vol. 52, no. 3

aclu news

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION |

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

Editorial

- Public Funds for

_ Abortion in Danger

ACLU-NC Executive Director

eproductive freedom for women in

California is in critical danger this year.

Imminent action in the state Legislature

and the new makeup of the California

Supreme Court place in peril one of our

most basic rights-a woman's right to

reproductive freedom.

Every year, the staunchly anti-choice

Governor Deukmejian and the state

Legislature through the annual Budget Act -

eliminate Medi-Cal funds for poor women

needing abortions. :

For the past nine years, because of the

ACLU-NC litigation, California has main-

tained state funding of abortion by court

order, consistently over-riding the unconsti-

tutional restrictions imposed by the Legis-

lature. The maintenance of funding has

allowed 80,000 indigent women and teenag-

ers who seek abortions each year in

_ California to have access to safe and legal

medical care.

This year, however, is different.

There are three new Deukmejian appoin-

billboards" protest the April 22 Assembly vote against funding.

tees on the California Supreme Court. They

join Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas and

Equal Protection:

Equal protection under the law

demands that since abortion is available

to women of means as a constitutional

right, it should be equally available to

poor women. Even if some taxpayers

oppose abortion, under the California

Constitution, the state may not withhold

benefits which would be available simply

because people exercise their constitu-

tional rights in a way which may be

disfavored by the majority. It is a question

of fairness.

Health Risks:

Women who are denied public funding

of abortion delay the abortion procedure

by 2-3 weeks, thereby exposing them-

selves to the risk of complications by

50-100%. The situation is even worse for

teenagers who are a high risk group for

pregnancy under any circumstances and

are ill-equipped to deal with childbear-

ing, much less, unwanted childbearing.

Women denied access to publicly

funded abortions face greater psycholog-

ical and economic hardships and 18-35%

will be forced to carry an unwanted

pregnancy to term. Others will seek back

alley abortions, cheaper, perhaps, but

Medi-Cal Funding:The Implications

dangerous and often life-threatening.

Morbidity and Mortality:

Dr. John Whitelaw of the American

College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-

gists states, "Prior to the legalization of

abortion, illegal abortions were the major

cause of maternal mortality and mor-

bidity. In the 1960s in California, 296

women died from illegal abortions,

accounting for 30% of all natural deaths.

From 1980-85, one California woman

died as a result of an abortion, repres-

enting less than one percent of maternal

deaths.

"It is evident," Dr. Whitelaw notec,

"that when the choice of abortion is not

available, women die attempting to seek

a solution to an unwanted pregnancy."

Public Opinion:

_The majority of Californians support

public funding of abortion and that

support is increasing. The Field Insti-

tute's California Poll found that support

for public funding increased from 48%

in 1980 to 58% in 1985.

Last year, two anti-choice initiatives

to cut public funding for abortion did

not even get enough signatures to qualify

for the state ballot.

Justice Edward Panelli, the two Deukme-

jian appointees sitting on the court last year

who voted to rehear the ACLU case. Only

one justice remains who voted in the 1981

majority upholding Medi-Cal abortion

funding.

It is therefore uncertain as to whether

the new court will honor legal precedent

by declaring the perennial legislative

restrictions on abortion funding as uncon-

stitutional. This could result in the termi-

nation of Medi-Cal funding for young and

indigent women.

It is no wonder that the ACLU-NC and

all pro-choice supporters are gravely

concerned.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared

between a woman and her attending

physician. The issue at stake today is public

funding of abortion which allows all

women-regardless of economic status-

their constitutional right to choose. -

Constitutional right

In 1981, in an opinion authored by the

late Justice Mathew Tobriner in the

ACLU-NC case of CDRR vs. Myers, the

California Supreme Court ruled:

"By virtue of the explicit protec-

tion afforded by an individual's

inalienable right of privacy by

Article I, Section 1 of the Cali-

fornia Constitution. ..the decision

whether to bear a child or to have

an abortion is so private and so

intimate that each woman in this

state-rich or poor-is guaranteed

the constitutional right to make

that decision as an_ individual,

uncoerced by governmental

intrusion.

"The Legislature need not sub-

sidize any of the costs associated

with childbearing or with health

care generally. ..once it chooses to

enter the constitutionally protected

area of choice, it must do so with

general indifference. It may not

weight the options open to the

pregnant woman by its allocation

of public funds; in this area, the

government is not free to achieve

with carrots what [it] is forbidden

to achieve with sticks."

continued on p. 8

Thursday, May 21

5:00 to 7:00 pm

Refreshments

You are invited to the

ACLU-NC OPEN HOUSE

Meet Martha Kegel, our new Associate Director

Visit our newly renovated offices

1663 Mission Street #460

All ACLU-NC members and supporters are welcome to attend.

San Francisco

aclu news

2 april-may 1987

New Hope to End Patient Dumping

dumping were defeated by the money and influence of the California Medical

[: the last legislative session, two key bills supported by the ACLU against patient

Association (CMA). The measures would have outlawed the deadly practice of "patient

dumping" by penalizing private medical providers who refuse to treat indigent patients ~

and send them on-without emergency treatment-to public hospitals.

But the battle did not stop there. ACLU Legislative Advocate Marjorie Swart

looks at the new efforts for stopping the practice of patient dumping and their chances

for survival in the current legislative session.

At the start of the session, Assembly

- Member Burt Margolin reintroduced his bill

of last session as AB 214. The new Margolin

bill has the support of a broad range of

_public interest, minority and senior citizens

organizations as well as public hospitals and

some members of the medical profession.

, The new bill's chances of winning

legislative approval are enhanced by the

formation of the Coalition Against Patient

Dumping, of which the ACLU is an active

member, which has been monitoring the

abuses of patient dumping and conducting

intensive lobbying and public education

efforts.

_ Already the Coalition's pore have led

to an agreement in Alameda County

`between public and private providers

regarding the transfers of uninsured or

unsponsored emergency room patients. The

patient dumping issue also spurred the

formation of another statewide working

group-which includes 50 unions, local

governments, public and private health care

providers-to explore long-term solutions

for funding indigent health care.

But the issue that pushed this legislation

to the forefront was the crisis at Brookside

Hospital in San Pablo. It was there that,

in March, pregnant Anna Grant sat

unattended in labor in the waiting room

for three hours. When Brookside finally

called an ambulance to take Grant to a.

county hospital, her baby was stillborn.

This tragedy hit the headlines just as

Margolin's bill was put before the Assembly

Health Committee. The bill passed the

Health Committee on March 17.

Sanctions

Currently a hospital that refuses to treat

emergency room patients for financial

reasons may be disciplined through either

a letter of reprimand or loss of its emergency

care license. Because neither penalty

presents any meaningful deterrence, AB 214

proposes the establishment of civil and

criminal sanctions for both hospitals and

doctors working in the emergency care

setting (currently no penalties apply to

doctors). AB 214 also proposes definitions,

protocols and data collection requirements

that would govern non-medical transfers of

at the time.

$20 Individual

Name_

The ACLU has stood foursquare against

the recurring tides of hysteria that from |

time to time threaten freedoms everywhere... .

Indeed, it is difficult to appreciate how far our

freedoms might have eroded had it not been for -

the Union's valiant representation in the courts

of the constitutional rights of people of all

persuasions, no matter how unpopular or

even despised by the majority they were

- Chief Justice Earl Warren

-

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FIGHTING THE TIDE AGAIN

I WANT TO HELP THE ACLU

Enclosed is my contnbution of $

(]

| |I want to join. Credit my contribution towards membership:

a _1$30 Joint

[|More

Address

City.

State Zip

Send coupon and check to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street,

#460, San Francisco, CA 94103. |

|

I

I

I

rs

|

I

I

I

1

I

|

I

|

|

I

I

Le

I

I

I

i

{

{

I

ts

0x00B0

Gane GED ED GED GED GED GSD GRO Gut GED GRD exe GED GHD GES GRY GED GID GED GEN GEE ans ams aay om aud

I

1

I

!

I

{

I

{

I

I

I

I

J

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lu

emergency room patients.

A watered-down patient dumping bill

sponsored by the CMA, SB 292 (McCor-

quodale), appears to permit economically

motivated transfers of emergency patients

without requiring that medical treatment

first be provided. This lack ofa requirement

to treat is the major civil liberties objection

to the measure.

The poor should not have to

die or suffer disabilities because

private providers refuse to give

life-saving care.

The CMA-backed measure links penal-

ties for patient dumping to the broader issue 0x00B0

of funding for indigent patients. However,

the solutions proposed are so unworkable

as to jeopardize the entire bill. Counties,

for example, would be required to pay for

emergency care services provided by the

private sector. The bill appropriates $25

million for this purpose. Not only are there

questions about the adequacy of this

amount, but Governor Deukmejian has

consistently indicated that he would veto

any such appropriation. If passed, counties

would be forced to further reduce funding

for public hospitals (who serve the vast

majority of indigent emergency patients) to

pay private providers who treat a far smaller

proportion of these patients.

Ultimately, private providers will take a

portion of already scarce public funds at

the expense of indigent patients. By tying

patient dumping to physicians' right to

public reimbursement, the CMA apparently

takes the position that physicians can

continue to dump indigent patients until

they are guaranteed payment.

A third measure, SB 12 (Maddy) serves

as a middle ground approach including

features of AB 214 but also seeking to resolve

the difficult problem of funding. This bill's

language is identical to that of the Margolin

bill concerning transfers of emergency

patients, but it additionally proposes a new

funding source for emergency care for

indigents by levying penalties on traffic

violations.

The proposal is justified on the argument

that many emergency room patients are the

victims of traffic accidents. The Maddy bill

also contains language requiring that

counties maintain existing efforts to

reimburse those private providers who do

treat indigent emergency patients. The

counties oppose this provision fearing it will

force the expenditure of limited indigent

health care monies to pay these providers

continued on p. 7

The Victims of

Patient Dumping

A typical private hospital emergency

room patient likely to be transferred, for

economic reasons, to a public facility is

the victim of street violence, such as

gunshot or stab wound. Other likely

victims are persons injured in auto

accidents. Most poignant are those

victims who are pregnant women that

have gone into premature labor or who

are suffering from a medical crisis

directly related to a difficult pregnancy.

In these cases, there are often two

victims, the woman and her child.

Some private hospitals upon learning

that an emergency patient is uninsured

or unable to provide immediate proof

of insurance, have refused to treat the

person. Family members and friends are

told to take the patient to a public health

care facility, some of which are miles

away from the patient's present location.

In a number of documented cases,

delays in receiving necessary emergency

medical care has caused death, as well

as severely disabling or disfiguring

conditions that could have been pre-

vented with prompt attention. In several

cases care denied to pregnant women

resulted in stillbirths of infants who were

alive when their mothers first sought

emergency care.

Zoning, are a primary resource for

VOLUNTEERS

NEEDED

The ACLU-NC is looking for sharp

volunteers who can help organize and

maintain the ACLU subject files. The

files, which include information on every

civil liberties issue from Abortion to

attorneys, media spokespeople, reporters

and other researchers.

The subject files are under the

supervision of ace librarian, volunteer

Clara MacDonald-but she desperately

needs assistance. If you have a back-

ground in library work, or are willing

to learn, and can spend an afternoon

a week (or more!), we urge you to call

Volunteer Coordinator Jean Hom at

415-621-2493.

aclu news

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

August-September and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director Sis

Marcia Gallo, a

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

Elaine Elinson, Editor

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

Chapter Page

_ aclu news

april-may 1987 3

Diver Downs NCAA Drug Test

[I a victory which attracted national press

attention, champion student diver

Simone LeVant. won her challenge to the

NCAA drug testing program. On March

11, Superior Court Judge Peter G. Stone

issued an injunction allowing LeVant, who

is represented by the ACLU-NC, to compete

without consenting to the mandatory drug

. test.

Judge Stone ruled that the NCAA could

not force LeVant, Captain of the Stanford

_ Women's Diving Team, to waive her

constitutional right to privacy in order to

compete in college diving championships.

LeVant was represented by ACLU-NC

cooperating attorneys Robert Van Nest and

' Susan Harriman, both of the San Francisco

law firm of Keker and Brockett, and

ACLU-NC staff attorneys Ed Chen and

Margaret Crosby.

"The program proposed and imple-

mented so far by the NCAA appears to

the court to be ... scientifically unsophis-

ticated and overbroad. The NCAA cannot

require an athlete under these particular

circumstances-I should say this athlete-

to give up that very valuable constitutional

right, the right of privacy," Judge Stone said

from the bench as he issued the preliminary

injunction.

Responding to NCAA arguments that the

testing program was an effective means of

keeping student athletes drug free, Judge

Stone said, "Cutting off the hands of a

Stanford Women's Diving Team captain

Simone LeVant hopes her victory will

inspire other student athletes to refuse drug

testing.

Judge OK's Refinery

Drug Test Plan

ontra Costa Superior Court Judge

Richard Flier ruled on April 23 that

a modified drug testing program for

employees would be allowed at the Pacific

Refining Company in Hercules. In accept-

ing the new drug testing program, Judge

Flier lifted his earlier injunction barring

drug testing at the plant in response to an

ACLU-NC challenge to its constitutionality.

