Appendix — Richard W. Velde v. National Black Police Association, Inc.

a cr ate

Office-Supreme Court, U.S.

‘FILED

JUL 23 1981

ALEXANDER L. STEVAS,

—

In the Sup reme Court of the United Piates

No. 80-1074

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

v.

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. |

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

Volume Il

Petition for writ of certiorari filed December 29, 1980

Certiorari granted May 4, 1981.

Index to Appendix

District Court Docket Entries 1

Court of Appeals Docket Entries. 5

Second Amended Complaint (January 2, 1976)........ 11

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and

Writ of Mandamus (January 16, 1976) ........... 46

Affidavit of E. Richard Larson and Exhibits..... 51

Affidavit of Penelope Brace and Exhibits........ 219

Affidavit of Ollie Glover and Exhibits ........... 226

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judg-

ment (February 9, 1976ù)0 n.. 234

Affidavit of Richard W. Velde and Attachment 1. 236

Affidavit of Edward H. Levi and Attachment 3 .. 247

Affidavit of Charles W. Work and Attachments .. 251

Affidavit of Herbert C. Ricſcgtgkce . 262

Statement of Reasons (excluding attachments and

appendikpß ). 265

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

or for Summary Judgment (March 24, 1976) ..... 304

Statement of Genuine Issues? 309

Affidavit of E. Richard Larson Pursuant to Rule

BED cccvcccccdeccadccbccvesstensecescesoe 340

Affidavit of Bruce Bailey and Exhibits .......... 346

Affidavit of Kristen Heemstra and Exhibits ..... 423

Affidavit of Kent McKinney and Exhibit A ...... 441

Affidavit of Penny Orazetti and Exhibit ......... 451

Affidavit of Roberta Ledy ard 458

Affidavit of Robert Booth and Exhibits ......... 462

Affidavit of Jennie McAllister and Exhibits...... 476

Affidavit of E. Richard Larson Pursuant to Rule

PPP A A 493

Order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari ... 495

ge , . SIPPWRY OF AVAPDS OY FUND TYPC AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONPONENTS

i (in thousands of dollers as of 7/31/75)

Total Police Obligation Z Obligation *

Police Courts Corrections Courts, Corrections Authority Authority Represented

1949 ,

* Block ; 16,205 79% 1.81 82 2.9 13% 233098

„ ton Block 4,490 66% 7 496 7% 1,944 27% 6,030 .

' Total 22,775 76% 2,377 0% 4,776 168. 29,928 + 60,000 50%

1970 : ;

+ Block 119,972 63% 14,473 82 50,939 20% * 175,404

Hon Block 24,599 62% 4,595 112 10,718 27% 39 ,622 0

Tote 135,57) 63% 18,970 92 60,757 238% 215,306 267,937 =. 307

1971 : °

Block 377,203 8% 40,249 112 135,951 %% 353,392 ‘

Won Block 35,618 Ws 10,148 10% 59,193 Sit 194,959

Total 212,021 46% 50,196 11% _ , 195,944 43% . 450,261 520,954 872

a ; |

a Block 21,951 46 72,928 17% 159,499 37% . 473.07

hon Block (4,22 42 22,901 15% 64,601 43% 151,724

Total 266,133 . 46% 95,429 162 224,089 30% 505,65] 698,723 ut

1973 me: ;

Block 216,455 47% 72,731 16% 170,708 37% 459,894

y Non Block: 69,943 34% ' 33,196 102 09,740 44% 103,09

Total, 203,390 44% 1%5,917 17% 251,448 39% 643,763 841,166 77%

174 —C: :

Bloc 163,319 44% 76,151 2% 134,7 34% Na,

tion Block 4.592 37% 21,796 13% 94. 0% 55% 170,474

Total 217,911 40% 97,947 Ins 229,703 42% 544,861 870,526 62%

1975

Block 22.730 452 15,615 19% 26,611 39% 0} 556

Hon Neck £9,174 Ws 36,139 21% - 77,759 45% 173,971

Total 95,504 5 51,754 20% 104,349 412 254,627 662,171 302

* Total

Block 927,415 49% 293,627 15% 6AN,246 361 1.901, 200

tion Block 312,690 3ns 129,171 155 383,949 47% 830,309 °

ö Total 1.2%, 45% 422,798 162 1,069,106 39% 2,732,097 _ 4,929,477 re

209

LEAA NON-ALOCK gears pace 3

TO CITY LEVEL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, SPECIFIC CITIES 06/19/75

r: . AWARD AMOUNT? - cu % HISTORY?

A m CERENDFA FILE $124,395 o TL MF = $1245 95

a ett KAYE AND ADDRESSs GANT . PROJECT Hot crosa:

ot POLICE deer. 710 091067 att HART © RAYMOND RACH, NEP. CHIEFS

455 SEVENTH STREET

n gt un c 94607

PENJELT SUMMARYS '

THE FORLANO KNOWN OFFENDER FILE WILL PF COMPUTERIZED. TT WILL PONVINE INVESTIGATIVE LEANS, THERESY CREATING AN [HCPFASE IN cet

TLEACAMTE GATES, THERE ATLL BE AN INTERFACE BETWEEN THE CNYOUTEF AND A HIGH SPEFD MICANEILS RETOLEVAL SYSTES COUTAINING

eee AND FINGEPPOINTS, THE'MATS CETRIEVAL PECGEAM WILL PE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM PRACTICAL FLEXISILITY SM "HAY aur

COMPINATICK SF FILE ELEMENTS HAV RE EMPLOVED AS SEAPCH CARAMETERS, THE SYSTEM WILL HAVE ®EGIONAL US® 4% RE AVAILANE AS & SERVICE

YO Lad ERFDACEMENT AGENCIES IN THE OAKLAND METEOPMLITAN APEA, THIS PPNONSAL, IN THE AMDUNT OF $126,395 FITS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF

PRICPAY C--{MPAOVED POLICE SFBVICES AND OPERATIONS LINCLUDING POLICE/COMYUNITY RELATICNS) AS NESCIISEO IN LEGA FY-71 GUIDE FOR

iet tesa GRANT PAGEAMS. IT IS A LARGE CITY SPFCITAL GOANT AND IS SUTHORIZED AY ©.L. 90-351, d AMENNEN,

“ETLES AWARD AMOUNTS FUNDING “ISTORYs

WINOCFELTY BECPUITING PROGPAM FOR THE BAY AREA REGION $37,618 o 72 «OF $30,618

Lhd SNTEE wane ann ANOF ESS? GRANT NO. PACJECT Mer c rs:

Steh FOLICE DEPARTMENT ' 720 999051 HIWARN OILSAVERSLT. MF POLICE

49% SFEVEK*H STREET

CA<L aNd ca 94607

PE JECT SUYYARYS a

t ee PAOPES AL IS FOR A PECTONAL MINORITY RECEUITMENT POOGPAY, THE OAKLAND POLICE OFPAQTMENT, IN COO>FOATION KET THE 44%

FPARETSCC, SFAKELEY AND RICHYENA POLICE NEDARTMENTS, WILL SPONSOR THE CBNJECT. @ANIN, TELEVISION 4% AUTON ria BILL RE UTLEZEO

FIN MUPL TE SERVICE MESSAGES. THE FILMS AND TAPES TC HE USED IK THE OPNZECT WILL SE DEVTLOPEN AV 4 PANEESSION AL ADVE 41812 astnty

WET & PEChIN DF SUCCESS IM MESIGHING MINDALTV<NETENTED 40 CAWPAIGNS. ALL 6014 ADS WILL AT „ee t- eee Terre „ef A.

Innen PY THE PROSPECTIVE BPPLICANTS AND THE SUSS®CUIENT FOLLOW-UP BY RECRUITERS WILL SE GOEATLY SIMPLIEFIFD AY THIS 348 f.

tte CINTALTS PEGARNING POLICE EMPLOYMENT WILL RE MADE BY THE AGENCY WITH JUZISTOICTION OVF2 THe AREA IN WHICH oe COTENTIAL

cere (IVES. acrive PaeTtir 1977 ICN IN THE PROGE AM Wee AE LIMITED 70 THE Four 1186525 Vaa ax Lad EMF DACE MENTS 47 CIES IN THE

r SMALLER POLICE otes sr IN SATFLLITE CITIES WILL PECEIVE REFERRALS WHEN THE PROSPECT LIVES witnHIn THETR

b e 0

citve RIC HROND

Best Copy Available

211

„Tess NON-ALOCK GeanTs 0 act *

ro CITY LEVEL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, SPECEFIC etre 06/19/75

TITLES AWARD APCUNTS FUNDING HISTORYS

iron POLICE DEPT. PSYCHIATRIC AIDE a $10,099 . W 70 oF $10,900

GAWATEE t %% AVE Ant y 0 GRANT e.: PROJECT Hees craa:

en PFLICE DEPT, TON 090166 ata A, Mann

„eit NE JUSTICE 1315

ite ; CA 94804 f rs,

L

PPX JECT SUMManys ne

0 Sele Oe Te ERENT UNAES THE PIOVISICNS OF LEAMA PCLICE POFFESSTONAL AIDES CATEGORY NF THE bi scze r our ge 18 o u «THE

22 g CF THIS PROCPAM et TO Fre % AND FACILITATE THE EEFOPTS OF THE RICHYINO POLICE IN THE ad 88 AF CMYUNETY OF LATIONS, |

DESSENVEL SELECTICNY AND REHAVIQFAL TRAINING. A SPECTAL PUSOOSE CF THIS ORTGRAM I$ TO DEMONSTRATE 44 APOICPE TATE YOrEL FN POLICE

FONSI TATION. FOR THE PAST TH es e. SCHWOPTZ HAS REEN VPLUNTEERING CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE dice POLITE. THIS MEANS

THA" THE COLA TPENT 15 FAMILIAR WITH SOME DF THE USFS OF A PSYCHIATRIC AINE ONO aut tas wtTH da. Fc AH PFESONALL YS 17 4150

PEANS Z et TS 1 WITH LAW ENFCPCEMEN™ PERCEQURES JN GENECAL AND THE MEN ON THE RICHMOND ENGCE I PAPTIC LAR.

ers FACTORS GIVE THIS ea AN EFFECTIVE THO YEAR “HESDSTART® OVER REGINNING PROGRAMS. ‘IN ANOITION, THE MESTANST ANN SUSPICION

BTR MICH SCLICE OFTEN PEGARD MSHPINKS® WILL NOT TEVELCP DURING THIS ee Ad, RECAUSE “ANY MEN AN THE RICHMOND POLICE oer

SL4ESNY KNDW THE CONSULTANT QUITE WELL. . THE PICHMOND POLICE DEPAPTMENT AND THE CITY GF RICHMOND WILL AnTH AFNFFIT FEOM THES

Pe 6a. ee 7

THE PICHWOD PALICE FEPARTMENT 15 APOLYING FOR Funds ro EMOLOV NP, JTEFAEY A. SCHWARTZ, & CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, AS A PSVOMTATRIC

TILES AWAQD AMCUNT? FUNOING HISTNav:

POLICE MELICOOTEF® Patan, tm PENCE Came RATE-RICHYC ND $150,C00 0 71 «OOF $150,000

GIAKTEE KING AND ANOPESS: GANT N. PROJECT NISECTOAS

rieren COUNCIL On CPIMINAL JUSTICE a

1170 = 14TH ST@EET 5 .

14 AYENTO CA 95A16 | ,

PAVIFTT SuvMaays

SIVVAAY OFSCOLPTICN MF roter: THY GIANT, IN THE AMOUNT oe $150,300, 18 0% THE CITY NF RICHMOND TH FS % 4 „

PATOL TF „ct cee, STATISTICS INMICATE THE CITY TC HAVE & COIME PATE THAT 15 THIGN HIGHEST i THE MATLOKN, tye PPOSECT wie

USS TJ "WELICOPTE®, TAIN FOJR PILOTS OND TWO ORSERVERS, AKO PPOVIDE FULL HELICOPTE® eaten rn ere io af *HELVE MONTHS, IT 15

587 TED Tad THE Oat AM It ese e es TIME 1, 5, IN less, ice tf THE een, bas d CHIME SCENES,

INCPFOSE THE 114255 Jo ehe ING SUSREGT) IMPROVE pater, A AND SECURITY, AYO e ae idee SCOPE OF PATEL IW RENDTE

10 r 090691 „ asg 4, neu

MICE WELICQOT ES

' S$

AN? O°MEOUISE access tat ARES 17047 PEnsFC ' gers ee Ato 14415 TTY sec cines PROGRAM, OF] shee to FFF 79 REDUCE

ST7EET ENO VIOLENT CRIME MP CONCERTED nad AGAINST POPTIPIL AR CUIMEE SUCH A$ AURCLARY, poangny, 1044.4 2% nνπν as 49

dt scsiete IY a FY TC uin Ene cr GPANT Proce AN I. as dine BY SECTION 10% Pot, 90-384, :

Best Copy Available

213

7 LEAS NON-PLOCK cents Pace 3

. r CET REVEL ONFORCEMENT AGENCIES. SPECIFIC CITIES 90/19/79

4 ba 2 AWARD AMOUNTS ng HISTORY:

CLCHMINE POLICE HELICOPTER PaTerL $75,000 o 72, OF $75,000

eurer KREWE AND 400 F381 GRANT 0.1 PANJECT otefcros :

PICHYOND Kict DEP AGT MENT 720F 999919 LOUPN 6. PHELPS

HALL OF yuUSTICE

PICHHMOND é CA 94904

pengert suvwanys

TME CITY JF RICHMOND HAS PFCEIVED A FEPESAL OISCRETICNARY GANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 FROM LEAA TO IMPLE*FAT PCLICE MELICOPTER

PATOL, THE FEMERAL car WILL tte tet ON 23 AUGUST 11. ALE THIS GANT WILL ALLOW THE CITY OF teu TH EXTEND ONICE

MELICOPTER PATSCL FOR & PERICN OF che VEAR TO 23 cus 1972. cue GOAL TS TO SUPPLEMENT. POLICE GAWIND OTIOL WITH POLICE afetar

Parrr. IN BN EFFORT TO PROVIDE GETTER OPNLICE SESVICES TO THE CITY MF RICHMNND. WE INTEND TO PROWIDE A POSITIVE cee NETCAZENT

T4QMIGH THE USE OF THESE MATL SERIAL ORSERVATION PLATFORMS. THE [MPACF NF THE “AICHYOND POLICE HELICOPTER esta 084 IS

OLSECTEN BF zue EROPMOUS CAINE PATE, AND OUR EVALUATICN CF THE PROG@AP WILL BE BASED ON THAT IMPACT WITH cee CONSICE®ATION OF

COST EFFECTIVENESS. OU® INTENTION is ra PROVIDE 2,926 HCURS OF Niet HELICOPTER PATROL DURING THE PERION OF THIS can.

