Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

tion. Through community action, it has brought community, minority and poor people into the local decisionmaking processes that affect all Americans. Through VISTA, it has afforded idealistic young Americans the opportunity to help bring about necessary changes within the system. Through legal services, it has provided poor people with equal access to American law and justice. And through its innovative programing, OEO has launched projects that have become an accepted part of curent public and private social policy. Headstart, urban planning centers, comprehensive health centers, legal services, community development corporations, family planning programs, comprehensive neighborhood centers, new careers program, Upward Bound, and Foster Grandparents are just some of the programs that were nurtured at OEO.

No other organization has done more to introduce and popularize the importance of the nonprofessional in our society. No other organizatin has equalled OEO's record in providing leadership opportunities for minority representatives and poor people.

The Office of Economic Opportunity must be permitted to build on this impressive record, to grow and to prosper. It must continue to focus national attention on the critical urban crisis and the needs of the poor. We would like to see the new leadership of OEO dedicate itself to the following:

1. Active leadership and support for a larger and more adequately financed community action program.

2. The retention of the VISTA program.

3. Active leadership and support for the legal services program, including the overriding of the Governor's veto of the California rural legal services program.

4. Greater support for an increase in funds for research and demonstration. 5. The retention of current health and nutrition programs.

6. Active support for OEO playing a greater role as an advocate of the poor within the Federal structure.

JACK VAUGHAN, President, National Urban Coalition.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 29, 1970.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Urge continued support of OEO programs, Neighborhood Legal Services administered from Washington, no cuts in VISTA allocation of all funds appropriated for OEO programs.

JOHN E. COSGROVE,

Director, Department of Social Development.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., December 28, 1970.

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:

We urgently request an immediate override of the veto by Governor Ronald Reagan of the California Rural Legal Assistance Grant for 1971.

CRLA IS AN OUTSTANDING LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM

An attack on CRLA can only be understood as an attack on Legal Services itself, for, as your predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, said last month, CRLA is commonly recognized as one of the best legal services programs in the Nation. CRLA's excellence was recognized in 1968 when it was named the outstanding legal service program in the Nation by the National Advisory Committee for Legal Services programs. During the last few months a distinguished panel of 13 national evaluators spent a week investigating CRLA's several offices. Its members included representatives of the American Bar Association, the California State Bar, several judges, including former Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark, and, significantly, a member of Governor Reagan's own staff. The panel summarized their findings as follows:

"While not perfect, CRLA is an exemplary legal services program, providing a balanced approach between orthodox legal services and highly suc cessful impact litigation."

Independent of the aforementioned evaluation, the State bar of California explicitly approved CRLA's 1971 refunding proposal. And, last week, fearing a veto, the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento Bar Associations passed emergency resolutions urging the Governor to approve CRLA's grant. It is also significant that the chairman of the American Bar Association's standing committee on legal services wired Governor Reagan urging, for the first time in the committee's history, the funding of a particular legal services program.

Support of CRLA was founded on recognition of a successful, balanced approach to legal services. CRLA serves thousands of poor every year handling day-to-day matters of problems with landlords and creditors. During the last year CRLA attorneys handled 18,823 legal problems, 749 involving court actions; and only 55, or percent, were filed on behalf of a class. Over 2,000,000 senior citizens, consumers, food program recipients, and public housing residents were represented by CRLA attorneys in those 55 class actions, but obviously the bulk of CRLA efforts went into the 18,768 legal problems handled for individuals during the year. CRLA's success record in the courts and before administrative agencies provides clear evidence of the legitimacy of the legal problems its attorneys handle: of the 749 court and administrative decisions rendered during the last year, CRLA clients were upheld in 605 cases, or 86 percent of the time.

REPRISAL FOR SUCCESS

The Governor's veto appears to be a reprisal for successful suits initiated by CRLA curbing unlawful actions by public agencies and establishing rights for the disadvantaged.

The source of Governor Reagan's initial hostility was a lawsuit brought by ORLA in 1967 which successfully barred efforts to cut $200 million in services under the California medicare program. The Supreme Court agreed that the State action violated State law and usurped the authority of the legislature. A case filed in 1970 against a medical cutback resulted in the invalidation of a State regulation on grounds that it was in conflict with Federal law. The decision restored over $2 million in benefits to the medically needy.

A provision of the California constitution which disenfranchised thousands of Spanish-speaking citizens by imposing an English literacy requirement as a condition to voting was stricken, the California Supreme Court ruling on a case initiated by CRLA clients.

