vol. 41, no. 6

| Volume XLI

October 1976

No. 6

Contending that the contempt convictions of union

leaders for actions during the San Francisco crafts-

workers strike last spring violates their constitutional

rights to freedom of speech and expression, ACLU-

NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser filed a brief on their

behalf in U.S. District Court last month.

It was only the latest in a series of legal efforts by

the ACLU to protect First Amendments rights

threatened by court orders issued during the strike. In

each of the actions, the ACLU has argued that even if

the strike was presumed to be "`illegal," it did not

provide an excuse for infringing on the fundamental

constitutional guarantees of free speech and ex-

pression.

The separate argument on the question of the

strike's legality has heated up again as the November

election draws closer and San Franciscans will get the

opportunity to. vote on Charter Amendment

Proposition B, an anti-strike measure drafted after

the craftsworkers strike.

The ACLU's long-standing national! Board policy is

that `"`the right to strike may not be denied to public

employees any more than to private employees, even if

a strike should cause great inconvenience to the

public."

That right is jeopardized by Proposition B, which

provides for the dismissal of officers and employees,

other than members of police and fire departments,

engaged in strikes or strike-related activity against the

City and County of San Francisco.

As it reads now, the charter does not say that

disciplinary action shall be taken against all city

Justice Douglas to receive

annual Karl Warren Award

City unions assert First Amendment rights

employees who strike. It does say that uniformed -

- members of the police and fire departments who go on

strike shall be fired, but it does not require the same

action against other striking city employees.

According to Proposition B, no person holding a

position by appointment or employment under the

civil service provisions of the charter, ``shall strike, nor

shall any municipal employee cause, instigate, or

afford leadership to a strike against the city and

county of San Francisco." The proposition would

require that any city employee found guilty of striking

shall be fired.

John F. Crowley, secretary of the San Francisco

Labor Council has called it, `"A gross violation of a

right inherent in American citizenship'' and assailed

at least one provision which is supposed to safeguard

workers' rights to due process as a `kangaroo court."

The right to strike is a civil liberty, the ACLU has

long believed. Denial of the right to strike invades the

freedom of employees to decide what working con-

ditions they believe should govern their employment.

This decision represents employee opinion, expressed -

through the association of many employees in a trade

union, and prohibitions on the right to strike thus act

to weaken the First Amendment guarantee of freedom

of association.

The ACLU policy statement acknowledges that

great emergencies may justify temporary limitations

on the right to strike, but only when covered by

definitely specified conditions. It emphasizes,

however, that even partial curtailment of the right to

strike can be justified only to prevent public disaster,

The American Civil Liberties Union

Foundation of Northern California will

award the fourth annual Earl Warren

Civil Liberties Award to retired

Supreme Court Associate. Justice

William O. Douglas at its Bill of Rights

Day Celebration on Dec. 12 at the

Grand Ballroom of the Sheraton Palace -

Hotel in San. Francisco.

Mr. Justice Douglas, a _ great

protector of civil liberties as a jurist,

author and educator for over half a

century, retired this year after serving

on the Court since 1939. In a letter to

ACLU-NC Executive Director David

Fishlow, he has personally' agreed to

accept the award.

The Award honors individuals who

have made great contributions to the

cause of civil liberties and individual

freedom. Previous recipients have been

Stanford University Law Professor

Anthony G. Amsterdam, former

California Supreme Court Justice Roger

J. Traynor, and ACLU-NC founders

Helen Salz and the late Dr. Alexander

Meiklejohn.

The evening's program, which also

commemorates the 185th anniversary of

the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, is

scheduled to begin at 8 p.m., following

a no-host bar at 6:30 p.m. |

Patterson, also a member of the board,

- Liberties and National Security, will

the Constitution - A Bicentennial

Richard De Lancie, chairperson of

the foundation's Board of Governors,

will make the welcoming remarks.

Mistress of Ceremonies Dorothy Smith

will then introduce the first speaker.

`Morton H. Halperin, Director of the

National ACLU's Project on Civil

speak on the topic: "The Executive and

Reflection."' A second address on "`The

Courts and the Constitution - A

Bicentennial Reflection" will be made

by William Van Alstyne, Professor of

Constitutional Law at Duke Universtiy

and a member of the National ACLU

Board of Directors.