* .

TITLES ° AWARD AMOUNTS FUNDING HISTOaYs

v Mu SERVICES PROGGAM: DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM $25,099 no 72 » $25,000

ab. EH Maur AND 200 531 GRANT NO. PAYJECT MIRECTOR:

PILMENED POLICE DEPART RENT r 029023 Tu, G. PHELPS

att ME JUSTICE

PITHMIVD CA 9406

PEN IFLT sunset:

THE e rern POLICE CEP AS TWENT SCECOGNIZFD THAT THE Ficus INCREASE OF DRUG-REL ATED ARRESTS. ESPECIALLY IN THE 1 “IJOTL

er Gars. APF CPEATLY AFFECTING “HE CPEFATIONS CF THE DEPAPTMENT, THE DEPARTYENT HAS STUNTED THE FINDINGS NE NerG-aauseE

ERPFETS BKN HAS CONELUNEM HAT A PEOCGRAY COMAINING FOUCATIC? S319 REHARILITATION 16 THE AEST nstc TT THE NA ernte wHItH

FICUSES UPIN YOUNG PENPLFE IN THE POMEL NETGHADSHOND, THIS PECJECT PSLONSES THE ESTASLISHYENT OF & TPG ADISE SPE TEL IS™. „ WEEE

St? VE AS THE EXPERT JN MIS AGEL FOO THE VSP, Motu SERVICES POCGPAM, CURPENTLY IY OPERATING tene THE CONTAIM ME Tee e COSTA

PLIP ATION NEPAATHENT,IN THE MODEL NE TGHACEHNIN. HIS POINCIPAL FUNCTIONS WILL ic EMICATIONIL. HE WILL OF VELOC „ 14 % 1797 423058

CLASS A4T-CONTRA COSTA CULEGE oe EDUCATORS IN tear Sc IN THE PONTL NEIGHENKHOOD N 4. HE WILL 4457 rote 0

TMA7LEMERT IN@-SCRVICE TESERING FOP SCHOPL CRINSELOPS,. WHO CURPENTLY LACK SPFCIFIC EXPERTISE, VET ASE Ia KEY POSITIWW TO DEAL with

OND. RELATE ta DRUG USEPS IN SCHOOLS. 85 A RESULT. FAC MODEL NEIGHANRHNOD SCHCOL WILL MAVE AT LEAST ONE COUNSELS? wd CON SERVE as

A OFUR PRPORLEM PESOUPCF. C8JG EDUCATION IN icon ts SCHOCLS WILL RE IMPROVED AS THE SPECIALIS® WILL %2vEL CP i,

rss ICULUM, dont Monat TRAINING WILL BE HELO FOP REMAINING STAFF OF THE VSP WHICH WILL at COMMUNITY, oale ste o.

STATES Ga Best Copy Available

215

LEAA SUBCRANTS, FY 72 = 16, Oeuf . °

TO CITY LEVEL ENPCRCEMENT AGENCIES. SPECIOIC CITIES 9717

JUVENILE DELIRQUEACY PREVENTION SAC CCATACL PACJECT

GRANTEE NAME AND ACORESS: AWARD AMOUNT? LEAA GRANT NUMAER? STATE GRANT NUMPLK:

OARLAAD PGLICE OEP SRIMENT $236,000 7340080253 4117-3

PULICE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

455 SEVENTH STREET

OAKLAND, Ca 946007 g

PROJECT surunsa v: * .

THE MCOEL JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROJECT (THRESHOLOS) 1S A COMMUNITY BASED PROJECT THAT WILL tot & VEARLE

ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRESENT JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. YCUTH WILL BE REFERRED TO THE PRUUECT BY PFPPESENTATIVES GF JUVENILE JUSTICE

AGENCIES, TAKUET HA cross, CKUPCHES, CRUG PROGRAMS, RESIOLNTS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS. THROUGH THE UTILEZATICN SF Ex-OFFENCERS

AND WON EX“OFFENDERS AS STREETWORKERS» THRESHCLUS WILL PROVIDE COUNSELING, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, ECONCMHIC, AND LiUCATiC.an activities.

THE STREET WCKKERS WILL CRAW UPON THEIR VAST KACWLEOGE OF TRE STREETS IN DEVELOPING PUSITIVE APPRUACHES 16 Ste vOUutmM. i 5S cu

AIM TO PROVICE CIRECT SERVICES 10 2c YOUTH. 7 a °

* *

city. RICHMOND

NEW POLICE CAREER LINES = IMPROVED PULICE CCPKUNITY RELAT

GKANTEE NAME AND ACURESS: AWARC AMOUNT? LEAA GRANT NUMBER: STATE GRANT core:

RICHMCAD PCLICE DEPARTMENT $25,000 Za 0623 474712

WALL OF JUSTICE

RICHMCNC, Ca

PROJECT SUMMARY?

THES PROJECT WILL ALLOW THE RICHMCAD PCLICE DEPARTFENT CT stet su, OK AN EXPERIMENTAL BASISs A JOM POSITIUN E%TETE "9 COeMUNITY

SEVVICE OFFICER. THIS PROJECT BILL ACCOMPLISH THREE MAJOR USJECTIVES! 1. COMMUNITY SERVICE UFFICEKS (CS0S) BILL CR STE ste Tre ES

OF CCPMUNITY SERVICES. 2. CUMPUAITY SERVICE CFFICERS WILL BE 4 SOURCE OF PRETRAIKED MINU®ITY RECRUITS. 3. COMMENT TV SEOVICE

OFFICERS WILL RELIEVE SWOKN OFFICERS CF SOME MINGR PATRUL OUTIES 50 THAT THEY WILL HAVE MORE TIME TO CUMDAT 521% cet. THES

PROPOSAL CETAILS tet THIKC YEAR CF THIS PHCJECT. °

Best Copy Available

217

Best Copy Available

LEAA SUBGRANTS, PY 11 fe, . PAGE .

TO CITV LEVEL ENFURCEMENT AGENCIES, SPECIFIC CITIES 08/19/7T>

/

RICHMOND PCLICE OLPARIMENT PSYCHIATRIC AICE ;

GuHANTEE NAME ANDO ACORESS: AWARC AMCUNTS LEAS GRANT NUMBER: STATE cast nere:

RICHPCAD PCLICE OFPARIMENT $7,0C0 ZA nοt 4810-72

MALL OF JUSTICE

RICWHCNO, (a

PROJECT SUMMARYS

ThE RICHMCND PULICE DEPARIPENT PROPUSES TC COATIAVE ITS ONGOING PSYCHIATRIC AIOE eccaan FOR 4 1% VEAR, THE Feten OM UECTIVES

GF THE PSYCHIATRIC AICE OURING THIS eiae YEAR WILL BE THE IPPLEMENTATIUN OF KECOMPLAUATICNS ARISING FROM THE WIC OPAC POLICE

DEPAKTMENT TKAINIAG AAD EOLCATION SURVEYS THE CCNTINUSTION GCF TRE DEPARTMENT®S MIACRITY RECRUITMENT COM*ETIFES Trt cent e OF ay

EVALUATION OF THE OEPARIMENT*S SELECTION PROCEDURES WHICH 1S CURRENTLY IN PROGKESS: THE cor ib io OF AD4IKISIVATIVE CONSULTATION

TO THE CHIEF CF PCLICES THE PSYCHISTRIC AICE WILL ALSC MAINTAIN A PRIMAKY RULE IN PROGRAM PLANKING.

RICHMCAD PCLICE DEPT CRIME SPECIFIC? BURGLARY PROJECT eo

GRANTEE NAME AND ACORESS: AWARC AMCUNTs LEAS GRANT NUMBERS STATE Gant NUMHEE

CITY OF RICHMOND POLICE DEPARIMENT $17C,uCco 7T2A00R 1314 4947-72

WALL CF JUSTICE

RICHPCND, Ca

PROJECT SUMMARYS

THE RICHMCND PULICE OSPARTWENT PROPOSES TO SPPLY FOR FUNDS FACM THE LAW ENFORCEMEKT ASSISTANCE AOMINISTRATICN Via THE cat toast

COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FUR THE LPPLEMEATATION OF A CRIME SPECIFICS G6URGLARY PROUIAM. THIS PRILGRAM, Fecus t 1.00% ThE

REOUCTION OF RESIOFNT IAL ANC COMMERCIAL BURCLARIES WITRIN ThE TOTAL CITY, WILL ENCCKPASS THE FOLLOWING CASIC „tas: sie

ECUCATION AND AWAKENESS» IMPRUVEO SECURITY METHCOSs IMPROVED INVESTIGATIONAL METHUDULOGYs IMPHUVEO SURVEILLANCE TECHREICUESs AND

CECREASING TYE STOLEN PERCHANCISE RECEIVER PARKET.

a icq POLICE ODEFARTMEAT INFORMATICA AKC CCMMC CENTER

GRANTEE NAME AND ACORESS: 1 AhARD AMCUNT? LEAA GRANT NUMBER? STATE GRANT NUMAES:

RICPPCAO PCLICE DEPARTMENT $49,006 73A06R0108 41391-73

HALL CF JLSTICE |

271TH ANO NEVIN AVE

RICHMCNO, CA 94804

PROJECT SUPMARYS '

THE RICHMCNO PULICE DEPARTMENT PHOPOSES TO APPLY FCR FUNDS FROM THE Law ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AMMINISTAATION VIA THE CeLteoenta

COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, TO REPLACE ITS CURKENT CYSFUACT ILNAL COMMUNICATIUNS AND INFCRPATICN SYSTEM, ½% Perse: sen SYSTE™ ent

PROVIDE FUR SEPARATE PULICE AND FIRE CISPATCH FUNCTICAS AKC MAKE AVAILABLE & SCO GHAPAEL FUE N. SFEVICE © 18. THE 6c

CHANNEL WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR ARES-WICE WEST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CULLAWORATIVE USAct.

219

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

75 Civ. 1444

Judge Corcoran

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

AFFIDAVIT

State of Pennsylvania )

) ss.

County of Philadelphia)

PENELOPE BRACE, being duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am a named plaintiff in the above-styled case.

2. I am a female citizen of the United States and a resi-

dent of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

3. I have been employed as a police officer (designated as

a “policewoman”) with the Philadelphia Police Department

since 1965.

4. The Philadelphia Police Department, as of November

1974, employed 8,245 sworn police officers, of whom only 74

(or .9%) were female.

5. Of nineteen job classifications for sworn officers in the

Philadelphia Police Department, only four classifications,

authorizing the employment of 86 females, are open to fe-

males: policewoman captain (1), policewoman lieutenant

(2), policewoman sergeant (4), policewoman (79). The re-

maining fifteen sworn job classifications, authorizing the

220

employment of 8,276 males, are open only to males. Thus

only 1.03% of the sworn officers may be female.

6. All of the female officers are permanently assigned to

the Juvenile Aid Division, although some of them are

temporarily assigned to other divisions or units such as the

Community Relations Division or the Civil Affairs Unit. No

female sworn officer, regardless of rank, is permitted to su-

pervise any male sworn officer on a permanent basis,

whether within or without the Juvenile Aid Division.

7. The Philadelphia Police Department has no program

for recruiting female applicants. No female sworn officer

has ever been permanently assigned to the Personnel De-

partment for recruitment purposes. Advertising programs

conducted on behalf of the Department are designed to at-

tract male applicants.

8. Since the beginning of my employment in 1965, I have

continuously received “superior” and “outstanding” per-

formance evaluations. Most recently, on June 6, 1973, I re-

ceived a “superior” evaluation. Prior to July 18, 1973, I had

never received any reprimand or been charged with any

misconduct in connection with the performance of my du-

ties as a “policewoman.”

9. On July 18, 1973, I filed a sex discrimination charge

with the EEOC against the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment.

10. On July 20, 1973, I mailed a similar charge of em-

ployment discrimination based upon sex to LEAA. In that

charge I requested “LEAA [to] consider holding up funding

for the Police Department in Philadelphia, until such time

as my complaint is resolved.”

11. Five days later, on July 25, 1973, I was reassigned

from the Juvenile Aid Division to the West Division, the di-

vision which is located farther from my home than any oth-

er division.

12. From approximately August 30, 1973, through ap-

proximately October 3, 1973, I was placed under surveil-

lance by the Internal Security Division of the Philadelphia

Police Department, a division under the direct supervision

of Police Commissioner Joseph O'Neill.

221

13. By letter dated October 2, 1973, I was informed that

I was to report for a “special psychiatric examination.”

14. On November 7, 1973, I submitted an application for

the positions of police corporal and detective. By letter dat-

ed December 24, 1973, from the Personnel Department of

the Philadelphia Police Department, I was advised that I

did not meet the requirements for the positions of police

corporal or detective because I was not employed as a “po-

liceman.”

15. On November 26, 1973, the Philadelphia Police De-

partment filed a statement of charges initiating dismissal

procedures against me. On January 9, 1974, a hearing on

the charges filed against me was held by the Department’s

Board of Inquiry.

16. On February 12, 1974, I filed a complaint in the

United States District Court alleging unlawful sex discrimi-

nation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 and of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Philadel-

phia and its officials, Brace v. ONeill, No. 74-339 (E. D.

Pa., filed Feb. 12, 1974).

