Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1977-12-08 Minutesrs CITY 0 OF MEETING HELD ON MIAM, UTES DECEMBER 8, 1977 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OFT TY HE CITY CLERKHALL CI RALPH G. ONGIE CITY CLERK 1 l AR CITY ORISSiC �IiAMMI, RIDA :.manre101welencssta ,.atr ncrx.. ITEM NO. SUBJECT QRDINANCE OR K 5DUIT1c NO. PAGE NO, 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCUSSION OF CITY'S hE AL POSITION WITH REGARDS TO CETA EMPLOYEES VOTING AT THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD ELECTION. . DISCUSSION OF DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER FORBIDDING SUCH CETA VOTING. - 12 • MINUTES OF SPECIAL W,C OF THE CITY aMMISSION OF HMI, FLURIDA ON TIM 8TH DAY O )E.Tr: 7 IdE COMMISSION OF MIAMI, LORIDA, MET AT IlS REUULAR MrT1 H N 'S,AID CITY IN SPECIAL ESSION TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF i'Lii3LiC IMPORI. THE rIETINCI WAS CALED 07) r)RDE HW O'CLOCK, P,M, BY MAYOR NAURICE A, t-ERRE WITH THE FOLLOWING F THE COMMISSION FOUND O BE PRESENT; ALSO PRESENT VICF-MOR 'iYHL'1O COMMISSIONER j, P114;ei, jk, CommissicyjE (;ORDON COMMISSIONER (EV,) [NLORL (ilDSON GEORE ;,,TiNNEy RALH 6. ONGIE, MATTY HIRAI, ASSISTANT LIP,' CLERK AN INVOCATION WAS DEL IVE}<EP tLYI:kENLI THEODORE GIBSON WHO THEN LED THOSE PRESENT IN A PLEDGE OF P.[FGINCE TO THE FLAG, A. DISCUSSION OF CITY'S !.EGAL REGADS TO CETA EMPLOYEES VOTING AT THE CIVIL ERVI(:E 170ARD LLECTION, B. DISCUSSION OF DISTRICT COURT'S ORDEP F1,7i_,,1DPING SUCH CETA VOTING, Mayor l.e:e.t; Orif, eentlemee, this is a ci tiami Commission meeting calleu fel: one purpeee end tLat is the Oroei: dewn this afternoon by Circuit Court aidee John Gail in tne case of Eiwrc. jein 'turnable Dunmire and Thomas O'Connor, Plaintiff:e vs. the City of miami wie:h regtes e the question as to whether or not the CE7A rflployees of t.he City of Miami c3r, cnc,L wIte in the election that is scheleiel fer oree te el(ct Lao memet:re of cne Ce;ty of Miami Civil Service Board. Now, Think the Order is quite simple and if i eemeL.-irize it, and then we can ask the Cjty Arternee to amplify it and eet te 1-le questions. It simply says that the Judge's interpretation of thie is that .-TT:t. eeeple cannot vote, number 1; and number 2, that the election should be held to,loccew. lew, obviously, this is an important thing in the City of Miami and it'e a leclsioe which, again, affects the officielpoetareof the City of Miami the elected legislative body that mines polity withie the Comiselee. New, i called up Judge Gail, eince this COMMI'alOit metfting wel:3 going to be hell thieJ eltLeneee, se that I could get exact instructeeee-because I certeinly didn't \arc te Le a pert of being in contempt of the Judge —understand axactli what Lhe eest.ure told him and I'm saying on the record that the reason why there ie :;ome coeteF_ron in all of this is because we do have a Consent Decree which inveives rnii.r nd 1 don't think it's any big secret th_t 90% of the CT:TA employees ate mieetis. The question then comes up since we have a representetive of the Juetiee 1,_:pertment here. The Just:.ee Department, as I nnderetand, is thinking of going Defeze rederal Court in the morning to enjoin this election because of it's impact not en the question of what the Charter says or ric,es not say but on the Consent Decree .,hich, as I understand, jurisdictionly supersedes the Charter from the Federal guidelrees ehd laws. Now, that's a question welleh at this point has itot been determined , - B euees the purpose for this meeting is that ere was scire confusion, and iL wee Ili), eeiniee that rather than to do this on a one te one basis between tho City Atiory rd eacn on..! of you, that we ought to reall in thz•.- best tone of s,;n:Atine, flUt 111 in ino letter Lut in the spirit of the Jaw, just gather together and discus hie ej,enJy among all of us in oomments. So,at this pcint I would tux it ovr to The Cii Attorney and then ask the City Manager or representatives of the Adaiinieteation if they want to comment on it, and then we'll go to questioes and l'm sure we want to hear from some of the employee groups. That's where we are. 01. DEC 081971 • • Mt. Knox: Mr. Mayor and members of this Commission, of course Judge Gail's Order Speaks for itself. Now, at sometime during the afternoon, a petition was filed in the Federal Court with Judge Eaton asking at the question of the Consent Decree and its impact, if any, upon a denial of the right of privileges of CETA em- ployees to vote in this election. Judge Eaton determined at that time that the matter was not sufficiently an emergency in his determination, that he would take some prompt action but he would schedule mal_tcr to be heard at some future time. Now, it happens that Mr. Squire Paaaett from the Justice Department is presently in the City and based upon his awareness of what this problem is, on behalf of the Justice Department, he is indicting that they also would be concerned about the impact of a denial of the right of privileges of CETA employees to vote upon operation of the Consent Decree which said that the City should not engage in any oficial activities which affect members of the so called affected class, and again CETA employees contain approximately 90% minority indivivals. Now, one of the questions is whether or not, as a matter of policy, the City Com- mission would determine that this question is sufficiently significant that we would first thing in the morning, again, petition Judge Eaton with some official expression of the Commission of its input and seek to have him make a determination On an emergency basis about the right to CE",'i, en.L_loyees under Judge Gail's Order as it relates to the Consent