Jerome B. Falk, Jr., a former law

clerk for Mr. Justice Douglas and a

former member of the ACLU-NC Board

of Directors, will make the award

presentation. The closing remarks will

be made by Amsterdam, a member of

the foundations Board of Governors.

Music will be provided by Mimi Gina

and her Medicine Men. Tickets are $5

and can be obtained at the ACLU

offices, 814 Mission St., San Francisco.

Ticket sales finance the celebration

so that funds contributed to the work of

the ACLU Foundation can be reserved

exclusively for that purpose..

not public discomfort.

The argument in favor of Proposition. B, signed by

all members of the Board of Supervisors except Alfred

Nelder, states that it will "prevent disruptive and

costly strikes."' They stress that the proposition is not

a union-busting or anti-labor measure.

In his argument against Proposition B, Crowley,

who also attacks seven other propositions on the

ballot, states, `"The right to withhold one's labor is

embedded in our Constitution; it is the major -

perhaps the only important - distinction between a

free worker and a slave."

Crowley also assails the provisions providing for due

process as amounting to ``a `kangaroo court' pledged

to give its victim a `fair' hearing before hanging him."

Under the provisions of Proposition B, a special

committee consisting of the presidents of the airports

commission, civil service commission, fire com-

mission, police commission and public utilities

commission will have the duty of dismissing any

municipal employee found to be in violation of the

amendment.

Any employee who is charged will then have~a

chance to respond to the charges in a hearing before

the same committee. Any dismissal or suspension that

is invoked will not be appeaiable to the civil service

commission.

A person found in violation of the provisions of

Proposition B could only be reinstated as a new ap-

-pointee or employee, and the compensation of that

person "shall not be increased by virtue of any

continued on page 2

Mr. Justice William O. Douglas

Oct. 1976

aclu news

LEGAL

City unions assert First re rights...

continued from page 1

previous employment with said city and county."'

The ACLU was drawn into the legal issues

surrounding the craftsworkers strike almost im-

mediately from its outset. When it began in late

March, Superior Court Judge Henry Rolph issued a

temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the

striking workers, their unions and the San Francisco:

Labor Council from striking or calling, inducing or

giving notice of a strike. He also threatened contempt

- Citations to anyone picketing in "support, promotion

or advocacy of a strike."

The TRO further ordered the unions and their

members not to "hinder or delay in any manner or by

any means or device, [city employment] in support,

promotion or advocacy ofa strike."'

In a friend of the court brief filed at the time,

_ urging the discontinuation of the restraining order,

the ACLU insisted that it infringed on First Amend-

ment rights and was therefore "overbroad" even if

the strike itself was presumed to be illegal.

The restraining order was later converted to a

preliminary injunction, although the ACLU suc-

ceeded in helping trim away some of the worst parts.

Nevertheless, contempt convictions for the union

leaders resulted from charges that they had ignored

its orders.

In the brief filed last month supporting the union

leaders' petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the

ACLU-NC points out that the contempt convictions

were based on the publication of a newspaper ad-

vertisement publicizing the issues underlying the

labor dispute and calling for a negotiated settlement.

The ACLU is arguing that the advertisement is

clearly an activity protected by the First Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court has consistently

affirmed that public employees enjoy fully the

protections of the Bill of Rights. These rights, the

ACLU contends, are not eradicated even during the

pendency of a presumably illegal strike.

The ACLU is arguing that if public employees are

deemed without the right to strike, then both fairness

and the public's right to be informed of public issues

mandates vigilant protection of alternative means for

public employees to communicate their side of the

dispute.

Even thought the preliminary injunction was

narrower than the original restraining order, the

ACLU contends that it was still too broad because it

assumes that expressive activities can be prohibited

during a strike.

FBI Director Clarence Kelley answered the letter Amitai Schwartz sent to him with the

one pictured above, but he did not tell Schwartz that the agency had decided to run a

background check on him that would be added to an already existing file.