A provision of the California constitution was stricken which conditioned the construction of low-income housing on the passage of a referendum frequently used to block decent housing for the poor.

The State-wide use of aptitude tests which had resulted in the classification of thousands of bright Spanish-speaking children as mentally retarded barring their economic advancement through education was enjoined. Subsequent legislation set minimum standards to assure that the aptitude of Spanish-speaking children would be tested on objective criteria.

A provision of the constitution limiting the passage of school bond issue was stricken.

Litigation initiated by CRLA clients resulted in the establishment of Federal food programs in 17 California counties.

A suit filed against the State on behalf of 50,000 female farmworkers compelled enforcement of the newly established minimum wage initially resulting in the retroactive payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in withheld wages to thousands of farmworkers.

These major victories combined with the thousands of small decisions for the first time provided the California rural poor with effective access to the courts and the legislative, the traditional democratic channels for redress of grievances. CRLA's successes have demonstrated the need for such a voice as well as the competence of the representatives of the poor, and the legitimacy of their claims. Had CRLA been less forceful, less energetic, less successful in seeking to provide to the poor the same access to democratic processes as are available to major growers, corporations, and public agencies, the veto would not have come.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

Beyond the reprisal motive, Governor Reagan's criticism of the scope of ORLA's activities raises principles twice rejected by Congress. Congress refused to prevent legal service programs from suing public agencies and rejected a proposal to give Governors the right to veto a program because of controversial nature.

The veto of CRLA by Governor Reagan can only be explained in terms of his consistent opposition to progressive social welfare programs of the Nixon Administration. At its root is the belief shared by ultar conservatives that access to the courts and to the legislature is a privilege rather than a right. Inherent in the criticism of CRLA is the premise that the poor do not have the right to initiate action in the courts to obtain entitlements enacted by the legislature for their benefit.

The appointment by Governor Reagan of Lewis K. Uhler as director of State technical assistance program (State OEO), an admitted former member of the John Birch Society and active campaign manager for the ultraconservative Congressman John Rousselot, was harbinger of his intention to muzzle legal service programs.

STATE'S BIASED REPORT

The onesided report of the Governor's staff which recommended veto appeared to be no more than the justification of a prior political decision. The critique was initiated with a random survey to members of the bar and the judiciary requesting responses to questions which characterized CRLA unfavorably and encouraged an anonymous response.

The condemnation of CRLA by an anonymous district attorney dramatizes the lack of credibility of the anonymous questionnaire. The survey had been condemned in a formal resolution of the national legal aid and defender association.

Subsequent to the inquiry, State technical assistance fieldworkers conducted a patently hostile investigation in each region. The investigators encouraged local bar associations to recommend termination of CRLA in their community, reportedly promising them funds for locally sponsored programs as an inducement.

Investigators reportedly sought to have prominent defendants in lawsuits initiated by CRLA sign depreciating affidavits. Overall, the methods employed by the State technical assistance program opened old wounds, magnified controversies, polarized communities, and frustrated CRLA's efforts to maintain constructive dialogue with members of the bar and public officials.

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES UNFOUNDED

Considering the effort expended, the return was minimal. Specific examples cited by the State are distortions, half-truths, at the most isolated indiscretions or are readily explainable.

Dandruff has been represented as a fatal disease. The report, moreover, is deficient in that it fails to include the many endorsements of CRLA received by the State and fails to consider the approval of CRLA voiced by the client community.

Contrary to the report, CRLA does not handle criminal cases in violation of OEO guidelines.

Isolated instances in which criminal defendants have been represented and one case in which an attorney counseled representatives of the farmworkers union were done on attorney's vacation time and were therefore personal efforts rather than organizational. A CRLA attorney is permitted on his own time to provide public service work to any organization of his own choosing, be it the Republican Party or the United Crusade. Similarly, the defense of a community worker by a CRLA attorney was handled on the attorney's time off. A motion to quash the matter filed at the preliminary hearing was granted by the court. The motion was, in fact, typed by the attorney himself so as to avoid using the services of the CRLA clerical staff for a non-CRLA matter.

Another criticism which highlights the superficiality of the Uhler report and the danger of drawing conclusions from information received from only one side of a controversy concerns the Stove incident. The CRLA Marysville office sought

to obtain a resolution of the problem created by the failure of numerous rural welfare departments to allow the payment of funds to meet the critical unmet shelter needs of welfare recipients.