17. Three days later, on February 15, 1974, I was fired

from my employment by the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment.

18. On appeal to the Civil Service Commission of the

City of Philadelphia, I was reinstated on May 17, 1974. I

continue to be employed as and currently am a police officer

with the Philadelphia Police Department.

19. In response to my July 20, 1973 letter to LEAA, I

received a letter dated August 7, 1973 from Herbert C.

Rice stating that an “investigator” would be assigned to my

complaint.

20. On August 9, 1973, I spoke by phone with Mr.

Mahoney, an investigator for LEAA. Mr. Mahoney stated

that LEAA would not suspend funding to the Philadelphia

Police Department.

21. Shortly thereafter, during August, 1973, I wrote a

letter to Mr. Henry Tribble, then Chief Investigator for

LEAA, enclosing an article wherein Philadelphia Mayor

222

Frank Rizzo was quoted as opposing equal employment for

female sworn officers in the Philadelphia Police Depart-

ment. In my letter to Mr. Tribble, I wrote that I was “ea-

ger to talk to your investigators.”

22. On September 28, 1973, I spoke by phone with Philip

Bowen, an investigator for LEAA. Mr. Bowen indicated

that he was monitoring my charge and that he would meet

with me personally as soon as he obtained any information

from the Philadelphia Police Department.

23. On or about October 24, 1973, I met personally with

Mr. Bowen and Mr. Tribble, representatives of LEAA,

whereupon we discussed my sex discrimination complaint

against the Philadelphia Police Department.

24. On November 8, 1973, I visited the office of my con-

gressman, Representative William J. Green. On November

30, 1973, Representative Green wrote to Herbert C. Rice

encouraging action by LEAA’s Office of Civil Rights Com-

pliance. In response to his letter, Representative Green re-

ceived a letter dated December 28, 1973 from Donald

Santarelli, then Administrator of LEAA and the predeces-

sor in office of Richard W. Velde, stating that the LEAA’s

“Office of Civil Rights Compliance has begun an investiga-

tion of Ms. Brace’s complaint” and that “discussions are be-

ing held with Philadelphia officials with the goal of expedi-

tious resolution of this matter.”

25. Meanwile, on November 28, 1973, I informed Mr.

Bowen of LEAA that formal charges had been filed against

me by the Philadelphia Police Department. On December 5,

1973, Mr. Bowen advised me that the Department's

charges were being dropped. On December 6, 1973, Mr.

Bowen similarly advised my lawyer, Steven Waxman, that

the charges were being dropped. On January 4, 1974, I in-

formed Mr. Bowen that the charges had not been dropped

and that the hearing was scheduled for January 9, 1974.

26. By letter dated February 4, 1974, from Herbert C.

Rice, I was informed that the City of Philadelphia had

failed to undertake “voluntary compliance with the civil

rights laws and regulations affecting the Philadelphia Police

Department as a recipient of funds from the Law Enforce-

223

ment Assistance Administration.” [A copy of the letter is

attached hereto as Exhibit A].

27. Thereafter, on February 19, 1974, a week after I had

filed my own lawsuit, the Department of Justice also filed a

complaint in the United States District Court for the East-

ern Division of Pennsylvania alleging unlawful sex discrimi-

nation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 against the City of Philadelphia and its officials,

United States v. City of Philadelphia, No. 74-400 (E.D.

Pa., filed Feb. 19, 1974).

28. On or about September 25, 1974, the Philadelphia Po-

lice Department announced that it intended to establish a

“Pilot Project” whereby it would temporarily employ

twenty-two females as police officers with the same duties

and responsibilities of the more than 6,000 “policemen”

then assigned to patrol sector work. Although more than

2,500 female applicants responded to the announcement,

the Department did not implement the program.

29. The consolidated trials of Brace v. ONeill, supra,

and United States v. City of Philadelphia, supra, were

scheduled to commence on January 27, 1975. Several weeks

earlier, in the first week of January, I believe that LEAA

awarded two $1,000,000 discretionary grants to the

Philadelphia Police Department.

30. In the meantime, the consolidated federal court trials

were delayed several days beyond January 27, 1975, while

the United States Department of Justice, without my par-

ticipation, discussed settlement with the City of Philadel-

phia.

31. On January 29, 1975, the United States Department

of Justice entered into an agreement with the City of

Philadelphia whereby the Police Department would hire an

“experimental” recruit class, 50% of whom would be women

who would be assigned to patrol sector work and whose

work performance would be compared with that of the men

as an “aid to the court.” The agreement negotiated by the

United States Department of Justice made no reference to

the issues of promotion and back pay raised by me in my

lawsuit. Although I refused to sign the agreement, the

224

Court granted a continuance of at least six months in both

cases, pending the outcome of the “experimental” recruit

class.

32. The “experimental” recruit class agreed to by the

United States Department of Justice has yet to be imple-

mented by the Philadelphia Police Department. I believe

that the Police Department, however, has received approv-

al in the past few weeks to receive another $1,000,000 in

LEAA funding.

33. I believe that Philadelphia Police Department has re-

ceived in excess of $8,000,000 in LEAA funding. LEAA has

terminated LEAA funding to the Philadelphia Police De-

partment for civil rights non-compliance.

/s/

" PENELOPE BRACE

Sworn to before me this day of September, 1975.

/s/

ERNEST J. GALLO

Notary Public

225

BRACE AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C. 20530

February 4, 1974

Mrs. Penelope Brace

5004 F Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19124

Re: 74-—C-007

Dear Ms. Brace:

This letter is in regard to your complaint of sex discrimi-

nation against the Philadelphia Police Department and your

subsequent complaint of retaliation and harassment.

Discussion and correspondence with officials of the City

of Philadelphia have not resulted in a commitment by these

officials to undertake significant steps to achieve what this

agency believes to be voluntary compliance with the civil

rights laws and regulations affecting the Philadelphia Police

Department as a recipient of funds from the Law Enforce-

ment Assistance Administration.

Accordingly, this letter is to advise you that LEAA has

referred this matter to the Civil Rights Division of the De-

partment of Justice for such action as it deems appropriate.

Sincerely,

/s/

HERBERT C. RICE,

Director

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

226

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

75 Civ. 1444

Judge Corcoran

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

Vv.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

AFFIDAVIT

State of California )

) ss.

County of Contra Costa)

OLLIE S. GLOVER, being duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am a named plaintiff in the above-entitled case.

2. I am a black citizen of the United States and a resi-

dent of Richmond, California.

3. I have been discriminated against by the Richmond

Police Department.

4. The Richmond Police Department employs approxi-

mately 178 sworn police officers, of whom only 24 (or ap-

proximately 11.3%) are black. According to the 1970 cen-

sus, the population of the City of Richmond was 36.2%

black. Upon information and belief, the current population

of the City of Richmond is 40% black.

5. All but three of the black officers hold the entry-level

rank of patrolman. Of those black officers above the rank of

patrolman, all three are sergeants (of a total of twenty-six

sergeants). There are no black captains or lieutenants. It

227

was not until 1967 that any black officer was promoted

above the rank of patrolman.

6. Until 1960, there were only two black police officers in

the Richmond Police Department. These two officers were

assigned duties on a racial basis, were assigned to the most

undesirable shifts, and were denied membership in the Po-

lice Officers Association.

7. Applicants for entry-level employment as a patrolman

are required to pass a written test, among other require-

ments. In November, 1974, the most recent occasion on

which the test was obtained, 79% of the white applicants

passed the test while only 30% of the black applicants

passed. The written test has never been professionally vali-

dated to determine its validity, predictive or otherwise, as

a measure of job performance for the job of patrolman.

8. Other entry-level selection criteria include a 5'7” mini-

mum height requirement, the consideration of arrest rec-

ords, and a background investigation. On information and

belief, each of these criteria has had a discriminatory im-

pact (either race or sex), and none has been professionally

validated to determine its validity, predictive or otherwise,

as a measure of job performance for the job of police offi-

cer.

9. Police officers who seek promotion to the rank of ser-

geant must have four years experience as a patrolman (or

three years experience if the officer holds a graduate de-

gree), and must rank among the top twelve in an examina-

tion consisting of a written test (weighted 10%), and a sub-

jectively administered evaluation (weighted 90%). In the

most recent examination, administered in January and Feb-

ruary 1974, all three black applicants were eliminated.

None of the above requirements has been professionally

validated to determine its validity, predictive or otherwise,

as a measure of job performance for the job of sergeant.

10. Police officers who seek promotion to the rank of

lieutenant must have attained permanent status as a ser-

geant, and must pass an examination consisting solely of a

subjectively administered evaluation. In the most recent

examination, administered in September 1974, all three eli-

228

gible black applicants were eliminated. Neither of the

above requirements has been professionally validated to de-

termine its validity, predictive or otherwise, as a measure

of job performance for the job of lieutenant.

11. I am a ten-year veteran of the Richmond Police De-

partment currently holding the rank of sergeant. I have ap-

plied for but been denied promotion to the rank of lieuten-

ant. In September, 1974, I was rejected for failing to rank

high enough on the subjectively administered evaluation,

thereby also barring me from reapplying for promotion for

at least two years.

12. On March 5, 1975, various black officers, the Guardi-

ans of Justice and I filed a class action complaint in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of

California alleging unlawful racial discrimination in viola-

tion of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and Sec. 1983 against the City

of Richmond and vairous of its officials, The Guardians of

Justice v. Richmond, C-75-0439-SW (N. D. Cal., filed

March 5, 1975). That case is currently in discovery, and no

date has been set for a trial on the merits.

13. In July, 1975, I mailed a charge of discrimination,

enclosing a copy of the Guardians complaint, to LEAA. [A

copy of that charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A.]

14. In August, 1975, I received a reply letter from

Herbert C. Rice acknowledging the pendency of Guardians

in the federal court and stating that LEAA would “defer

assertion of jurisdiction over similar subject matter until

there has been a judicial resolution of that matter.” [A copy

of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.]

15. The LEAA charge which I filed is not the only char-

ge filed with LEAA against the Richmond Police Depart-

ment. In April, 1973, an eighteen-page administrative com-

plaint was filed with LEAA against Richmond and eighteen

other California cities. That complaint, which was filed by a

coalition of seven civil rights organizations, detailed the

aforementioned discriminatory employment practices of the

Richmond Police Department, noted that Richmond had re-

ceived $272,894 in LEAA funding in 1971 and 1972, and

sought the “termination or suspension” of LEAA funding.

229

16. I believe that LEAA, in response to the coalition’s

LEAA complaint, requested information from the Rich-

mond Police Department about its employment practices,

but declined to conduct an on-site investigation into those

practices.

17. I believe that LEAA has undertaken no full investi-

gation of the Richmond Police Department’s employment

practices in response to the coalition’s complaint or to my

charge. I believe that LEAA has classified the aforemen-

tioned LEAA charges as inactive because of the pendency

of Guardians of Justice v. Richmond, supra.

18. I believe that the Richmond Police Department has

received approximately $500,000 in LEAA funding. LEAA

has never suspended the LEAA funding of the Richmond

Police Department because of civil rights non-compliance.

OLLIE S. GLOVER

Sworn to before me this day of October, 1975.

Notary Public

230

GLOVER AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT A

Sgt. Ollie S. Glover

4846 State Court

Richmond, California 94804

July 8, 1975

Herbert C. Rice, Director

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

United States Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

RE: LEAA Administrative Complaint

Dear Mr. Rice,

I am Black. I have been discriminated against on the basis

of my race by the Richmond Police Department. I submit

this complaint on behalf of myself and on behalf of the many

others who have been discriminated against by the

Richmond Police Department.

The details of this complaint may be summarized as follows:

(1) The Richmond Police Department employs approxi-

mately 178 sworn police officers, of whom only 24 (or 13%)

are black officers. In contrast, approximately 40% of the

present population of the City of Richmond are Black peo-

ple.

(2) All but three of the Black officers hold the entry-level

rank of patrolman. Of those Black officers above the rank of

patrolman, all three are sergeants (of a total of twenty-six

sergeants). There are no Black captains or lieutenants. It

was not until 1967 that any Black officer was promoted

above the rank of patrolman.

(3) Until 1960, there were only two Black police officers

in the Richmond Police Department. These two officers

were assigned the most undesirable shifts and were denied

membership in the Police Officers Association.

(4) Applicants for entry-level employment as a patrolman

are required to pass a written test. In November, 1974, the

most recent occasion on which the test was administered

231

and the only instance in which racial data was obtained,

79% of the white applications passed the test while only

30% of the Black applicants passed. The written test has

never been professionally validated to determine its validi-

ty, predictive or otherwise, as a measure of job perform-

ance for the job of patrolman.

(5) Applicants for employment as a patrolman who pass

the written test are required to pass an oral interview. In

June, 1974, the most recent occasion the interview was ad-

ministered and for which racial data is available, 34% of the

white applicants passed the oral interview, while 0% of the

Black applicants passed. The oral interview has never been

professionally validated to determine its validity, predic-

tive or otherwise, as a measure of job performance for the

job of patrolman.

(6) Police officers who seek promotion to the rank of ser-

geant must have three years experience as a patrolman and

must rank among the top twelve in an examination

consisting of a written test (weighted 10%), and a subjec-

tively administered evaluation (weighted 90%). In the most

recent examination, administered in January and Febru-

ary, 1974, all three Black applicants were eliminated. None

of the above requirements have been professionally vali-

dated to determine its validity, predictive or otherwise, as

a measure of job performance for the job of sergeant.

(7) Police officers who seek promotion to the rank of lieu-

tenant must have attained permanent status as a sergeant,

and must pass an examination consisting solely of a subjec-

tively administered evaluation. In the most recent exami-

nation, administered in September, 1974, all three eligible

Black applications were eliminated. Neither of the above

requirements has been professionally validated to deter-

mine its validity, predictive or otherwise, as a measure of

job performance for the job of lieutenant.

(8) I am a ten-year veteran of the Richmond Police De-

partment currently holding the rank of sergeant. I applied

for but was denied promotion to the rank of lieutenant in

September, 1974. I was rejected for failing to rank high

enough on the subjectively administered evaluation, there-

232

by also barring me from reapplying for promotion for at

least two years.

