24 hours by calling

the lawyer for the City and presenting

the First Amendment problems. The

lawyer for the city responded to ACLU's

challenge by granting the KKK the right

to protest - for free - if they would

move the demonstration from the local

park to the adjacent city street. This op-

tion was agreeable, and the demonstra-

tion took place on April 3 as scheduled.

Ironically, the KKK demonstration

was a protest of the Board of Prison.

Terms decision to release Archie Fain.

Fain's release, however, was not to

follow this schedule, as at the 11th hour,

on April 5, the Governor also protested

Fain's release by overturning the Board's

determination [see sidebar].

While the Klan demonstration dispute'

was resolved, a similar issue continues to

simmer in the City of Oakland. Here the

Oakland police conditioned a march by

the African National Reparations Or-

ganization planned for February 12, on

the receipt of $1,530. The ACLU-NC

discovered that `"`discounts'' are some-

times available, for the Oakland

officials' first response to the ACLU

protest was to lower the fee to $400.

ment rights by convincing local govern- -

-ments to either waive fees for police and

other services, to waive insurance bond

`requirements, or to promulgate new

rules which do not place an undue bur-

den on groups wishing to protest but

who can not pay the price.

The City of Novato has proven, how-

ever, to be an exception. The ACLU-NC

has had to bring a lawsuit in federal

court to force compliance. That case,

brought in December, 1982 is demanding

that a police services and insurance fee

imposed by the City of Novato on a

march sponsored by the Ad Hoc Com-

mittee for Nuclear Disarmament be re-

turned. The ordinance under which the

which the First Amendment must

guarantee. ae

Hostile administrations in Washing-

ton, D.C. and California have height-

ened the ACLU-NC's awareness of the

potential for government to abuse

power and to limit First Amendment

rights. Moreover, the ACLU-NC is re-

minded that it cannot extend its First

Amendment advocacy only to those

groups who enhance debate on such vital

issues as the nuclear freeze and budget

cuts. Rather, it must continue to respond

to any official act which restricts dissent

- even when the dissenters promote a

message which we abhor, such as in the

KKK in Oakdale.

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director (2).

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page i

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

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

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

Elaine Elinson, Editor

|

=

ACLU Raps

Deukmejian

for Blocking

Fain Parole

The attempt by Governor George

Deukmejian to circumvent the legal pro-

cess and prevent the parole of William

Archie Fain came under fire from the

ACLU-NC.

In an April 6 letter to the Governor,

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich and Legislative Advocate Mar-

jorie Swartz charged the Governor with

`usurpation of judicial powers .

having far-reaching and frightening civil

liberties implications."'

The ACLU protest came after it was

learned that the Governor had unilateral-

ly revoked Fain's release order issued by

the Board of Prison Terms, thereby ig-

noring earlier court rulings. The Gover-

nor's action followed a widely publicized

petition drive by residents of Oakdale

(where Fain had committed his 1967

crime) that gathered 62,000 signatures

`demanding that Fain be kept in prison.

The Marin County Superior Court had

thoroughly reviewed the parole decision

and determined that the denial of parole

could not be based on such public |

pressure.

The Court of Appeal agreed and then

sent the case back to the Board of Prison

Terms, which ordered Fain released

because the only cause to hold him was

public pressure.

"No other citizen has the right or the

power to decide that he or she can ignore

an unfavorable court decision and

constitute a new panel of one's own

choosing to redecide the case,'' the

ACLU told the Governor. ``This colli-

sion between the executive and judical

branches of government has the poten-

tial of precipitating a constitutional crisis

of the first order.

`"`The issue of Mr. Fain's parole has

been fully and fairly litigated with all

parties having an opportunity to present

their best case. As an attorney, former

Attorney General and Governor, you are

sworn to uphold the law - not ignore it

when you do not find it to your liking.

We find it particularly disturbing that

your power to revoke the parole was ex-

ercised after all the court proceedings

had been exhausted.

`"`We are also extremely concerned

with the precedent that is being set by

this action and the possibility of addi-

tional usurpation of judicial powers in

the future,'' the ACLU letter concluded.

The Governor asked the California

Judges Association for assistance in re-

viewing the Board of Prison Terms'

parole decision on Fain. Two former

judges were selected to act as special

hearing officers, but they have not heard

the case because Fain went back to the

Court of Appeal where his lawyer:argued

on May 17 that Deukmejian was without

power to rescind the parole date.

No decision has yet been reached, and

Archie Fain remains in jail.

aclu news

may 1983

ACLU Says Police Complaints Budget

The San Francisco Police Commission

must propose a larger 1983-84 budget for

the new Office of Citizens Complaints

(OCC) claims an ACLU lawsuit filed on

May 10 in Superior Court.

The suit charges the Police Com-

mission with failing to comply with re-

quirements of last November's Proposi-

tion A, the Charter Amendment which

establishes the OCC to replace the much

criticized police Internal Affairs Bureau

(IAB) which currently investigates citizen

complaints of police abuse and

misconduct.

According to ACLU staff counsel

Amitai Schwartz, ``Under a _ proper

reading of Proposition A, the Police

Commission could have requested at

least nine investigators for the next fiscal

year instead of the seven now proposed. -

"Given the potential volume of citizen

complaints about the Police Depart-

ment, this shortage of investigators could

seriously undermine the ability of the

new bureau to do its job - a job

demanded by the voters,'' added

Schwartz.

The ACLU is representing Supervisor

Harry Britt, the principal author of Pro-

position A.

"The people of San Francisco ap-

proved the creation of the OCC over-

whelmingly last November,'' Supervisor

Britt said. ``In so comes they demanded

Is Too Low

that an adequate system be set up to in-

vestigate and reduce police misconduct.

The language the voters approved was

clear. It said that money spent on the

OCC was only to be used to pay for a

ON

"=

vee

| Sy

ce)

director and investigators. Unless the city

correctly interprets that language, as this

action would have it do, the OCC is

doomed to being completely overworked

and the people of this City will be with-

out the protection they need against

police misconduct. I'm sure the City

does not want that,'' he added.

Other plaintiffs include former San

Francisco School Board: member Peter

Mezey, head of the S.F.~ Bar

Se

Association's task force monitoring the

implementation of the OCC; James

Morales, president of the San Francisco

_ Latino Democratic Club; S. Chandler

Visher, chairperson of the ACLU's San

Francisco Chapter; and Howard J. Ber-

man, a San Francisco lawyer specializing

in police abuse cases.