Decree. Another decision that may ultimately have to be made -as a policy matter of fact that the City Commission is- whether now or at some future time within the constraints that are provided by the rules, Judge Gail's opinion would be appealed from. I'd be happy to answer any questions that any Commissioner might have about all of this. Mrs. Gordon: There is a question for you, Mr. Knox, that I can't resolve in my mind so maybe you can help me. You are concerned specifically with a CETA classification of employee hut you are totally unconcerned with the classification of a permanent employee which is classified as "unclassified". Are they less important than CETA people to the City? This bothers me, I don't understand you, I don't understand your opinions. Mr. Knox: Well, Mrs. Gordon, I have to manifest that, my personal concern about either of those situations, I responded to a rt_\Aest for a legal opinion and the legal opinion specifically addressed the question of whether or not CETA employees were entitled to vote. I also responded to a request for a legal opinion from you concerning so called "unclassified" employees. Now, the history of the provision, Section 60 of the Charter- that we are now considering in the case, that the reason that the word 'Civil Service" status appears , was a specific design to eliminate "unclassified" employees from participation on the Board ,and participation in those elections that select members of the Board; because the policy -determine was made by the people of the City of Miami that "unclassified" employees were not affected their right privileges or their responsibilities were not affected by any decision of Civil Service Board. That's a matter of record and that's the legislative history of Section 60 of the Charter which was enacted in 1941. Mrs. Gordon: Bear in mind, I'm not criticizing you personally, I'm simply taking issue with your diverse opinions pertaining to the power and jurisdiction of the Justice Department over and above the Charter. Now, in that regard you are saying - in one regard, yes, the Justice Department has jurisdiction over the Charter; and in the other regard you are saying, no, the Justice Department has no jurisdicticn over the Charter; and that's why I'm taking the question to you as I am, because I cannot understand how you can separate if the Justice Department has jurisdiction way above and beyond the Charter. Then all those persons- whether they are classi- fied or unclassified, CETA, or whatever...they're pulling the same barrel. Mr. Plummer: Are CETA employees temporary? Mr. Knox: Some are not temporary, some are permanent. Mr. Plummer: Then they are not CETA. Mr. Knox: I beg your pardon, when you say permanent or temporary, are you talking about the time that they work? Mr. Plummer: I'm asking about CETA employees, people that are paid under the Emergency Manpower Act. Mr. Knox: All right, I'll put it this way. There are some full-time and some part. -time; now, whether that represents.... V2 DEC 081977 . Mr. Plummer: Are they under Civil Service? Mr. Knox: Are they under Civil Service? They are subject to certain benefits that Civil Service affords persuant to the CETA Act. Mr. Plummer: Such as? Mr. Knox: Unemployment compensation, Social Security, and such other benefits that.... Mr. Plummer: That's afforded to any employee -- Unemployment, Social Security- that's any employee,Whether CETA or not. At. Knox: ....working conditions. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Mr. Knox: Working conditions as defined in the CETA Act. Mr. Plummer: Do they have the procedure, grievance, and hearings and things of that nature? Mr. Knox: No, Sir. They do not, they do not. Mr. Plummer: Then, how...what is the difference... your terminology in this memo to Rose Gordon says "unclassified employees are not included among those voting because they are not affected directly or indirectly regarding the terms under the co.,Uitons of employment by the actions of the Civil Service Board. What's the dif fe.renee Mr. KNox: The difference is that.... Mr. PLununer: On Rose Gordon..excuse me... Rose Gordon's secretary is one named here, mine is also, receives Unemployment Compensation, receives Social Security, receives at the procedures that you just ce tlined and I'll like to know where the difference falls. Mr. Knox: Well, neither does she have a procedure, again, for the Civil Service .Board. Mr. Plummer: I understand that. I'm asking for the differences, what differences are there.? The classified want to vote and the other one not to. Mr. Knox: First of all, the kinds of decisions that are made on a routine basis byiti.e Civil Service Boardwill not affect Mrs. Rose Gordon's secretary who is an unclassified employee. Now, the question of thee precise kinds of questions are those kinds of questions that could properly, probably,he answered by Mr. Krause. Mr. Plummer: Well, tt.en let's yet Mr. Krause up here. Mrs. Gordon: One questior.,also that I wane to clarify for the records,is the pension benefits,are they available to CETA people? Mi. Knox: They are not available presently. Mrs. Gordon: Are they available to the unclassified personnel? Mr. Knox: Yes, they are. Ptrs. Gordon: All right. ferre: Inaudible...the last statement made by Commissioner Plummer was let's g t Mx. Krause up here and he is the one to answer those question8. Do you under- .....:nd the question?... and Mrs. Gordon's? me. Krause: c: li, 1 think I understand tl,e question, you know, I can't speak to '.r:ga1 o :ini' n '.._th respect to the other uncias:.l�ied employees but if the question relates tc the manner in which the actions cf he Civil Service Board may affect (TT!. emu:loyees, it rides to the determination: that the Board makes when it decides what kind of a fob sr.c uric: £ nt lc issue or app. ove heoduse the job anouncement determines who is eligible to compete for a job in the classified service. 