For years I have been attempting to eliminate the above

discriminatory practices, among others. All efforts have

been unsuccessful.

Finally, on March 5, 1975, I, along with other named indi-

viduals, and the Guardians of Justice filed a lawsuit alleging

unlawful racial discrimination against the City of Richmond

and various of its officials. (The Guardians of Justice v.

Richmond, C-75-04389-SW. N. D. Cal., filed March 5,

1975.) That case is currently in discovery, and no trial date

has been set.

It is my understanding that the Richmond Police Depart-

ment has received more than one million dollars in the past

few years in LEAA funds. Given the Department’s discrim-

inatory practices, I believe their continuing receipt of any

LEAA monies to be unlawful.

Therefore, I hereby request you to initiate a thorough in-

vestigation of the racially discriminatory employment prac-

tices of the Richmond Police Department and to initiate

administrative proceedings to suspend all LEAA funding to

the Richmond Police Department.

Sincerely,

Set. OLLIE S. GLOVER

OLG:sd

CC: The Hon. RONALD V. DELLUMS, Congressman

1417 Longworth Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

233

GLOVER AFFIDAVIT

EXHIBIT B

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20531

August 22, 1975

Sgt. Ollie S. Glover

4846 State Court

Richmond, California 94804

Re: 76-—C-007

Dear Sgt. Glover:

We are in receipt of your complaint alleging racial discrimi-

nation in the employment practices of the Richmond,

California Police Department. We are docketing your com-

plaint with Docket No. 76—C-007. Please refer to this num-

ber in all future correspondence.

However, you have also advised that similar issues have

been raised in the case of The Guardians of Justice v.

Richmond, C-75-0439-SW, N. D. Cal.

We take administrative notice of the pending litigation and

will defer assertion of jurisdiction over the similar subject

matter until there has been a judicial resolution of the mat-

ter, at which time we will review that resolution to deter-

mine whether or not it would be appropriate to consider the

matter further.

We will appreciate it if you will keep us advised of the

progress of the litigation.

Sincerely,

/s/

HERBERT C. RICE, DIRECTOR

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

By:

/s/

WINIFRED A. DUNTON, ATTORNEY-

ADVISOR

Office of Civil Rights Compliance

234

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS

5

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL.,

DEFENDANTS

MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants, by their attorney, the United States Attor-

ney for the District of Columbia, respectfully move the

Court as follows:

I. As io plaintiffs’ claims against defendants in their offi-

cial capacity:

A. To dismiss this action because there is an adequate

remedy in iawsv brought directly against the police de-

partments claimed to discriminate.

B. To dismiss this action because plaintiffs lack standing,

the matter is not justifiable and there is no basis for inter-

verition by an equity court.

C. Te dismiss this action because indispensable parties

have not been joined.

D. Alternatively, to grant summary judgment in favor of

defendants on the ground that there is a rational basis for

the manner in which defendants have proceeded in seeking

to carry out the civil rights compliance responsibilities of

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

II. As to plaintiffs’ claims against defendants for twenty

million dollars in their individual capacity:

235

A. To dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

B. To dismiss this action or grant summary judgment in

favor of defendants on the ground that it is barred by the

doctrine of official immunity, in that the actions taken by

defendants were within the outer perimeter of defendants’

line of duty.

In support of this motion there are filed:

“Statement of Reasons—Explanation of LEAA’s Role

and Activity in Civil Rights Compliance” of Richard

W. Velde, Administrator, Law Enforcement Assist-

ance Administration, with Appendix and Attachments.

Affidavits of Edward H. Levi, Attorney General of the

United States; Richard W. Velde; Charles R. Work,

formerly Deputy Administrator for Administration,

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration; Herbert

C. Rice, Director, Office of Civil Rights Compliance,

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

Statement of Material Facts

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

EARL J. SILBERT

United States Attorney

ROBERT N. ForpD

Assistant United States Attorney

JOHN M. KELSON

Attorney

Department of Justice

NATHAN DODELL

Assistant United States Attorney

236

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFF

9.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD W. VELDE

Washington, D. C.)

1

Distriet of Columbia)

I, RICHARD W. VELDE, being duly sworn, depose and

say:

1. I. RICHARD W. VELDE, am a named defendant in

the instant action. I have read the amended complaint in

this action.

2. From March 1969 until August 1973 I served as Asso-

ciate Administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration (LEAA). After a statutory restructuring of

the Administration, I assumed the position of Deputy Ad-

ministrator for Policy Development in August 1973. I re-

mained in that capacity until I was officially sworn in as

Administrator on September 5, 1974, and have served as

Administrator to the present.

3. As the Deputy Administrator for Policy Development,

I had no delegated civil rights authority or responsibility.

My views were requested concerning policy questions in

various areas, which may have included the civil rights

area, although I don’t recall any specific instance.

4. Upon assuming the position of Administrator, I took

the initiative to make the civil rights compliance program of

LEAA even more effective. As the Administrator, I am not

237

involved in the day-to-day civil rights compliance activities

of the agency. The Director of the Office of Civil Rights

Compliance has been delegated the authority and responsi-

bility for insuring that recipients of LEAA funds comply

with applicable civil rights laws, statutes, orders, rules and

regulations. (Attachment 1—Delegation of Authority.) I

am responsible for establishing the basic policy and direc-

tion that LEAA will pursue in meeting its civil rights ob!

gations. In doing so, I operate under the general authority

of the Attorney General. I have described in great detail

the policy and direction of LEAA in the area of civil rights

compliance activities in the accompanying Statement of

Reasons. This affidavit essentially highlights those activi-

ties described in the Statement that relate to my personal

involvement as Administrator.

5. My decision to strengthen the compliance program was

officially communicated in my Statement of Priorities is-

sued on September 9, 1974, in which I stated that in order

to make the block grant approach work “[LEAA] will insist

upon full State and local compliance with the applicable civil

rights and equal employment opportunity program stat-

utes”.

6. I directed that a policy development seminar on civil

rights compliance be convened. Approximately 40 experts

in the area of civil rights, affirmative action and criminal

justice were invited to Meadowbrook Hall in Rochester,

Michigan on February 10 and 11, 1975, to make presenta-

tions and discuss ways of improving the compliance pro-

grams. There were three areas which were prominent on

the Conference agenda. First, as there had been considera-

ble confusion as to the best enforcement techniques to in-

sure compliance with the civil rights provisions of the Om-

nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, it appeared that

it would be beneficial to give different experts in the area

an opportunity to be heard on the subject. The issue of pre-

selection instruments for screening applicants was dis-

cussed comprehensively. Finally, as sex discrimination in

law enforcement is a particularly relevant issue, it also was

extensively discussed.

238

Regarding the utilization of women in police service,

which in response to a letter of inquiry from Congressman

Rangel I had indicated to be a “novel question,” at the

Meadowbrook Hall Conference, I further stated:

“(T}he point I was trying to make in the letter to Con-

gressman Rangel was that the provisions of our law

with respect to sex discrimination have not yet been

significantly litigated in the courts as to the full extent

of their meaning (congressional intent, and so on) and

not that we weren't concerned with enforcing the pro-

visions until we received directives from the courts.

As you know, the entire history of civil rights legisla-

tion, its implementation and litigation, is that you

don’t understand and appreciate the full dimensions of

a provision you have on the books until it is tested in

the courts and you find out just what is there and what

is not. That was my point in the letter, and not that we

are going to sit back and wait for the courts to tell us

what to do, that is not the case.” (Transcript of

Meadowbrook Hall Conference and List of Attend-

ees— Attachment 2.)

7. As a direct result of the discussions and recommenda-

tions of the Meadowbrook Hall Conference, I directed the

Office of Civil Rights Compliance to develop a Master Plan

and Statement of Priorities. This plan examines the princi:

pal problems encountered by LEAA in the implementation

of its compliance program and suggests ways in which the

compliance program may be strengthened, given a better

identification and utilization of resources available at the

Federal, State and local level to approach the enforcement

of civil rights compliance obligations of LEAA’s criminal

justice constituency. The Master Plan was circulated for

comment among prominent blacks in the criminal justice

community as well as the Civil Rights Commission, the His-

panic Criminal Justice Task Force, the International Asso-

ciation of Chiefs of Police, the Equal Employment Opportu-

nity Commission, the Department of Labor, the National

League of Cities, the Police Foundation, the American Bar

Association, the National Urban League, and the Women’s

Equity Action League. The Master Plan will be issued in fi-

nal in February 1976.

239

8. I was invited to address the Second Annual Confer-

ence on Blacks and the Criminal Justice System held on

February 5, 1975. I stated before this body that:

“One of my priorities as Administrator to strengthen

the LEAA operations is an emphasis on the enforce-

ment of civil rights compliance responsibilities by

LEAA recipients. During the weeks and months

ahead, LEAA will work to assure full compliance with

the civil rights laws.”

9. Based on the recommendations of black leaders in the

criminal justice field, I authorized the position of Special

Assistant to the Administrator on Women and Minority

Rights. The position is located on my immediate staff and

the Special Assistant (GS-15 level) directs, provides lead-

ership and coordinates the efforts of LEAA and its staff in

the area of minority and women’s rights and in this capacity

serves as my confidential consultant. The Special Assistant

serves as my personal representative in consultation with

various State and national groups and provides guidance

and advice on the development of pertinent programs appli-

cable to civil rights statutes, rules and regulations for law

enforcement programs, grants and contracts. I have chosen

an extremely qualified individual, Mr. Lewis Taylor, for

this position. On December 22, 1975, Mr. Taylor assumed

this position. For a period of time prior to that date, Mr.

Reynaldo Maduro had been acting in that capacity. Mr. Ma-

duro is the Director of the LEAA Executive Secretariat

and was formerly Executive Director of the Cabinet Com-

mittee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People.

10. On February 18, 1975, LEAA sponsored a conference

at my direction with numerous prominent blacks in the

criminal justice area and those blacks with an interest in

the criminal justice area. Also in attendance for part of the

conference was Edward H. Levi, Attorney General of the

United States. The purpose of the meeting was to assure

that the policy and program directions of LEAA most accu-

rately reflected the relevant needs and concerns of black

citizens that come in contact with the criminal justice sys-

tem. A steering committee was established by the partici-

pants of the conference which met through May. I met with

240

the committee on May 16, 1975, and a number of recom-

mendations were discussed, I received a letter from Lee P.

Brown, Coordinator of the Steering Committee, which

outlined the items discussed by the committee and stated

that:

“On behalf of the Steering Committee on Blacks and

the Criminal Justice System, I thank you for the per-

sonal interest you have taken in the problems of

Blacks and Criminal Justice. We are encouraged by

your efforts in this area.

“Also, the members of the Steering Committee felt

that the meeting with you on May 16, 1975 was very

productive. We feel that your response to our sugges-

tions and recommendations made the time we have

been devoting to this concern well worthwhile. Hope-

fully, by working together, we will achieve results

that will benefit all citizens.”

11. In a letter dated July 28, 1975, I informed Mr. Brown

of the status of the recommendations that the Steering

Committee had made. I expressed my support of a ten- to

fifteen-member committee as an advisory body to LEAA

relative to minority issues. I stated that I would give seri-

ous consideration to the nominees submitted by the

Steering Committee but that I have the option to consider

other appropriate nominees to insure broad minority repre-

sentation. The actual coordination and establishment of the

advisory committee is one of the functions of my new Spe-

cial Assistant.

I also agreed with the need to involve minority firms

with LEAA contracts and in furtherance of that goal re-

ported:

“By agreement with the Small Business Administra-

tion, the Agency has permission to negotiate with an

8-A firm thereby eliminating the required procedure of

submitting a response to a request ps a proposal.”

12. Due to LEAA’s involvement in the civil rights area, I

was invited to the White House, along with Deputy Admin-

istrator Charles Work and Office of Civil Rights Compli-

ance Director Herbert Rice, on April 15, 1975, to meet

with 75 black civic leaders from across the Nation to dis-

241

cuss law enforcement problems relating directly to blacks.

Those black leaders in attendance included several black

law enforcement officials, attorneys, judges, and officials of

civic and service organizations. A strong and effective civil

rights compliance program was enunciated as an important

LEAA priority to help insure total community involve-

ment.

13. OCRC is now working toward enhancing the State's

capacity to deal with civil rights compliance thereby

increasing the resources available in this area. On Janu-

ary 21, 1976, guidelines became effective setting up a sys-

tem for complaint processing in which State and local

agencies are actively involved. Additional objectives of

OCRC include increasing the number of EEOP audits, pre-

bid conferences, audit of construction contracts to assess

and assure contractor’s compliance with required civil

rights assurances, and to increase and improve technical as-

sistance afforded criminal justice agencies to improve their

understanding of civil rights issues.

14. I have proposed amended equal employment regula-

tions removing the stated preference for judicial enforce-

ment procedures, 40 Fed. Reg. 5654, December 3, 1975.

15. Although I am not involved with the daily operations

of OCRC, occasionally I am called upon to take action on

pending cases.

16. On August 26, 1975, after being apprised of the utili-

zation of a discriminatory minimum height rquirement of

the Honolulu Police Department and the failure of volun-

tary compliance efforts, I sent a letter to Governor George

R. Ariyoshi of Hawaii, notify him of the discriminatory

practice and the inability to achieve compliance through

voluntary means. I warned that failure to resolve this mat-

ter will result in the institution of appropriate legal pro-

ceedings to enforce compliance.

Governor Ariyoshi responded on September 26, 1975,

that substantial efforts and significant progress were being

made by Honolulu officials. A letter dated September 29,

1975, was sent by the Civil Service Director of Honolulu to

242

the Honolulu Chief of Police (with LEAA also being sent a

copy) stating that:

“This is to inform you that we have deleted the height

requirement from the minimum qualifications stand-

ards for all entry level police officers and police matron

classes, effective September 29, 1975.”

17. In February 1975 I was made aware of a non-

compliance matter involving the Police Department of St.

