aclu-logo

Protecting the Bill of Rights in Utah since 1958

ACLU of Utah 1998 Annual Report

21 August 1999 Published in Annual Reports

The nature of our organization requires us to look constantly to the future and determine effective ways to respond to emerging and unanticipated issues. It is therefore with pleasure that we present our 1998 report, which offers us a welcomed and much-needed opportunity to take a step back, reflect on our accomplishments, and figure out how our past experiences can positively impact our day-to-day decisions.

 

Dear Friends of the ACLU of Utah


The nature of our organization requires us to look constantly to the future and determine effective ways to respond to emerging and unanticipated issues. It is therefore with pleasure that we present our 1998 report, which offers us a welcomed and much-needed opportunity to take a step back, reflect on our accomplishments, and figure out how our past experiences can positively impact our day-to-day decisions.

We are extremely proud of the wide-range of activities described in the following pages. Our increased emphasis on education and outreach has allowed us to create community partnerships that have advanced our lobbying and advocacy efforts, and diversified our legal department. In addition, we have been amazed by the way our web page and e-mail lists have benefited our legal, educational, and administrative work.

While this report covers much of the ACLU of Utah’s activities, there is a lot of "invisible" work that is so necessary to creating a well-run office that can immediately and effectively address civil rights violations. These activities include streamlining our database so that we can remain in touch with our supporters, creating an intake process that allows us to quickly identify systemic issues, and building a successful development program so that our work will be ongoing.

Our staff, volunteers, and members of our board of directors are all committed to creating an efficient and capable organization. However, none of our work would be possible without you, and on behalf of the ACLU of Utah, we thank you for joining in our mission to defend and preserve those individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Carol L. Gnade, Executive Director

Mission Statement


The American Civil Liberties Union, founded in 1920, is a nationwide, nonpartisan organization dedicated to working in the courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by both the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

The ACLU of Utah was chartered in 1958 to work on constitutional issues that are pertinent to those living in this state. Our priorities include freedom of speech and expression, the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and association, the right to privacy, safe prison and jail conditions, and equal protection and due process of the laws.

1998 Highlights


At the ACLU of Utah, we work in a variety of different ways to fulfill our mission. While litigation remains a large part of the organization, the following highlights from last year illustrate the strength of our advocacy and coalition work to address civil liberties violations. What remains consistent in all of our undertakings are both our reliance on the Bill of Rights, and our commitment to those issues that impact a large number of individuals.

Landmark Decision in Weaver v. Nebo School District a Strong Win for Gay and Lesbian Rights


In November, U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins ruled favorably on our case, Weaver v. Nebo School District. The ACLU of Utah filed the complaint in 1997 on behalf of Wendy Weaver, a long-term teacher at Spanish Fork High School in Utah County. The complaint argued that school officials had violated Weaver’s First Amendment rights when they made her sign a gag order prohibiting her from talking about her sexual orientation in or outside of the classroom. School officials also refused to allow Weaver to return to her successful position coaching girls’ volleyball. In addition to the First Amendment claims, our complaint argued that Weaver’s Equal Protection rights were violated as well, because school officials reprimanded her for one reason only – they found out that she is a lesbian.

In his landmark decision, Judge Jenkins agreed with Weaver’s First Amendment claims, and ordered the school district to remove the gag order from her file and allow her to coach during the 1999-2000 volleyball season. He also awarded Weaver $1,500 in damages – the amount she would have earned coaching the team. In a significant legal victory for gays and lesbians, Jenkins upheld the complaint’s Equal Protection claims as well, stating persuasively that, "Although the Constitution cannot control prejudices, neither this court nor any other court should, directly or indirectly, legitimize them." He noted that while Weaver was threatened with disciplinary action, no other teacher in the school district faced the same restrictions, and school officials were unable to point to any problems since her sexual orientation was revealed.