03 DEC 081977 Mr. Plummer: Under CETA? Mr. Krause: Under the Civil Service. Mr.Plummer: Under CETA? Mr. Krause: CETA employees are affected by the decisions that the Civil Service Board makes in deciding who will be eligible to apply for a job in the classi- fied service. Mr. Plummer: And you are telling me that the "unclassified" do not. Mr. Krause: I would tell you, essentially, no. CETA employees where the most part occupied job titles.... Mr. Plummer: You didn't answer my question, Mr. Krause. Mr. Krause: I'm trying to, Mr Plummer. CETA employees occupy job titles that are the same as those in the classified ec+r.vice, where the most part, there are some ex -ei:tions but almost all :.f th r. oc.cJpy t'-: same job titles as people in the classified service. Whether th',?y can becOr!iE: members of the classified service now or in the future will depend upon with what kind of requirements are issued by the Civil Service hoard in terms of the kind of exams that are held that is whether they are opened exams or restricted exams or promotional exams. Now, other employees on the unclassified service occupy job titles that are quite different, for example, the secretaries of the Commissioners do not have a counter part in the classified service nor do the Department Directors and Assistant Directors and Attorney and things of this kind which are in the unclassified service. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Krause, isn't the same thing which you just said in reference to examinations and qualifications , the same... I don't ,pant to say stumbling block because that would be misinternretec-but isn't t'na.. the same thing that a person who is not a CETA employee who wanted to go with the City would face? Mr. Krause: It would depend on '.Whether Si is one of three kinds of examinations that are authorized or directed by the Civil Service Board,if it's a promotional examination,appiies only to people who are in the classified service. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Krause, you sure are loosing... either you don't understand me, Sir, or I don't you. Now, let's do back affair,, I said nothing about promotions. I said, isn't it true that a person who wanted to no with the City would be faced with the same kinds of examinations and classification as a CETA employee who wanted to go with the City? Mr. Krause: The same kind of examination of the same kind of elegibility require- ment, Sir. Nr. Plummer: You spoke to examination and I'm using your terminology. Mr. Krause: Yes, and I'm speaking to the question of elegibility to take an exami- nation. Mr. Plummer: I'm asking once again, let me repeat it, Sir. If I didn't belong to the City and I wanted to apply for a job, I must qualify and take an examination to be placed on a register. Isn't it true that that same thing would be faced with the CETA employees? It only took me five minutes to get that simple answer, didn't it? Mr. Krause: You happen to get the wrong answer, however, because....wrong question.. Mr. Plummer: Well, is that the wrong question? Well, then what is the right question? Mr. Krause: The right question is whether or not there are distinctions between actions that Civil Service Board takes that affect differently members of the general public, CETA employees and members of the classified service and there are. That was why I was attempting, Sir, to explain the three types of examinations that Civil Service Board approves because they affect those three groups of people differently. tdr. Plummer: May I ask another... maybe I should ask Mr. Grassie this or you, either one who can answer the best. CETA employees, as I understand it, basically, are hired under a 20-week training period, am I correct in that? bEC 08197? Mr.Krause: Essentially, no. Most CETA eepi ogees are not hired under 20-week training programs. Mr. Plummer: All right. Let me aek you another question. As it relates to the Consent Decree, does the make up of the CETA employees count for or against the City towards that Consent Decree? Mr. Krause: Both. That i.s,CETA employees are counted as employees. Mr. Plummer: But when we agree to percentages- '."{ women, black and latins- do the CETA employees toward work in the City favor towards those percentages? Mr. Krause: To the F-.;teet that CLTJ employees help up to meet the goals of the Consent Decree, they work in our favor, yes. Mr. Plummer: And how do they work against us. Mr. Krause: If we fail to hire sufficient minorities of women in CETA occupations, that would work against. us. Mr. Plummer: Oh .. all right. Mrs. Gordon: A question to you, &.. Krause. If we fail to hire sufficient minori- ties than unclassified , does that work against us? Mr. Krause: Ae far as the Consent Decree is concerned -whether people are classi- fied or unclassified -it's essentially irrelevant.. The Consent Decree requires that we meet certain hiring goals end certain promotional goals for women and for members of minority groups and this can be met by hiring and promoting either classified or unclassified ems ioyees. Mrs. Gordon: I'm trying only to establish a stnc.1e point t hat,wher.ever the Consent Decree is; being used as a point of argument for or against u voting procedure,that same argument relates _p ciricall.' and directly the affective class within the unclassified or eis , -The argument or the point "that's been made isn't valid. Mr.Knox; Mrs. Gordon, may I respond, please? Again, the Consent Decree relates to a di eri;nination, a recognition of a difference in procedure which is based upon race. Tne Charter -when sp cifically says...when specifically separates and makes the same kind of a distinction based upcn classification of position of employment within the City -is not the kind of constitutional protection that is afforded to people who are classified or unclassified as the case may be. It's very necessary in many occasions to make distinctions. One of the distinctions -that's consti- tutionally permissible -is to separate management from labor, classified from un- classified, but these are not protected under the Constitution of the United States. The same Consent's distinctions which are made based upon race happen to be protected under the Constitution of the United States. 