The trial in the case began in late January, 1970. On February 19 the Court issued a permanent injunction ordering the school board to serve free lunches to all the needy children in the district. U.S. District Judge McBride concluded:

"But the Board made no determination of which children were unable to pay; its determination was based on how much the schools could afford to pay. That was where the determination was faulty and unacceptable under the Act. While there is nothing to indicate that the School Board was not acting in utmost good faith, it did not comply with the Act, and I must set aside its eligibility standards. [Slip opinion, pp. 7-8]."

A copy of the permanent order is attached to this letter.

When the permanent injunction was issued, the case seemed to have been an excellent example of the type of achievements hoped for from legal services programs. At the outset, our clients were encouraged to try to attain their goals themselves through the democratic process, the attorneys functioning in an advisory capacity. Only when all other channels were exhasted was the law suit filed. Because CRLA provided an outlet for resolution of their grievances through the orderly processes of law, our clients had an alternative to taking their case to the streets. Despite the length of litigation, the faith of these people in our system of justice was strengthened when District Judge McBride ruled in their favor. At all times innumerable low income persons were involved with the case as parties, witnesses and observers.

Just seven days after Judge McBride's decision, Dr. Bert C. Corona, superintendent of the Modesto school, announced publicly that he would recommend to the school board that it drop out of the National School Lunch program so as to avoid having to serve meals to all the needy children as the Federal Court ordered. Dr. Corona criticized Judge McBride for "trespassing upon the prerogative of local school districts," even though he indicated that the board would not appeal from Judge McBride's decision.

Although the school district had the legal option to terminate participation in the National School Lunch Program, it was immediately apparent to the low income community that the school board gladly accepted the benefits of that program until it was required to live up to its legal obligations under the program. The low income people asked our attorneys to take the school board back to court, and they expressed resentment against the CRLA when the attorneys told them that they had no further legal remedies.

On March 2, 1970, the board met and formally withdrew from the National School Lunch Program. The sole reason given was that the board could not raise the $19,000 it estimated it would need in local funds to comply with Judge McBride's order. On March 3, pursuant to our request, OEO Emergency Food program offered a special grant of $19,000 to the Modesto School Board which would fully underwrite the total cost of complying with the Court order. Together with representatives of the Community Action Commission and the local CAP, our attorneys immediately conveyed this information to Dr. Corona. Dr. Corona polled the school board by telephone and then announced that the board would not apply for the grant and would persist in its decision to drop out of the National School Lunch Progam. This announcement took the low income community by surprise in that the only reason given by the board for its previous decision had been removed by the OEO offer. It became apparent to them that the school board was retaliating for its loss in the court even at the cost of losing the lunch program and depriving needy children the benefits of a lunch.

The Community Action Commission requested the board to reconsider its decision regarding the OEO offer at its next meeting, to be held on March 16. At that meeting, however, the board refused even to discuss this proposal. In addition, the board refused to call a special meeting to consider the problem and refused to place the matter on the agenda for any subsequent meeting. A United States Senate investigating Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs held hearings in Modesto on March 23 and compiled facts showing that the Modesto School Board decision to drop the lunch program would mean a higher cost of lunches to every student and substantial reduction in the quality of the lunches. Thus no one benefitted from the decision to pull out.

After the March 16 school board meeting, leaders of the low income community, observing that neither legal action nor political persuasion had succeeded, formed an organization named "Citizens to Save the School Lunch Program." The organization placed informational picket lines outside the

school administration building. CRLA attorneys from the Modesto office were present at the picketing at various times. Their role was to assure that picketing was lawful and to act as a liaison between picketers and police. At no time did the attorneys use any language or engage in any conduct disrespectful of any police officer. Nor was any such language or conduct on the part of other picketers observed by the attorneys. I am enclosing a copy of the affidavit of Gerald L. McKinsey, filed in the criminal acton arising out of the sit-ins, which indicated that relations between the demonstrators and the police were cordial throughout this period. He notes:

"The atmosphere before, during, and after the closure order and the arrests was neither hostile nor strained between those arrested and members of the Modesto Police Department. There were no incidents of violence before, during and after the closure order and arrests. Neither was there any obstruction or resistance by the arrestees to the arresting officers. No one went "limp" or directed any derogatory remarks to the arresting officers. This was true both as to those arrested on April 7, 1970 and April 10, 1970."