The legislature had recently established this fund and had allowed for payments from it although a family may be receiving the maximum grant. The particular county welfare department had not expended any of these funds during the fiscal year and the State welfare department had proposed to withdraw these funds and allot them to urban areas. The merchant who offered the Stove was told that the case was intended to deal with this broader problem. With the client's approval, the merchant was asked to hold his offer open for 2 days pending the resolution of the matter in court. This he agreed to do.

While CRLA intends to respond to each allegation the charges cannot now be answered with precision, the State, in breach of its agreement, failed to make the criticisms available to CRLA staff prior to formalization and veto. We depend at this point on news media reports of the charges against CRLA. The Governor's notion of justice appears to be condemnation without a hearing, a denial of due process.

CONCLUSION

Because CRLA has proven that a degree of social and economic change is possible within the system, that the system is available and open to the powerless, the veto should be promptly overridden. To delay in this decision would be to encourage opponents of legal services, intimidate and discourage legal services attorneys from initiating controversial actions on behalf of their clients, and threaten the independence of the national legal services program.

CRUZ REYNOSO, Director, California Rural Legal Assistance.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 29, 1970.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower and Poverty,
Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

United Auto Workers ask that thrust of hearings on confirmation of Frank Carlucci as OEO Director makes doubly certain that renewed vigor and dedication to existing programs be the watchword.

Slow administrative strangulation of viable OEO programs has been disheartening to watch. Let it stop now with these hearings. We would emphasize health and nutrition programs; along with migrant, VISTA, and legal services for some keen questioning.

We would deemphasize the abnormal growth of research and development funds that have enriched those not in poverty. We want more emphasis on direct help. We hope that Frank Carlucci can provide your committee with the right

answers.

PAUL A. WAGNER, Legislative Office, United Auto Workers.

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,
Washington, D.C.:

PACIFIC PALISADES, CALIF., December 29, 1970.

As California taxpayers we oppose Governor Reagan's veto of CRLA funds. WILLIAM AND ROSEMARIE SCHALLERT.

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.:

PASADENA, CALIF., December 30, 1970.

Urge you support full funding of CRLA program to insure equality before the law.

Mr. and Mrs. RICHARD MORRIS.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 29, 1970.

Subcommittee on Employment Manpower and Poverty, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Ask that your committee stand against proposed 23 percent budget cut for OEO. An adequately funded agency to spearhead concerted efforts on behalf of the poor is urgently needed.

JOYCE HAMLIN, Women's Division, United Methodist Church.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 29, 1970.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.:

The well-being of millions of poor and underrepresented people in America depends in large measure on the willingness of our Nation's leaders to provide substantive assistance in terms of money and trained manpower. The Senate's consideration of Frank Carlucci to direct the Office of Economic Opportunity offers the Senate the chance to restate its deep concern for the goals of OEO. Our organization is committed to those goals and urges particular attention be paid to the legal services and community action programs and to OESO. work on behalf of the aged. We urge an even greater commitment to an expansion of these programs.

WILEY A. BRANTON, Director, Community Action Alliance for Labor Action.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 30, 1970.

Senator GAYLORD NELSON,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty,
U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The National Urban Coalition is seriously concerned about recent allegation that the Office of Management and Budget has requested significant cutback in OEO budget as well as the elimination of a key program such as VISTA. It is our view that any reduction in the level of OEO funding would be against the national interest. OEO has never had adequate funds to carry out its original mandate. Rather than less money OEO requires more money and resources to carry on the war against poverty. It must strengthen its position and role as the advocates of the poor vote within and outside the Federal structure. Despite its problems and difficulties inadequate financing and political interference OEO has managed to attain a record of notable achievement and distinction.

Through community action it has brought community minority and poor people into the local decisionmaking processes that affects all Americans through VISTA. It has afforded idealistic young Americans the opportunity to help bring about necessary changes within the system. Through legal services it has provided poor people with equal access to American law and justice. And through its innovated programing OEO has launched projects that have become an accepted part of current public and private social policy. Headstart urban planning centers, comprehensive health center legal services, Community Development Corp. family planning program, comprehensive neighborhood center, new carrier program. Upward Bound, and foster grandparents are just some of the programs that were nurtured at OEO. No other organization has done more to introduce and popularize the importance of the nonprofessional in our society. No other organization has equalled OEO record in providing leadership, opportunity for minority representative and poor people. The Office of Economic Opportunity must be permitted to build on this impressive record to grow and to prosper. It must continue to focus national attention on the critical urban crisis and the needs of the poor. We would like to see the new leadership of OEO dedicate itself to the following:

1. Active leadership and support for a larger and more adequately financed community action program.

2. The retention of the VISTA program.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »