The California Court of Appeal today issued a decision allowing an Open Meeting Act lawsuit against the U.C. Regents and the Governor to go forward. The Court also said there is information to support plaintiffs' claim that the Governor and Regents broke the law.

The ACLU and a coalition of groups contend that Governor Wilson violated the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act by secretly locking up the votes of a majority of Regents prior to the July 20, 1995 meeting at which the Board voted to approve resolutions abolishing affirmative action at the University. Plaintiffs allege that Governor Wilson locked up the vote through a series of private phone conversations prior to the meeting. Such conduct, if proven, would violate the Open Meeting Act.

After plaintiffs filed their suit in February 1996, the Governor and Regents sought to have plaintiffs' lawsuit thrown out on procedural grounds. The trial court refused to do so, and the Court of Appeal's decision today affirms that ruling. This decision allows the plaintiffs, the UCSB student newspaper reporter Tim Molloy, and the UCSB student newspaper, The Nexus, to proceed with their claim seeking a declaration that Governor Wilson and the Regents violated the Open Meeting Act. Plaintiff will be allowed to obtain information and take depositions regarding the Governor's and Regents' alleged wrongdoing.

The decision also protects the ability of citizens and newspapers to challenge official wrongdoing in the future. This court's decision does not allow plaintiff Tim Molloy to obtain a remedy of nullification, because his suit was filed after the 30 day statute of limitation for obtaining nulification had run. However, the Court did say that, "Objective facts, of which he was aware within the 30day filing period, supported his claim that a violation had occurred." The Court also held that Open Meeting Act plaintiffs who file suit within 30 days, and then investigate the potential wrongdoing, will be protected from malicious prosecution actions.

"Today's ruling is a victory for the public's right to know" said ACLU attorney Dan Tokaji. "It will allow the Daily Nexus and Mr. Molloy, at long last, to get to the bottom of the secret conversations that occurred prior to the Regents' antiaffirmative action vote. For over a year and a half, the Governor and Regents have adamantly resisted our attempts to uncover this information. The decision today means that Governor Wilson and the Regents will have to stop stonewalling, and disclose information that should have been disclosed to the public months ago. The Court's decision also makes clear that there is good reason to believe that the Governor and Regents broke the law."

Plaintiffs will proceed with their motion to compel the Regents to answer questions under oath about their efforts to lock in the vote on affirmative action during premeeting telephone conversations with Governor Wilson and each other. A motion to compel was filed before the Court of Appeal decided to hear this case.

The Orange County Council of the Boy Scouts of America was ordered late yesterday afternoon to consider Michael and William Randall's applications to become Eagle Scouts, Scouting's highest honor. In 1991, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California successfully brought suit to reinstate the twin boys, then 9 years old, after they were dismissed from Scouting for refusing to take an oath to God. The boys, who do not consider themselves to be atheists, explain that they do not understand what the word God means to them and thus do not feel comfortable taking an oath. After a trial in 1992, the Superior Court of Orange County held that the Orange County Council had discriminated against the boys on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of California's civil rights statute, known as the Unruh Act.

Michael and William have been active members in Scouting for the past 9 years and were selected to be members of the equivalent of Scouting's Ahonor society,@ the Order of the Arrow, to which less than 5% of all Scouts belong. They submitted their completed application last year, but the Orange County Council refused to consider the boys' applications. Late yesterday afternoon, after hearing argument from both sides, Superior Court Judge Frazee ordered that the boys' applications be heard no later than March 15, 1998.

Michael and William are thrilled that the Court recognizes that they deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity as the other boys in their troop,@ said Taylor Flynn, staff attorney of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. AThese boys have worked so hard in fact, Michael and William were the first boys in their troop to achieve the rank of `Brotherhood' in a decade. They are model Scouts, Flynn said.

The California Supreme Court heard the oral argument for this case on January 5, 1998, along with the case of the former Eagle Scout, Timothy Curran, who was expelled from Scouting after the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts learned that he was gay. The ACLU represented Timothy Curran in that case as well, Curran v. Mount Diablo Council, Boy Scouts of America. A decision in both cases is expected from the California Supreme Court by early April.

Michael and William continue to participate in Scouting pursuant to the Superior Court's 1992 order. Their Eagle applications should have been heard nearly 2 months ago, in early January. AEvery day that passes in which the boys' applications are not considered is another day of discrimination,@ Flynn said. AMy understanding is that, in the history of Michael and William's troop, the rank of Eagle has been conferred on every boy who has applied for it. We also know that the Orange County Council has conferred the rank of Eagle on an openly agnostic Scout. But the fear, of course, is that once Michael and William's Eagle board is held, it will simply be a `Kangaroo Court' in which their applications are summarily denied. We certainly hope that Scouting will live up to its own credo and act with honor by considering the boys' applications without prejudice.

This morning the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California challenged a motion for a preliminary injunction in a Superior Court lawsuit that would limit the residents of a HUD-subsidized housing project from inviting tenant organizers to their apartments to help improve conditions.

The ACLU says the lawsuit, L.A. Coalition for Economic Survival, et al. (Case # BC 184443) is an attempt by the building's management to thwart the free speech, privacy, associational and property rights of the residents of L.A. Gardens, located in the Pico-Union area of downtown Los Angeles. The ACLU says the injunction motion lacks merit and that the landlord's actions violate federal and state constitutions and federal laws governing federally-subsidized housing. Defendants are staff members with both the Coalition for Economic Survival and the Los Angeles Center for Economic Survival, both long-time community-based tenants' rights organizations that have worked with L.A. Gardens' tenants since 1995. Staff from both groups were invited to meetings by residents. After the organizers arrived, a building manager called the LAPD and had them arrested, even though residents told police that they had invited the organizers.

Both tenant groups have participated in resident meetings in an orderly manner and with the approval and funding of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development which supports tenant organizing activities under federal housing regulations.

In papers filed in this case, the ACLU call the motion for a preliminary injunction ". . .the landlord's latest move in a campaign of harassment and intimidation waged against tenants and their invited tenant organizers alike, a campaign that has included the unlawful citizen's arrests of tenant organizers and threatened further arrests against both tenants and their invited guests."

ACLU attorneys call attempts to restrict tenant organizers draconian. For example, under the terms of the proposed preliminary injunction, residents would be required to give the building management 48 hours notice of any meetings. The injunction would prohibit the organizers from accompanying a tenant to the door of a neighbor to discuss matters of common concern, even if the neighbor requests such a meeting.

The ACLU says that plaintiffs failed to prove that any of the tenant organizers ever trespassed. In fact, the ACLU said, at all times, the defendants were invited by residents who wanted to speak with them. Under HUD guidelines, tenants and their invited guests may engage in "reasonable canvassing" about tenant concerns, building governance, and related matters, activities which are encouraged and funded under a HUD outreach and training grant.