HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #34 - Discussion ItemCITY OF MIAMI• FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To Mayor Maurice A. Ferre CATE.. May 26, 1981
3,,3— Promotion of Police Officers
FROM Howard V. Gary
City Manager
In response to your question about the promotion of Police Officers under the
Consent Decree, please find attached an explanation by the Director of Human
Resources.
cc: Members of
The City Commission
17
r:
w
J
r�
if•1T'=i�-l�r==it:..� .'�' �C�,iAf !^U'il r '
To Howard V. Gary May 22, 1981 -
City Manager
Promotions of Police -Lieutenants
'71
Robert D. Krause, Director %G ..
"O.Y. Department of Human Resources -- —
This replies to your inquiry concerning procedure used in the promotion
of Police Lieutenants.
The procedure for appointments is contained in the revised Civil Service
Rules. The old Rules provided that employees on promotional lists would
be promoted in consecutive order. This procedure resulted in adverse
impact against minorities and women. It was the principal reason that
the top ranks in the City government, including the Police Department,
were predominantly occupied by Anglo males.
Under the Consent Decree, we frequently found it necessary to suspend the
old Civil Service Rules and to bypass names in order to promote minorities
and women so that the City could achieve the promotional goal established
by the Consent Decree. This led to a series of court cases alleging
violation of the Civil Service Rules.
In order to reconcile the conflicts between the Civil Service Rules and
the Consent Decree, the Rules were amended in 1979 to provide that more
people, including minorities and women,would have an equal right to promo-
tion. A new Pule 8 provides that for each promotion the names of the five
highest persons on the register will be certified, plus the names of the
three minorities and women who stand highest on the register. If there
is a second vacancy, two more names are certified, one from the top part
of the register and a second from a member of a minority group who ranks
next highest on the list. This gives an equal right to all of the "certi-
fied candidates" to be promoted. It eliminates the basis for law suits
alleging conflicting rights between the Consent Decree and the Civil
Service Rules. We have not had a single law suit filed on the promotional
procedures since the new rulo was adopted.
In the case of the recent promotions to Police Lieutenant, there were two
vacancies. Thus, the top five names on the eligible register (all Anglo
males) were certified for the first vacancy along with the top three
minorities (all Latin males) who stood highest on the register; the minor-
ity candidates were ranked in positions 15, 16 and 26 on the register.
For the second vacancy, the next highest person on the register (an Anglo
male) was certified along with the next highest minority on the register
(a Latin male) who ranked in 35th place on the list.
1�
Howard V. Gary
May 22, 1981
Page 2
Under the Civil Service Rules, the Police Chief has a right to use his
judgment in deciding which of the certified candidates will be promoted.
This grant of discretion permits him to promote minority candidates on
an equal basis with non -minorities in order to meet the promotional goals
of the Consent Decree. Naturallyr any use of his discretion or judgment
may be challenged by individuals who would have exercised the same author-
ity in a different way. Restoring the restrictions that were previously
imposed on the use of discretion would most likely make it impossible for
the City to achieve its promotional goals under the Consent Decree. It
seems inevitable that any authority to use discretion or judgment in order
to achieve the twin goals of quality appointments and affirmative action
will lead to differences of opinion.
In the case of the two promotions to Police Lieutenant, the Police Chief
selected the candidate who ranked #2 on the register (an'Anglo male) and
a candidate who ranked426 (a Latin male). In the process, he did not
select a number of eligibles who were either Anglo or Latin.
I am not entirely familiar with the procedure used by the Police Chief to
substantiate his exercise of judgment. I understand from previous dis-
cussions with him that each eligible candidate is requested to complete a
profile form and that the records of each eligible are reviewed by the two
Assistant Chiefs, who give primary attention to performance records over
the most recent two years. The two Assistant Chiefs then make recommenda-
tions to the Police Chief for promotion. It is my understanding that the
recommendations of the Assistant Chiefs are consistently acceu_ted by the
Police Chief.
If you need any further information, please let me know.
RDK:jb
r•
RESULTS OF EXAMINATION
POLICE LIEUTENANT
PROMOTIONAL
Closing Date for
Application
5012
Do;e for
Examination
D`4A: 9
No. Competing 67 No. Possed 47 N�. Foiled 20 II4ELIG: 2
APPROVED: Date4:,roved
Director 'os Human' .?esources
APPL.