Louis in which I was prepared to take enforcement action.

In that matter, officials in St. Louis, upon learning that

they faced the prospect of such action by LEAA, voluntari-

ly complied, obviating the necessity of taking enforcement

action.

18. In mid-January 1975, I was apprised of the fact that

the cities of Pittsburgh and McKeesport had failed to com-

plete an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) plan cover-

ing the local Police Departments as required. Cornelius M.

Cooper, Regional Administrator of LEAA, located in

Philadelphia, wrote to John Snavely, the Executive Direc-

tor of the Pennsylvania State planning agency, on January

24, 1975, directing that the State plarining agency not

award any further subgrants to those cities until compli-

ance with the EEO Guidelines was achieved. The action

was done with my knowledge and support. The cities of

McKeesport and Pittsburgh have now submitted satisfacto-

ry EEO pians.

19. On January 29, 1976, I sent a letter to the Governor

of Pennsylvania advising him of the non-compliance of the

Philadelphia Police Department and requesting his assist-

ance in securing such compliance. If the Governor cannot

secure compliance by March 29, 1976, LEAA will initiate

fund-termination proceedings pursuant to § 509 of the

Crime Control Act.

20. On January 16, 1976, I sent a letter to the Governor

of South Carolina notifying him of the non-compliance of

the South Carolina Highway Patrol. The Governor was giv-

en until March 1, 1976, to try to secure compliance. If vol-

untary efforts fail to resolve the situation, LEAA will initi-

243

ate fund-termination proceedings pursuant to § 509 of the

Crime Control Act.

21. In my capacity as Administrator, I have authorized

numerous discretionary and technical assistance grants to

enhance minority opportunities and involvement with law

enforcement and criminal justice activities. Discretionary

grants, which are available to units of local government,

are dispensed directly by LEAA to approved applicants.

These funds are viewed as a means by which the LEAA can

advance priorities and provide special emphasis for reform

and experimentation with the total law enforcement struc-

ture. Technical assistance has been rendered to improve

the understanding of criminal justice agencies of civil rights

issues and to facilitate the development of procedures

which may adequately reflect community needs. (Attach-

ment 3).

22. My actions as described above and further presented

in my Statement of Reasons were fully in the discharge of

my official duties and responsibilities as Administrator.

Furthermore, in addition to my knowledge of the actions of

Charles R. Work and Herbert C. Rice as their superior, I

have reviewed their affidavits and have determined that

their actions were fully in the discharge of their official du-

ties and responsibilities.

/s/

RICHARD W. VELDE

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of Febru-

ary 1976.

/s/

RENE F. KELLY

Notary Public

My Commission expires Feb. 14, 1978.

244

VELDE AFFIDAVIT

Attachment 1

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

ADMINISTRATION

INSTRUCTION

October 31, 1974

Subject: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE DI-

RECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS COM-

PLIANCE (OCRC)

I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Instruction is to dele-

gate the authority for the administration and operation of

the Office of Civil Rights Compliance to its Director.

2. SCOPE. This Instruction is of interest to all LEAA

personnel,

8. CANCELLATION. This Instruction cancels LEAA

Instruction I 1310.24 dated March 18, 1974.

4. FUNCTIONAL DELEGATION. The Director, Civil

Rights Compliance is delegated the authority and responsi-

bility for ensuring that recipients of LEAA funds comply

with applicable civil rights laws, statutes, orders, rules and

regulations.

a. Regulations. Develop regulations to ensure compli-

ance with civil rights requirements of the LEAA program

by recipients of LEAA funds.

b. Directives and Guidelines. Develop directives to en-

sure compliance with civil rights requirements of the

LEAA program by recipients of LEAA funds.

e. Technical Assistance. Consult with the Office of Na-

tional Priority Program on methods to provide technical as-

sistance to recipients of LEAA funds for the development

of ways and means to assure compliance with civil rights

regulations and statutes.

d. Representation. Ensure that efforts for the enforce-

ment of nondiscrimination requirements in federal pro-

grams are coordinated with other federal agencies including

the development of programs for the collection, analysis

and use of report data and information to ascertain compli-

245

ance with civil rights requirements. Coordinate civil rights

compliance efforts to ensure full utilization of state and lo-

cal resources.

e. Audits, Examinations and Investigations. Conduct

inspections, investigations and reviews as required to en-

sure compliance with civil rights requirements and to gath-

er facts about alleged civil rights violations. In reference to

audits, leads will be referred to OCRC by the Office of In-

spector General for followup actions.

f. Negotiations and Sanctions. Conduct negotiations

with recipients of LEAA funds, where necessary, to

achieve voluntary compliance and recommend, in consulta-

tion with the General Counsel, the application of sanctions,

if necessary.

g. Case Preparation. Assist the LEAA General Counsel

and the divisions of the Department of Justice in the prepa-

ration of civil rights compliance cases involving recipients

of LEAA funds.

h. Grants and Program Management. Subject to the

policy direction, allocation of funds and directives issued by

the Administration, the Director of OCRC is delegated the

authority to administer, modify, (not to exceed the original

dollar amount of the approved award) extend, terminate,

monitor and evaluate grants and agreements within the

program areas of assigned responsibility. In this respect,

grants may be extended for up to 12 months; however, the

total period of award for any grant may not exceed 24

months.

REDELEGATION. Authority delegated in this Instruc-

tion may be redelegated, in whole or in part, provided that

any redelegation is in writing and approved by the Admin-

istrator. This restriction does not apply to temporary

redelegation of authority to a deputy or an assistant to be

exercised during the Director’s absence. Authority

redelegated by the Director shall be exercised subject to

the Director’s policy direction and coordination and under

such restrictions deemed appropriate.

RECORDS. The Office of Civil Rights Compliance shall

keep such records concerning the delegations in paragraph

4 as the Assistant Administrator, Office of Operations Sup-

246

port and the Comptroller shall require. These records shall

be forwarded to these offices as required.

/s/

RICHARD W. VELDE

Administrator

247

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

UV.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

AFFIDAVITS

WASHINGTON, D.C. )

) ss.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA)

I, Edward H. Levi, being duly sworn, hereby depose and

say:

1. I am the Attorney General of the United States and

have held this position since taking the oath of office on

February 6, 1975.

2. I have reviewed the Amended Complaint in the above-

styled action.

3. As Attorney General, I have vested in me by virtue of

Title I, Section 101(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and

Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the Act“), as amended, 42

U.S.C. § 3711, certain powers and duties relating to the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (the “Admin-

istration”).

4. Section 101(a) of the Act provides that the Adminis-

tration “is hereby established within the Department of

Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney Gener-

al.” This provision, as construed in consonance with the

Act’s legislative history by past Attorneys General, em-

powers the Attorney General to exercise powers of general

policy guidance, budgetary review, and regulatory supervi-

sion without the Attorney General ordinarily involving him-

248

self in the details of the Administration’s grant-making

process. See memorandum dated June 26, 1968, prepared

by the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal

Counsel. [Attachment 1 hereto.) Nor does the Attorney

General exercise day-to-day supervision over the opera-

tions of the Administration. See memorandum dated Sep-

tember 19, 1973, prepared by the Assistant Attorney Gen-

eral of the Office of Legal Counsel [Attachment 2 hereto.]

As stated by former Assistant Attorney General Dixon:

“The language and legislative history of Section 101 of the

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Sreets Act clearly indi-

cates that the Administration was [not] to be . . . under the

same direct supervision and control as are other Divisions

in the Department of Justice.”/d., pp. 6-7.

5. In the exercise of powers of general policy guidance

and regulatory supervision, past Attorneys General, in con-

junction with the Administration, have issued regulations

expressing the principle that no recipient of federal fund-

ing, including “law enforcement agencies,” extended by the

Department of Justice under the Act, “shall discrimiante in

its employment practices against employees or applicants

for employment because of race, color, creed, sex, or na-

tional origin.” 28 C. F. R. § 42.203.

6. The applicable regulations provide that recipients, ap-

plying for assistance under the Act, must include assur-

ances in their applications that they will comply with the

Department’s requirements prohibiting discriminatory em-

ployment practices. 28 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)(1). Failure to

comply with these assurances may result, after opportunity

for hearing, in the termination of federal assistance to the

recipient. 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101, et seq.

7, However, neither the Act nor policy of the Depart-

ment of Justice encourages the termination of federal as-

sistance without recourse to voluntary means. 42 U.S.C.

§ 3766(c)(2); 28 C. F. R. § 42.108(c). In fact, as a precondi-

tion to the termination of federal assistance under the Act,

efforts at securing voluntary compliance by the recipient

must have failed before resort to this sanction may be had.

Id.

249

8. As part of the Jutice Department's efforts to secure

civil rights compliance where there are allegations of dis-

criminatory employment practices, the Civil Rights Divi-

sion of the Department has commenced litigation where

deemed appropriate, e.g., in suits against the City of

Chicago, the City of Philadelphia, the State of New Jersey

(New Jersey State Police), the State of Michigan (Michigan

State Police), and the State of North Caolina (North

Carolina State Police). [See Atachment 3 hereto.]

9. I have reviewed the affidavits of Richard W. Velde,

Charles R. Work, and Herbert Rice together with the

Statement of Reasons signed by Mr. Velde and have con-

cluded that the actions taken by defendants Velde, Work

and Rice as described therein were taken by them well

within their official duties and responsibilities.

/s/

EDWARD H. LEVI

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of Febru-

ary 1976.

/s/

AUDREY J. WILLIAMS

Notary Public

My commission expires March 11,1979

Attachments 1 and 2 are omitted

LEVI AFFIDAVIT

Attachment 3

Representative of the cases brought by the Department

of Justice against, inter alia, law enforcement agencies on

the basis of alleged discriminatory employment practices

are the following:

(1) United States v. the City of Miami, Florida, et al.,

U.S.D.C. S.D.Fla., Civil Action No. 75-3096-Civ-—JE;

(2) United States v. State of North Carolina, et al.,

U.S. D. C. E. D. N. C., Civil Action No. 75-0328-Civ5;

(3) United States v. State of New Jersey, et al.,

U.S. D.C. D. N.., Civil Action No. 75-1734;

250

(4) United States v. State of Michigan, et al. U.S.D.C.

W.D.Mich., Civil Action No. G75-472;

(5) United States v. County of Hawaii, et al., U. S. D. C.

D. Hawaii, Civil Action No. 75-0291;

(6) United States v. Pima County, et al., U.S. D. C.

D.Ariz., Civil Action No.75-195;

(7) United States v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas, et al.,

U.S. D.C. N. D. Texas, Civil Action No. 7-75-31;

(8) United States v. Jefferson County, et al., U.S. D.C.

N. D. Ala., Civil Action No. 75-P-06665;

(9) United States v. the City of Tallahassee, Florida, et

al., U. S. D. C. N.D.Fla., Civil Action No. TCA 74-209;

(10) United States v. City of Milwaukee, et al.,

U.S. D.C. E.D.Wise., Civil Action No. 74-C-480;

(11) United States v. City of Memphis, et al., U. S. D. C.

W. D. Tenn., Civil Action No. C-74-286;

(12) United States v. The City of Philadelphia, et al.,

U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa., Civil Action No. 74-400;

(13) United States v. State of Maryland, et al.,

U.S. D.C. D.Md., Civil Action No. 74-8;

(14) United States v. City of Chicago, et al. U. S. D. C.

N.D.II., Civil Action No. 73 C-2080;

(15) United States v. City of Buffalo, et al., U. S. D. C.

W.D.N.Y., Civil Action No. 1973-414; and

(16) United States v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, et

al., U.S.D.C. M.D.Ala., Civil Action No. 3739-N,

251

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS,

u.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES R. WORK

Washington, D. C.)

) ss,

District of Columbia)

I, CHARLES R. WORK, being duly sworn, depose and

say:

1. I. CHARLES R. WORK, am named as party defend-

ant in the above-entitled action. I have read the amended

complaint filed in this action, and I am familiar with the al-

legations contained therein.

2. From November 2, 1973, until November 21, 1975, I

served as Deputy Administrator for Administration of the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, On Novem-

ber 21, 1975, I resigned this position and entered into the

private practice of law. On January 2, 1976, the date of the

filing of the amended complaint, I was no longer affiliated

with LEAA.

3. In my position as Deputy Administrator for Adminis-

tration I had certain delegated authority. This authority in-

volved taking final action on internal LEAA administrative

management matters including: personnel management, au-

dits, internal fiscal and financial management, procurement

of goods and services and property and records manage-

ment. (Attachments A, B, C, and D.)

252

4, While I did not have any delegated authority in the

day-to-day operations of LEAA’s civil rights program, cer-

tain of my activities did involve me in a limited way in the

civil rights area, and during the time from November, 1973

until September, 1974 when Donald Santarelli was Admin-

istrator, all the office heads, including Herbert C. Rice, re-

ported to me periodically with respect to operations ques-

tions. Policy questions were referred to and discussed with

the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator for Policy

Development.

5. It was my responsibility to maintain liaison with the

State Planning Agency Directors. I favored and encour-

aged broadening the role of the State planning agencies in

the civil rights investigation and enforcement area.

6. On August 19, 1974, I reviewed and signed a guideline

concerning representation of minorities and women on su-

pervisory boards of criminal justice State planning agencies

and regional planning units. The guideline required that no

individual on the basis of race, color, sex or national origin

be denied appointment or selection to serve on supervisory

boards of State planning agencies or regional planning units

existing pursuant to Section 203(a) of the Crime Control

Act of 1973.

7. I maintained liaison with John Calhoun of the Presi-

dent's staff on minority affairs in preparation for the

April 15, 1975, conference with black leaders to discuss law

enforcement problems related directly to blacks. I attended

that conference along with Administrator Richard W.

Velde and Herbert C. Rice, Director, Office of Civil Rights

Compliance.