Random drug testing of all workers,

which the company began at the refinery

last October, is still barred.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen who,

with cooperating attorney Barbara Brenner

and Employment Law Center staff counsel

John True, is representing the workers at

Pacific Refining Company, said, "Although

the revised plan is an improvement over

the random, company-wide drug testing that

was originally in effect, we still find this

plan unacceptable as it is too vague and

overbroad."

Under the new plan, employees who work

near potentially dangerous equipment or

materials may be subject to testing based

on reasonable suspicion of drug use.

Workers involved in accidents are also |

subject to testing.

Red eyes, dirty clothes

Poor work performance, repeated absen-

ces, blurred vision, dirty clothes and body

odor are some of the criteria Pacific intends

to use as indicators of possible drug use,

and employees exhibiting such character-

istics may be required by the plant manager

to submit to a "fitness for duty" test,

conducted by a licensed doctor or nurse.

Workers who fail a fitness for duty test-

involving such things as testing of reflexes

and eye movement-would then have to

take the urine test.

"This fitness for duty exam is just the

old program in disguise," said refinery

worker Dean Phillips, one of the plaintiffs

in the case. "If our work record does not

indicate to management our credibility as

employees, then to hell with them."

Chen explained, "The enumerated symp-

toms are not demonstrably indicative of

drug-induced impairment-they are so

overbroad so as to bring within their sweep

scores of innocent employees.

"The program ought to focus on worker

impairment on the job. The mere fact of

red eyes or dilated pupils doesn't do that,"

Chen said. "The core problem of fitness for

duty testing is that it doesn't require any.

proof of impairment to fail."

While critical of the interim program

approved by the court, Chen noted that it

was far better than the previous plan of .

random testing. It does require the inter-

vening judgment of a licensed health

professional before a urine test can be

Chuck Painter/ Stanford University

pickpocket. ..doesn't make that, although

effective, constitutional."

_ First successful challenge

This is the first successful challenge in

the country to the NCAA rule, adopted in

January, 1986 and implemented last fall.

The policy requires all college athletes to

sign a consent form submitting to random

drug testing. Judge Stone's ruling applies

only to LeVant; the NCAA policy requires

testing for 3,000 drugs and applies to 15,000

college athletes in 28 different sports.

After the ruling, LeVant, a senior English

major, said, "I'm extremely happy. I hope

this makes other athletes think more about

their situation."

Attorney Van Nest commented, "Judge

Stone's ruling is a repudiation of the NCAA's

drug testing policy. We hope and we believe

that today is the beginning of the end of

drug testing in college sports."

The ACLU-NC case was filed on January

6 after LeVant was barred from competing

in several NCAA events because she refused

to sign the drug testing consent form.

Attorney Harriman explained that the

program is a clear violation of privacy. "The

athlete is forced to urinate in front of an

NCAA representative-a total stranger-

who `monitors' the test. If the athlete is

unable to fill the urine beaker, she is given

fluids and cannot leave until she is able

ordered. "This represents a substantial

restriction on the arbitrary exercise of

discretion," he said.

The court order also recognized the fact

that there is a lesser interest in testing non-

safety sensitive employees who are exempt

from suspicion-based testing under the new

plan.

The new program does allow employees

to give a full sample. The athlete must sign

a form certifying that there were no

irregularities in the entire testing process,

even though she would have no way of

knowing whether the NCAA officials had

properly conducted the urine test.

Refusal to sign

"If the athlete refuses to sign the form,

she is treated as though she had tested

positive for drugs-and barred from

competing," Harriman, explained.

Judge Stone had issued a Temporary

Restraining Order (TRO) on January 13

allowing LeVant to compete while the case

was pending.

LeVant is graduating before the trial in

this case. Another Stanford athlete, soccer

player Jennifer Hill, has joined the suit as

a plaintiff so the ACLU challenge to the

NCAA rule will continue.

Because of her bold stand, LeVant was

featured in major national publications such

as the New York Times sports pages and

Sports Illustrated. She appeared with

attorney Van Nest on the Phil Donahue

Show and ABC-TV's "Sports Talk"; attorney

Harriman debated an NCAA spokesperson

on the McNeil/ Lehrer News Hour.

who are required to provide a urine sample

be provided with a portion of the sample

for their own testing, an important proced-

ural safeguard. It also requires all obser-

vations supporting a decision to drug test

to be documented in writing.

The new program will remain in effect

until the case, Price v. Pacific Refining

Company, goes to trial.

New Pamphlet

Have you been asked to take a drug test?

Before you are, be sure to read the

new ACLU-NC pamphlet Know Your

Rights: Drug Testing at the

Workplace.

This comprehensive new publica-

tion, written in an easy-to-read

question-and-answer format, is an

important guide for employers,

employees, trade unionists, lawyers,

public officials and the many others

impacted by the use of drug tests.

The pamphlet, written by ACLU-NC

Staff attorney Ed Chen who has litigated

landmark challenges to drug testing,

Please send me

Name

Order Form

______-_ copies of Drug Testing at the Workplace. Individual

copies are $2.00 each. Bulk orders are $10.00 for 10 copies (postage included.)

addresses such questions as:

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log How does drug testing violate an

employee's privacy?

-cent Do employers have alternatives to

drug tests?

e Are drug tests accurate?

e What options does an employee

have when ordered to submit to

a drug test? :

As the battle over drug testing is

fought out in the courts and the

legislatures, this helpful pamphlet

provides many answers to workers who

are being asked to take drug tests or

risk the loss of their jobs.

Address

City

Organization (if applicable)

Zip

Please make payment and send to Literature Orders, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission

l Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.

_ april-may 1987

aclu news

INTRODUCTION

After more than five years of difficult and often

bitter debate, the Immigration Reform and Con-

trol Act, also known as the Simpson-Rodino Act,

was signed into law on November 6, 1986. It is the

most comprehensive reform of United States

immigration law since 1952.

The Act is intended to address two primary con-

cerns: unregulated immigration into the U.S. and

the plight of America's shadow population-the

countless undocumented immigrants currently

living in fear on the margins of American society.

Two of the law's major provisions are aimed at

the workplace.

`The first of these establishes sanctions to be

imposed upon any employer who knowingly

employs undocumented workers. The second isa _

crucial, counterbalancing provision-an amenc-

ment outlawing discrimination on the basis of

national origin or citizenship status.