1'r.s. .cordon: I beg you, Sir, to recognize the minority composition of those un- classified employees that you are prohibiting iron the same rights and privileges that you arc granting by your decision to CETA. Mr.. Knox:: But the reason why they are been prolni.bited from voting, if you are talking about unclassified employees, is not because of their ethnic make up, this is because they occupy different kind of posture and employment for us at the City. Mrs. Gordon: But there are still people of minority composition who are being prohibited from the rights that you say that the Justice Department demands that they be given. Mr-. Knox; 1 agree, but the prohibition is not based upon race. Mr. Plummer; What procedures, Mr. Grassie,of grievance do City employees have? Mayor Ferro: I'll tell you, J. L.. Mr. Grassie, you go ahead and answer that but I think... the purpose of this meeting is for us to ask questions and get the answers w!".i:.h, I hope, won't take to much _'anger ano then to see if there is any- thing t..}sir this Couanission wants to do as stating ar,oficial position and what can we do because T think there are certain things that we can and others that we cannot do; I don't think we can go in contempt to the Court so , therefore, it may be this c.r may be all an academic exercise which is fine for information purposes but DEC 0 1� they may not be much more that can be done here other than lot of talk. But the point is, I'm not sure of that and after we finish all our questions, I'm going to get to the point of asking number 1, what our legal posture is; and number 2, what the advise of both the Administration and the City Attorney's Office is, if any. and then we are going to come to the conclussion and go home, I hope. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mt. Mayor, I'm asking questions I hope because it ]had always been my impression that CETA employees,as such,were a different group of people than permanent employees. Now, I know that there: are entirely different rules and procedures governing the employment of CETA people as that permanent. Now, the question that I'm asking since obviously CETA employees do not have the right of a Civil Service hearing, there must 1;e a grievance procedure perse that they are afforded, is this correct? And, if so, what is it? Mr. Grassie: That is correct, Commissioner. Tr,e.processis)as administrative through the City structure that is through the departmental hierarchy and after that appealers to the South Florida City consortium. Mayor Ferre: To the consortium. Mr. Plummer: Now, is that, then asking another obviously dumb question just but to get it correct, this is not open to permanent employees.... Mr. Grassie: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: ....so there is a distinct difference. Mayor Ferre: From that point of view,yes. I can't quite get in to all thisand I just want to make a statement and ask for a legal iterpretation. As I sense this -without being a lawyer but I sense what this is all about —there was a time in American Jurisprudence when,for example, on bond elections only the so called freeholders could vote because since they are the ones who own land and pay taxes only they were entitled,so to speak,to cast a decision as to whether or not they would be taxed; and, therefore, for many many years under the law only freeholders voted on bond elections not registered voters so that there was, so to speak, two lists; one of registered voters'and the other one of freeholders;and people actually had cards to vote as freeholders. Now, that was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court ruled, but I might be mistaken, that people who rented property in effect were paying the taxes indirectly; now, of course, the argument was that they were not entitled to vote because they didn't pay taxes. Now, obviously what that did 3s that this not franchised poor people -because those are the people who don't own land -from voting on bond issues.And about ten or fifteen years ago the Supreme Court ruled that they indeed had the right -even though for hundreds of years before that they didn't...because freeholder goes back to the English law to the beginning.. now, isn't there a similarity wherein what you are talking about are people that do not have the permanent status because they don't own the lands like the other ones? These people have a permanent status and they have a system which is called the Civil Service but since they are in effect -I'm talking about the poor people who are the minority -which is the CETA employees -...are affected by decisions made, not all decisions, J. L., but some decisions. If they are affected by some of the decisions then the question is, don't they then have a right to have representation in the same way as a non -property owner has the right to vote in a bond election. Isn't there a similarity on this? Mr. Knox: Yes, Sir. That's the analogy and that's the concern that we had with respect to the Consent Decree because we are prohibited under the Consent Decree from doing those officialthings that do have an effect upon minority employees. Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, but you know, you guys kid me,really. Are we saying then that people who come into this country as aliens -who do not possess the right to vote for five years -should be afforded the right to vote? Mr. Knox: No, Sir. but.... Mr. Plummer: Don't the laws that up there every day in elections affect them? Mayor Ferre; I hate to tell you this, but in the United States of America up until about 30 or 40 years ago,aliens who lived in communities did have the right to vote including for ti,e i7resident.... Mr. Plummer: Well, obviously they saw their mistakes and changed it. DEC 081971 Mayor Ferre: And there are some i_ gu? precedents in ,-hoes like California, for example.where this is all tested, and ,:t' s a matLer C::: fa there are cases in law in. recent years in other matters where 1`'eap_' t rf;_, nbt have citizenship arc en:it.lr_ . _o ,Tto ei:: in ?::l`er` S•:C:-Zo '::h( V d.`".. a erted, and this has been taken to '',-ii't t:y thc! F1,2x' .:1-'r,L::;r'.c..-a 1 ._C••.,,•. L: in i `:1 T,:Ya al-,. California and " Ivor. lk,,,,r .i'::1 tt 3li.itr ,y'i .i _ II'ia, .i :1.. h c_t•. i'.0 iI a i�n1Tconsti- tutional question w'oich Vrr. L'. no '.1y. .. V.. ibso:'..ut.ely no knowledge of it other tt1„r wh ?` . . : Yi St^_lPF t l ` ] i. _. _a,_ like Will ocers, all I know iu what . reaft in ;lei ern. Mr. P'.L1I'L^. r. : }'(`,'_ knew, :..ne fu;ir S::ai:;.. '.bout: ir. right to get citizenship is an 1nce:i ive to bef omc a _ i t. :. :i'1" "c me it se n i'_.. the right to it?.. .. Mavc'.r Ferre: Now J . L t: 3r hot u,_,5 I , `.Z . •. whether the right of eitiaanship entitles on to vot.? here, `e .'i, not. ta'l:in`.t about citizens Mr. iu "n r . We e. o ai`'ut .'ET:, and permanent, there is Mr. Krn)x: you ''an, Mr. t:lu;titl-r, _. wool `.i:;.rt.. 1.:1}.e and analogy I1ot between alien,:_ and native-born Ai`::'c_ ;'i.:=ans but between natural ze Americans and native- born Americans. Mr. = 1urm: r: 1 agree, I d. n't dioagree. Mayor Ferre: ct let's see, we aie asking about ::atu:.ulized American vs.native- born Axneri.:3:. , and you are telliacr :'i: that . ir'_.? is <: distinction? Mr. r'lum .^Cr. >`C'twe1'•., naturalized ,Cirt'?'t know l:ia!1dll'1• Mayor F_rrr0: FO:' f iC VCt1n j. .. . Mr. Plui:..'.'t'r: N.', Imt as fzi:" ✓otini= z., CCU:.::'.."`ed. Mayor Ferre: Well, but: then that's the proper_ analogy in :,:y opinion. Mr. Iut'Jlr:ei: Well, .let's ge.: back tc thi. which 1 think we are here for, okay? As J rend this thing from Juuc` Gail, unlens somebody can prove to me to the contrary, 1'.e says that: CETA employees who do not ha'J.'_ Civil Servcie status. Now, somebody tell :ne,where they do have, Civil Service status? Mr. Krause: Are you addressing a question to me, Commissioner? Mr. L'.anmer: No, I'm not addressing it to you. Terre: I'll recognize your little walk, won't be long now, we are getting tner_. Mr. Knox: All right. Based upon this Order, they don't have Civil Service status. Mr. Plummer: But they have Civil Service status without this Order. Well, I'm asking the question. Mr. Knox: The argument was.... Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, not the argument. I'm saying what it says here. In the only way that I, as a Commissioner, car. vote against this order and ask for appeal, is if somebody tells me that he has Civil Service status. Mr. Knox: Okay, that's one half of it and it does not represent a dilema and we would :u,t h._ve had Lo request d meeting it that was all there was to it.The other part of tY probier is, yes, the Charter says that those people shall participate in an election who have Civil Service status, period. The Court has determined that Civil Service status means just that. The other part of the problem; is,again, the Consent Decree. Why is the Consent Decree a problem? it is a problem because the Federal Court has already said that"To the extent that Charters, Rule:;, Regulations and any other local laws ::onflict with any provision of: any Federal mandate including a Consent Decree the eperat.ion of that complete ani local provision shall be suspended and eo:;sent C/ecrens and federally mandated Orders supersede any conflict.in local regulation" and that's wfut the problem is. DEC 081977 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Knox, when you wrote your opii.oh giving, let's say, the right of vote of Civil Service exuun to CETA employees, were you quoting from the Consent Decree or from the Charter? Mr. Knox: Well, what I was doing and which is...wel.l, what I was doing was reading the Chartein .light of the: Consent Decree and in lialnt of the conditions imposed upon the City by its acceptance of CETA funds. Mrs. Gordon: You didn't do that fc r the unclas_;i Ei c._i personnel, you've given them a leaser position with the City although they are pr:riranent and the CETA people are not t:ermanent because if CETA funds ere not renewed by Congress next year, all these folks are going to be out of positions. Mr. Plummer: 5o will we. Mr. Ki,o : Gordon, intcrpxctets of laws have roll pn..er at all to interpret a law when the intention, when the deliberations which led to the formulation of that law, are Ripon the record. And, again, as my legal opinion does indicate that the specific reason -while the Commission who was _iitt.ine at that time -put the question to the people of the City of tii•_mi in the form of a Charter provision, was that there was a distinction between unclassified and classified employees and the City Com- mission decided as a matter of policy which was concurred in by the people that, therefoie, only classified Civil Service personnel- not unclassified management types- shoald participate in the decisions which ware rendered by the Civil Service '.'