I. D.
N441E
VETS.
F INAl
REG.
N0.
NO.
PREF.
GRADE
PISSED: �
C067-174
C G 1049--
Landis, Vincent Tv.
��ong-, -D :r-L-' ".c /;)
6
0
101.12
99.71
1
2
C63-210
O'Brien, John ES-- A;4
0
97.14
3
C74-864
Berger, William B.' A;4-
0
96.73
4
C68-178
Brown, Rona13 R.`-- ;A
0
96.57
5
C67-323
Jones, Michael A.' I.rr
0
96.16
6
C67-201
Rice, Douglas 1•7.' 41:.i•
0
95.03
7
C67-389S
Carberry, Edward J!
0
95.13
8
C67-3157,
Apte, Robert,.- �
_ 0
95.12
9
C51-257
Gebhart, Franklin Ham" :�'Y=
0
94.55
10
C72-436
xAnderson, Patrick F:%
0
93.60
11
CG9-1352
Gross, Michael W. -ICV�i
0
93.56
12
C56-175E
Leasburg, Russell E. 'i_
_ 0
93.34
13
C67-376
Evans, Robert M,.,
0
93.10
1_.f
G
C66-369
Alvarez, No J.'�i 4--14
0
92.81
15
C72-391
Cabrera, Emilio-- - :-
0
92.5,;
1
C65-123
Nelson, William G. ;.;4
0
92.30
17
C69-275_
1a:inoli , Richard A. A:4-
0
92.15
to
C72-371s,
Baldwin, Steven, L. Z.Y.-
0
91.47
19
C63-322
Maloney, Michael E. 1;4-;
0
91.=7
19
C6b-382-
Colpitts, Richard E. &-
0
91.15
21
C68-651
Dyer, Robert
0
90.62
22
C73-249
Downey, Dennis G. Aw-
0
90.66
23
C72-3693
Grubb, Brendan
0
90.52'
24
C66-497
Travis, Steven L. �, A;J"
0
90.48
25
C70-547
,,, Tellea-,--LE�gene �---t- --� �y 44-1-•
0
90.27
26
C73-352
Sutton, Ronald L.
0
90.24
27
C53-231
Cox, James A. .,A:,i
0
90.13
28
C
Reynolds, C. L. -k-M
0
90.12
29
C67-332S
Bentley, Ronald L.
0
90.021
30
C72-163
Christopher, M. I. ,r.:•i
0
09.58
31
C72-351
Williams, Robert ;4�
0
89.50
32
CG4-310S
Hatton, John C.
0
89.44
33
C64-428
Liles, Kenneth ';-u
0
88.61
34
C71-438
Diaz, Manuel W.L- Z.:-s'•-
0
"%8:47
35f
C69-721
Bankert, Larry Pl..,, lam-
0
88.26
36
i
RESULTS OF EXAMINATION
,losing Date for
Dote for
Appl ication
Examinction
DNA:
No. Competing
No. Dossed
No. Fuilctl
INClrIG:
9 --tea
- ��
•
APPROVED:
L�..���--- -
Date Approved
Director 6- .Iu. ,an/ 1:esources
APPL.
I. D.
NAMi=
1—P
VETS.
FINAL.
PEG.
NO.
N0.
REF:
GRADE
PASSED (Cont. . )
C69-121
Daniels, Charles E.
Sm.
0
88.05
37
C55-173�1
Farrington, William H.
-;44
0
87.69
38
CG9-151E
Yee, R. R.
0
87.68
39
C68-066
Seaman, Theodore G.
0
87.56
40
c66-727
Huff, Edcaard i•i,
1:1.- -
0
87.02-
41.
C68-185
Reynolds, Charles 1-7.
,T• -
0
8G.�''5
42
C69 —133
Wes tpy , Ed:aard
r'44
0
86.19
43
CG9-762
Martinez, Valter D.
XIM
0
85.31-
4.1
C79-2847
Bennett, Judith
AF
0
85.18
45
C63-236
Morris, Ronald F.
;t4
0
85.11
46
C80-?.86
Dillon, Jeanne L.
AF
0
85.03
47
i b =� 17