The presence of CRLA attorneys helped to keep the demonstrations peaceful. The school board next met on April 6, 1970, and again refused to discuss the school lunch controversy. At a meeting of the Citizens to Save the School Lunch Program held immediately after the school board meeting, the decision to sit-in at the school administration building was made. No CRLA personnel were present when this decision was made, but John Kelley and Philip Neumark, CRLA attorneys, entered the meeting shortly thereafter. Kelley advised against the sit-in and Neumark advised the people present of the legal consequences that could result if any violations of law occurred.

The sit-in began the following morning, Tuesday, April 7, at the school administration building. The demonstrators sat along the walls of the main corridor and in no way interfered with any business being conducted in the building. They made it clear that they would leave immediately if any member of the school board would meet with their representatives to discuss the school lunch problem. The sit-ins occurred each day that week, beginning in the morning and lasting until 5:00. It was agreed by everyone concerned, including the superintendent of schools and the chief deputy district attorney, that the demonstrators were within their legal rights at all times when the building was open for business, up to 5:00 p.m. Each day at 5:00 p.m. the superintendent demanded that the demonstrators leave the building and on two occasions some of the demonstrators declined to do so and were arrested and charged with violating Penal Code § 602 (n).

Two CRLA attorneys, Lowenstein and Neumark, were present at various times during the sit-ins. They were present in their capacity as attorneys, giving legal advice to the clients and acting as liaison with school officials and police officers. Each day at 5:00 p.m. they advised the demonstrators that if they remained in the building, they would be subject to arrest and very likely would be convicted. They further advised the demonstrators that the question of whether to remain in the building was an individual decision and that no one should remain solely because a majority of the group elected to remain. I am satisfied that at no time did any of the CRLA attorneys in any way encourage any person to remain in the school building after 5:00 p.m. or to commit any other unlawful act.

In each case, the CRLA attorneys left the building when the closing announcement was read. On Tuesday, April 7, the persons who were arrested were cited, and the attorneys simply collected the names and other pertinent information regarding the arrestees. On Friday, April 10, the persons who were arrested were taken to the county jail and booked. The attorneys did not know in all cases which demonstrators had been arrested and which ones had left the building prior to the arrests. Accordingly, when the attorneys arrived at the jail they did not have a list of all the arrestees, and they informed the Captain of the jail that they represented all the persons who had been arrested at the school building.

It is not true that a bail bondsman from Fresno was "on the scene" at the time the demonstrators arrived at the jail. After the arrests had been made, a Fresno bail bondsman was called and the delay in his arrival was partially responsible for the fact that the arrestees remained in jail for several hours before being bailed out. The bondsman was called by two persons who had been active in the school lunch controversy. CRLA played no role in contacting him and he was not known by any CRLA personnel.

The municipal court judge had ordered that while some of the arrestees would have to be released on bail, he would consider releasing others on their own recognizance. The persons who were released on their "O.R." spent several hours

in jail and when our attorneys asked the reason for the delay, the Captain of the jail stated that distributing the O.R. application forms, having the arrestees fill them out, collecting them and processing them were the main causes of the delay. Accordingly, the attorneys asked the Captain if blank forms could be made available and filled out in advance so as to save time in the event of any future arrests. The Captain stated that this would be possible. Our attorneys were not contemplating any such future arrests and, in fact, no such arrests occurred. The attorneys simply wanted to expedite matters in case there were more arrests. Your letter raised the point that a few of the members of Citizens to Save the School Lunch are not indigent. OEO has encouraged Legal Services Programs to represent groups of poor people. Such groups from time to time include persons who are not poor. However, if the subject matter of the lawsuit pertains to the interests of the low income community, such groups may be represented by a legal services program. OEO recognizes that middle class people should not be precluded from joining the poor in seeking social justice. In the present case the vast majority of group members (as well as those arrested) are low income persons.

After the arrests of group members, the question of CRLA representation of those charged with criminal acts arose. Of course the CRLA attorneys who handled the civil matter had intimate knowledge of many of the relevant facts and had the confidence of the people involved. Both OEO and CRLA (our guidelines are attached as Exhibit) recognize that in certain unusual circumstances it is in the best interests of the clients of the program for CRLA attorneys to undertake such representation. We have submitted the relevant information to OEO and are awaiting a decision as to whether this is a proper case for CRLA to represent criminal defendants. Until such time as we receive an affirmative response, we cannot, as CRLA attorneys, represent these defendants and I have so informed our attorneys. They have been permitted to take leave to represent these clients in the interim.