_oa,i a,,d that had of sound logical premise because, again, Civil Service is designed to prevent against the abuse that many employees have distortly suffered by management types. And here you have a Board that consists of, at least, two individuals who are elected by those who they would have as constituents if you will. Mrs. Gordon: But you are still not explaining how your reasoning as it pertains to CETA does not pertain to the unclassified. I'ra not saying that the Charter doesn't say it. I read the Charter very well, but I'm saying you use a judgment factor in yuul analysis to allow CETA people to vore and that judgment factor is in conflict with the opinion you've given me on unclassified. Mr. KNox: But the judgment. factor, Mr:;. Gordon, in my opinion, was based upon some basis in law; for example, CETA was not considered in 1941 when that Charter pro- vision was written-- unclassified employees work -- and, therefore, the record will reflect a will and expression of a will concerning unclassified employees. :Mrs. Gordon: Then, why is it that you didn't take that portion of the Charter as it pertains to unclassified and use that as your guide in this case rather than the one you took? I mean is, again, a judgment factor and you, again, specified which I recognize you must at Your opinion.. I mean,,, in my opinion I think you are wrong. Mr. Plun,ier: Let me ask you one other question. Mr. Knox, is the reason we are here that you disagree with Section 2? Is that .;ally why we are here? Section 2, thatneither the Federal Comprehensive employee in training act nor the Consent Decree dated... but entered in the case United States of America, Plaintiffs vs. City of Miami Federal District Court, Southern District, prevents the City of Miami from duly and faithful compliance with the above Court in portion of Chapter 60 of the City Charter.... Mr. Knox: And your question is, do I disagree with that? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Knox: No, Sir, not at all. I'm concern about it from the point of view about violating the Consent Decree, that's all. I'm not concern about a duly.... Mr. Plummer: What did you way is we comply with the Consent Decree? Mr. Knox: I'm saying that there isa chance tl:eL a Federal :fudge could decide that we violate the Consent Decree by excluding CETA employees from the election. Mr. Plummer: Ac e you telling me -because I ' m •_jo; nj to tell you something if you're telling me this .friend ywe are in for one half of a road- that every little possible thing that comes up that we are liable to wied ..p in Federal Court? Washington hadn't got enough money to fly Padgett Squire down hero as many questions as it is being raised about this thing. I don't understand if you don't disagree and you're the 08 bEC 0 81977 City attorney, what the hell we arEv.heve? Mr. Knox: But as the City Attorney I have to concerned about our adherence to all of the law :lhat Tim aware of, then i df the Consent Decree and I am aware that c,n% c:f the CETA employees 'are anC I am aTeare tat, at least, it coulrl be argued arA a .Court could very we'll fin6 tnat these pooplo have been a rivers y affected by virtue of Pe iqy excluded 7rom an election. Zr, Pitiiiimer: But you personally d,,t1r11di ¶i r..ha rii:;' c.d. Sudg!.: Gail. Mr. Ynox: dcn't wari to ren.ricr my ..pe.tion;il o;)inicn. ?it'. Plummer, but we have.... Mx, Kill the City Attorney rr,n,',er a public. crOnion? 1 think it's a fair question, George. Mx. Knox: Yo'i F3Q0, what ,sotten I 've takeil that' s the re.asoh 1 nave to meet with tne have anything to dc with hrA: I feel as City Attorney or as hi,-f-an being. Mr. Pit: =2r. 17 r;ire ma::: a difence m, as to how yrm will fight the ‘2,3c. it you be:tiove ndnestly th fight.i a good an(1 riaht anci jost, that ea1l:3 you to flght as a tiger and if 1),:,11 thnk tnat you are being thrown there at the manclate of the Commission with sorerhintA you don't agree with, I'm sorry, you are human and won't fight it as hard. Mr. Knox: Now, if rtu wtsh, I believe trot there a relationship between thr. Consent Decree and the particiratior in an e3ection. 1 am not sure,but 1 do have some cl.,1Lstion that .-iould re resalvec by a 'hather or not that Court neos that the relationshili is adveLse. vney oc:u1 .../etoed us, it's not constitutinna] they con] say that basic right for CET?. e..lovees has bee: violated, basic right of miho,rity individual has been vioate::. Mr. Plummer; Are you recommending that:a, at this t'in:J, z4ppeal this case? Mx. Knx: No, Sir. Tit'i3 one of the 0licus C';‘1-.1. -1,1y he avai3ablr and, agan, I don't nav any problem at all with the 0:Jr excert that it merely to the Con,.ient Decree and not a Feder.-1 c.