Defendants include the Police Com-

mission, Police Chief Cornelius P. Mur-

phy, Mayor Dianne. Feinstein, and City

Controller John C. Farrell.

Proposition A requires that the new

OCC budget not exceed 60 percent of the

actual costs, adjusted for inflation, for

the police Internal Affairs Bureau during

the 1980-81 fiscal year.

The ACLU claims that the Commis-

sion's calculations ignore the costs for

police officers who were assigned from

other units to the IAB during 1980-81.

The ACLU also urges that clerical

staff, equipment, and supplies should -

not be counted against the new budget

ceiling as the Police Commission pro-

poses, but against the regular depart-

ment budget.

Prior to filing the lawsuit ACLU at-

torney Schwartz and the plaintiffs tried

_unsuccessfully for several months to pur-

suade the Police Commission staff to

change their interpretation of the charter

_language concerning the OCC budget.

Poverty Rises, Poverty Law Declines

The Santa Clara County i eed Aid

Society is one of 16 legal services pro-

grams around the country studied by the

ACLU for its newly released report No

Justice For the Poor. The report reveals

the destructive effect of federal budget

cutbacks on the ability of the Legal Ser-

vices Corporation to provide legal help

for the poor.

According to the survey, the number

of Legal Services Lawyers has been

reduced by 28 percent nationwide, over

300 field offices have been closed, and

other offices are operating only during

limited hours. Many programs have had

to limit their services to emergencies, and

whole areas of representation - such as

family law, consumer law and eligibility

hearings for recipients of Social Security

disability payments - have been elim-

inated or sharply curtailed.

"`The Reagan Administration has at-

tempted to portray these cuts as pri-

marily economic,"' said national ACLU

Executive Director Ira Glasser. ``But in

fact they are another attempt by the Ad-

ministration to deny poor people access

to the protection of the law, and to cut

them out of the Constitution. Without

access to a lawyer, the guarantee of

`equal protection of the laws' is empty,

and justice becomes the exclusive proper-

ty of those who can afford to pay for it."'

The report, written by national ACLU

staff members Loren Siegel and David

Landau, states that a combination of

Reagan's cuts and inflation has actually

reduced Legal Services Corporation

funding by 35%

Eugene Flemate of the Santa Clara |

County Legal Aid Society is quoted in

the report, `"Everybody's sucking up the

gut and working .. . it's a little like be-

ing in the trenches. We know what's go-

ing on and hope that maybe someone

somewhere's going to realize that we

can't continue this way."'

The ACLU report calls upon Congress |

to refund the Legal Services Corporation

to an adequate level ``expeditiously, be-

fore more damage can be done. The time

honored principle of `equal justice under

the law' demands no less."'

Copies of the No Justice for the Poor

are available for $1.00 from the Public

Information Department, ACLU, 132

W. 43rd St., New York, 10036.

Spring

`SY Into Action -

Join the ACLU

( ) Individual $20 (

Name

) Joint $30

and an additional contribution of $----

(_ ) This is a gift membership from

Add ress

City

Return to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

Ee ge ia eS ig pe

Zip

aclu news

may 1983

Reproductive

Key Committee Votes

for Abortion Funds

by Marjorie Swartz

ACLU Legislation Advocate

After five years of successfully fight-

ing in the courts to reverse the Legis-

lature's elimination of Medi-Cal funding

for abortion from the state budget, the

ACLU-NC has been successful for the

first time in persuading a key Assembly

committee to add $17 million Medi-Cal

dollars for abortion funding to the

1983-84 budget.

The Assembly Budget Subcommittee

decision came on April 20 after ACLU-

NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby, who

has litigated the abortion funding case

for half a decade, testified on behalf of

pro-choice advocates about the impor-

tance of the funding.

The dramatic turn-around is especially

significant in that it alters the Budget

legal issues to the Subcommittee. Crosby

explained the previous court decisions

and the constitutional duty to provide

public funding for abortion.

She also described to the Subcom-

mittee that to put money in the budget

would actually prove to be a cost-savings

in the long run because the Department

of Health Services already had to pay

over $100,000 to the Attorney General's

office for defending the previous five

lawsuits, and would only have to pay

more to defend a sixth lawsuit if the

funds were deleted.

In addition, Crosby noted, the state

had been ordered to pay attorney's fees

to the ACLU-NC by the state Supreme

Court and Court of Appeal.

RightsFightHeatsUp

`Mothers Day' Petitions

Target Governor

Nn

0x00B0

-

Of

oI

Qa

7S}

2

el

)

S

-

ACLU members and other pro-choice supporters mark the culmination of the

ACLU-sponsored reproductive rights petition drive at the Governor's office in

Sacramento. ACLU lobbyist Daphne Macklin welcomes the pro-choice crowd to

Margaret Crosby,

ACLU-NC staff counsel

Dan Coyro/Sentinel

testified before an

assembly subcommittee on abortion funding.

proposed by Governor George Deuk-

mejian, a longtime foe of abortion fund-

ing. The Governor's budget, unlike those

proposed by former Governor Brown,

has totally eliminated Medi-Cal funds

for abortion.

The Governor's cuts are reflective ot

his ``activist'? approach to the budget

process. Unlike the previous administra-

tion, this governor is attempting to enact

major policy changes through the budget

-- and cutting of Medi-Cal funding for

abortion is a chief target of his attack.

This issue was reviewed by Assembly

Subcommittee #1, chaired by Assembly-

member Art Agnos (D-SF). Before the

Governor's budget is approved by the

Legislature, it is divided into subject

areas and reviewed by subcommittees of

the Assembly Ways and Means and the

Senate Finance Committees. Decisions

by these issue subcommittees are crucial

`as they then send recommendations to

the full committees, which in turn make

recommendations to the Legislature.

Crosby was selected by a broad range

of pro-choice advocates to present the

The Governor's representative from

the Department of Finance claimed the

Governor had not placed the money in

the budget because the U.S. Supreme

Court has ruled that abortions need not

be publicly funded under the federal con-

stitution.

Agnos responded that the California

Constitution, however, requires funding.

`How many times will it take before the

administration finally gives up?'' he

asked the Department of Finance of-

ficial. ``Aren't five losses enough?''

The Subcommittee indicated that in-

deed five losses were enough by voting to

add $17 million dollars to the budget for

Medi-Cal abortions.

The issue will next be heard in the

Senate Finance subcommittee.

Marjorie Swartz recently joined Daphne

Macklin in the Sacramento Legislative

Office operated jointly by the ACLU-

NC and the ACLU of. Southern Cali-

fornia. A profile of our new Legislative

Advocate will appear in the next issue of

the ACLU News.

the Capitol.

A crowd of pro-choice supporters -

with babies and balloons - wished

Governor Deukmejian ``Happy

Mothers' Day'' in Sacramento on May 9

by presenting him with thousands of sig-

natures on petitions calling for the

preservation of reproductive rights.

Governor Deukmejian was selected as

the recipient of the petitions because of

his strong anti-choice record. He spoke

out against abortion during his campaign

for Governor and his 1983-84 state bud-

get drastically reduces funding for abor-

tions under the Medi-Cal system.

Douglas Watts, Director of Public Af-

fairs for the Governor, accepted the peti-

tions on Deukmejian's behalf.

Four women, representing the millions

of Californians who support reproduc-

tive choice, turned in more than 15,000

signatures affirming the right of in-

dividual choice in childbearing.

`*Children are too important to be left

to chance,'' said) Norma Clevenger,

director of Planned Parenthood A/ffili-

ates of California and the mother of

three children. ``Motherhood must be a

positive choice for each woman."'

""We believe that to be pro-choice is to

be pro-child and pro-family,'' ACLU-

NC spokeswoman Anne Jennings ex-

plained. ``We chose May 9 to present the

petitions because Mothers' Day tradi-

tionally celebrates the important role

women play as mothers, and to under-

score the dangers to reproductive choice

now facing us."'

Eleven bills have already been intro-

duced in the California Legislature

which would restrict access to abortion

services. Although four of them have re-

cently been defeated, several others are

scheduled for committee hearings this

month.

In addition, the sixth year of court

battles over Medi-Cal funding for abor-

tion looms unless full availability - and

funding - is included in the 1983-84

state budget (see story this page.)

The pro-choice petitions, calling for

opposition to any legislation which

restricts the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court

decision legalizing abortion, were cir-

culated by members of ACLU's Pro-

Choice Task Force and other groups, in-

cluding Planned Parenthood, Campaign

for Economic Democracy, Committee to

Defend Reproductive Rights, California

Abortion Rights Action League, NOW,

and Catholics for a Free Choice.

Organizers Kathy Cramer and Barbara

Trott spent many hours during the peti-

tion drive gathering signatures and

discussing the issues surrounding repro-

ductive choice; in addition, supporters

like Mark O'Neil of Catholics for a Free

Choice, pitched in during the critical last

days of the campaign and insured

suCCESS.

The petition presentation was fol-

lowed by a special Pro-Choice Picnic on

the Capitol lawn, and brought together

supporters ranging from 6 months to 60

years old. .

aclu news

may 1983

Feminist F ights for First Amendment at UC Davis

by Evvie Rasmusen

A University of California employee

has rehung a feminist poster in her office

- a poster which nearly cost the em-

ployee her job.

Merri Mindlin, an administrative

assistant in the UC Davis Office of

Financial Aid, removed the poster in

December after her supervisor threat-

ened to dismiss her if she did not take it

down.

The poster, titled "Twelve Suggestions

for Heterosexual Men Who Want to

Know How They Can Support the

Women's Movement,'' hung near Mind-

lin's desk for 10 months before her .

supervisor told her three employes had

complained it offended them.

Written by Sally Wagner, a university

professor in Minnesota, the poster's 10

points include suggestions that men take

militant action against pornography, -

always carry condoms, castrate them-

selves mentally, destroy the idea of the

penis as a weapon and treat a woman's

vagina as her home.

Mindlin's supervisor first told her to

take the poster down, then apologized

and said it could remain. Then Mindlin

received a memo telling her to take the

poster down or lose her job.

On the advice of her attorney Noreen

Mazelis, Mindlin removed the poster

and, after failing to resolve the issue in-

formally, filed a grievance with the uni-

versity in January. The university told

Mindlin the issue was not grievable and

the matter would be considered under

administrative review.

"`The great rubber stamp,'' Mazelis

tagged the administrative review process.

`*Merri's boss reviews it, his boss reviews

it, the chancellor reviews it - there's no

hearing, nothing even approaching a

neutral tribunal."'

Lacking an open forum within the

university, Mindlin held a press confer-

ence. She was joined by Yolo County

ACLU Chair Julius Young and the

Sacramento chapter of the National Or-

ganization for Women.

Mazelis said the support of the ACLU

may have turned the tide for Mindlin's

case. In addition to talking to the press,

Yolo County ACLU wrote a letter to the

chancellor and met with university of-

ficials advocating Mindlin's First

Amendment rights. The ACLU-NC

board decided to back Mindlin in her

First Amendment fight by representing

her in court if the od process

failed.

The university was relying on a written

policy that freedom of speech and ad-

vocacy on campus may be exercised in a

"`time, place and manner'"' which assures

orderly conduct, least interference with

ACLU Scores Win

A state employed social worker who

was disciplined and suspended from her

post for ``blowing the whistle'? on her

employer's violation of the law has been

_awarded back pay and expungement of

the suspension from all records, as the

result of an ACLU appeal.

Sherry Smith is a licensed clinical

social worker who worked with devel-

opmentally disabled children at Sonoma

State Hospital. Her duties included pa-

tient assistance and advocacy in connec-

tion with the educational program made

available to the patients by state law.

Smith raised objections to hospital ad-

ministrators and county officials about

the hospital's failure to provide an in-

dividual education program to develop-.

mentally disabled children in her care, as

mandated by state law.

Shortly after voicing her complaint,

she was given a `"`counseling memo-

randum'' by the hospital administrator

warning her to confine her role as ad-

vocate to ``established channels,'' and to

abstain from expressing personal judg-

ments about the educational program to

parents and other agencies.

After Smith complained at various

staff meetings about the educational pro-

grams without any result, she initiated

complaints with the California Depart- -

ment of Education and the Federal Of-

fice of Civil Rights. She also informed

various parents that they had legal rights

with regard to the educational programs.