I want to add two further thoughts. First, I believe that attorneys must be very careful not to permit confusion to arise as to their function. There has been an element of confusion in this case. On occasion our attorneys participated in the picket lines instead of strictly limiting their role to that of advisor. I have issued guidelines, a copy of which is attached as exhibit. These guidelines have been issued to all CRLA attorneys.

Second, the “school lunch" issue became a volatile one because the government body involved, the School Board, refused to abide by the spirit of a Federal Court order. How sad it is that those who had faith in the law were disappointed and especially, as to the young people involved, how much more difficult it has now become to convince them to peaceably channel their grievances.

It should be noted that the explicit congressional mandate to assure that needy children receive a free school lunch was enacted to prevent further academic retardation of America's poor children. Many needy children who regu larly go without lunch also go without breakfast and have nothing to eat during an entire school day. Their consequent hunger causes them to suffer beadaches, intestinal discomfort, and lower concentration spans. In short, the child who does not eat does not learn. This dispute did not occur over some obscure technicality of the law but over one of vital concern to every low income family in California. I am proud of the efforts of our Modesto office in guiding the dispute into court, obtaining a legal victory, and in encouraging those embittered by School Board intransigence to protest non-violently.

I appreciate your interest and hope the foregoing is helpful. If I can be of further assistance, I am at your disposal.

Sincerely,

CRUZ REYNOSO, Esq.,

CRUZ REYNOSO.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
San Francisco, Calif., May 6, 1970.

Director, California Rural Legal Assistance, San Francisco, Calif. DEAR MR. REYNOSO: Pursuant to the recently established arrangement for the handling of non-disciplinary "complaints" received by the State Bar with respect to CRLA, as more particularly described in my letter to you dated April 15, 1970, I am hereby forwarding for your investigation and advice certain inquiries and "complaints" concerning the activities of CRLA attorneys and community workers in the Modesto office.

Specifically questioned are the participation of CRLA personnel in organization and execution of a "sit-in" conducted at the school board office in

Modesto during the end of the week of April 5, 1970, or the beginning of the week of April 12, 1970, and the representation of persons arrested at such "sit-in" by CRLA attorneys. The factual allegations which give rise to the "complaints" are set forth below in capsulized form and without representation as to the accuracy thereof.

It is reported that prior to the "sit-in" there were demonstrations on the streets and sidewalks outside the school board office in which CRLA attorneys participated to the extent of referring to police officers present as "pigs" and the like plainly within the hearing of other demonstrators.

It is reported that CRLA personnel were present at the scene of these demonstrations and engaged in photographing the activities of demonstrators and police.

It is reported that two CRLA attorneys were present among the demonstrators within the school board building at such time as a school board official announced that the building was being closed and that all present should leave, that while leaving the premises the CRLA attorneys exchanged comments with several of the demonstrators, and that thereafter the "sit-in" commenced.

It is reported that, immediately following the arrest and incarceration of approximately thirty participants in the "sit-in," two CRLA attorneys appeared at the jail, requested that they be allowed to see the people who were arrested, and announced that they represented the same. A captain in the sheriff's office was summoned and he asked the attorneys the names of the defendants whom they wished to see. The attorneys replied that they did not know the names of the clients. After one of the jailers had inquired of those arrested whether they wished to speak with the attorneys and been advised in the affirmative, the attorneys were allowed to speak with such arrestees.

It is reported that a bail bondsman from Fresno was "on the scene" and ready to provide bail to at least some of those arrested.

It is reported that while the arrestees were completing application forms for release on their own recognizance (this may be in conflict with the report concerning the bail bondsman) the CRLA attorneys requested a substantial amount of blank “OR” application forms for future use.

It is reported that approximately six of those arrested and represented at arraignment by CRLA attorneys were children of local families having substantial financial resources.

The complaints which this office has received and which are based upon the foregoing reports are as to whether CRLA personnel participated in the "sit-in," whether such personnel advised or encouraged the "sit-in" or otherwise gave counsel concerning the "sit-in" of such nature or in such manner as to promote the same, whether CRLA personnel are or plan to be somehow involved in future and similar activities, whether CRLA has engaged in representation beyond the scope of its authority or in contravention of any condition or the like of OEO funding, whether CRLA has engaged in representation beyond the scope of any OEO approval of representation in criminal matters arising out of the Modesto problems, whether CRLA engaged in representation in such criminal matters prior to any OEO approval therefor being obtained, and whether CRLA provided representation in such criminal matters to persons financially able to procure the assistance of private counsel. Your advice with respect to the accuracy of the foregoing reports and these complaints will be appreciated.