8. On February 18, 1975, I participated in a “Conference

on Black Citizens and Criminal Justice.” This meeting, at-

tended by representatives of various community and civil

rights groups throughout the nation, was designed to help

officials at LEAA work with community representatives in

an effort to improve LEAA’s programs with respect to

involving minority groups in criminal justice, facilitating

police- community relations, and enhancing the civil rights

compliance programs. As I stressed to the participants of

253

the conference we wanted to get their ideas about how we

could operate our program even more effectively.

9. I had no regular direct contact with the day to day op-

erations of the Office of Civil Rights Compliance. I there-

fore had no involvement with the named plaintiffs except

for Penelope Brace. In January 1974 I was asked to take

certain action to insure that Officer Brace would not be sus-

pended without pay from her job. The issue, as presented

to me, was a question of retaliation because Officer Brace

had filed a complaint of discrimination. Because I knew

Stanley Pottinger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Rights Division, I was asked by the Office of General Coun-

sel on an emergency basis to advise Mr. Pottinger of the

Philadelphia Police Department's activities. I placed a tele-

phone call to Mr. Pottinger to request the Department of

Justice’s immediate action to insure that Officer Brace

would not be dismissed. Given the situation at the time, it

was my opinion that immediate resort to the courts was the

only action to be taken to keep Ms. Brace from being termi-

nated from the police department.

10. Because of my initial involvement in this matter, I

was kept apprised of this particular situation.

In June 1974, I signed a letter to Mr. Hillel Levinson,

Managing Director of the City of Philadelphia, in response

to a letter from him regarding the city’s request for contin-

uation of two $1,000,000 crime reduction grants. The pur-

pose of my letter was to inform them that they would not

receive approval of these grants until we were assured that

Ms. Brace was permanently restored to duty and would not

be retaliated against. The letter stated that final approval

of these grants was being considered in the context of satis-

factory progress in the litigation concerning Officer Brace.

It also stated that I hoped that Mr. Levinson would im-

press upon the City Solicitor’s Office the importance of

moving quickly toward a resolution of the case. It is my un-

derstanding that Officer Brace was ordered restored to

duty. The two grants in question were not awarded by the

LEAA Philadelphia Regional Office until the following

year.

254

11. To my best recollection and belief, 1 had no further

role in any specific civil rights action. I felt then, as I do

now, that LEAA has a positive and aggressive civil rights

program; and I often said that I wanted LEAA to have the

best civil rights program in the federal government. I have

worked for and spoken in support of civil rights for minori-

ty groups and women. As Deputy Administrator for

Administration, I acted fully in the discharge of my official

duties and responsibilities. The accusation that I did other-

wise is completely untrue and unfair.

CHARLES R. WORK

Subscribed and sworn to before

me this 30 day of January 1976.

BEVERLY JEAN LEWIS

Notary Public

My Commission expires: 1-1-80

255

WORK AFFIDAVIT

Attachment

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Instruction

November 21, 1973

Subject: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Instruction is to dele-

gate to the Deputy Administrator for Administration the

authority to take final action on all administrative manage-

ment matters vested in the Administrator pursuant to Sec-

tion 101 of the Crime Control Act of 1973.

2. SCOPE. This Instruction is of interest to all LEAA

personnel.

3. DEFINITION. For the purposes of this Instruction,

this authority includes, but is not limited to, personnel

management, audits, internal fiscal and financial manage-

ment, procurement of goods and services, property and

records management. This Instruction does not rescind or

amend those delegations for day to day operations in the

administrative management area previously authorized and

in effect at this time except to the extent that they may be

inconsistent with the provisions hereof.

4. DELEGATION. The Deputy Administrator for Ad-

ministration is delegated the authority and responsibility

for the administrative management of LEAA. He is author-

ized to sign all letters, documents, and records related to

these activities.

/s/

DONALD E. SANTARELLI

Administrator

256

WORK AFFIDAVIT

Attachment

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Instruction

September 9, 1974

Subject: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Instruction is to dele-

gate authority to the Deputy Administrator for Adminis-

tration.

2. SCOPE. This Instruction is of interest to all LEAA

personnel.

3. CANCELLATION. This Instruction cancels LEAA

Instruction I 1310.16, Delegation of Authority to Deputy

Administrator for Administration, dated November 21,

1973.

4. DEFINITION.

a. For the purposes of this Instruction, administrative

management includes, but is not limited to:

(1) Personnel management,

(2) Audits,

(3) Internal fiscal and financial managements,

(4) Procurement of goods and services, and

(5) Property and records management.

b. This Instruction does not rescind or amend those dele-

gations for day to day operations in the administrative

management area previously authorized and in effect at

this time except to the extent that they are inconsistent

with this Instruction.

257

5. ACTION.

a. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to take final action on all LEAA admin-

istrative management matters except for personnel man-

agement.

b. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to take final action on all LEAA per-

sonnel management matters except in regard to Central Of-

fice Heads, Regional Administrators, and GS 16 positions

and above.

e. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to sign all letters, documents, and rec-

ords relating to the administrative management matters

delegated in this Instruction.

6. REDELEGATION. The Deputy Administrator for

Administration is authorized to redelegate, in whole or in

part, the authority delegated in this Instruction provided

the redelegation is in writing and approved by the Adminis-

trator.

/s/

RICHARD W. VELDE

Administrator

258

WORK AFFIDAVIT

Attachment

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Instruction

January 14, 1975

Subject: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Instruction is to dele-

gate authority to the Deputy Administrator for Adminis-

tration.

2. SCOPE. This Instruction is of interest to all LEAA

personnel.

3. CANCELLATION. This Instruction cancels LEAA

Instruction I 1310.16A, Delegation of Authority to Deputy

Administrator for Administration, dated September 9,

1974.

4. DEFINITION.

a. For the purpose of this Instruction, administrative

management includes but is not limited to:

(1) Personnel management,

(2) Audits,

(3) Internal fiscal and financial managements,

(4) Procurement of goods and services, and

(5) Property and records management.

b. This Instruction does not rescind or amend those dele-

gations for day to day operations in the administrative

management area previously authorized and in effect at

this time except to the extent that they are inconsistent

with this Instruction.

259

5. ACTION.

a. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to take final action on all LEAA admin-

istrative management matters except for personnel man-

agement.

b. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to take final action on all LEAA per-

sonnel management matters with the following exceptions:

(1) Managerial positions at the Division Chief and the

Office Head levels in the Central Offices and Regional

Offices, or

(2) GS-16 positions and above.

e. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to sign all letters, documents, and ree-

ords relating to the administrative management matters

delegated in this Instruction.

6. REDELEGATION. The Deputy Administrator for

Administration is authorized to redelegate, in whole or in

part, the authority delegated in this Instruction provided

the redelegation is in writing and approved by the Adminis-

trator.

/s/

RICHARD W. VELDE

Administrator

260

WORK AFFIDAVIT

Attachment

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION

Instruction

August 22, 1975

Subject: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION

1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Instruction is to dele-

gate authority to the Deputy Administrator for Adminis-

tration.

2. SCOPE. This Instruction is of interest to all LEAA

personnel.

8. CANCELLATION. This Instruction cancels LEAA

Instruction I 1310.16B, Delegation of Authority to Deputy

Administrator for Administration, dated January 14, 1975.

4. DEFINITION.

a. For the purpose of this Instruction, administrative

management includes but is not limited to:

(1) Personnel management,

(2) Audits,

(3) Internal fiscal and financial management,

(4) Procurement of goods and services, and

(5) Property and records management.

b. This Instruction does not rescind or amend those dele-

gations for day to day operations in the administrative

management area previously authorized and in effect at

this time except to the extent that they are inconsistent

with this Instruction.

261

5. ACTION.

a. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to take final action on all LEAA admin-

istrative management matters except for personnel man-

agement,

b. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to take final action on all LEAA per-

sonnel management matters with the following exceptions:

(1) Managerial positions at the Division Chief and the

Office Head Levels in the Central Offices and Regional

Offices, or

(2) GS-16 positions and above.

e. The Deputy Administrator for Administration is dele-

gated the authority to sign all letters, documents, and rec-

ords relating to the administrative management matters

delegated in this Instruction.

6. EXCEPTION. The Deputy Administrator for Admin-

istration is not delegated any authority to participate, ei-

ther directly or indirectly, in the consideration, award, and

administration of any application for LEAA funds sub-

mitted directly or indirectly by the District of Columbia

Bar or of any contract or grant of LEAA funds made di-

rectly or indirectly to the District of Columbia Bar.

7. REDELEGATION. The Deputy Administrator for

Administration is authorized to redelegate, in whole or in

part, the authority delegated in this Instruction provided

the redelegation is in writing and approved by the Adminis-

trator.

/s/

RICHARD W. VELDE

Administrator

262

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

V.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT OF HERBERT C. RICE

Washington, D. C.

) ss

District of Columbia)

I, HERBERT C. RICE, being duly sworn, depose and

say:

1. I am named as party defendant in this action. I have

read the Amended Complaint.

2. I am the Director of the Office of Civil Rights Compli-

ance (OCRC) of the Law Enforcement Assistance Adminis-

tration and have served in this capacity since May of 1971.

3. OCRC has the responsibility of establishing compre-

hensive procedures and programs for effective enforcement

of civil rights responsibilities of recipients of LEAA finan-

cial assistance in accordance with Federal law.

4.I am familiar with the “Statement of Reasons—

Explanation of LEAA’s Role and Activity in Civil Rights

Compliance” of Richard W. Velde, Administrator of

LEAA, that is being filed in this action. Because of OCRC’s

responsibility, the policies which my staff and I have for-

mulated and implemented are dealt with at length in the

Statement. It is obvious from the content of the Statement

that a number of judgments must be made daily by me both

in making policy and in making decisions to carry out poli-

cy. Judgments involving the exercise of discretion are made

in such areas as determining the content of regulations, in

making assessments of whether there is compliance with

263

law and regulation, and in deciding the appropriate steps to

be taken in negotiaton and enforcement of matters relating

to compliance with law and regulation.

5. It would be redundant for me to repeat the matters

discussed by Administrator Velde in the Statement. Much

of the work that was done in drafting and issuing regula-

tions and guidelines was done by me or under my supervi-

sion, as was the preparation of the Master Plan and State-

ment of Priorities, referred to at pages 11-12. OCRC

performs the functions described at pages 21 to 37 of the

Statement of Reasons. OCRC’s activities with regard to

the police departments that are the targets of individual

plaintiffs are discussed in the Appendix to the Statement of

Reasons.

6. The Statement of Reasons describes the growth and

structure of OCRC. Pages 21 ff. The way OCRC has fune-

tioned procedurally is this:

Ordinarily, I am advised of progress in the activities of

various operating units of OCRC at weekly staff meetings,

through periodic meetings with Division Chiefs and ad hoc

memoranda from such Division Chiefs, where specific prob-

lems of policy and resolution of matters of specific concern

to the office arise.

Similarly, I advise the Administrator of LEAA as to the

progress of the office in addressing its responsibilities in

periodic meetings and memoranda. Along with other

operating managers, problems germane to broad policy of

LEAA are discussed at staff meetings.

In interpreting law or policy, I seek the counsel and ad-

vice of the Administrator, the General Counsel of LEAA,

and LEAA’s Office of Planning and Management, as appro-

priate. During the time that Mr. Santarelli was Adminis-

trator, I along with other operating office heads, reported

directly to Mr. Work, the then Deputy Administrator for

Administration, seeing Mr. Santarelli only when matters of

broad policy or difficult problems relating to the resolution

of individual cases might have needed to be discussed.

OCRC also develops draft regulations and guidelines,

which, in consultation with the Office of General Counsel,

264

are circulated for appropriate internal and external review

and comment, prior to adoption.

7. I have a strong and firm commitment to securing civil

rights compliance by recipients of LEAA funding. I believe

that the Statement of Reasons, reflecting LEAA and

OCRC activities, demonstrates this commitment. I have

considered it responsible, appropriate and in keeping with

law, regulations, and Department of Justice policy to make

meaningful efforts to resolve problems by negotiation be-

fore starting procecdings leading to termination of funding.

I also have sought to make the most effective use possible

of the resources of OCRC in seeking to secure compliance.

To carry this out, I have tried to avoid duplication of effort

and have attempted to use other resources available in ef-

fecting civil rights compliance. These matters are dealt

with at length in the Statement of Reasons.

8. In all actions taken by me as recounted in the State-

ment of Reasons and in all actions that I have taken in rela-

tion to the matters alleged in the Amended Complaint, I

have acted fully within the scope of my official duties and

responsibilities as Director of the Office of Civil Rights

Compliance. I have taken all these actions in the belief that

they were the best way to effectuate the civil rights provi-

sions of the Crime Control Act and the other civil rights

laws and regulations affecting the LEAA program.

HERBERT C. RICE

Sworn to and subscribed before

me this 6th day of February 1976.

RosE L KELLY

Notary Public

My Commission expires: Feb. 14, 1978

265

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

U.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF REASONS

Explanation of LEAA’s Role and

Activity in Civil Rights Compliance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

/ ĩ ˙ —v— 6 . 1 4 6 00 6

. The Establishment and Purposes of LEA ........

„„

II. LEAA's Civil Rights Activities

R e OEE COTE TE PEPE

III. LEAA’s Civil Rights Activities—

ä— Ei coeccocecdecteveeseeebas

r ̃ ͤ˙ shou „ neee

B. The Office of Civil Rights Complian ee

1. Conduct of Compliance Reviews

2. Equal Employment Opportunity

eee e

/ ˙²˙—%»⅛»Qũỹ. ..

4. Pre-Award Compliance Review Program

5. Compliance in Federally-Assisted

Construction Contracts.

6. Technical Assistance Grants and Contracts .

7. Resolution of Complaints ................+.

8. Negotiation and Enforcement.

266

IV. Methods—Practical, impractical,

appropriate and inappropriate 38

re, „„ TTT ITTY „ „„ „„ „ TTT 38

B. Additional eee hg 45

Appendix

267

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action Number 75-1444

NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

RICHARD W. VELDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

EXPLANATION OF LEAA’S ROLE AND ACTIVITY IN

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLIANCE

Introduction

This lawsuit calls into question the performance of the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration with regard

to its civil rights responsibilities. An explanation of

LEAA’s performance requires a discussion of: the estab-

lishment and purposes of LEAA; LEAA’s civil rights activ-

ities; and the practicalities of administering a meaningful

program of civil rights compliance. In addition, a discussion

of the specific situations addressed by plaintiffs is called

for. The body of this Statement of Reasons addresses the

general issues presented by the lawsuit. Appendices deal

with the specific situations.