Court permits false

arrest record to stand

Despite the fact that the California

Constitution provides "`privacy" as an

inalienable right, the California

Supreme Court decided last month that

a person has no right to have a totally

erroneous and unsubstantiated arrest

record expunged from police files.

_ Joseph Loder was arrested in 1974. In

the words of the Court of Appeal (which

probably did not recognize the irony of (c)

its statement), `Loder was arrested and

charged with disturbing the peace,

battery, and resisting arrest for

attacking a police officer who was

clubbing Mrs. Loder." The clubbing of

Mrs. Loder was the result of mistaken

identity by the officer.

Seeing that there was clearly no case

against Loder, the District Attorney

promptly dismissed the charges after

Loder signed an agreement not to sue

_ the police for false arrest. It would seem

that that would be the end of the

matter. However, following the

dismissal of charges, Loder learned he

would not be rehired by the San Diego |

~ Unified School District because he now

has an arrest record.

Loder's attorney then returned to the

San Diego Municipal Court asking that

the judge expunge the record. The

judge responded that he had no

authority to do so because the law only

provided expungement in the cases of

_ juveniles and probationers. Not,

apparently, in the cases of falsely

arrested, innocent people.

Loder then appealed to the California

Court of Appeal and the Supreme

Court. The ACLU's of Northern

California and Southern California

filed an amicus curiae brief on, Loder's

behalf in the Supreme Court. The brief

was prepared by then ACLU-NC staff

counsel Joseph Remcho.

In the Court's unanimous opinion, |

written by Justice Stanley Mosk, the

right of privacy is not absolute and may

be infringed when there is compelling

governmental interest. In this case, the

Court found that there is a compelling

continued on page 3

FBI file filled

with errors, blanks

Police practices lawyer Amitai

Schwartz did not know if the Federal

Bureau of Investigation had a file on

him, but the provisions of the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA) and the

Privacy Act. of 1974 gave him the right

to find out.

He found out that indeed he did.

Schwartz is the legal director of the

Northern California Police Practices

Project, a joint program of the

American. Civil -Liberties

Legal Defense Fund. According to the

copies of the files he obtained, however,

the FBI had another designation for

him.

But they deleted it from the copies

they sent him.

FBI Director Clarence Kelley pointed

out in a letter accompanying the

documents that: "Excisions have been

made from these documents in order to

protect materials which are exempted

from disclosure by the__ following

subsections of Title 5, United States

Code, Section 552 [FOIA]:

`materials related solely to the in-

ternal rules and practices of the FBI;

"investigatory records compiled for

law enforcement purposes, the

disclosure of which would:

"reveal the identity of an individual

who has furnished to the FBI under

confidential circumstances or reveal

information furnished only by such a

person and not apparently known to the

public or otherwise accessible to the

FBI by overt means."

The first such "`excision'' was made

from the title of the letter sent by the -

San Francisco Bureau to the Acting

Director in June of 1972, apparently the

year Schwartz's file began. His copies

refer to that letter as "AMITAI

SCHWARTZ, -

Whatever the designation, it must.

have had something to do with his

driver's license, because that was what

the FBI checked when they received

information in '72 that Schwartz was

associated with the `"`New American

Movement, Berkeley Chapter."'

wattz points out that it was his college

roommate, not he, who was associated

with the movement. /

Union,

Foundation of Northern California, the ~

Mexican-American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund and the NAACP |

Department and

Sch- |

Despite that error in fact and that "a

review of the information received by

San Francisco Division indicates that

the Subject does not at this time qualify

for any category of ADEX," it was-

nonetheless "`requested that his name

be indexed at the Bureau."'

Schwartz seems to have gotten

himself in more trouble when he wrote

to the FBI about placing the

distribution of the FBI Law En-

_. forcement Bulletin under the purview of

the FOIA. Kelley wrote back that the

publication was in the public domain

through its distribution to libraries.

Schwartz's letter apparently

disturbed the agency so much, however,

it ran on a background check on him, ~

further fattening his file.