It has also been reported that the CRLA attorneys who appeared at arraignment on behalf of those arrested at the "sit-in" then stated to the court that they so appeared individually, that is, not in their capacity as members of CLRA's professional saff. I would appreciate your advice and comments with regard to CRLA policy concerning how and under what circumstances CRLA attorneys can or may act individually in matters beyond the scope of CRLA's "authority." for a question has been raised as to how salaried members of CRLA staff can effectively disassociate themselves and their actions from CRLA in select cases, particularly under circumstances such as those of the Modesto situation.

Any other advice and information which you feel would be helpful with respect to the Modesto situation will, of course, be appreciated.

If you have any questions with respect to the foregoing please do not hesitate to telephone me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

F. JAY LUTZ,

Director of Legal Services.

CRLA AND THE COUNTY GRAND JURY

In 1969 CRLA represented a group of poor mothers and their children who alleged that the Modesto School Board was depriving 2,000 needy children of free lunches in violation of the National School Lunch Act. On February 27, 1970, federal Judge Thomas MacBride held that the Board's program did not comply with the school lunch act and issued a permanent injunction against the Board which made more than 2,000 additional children eligible for free lunches.

A couple of months after the school lunch law suit, Modesto CRLA lawyers represented the plaintiffs in an action against the Department of Agriculture alleging that the high rate of unemployment in Stanislaus County made it an economic disaster area requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to release surplus foods to the hungry citizens of Stanislaus County. On Christmas Eve, federal judge Robert Peckham issued a temporary restraining order mandating the Department of Agriculture to release twenty thousand pounds of surplus food to the hungry in Stanislaus County.

Both of these cases received wide-spread national publicity including a front page articles in the New York Times. As press articles began appearing, indicating that Stanislaus County appeared to be unwilling to do very much about its hunger crises, county officials began a campaign to discredit CRLA Modesto office. The county administrator told the New York Times CRLA presented one-sided picture of the plight of needy families. The vice-president of the Modesto School Board told the U.S. Senate Committee CRLA's lawyers were "agents provocateur and agitators" who "wantonly slandered the reputation of the hard working and industrious citizens of Modesto and of all Stanislaus County.” As a part of this campaign, the Stanislaus County Grand Jury conducted a secret investigation of the local community action agency and issued a report criticizing that agency for distributing food to needy families on Christmas Eve. The community action program, of course, had no opportunity to present any evidence whatever to refute this criticism.

When the Grand Jury announced that it intended to investigate "complaints of possible misuse of funds by California Rural Legal Assistance attorneys," CRLA requested that any investigation be held in public so that the community could hear all sides of the story and pledged its cooperation with the public investigation. In response to CRLA's offer, the Grand Jury served on its attorneys a Subpoena Duces Tecum requiring CRLA to appear before the Grand Jury in secret session and to bring with it “any and all books, records, and accounts of the Stanis'aus County office of California Rural Legal Assistance." When CRLA requested of the Grand Jury and the District Attorney the legal basis of this investigation, they were unable to supply CRLA with any California law authorizing such an investigation.

Faced with what appeared to CRLA to be an illegal witchhunt, the office felt that it had no choice but to take legal action to protect its clients' confidential records. For this reason, it brought an action in the Sacramento Federal District Court to enjoin the Grand Jury from proceeding with its investigation. Federal district judge Thomas MacBride issued both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the Grand Jury holding that a local state grand jury had no authority to investigate the relationship between a legal services program and the Office of Economic Opportunity. (A copy of the Complaint is attached as Exhibit 1.)

Shortly after the temporary restraining order was issued, the Stanislaus County Grand Jury sent a resolution to Governor Reagan requesting him to veto the CRLA grant. The Grand Jury alleged that it had received a number of complaints from poor people who said they were unable to obtain legal services from CRLA either because the attorneys were not in the office or said they were too busy to handle their cases. (A copy of the newspaper story is attached as Exhibit 2.)

CRLA pointed out that it uses an appointment system in all but emergency cases in order to permit its attorneys to perform high quality legal services for their clients.

A couple of days later, the Modesto Bee strongly condemned the Grand Jury's action against CRLA as "reckless and irresponsible." (A copy of the Modesto Bee editorial is attached as Exhibit 3.)

56-127 0-71-4