I. The Establishment and Purposes of LEAA

A. Policy

Recognition of the marked increase in crime and lawless-

ness in the early and mid-60’s prompted Congress to take

necessary measures to meet this crisis situation. The Con-

gressional action resulted in the creation of the Law En-

268

forcement Assistance Administration established in the De-

partment of Justice under Title I of the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-351, 82

Stat. 197, 42 U.S.C. §3701 et seqg.). As set forth in the pre-

amble of the Crime Control Act, “the high incidence of

crime in the United States threatens the peace, security,

and general welfare of the Nation and its citizens. To re-

duce and prevent crime and juvenile delinquency and to in-

sure the greater safety of the people, law enforcement and

criminal justice efforts must be better coordinated,

intensified, and made more effective at all levels of govern-

ment.”

In furtherance of this declaration, LEAA is to assist

States and units of local government in improving and

strengthening law enforcement and criminal justice. In the

Declaration and Purpose the Congress stated:

“It is the purpose of this title to (1) encourage States

and units of general local government to develop and

adopt comprehensive plans based upon their evalua-

tion of State and local problems of law enforcement

and criminal justice; (2) authorize grants to States and

units of local government in order to improve and

strengthen law enforcement and criminal justice; and

(3) encourage research and development directed to-

ward the improvement of law enforcement and crimi-

nal justice and the development of new methods for

the prevention and reduction of crime and the detec-

tion, apprehension, and rehabilitation of criminals.”

The basic purpose of LEAA is to seek to address the

problem that crime presents in our society. The crime prob-

lem is in itself a major obstacle in securing liberty to the

people of America. As Attorney General Edward H. Levi

said in his address to American Bar Association Convention

at Montreal on August 13, 1975:

“For some years the federal government acted as if its

abilities in bringing crime under control were limitless.

It created expectations in the public that could not be

met. Public disappointment provoked, not a re-

examination of the basic assumptions of the federal

government's efficacy, but rather an increasing em-

269

phasis on toughness, even vindictiveness against those

convicted of crime. This obscured a feature of the

crime problem that is important now to reconsider.

Every success in reducing crime—especially street

crime people fear most—is a victory for individual lib-

erty so long as the success does not come at the er-

pense of constitutional rights guaranteed criminal de-

fendants. The sense of vindictiveness that intruded

upon the discouise about crime led to the misappre-

hension that prosecuting criminals somehow infringes

upon rights rather than protects them.

“Serious crime vose 18 percent during the first three

months of 1975 compared with the same period last

ear. In 1974 serious crime was up 17 percent, accord-

ing to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics. Increases

n the rate of violent street crime have paralleled the

total increase. These sad figures do not begin to meas-

ure the effect on individual freedom increasing crime

has had. It has affected not only the immediate vic-

tims of violence and theft; it has also embedded fear in

the minds of countless Americans. Freedom of move-

ment, freedom of association, even the freedom to rest

secure in one’s own house have been impaired.

“Law enforcement is a central part of the protection of

human rights. The sentiments that lead officials to be-

lieve it is better to minimize law enforcement in poor

and minority group neighborhoods of our cities are at

best misguided. A study by the Law Enforcement As-

sistance Administration of crime in five large cities

showed that blacks were nearly twice as likely as

whites to be the victims of robbery or burglary. In

four of those cities blacks were also more likely than

whites to be the victim of violent aggravated assault.

Lack of adequate law enforcement, more so even than

lack of other government services, deprives the poor of

their right to live a decent life.” (Emphasis added.)

As another example of the responsibilities of LEAA in

meeting the pressing needs of the Nation in fighting crime,

LEAA has a significant responsibility for increaz:ng the ca-

pacity of State and local agencies to deal constructively

with delinquency prevention and juvenile justice. As I said

270

in a statement of September 9, 1974, in discussing my re-

sponsibilities as new LEAA Administrator:

„ . . Youths commit much of the violent crime and

much of the stranger-to-stranger offenses listed in the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s index. Although

LEAA cannot by itself remedy the problems associ-

ated with family dissolution, poverty, undereducation,

rootlessness, alienation, unemployment, and racial dis-

crimination, it must face up to the relationship these

conditions have to criminal justice and creatively seek

workable solutions. This includes coordinating with

other Federal, state and local officials as well as with

volunteer groups and all others interested in helping

the young. Juvenile delinquency is not only a crime-

control issue—it is also a matter of our nation’s future

as a free society.”

At a meeting with 75 black civic leaders at the White House

on April 15, 1975, I said:

“LEAA in its efforts to improve criminal justice, is

striving to encourage mutual responsibility between

citizens and the criminal justice system. That means

involving the community—individual citizens, neigh-

— schools and churches—in crime reduction ef-

„

Accordingly, it is important that LEAA administer its

activities in such a way as to do the best job possible in as-

sisting crime fighting and thereby enhancing liberty.

LEAA’s civil rights compliance efforts are an important

part of these activities and LEAA administers civil rights

activities, to the extent possible, in a way that will promote

rather than interfere with its assignment to help States and

localities fight crime.

For example, cutting off funds is not an end in itself: it is

a means toward effecting civil rights compliance. Termina-

tion of funding in and of itself may not provide equal em-

ployment opportunity and eliminate discrimination. *

*Indeed termination can have an adverse impact on minorities and

women because they may be the most recently hired and therefore

hurt by firings and layoffs.

271

Where voluntary compliance can be accomplished without

interfering with funding of che fight against crime, LEAA

will seek to do so. We are not dealing with an either-or

proposition. LEAA is seeking to effect civil rights compli-

ance and to assist in combating crime.

B. Procedure

Pursuant to the Act, LEAA makes annual “block” grants

to each of the States for planning and implementing law en-

forcement programs. The grants are made to State

planning agencies which in tu make subgrants to units of

local government for criminal justice agencies in the State.

LEAA also makes discretionary grants through State

planning agencies to criminal justice agencies in the State.

LEAA has made block grants to all the States since Fis-

cal Year 1969. Funds appropriated by Congress for

LEAA’s block grants are allocated under Title I of the

Crime Control Act in lump sums among the States on the

basis of population for distribution and expenditure by the

States and cities. The grant funds are used for programs

and priorities determined by the States and cities them-

selves (82 Stat. 190, 202, 42 U.S.C. §3736).

LEAA makes both block planning and action grants.

Block planning grants are utilized by the States to establish

and maintain the State planning agencies referred to above

as well as to fund regional and local planning bodies. The

State planning agency is created or designated by the Chief

Executive of the State and is subject to his jurisdiction (82

Stat. 199, 42 U.S.C. §3722). Each State planning agency

determines needs and priorities for the improvement of law

enforcement throughout the entire State and the State

planning agency then defines, develops, and correlates pro-

grams to improve and strengthen law enforcement for the

State and all of the units of local government within the

State. All of this material and information is incorporated

into a comprehensive State-wide plan which is annually

submitted to LEAA for review and approval (82 Stat. 198,

42 U.S.C §3723).

When a State’s plan has been reviewed and approved,

the State is eligible to receive its allocated block action

272

grant for that fiscal year. LEAA is required by statute to

make block action grants if the State planning agency has

an approved comprehensive plan which conforms with the

purposes and requirements of the Crime Control Act (82

Stat. 201, 42 U.S.C. §3733) and with rules, regulations,

and procedures established by LEAA consistent with the

Crime Control Act.

Eighty-five percent of the LEAA action funds are

“block” grant monies running directly to the State planning

agencies for distribution in accordance with pre-determined

State and local priorities. Only 15 percent is then distrib-

uted by LEAA directly for national program priority items.

Discretionary funds, which are also available to units of

local government under the Act, are dispensed by LEAA to

approved applicants. These funds are viewed as a means by

which the LEAA can advance national priorities, draw at-

tention to programs not emphasized in State plans, and

provide special impetus for reform and experimentation

within the total law enforcement structure created by the

Act. Discretionary funds represent only a small portion of

the aid that will be available to State and local governments

and are not intended to meet the massive and widespread

need the State plan and block grant action funds must ad-

dress.

II. LEAA’s Civil Rights

Activities -A General Statement

We at LEAA view as a major priority the implementa-

tion of a comprehensive program to enforce the civil rights

obligations of recipients of LEAA federal assistance. We

further view the civil rights programs and initiatives

undertaken by LEAA thus far as having significant impact

on the quality of law and justice in America. Those initia-

tives are discussed in this Statement of Reasons:

In my statement of September 9, 1974, I said:

“In taking the oath of office I have sworn to defend the

United States Constitution and to see that the nation’s

laws are faithfully executed. And so I shall.”

273

I also said that LEAA “will insist upon full state and local

compliance with the applicable civil rights and equal em-

ployment opportunity program statutes.”

In a Nation in which there are many thousands of crimi-

nal justice agencies, it is important to issue regulations and

guidelines that will let the agencies know what is required

of them in effecting civil rights compliance. In a series of is-

suances, LEAA has stated such requirements to the

agencies.

LEAA has consistently sought to formulate and imple-

ment programs aimed at uniform adherence to the compli-

ance requirements of the LEAA program and to maximize

the utilization of resources available at the State and local

level in addressing these responsibilities.

On New Year’s Eve 1970, the Department of Justice is-

sued regulations based on the 14th amendment to the U.S.

Constitution prohibiting discrimination in the employment

practices of recipients of LEAA funds. Originally prohib-

iting discrimination on the grounds of race, color, creed, or

national origin, these equal employment opportunity regu-

lations were amended on August 9, 1972, to include a prohi-

bition of discrimination because of sex. See 28 C.F.R.

942.201, et seq., Subpart D.

These regulations imposed equal employment opportuni-

ty standards on employers in the public sector at the State

and local level well over a year before Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 was amended to prohibit discrimination

by such employers.

On March 9, 1973, LEAA promulgated Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Guidelines which require validation of

minimum height requirements imposed by criminal justice

agencies where they are shown to have an adverse impact

on certain minority groups and women. Attachment 1,

pp. 116-117.

On August 31, 1973, LEAA published its amended Equal

Employment Opportunity Program Guidelines, 28 C. F. R.

$42.301 et seq., Subpart E, (first issued March 9, 1973)

which require that all recipient agencies which have re-

ceived at least $25,000 in grants, have fifty or more em-

274

ployees and have a service population with a minority rep-

resentation of 3 percent or more are required to formulate,

implement, and maintain an Equal Employment Opportuni-

ty Pogram (EEOP), relating to employment practices af-

fecting minority persons and women, in accordance with

the Guidelines. Attachment 1, pp. 9-14.

These regulations provided the first nationwide affirma-

tive action mechanism for the benefit of minorities and

women in public sector employment at the State and local

level.

In June 1974, LEAA published a brochure entitled

“LEAA and Civil Rights” which was broadly distributed

throughout the criminal justice system. Attachment 2.

On July 19, 1974, LEAA published an Instruction enti-

tled Equal Employment Opportunity—Goals and Timeta-

bles under Section 518(c) of the Crime Control Act of 1973,

with regard to appropriate utilization of goals and timeta-

bles to overcome the effects of past discrimination. Attach-

ment 1, pp. 162-174.

All of these regulations and guidelines were collected to-

gether, along with other materials germane to federal civil

rights law in an Equal Employment Opportunity Program

Development Manual. The Manual also describes in detail

an appropriate methodology of preparing the Equal Em-

ployment Opportunity Programs required by the LEAA

Guidelines, supra, Attachment 1. These manuals have been

printed and distributed broadly by LEAA to the criminal

justice community, civil and human rights agencies, and

others having an interest in the implementation of compli-

ance responsibilities incident to the LEAA program. The

United States Government Printing Office is now also sup-

plying these manuals.

On September 5, 1974, LEAA published a Guideline re-

garding the representation of minorities and women on su-

pervisory boards of criminal justice State planning agencies

and regional planning units. The failure of the appointing

authority to select otherwise qualified minorities and wom-

en to serve on these boards may constitute a violation of Ti-

275

tle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 518(c) of

the Crime Control Act of 1973. Attachment 3.

In furtherance of LEAA’s commitment to civil rights

compliance, I convened a policy development seminar

among people inside and outside of government on Febru-

ary 10 and 11, 1975. Some 40 experts in the area of civil

rights, affirmative action and criminal justice were invited

to Meadowbrook Hall, Rochester, Michigan to make pres-

entations and discuss ways of improving the compliance

program. The seminar considered problems relating to dis-

crimination against women in police service; the impact of

pre-selection testing of police officer candidates on minority

and female applicants; and the relative efficacy of judicial

and administrative proceedings in civil rights cases. I was

in attendance during the entire conference. Discussions

were spirited, free-wheeling and informative.

In accordance with the goal of improving LEAA’s compli-

ance program and as a direct result of the discussion and

recommendations of the Meadowbrook Hall Conference, the

Office of Civil rights Compliance (OCRC) of LEAA pre-

pared a draft Master Plan and Statement of Priorities. This

Plan seeks to examine the principal problems encountered

by LEAA in the implementation of its compliance program.

It suggests ways in which the compliance program may be

strengthened, given a better identification and utilization of

resources available at the Federal, State and local level to

approach the enforcement of civil rights compliance obliga-

tions of LEAA’s criminal justice constituency.

A first draft was circulated within LEAA and the De-

partment of Justice. A second draft was circulated inside

and outside of the government on July 3, 1975. Among

those who received copies of the Master Plan and com-

mented were the participants in the Conference on Black

Citizens and Criminal Justice with whom I have had consid-

erable contact. Mr. E. Richard Larson, one of the attor-

neys for plaintiffs in this action, also commented on the

draft. By letter of September 4, 1975, to Herbert C. Rice

(Attachment 4), Mr. Larson stated, in part:

“I enjoyed reading your Master Plan for Civil Rights

276

Compliance. I agree with most of it, but I kept won-

dering why it has taken four years.”*

The Master Plan will be issued in final in February 1976.