-uuti. I don't have any desile to appeal this decision but there is right now a penc::.ind bc,fo-ie Judge Paton, a motion asking h.im to c]arify the Consent Dcfcrce in linht of this. Mr. Plummer: But see, there is nothinc; wrong with that. Mr. Knox: T.11 right, and the only question is whether or not we will go to him on emergency basis and ask him to enjoin or postpone the election until he makes the determination. Mr. Plummer: But didn't you state that he was asked that this afternoon and said that didn't see anything in emergency about it? Mr. KI.ox: Right. But at the same time if the City Commission as a matter of policy., if the Commission says that as they see it is an emergency, then he might have a different opinion. Mr. Plummer: Who asked this afternoon? Mr. Knox: Who asked? Mx. Plummer: Who asked him this afternoon when he said he didn't considered it an emergency matter? Mr. The City Attorney. Mr. Plummer: Were you speaking for us? I sure hope you were. Mr. Knox: Well, of course. Mayor Terre: All right, any other questions of the Manager and the City Attorney? Mr. Kaidan: I am Joseph Kaplan and I reliresent these three plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit in this case resulting in the Order that you have in front of you. I'm goinq to be brief - all of the debate that needed to be made, of course, has 09 DEC 0 81977 • been made. The only concern that I have is that which occured late this afternoon when the City filed its motion for c1 rifieetien with the(:Federeal Court, that's my only concern and having been advised.... Mr. Plummer: Why? Why? Mrs. Kaplan: Well, I am concerned only be..ause I near understand that there are Justice people here and 1'd like to address statements not only to the Com- mission but to the Justice in one short fashion.... Mr. P1.unuuer : As to why you are eoeceri ed, Mr. Kaplan: Yes, Sir. I'm cancureej ham:: se we would like to admit that there was discrimination practice by the Juar;e in hi. ieci.ion,There was discrimination pract by Mr. Knox in his opinion to Mrs. Gordc.u. The discrimination by M. Kno;< in his opinion that secretaries can't. vote becau e ehee are unclassified was discrimination because of sex. The disc:rirninatiot; against th. CETA Employees is because they are underemployed, taey probably belong to minority groups. There was discrimination because, 1 mean, the was discrimiaation sesineL t.helr, its well. But the fact is that what xe must do is set wh thae il'it: kiea of t isr:a:imination that was leveled deainet the women secretaeie s ar.. t'.t ...elereeeloyed -CETA employees - vio- lated the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree :laps that this City cannot discrimi- nate, not because of any other reason except race, color, sex or national origin". The discrimination against the women secretaries was not because they were women but because they were unclassified. The diecritn2nation against the underemployed -perhaps minority employees in CETA- was not because they were black or Latin- American or Jews or any other recoctn1eed ;uinnrity group but because the discrimination is because they were unclassified. Now, ehis Judge iecognized that after vicious arguments by Mr. Knox and his whole staft is ay office. We argued it to the Judge, we argued it in brief of all the art;,a;r,eet.s and the Judge concluded - for it's quoted in the 3rd paragraph- that this Coeur. finds that inalementation of this Charter provision does not involve diseri..ninati.c+n because of race, color, sex or national origin but, I'm reading it into the Order, does involve discrimination as to whether err'loycee ar • car are not roeseete of Civil Service status. Now, there is nothing in even the Consent decree of a 'aedriai Law that prohibit discrimination because employed are not Civil berviee ea eloyL ee et:c; that is up to this Order. Now, is to whether these employees enjoy the same light without quoting it I would call your attention to the opinion of the City Attorney George Knox dated September 15, 1976 in an opinion expressed to the Director of the Office of Federal Employment and Training Program in a two -page: well thought out opinion. Your City Attorney can say this in response to these two questions. Are CETA participants subjected to Civil Service scrutiny such as Civil Service approval of personal actions? Are CETA participants subjected to Civil Service Rules and Regulations? And your City Attorney then said "upon my examination of the Federal Comprehensive Employment and Training Act which is CETA, on the Charter of the City of Miami, and it is my opinion that CETA participants are not subjected to Civil Service Rule and Regulations, that CETA participants a e not subjected to Civil Service approvals of personnel actions and that CETA personnel staff do not come out of Civil Service jurisdiction but rather are subject exclusively to the City Manager's Office". He goes on to say" the objection of the CETA law is to provide temporary public .employment to unemployed persons during high unemployment period and to provide trainii to enable its participants to obtain more permanent employment in either the private or public sector". He goes on to say "Since the Federal CETA Program does not fall under the jurisdiction of the municipalities Civil Service system, CETA employees are, therefore, unclassified, although Section 52 of the City Charter does not list CETA emaloyees as a category of unclassified employees, they are still unclassified. Since Federal Law precludes their classification under Civil Service, in this regard. it is fundamental to bear in mind that Federal Law takes precedent over the municipal Charter, so i.n December 19, 1976 it was the opinion of your legal staff that these people: are unclassified that they are nut covered uaader the Civil Service Regulations and thus we conclude that they may be discriminated against. Of course you may discriminate against in this, Who may you discriminate against? Secretaries. And you people, you are not covered under Civil Service, and other people such as MY. Grassie, other employees of the City, s>.:rel; yo've been discriminated, not because of race, color, sex or rational origin but because of their status, the Civil Service status. And 1 night add as a final ee:,t..ri, there are surely an awful lot of minority employees alto constitute 3,200 e1aesified employees whose right ought to be consiJerel as well. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, now we get to the eeeLion as to whether or not you have DEC 0 81971 any advise for us at this time, any advise from the City Attorney and from the City Manager. Mr. Knox: Well, I would give you a recomrn ndaticn from the I.aw Department and I will advise you what the probable result would be in the event of a certain Court's decision. It's my opinion that t.ha electicnn enul.d h ld pursuant to Judge Gail's Order and according to it:; terms. As I i.ndi(7ater3 ca'_:lii^Y, there is a question pending before the Federal Court and we've F_,een edvieed that: while Judge Eaton didn't regard this as an emergency matter, he would hear it in due course. Now, the question . once ac7ain, not from the poi;it of view of an advocate necessarily but from a point of view. on, on behalf of t:hc! City's interests in having the City eonformed to Federal Law. Thu quo ticn to bequeath Judge Eaton and the denial of the right of privileges of CETA employees to vote in a Civil Service Board election. That is the question. In the event: that the Judge determines CS to . exclude CETA employees, would violate the C nscnt Decree. The result of t'tnat would probably he that the election which is to be held tomorrow would be declared void and any decision which is made by the Board that sits pursuant to that election would also be declared void, and that's the only consequence of a decision like this. Mr. Plummer: It isn't wrong with us. Mayor Ferre: Then, there is nothing to be done here. Mr. Plummer: As far as I am concerned, I thin, what he has advised is really with the only alternative you've got. Certainly, whether regardless of what this Com- mission does. Mayor Ferre: Do you need anofficiai position of this Commission? Mr. Plummer: The Justice Department has the right to go in an ask for a clarification Mayor Ferre: it's that the question. Isn't it? Mr. Knox: We have no objection as to usk if it did.... Mayor Fcrie: I don't understand, are you saying you need a resolution on our part to do this? Mr. Knox: No, Sir, because I've advised you my intention and you haven't advised me.. Mayor Ferre: Anythin4 else? Does anybody else has any other questions to come before us? Mr. Plummer: The only question that I...well, not on this matter, but I want before everybody run I just want to get something right... Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Kaplan: No, you've got to close this meeting before I can ask my question. We would also just... in passing, also say that some of my clients believe they have no objections to CETA employees as a Civil Service status along with secretaries and everybody else. We hope everbody can be on the Civil Service status. Mrs. Gordon: I just wanted my point that I made to be taken in the light of my real concern with the letter to you, Mr. Knox, and your reply to me, and in the light of something else, and in your deliberations with regard to other matters , if you will then also clarify what I feel at this day with the correct opinion. Ms. Delores Kory: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, since I am a member of the affected class and an unclassified employee, I would hope that our City Attorney would be instructed to clarify upon our right to vote in the future too at the same time as the CETA. Mrs. Gordon: Ask to the Attorney with regard to his memorandum of December 7, for an analysis, again, in light of his deliberations with the Federal Court on that matter too. DEC 0 81977 Mayor Ferre: Anything else to colt before this Commission on this subject? Mr. Plummer: Mr.-Grassie, will ;you , ior my edification since I get back in town, my secretary is calling that there is , meeting today but nobody knows- clarify in my mind- our next meeting is on Wednesday for the purposes of budget. rt'Y. Grassie: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: At what time doe Ghat meeting start? Mr. Grassie: 8:30 A.M. Mayor Ferre: 8:30 A.M. And there is a stipulation to it , that is that Mrs . Gordon must be because she is making a speech in the afternoon. Mrs. Gordon: I'll be gone for one hour, if you have to meet before or after, I won't he gone longer than it takes to make the speech and I'll skip the lunch part- time. Mr. Plummer: As I was running out to the door, I got a memorandum from you statinc that reports o;: a71 lectures that you had anticipated was not coming forward and because of that it was going to be delayed two weeks. Does that have any bearinc: or, next Wednesday meeting? Mr. Gra::sie: I hope it will not, Commissioner. We had another meeting on that material today, this morning, and I expect that you should have a summary of all of those special alternatives in the mail to you tomorrow. nit. Plummer: That's good. Let me just run through it. Wednesday , 8:30 A.M. is budget. Thursday at 9:00 O'Clock is Regua]ar Commission,and that's all we have next week. Mr. Grassie: That is correct except that you have the Regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 7:00 O'Clock P.M. Thursday 15. Mr. Plur^mer: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: We all the members of the Commission have a medical appointment at 8:00 O'Clock in the morning and I think it's only fair.... Mr. Plummer: Which morning,Wednesday or Thursday? Mayor Ferre: Wednesday.Then I should put the meeting to start it at 9:00 A.M. rather than at 8:30 A.M. A11 right? Mrs. Gordon: I'm sure my appointment will be finished by then. Mayor Ferre: All right. 9:00 O'Clock in the morning. Has everybody hear that? 9:00 O'Clock A.M., Wednesday 14th of December. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City Commission, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P.M. ATTEST: RALPH G. ONGIE CITY CLERK VIATTY HIRAI ASSISTANT LITY CLERK MAURrICCE A, FERRE DEC 081977