be undertaken in an orderly manner, after you have over-ridden the veto. If those reviews produce findings of improper action by either CRLA or the SEOO, you have full authority to remedy such improprieties, including authority to cut-off funds for either agency. Any delay in totally over-riding the veto beyond December 31 when CRLA's present funding expires would serve only to deny CRLA's present 11,000 clients their legal representation and cut off potential clients from their only source of attorney advocacy. Any such delay would also raise totally unjustified, unfair and damaging doubts about CRLA's future and the integrity and effectiveness of its operation. I, therefore, respectfully urge your immediate action to override the veto so as to refund CRLA on the same terms and conditions already approved by your Office. I look forward to your appearance tomorrow morning and discussing this matter with you at that time. Sincerely, ALAN CRANSTON. Senator CRANSTON. The letter states quite fully my views on one vital issue affecting your nomination, the veto by Governor Reagan of the CRLA legal services program. I thus intend to ask you a great number of questions, Mr. Carlucci, to try to make a record against which this subcommittee, the full Labor and Public Welfare Committee, the U.S. Senate and the American people can judge your qualifications to head this program about which I and so many other Senators, and people throughout this country, feel so strongly and which we believe must be continued in full force and expanded, not subjected to crippling budgetary and other restrictions. Now, Mr. Carlucci, what are your intentions regarding overriding that veto and doing so prior to that program's funds running out December 31? Mr. CARLUCCI. Senator, you are correct, there was an evaluation of the program in August. I have not read the evaluation in detail. It is my understanding that the evaluation indicated that it was a good program. We funded the program, which obviously means that we thought it was an effective program. I only received the formal letter from the Governor's office yesterday, although by Monday night, late Monday night, I had begun to pick up some information on what the Governor's charges might be. The Governor has made in his letter some very serious charges. He said that the agency has misused funds and failed in its mandated purpose of serving the legal services needs of the poor, and he has gone on and made a lot of other charges. The law states that if the Governor disapproves, the Director is obliged to reconsider and made a finding that the provisions of the grant are fully consistent with the purpose of the act. It is my intention to review this situation as rapidly as I can. There are some people from CRLA who were in yesterday to present their views on what has transpired. It is my understanding that the Governor's people will be coming in to present the backup material for the charges they have made early next week. As soon as I can evaluate the evidence, I will make a determination on what is the best course of action to take. Senator CRANSTON. Do you happen to know approximately when the Governor received the report on which he based his complaints? That is the Uhler report. Mr. CARLUCCI. The Uhler report I have here is dated December 24. The letter to me is dated December 26. His first indication I got of the veto was through the press. Senator CRANSTON. The press was advised before you were advised? Mr. CARLUCCI. That is correct, sir. Senator CRANSTON. Frankly, I don't understand the need for any significant delay in making the decision to override. I recognize your feeling that you have to examine what the Governor has to say, and the law requires you to consider the reasons for a veto, but I truly believe that any decision, other than overriding the veto, is absolutely untenable for any man and any administration intending to have any credibility with the poor. Any lengthy delay can serve only to weaken the CRLA program, and by example, the legal services program throughout the entire country. There are many, many other State programs waiting to see what happens to the California program that has been clearly labeled the best in the country. Any such delay can only encourage more Governors to libel, harass, and intimidate legal services programs with impunity by dredging up at the 11th hour spurious and some extremely minor charges and isolated incidents in an attempt to justify a veto really aimed at the whole legal services program, a program which has been publicly and recently endorsed by the President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States, the past Director of OEO, Donald Rumsfeld, the Congress of the United States, the American Bar Association, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the National Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, countless client and civil rights organizations, and advocates, and State and local officials. That is what the CRLA override question really stands for. I have stated my view that I agree with you that these charges should be fully investigated by OEO. But that investigation should be conducted at fer the veto has been overriden, since the charges are, on their face, and in light of CRLA's responses to them, completely insubstantial when compared with the overwhelming weight of the support for CRLA. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I ask that there be inserted in the hearing record a number of items: A Los Angeles Times editorial from December 29 entitled "CRLA Deserves Federal Grant," and various other documents dealing with the Reagan veto, including the Governor's press release containing the purported justification for it, and CRLA's statement in response, and other documents answering those charges, including a list of 470 public officials, organizations, clients, and other interested parties throughout California who endorse this program.1 Also I would like to insert the telegram and press release from the American Bar Association to Mr. Carlucci urging that "immediate action to assure continuance of CRLA" be taken. Senator NELSON. They will be printed in the record. (The material referred to follows:) 1 See appendix, p. 590 for detailed response by CRLA to charges. [From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 29, 1970] CRLA DESERVES FEDERAL Grant The California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. has achieved considerable success in representing the poor-and in antagonizing Gov. Reagan. It came as no surprise, therefore, that the CRLA's new $1.8 million federal grant was vetoed by the governor, who strongly objects to such a publicly supported organization filing lawsuits against public agencies. In announcing his veto Saturday, Reagan charged the CRLA with "gross and deliberate violations" of federal regulations and said that it had failed to represent the true legal needs of the poor. But his major complaint has been that CRLA lawyers represented the poor too well against the state, federal and local governments. The U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, which increased the CRLA grant for the coming year, obviously didn't agree with the governor, California Rural Legal Assistance is "commonly recognized as one of the best legal services programs in the nation," said OEO Director Donald Rumsfeld less than a month ago. OEO can override the governor's veto. We believe it should be overridden, unless a compromise can be worked out with the Reagan Administration that does not diminish the effectiveness of the CRLA's efforts. A group of lawyers providing legal services to migrant farm workers and the rural poor by means of public subsidies is bound to be controversial, especially when their lawsuits force major and potentially costly changes in such government programs as welfare and Medi-Cal. CRLA nevertheless is endorsed and supported by the California State Bar, and the Los Angeles, San Francisco and other local bar associations as well as the Committee on Legal Services of the American Bar Assn. It must be assumed that these organizations carefully examined the goals, policies and professional conduct of the CRLA before giving their endorsement. Gov. Reagan based his veto upon a memo prepared by Lewis K. Uhler, state director of economic opportunity, who said that the CRLA has "failed in its mission because it has elected to devote much of its resources to objectives clearly outside the scope of serving the legal needs of the poor . . . These diversions from its major mission include, but are certainly not limited to, the representation of people charged with crimes, use of legal processes to harass public and private organizations. Some specific cases were cited by Uhler, presumably based upon a controversial questionnaire he circulated in search of "information" concerning CRLA activ ities. Each complaint should, of course, be investigated and corrective action taken where justified. But unless Uhler's staff has found substantial flaws that have escaped local, state and national bar organizations, the CRLA should be allowed to continue serving as advocate for the needy. "The poor must have effective legal representation," said Rumsfeld, now counselor to President Nixon, "if they are to have faith that justice is truly equal and that it can be achieved within the existing system of law." [From the News From the American Bar Association, Dec. 29, 1970] BAR LEADERS URGE OEO ACTION ON REAGAN VETO OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM WASHINGTON, D.C.-Leaders of the organized bar today urged immediate action by OEO to assure the continuance of the California Rural Legal Assistance Program (CRLA). The CRLA grant application for 1972 was vetoed by Governor Reagan on December 26. In a telegram to OEO Acting-Director, Frank Carlucci, the bar leaders stated that reports of Reagan's action raised serious questions regarding the timing of the veto and the observance of minimum standards of administrative due process. The telegram further noted that CRLA had been cited as the "outstanding legal services project" by the National Advisory Committee on Legal Services in 1968 and had gained a national reputation for significant victories on behalf of the poor. The telegram was signed by John W. Douglas, President of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Edward F. Bell, President of the National Bar Association; Jacob D. Fuchsberg, Past-President of the American Trial Lawyers Association; and John D. Robb, Chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. Governaor Reagan of California announced on Saturday, December 26, his veto of the CRLA OEO grant application for 1972. Reagon's veto, five days before the expiration of the Program's current funding, can be overridden by the Director of OEO. Following is the text of the telegram to Carlucci: "Bar organizations gravely concerned over veto of California Rural Legal Assistance grant by Governor of California. Reports raise serious questions regarding timingof veto and observance of minimum standards of administrative due process. Program was cited as 'outstanding legal services project' by the National Advisory Committee on Legal Services in 1968. Also merited consistent approval in intensive OEO evaluations and earned national recognition for significant victories on behalf of the poor. Urge immediate action to assure continuance of CRLA." [From the Office of the Governor, Sacramento, Calif.] A BRIEF STATEMENT BY MR. LEWIS K. UHLER, DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT AND ANSWER TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1970 Governor Ronald Reagan today vetoed a $1.8 million grant to California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA) for the coming