Despite its long gestation, the Immigration Act

was, in the end, rushed through Congress, and the

final version contains many ambiguities. Proposed

regulations implementing some portions of the

Act have been issued, but they are not final. This

pamphlet addresses many of the questions that

the new Act raises. Some remaining areas of

uncertainty may be clarified when final regula-

tions go into force. But for the most part, the

_answers provided here are firmly rooted in the law

and will not change.

Even though implementing regulations are not _

yet in place, the anti-discrimination provision of

the Act is in effect, and those involved in the

workplace-employees, employers, unions, etc.-

need and deserve to know now what their rights,

responsibilities, and obligations are under the new

law. Our hope in providing this pamphlet is that it

will help to dispel some of the anxiety and uncer-

tainty generated by the Act, and, at the same time,

that it will encourage citizens and non-citizens

alike to assert their rights under the law.

Lucas Guttentag

National Litigation Coordinator

Immigration and Aliens' Rights Task Force

What are the specific provisions that

affect the workplace?

The first is an "employer sanctions" provision,

which is designated as Section 274A of the Immi-

gration and Nationality Act. This provision

imposes penalties on employers who knowingly

hire or employ aliens not authorized to work in the

U.S. or who fail properly to document the legal

status of all new employees. This part of the law

does not apply to workers already hired as of

November 6, 1986, the day the bill was signed.

The second provision, designated as Section

274B, is the first section's antidote. Section 274B is

an anti-discrimination provision added to the bill

because of concern that employers would simply

refuse to hire any aliens, whether legal or not, or

indeed any "foreign" looking or sounding work-

ers, for fear of possible penalties. Section 274B

prohibits employment discrimination on the basis

of national origin (by employers not already cov-

ered by Title VII) and on the basis of citizenship

- status. Specifically, the law applies to hiring, firing,

or referral or recruitment for a fee.

THE EMPLOYER SANCTIONS PROVISION

What is the employer sanctions provi-

sion?

The employer sanctions provision, Section

274A, imposes sanctions-including fines and pos-

sible jail terms-on employers who knowingly

hire, recruit or refer for a fee, or continue to

employ any unauthorized alien worker who was

not already employed as of November 6, 1986.

Once the initial phase-in period expires, the law

also requires employers to document the legal sta-

- tus of every new worker hired after November 6,

1986, including U.S. citizens, and again imposes

penalties for failing to do so.

Does an employer have to fire current

workers who may be undocumented?

Not if they were employed as of November 6,

1986, or assert eligibility for legalization. Under a

"grandfather clause' Congress specifically

exempted employees hired by November 6 from

the sanctions provision. An employer cannot be

penalized for continuing to employ these workers,

no matter what their legal status.

Who is an authorized worker?

Citizens, nationals and any aliens who have been

granted work authorization for any reason by the

immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The

latter category includes legal permanent residents,

temporary agricultural workers, students on work-

ing visas, applicants for legalization or political asy-

lum with work authorization, etc.

Undocumented aliens who certify that they are

eligible for !egalization are authorized to work

without documentation until September 1, 1987.

THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION PROVISION

What kind of discrimination is

prohibited?

Section 274B of the new law (also known as the

Frank Amendment) prohibits discrimination in

employment on the basis of national origin or citi-

zenship status.

The national origin category applies to all

employers with more than three workers who are

not already covered by Title VII of the 1964 Civil

Rights Act. Generally speaking, that means

The Immigration Refo

Where Will

With the implementation of the Immigration

consistently lobbied against the bill for the last fo

Immigration Reform Act: Employer Sanctions an

as a guide for workers, employers and their advoc

The 25-page pamphlet is written in questi

summary of the key provisions of the bill and an 11

The ACLU-NC is providing a Spanish tran

distributed nationally.

Because this information is of crucial importe

here excerpts from the pamphlet. The complete |

of May and is available from the Immigration an

Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 132 W. 43 St., }

employers with four to fourteen employees. An

employer bound by Section 274B is prohibited

from discriminating on the basis of national origin

against any authorized workers, including those

who are entitled to work without documentation

until September 1987 because they are eligible for

legalization and those protected by the "grandfa-

ther clause."

Employers with a work force of fifteen or more

workers are covered by Title VII, which also pro-

hibits national origin discrimination.

National origin discrimination encompasses any

differing treatment of an individual because of the

person's ancestry or country of birth or because

the person has the physical, cultural or linguistic

characteristics of a national origin group.

Section 274B's proscription against citizenship

status discrimination prohibits all employers (with

more than three workers) from discriminating on

the basis of "citizenship status" (i.e., alienage)

against U.S. citizens or nationals and "intending

citizens.' This means that unless specifically per-

mitted by the law, an employer may not treat ali-

ens who meet the legal definition of "intending

citizen" less favorably than citizens.

When does the anti-discrimination pro-

vision go into effect?

It went into effect the day the bill was signed,

November 6, 1986.

Are all employers bound by it?

Every employer, public or private, who has

more than three employees is bound by it. That

includes employers of domestic help.

The provision prohibits discrimination in hiring,

firing or referral or recruitment for a fee. That

means the law also applies to employment agen-

cies, "headhunters", contractors and anyone else

who refers or recruits workers for a fee.

If someone believes (s)he has been

discriminated against on the basis of

national origin or citizenship status,

what should (s)he do?

aclu news

april-may 1987 3

ii it Lea

ration Reform Act, the national ACLU, which _ | : a. ante igllEo + 2

last four years, is publishing a new pamphlet

ons and Discrimination Prohibitions to serve

advocates.

question-and-answer format and includes a

d an index to all aspects of the legislation.

h translation of the brochure which will be

nportance to our members, we are reprinting

plete pamphlet will be published at the end =

0x00B0 9 e e @

ion and Aliens' Rights Task Force, American oo z

} St., New York, New York 10036. 8

@

When the mechanisms required by the Act are `NS di eu 0x00A7

in place, such individuals will be required to file a -

"charge" with a Special Counsel, appointed by the 3

President, at the U.S. Justice Department. Eventu-

ally regional offices are supposed to be set up to `Yeah, | used to be Into social work - you know, taking care of your tired, your

ee poor, your huddied masses, but now... now I'm in the border patrol!'