The state did not appeal the decision, which now provides strong and persuasive authority in similar cases. Indeed, it has been noted as the best decision involving gay teachers in the country. Unfortunately, Weaver’s legal battles are not completely over, and the ACLU of Utah is currently representing her in a civil suit brought by the Citizens of Nebo School District for Moral and Legal Values (see legal docket below).

The State Child Abuse Database Continues to Pose Due Process Concerns


Over the past twenty years, the Utah Department of Human Services (DHS) has maintained a database of over 200,000 complaints of child abuse and neglect. The management of this information exemplifies many of the typical problems with electronic databases: unsubstantiated complaints remain on the list, a large number of people have access to the database, and there is no process in place for individuals to contest the charges made against them. In addition, DHS is not required to notify people before placing them on the list, despite the fact that individuals listed in the database can be prohibited from working with children.

During the 1998 legislative session, a bill was passed that was meant to address these concerns. The law mandated that DHS remove all unsubstantiated complaints, and send a letter to those substantiated of child abuse in the past ten years to inform them of their right to challenge the allegations at an administrative hearing. What followed was an absolute mess. In June, DHS mailed out their first batch of certified letters – almost 10,000 – to individuals accused of documented acts of child abuse between 1988 and 1994. Although these were supposed to be cases that were fully investigated by the Division of Protective Services, many people, upon receiving the letter, learned for the first time that they were substantiated of child abuse. Those who were unknowingly in the database included children who were five or six at the time of the incident, parents who had been in the midst of bitter custody battles who had been accused of abuse by their former spouses, and individuals who had been inputted into the database before someone else was later convicted and sent to prison for the abuse. A second batch of 15,000 letters was never sent out because DHS had no way to deal with the number of hearings requested, and legislators, who were receiving angry calls from their constituents, questioned the fairness of the procedure.

Dismayed by the violations of basic due process rights for such a large number of people, the ACLU of Utah became deeply involved in this issue. Throughout the year, we attended legislative interim committee meetings to try to address these concerns through state law, and met with individuals who had received notices from DHS. Those who attended hearings described an almost Kafkaesque scene, in which the administrators running the hearings were unclear about the proceedings, and at times, denied individuals access to information that was used against them. The legislature will attempt to solve these problems during the 1999 session. If they are unsuccessful, the ACLU of Utah will consider litigation to ensure that individuals are guaranteed their fundamental due process rights.

English-Only Law Defeated in the Legislature


During the 1998 legislative session, the most significant victory for the ACLU of Utah was the defeat of House Bill 189, English as the Official Language of the State of Utah. Sponsored by Representative Tammy Rowan and first introduced in the July 1997 interim session, the bill required that all official state documents, transactions, proceedings, meetings, and publications be in English only. While the bill listed several exceptions, the ACLU of Utah was immediately concerned that such a law would severely compromise the due process, Equal Protection, and First Amendment rights of those who are not yet proficient in English, and limit effective communication between government employees and the public.

Over the summer, we brought together a diverse coalition of organizations and individuals to coordinate opposition to the bill. This coalition organized public demonstrations, including a large rally in the state capitol building, granted newspaper, radio, and television interviews, met with individual legislators, and spoke at House committee meetings. Through these efforts, the bill became an important issue for state policymakers, and, despite the last minute efforts of the national organization U.S. English, our public education efforts were successful. The bill was defeated in committee and never made it to the House floor for a vote.

Undaunted by this defeat, Representative Rowan launched a petition-drive to ensure that her bill reach the House floor for a vote during the 1999 legislative session. By November, she had collected the necessary signatures, and the ACLU of Utah worked diligently with the coalition so that we would be in a position to effectively oppose the initiative in 1999.

Cases Filed this Year

Femedeer v. Department of Corrections Ex Post Facto and Due Process Violations


During their 1998 session, the state legislature passed Utah’s version of "Megan’s Law." Effective July 1, 1998, the law required the Department of Corrections (DOC) not only to maintain a registry of persons convicted of certain sex offenses, but also to make that registry available to the public by posting it on their official website. Femedeer (a pseudonym) was convicted of an offense covered by the new law, and successfully completed the terms of his sentence and registered as a sex offender. The ACLU of Utah filed a federal lawsuit on his behalf in which we claimed that publishing his registry information via the Internet constitutes ex post facto punishment and deprives him of his constitutional rights without due process of law. The court, recognizing the serious questions raised by the lawsuit, set an accelerated briefing schedule on the plaintiff’s combined motion for summary judgment and injunctive relief, and exacted an agreement from the DOC that they will not add information to their website until the plaintiff’s claims are addressed. A hearing has been scheduled for January 1999.

Humane Society of Utah v. Utah Wildlife Board Open and Public Meetings


In September 1998, the Utah Wildlife Board issued a press release and held a press conference to announce its unanimous support for Proposition 5, the successful ballot proposition that amends the Utah Constitution to require any initiative relating to the taking of wildlife to pass by a two-thirds supermajority vote. As a state agency, the Wildlife Board must abide by Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act. The board’s endorsement, therefore, came as a surprise to groups opposing Proposition 5, as well as to the media, since it had never decided to endorse the proposition in any public meeting. The ACLU of Utah filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Humane Society of Utah, the Predator Education Fund, the High Uintahs Preservation Council, and the Utah Society of Professional Journalists to ensure that public officials act in accordance with the open meetings law when they issue statements on topics of significant public concern.

Slevin v. Salt Lake County Fair and Guido v. Utah State Fair Corporation Free Speech and Right to Petition the Government


Last fall, John Slevin and John Guido sought to circulate petitions at the Salt Lake County Fair in Murray and the Utah State Fair in Salt Lake City. In both cases, officials demanded that the petitioners purchase space at the fairs at a cost of $350 to $400, thus creating a situation in which Slevin’s and Guido’s right to petition the government was dependent upon their ability to pay a substantial registration fee. While County Fair officials originally granted permission to circulate the petitions, they then arbitrarily revoked this permission and had the plaintiffs arrested on criminal trespass charges. The Utah State Fair also charged Slevin with criminal trespassing. All criminal trespass charges have since been dropped. Ironically, the petitions were in support of the English-only initiative that we oppose. Regardless of our position on the underlying issue, we were very concerned about the restriction of Slevin’s and Guido’s right to advocate their political views and circulate petitions. In October, we therefore filed suit against county and state fair officials and others.

Van Gordon v. Utah State Fair Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion


Kurt and Cindy Van Gordon are publishers of religious books. After years of being arbitrarily excluded from the Utah State Fair, State Fair officials finally allowed the Van Gordons to set up a booth at the annual event in 1996. But before long, they were accosted by both fair officials and police, and forcibly evicted, solely because fair officials and patrons disliked their religious message. Mrs. Van Gordon was physically assaulted, and the Van Gordons’ property was improperly seized. In September, the ACLU of Utah filed a lawsuit against the officials for their unconstitutional and illegal actions.

East High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Salt Lake Board of Education Students’ Rights


In 1995, a group of students at East High School sought to form a school club called the East High Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA). The purpose of the GSA, like that of hundreds of other similar clubs that had long been meeting in schools across the country, was to provide a safe, welcoming forum for discussing important issues facing gay and lesbian youth today. What followed was nothing short of a firestorm, reminiscent of decades earlier when public schools and swimming pools in the South were closed to avoid racial integration. Not only did the Salt Lake School Board ban the GSA, but 46 non-curricular student clubs in the Salt Lake School District – including the Black Student Union, Latino Pride Club, Native American Club, Students Against Drunk Driving, Young Republicans, and Young Democrats – all disappeared overnight. To keep a few kids from getting together to talk about important (if potentially controversial) issues, the School Board decided to punish all students. But the board permitted some student groups, such as the Future Business Leaders of America and the National Honor Society, to continue to meet, even though they are not directly related to the curriculum.

In April, the ACLU of Utah filed a lawsuit to ensure all students in Salt Lake City access to a safe, vital, and diverse educational environment. The plaintiffs have made clear that if the defendants eliminate additional clubs, they will only strengthen the plaintiffs’ argument that the school board is engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The plaintiffs intend to vigorously pursue that claim.

Citizens of Nebo School District v. Weaver Gay and Lesbian Rights


Unhappy that the Nebo School District merely sought to deprive Weaver of her constitutional rights and of any opportunity to coach volleyball, a group of Utah County citizens filed a lawsuit in December 1997 seeking to have Weaver banned from teaching altogether. The lawsuit purports to seek judicial clarification on a number of Utah statutes and constitutional provisions, including: (1) whether Weaver was "practicing psychology without a license" by using certain outside resources in her AP Psychology class; (2) whether Weaver’s hosting parties and activities for the members of her volleyball team over the years led to acts of reportable abuse; and (3) whether the simple facts that Weaver filed her lawsuit against the school district and otherwise publicly disclosed her sexual orientation automatically make her unfit to teach high school. Because this suit was brought in response to our case, Weaver v. Nebo School District, and involved the same constitutional issues, we felt it was important to defend Weaver from its groundless claims. In December, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. A hearing has been set for January 1999.

Other Cases

Roe v. Utah County Privacy


In 1996, the Utah County Sheriff’s Department entered the Lehi and American Fork Movie Buffs stores, and confiscated hundreds of allegedly pornographic videos as well as lists of individuals who had rented those videos. On behalf of three individuals who believe their names appear on the confiscated lists, the ACLU of Utah has filed a motion to intervene in Movie Buffs’s lawsuit against Utah County.

Skultin v. Bushnell Unlawful Search


Three years ago, Roy Skultin, who was traveling on Interstate 70 with two passengers, was pulled over by a Utah Highway Patrol trooper on pretextual grounds. The trooper interrogated Skultin, and, without his consent, searched his car, luggage, and the passengers’ purses and wallets before letting them proceed. The ACLU of Utah filed a complaint, arguing that Trooper Busnell violated Skultin’s Fourth Amendment rights. Discovery is completed, and summary judgment motions are pending.

Foote v. Spiegel Unlawful Search


Kristin Foote has a mild form of cerebral palsy and a slight speech impediment. In 1994, she was stopped by a Utah Highway Patrol trooper. Based upon her speech pattern and a green tint on her tongue, the trooper concluded she was driving under the influence. She was detained, arrested and, later, strip-searched. The ACLU of Utah filed a lawsuit on behalf of Foote, claiming that the search led to the violation of both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. As a result of our legal actions, Davis County has rewritten its policies and procedures to prohibit strip-searching of minor offenders who are booked and released, and who never spend time as inmates in the jail. The case is set for trial on the outstanding issues in February 1999.

Valdez v. McPheters Unlawful Search


In 1993 in an unsuccessful attempt to locate her adult son, FBI and BIA agents entered and searched Rosanna Valdez’s home twice without a search warrant or her consent. In March 1997, a trial was held, and, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the jury returned a no cause verdict. We filed an appeal with the 10th Circuit, and the court heard oral argument in September 1998. We are currently awaiting the court’s opinion, which we hope will be a significant statement bolstering the rights of homeowners to be free from unreasonable searches.

Case Resolutions

Crank v. Utah Judicial Council Illegally Constituted Juries 

For the better part of this century, Native Americans have been excluded from jury service in San Juan County, Utah. Few Native Americans appeared on jury lists, and it was not until the mid-1970’s that an Indian juror actually served on a trial jury, despite the fact that Native Americans constitute over 50% of that county’s population. This shameful situation was addressed in a 1993 lawsuit brought by Eric Swenson. The ACLU of Utah later joined Swenson in this lawsuit. In 1996, a consent decree was entered in which the Utah Judicial Council – the body that compiles jury lists for Utah district courts – agreed to take measures to include Native Americans on jury lists and to institute other much needed jury reforms.