Among the information that was

reported was that Schwartz is ``very

much interested in disciplinary

procedures followed by _ police

departments against officers in con-

nection with civil rights violations." The

FBI was also concerned that "he has

contacted the San Francisco Police

several other

departments in the San Francisco Bay

Area, seeking information in - this

regard."'

The report also noted that "SCH.

WARTZ is presently representing a

client in a police brutality charge

against the Police Department."

In other words, the report describes |

Schwartz's job.

There was more, but it mostly

contained errors of fact or wasn't really

there.

Apparently one entire paragraph and

one or two lines of another was deleted. _

As a member of the ACLU, which

lobbied strongly for the passage of the

FOIA and has been active in at-

tempting to protect constitutional

rights in the face of California state

intelligence efforts, Schwartz knew how

to exercise his right to the information

previously collected on him.

Those desiring such information may

obtain for 45 cents the ACLU's

pamphlet "The Privacy Act," which

gives practical information on the two

federal statutes that permit you to

obtain access to your personal records

maintained by federal agencies.

LEGISLATIVE

Oct. 1976

aclu news

_ Legislature defeats student rights bills

By Trudy L. Martin

Summer Intern -

Legislative Office

The Legislature this session rejected

_attempts to infuse constitutional rights

of students into the Education Code

despite such long-standing Supreme

Court decisions as Tinker v. Des

Moines School District (1969),

declaring impermiss`ble the error of

assuming that students shed their rights

at the schoolhouse gate.

The defeat of two commendable

pieces of legislation told students that

they will have to wait at least another

year before minimal rights to due

process and a free press are statutorily

guaranteed. :

Assemblyman John Vascentoncellos' AB

207 attempted to clarify Education

Code S 10611 which, avoiding specific

protection of on-campus and unofficial

student publications, ambiguously

acknowledges rights to free expression.

AB 207 banned all prior restraint by

school officials with the exception of

school-funded papers and allowed such

restraint only if the material was

libelous, slanderous, obscene or ad-

vocated breaking the law. _

In a rare and refreshing display of

principle, Vasconcellos twice refused to

amend the bill to include profanity as

There is no puaeanice that better law

will solve the entire problem. The

resolution depends upon the continued

' vigilance of parents and established

media, whose voices often influence

school administrations. A Senate vote.

of 17 for and 21 against defeated the

measure.

Opponents garnered two votes since

the earlier floor defeat - predicted

results of election-year fears.

Vasconcellos' staff promises that the

bill will be attempted again next year.

The student due-process bill, AB

3947 by Assemblyman Gary Hart, was a

codification of the recent U.S. Supreme

Court decision, Goss v. Lopez, which

Court permits. . .

continued from page 2

interest to retain and disseminate ne

records which `"`may be characterized

generally as the promotion of more

efficient law enforcement and criminal

justice." ~ ;

Mosk also states that there are

numerous state laws in effect which bar

the misuse of arrest records, and some

which provide for the sealing of them.

Loder, however, not falling into one of

the categories for sealing provided by

`the Legislature, is denied relief.

declares that if a state extends a right to

public education, it cannot withdraw

the right by suspending a student

without a minimum of procedural due

process.

Current law limits the authority to

suspend students only by requiring that

it be for ``good cause.'' That standard,

as defined, includes a list of prohibited |

actions ranging from, but not limited

to, carrying tobacco to assault on school

personnel. Hart's bill would have

required that suspension be imposed

only as a last resort when other means

of correction had failed.

First offenses would have been

suspendable if the student's presence

absence of an expungement provision

(to cover this case) was unintentional,

we should nevertheless allow the

Legislature to address in the first

instance the diffucult task of striking

the balance between these competing

concerns. There is no reason to believe

that the task will long go unfulfilled

In either event, judicial

intervention is unwarranted."

_ The California Department of Justice

currently maintains criminal records on

more than 5,200,000 people. No telling

on campus caused a continuing danger

to person or an ongoing threat - of

disrupting the institutional process.

Opponents feared that such rights,

together with provisions for student

conferences before suspensions, would

lead to highly legalistic procedures.

.Less often expressed was the greater

fear that this would prevent school

officials from exercising their present

almost unrestrained discretion in

suspending students - the explicit

intent of the bill.