OTHER PROVISIONS

When will final regulations be issued? : :

Proposed regulations were published in March | Pp = OTEST

and will go into effect in May or June after the | :

ee Immigration Reform and Control

What government agencies will be g

enforcing the law? Act

The INS is responsible for enforcing the (Simpson/Rodino Bill)

employer sanctions provision. The anti-

discrimination provision falls under the jurisdic- :

tion of the Justice Department and will be handled :

by a Special Counsel appointed by the President. MAY 5/ Cinco de Mayo

, | 12 noon -

INS Processing Center

Mission Street at Duboce, San Francisco

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (formerly the Simpson/Rodino

Immigration Bill) ushers in a new period of discrimination and violation of the

civil rights of immigrants and refugees. While a few thousand undocumented will

be legalized, the vast majority will not qualify. Employer sanctions, which become

effective in September 1987, will deny thousands of undocumented, including

Central American and Caribbean refugees the basic right to work. Sanctions will

also create more job discrimination against minorities who might `look or sound"

foreign.

We will be demonstrating to say: no deportations, full rights for undocumented

and refugees, repeal employer sanctions; and for the refugee community:

authorization to work, access to social services, and extended voluntary departure

status.

Sponsored by: Committee to Defend Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Coalition for Immigrant

Rights and Services, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Mexican American

Legal Defense and Education Fund, Latino Democratic Club, Comite El Salvador, Casa

El Salvador, MASPS, CORES, CRECE, CARACEN and Father Moriarty Central American

~ Refugee Program. . ae

For more information call: 415-465-9876

~ aclu news

6 april-may 1987

Legal Briefs

Prison Press Regs Upheld

fter years of litigation on behalf of

prison newspaper editors, the state

Court of Appeal upheld the Department

of Corrections (CDC) guidelines limiting

press freedom inside prison walls.

The January 30 decision came in the case |

of Diaz v. Watts. The ACLU-NC repres-

ented Victor Diaz and Eric Martin, former

inmates `at the California Medical Facility

at Vacaville (CMF) and editors of the

Vacavalley Star, the prisoner-run newspaper.

In 1981 a superior court injunction

_ ordered prison officials at CMF who had

censored, destroyed and shut down the

Vacavalley Star to allow the paper to resume

publication and cease harassment of the

inmate editors.

However, the CDC subsequently issued

new regulations in the wake of a California .

Supreme Court decision in a separate prison

newspaper case and the new restrictions

were upheld by the superior court despite

an ACLU challenge to them as unconsti-

tutionally vague and overbroad.

Stating that "the regulations are within

the CDC's power to limit the exercise of

prisoners' rights for purposes of prison

security, protection of the public and valid

penological objectives," the appellate court

upheld the lower court ruling.

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Zak

Taylor, who with ACLU-NC staff attorney

Alan Schlosser represented the inmate

Voter Registration Barred from

Post Office Walkway

he Post Office may be public property

for the sake of buying stamps, regis-

tering for the draft or mailing in your tax

return-but it's not public enough to allow

an organization to register you to vote.

According to a March 17 ruling from the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the

walkway outside the post office is not "a

traditional public forum" and therefore voter

registration by partisan groups is prohibited.

The court denied an ACLU challenge to

the U.S. Postal Service guideline, first issued

in December 1983, barring voter registra-

tion by partisan groups on postal properties.

The case began in July 1984, when a

member of the Monterey County Demo-

cratic Committee sought permission from

the Carmel Valley Postmaster to set up a

voter registration area outside the local post

office. He explained that there would be

no distribution of campaign literature or

solicitation of money and that anyone-not

just Democrats-could register.

`The Postmaster denied the Committee's

request, citing the U.S. Postal Service

regulation prohibiting voter registration

activities by organizations that participate

in political campaigns.

Angry Democratic Committee members

sought help from the ACLU. "Being a rural

community, many people in Carmel Valley

receive their mail through post office boxes,"

explained Committee member Charles

Tillinghast. "It is the place that attracts the

most pedestrian traffic, the greatest number,

and the most diverse cross-section of

people."

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Douglas

R. Young of the San Francisco law firm

of Farella, Braun and Martell, and staff

attorneys Donna Hitchens and Alan

Schlosser filed a lawsuit in federal court

in August 1984 arguing that the Committee

should be allowed to register voters on the

walkway in front of the post office and that

the regulation barring them from doing so

is unconstitutional.

The ACLU charged that by excluding

partisan groups from voter registration

activities on Post Office property, the

guideline violated the First Amendment

right of free expression and Fifth Amend-

ment equal protection guarantees.

Although the U.S. District Court issued

an immediate injunction allowing the

registration in time for the November 1984

elections, that Court later upheld the

regulation, barring future voter registration

by the Democratic Committee.

In upholding the District Court ruling,

the appellate court stated, "Although voter

registration is speech pretected by the First

Amendment, the protection is not abso-

lute.. .[T]he Committee's position that the

walkway outside the post office is a -

traditional public forum is not accepted."

The ACLU-NC filed a petition for

rehearing in the appellate court on March

31. According to attorney Young, "With this

ruling, the Court is putting the burden on

the public to demonstrate that this post

office walkway is public access-when it

really should be the other way around.

"In our petition for rehearing, we argue

that the court overlooked the critical fact

that many activities-like handing out

partisan leaflets and pamphlets-have been

allowed on the walkway while this activity

of sitting quietly in one spot and having

people who want to register to vote

approach the table is not.

"This high level of free speech activity.

sanctioned by the government on the

walkway, demonstrates that the government

has no compelling interest to justify its bar

against partisan groups soliciting voter

registration," Young added.

nd

editors, said, "It is unfortunate that the court

allowed prison authorities so much discre-

tion to regulate the content of the news-

papers. In some instances, it will be difficult

to control prison officials from acting on

personal whims and beliefs.

"On the other hand," Taylor said, "it is

now at least clear that the new CDC

regulations are now the norm to be applied

and the uncertainty over the rights of inmate

editors is largely resolved. The prisoner

editors at least have some guidelines as to

what they can and cannot do."

Noting that the ACLU "won the battles

but lost the war," Taylor said that the court

Roadblock

Arguments

uring the first week of arguments

before the new California Supreme

Court, former ACLU-NC staff attorney

Amitai Schwartz presented the ACLU

challenge to police drunk driving road-

blocks in the case of Ingersoll v. Palmer.

Schwartz, now in private practice and

serving the ACLU-NC as a cooperating

attorney, argued on April 9 before the court

in Los Angeles that the roadblocks violate

the Fourth Amendment, the California

Constitution and California law.

"Drivers should not be stopped without .

some individualized suspicion that they are

involved in criminal activity," Schwartz

argued. "There are less intrusive ways for

the police to detect drunk drivers."

The taxpayers suit was originally filed

in November 1984, just days before the

California Highway Patrol and several

police departments set up drunk driving

roadblocks in a number of California

communities. The roadblocks were set up

following an opinion issued by the state

Attorney General stating that they were

legal.