Smith used state stationery to com-

municate some of this information.

As a result of her whistleblowing, -

Smith was terminated by the administra-

tors for disrupting their work. They said

that they were `"`spending an inordinate

amount of time responding to her com-

plaints,'' and attempted to terminate her

for insubordination, willful disobe-

dience, misuse of state property (the sta-

tionery) and other misbehavior causing

discredit to the agency.

The State Department of Education,

on the other hand, found that Sonoma

State Hospital had failed to comply with

the state federal mandates in six of the

ten areas that Smith brought to their at-

tention. The Federal Office of Civil

Rights concurred.

At her termination hearing, the State -

Personnel Board ruled that Smith's ef-

forts on behalf of her patients were

undertaken in good faith and that her

complaints to the various agencies were

protected by the First Amendment and

state and federal statutes. The Board

however found that disciplinary action

was appropriate for misuse of the sta-

tionery and for using the annual social

service assessments as a vehicle to express

"`nolitical''? and ``personal'' views.

The Board reduced the penalty to a

60-day suspension, which Smith ap-

pealed, acting on her own behalf, to

Sonoma Superior Court. The court up-

held the 60-day suspension, based on the

entries in the social service assessments;

however it found that the misuse of state

stationery was insignificant and agreed

that Smith's rights had been violated

when she was threatened in an attempt to

keep her from complaining about the

educational program. Subsequently,

Smith resigned from Sonoma State

Hospital.

The ACLU represented Smith on her -

appeal of the superior court decision.

`There were two principal issues here,"'

explained ACLU-NC

Amitai Schwartz who represented Smith

in her appeal. ``Would the agency have

taken the same action against Smith if

she had not exercised her rights under the

First Amendment and other statutes pro-

tecting whistleblowers?

"And secondly, were the standards

governing the use and purpose of social

staff counsel -

cA

university responsibilities, protection of

individual rights and ``reasonable protec-

tion of persons against practices that

would make them involuntary

audiences."'

"`What is appropriate time, place and

manner?'' Mazelis asks. ``It's much like

the old practice in the south, where the

fire marshall decided whether the Ku (c)

service assessments sufficiently precise to

give Smith notice that her criticism of the

hospital program in the assessments

would result in disciplinary action?

In the course of the appeal, Schwartz

negotiated a settlement with the hospital

awarding Smith back pay, including for

Klux Klan or the NAACP got a permit

to march.

"Except there's no fire marshall - so

who decides? Every lunatic with a beef

can decide he doesn't like your poster.

What you have then is private censorship

which is arbitrary, almost capricious.

Someone decides to stir the pot and sud-

denly the weight of the regents comes

down on a person - it's Kafkaesque."'

"This is the most important First

Amendment issue to arise on the UC

Davis campus in a long time,'' ACLU

chapter president Young added. `"`It

threatens the university's image as a

beacon of learning and citadel of free

debate."'

For the chapter, Young wrote a letter

to Chancellor James Meyer citing 30 ex-

amples of posters which might be seen

around a college campus - things like

"Abortion is murder''; ``Christ is the

answer''; ``God is dead''; Playboy cen-

terfolds; and ``Woman is the nigger of

the world.'' Young suggested all 29 ex-

amples might be offensive to someone

and asked the administration to examine

how they would determine which mes-

sages could-not be posted.

The university currently is reviewing

its policy. In the meantime, Mindlin was

told she could rehang her poster. The let- .

ter threatening her dismissal has been re-

moved from her personnel file.

for Whistleblower

the period of the 60-day suspension and

a complete expungement of the disciplin-

ary measures from her employer

record.

Smith is now working at a private

agency as a fulltime advocate for dis-

abled children's rights to education.

Hanzel Fund Grant

for Jail Manual

A grant of $1500 from the Lola.

Hanzel Advocacy Fund will be used to

publish the revised edition of the

Jailhouse Lawyers Manual, ACLU-NC

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich an-

nounced at the April Board meeting.

In late 1980, the Board of Directors

established a trust fund in memory of

Lola Hanzel who, as an ACLU com-

plaint counselor, was a strong advocate

for the rights of all people to humane

treatment and conditions - including

prisoner's rights. Gifts given in tribute to

Hanzel's work were earmarked for a

special project which would commem-

orate and continue her. work.

``Lola was a founder and a ten-year

veteran of the ACLU Complaint Desk

before her untimely death in 1980,''

Ehrlich said. ``She gave the gifts of

warmth, wise counsel and encourage-

ment to hundreds of people seeking

assistance from the ACLU - it is so fit-

ting that gifts given in her memory will

be used to help thousands more,'' she

added.

easy-to-use, 50-page booklet which in

clear, simple language explains how to

bring a federal civil rights suit to

challenge and redress. unconstitutional

prison conditions. The manual de-

The Jailhouse Lawyers Manual i is an

mystities the legal system and puts into

prisoners' hands the power and ability to

prepare and carry forward their own liti-

gation concerning prison conditions and .

mistreatment - by far the most com-

mon complaints of prisoners - or alter-

natively. to conceive a lawsuit, retain a

lawyer, and work effectively with that

lawyer.

Thirty thousand copies of the original

1974 edition of the manual have already

been distributed and thousands of un--

filled requests for copies have been piling

up at the ACLU, the National Lawyers'

Guild and other organizations which do

work with prisoners.

The $1500 grant from the Hanzel

Fund, in addition to donations from the

Vanguard Foundation, the State Bar of

California, and the Capp Street Founda-

tion, will allow for 10,000 copies of the

revised manual to be printed and distri-

buted.

""We are grateful to Lola's family for

thoughtfully considering this use of the

Fund, to the authors of the Jailhouse

Lawyers Manual for revising and _mak-

ing available this valuable legal guide for

inmates - and most especially to Lola

for providing us with her indomitable

spirit as an example for us all to follow

as we Strive to give our best in the battle

for civil liberties,' Ehrlich added.

7 aclu news

may 1983

Mental Patients Win Right

to Refuse Drugs coined om.

refuse because a court has given that

power to a conservator who consents to

the treatment, the patient may still not be

medicated without his or her consent.