Unfortunately, enforcement proceedings had to be brought when it was revealed that the Utah Judicial Council had not complied with the consent decree. The Council had not used jury lists in the Seventh District in San Juan County in 1997 and 1998 that contained sufficient numbers of Native Americans. The Council had failed to file a jury plan outlining the reforms mandated by the consent decree. The Council had also failed to file annual reports with the Court stating what had been done to comply with the consent decree.

Evidence we presented at a trial in December 1998 demonstrated these many problems with the Council’s jury system, including unacceptably low number of Native American jurors on the jury lists. State Judge David Roth ordered the Judicial Council to file a jury plan. The Court also ordered the Council to file annual reports, and Judge Roth required that the Council take reasonable measures to ensure that it is in compliance with the consent decree hereafter. In order to best implement the jury reforms agreed to by the parties, the Court issued interpretations of the consent decree and revised the agreement of the parties.

The ACLU of Utah and Swenson will continue to monitor the Judicial Council’s compliance with the consent decree in order to make sure that in the future, Native Americans are given an equal opportunity to participate in San Juan’s jury selection system.

Allred v. Solaray HIV/AIDS 
Laughter v. Kay Unlawful Search


Last year, Wallace Kim Allred’s representative opted for a settlement with Solaray, Allred’s former employer who had demanded his medical records after learning that he was living with AIDS. Stana Laughter, who was the victim of an unconstitutional search at the Central Utah Correctional Facility, also received a favorable settlement.

Cooperating Attorneys


Critical to the success of our legal work are our volunteer cooperating attorneys, who are generous with both their time and expertise. In 1998, the following attorneys worked with our staff on ACLU of Utah cases:

Jensie L. Anderson 
Brian M. Barnard 
Lauren Barros 
Wayne S. Braveman 
David S. Buckel 
Craig S. Cook 
Marlin G. Criddle 
Jon W. Davidson 
Kelli M. Evans 
Laura Milliken Gray 
Russell Hathaway 
Nathan Hult 
Kathryn D. Kendell 
Joanna Kobak-Hudson 
Andrew McCullough 
Jennifer Middleton 
Shannon Minter 
John Pace 
Eric P. Swenson 
Richard Van Wagoner 
David B. Watkiss 
Loren E. Weiss 
Mary Woodhead

Legislative Issues


As is evident by both our highlights and legal docket, the 1998 legislative session offered some unique challenges to civil liberties. From our opposition to English-only legislation, to our fight for due process protections in the Child Abuse Database, as well as our litigation concerning Proposition 5 and the sex offender registry, the results of last year’s session kept us busy throughout the year. The following are additional legislative issues that we addressed.

The Public’s Ability to Petition the Government Restricted


Two bills passed by the legislature effectively limited the power the public has to change or implement state policies. One bill made it much more difficult to put an issue on the ballot through initiative petition by increasing the number of counties in which petition-passers need to collect signatures. A related bill that became the successful ballot measure, Proposition 5, placed a super majority standard on citizen initiatives that attempt to change hunting policies. By singling out one issue, Proposition 5 sets a disturbing precedent, and it is now incredibly difficult for citizens to impact state wildlife policy.

Prison Budget Reduced


Since Pete Haun took over the Utah Department of Corrections, the ACLU of Utah has been encouraged by both his accessibility and progressive prison policies. In the last legislative session, however, Haun’s efforts to move the department in a new direction were seriously undermined when the legislature refused to give him the funding he requested and pushed for the privatization of correctional facilities. Because these decisions will most likely have civil rights repercussions in the form of overcrowding, insufficient rehabilitative programs, and a lack of trained officers, we testified on the department’s behalf. Our organization remains an active advocate for a department budget that adequately funds additional inmate programs and appropriate training for correctional officers.

Ballot Initiative Approved to Restrict Felon Voting Rights


Before last November, Utah was one of only four states that allowed incarcerated people to vote. However, a 1998 House Joint Resolution that was approved by Utah voters in November, amended the state Constitution to deny voting rights to any person convicted of a felony. Companion legislation stated that the right to vote will be restored once "(a) the felon is sentenced to probation by the sentencing judge; (b) the felon is granted parole by the Board of Pardons; or (c) the felon has successfully completed the term of incarceration to which the felon was sentenced." Despite the fact that this initiative denies such a fundamental constitutional right as the right to vote, courts have unfortunately upheld similar laws in other states.