School Prayer

Challenge

n April 29 ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby will argue before the

state Court of Appeal that the inclusion

of a prayer in a high school graduation

ceremony violates the constitutional prin-

ciple of church-state separation.

The ACLU-NC is representing Leslie

Bennett, who, when she was a senior at

Granada High School in Livermore in 1983,

objected to having a prayer at her gradua-

tion ceremony. Bennett's objections were

opposed by several school committees, the

principal and the school board.

Bennett was subjected to anonymous

threats and harrassing phone calls at home,

at school and even at her after-school job.

But she stuck to her guns. Rather than give

up her principles, Bennett turned to the

ACLU-NC for help.

On the eve of the graduation ceremony,

an injunction from the Alameda County

Superior Court barring the prayer was

allowed to stand by the state Court of

Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the

prayer was not included in the ceremony.

When the-superior court issued its final

injunction stating that the inclusion of a

prayer in the high school graduation

ceremony is impermissable under the state

and federal Constitutions, the school district

appealed.

The appellate court ruling could affect

public school graduation ceremonies around

the state.

did construe some of the regulations in favor ~

of the editors, reiterating a U.S. Supreme

Court decision that "this does not imply (c)

that a prisoner is stripped of all constitu-

tional protection as he passes through the

prison gates."

Though Diaz and Martin have left the

CME the Vacavalley Star is still coming

out.

ACLU Fights |

State Drug

Test Bills

`Grey years ago, Ford Motor Com-

pany's personnel department vigilantly -

checked the cleanliness of employees' homes,

the neatness of their gardens, their attend-

ance at church and the kinds of cars they

drove. Employees found lax in any of these

areas were often fired," ACLU-NC staff

counsel Ed Chen told the Senate Industrial

Relations Committee in Sacramento on

April 22.

"As a result of technological advancement,

we are today confronted with a new form

of employee surveillance which is every bit

as invasive of privacy and more offensive

to human dignity-mandatory drug testing,"

Chen said.

Chen, a nationally recognized expert on

employee drug testing, testified at the Senate

Industrial Relations Committee in opposi-

tion to two drug testing bills, SB 1610 and

SB 1611 proposed by Senator John Seymour.

Charging that the bills are "inconsistent

with state and federal constitutions," Chen

noted. "Ironically like the Ford Motor

Company practices, these tests provide

information that is irrelevant to job

performance since drug tests do not and

cannot measure in any way worker impair-

ment, intoxication, or on-the-job drug use."

SB 1610 authorizes drug testing, including

random tests for all employees who work

in "high risk" or "sensitive" positions.

The companion bill, SB 1611, authorizes

employer-sponsored drug testing for all

employees under certain circumstances

such as when the employer has reasonable

suspicion that the employee is impaired or

has taken drugs. It also authorizes testing

of job applicants.

Both bills include rules on laboratory

provisions and confidentiality. They also

contain some language about an employee's

right to have a written policy on drug testing

and the right to receive a copy of the results

of a drug test.

As SB 1611 applies to both public and

private employees, its provisions would

invalidate San Francisco's ordinance pro-

hibiting mandatory drug tests of employees.

In his testimony, Chen addressed three

major points:

0x00B0 drug testing is a substantial and

manifold invasion of privacy;

cent drug tests do not measure current

impairment or intoxication; and

0x00B0 there are better alternatives to drug

_ testing to establish workplace safety.

"The Legislature ought not invite private

and public employers to violate the

Constitution," Chen concluded. "It would

be far more constructive both in terms of

human rights and from the viewpoint of

the administration of justice to impose limits

on drug testing so as to minimize the conflict

between employer conduct and the Califor-

nia Constitution."

aclu news

april-may 1987 7

ACLU Blasts High Court

Death Penalty Ruling

U.S. Supreme Court decision

A icin Georgia's capital sen-

tencing system despite a detailed

study showing it is racially discriminatory

"must be viewed with great sadness by all

who believe in standards of justice and

fairness," said Martha Kegel, ACLU-NC

associate director at a press conference on

April 22 after the decision was announced.

The court ruled that statistical evidence

of race discrimination in the application of

the death penalty does not violate the federal

Constitution.

The most detailed study ever made of

factors causing the imposition of the death

penalty, directed by law professor David

Baldus of the University of lowa, examined

more than 1,000 homicides in Georgia-

the state whose capital punishment scheme

was upheld in a 1976 case that allowed the

death penalty to be reinstated around the

country.

Although blacks account for about 60

percent of Georgia homicide victims, Baldus

found that killers of black victims are given

death sentences less than one-tenth as often

as are the killers of white victims. Baldus

controlled for 230 factual variables in each

case, in search of any explanation other than

race which might account for the stark

inequalities of Georgia's death penalty

system. He could find none.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4

that statistical evidence of race discrimina-

tion in the application of the death penalty

does not violate the federal Constitution.

"This is a racist ruling that tells juries

it is okay to value the lives of white people

more than the lives of racial minorities," said

Eva Jefferson Paterson, speaking for the San

Francisco-based Coalition for Civil Rights.

Paterson is assistant director of the San

Francisco Lawyers Committee for Urban

Affairs and vice-chair of the national

ACLU.

"This racist ruling tells juries it is okay to value the lives of

white people more than the lives of racial minorities."

OCC Director Under Fire

he San Francisco Office of Citizen

Complaints-established by the voters

in 1982 to investigate police misconduct-

is now being investigated itself, by no less

than four official bodies.

The OCC has come under fire in recent

months from the ACLU-NC, police abuse

victims and their families, and numerous

community groups who charge that the

agency has not fulfilled its watchdog role.

The OCC is now being investigated by

the S.F Board of Supervisors, the S.E Bar

Association, the state Attorney General's

Office and the S.F Police Commission.

In February, the Human Services Com-

mittee of the Board of Supervisors chaired

by Willie Kennedy held hearings on the

OCC as a result of community outrage over

the OCC's Annual Report. That hearing

drew testimony from a score of groups and

irate citizens including the family of police

shooting victim Larry Lumpkin.

Following the hearing, Supervisor

Kennedy said on a KRON-TV "Target Four"

report, "Why hasn't Mr. Schober explained .

why he changed the OCC report on the

[Lumpkin] shooting? He hasn't explained

it. To be frank, I think it's a cover-up."

The hearing spurred the call for a

management audit of the OCC now being

conducted by the city budget analyst. When

the audit is completed, a new oversight

committee of the Board of Supervisors,

_ chaired by former sheriff Richard Hongisto,

will conduct further hearings on the OCC.

The San Francisco Bar Association

announced in April that it has set up a

special panel to examine the effectiveness

of the OCC and its director, Frank Schober.