Medication may be provided only if an

independent reviewer determines that the

drugs are the least restrictive treatment

consent to the drugs, the medications

cannot be used even with the approval of

the independent reviewer and the conser-

vator unless a therapeutic review com-

mittee at the hospital approves the use o

the medication.

According to Cohen, the settlement

ae Se EI

available, that their benefits outweigh

their risks, and that without the drugs

the patient cannot participate in a treat-

ment plan. -

The decree also specifies that if a con-

servator refuses to consent, that refusal |

is to be honored.

The settlement further provides that

the state Department of Mental Health

will hire an as yet undetermined number

of persons to act as independent re-

viewers. It also provides that patients'

rights advocates will represent the in-

terest of the patients before the indepen-

dent reviewers.

For pregnant women or _ persons

having tardive dyskenesia who do not

Zz BE

Zan

=-DYSKINESIA

PIDEMIC

ZB : Le . "

represents a far-reaching advance in the

rights of mental patients. ``Too many of

us presume incorrectly that mental pa-

tients have no ability to make valid deci-

sions, sO we drug them and discard

them.

"It's about time we began to listen to

and respect mentally committed people

.and permit them some. dignity and

autonomy,'' Cohen added.

In addition to Cohen, attorneys who

worked on Jamison v. Farabee include

ACLU-NC staff counsel Alan Schlosser

and ACLU-NC. cooperating attorneys

Jack Londen, William Alsup, Ellen

Borgersen, and Lewis Lazarus from the

firm of Morrison and Foerster.

Lobbying for Freedom continued from page 8

votes on reproductive rights measures in

the Legislature can generate hundreds of

messages in less than 24 hours.

The Right to Dissent Subcommittee

has developed a similar action network

to ensure that a well-informed civil liber-

ties response can be sent to elected

representatives on key First Amendment

issues.

"Our lobbyists in Sacramento are act-

ing on behalf of 20,000 ACLU members

Book Order Form

Please send me

each plus $1.00 postage. Enclosed is $

Name

in `northern California,'' explained

Gallo, ``and our active members take the

responsibility of ensuring that the legis-

lators are well aware of our opinions and

our strength."'

Lobbying for Freedom costs $6.95.

Copies may be ordered from the Field

Representative, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion St., S.F. 94103. Please add $1.00 for

postage and handling (per order).

I want to learn how to lobby for civil liberties.

copies of Lobbying for Freedom in the 1980's at $6.95

. Please send to:

THE TARDIVE

Address

City Zip

19066 0000000000808 CRCCCe

Make a check or money order out to ACLU-NC and mail to Lobbying for Freedom,

Field Representative, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103.

DOCO0O 00800000000 0000009000000 090000898008 0008000000 8S008

GOSS SSOGS 6 OSS SO OO SESOOSSOSE HSS S BOTH OSES CTH SCE HE SHSSSSSS OSS

19 OS 008 OOOO SOO88OOO8OSO8

Open Season on

`Open

by George Kelly

The ACLU-NC and two other or-

ganizations have declared open season

on the ``open fields'' doctrine, warning

the United States Supreme Court in a

friend-of-the-court brief that the

privacy rights of thousands of un-

documented workers are at stake.

The 58-page amicus brief written by

cooperating attorney Eric Neisser of

Stanford Law School for the ACLU-

NC, the Mexican American Legal

Defense and Educational Fund

(MALDEF) and California Rural

Legal Assistance (CRLA), argues that

unrestricted access by government

agents to ``open fields'' will undermine

private property rights and jeopradize

privacy rights of farmworkers and

other employees.

The brief was filed on March 10 in

the case of Oliver v. United States, in

which a 62-year-old retired Kentucky

farmer was arrested for ``knowingly

and intentionally manufacturing mari-

juana.'"' The farmer leased his 200-acre

spread in rural Kentucky to four peo-

ple, some of whom apparently main-

tained a thriving marijuana patch.

Oliver was arrested when government

agents drove onto his land, past four

``No Trespassing'"' signs along a nar-

row gravel road, a mile past Oliver's

house, and then followed a path on

foot past a locked metal gate.

They finally found a secluded mari-

juana field more than a mile from

Oliver's home. The fields were not visi-

ble from the nearby Cumberland River

or from a nearby barn, the locked

metal gate, the Oliver home, the closest

public highway, lands owned by

Oliver's neighbors, or the nearest point

of public access.

A U.S. District Court found that this

search violated Oliver's reasonable ex-

pectation of privacy guaranteed by the .

Fourth Amendment, and a three-judge

panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court

of Appeal also found the search

unlawful. But the full Sixth Circuit

court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the

search was permitted by the ``open.

fields'? doctrine, which stems from a

59-year-old U.S. Supreme Court deci-

sion.

Adhering to this doctrine, the Sixth

Circuit majority found that ``any ex-

pectation of privacy that an owner

might have with respect to his open

field is not, as a matter of law, an ex-

pectation that society is prepared to

ECCOPNIZe aS reasonable. -

The majority argued that ``the Fourth

Amendment does not protect an open

field of marijuana. It would protect a

person in an open field or house built

there but not the field itself.'"' And

finally, in a burst of rhetoric,.the court

explained, ``The legal principles that

protect privacy, therefore, do not pro-

tect the desert island, the mountain top

or the open field - even one the owner

has posted with a `no trespass' sign."'

A lengthy dissent concluded that

farmer Oliver had a reasonable ex-

pectation of privacy concerning his

farm and that, ``The personal free-

doms and privacy which all Americans

hold dear would be seriously eroded if

we approved a carte blanche rule al-

lowing police officers to barnstorm

Fields'

around private property whenever they

received an `anonymous tip' that illegal

activities were being conducted on the

land."' `

When the U.S. Supreme Court

agreed to decide the case on Oliver's

appeal, the ACLU-NC, MALDEF and ~

CRLA recognized that it would have

important implications - specifically,

in the ongoing challenge to the Immi-

- gration and Naturalization Service's

random sweeps through factories and

farms in search of undocumented

workers.

The three organizations have repre-

_sented and continue to fight for em-

ployees and their employers, including

farms, which have been the target of

INS raids. The Reagan Administration

has relied on the ``open fields'' doc-

trine to justify the random sweeps,

which have been carried out. under the

Orwellian title `"Operation Jobs."'