Youth and students are consistently

under-represented groups in our law-

making process. Where the two overlap,

those members are in most serious need

of vocal, continuing support. Hopefully,

next year's efforts will be more suc-

cessful.

`The poorest man in his cottage may

bid defiance to all the forces of the

crown. It may be frail, its roof may

shake, the wind may flow through it,

the storm may enter, but the King of

England cannot enter. His force dares

not cross the threshold of the ruined

tenements."

William Pitt the Elder

restrainable expression.

The Court concludes:

"Even if the

how many of them also are innocent.

Tunney amendments stop wiretapping bill

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (S. 3197),

which would have provided congressional authority

for wiretapping Americans without the government's

having convinced a judge there was probable cause to

believe they had committed crimes, was dropped from

the U.S. Senate's calendar before the close of the

session.

Vigorously opposed by the ACLU, the bill would

have given legislative recognition to the President's

purportedly inherent "constitutional power ... to

: U.S. Postal Service, Statement of Ownership, management and Circu-

lation, (Act of August 12, 1970: Section 3685, Title 39, United States Code)

#1. Title of Publication: ACLU News. 2. Date of Filing: October 1, 1976 3. -

Frequency of !ssue: Monthly, except bi-monthly - March-April, July-

August, November-December. 3a. No. of issues Published Annually: 9.

| 3b. Annual Subscription Price: 50 cents. 4. Location of Known Office of and

Publication: 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. 5.@

Location of the Headquarters or General Business Offices of the

| Publishers: 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. 6. %

Names and Complete Addresses of Publisher, Editor, and Managing(R)

Editor: Publisher: American Civil Liberties Union of Northerng:

California, 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. Editor: 0x00A7

David Fishlow, 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103.5

Managing Editor: None. 7. Owner: American Civil Liberties Union of and

Northern California, Inc. (no stock holders), 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, @

San Francisco, CA 94103. 8. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other

Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 percent or more of the Total @

Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other Securities: None. 9. For com-

f pletion by Nonprofit Organizations Autnorizea to Mati at special Rates: and

| Not applicable. 10. Extent and Nature of Circulation:

fA. Total No. Copies Printed 18,250

B. Paid Circulation

# 1. Sales through Dealers, Carriers, Street Vendors and Counter

Sales None

2. Mail Subscriptions : 17,866

C. Total Paid Circulation 17,866

D. Free Distribution by Mail, Carrier or Other Means,

Samples, Complimentary, and Other Free Copies

E. Total Distribution

5 F. Covies Not Distributed

1. Office Use, Left-over, Unaccounted,

" Spoiled after Printing

2. Returns from News Agents

eG. Total

#11. | certify that the statements made by me above are correct and '

| complete.

U.S.C. 3626 provides in pertinent part: `

matter at such rates."'

In accordance with the provisions of this statute, | hereby request per: |

= mission to mail the publication named in item 1 at the phased postage

rates presently authorized by 39 U.S.C. 3626.

_ progress

Surrounding it and draw attention to its more

/s/ David M. Fishlow and

- 12. For Completion by Publishers any at the Regular Rates: 39f

"No person who would have been?

entitled to mail matter under former section 4359 of this title should mail 0x00A7

i such matter at the rates provided under this subsection unless he files :

| annually with the Postal Service a written request for permission to mail 0x00A7

/s/ David M. Fishlow and

acquire foreign intelligence information." In the guise

of reform - centering primarily on an exceedingly

ineffectual warrant procedure to be required for.

intelligence eavesdropping - S. 3197 would have

given Congress' blessing to the very abuses it is

supposedly set upon correcting.

Instrumental in killing the bill was the leadership of

California Senator John Tunney. Fhe ACLU had

urged members and non-members alike to express

their opposition to the bill, and Tunney reported that

"the mail from individual citizens and from

organizations was very heavy, all of it opposed (c) (c) the

bill and supporting my amendments."

The Act, which had broad liberal and conservati'e

support and was personally backed by U.S. Attorney

General Edward Levi, had passed the Senate Judiciary

Committee.on June 15 by a vote of 11- 1, Tinney

dissenting.

