HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-77-0400UNIT
AI4 b M i $06, rn the
hi hie . I t k*U I
Ane Ut In iiriitAh Anti %hit
OSD: Sp : rlw4
DJ t70418t31
D STATES DEPARTMENT JU4Tt
WA ilI ititHN2►53t)
Mt. George F , 1416X i Jr,
City Attorney
City of Miami
Miami, Florida 33131
Mayor Maurice Ferre
City of Miami
Miami, Florida 33133
Re: United States v, City of Miami
Dear Sir:
It is our understanding that during the week of
May 2nd, 1977 the City of Miami Police Department promo-
ted five people to the rank of sergeant, only one of whom
was minority. It is also our understanding that these
promotions were undertaken at this time notwithstanding
the provisions of the consent decree entered by the U.S,
District Court on March 29, 1977; and the arrangements
that were made pursuant thereto. If these statements are
correct we view these actions with great concern and
intend to strongly consider the possibility of seeking
appropriate relief.
If these understandings are correct, the promotions
are a violation of the Interim Agreement setting up a
procedure to implement the Decree entered on April 22nd,
1977, the consent decree entered by the court on March 29,
1977 and the understanding reached during the summer of
1976. The basis for this Department entering the Interim.
Agreement was the clear understanding that no promotions
or other personnel procedures would be initiated or changed
until the decree was fully implemented. Without that
understanding we would have sought such a delay in the
Interim Agreement, It also appears that this was under,
stood by the police Department based on the fact the police
Union indicated in court on April 27, 1977 that all promotions
had been frozen.
Since it is our view that the consent decree had
the full force and effect of law when entered by the court,
relevant paragraphs of the decree do not appear to have
been considered in the determination to promote these
people. I refer you in particular to Paragraph 5(b)
Promotion on page 6. The information from the Interim
Agreement was to be used in the implementation of this paragraph
and all persons involved in the negotiations for the con-
sent decree will recall that the Police Department was
specifically referred to during the negotiations for what
was one of the most troublesome paragraphs within the
decree.
The undersigned has also consistently requested
without success to be made aware of the process and the
status of the validation study that is being conducted.
Paragraph 3(a)(4) Selection Procedures, pages 5 and 6
should have been used prior to any such promotions,
since it dictated the use of any such test.
In addition by letter dated July 28, 1976, copy
attached, we informed the city that we expected it to
adhere to the provisions of the decree even prior to
its entry by the Court. The Mayor responded on September
9th, 1976 providing us with Ordinance No. 8519 creating
the Affirmative Action Board which clearly seemed to be
set up to implement the intent and spirit of the consent
decree. From the actions taken by the City it appears
that no comments or opinions of this body was sought prior
to the promotions.
In light of these rather precipitous actions we ask
that the City seriously consider the following actions:
1. Rescind the promotions until such time as the
affected class members are identified and so
that they can compete for these positions.
Inform City employees of the consent decree
and appropriate disciplinary procedures if it
is violated so they become keenly aware of the
City and their ref: ponsi' :1itios under thit
decree.
That we be informed of the State (1) the
information being gathered necessary to imple-
ment the decree, (2) the validation of selection
processes within the City; and (3) the City`a inter-
tions to rectify the immediate problem with
these promotions,
Unless we receive some responses on these matters
promptly and some assurances of your intentions to abide
by the decree we will be forced to consider alternatives
available to us,
cc: Jessie McC rary
Irving Wensoff
Sincerely,
DREW S. DAYS III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
SQUIRE PADGETT�
Attorney
Employment Section
qiyer Maurieo r rrd
City, of :ia::tii
it ti) `loritl<: Mn
Prank t elstor,
tetir'.at Lit,: Attorney
City of :'ions
We') net:. rirql; fttrqat
kiaui, i'1ori a 331 t
Unit.01 ti;:att:a V. ..al.
Cale .`:l;i.cr 75 -3V6''C•iv- 7t
cdntlgtt n
y}�.�yy. Wearesure that bath of ry�'o.i will. recall the Mitt;
and �`s►,�+'.itlhtive neuo •i bons conducted in : iu natter
and the a:iicab1t: ac7rec ent rc=acia:.::i by tho City ar.;l
brit c, :Jt•�1ten. �+1t ioet' •• `' ,,: i.;ot:t parties ..re i�, anr.le~,e:it,
tha decree a:3 of t tia date is not entered, althou,.;ii tho
Court stated it: its letter of ,:.1ne V, 1576 that it, was
con sit:wri.3y re-r::1tr: of the decree on October 1, 1976.
In li jht of oar a rec:.aJnt. 'Ate thin% it ai: ro:)riatc
that yodi+t"' info7.•r,ed t.tAt we would C!.tt.r cc thu City to
becjir adhering, to the provi: ics:,s of that f1c:cree in its
ca4?1oy.;c'nt rracticcs an.3 pro:c=dcares. We believe this
is a necosuary and i •: ropria o stop to insure that
n inoritit ana l!e cn 1o:3 art ss• rc equal employment
mint
r•7 ♦t�.
opportunities wi to the City of niati.
44 } 'Atttr-tho deert a it tSlttst'Yoe tkkf tits; 4 to
1 utj � bt r 6ii%1 `otio ' 'ia 'aj r.g ih t deI ree With
`"E.tkaeYiltat ioh Of Lit y rator:ja and docU A,.: i"t t heottatar ► to
c t;t :mina haek ',say &z d other apaeitio roliefi
If you have :any quuctiona related d to this 1 t tr
• orany other eoncorn§ ' o i• ould ha halJpy to ' reapond to
Sinoorely,
,yr. ti L i4 s �.i itiiq i)a+i i.j
�/ i \Y 1b Y iL4iiiYn? N i� 11 L.i A
Atwittent Attoltl y Cr.`her
Civil. 1tit.thtd bivini+ n
Sid Xi iietT� �a I
i.ttnp1oyrrtent: Section