The ACLU brief emphasizes the im-

portance the Oliver case will have in

determining the privacy and property

rights of businesspeople. Pointing out

that the high court five years ago held

that government health and safety in-

spectors needed a warrant to search

areas which are open only to em-

ployees, the brief explains that a major

impetus behind the enactment of the

Fourth Amendment was the hostility

of merchants and businesspeople to

general warrants used to inspect for

compliance with tax measures.

The ``open fields'? doctrine should

only justify warrantless searches if the

owner of land has not exhibited an in-

tent to retain privacy, the ACLU brief

argues. If the owner has clearly tried to

maintain privacy and keep people out

- as Oliver had - a warrant should be

required to search the property.

Neisser points out that in the Oliver

case, "`Short of surrounding his prop-

erty with an insurmountable wall, an

electrified fence, or a moat filled with

alligators, Mr. Oliver could not have

`demonstrated more clearly his intent to

exercise his right to exclude'' other

people - and government agents. _

""By ignoring the normal precautions

that are taken to exclude the public

from a business premise, the govern-

ment is violating the reasonable ex-

pectation of privacy of the owner -

and endangering the Fourth Amend-

ment rights of employees as well,'

Neisser added.

Help Wanted

MEMBERSHIP VOLUNTEERS. In-

dividual members are the single most

important element in keeping the

ACLU strong and effective.

The ACLU-NC needs volunteer hel

maintaining the sophisticated, com-

puterized membership system which

updates records, produces lists for all

types of mailings, analyzes sources of

income, and responds to individual

problems for 20,000 northern Cali-

_ fornia members. -

If you are good at detail work, con-

cerned about ACLU's effectiveness,

want potentially marketable ex-

perience, and have five or more day-

time hours a week to give to the

ACLU, contact Membership Clerk

Jean Hom, 415/621-2493.

aclu news ~

may 1983

The Mayor,

The Democratic Convention

and Free Speech

What with all the excitement over the

winning of the 1984 Democratic Nation-

al Convention for San Francisco, Mayor

Dianne Feinstein seemed (at least

momentarily) to have forgotten about

the First Amendment. The Mayor was

widely quoted in the press as saying that

there ``will be no demonstration by the

homosexual community nor any other

major demonstration. We give our word

on that."

Fearing that the Mayor was taking the

1984 part of the 1984 Democratic Con-

vention a little too seriously, ACLU-NC

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich

quickly fired off a letter asking the

Mayor to clarify her remarks. `"Obvious-

ly, the right to demonstrate is one of the

most precious rights that Americans en-

joy,'' Ehrlich wrote. ``We do not under-

stand how the City of San Francisco can

guarantee the absence of major demon-

strations unless it is intent on violating

the First Amendment, or no one is in-

terested in carrying out a major

demonstration."'

Three days later, the Mayor re-

sponded. ``I want to make clear I never

intended, nor could or would impose,

any restriction on lawful assembly and

full speech.

"Your fears are unfounded about the

1984 Democratic National Convention.

I... . can assure you it will succeed with

respect for the rights of all who are in-

volved,'' the Mayor promised.

P.S. For all those who may be planning

to demonstrate next summer, we'll be

saving the letter.

i

Take Stock

of Your ACLU Gift Now

by Michael P. Miller

ACLU-NC Associate Director

_ With civil liberties threatened on many

fronts by antagonistic national and Cali-

fornia administrations and individual

budgets stretched by a difficult

economy, many civil libertarians must

consider very carefully just how to best

give their financial support to keep the

ACLU effective.

With today's highly volatile stock

market, some ACLU supporters may

want to consider not waiting until the

traditional end of the year period to

make gifts of securities. The greatest tax

advantages lie in giving a stock gift when

the securities have reached their greatest

value (an admittedly crystal ball exercise

in part).

Individuals planning cash gifts may be

able to both increase their giving and

realize substantial tax savings by giving

appreciated property instead of cash. In-

creased giving means the ACLU's legal

staff working with many dedicated

volunteers can continue to pursue long,

involved and national precedent setting

lawsuits such as the Jamison case which

won the right of involuntary mental pa-

tients to have a say in their treatment (see

this issue of the News, front page).

The explanation for both of these

statements about ACLU gifts can be

found in the tax laws for ``long term

capital gains."'

First, definitions. Capital gains are

essentially the profit that would be real-

ized on the sale of real property,

securities, works of art and the like; Jong

term applies to property held for more

than one year.

Long term capital gains are taxed at

only 40 percent of an individual's regular

tax rate. However, property held for less

than one year is currently taxed as or-

dinary income.

There are special tax incentives to

donate appreciated property to charity

rather than selling the property and

donating the proceeds.

First, the donor receives an income `tax

deduction at the full appreciated value of

the gift. Second, the donor avoids any

capital gains tax.

For example, ACLU member Joan Li-

berty buys 10 shares of XYZ Co. in 1980

for $300. Today, the stock is valued at

$1,000. Ms. Liberty sells the stock and

pays a capital gains tax on $700 in the 50

percent bracket of $140 ($700 x 50% tax

bracket x 40% tax).

Ms. Liberty could then donate the

$1,000 cash to charity and receive a

deduction worth $500. Thus, for an ac-

tual out-of-pocket expense of $500, Ms.

Liberty can give the ACLU Foundation -

$1,000 to help maintain an active legal

docket of over 100 cases.

However, if Ms. Liberty instead

donates the appreciated XYZ Co.

securities directly to charity, she would

also avoid the $140 capital gains tax

making the cost of the $1,000 gift to the

ACLU only $360.

ACLU supporters are always advised

to consult with their own advisors about

charity gifts. For additional information

about gifts to the ACLU Foundation of

Northern California's legal program,

contact Associate Director Michael P.

Miller at 415-621-2493, or write c/o

ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission St.,

San Francisco, CA. 94103. _

_ministrator.

Hom Joins Staff

"`Office Manager!'' someone shouted

down the hall as the lights, typewriters

and telephones flickered and died,

`"Power's out!"'

Jean Hom jumped up from her desk

where she was being interviewed for the

ACLU News and went to investigate the

problem. The electricity was out for

blocks, and since there was nothing that

could be immediately done about it, we

- continued our discussion in the fading

light of an April afternoon and I learned

of the origin of the many talents that

Jean Hom brings to her varied tasks as

the new Development Assistant/Office

Manager at the ACLU.

Born and raised in Sacramento, Hom

studied social work at U.C. Berkeley.

She became familiar with the civil liber-

`ties arena when she landed a U.C. work-

study job at the Meiklejohn Civil Liber-

ties Institute.

"The Institute's director Ann Fagan

Ginger didn't want to hire me at first be-

cause she thought I did not do well

enough on the typing test,'' Jean remem-

bers. ``But I felt that the particular typ-

ing test I had was unfair - and I knew I

could do a good job, so I just kept com-

ing back day after day and doing the

work, and finally I convinced her to give

me the job,'' Hom laughs.

Hom did so well at the Institute that

when she graduated in 1973 Ginger of-

fered her a full time position as an ad-

She did everything from

overseeing the Institute's research pro-

jects to laying out the periodicals. ``It

was a very interesting period for civil

liberties,'' Hom says, `"`I especially en-

joyed working on the Institute's Angela

Davis collection and the work around

draft resistance."'

Work at Meiklejohn whetted her in-

terest in law, and she changed her focus

from social work to public interest legal

work. ``I decided to get a job in a

lawfirm to explore the field - and lucki-

ly I ended up as a legal assistant to

Patrick Hallinan. In her four years at

Hallinan and Blum she worked on many

federal criminal cases and honed her

skills as a legal secretary.

It was there that she decided to go to

law school herself, an ambition she had

been entertaining ever since her experi-

_ ence at the Meiklejohn Institute. In 1979

a trip to China became the catalyst for

pursuing that goal.

`"My mother had planned a journey to

China to visit her mother whom she

hadn't seen for 35 years - and I jumped

on at the last minute.'' Meeting her

grandmother was very exciting - but

there was another aspect of the trip that

Jean Hom

affected Hom even more deeply. ``In

China I had a sense of people working

and caring for the whole society - not

just their own individual ambitions. I

wanted to come home and, as a Chinese

American in the U.S., try to live with

those values as well,'" Hom explains.

However, she found her first year at

Hastings Law School ``frustrating."'

``Being an older student, I found that be-

ing amidst a new generation that cared

little about public interest law was dis-

appointing.

"As part of the Asian Pacific fay

Students Organization, I found that we

had to spend a great deal of our time in a

continuous battle with the administra-

tion trying to keep affirmative action

and minority recruitment programs

alive,'' Hom said. (c)

`*T wanted to stay active in public ser-

vice legal work, but I did not want to.

stay in law school, so when I saw the job

announcement for a Developmental As-

sistant at the ACLU, I hurried to apply

- now I'm learning about fundraising

from the bottom up,'' Hom added

modestly.

Modestly, because the new Develop-

ment Assistant also has a great deal of

experience in the field of money manage-

ment. She acts as a distributor for a film

on raku ceramics, serves as a book-

_keeper/manager for her friend cerami-

cist David Kuraoka, and acts as property

manager for four buildings.

Needless to say, Jean Hom knew what

to do when the lights went out at the

ACLU, and her talents and commitment

are sure to benefit the organization in

many other ways as well.

Would You Live Next Door to the ACLU?

The ACLU-NC has office/work

space available for sub-lease adjacent

to (but separate from) the ACLU-NC

offices. The space is located on the

4th floor of 1663 Mission St. in San

Francisco and is convenient to public

transportation (Mission, Market and _

Van Ness Muni lines, BART and free-

way connections).

The available space consists of ap-

proximately 870 square feet; it is one

large, L-shaped room, carpeted.

ACLU-NC's library/conterence

room is available for occasional -

meetings and the ACLU-NC will

make available its copier machine

for, the tenant at cost.

The space is available on very short

notice. The rent is $870 per month (in-

cluding utilities.)

For more information, or to ar-

range to see the space, contact Jean

Hom at the ACLU, 415/621-2493.

aclu news

may 1983

Lobbying for Freedom -

Valuable Publication for lie 80's

`"At a time when individual rights are

under heavy attack in our own state

Legislature and across the country, the

ACLU welcomes the publication of Lob-

bying for Freedom in the 1980's, a guide

to help civil libertarians fight back,'' said

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich.

Lobbying for Freedom in the 1980's:

A Grassroots Guide to Protecting Your

Rights, edited by Kenneth P. Norwick

and published by = Perigree Books,

describes how legislatures function, ex-

plains how individuals can influence the

legislative process, and examines five im-

portant issues of individual freedom con-

fronting Americans today - reproduc-

tive freedom, women's rights, gay rights,

drug law reform and censorship.

"This book is especially needed

today,'' says Norwick, former legislative

director of the New York Civil Liberties

Union. ``The dominant political climate

throughout the United Staes today is

clearly less sympathetic to the cause of

individual freedom than it has been in

many years. The battle to preserve these

freedoms is taking place more and more

in the state legislatures, not just in

Washington."'

"Very few people understand how

state legislatures work - although our

lives are deeply touched by their actions

every day,'' explained Ehrlich. ``Fewer

still understand how ordinary citizens

can influence their legislature. Lobbying

for Freedom provides a clear, detailed

specific and practical explanation for

citizens who are: interested in making

democracy work."'

B.A.R.K.

CELEBRATION AND FORUM:

10TH ANNIVERSARY OF

BERKELEY POLICE REVIEW

COMMISSION Monday, May 23,

7:45 p.m., North Berkeley Senior

Center, Hearst/Grove Streets, Berk-

eley. $1 donation requested. Special

guest Mayor Gus Newport and other

community leaders celebrate the

Berkeley P.R.C., the oldest and

longest running civilian review com-

mission in the United States. Contact

Ann Juergens, 415/655-7786 (days),

or Rachel Richman, 415/540-5507

(evenings).

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wed-

nesday each month.) Wednesday,

June 15, 7:30 p.m. Sumitomo Bank,

Oakland. Contact Barbara Littwin,

415/452-4726 (days).

FRESNO

ANNUAL MEETING now being

planned. Contact Scott Williams,

209/441-1611 (days).

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednes-

day each month.) Wednesday, June

15, 5:30 p.m., Legal Services Office,

906 N Street, Fresno. Contact Scott

Williams, number above.

Part I of Lobbying for Freedom, writ-

ten by Norwick, takes an in-depth look

at the make-up and machinery of our

state legislatures, examining the forces

that influence a legislator's vote and out-

lining the role and tactics of professional

and citizen lobbyists - from engaging

the media to testifying at committee

hearings and mobilizing group support.

"This information should be required

reading in every social studies

classroom,"' Ehrlich commented.

In Part II, each of the five issues is ex-

amined by an expert who provides an 0x00B0

overview of the legislative precedents for

the issue, an assessment of its current

legal status and the ramifications of bills

now under scrutiny, and on lobbying

techniques to enact or defeat pending

legislation. Some of the topics discussed

include: reproductive freedom, women's

rights, gay rights, drug law reform and

censorship.

Extensive appendices provide a state-

by-state rundown of the _ individual

GAY RIGHTS

~BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, June 7, 7:00

p-m., ACLU, 1663 Mission, San

Francisco. Contact Doug Warner,

415/863-0487.

LESBIAN/GAY FREEDOM DAY:

Sunday, June 26, Civic Center, San

Francisco. Join us at our information

table! Volunteers needed - contact

Doug Warner, number above.

MARIN

ANNUAL MEETING/``NOS-

TALGIA TRIP"? DINNER DANCE

- Saturday, June 4, Harbor Point

Racquet and Beach Club, Mill Valley.

Speical guest Benjamin Dreyfus.

Music of the '40s and 50s, dancing.

$20 per person. Contact Leslie Paul,

415/381-1088.

-MID-PENINSULA -

BOARD MEETING: (Last Thursday

each month.) Thursday, May 26;

Thursday, June 30. 8:00 p.m. in Palo

Alto. Contact Harry Anisgard,

415/856-9186.

MONTEREY

PUBLIC FORUM/BOARD MEET-

ING: (Fourth Tuesday each month,

alternating between forums and

board meetings.) Tuesday, June 28.

Contact Richard Criley,

408/624-7562.

Action Alert!

Take a minute to take some action to

defend your civil liberties-

S.J. Res. 3 - a proposed constitutional

amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch

would overturn the Supreme Court's

1973 Roe v. Wade decision and strike

down abortion rights. The measure

reads, ``The right to abortion is not

secured by this Constitution.'' This

language would return us to the days

when abortion was legal in some states

and not others. If the measure passes

Congress, it would be the first time in

history that a constitutional amendment

is used to take away a fundamental

`freedom guaranteed by the Supreme

Court.

Calendar

legislatures and major court decisions, as

well as sample press releases, petitions,

resolutions, letters to legislators, and

references for further information and

assistance.

ACLU-NC Field Representative Mar-

cia Gallo explained, ``The ACLU has

been organizing its membership to lobby

on these and other crucial issues for

many years. The experiences of our na-

tional Bill of Rights Lobby and the

ACLU-NC's Field Committee, Pro-

Choice Task Force and Right to Dissent

Subcommittee teach us that the skills re-

quired to be an effective grassroots lob-

byist can - and must - be acquired by

all those who care about civil liberties."'

Gallo noted that the Pro-Choice Task

Force keeps 300 supporters involved

through its mailings; a phone tree set up

to mobilize calls and telegrams on critical

continued on page 6

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: There will be

no meeting in June. The next Board

Meeting will be held in July. Contact

Eve Gilmartin, 415/935-0257. -

NORTH PENINSULA

BOARD MEETING: (Second Mon-

day each month.) Monday, June 13,

8:00 p.m. Allstate Savings and Loan

Community Room, Concar Drive and

-Grant Street, San Mateo. Contact

Richard Keyes, 415/367-8800 (days).

SACRAMENTO

REFUGEE CAMPS IN HONDUR-

AS: Special presenttion by Nancy

Smith, Lawyers Committee Against

Intervention in El Salvador. Wednes-

day, June 15, 7:30 p.m., New County

Administration Building, Room I, 8th

and I Streets, Sacramento. Contact

Mary Gill, 916/457-4088 (evenings).

SAN FRANCISCO

ANNUAL MEETING: ``The IRS

and Freedom of Expression.'' Sun-

day, June 5, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m. Fort

Mason Conference Room, Bldg. A,

San Francisco. Guest Speaker: Robin

Wolaner, publisher of Mother Jones

magazine. Contact Bob Goldbert,

415/665-7592 (after 3:00 p.m.). -

Action - Urge California's U.S.

Senators Alan Cranston and Pete Wilson

to vote against the Hatch Amendment.

Write to them at New Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 or

call 202/224-3121,

S.J. Res. 3 has already passed the Sen-

ate Judiciary Committee and full Senate

action is expected before the end of

June. Please write today!

Simpson-Mazzoli Bill (S. 529; H.R.

1510) - The ACLU continues to strong-

ly oppose the so-called immigration re-

form bills now racing through Congress.

The Simpson bill passed the Senate on

May 18; the House version is expected to

come to the floor in the next month. We

oppose H.R. 1510 because it poses a

grave threat to the rights of immigrants

by stripping the courts of review of

asylum cases and placing sanctions on

employers who hire undocumented

workers.

Action - Write to your Representative -

in Congress and urge a vote against H.R.

1510.

SANTA CLARA

ANNUAL MEETING: Sunday, June

19, 2:00 - 5:00 p.m., Los Gatos

Downtown Neighborhood Center,

208 East Main Street/at Fiesta Way.

Featuring ``If You Love This

Planet,'' the Academy Award-win-

ning film labeled ``political propa-

ganda'' by the Justice Department;

also election of the chapter's board

for 1983-85. Contact Vic Ulmer,

408/379-4431 (evenings).

SANTA CRUZ

BENEFIT THEATER PARTY:

**The Cradle Will Rock,'' about the

U.S. labor movement, by Mark Blitz-

stein; Thursday, June 16, Barn

Theater,

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thurs-

day each month.) Thursday, June 16,

7:30 p.m. Center for Employment

Training, 3755 Santa Rosa Avenue,

Santa Rosa. Contact Andrea

Learned, 707/544-6911 (days).

STOCKTON

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, June 7. Con-

tact Eric Ratner, 209/944-2361 (days).

YOLO

BOARD MEETING: Contact Julius

Young, 916-758-5666 (evenings), or

Casey McKeever, 916-666-3556 (even-

ings), for meeting information.