The Number of Closed Caucus Meetings Increased


Throughout the session, the Republican caucus, which represents two-thirds of the legislative body, met in private to discuss public policy in addition to party politics. In a disturbing trend, the Republicans closed more meetings during the 1998 session than in any other year in recent memory. While technically legal – party caucuses are exempted from the state’s Open and Public Meetings Act – the closed meetings clearly violated the spirit of the law. This new way of conducting business affects advocates on all sides of the issues, and makes it impossible for citizens to exercise their constitutional right to provide input in the laws by which they must abide.

Lawmakers Attempted to Keep Genetic Information Private


During the interim session, Representative Nora Stephens introduced the Genetic Testing Privacy Act. Because of the privacy and Equal Protection concerns involved, we were very pleased that a legislator was addressing this issue, and were supportive of the sections of the bill that prohibited discrimination by employers and health insurers based on genetic information. We therefore found ourselves in the unique position of supporting proposed legislation, and had the time to meet and work with the sponsor. We suggested changes that would provide more consumer protection, and throughout the year, met with the sponsor and other interested parties so that we would be ready for the 1999 session.

Other Policy Work


While our work with the Utah State Legislature remains a significant component of the ACLU of Utah’s lobbying efforts, we are also faced with city and county policies that demand our attention. It is at the local level that our coalition work really pays off – our input means very little if lawmakers are not also hearing from individuals directly affected by the policies they are drafting. Last year, two issues before the Salt Lake City Council exemplified both the enormous impact that city policies can have, and the importance of our organizing work.

Anti-Discrimination Ordinance


In January, the ACLU of Utah worked very hard to keep the Salt Lake City Anti-Discrimination Ordinance alive. Similar to laws in over 140 cities nationwide and modeled after Salt Lake County’s anti-discrimination policy, the 1997 ordinance protected city employees from discrimination based on their age, race, sex, and – what ultimately proved to be too much for city council members – sexual orientation. As federal law does not yet provide protections for gays and lesbians in the workplace, our organization was extremely pleased that Salt Lake City had such a progressive anti-discrimination ordinance for its employees. However, only two months after its passage, the ordinance faced repeal when the makeup of the city council changed. The weekend before the council was to hear public testimony, ACLU of Utah volunteers and staff called our members to encourage them to attend the council meeting. Our organizational efforts paid off, as over 100 people were at the meeting, and over three-quarters of those who testified were in favor of keeping the ordinance. Unfortunately, despite overwhelming testimony to the contrary, the council voted 4-3 to overturn the ordinance.

INS Pilot Program


Last fall, the Salt Lake City Council was faced with the very important decision of whether to approve a federal pilot program that would grant immigration authority to Salt Lake City police officers. Our organization was very concerned that if such a program were approved, it would result in increased civil rights violations against Latinos and other people of color. In addition, there was the added risk that such a program would discourage undocumented immigrants who are the victims of or witnesses to crimes to cooperate with the police. We began an intensive research effort to examine the effects of similar programs throughout the country, and met one-on-one with city council members to voice our concerns. In addition, the coalition that we worked with to defeat the English-only legislation proved to be invaluable, as it provided the means to inform those who would be affected by such a program. In September, the Salt Lake City Council set national precedent when it refused to approve the pilot program.

Intake and Complaint Resolution


Every year, hundreds of people contact the ACLU of Utah asking for our help. This past year, our interns and staff reviewed over 1,000 complaints – almost half of these were from the prison and jails, one fifth dealt with law enforcement issues, and the rest outlined concerns that ranged from employment discrimination to the violation of privacy rights. Whenever possible, we attempted to resolve reported grievances by setting up meetings with appropriate community leaders or government agencies, providing resources and proper referrals, and drafting letters detailing the constitutional basis for specific complaints.