At hearings before the Select Committee on In-

telligence, Senator Edward Kennedy (Mass.), Senator

Charles Mathias (Md.) and Levi testified in support of

the bill while Tunney, Senator Walter Mondale

(Minn.), Representative Robert Drinan (Mass.) and

_ the ACLU testified against it. But on August 10, the

committee voted the bill out 8-1, with only small

improvements and with Senator Robert Morgan,

(N.C.) dissenting.

Tunney, however, secured co-sponsorship to a total

of 20 amendments that not only slowed the bill's

but helped increase the controversy

dangerous provisions. Among those co- -sponsoring one

or more amendments were senators Frank Church

(Idaho), George McGovern (S. Dak.), Alan Cranston

(Calif.) and Morgan.

According to Bob McNair, Tunney's director of

research, the chances of the measure being revived in

the next session of Congress are ``problematical,"

depending on the outcome of the presidential election

_ among other things.

"If President Ford is still in office,'"' said McNair,

"there will probably be an attempt to made to push it

_ through early in the year.'' Whether or not there

would be changes in the bill is uncertain.

Also dying in the last session were two companion

bills being considered by the Subcommittee on

Courts, Civil Liberties and Administration of Justice

of the House Judiciary Committee. The only Northern

California member of the House Judiciary Committee

is Don Edwards of San Jose, According to a staff

assistant, Rep. Edwards would have voted against

both bills had they come to a vote.

Tunney's opposition to S. 3197 came in the face ot

strong pressure from colleagues such as Kennedy.

When the ACLU's national newsletter went to print in

September, it reported that only a ``miracle' by

Tunney could prevent passage of the bill.

Sponsors of the bill had hailed it as a step forward

in controlling national security wiretapping because it

required, in most cases, that a judicial warrant be

obtained before the start of any electronic sur-

veillance. The Supreme Court has not yet held that the

Constitution requires a warrant in cases where a

foreign agent is involved, but the judicial review

provided for in the bill would merely have been a

rubber stamp to an executive branch decision.

S. 3197 would have prohibited the court from

forcing the government agent to demonstrate that the

target of the surveillance was truly a threat to national

security and that the tap would actually produce

evidence of the target's clandestine activities.

In addition, the court would have been required to

issue a warrant if it found probable cause that the ~

target was a "`foreign agent.'' As amended by the.

Intelligence Committee, the term `"`foreign agent"

included all non-Americans who are officers or

employees of a foreign power, meaning ambassadors

from foreign countries and their entire staffs, as well

as employees of corporations like the government-

controlled British Airways.

"Foreign agent" would have included Americans

who, at the direction of a foreign power, engage in

sabotage, terrorist or spying activities in violation of

the criminal law. ``Foreign agent' would have in-

`cluded Americans who, at the direction of a foreign

power, covertly transfer information which a

reasonable person would believe harmful to the

security of the U.S.

Oct. 1976

aclu news

CHAPTERS

Oakland

Criminologist-author Tony Platt,

recently. the University of California's

most controversial faculty member, will

be the guest speaker at the Oakland

Chapter's 8 p.m. meeting on Oct. 22 at

the Sailboat House, 568 Bellevue Ave.

(next to Fairyland). |

Platt, often cited as one of the Bay

Area's more insightful criminologists,

will speak on his new book, ``The Iron

Fist and the Velvet Glove - Police And

The U.S. Society."'

There will be an audience par-

ticipation period following Platt's talk

and. refreshments will be served.

Members are encouraged to bring a

friend. There is no cost and all are

~ invited.

The speaker at September's meeting,

former ACLU-NC Board Member and

now Oakland Municipal Judge Marilyn

Patel, provided plenty of food for

thought by labeling courts `"`just

another form of bureaucracy."

Judge Patel, who criticized aspects of

the jury system and "`the esoteric nature

of our courts," also called for the

legislature to provide `"`judicial impact

statements'' on judicially related in-

- formation.

Mid-Peninsula

The featured speaker at the annual

meeting of the Mid-Peninsula Chapter

will be Congressman Don Edwards of

San Jose. The meeting is scheduled for

Thursday, Oct. 14, at Cubberly

Auditorium on the Stanford campus.