year because of gross and deliberate violations of OEO regulations and its failure to represent the true legal needs of the poor. In announcing the action, the governor's executive secretary, Edwin Meese III, said the Reagan administration will soon propose a privately-financed alternative to CRLA which holds enormous promise for truly serving the rural poor. The governor made his decision on the basis of a detailed recommendation by Lewis K. Uhler, director of the California State Office of Economic Opportunity (SEOO), whose staff has conducted a penetrating look into the activities of CRLA during recent months. Meese informed Frank Carlucci, director of the Federal Office of Economic Opportunity in Washington, D.C., of the governor's decision by telegram today. He also sent a follow-up letter to Carlucci confirming the decision as well as a copy of Uhler's memorandum to the governor recommending disapproval (both attached). Meese said that although the Reagan administration originally had understood that the deadline for rendering the decision was December 29, federal OEO officials indicated late Wednesday that they expected the governor's decision to be transmitted no later than today. Uhler said the administration's privately financed alternative to CRLA is in the final stages of development. Details of the new plan are expected to be announced within the next several weeks, he said. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Sacramento, December 26, 1970. Mr. FRANK CARLUCCI, Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, DEAR MR. CARLUCCI: This letter follows our telegram of this date, advising you of Governor Reagan's disapproval of the 1971 refunding of California Rural Legal Assistance. The Governor's disapproval power has been exercised pursuant to Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as amended. It is based upon the recommendation of Director of the State Office of Economic Opportunity, Lewis K. Uhler, and his capable staff. (Please see attached memo to the Governor.) The evidence obtained by the California SEOO during its extensive review of CRLA indicates that this organization has misused taxpayer funds and has failed 56-127 0-71-3 in its mandated purpose of serving the true civil legal needs or the poor within its geographic areas of operation. A program which has created such furor and turmoil and has lost creditability not only in the eyes of responsible leadership but many of the poor themselves, cannot possibly be a viable means for meeting these legal needs. At the same time, it is our plan to initiate an alternative legal services program, as described in Director Uhler's report that the true needs of the poor can be served. I have asked Mr. Uhler to arrange an early meeting with you and the appropriate members of your office, so that we can brief you personally and can furnish our extensive file of evidence for your inspection. Kindest regards, Attachment. EDWIN MEESE III, Hon. RONALD REAGAN, Sacramento, Calif. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEAR GOVERNOR REAGAN: Transmitted herewith is a report compiled by the State Office of Economic Opportunity regarding California Rural Legal Assistance. In the normal course of events this organization has been evaluated by our office pursuant to its refunding by OEO Legal Services, Washington, D.C. It is the recommendation of our office that you exercise your power to disapprove refunding of this grantee pursuant to the authority granted you in Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as amended. Our recommendation is based upon the regrettable fact that the grantee has failed to comply with the conditions of its grant through gross and deliberate violations of OEO guidelines, and has failed in its mandated mission, to wit, providing civil legal services to the rural poor. It appears that CRLA has failed in its mission because it has elected to devote much of its resources to objectives clearly outside the scope of serving the civil legal needs of the poor. These diversions from its major mission include, but are certainly not limited to, the representation of people charged with crimes, use of legal processes to harass public and private organizations, solicitation of clients, counselling and organizing students to challenge school authority-discipline systems, the undue fixation of energies on cases with extraordinary publicity value, etc. A few of the cases and instances which causes this grave concern are set forth briefly : 1. A woman welfare recipient lost her husband due to a heart attack. She wished to adopt the child she had raised since he was three days old, so that she might benefit from her deceased husband's Social Security. A CRLA attorney said that he would help the woman if she would agree to be plaintiff in a suit against the County Welfare Department. The woman refused. CRLA called several times to restate the offer but refused to handle her legal problem unless she would also consent to sue the county. (Private counsel has agreed to handle the adoption without fee.) 2. A CRLA attorney participated in a panel discussion before an American history class consisting of high school juniors. During the course of his presentation, he used the word Upon being reprimanded, the CRLA Viet Nam”. or attorney thereafter wrote on the blackboard “3. CRLA filed a lawsuit on behalf of 16 named plaintiffs. Fifteen of the 16 attested that they had not engaged CRLA to represent them and knew nothing of the lawsuit when it was filed. 4. A paid community employee of a CRLA office was arrested for possession of marijuana. He was defended in this criminal action by a CRLA attorney. 5. Two women seeking divorces were informed by CRLA that its office would handle same for a fee of $300.00 each, and in one case CRLA demanded an immediate deposit of $75.00. (CRLA is prohibited from charging fees for legal services.) |