Education and Outreach


While we continue to maintain an updated library of resources, publish our newsletter, ACLUReporter, and attend school presentations, our educational priorities have changed dramatically as a result of the Internet. 1998 was the year we finally entered the technological age. We now have a web page at www.acluutah.org, which contains current information such as our legal docket, new cases filed, and case settlements. In addition, our e-mail lists have been an invaluable part of our outreach and coalition work. Our targeted e-mail list, for example, completely changed our organizational efforts to oppose English-only legislation in 1998, and we were able to get information out quickly to coalition members. We will continue to learn more effective ways to use this technology, and both our web page and e-mail lists will remain a high priority for our organization.

In addition, last year the ACLU of Utah co-sponsored several community events to raise awareness about important issues:

In February, the ACLU of Utah and the Gay and Lesbian Law Alliance co-sponsored a public town meeting. Featuring Kathryn Kendell, former ACLU of Utah attorney and current executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Elizabeth Birch, the executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the forum offered an in-depth examination of the legislative and political status of lesbians and gay men.

The ACLU of Utah was an active sponsor and organizer of Utah’s first Day of Remembrance Program. The event, which marked the 56th anniversary of the presidential order that led to the incarceration of over 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry, was particularly significant because Utah was home to Topaz, one of the 10 internment camps. We were pleased to be able to work with the Japanese American Citizens League and other organizations on this program, which featured Bill Lann Lee, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, as the keynote speaker.

Like the rest of the nation, our office was shocked and saddened at the news of Matthew Shepherd’s beating because of his sexual orientation. Upon hearing the news of his death, we immediately organized a candlelight vigil to take place that evening. Featuring speakers from the community, the event offered a much-needed time to reflect and respond to the news.

Combined Foundation and Union Financial Report (Unaudited)


As a private, non-profit organization, the ACLU of Utah receives no government funding and never charges its clients for legal representation. Our existence depends entirely upon private donations, foundation grants, court-awarded legal fees from successful cases, and membership fees from Utahns who are dedicated to preserving fundamental civil liberties. It is no exaggeration to state that our financial and volunteer supporters have enabled us to accomplish everything detailed in this annual report.

Revenue


Contributions and Membership $253,014.00 
Legal Awards $75,000.00 
Interest and Other $4,399.00

Total Income $332,413.00

Expenses


Program Services $278,732.00 
Operations $34,459.00 
Fundraising $15,486.00

Total Expenses $328,677.00

Balance $3,736.00

Board Members


David Tundermann, President 
Laurie Wood, Vice President 
Suzanne Marelius, Treasurer 
Marc Hoenig, At Large Executive Committee Member 
Jill Sheinberg, At Large Executive Committee Member 
Marilyn Welles, At Large Executive Committee Member 
Lincoln Hobbs, Legal Panel Director 
George Frandsen, National Board Representative 
Anita Albright 
Peggy Battin 
Douglas Campbell 
Beverly Dalley 
Karen Denton 
Rick Gill 
Larry Houston 
Andy McCullough 
Yvonne Paul 
Colleen Sandor 
Allen Sievers 
Spotswood Spruance 
Matthew Wallace 
Janet Wolf

Legal Panel


Dianna Cannon 
Linda Jones 
Derek Langton 
Michael O’Brien 
Karen Stam 
Phyllis Vetter 
Paul Wharton 
Mary Woodhead

Staff


Carol Gnade, Executive Director 
Stephen Clark, Legal Director 
Cori Sutherland, Deputy Director 
Ronda Chapman, Office Manager/Intake Coordinator

1998 Legal and Office Interns


Eric Davey 
Marquise Davis 
Janelle Eurick 
Jill Falvey 
Colour Frazier 
Garrett Gilmore 
J.C. Graham 
Chris Herrera 
Elizabeth Laney 
Adam Richardson 
Tim Roberts 
Jennifer Teel 
Luke Timmins 
Scott Waite 
Jason Weaver