Executive Director Drucilla Ramey had

testified at the February Human Services

Committee hearing that "the OCC seems

to be more and more a captive of the Police

Department and less and less the type of

agency that was proposed by the voters in

1982."

The Bar Association's report is expected

in mid-May.

ACLU-NC Police Practices Project

attorney John Crew wrote to state Attorney

General John Van de Kamp in March asking

his office to investigate the OCC. "Recent

revelations concerning the OCC raise

serious doubts as to whether the agency,

as it is currently being implemented, is in

compliance with the State's requirement

that a fair and adequate process exist for

investigating complaints against peace

officers," Crew wrote.

In his March 19 letter, Crew cited

numerous inconsistencies in the OCC

investigation of the fatal shooting of Larry

Lumpkin by two police officers in May 1986.

Crew raised the issues of the alleged OCC

destruction of a "sustained" report, the lack

of a credible explanation as to why the

report was changed, the delay in issuing

the report, the OCC consultation with the

District Attorney and Homicide Division

after the report was prepared, and Director

Schober's overall credibility.

On March 23, the Attorney General's

office notified Crew that "we are presently

engaged in reviewing the adequacy of the

investigation into the [Lumpkin] shooting."

Finally, the Police Commission, which in

February rejected the OCC report on the

Lumpkin shooting and then "conditionally

accepted" it with a 3-2 vote on March 26,

states that it is also investigating the OCC's

capacity to handle major cases.

All of the investigations take place against

a background of rising criticism of the OCC,

exacerbated by Director Schober's public

flip-flopping on issues and evasion of direct

answers to probing questions put to him

by the ACLU-NC and the press.

For example, after the San Francisco

Examiner revealed that 20 percent of citizen

complaints sustained in 1985 had been lost,

Schober originally said that he gave the only

copies of those complaints to the Police

Department. After the Examiner story

came out, Schober said he had found the

complaint files.

Additionally, when questioned as to why

he had consulted with the former head of

the Police Internal Affairs Bureau, a contact

specifically prohibited by the City Charter

sections governing his agency, Schober said

he did not realize that such contact was

impermissible.

When questioned as to why his agency

sustained less than two percent of the

complaints issued against police officers,

Schober responded in a guest article in the

San Francisco Progress that the OCC does

not need to sustain large numbers of

complaints because its primary job is to

make available to the Police Department

"information on officer behavior and

patterns in an effort to improve overall

`behavior and reduce complaints."

One of the consequences of Schober's

method came to light when it was disco-

vered that a police Field Training Officer

(FTO) who was charged with raping a

female rookie had been named in ten

misconduct complaints before he got his

police training job.

ACLU-NC attorney Crew asked, "If the

department is looking for patterns of

complaints against against officers as

Schober claims, then how did this officer

become a FTO, a role model for police

rookies?"

2D ER SATE zano SST

Peter Graham Cohn, national board

member of the NAACP, said: "We find it

appalling that the court would suggest that

Americans accept injustice and racism as

a fact of life."

The court ruled that in order to find

-unconstitutional discrimination in the

application of the death penalty, intentional

discrimination against a specific individual

must be proved-a standard the court

admitted was much more exacting than that

needed to prove discrimination in civil cases.

"The court is saying, `we do not dispute

the studies showing clear evidence of

discrimination in the death penalty. Con-

stitutionally, we don't care," Kegel said.

"The court has adopted a standard of proof

that in every other legal context it has

acknowledged would make an impenetrable

barrier to proving discrimination."

Kegel said that the decision does not

preclude states from banning such race

discrimination under the provisions of state

laws and state constitutions. Currently

pending before the California Supreme

Court is People v. Jackson, a case in which

an evidentiary hearing has been ordered to

determine whether race discrimination

exists in California's death penalty system.

"We will urge the state courts to take

a stand against racial discrimination, to say

that even if race discrimination is tolerated

elsewhere, it will not be tolerated by the

courts of California," Kegel said.

Patient Dumping

continued from p. 2

rather than to support public facilities. The

CMA also opposes this bill.

Assembly Member Margolin and the

supporters of AB 214 take the position that

funding cannot be linked to sanctions, for

two key reasons. First, there are limited

resources available for health care funding

generally. Specially designated support for

emergency care may mean a reduction in

funding for other types of health care or

social services-an _ unacceptable

consequence.

Second, experience indicates that even

when private providers are compensated to

some degree for providing indigent emer-

gency care, patient dumping still occurs.

Fully insured private patients are still

more lucrative than publicly funded indigent

patients. And some fear that indigent

patients may be the victims of race and class

discrimination by public providers.

AB 214 proponents believe that the poor

should not have to die or suffer permanent

disabilities because private providers refuse

to provide life-saving care while awaiting

some eventual solution to the public health

care funding crisis.

| of the members of the Assembly Ways

Support AB 214

Margolin's anti-dumping bill AB 214

will be heard in the Assembly Ways and

Means Committee on May 6. The

ACLU-NC encourages all members to

send letters to legislators-particularly

to Assemblymember Burt Margolin and

Ways and Means Committee Chair John'

Vasconcellos-urging support for this

crucial legislation to stop patient

dumping. Letters and telegrams should

be addressed to State Capitol Building,

Sacramento 95814; for a complete list

and Means Committee,

call:

916-455-7982.

a

ee

aclu news

8 april-may 1987.

Medi-Cal Abortion Fund

continued from p. |

Target the Legislature

The ACLU is joining other pro-choice

supporters, including California Abortion

Rights Action League, NOW, the California

Nurses Association, Planned Parenthood

and others, to mobilize that public opinion

for statewide action in defense of Medi-Cal

abortion funding.

Our target is the state Legislature.

Legislators must be made to understand that

they cannot eliminate Medi-Cal abortion

funds from the 1987-88 Budget Act and

assume their action will be overturned by

the courts. The consequences of their votes

will seriously jeopardize the rights and

physical safety of 80,000 indigent California

women.

The fight to maintain Medi-Cal abortion

funding is taking many forms, ranging from

press conferences and meetings with

editorial boards to lobbying legislators in

Sacramento and their home offices. Legis-

lative action on the Budget Act is going

on right now and the Senate will vote on

the budget in May, so it is crucial that our

legislators hear from us now.

The ACLU has produced fact sheets to

be used by grassroots activists and are

available free of charge. We have produced

postcards to be sent to legislators; over

30,000 have already been sent. A Pro-

Choice Telephone Tree has been initiated

to alert members about crucial votes. For

more information about what you can do,

please fill out the coupon on p. 8.

In the next few weeks, the Legislature

will be voting on this crucial issue. If there

is not a loud, clear voice from all pro-choice

advocates, the Legislature could knock out

funding for approximately 80,000 poor

women-one third of them teenagers-who

need abortions each year in California. And,

if poor women lose their reproductive rights,

the ground will have been laid for an assault

on abortion rights for a// women.

If you care about reproductive freedom,

the time to act is now. Even if you never

acted on this issue before, please do

something today. The stakes have never been

higher.

Every year in this country more than

1 million young women between the

ages of 12 and 19 become pregnant.

A new pamphlet, just published by the

national ACLU, Parental Notice Laws:

Their Catastrophic Impact on Teen-

agers' Right to Abortion, documents

the disastrous effect of parental notice

laws on pregnant teens.

On releasing the pamphlet, Janet

Benshoof, Director of the ACLU Repro-

ductive Freedom Project said, "State

criminal statutes that require teenage

girls to go to court to avoid telling their

parents before they can exercise their

constitutional right to abortion are

nothing less than state-mandated

cruelty." -

The 38-page comprehensive report

on this subject.

L] Please send me

L] Please send me.

Name

New Publication

Parental Notice Laws

still uncertain. The California Legisla-

Cae eee oS

MAINTAIN MEDI-CAL

ABORTION FUNDING

C1 | will write letters to my state Senator and Assemblymember opposing any

_ elimination of Medi-Cal funds for abortion in the Budget Act.

LJ | will write a letter to the editor of my local newspaper (_____________}

copies of the ACLU-NC factsheet on abortion funding.

L] Please put me on the Pro-Choice Telephone Tree. ,

postcards to be mailed to legislators.

draws heavily from the recent success-

ful ACLU lawsuit challenging a Min-

nesota parental consent law which,

over a five-year period, had been

imposed on over 7,000 teenagers.

The constitutionality of these laws is

ture is this year, as last year, debating

such a measure.

This report is a must for health

professionals, lobbyists and all those

concerned about teen pregancy and

reproductive freedom.

Parental Notice Laws is available

from the ACLU-NC for $2.50 a copy;

bulk orders of 10 or more are $2.00

a copy. Write to Literature Orders,

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, San

Francisco, CA 94103.

-- sues aoe ee ee ed

~

Address

City

Zip

Phone (day)

(eve)

Please return to Marcia Gallo, Field Representative, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission

cecal

Chapter Calendar

Board Meetings

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

fourth Thursday) Volunteers are needed to

staff hotline. Contact Florence Piliavin,

415-848-4752 or 415-848-5195.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wednesday) May 20 and June 17, 7:30

pm prompt, Sumitomo Bank, 20th and

Franklin Streets, Oakland. Contact Rose

Bonhag, 415-658-7977.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Note

Change: Usually third Tuesday) Contact

Mindy Rose: 209-486-7735.

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally first Tuesday) May 5 and June 2, 7:00

pm, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite

460, San Francisco. Contact Doug Warner

for more information: 415-621-3900. Chapter

will staff booth at Lesbian Gay Freedom Day

Parade and Celebration, Sunday, June 28.

Volunteers contact Doug Warner:

415-621-3900.

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Monday) 7:30 pm. Citicorp Bank, 130

Throckmorton Avenue, Mill Valley. Contact

Jack Butler, 415-453-0972 or June Festler,

415-479-7317.

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Wednesday) May 27 and June

24, All Saints Episcopal Church, 555 Waverly,

Room 15, Palo Alto. Contact Harry Anis-

gard, 415-856-9186.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Tuesday) May 26, 7:30 pm, and

June 23, 8:00 pm. Open Forums: Update on

the Death Penalty: Amnesty International

World Wide Campaign Against the Death

Penalty in the U.S.; What's Happening in

the Legislature and the Courts. Both at

Monterey Library, Pacific and Jefferson

Streets, Monterey. Contact Richard Criley,

- 408-624-7562.

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally third Wednesday) Schedule for 1987 is

May 21 at the home of Helen Grimstead;

June 17 at the home of Betsy Ehlers; July

15 at the home of Mildred Starkie; September

16. Annual Potluck Dinner-Sunday,

August 23 at the home of Helen Grimstead,

5:00 pm. Guest Speaker: 7:00-8:00 pm.

Contact Andrew Rudiak, 415-932-5580.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Monday) Monday, May II,

8:00 pm. Bank of America, 3rd and El

Camino, San Mateo. Contact Bob Deizell,

415-343-7339.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)

May 13 and June 10, 7:30 pm. County

Administration Building, 7th and I Streets,

Main Floor Conference Room, Sacramento.

Contact Joe Gunterman, 916-447-8053.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tuesday) March 24 and April

28, 6:00 pm, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street,

Suite 460, San Francisco. Contact Marion

Standish, 415-863-3520.

SPECIAL SERIES:

May 26: San Francisco's Office of Citizen

Complaints, June 23: Right to Services/

Access to Services, July 28: Immigration/

National ID Cards, August 25: Racism,

Racial Violence and Language Rights,

September 22: Chapter Annual Meeting and

Candidates' Night with San Francisco

mayoral candidates. All chapter members

and the public invited to attend. Meetings

will be held at 6:00 pm at the ACLU-NC

office, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San

Francisco.

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually first Tuesday) Contact Michael

Chatsky 408-379-4611.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING:

(Second Wednesday) Contact Bob Taren,

408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Thursday) The Roseland Law Center,

1611 Sebastopol Road, Santa Rosa. Contact

Colleen O'Neal 707-575-1156.

STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wednesday) Contact Eric Ratner,

209-948-4040 (evenings).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Usually Third Wednesday) Contact Dan

Abramson, 916-446-7701.

Field |

Committee Meetings

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: (first Mon-

day) May 4, 6:00 pm. District lobbying to

maintain Medi-Cal funding for abortion.

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460,

San Francisco. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

RIGHT TO KNOW/RIGHT TO DIS-

SENT: (second Tuesday) May 12, 7:00 pm.

Organizing public education and member-

ship organizing on limits on information/

activism. ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street,

Suite 460, San Francisco. Contact Marcia

Gallo, 415-621-2494.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

(fourth Tuesday) May 28, 7:00 pm. Special

Seminar: "The Civil Liberties Impact of the

New Immigration Reform and Control Act."

Saturday, May 16, 10:00 am to 12:00 noon.

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460,

San Francisco. RSVP to Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

QUARTERLY FIELD COMMITTEE

MEETING: Thursday, May 14, 6:00 pm.

Agenda: Reports from Committees, Planning

for 1987 ACLU-NC Conference (August 1!

2). ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite

460, San Francisco. RSVP to Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.