Refreshments will be served from

7:15 to 8 p.m. The meeting will begin at

8 o'clock. Congressman Edwards, a

member of the House Judiciary :

Committee, will speak on Civil Liberties

and the Congress. All are invited.

The regular meeting of the chapter's

board will be conducted on Thursday,

Oct. 28, at 8 p.m. at the All Saints

Episcopal Church, at the corner of

Hamilton and Waverly in Palo Alto.

For further information;

Chapter President Leonard Edwards at

287-6193.

contact .

"In a government of laws, the

existence of the government will be

imperiled if it fails to observe the laws

scrupulously. Our government is a

potent, omnipresent teacher. For good

or for ill, it teaches the whole people by

its example. Crime is contagious. If

| government becomes a law breaker, it

breeds contempt for the law. It invites

every man to become a law unto

himself. It invites anarchy."'

Louis Brandeis

S F. Chapter plans annual meeting

Issues And Action

Committee Formed

A group of San Francisco Chapter

members met last week to discuss how

best to keep on top of civil liberties

issues and organize for effective action.

A permanent committee was

established. It is the Issues and Action

Committee and will meet the second

Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. at -

the ACLU-NC offices, 814 Mission St.,

San Francisco. Membership in the

committee is open to everyone. If you

are interested in attending the next

meeting, please call the chapter office

(777-4880).

Membership Renewal Call-In

We will make a concerted effort to

contact those members who have not

renewed their membership. The

chapter's board will conduct its

Yolo

Barry Commoner, author of The

Closing Circle and The Poverty of

Power will present a lecture entitled

`Freedom And The Ecological Im-

perative'' on October 22 from 8 to 10.

p.m. at the Veteran's Memorial Center

Auditorium, 203 E. 14th St., Davis.

Commoner's lecture, co-sponsored by

the Yolo Chapter and the Unitarian

Universalist Association of Churches,

will address the following questions:

How do we reconcile the obvious need

to restrict environmental abuse with the

preservation of American freedoms?

Can this society serve the needs of its

people while continuing its heritage of

political liberty?

Prior to the lecture, there will be an

ACLU fund-raising wine social, starting

at 7 p.m. All members of the Yolo

community, 21 years of age or older, are

invited to participate. The Yolo

Chapter will pay the admission to the

Commoner lecture ($3.50 general, $2

student) for those who join the ACLU at

the wine social.

SPECIAL NOTE: No one has to miss

the Commoner lecture because it.

conflicts with two other events

scheduled to take place the same

evening. The 3rd Presidential Debate

will be televised at a later hour on the

area's Public Broadcasting System

affiliate, KVIE, and a candidate for the -

Assembly speaking that night has

scheduled a second melodrama on

October 27 in Woodland at the Opera

House.

The board of directors will conduct

_its regular board meeting on Tuesday,

November 16. Gary Goodpaster,

_ Director of the State Public Defender's

Office for the 3rd and Sth Appellate

Districts, will be the guest speaker.

Anyone wishing additional information

may call (916) 758-5236.

aclu news

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March-April, July-August

and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Richard DeLancie, Chairperson

David Fishlow, Executive Director

Michael Antonucci, Editor for this Issue

814 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for the News.

telephone campaign, calling unrenewed

members, on Tuesday, Oct. 19,

beginning at 6 p.m. at the ACLU-NC

offices on Mission St. If you wish to

participate, please give us a call. We'll

be delighted to have you join the effort.

Have YOU Renewed YOUR Mem-

bership?

Garage Sale

It has become an annual event,

scheduled this year for Saturday and |

Sunday, November 6 and 7, all day

long. The sale, which helps raise funds

for the chapter, takes place at 1245

Lombard St. For information on what is 0x00B0

needed, what is acceptable and when

the best time to deliver it is, please call

Lillian Kiskaddon (928-3118). If you

can't reach Lillian and want details,

please call the chapter office.

Annual Meeting Workshops

The annual meeting is scheduled for

Saturday, November 20, from 11 a.m.

toS p.m. at the First Unitarian Church,

1187 Franklin St.

The annual meeting takes on a.

different format this year. We intend to

combine the meeting with three

workshops, which will be conducted

consecutively. The topics are:

1. The Outlook For Civil Liberties In

The Media.

2. The Election Process: Is Your

Civil Liberty Working?

3. Are Economic Problems Civil

Liberties Issues?

A partial list of the participants

includes:

Ann Fagan Ginger, attorney and

Associate Dean, New College of

California School of Law.

George Gruner, managing editor of

the Fresno Bee (and a member of the

Fresno Four).

Earl Caldwell, a journalist formerly

with the New York Times.

Marin

Rollin Post, political reporter for

television station KQED, channel 9,

will be the main speaker at the Marin

Chapter's big Civil Liberties Fair on

Saturday, October 23, at the San Rafael

Improvement Club, Fifth Ave. and H

St.. San Rafael. Post is s-heduled to

speax at 4 p.m. on the question: ``Are

Civil Liberties A Political Issue?"

ACLU-NC board member Irving

Cohen will comment on the replies to

questionnaires received from can-

didates for office, and Pacific Sun

columnist Alice Yarish will be the

auctioneer at an exhibit of the works of

Marin artists.

The fair, which opens at noon and is

planned to last into the evening, will

include a raffle and a flea market.

Gourmet food and wines will be on sale.

Children are welcome, and en-

tertainment will be provided for them.

This will be the first Marin fund-

raiser in two years, and members of all

chapters are invited to help make it a

success. Fran Miller, chapter chair,

urges everyone to attend. Contributions

to the art sale and flea market would

also be appreciated. Items may be

delivered to 30 Wildomar St., Mill

Valley or acloser address or pickup can

be arranged by calling Fran at 454-

8062.

You will receive additional in-

formation in' the mail early in

November. So please, reserve the date

Saturday, November 20. Join us at the

meeting and workshops and bring a

friend or two. We'll share ideas and also.

conduct business. President Ruth

Jacobs will preside and deliver the

annual report. Elections to the board

will also be conducted.

Essay Contest

The third annual contest for high

school students is still on the board. A

progress report will be issued next

month. =

Esther Faingold

Chapter Coordinator

The Women's Rights Committee of

ACLU-NC invites all interested ACLU

members and others to participate in

the committee's activities. The next

meeting will be Wednesday, November

3, at 6 p.m. in the ACLU offices, 814

Mission St., San Francisco.

The committee, which has been.

working for over four years, has shifted

its emphasis to monthly meetings in

which the staff discusses with us

ACLU's recent activities in the women's

rights area and looks to us to provide

feedback on the issues we feel are

appropriate for ACLU action.

At the Nov. 3 meeting, staff counsel

will discuss the Riemer v. Jensen case, a

taxpayer action asserting that

California's prostitution law is un-

constitutional on First Amendment and

equal protection grounds.

Subsequent meetings will focus on

specific issues, such as abortion, rape,

equal employment opportunities, etc.

Drucilla Ramey

Chairperson

Berkeley-Albany-

Kensington

_ ATTENTION: This is the last month

for nominations for the Berkeley-

Albany-Kensington ACLU Board of

Directors. The chapter is particularly

anxious to bring in new people who

have been active in other organizations

but who have not previously been on

our board.

If you are interested, or if you have a

friend you would like to nominate, call

nominations committee chairperson

Gary Bostwick (527-5094). Also, a

petition signed by 15 chapter members

that is received by the board by Oct. 25

is sufficient to place a member's name

on the ballot. Mail petitions to: ACLU,

P.O. Box 955, Berkeley, 94701.

The chapter's annual meeting is

' scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 30 at 8

p.m. There will be a panel on a topic of

interest to ACLU members and the

names of the nominees elected to the

board by the members will be an-

nounced. Please plan to attend.

The chapter's board is also looking

for volunteers to help keep the chapter

running. Lawyers are needed for the

legal panel, plus volunteers to do para

professional work as evaluators of

incoming calls and letters. One or two

people are also needed to help with the

chapter newspaper. Anyone interested

should call Eileen Keech (848-0089).