One immediate outgrowth of the preparation and issu-

ance of the Master Plan is that LEAA has issued proposed

regulations which will implement Section 518(c) of the

Crime Control Act of 1973, and Section 262 of the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Attach-

ment 5.

Based on the recommendations of black leaders in the

criminal justice field, I authorized the position of Special

Assistant to the Administrator on Women and Minority

Rights. The position is located on my immediate staff and

the Special Assistant (GS-15 level) directs, provides leader-

ship and coordinates the efforts of LEAA and its staff in

the area of minority and women’s rights and in this capacity

serves as my confidential consultant. The Special Assistant

serves as my personal representative in consultation with

various State and national groups and provides guidance

and advice on the development of pertinent programs appli-

cable to civil rights statutes, rules and regulations for law

enforcement programs, grants and contracts. I have chosen

an extremely qualified individual, Mr. Lewis Taylor, for

the position, and he was brought on board December 22,

1975. Mr. Reynaldo P. Maduro, Director of the Executive

Secretariat, and former Executive Director of the Cabinet

Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking People,

served as Acting Special Assistant for a period prior to Mr.

Taylor’s appointment.

Footnote added.] The Crime Control Act of 1973, which contains

Section 518(c) and Section 509, was enacted August 6, 1973, two years

before Mr. Larson’s letter, not four. LEAA's initiatives and activities

in the area of civil rights compliance began long before the issuance of

the master plan. See, e.g., the listing of issuances above at page 9 ff,

the discussion below at pages 23 ff, and the Appendices to this State-

ment of Reasons. The master plan and statement of priorities reflects

the lessons of experience as well as comment at the Meadowbrook Con-

ference.

277

On February 18, 1975, LEAA sponsored a conference at

my direction with numerous prominent blacks in the crimi-

nal justice area and those blacks with an interest in the

criminal justice area. Also in attendance for part of the con-

ference was Edward H. Levi, Attorney General of the

United States. The purpose was to assure that the policy

and program directions of LEAA most accurately reflected

the relevant needs and concerns of black citizens that come

in contact with the criminal justice system. A steering com-

mittee was established by the participants of the confer-

ence which met through May. I met with the committee on

May 16, 1975, and a number of recommendations were dis-

cussed. I received a letter from Lee P. Brown, Coordinator

of the Steering Committee, which outlined the items dis-

cussed by the committee and stated that:

“On behalf of the Steering Committee on Blacks and

the Criminal Justice System, I thank you for the per-

sonal interest you have taken in the problems of

Blacks and Criminal Justice. We are encouraged by

your efforts in this area.

“Also, the members of the Steering Committee felt

that the meeting with you on May 16, 1975, was very

productive.

“We feel that your response to our suggestions and

recommendations made the time we have been

devoting to this concern well worthwhile. 5

by working together, we will achieve results that will

benefit all eitizens.“

In a letter dated July 28, 1975, I informed Mr. Brown of

the status of the recommendations that the Steering Com-

mittee had made. I expressed my support of a ten to fifteen

member committee as an advisory body to LEAA relative

to minority issues. I stated that I would give serious con-

sideration to the nominees submitted by the Steering Com-

mittee but that I have the option to consider other appro-

priate nominees to insure broad minority representation.

The actual coordination and establishment of the advisory

committee is one of the functions of my new Special Assist-

ant.

278

Due to LEAA’s involvement in the civil rights area, I

was invited to the White House, along with Deputy Admin-

istrator Charles Work and Office of Civil Rights Compli-

ance director Herbert Rice, on April 15, 1975, to meet with

75 black leaders from across the Nation to discuss law en-

forcement problems relating directly to blacks. Those black

leaders in attendance included several black law enforce-

ment officials, attorneys, judges, and officials of civic and

service organizations. A strong and effective civil rights

compliance program was enunciated as an important LEAA

priority to help insure total community involvement.

At that meeting I said: “Citizens are insisting on equal

treatment before the law, they are demanding that consti-

tutional and governmental guarantees be applied evenhand-

edly.” I went on to say:

“For blacks, that means getting the same treatment

afforded to whites when they come into contact with

law enforcement and criminal justice. This is not iso-

lated to those instances when an individual is touched

by the criminal justice system as a victim, offender,

witness, or juror, but also when he or she seeks a pro-

fessional role in the system. How both blacks and

whites are treated in these two aspects is a measure of

3 progress and goes to the heart of eriminal

ustice.

“It would appear that discrimination which channels

minority youths into a secondary labor market can also

prod them into criminal acts or other illicit activities.

Vigorous measures to eliminate such discrimination

and reduce economic deprivation is justified by fair-

ness alone. A special urgency is added when one con-

siders that such measures can help the community by

reducing crime.”

While OCRC is the principal arm for the enforcement of

LEAA’s civil rights responsibility, compliance activity is

also performed by the Office of Inspector General of LEAA

in the performance of routine audits of grantees to ensure

compliance with the Crime Control Act and other appropri-

ate legislation.

279

Basically, the Office of Inspector General is concerned

with auditing at the State planning agency level. However,

in the conduct of a routine audit it does randomly select

various subgrantees for examination. In the past, there

have included a number of local police departments. Due to

the complexity of civil rights laws and requirements, the

Office of Inspector General has recently adopted a policy of

referring findings of non-compliance to OCRC for action. A

noteworthy example of the coordinated effort occurred re-

cently with the Detroit Police Department. The Office of

Inspector General discovered in an audit of the Michigan

State planning agency that the Detroit Police Department’s

EEOP was not in compliance with LEAA guidelines. This

finding was communicated to me on June 19, 1975. I sent a

letter to Chief Philip Tannian of the Detroit Police Depart-

ment on July 1, 1975, indicating that this matter would be

referred to OCRCm The matter was referred on July 7,

1975, and on August 4 and 5, 1975, two representatives of

OCRC went to Detroit and met with police officers and rep-

resentatives of the Special Projects Section of the Detroit

Police Department. The Department’s EEOP was analyzed

and recommendations were set forth in correspondence dat-

ed August 26, 1975, from Mr. Rice to Chief Tannian. The

Department submitted a revised EEOP on January 6, 1976,

and it is currently undergoing evaluation.

OCRC has collaborated with the Office of Inspector Gen-

eral in the revision of their Audit Manual to help the Office

of Inspector General in the audit of civil rights matters. Is-

suance of that manual is expected shortly.

III. LEAA’s Civil Rights Activities —

A Further Statement

A. Preface

In the preceding part of this Statement of Reasons, I

have tried to make plain and unmistakable LEAA's com-

mitment to effect civil rights compliance in criminal justice

agencies.

I trust that it will not be miscontrued when I say that, in

280

carrying out that commitment, LEAA must deal with what

is realistic and what is practicable.

For example, LEAA must recognize that it cannot

singlehandedly do a job that is addressed jointly by many

agencies in civil rights enforcement activities affecting

State and local criminal justice agencies in the United

States. Thus, LEAA cannot supersede the Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Commission, the Civil Rights Division of

the Department of Justice, or the activities of private liti-

gants and State and local civil rights agencies. While

LEAA is fully committed to a comprehensive compliance

program, it cannot replace all the other apparatus in this

Nation which seeks to assure that full civil rights are

achieved within the American system.

A notable example of a coordinated effort initiated by

LEAA which resulted in very complete and comprehensive

relief occurred with the Chicago Police Department. In

June 1971, a formal complaint was filed with LEAA

alleging that the Chicago Police Department engaged in

discriminatory hiring practices and techniques, methods of

promotion, disciplinary procedures and assignments within

the department. After a lengthly investigation, a compre-

hensive report was issued which indicated that the com-

plaint had merit. LEAA informed the Chicago Police De-

partment that it appeared to be engaging in unlawful

discriminatory employment practices.

LEAA engaged in extensive discuss‘ons with the City of

Chicago in the hopes of voluntarily resolving the problems.

In the Spring of 1973 when it appeared that a voluntary

settlement could not be arrived at, LEAA referred the

matter to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of

Justice. In August 1973, a lawsuit was initiated which ul-

timately resulted in a finding by the U.S. District Court in

Chicago on January 5, 1976, that the city of Chicago “know-

ingly discriminated against women, blacks and Hispanics in

the employment of police officers.” Unites States v. City of

Chicago, et al., — F.Supp. — (N. D. Illinois, Jan. 6,

1976)—No. 7302080.

281

The lawsuit led to the withholding of all general revenue

sharing funding to the City of Chicago until the City comes

into civil rights compliance. On December 18, 1974, the Dis-

trict Court for the District of Columbia in Robinson v.

Shultz, Civil Action No. 74-248, first enjoined payment to

the City of Chicago because of the police department’s dis-

criminatory practices.

The order of the court included a requirement that of the

next 600 police officers employed, 300 be blacks and His-

panic males and 100 be females. This was a figure previous-

ly agreed to by the parties but not yet carried out. There-

after the court concluded that a hiring standard of 42

percent black and Spanish surname males and 16 percent

females should be imposed until further order of the court.

A promotion standard of 40 percent for black and Spanish

surname males was granted and the United States’ request

for back pay to those who were injured by the City’s dis-

criminatory hiring and promotion practices.

In this connection it should be noted that, according to

the Criminal Justice Directory Survey conducted in 1970,

and updated in the interim, the February 1975 publication

of LEAA’s National Criminal Justice Information and Sta-

tistics Service there are a total of 57,575 State and local

criminal justice agencies in the United States. Of these,

20,158 are police-type agencies broken out as follows:

17,464—General purpose police

987—Special police

1,707—-Coroners/medical examiners

All of the other kinds of criminal justice agencies—

principally courts and corrections facilities—totalling

37,417 are eligible for LEAA funding. A sizeable number of

these agencies are LEAA recipients.

In recognition of the practical limitations on investigating

every possible violation by every recipient criminal justice

agency, LEAA has continually increased its monitoring of

the civil rights responsibilities of recipient agencies

through training, technical assistance and programmatic re-

quirements designed to educate, assist and require a self-

evaluation by these agencies. The question is not whether

to effect civil rights compliance, but how to best accomplish

it. On this question, LEAA has been open and continues to

be open to suggestion.

A concrete example relates to the complaint affecting the

19 California city police departments. (Dealt with in more

detail in the Appendix.) For LEAA to have fully investi-

gated the complaint regarding all 19 cities in California,

there would have been, as a realistic matter, little or no

staff to handle other compliance needs. Accordingly, LEAA

arranged with the complainants’ representatives to investi-

gate only three of those cities.

B. The Office of Civil Rights Compliance

An Office of Civil Rights Compliance has been estab-

lished within LEAA and has primary authority to see to it

that recipients of LEAA funds comply with applicable civil

rights statutes, orders, rules and regulations. The authori-

ty of this office to address problems of discrimination was

expanded with the 1973 Amendments to the Crime Control

Act which included Section 518(c) providing that:

“No person in any State shall on the ground of race,

color, national origin, or sex be denied the benefits of,

or be subjected to discrimination under any program

or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made

available under this title.”

OCRC was created in May of 1971. Prior to that time civ-

il rights questions were handled by one attorney in the Of-

fice of General Counsel.

During FY 1972 (July 1, 1971—June 30, 1972) OCRC-ac-

quired a staff of six professionals and two clericals. During

FY 1973 the staff increased to nine professionals and three

clericals. During FY 1974 OCRC increased to twelve pro-

fessionals and three clericals, and during FY 1975 the staff

increased to sixteen professionals and three clericals. This

same number of full-time permanent positions will continue

through FY 1976 because there are no monies whatsoever

in LEAA’s appropriation for FY 1976 for any new positions

in any part of LEAA.

However, OCRC has been given eleven temporary posi-

283

tions for staff support. These include two full-time clericals,

two part-time “stay-in-school,” one full-time staff aide, one

part-time clerical, two part-time law students, one program

assistant, one part-time expert, and one special assistant.

Three new temporary positions for investigations are being

filled at the present time.

In accordance with the statutes and regulations that pro-

vide for LEAA’s civil rights responsibilities (see Manual,

Attachment 1), OCRC works toward the goal that equal

employment opportunity is practiced by LEAA recipients,

subgrantees and contractors and that services are equitably

provided by those police agencies, court systems, correc-

tional agencies and other criminal justice agencies which re-

ceive LEAA assistance. OCRC works with criminal justice

operational and planning agencies in four basic areas: the

conduct of civil rights compliance reviews and audits;

resolving complaints of discrimination; monitoring of the

employment practices of contractors in Federally-assisted

construction; and supporting technical assistance and other

programs to improve employment practices and community

service practices of recipient agencies.

At all times germane to the allegations of the present

complaint, OCRC was organized into three principal line

operations:

(1) A Complaints Division, which is responsible for in-

vestigation and prosecution of efforts to informally resolve

complaints of discrimination lodged with LEAA and

involving recipients of LEAA funds;

(2) A Compliance Review Division, which is responsible

for the conduct of pre-award and post-award compliance re-

views of the personnel and operational practices of recipi-

ents of LEAA funds, including efforts at informal resolu-

tion of compliance problems uncovered as a result of such

reviews;

(3) A Contract Compliance Division, which is responsi-

ble for assuring the compliance of recipients of LEAA

funds utilized in the construction or renovation of facilities

with the provisions of Executive Orders 11246 and 11375.

This Division conducts audits and on-site compliance re-

284

views, as well as collecting forms and data showing the lo-

cation, extent of completion, and relative utilization of mi-

nority and female labor on such projects.

1. Conduct of Compliance Reviews

Since early 1972, OCRC has conducted compliance re-

views of major law enforcement agencies and several State

correctional agencies and institutions. Extensive reviews of

State and municipal law enforcement bodies, probation and

parole agencies, prison and detention facilities and juvenile

court systems are planned for the future. To date, 19 crimi-

nal justice agencies have been reviewed.

OCRC has analyzed numerous police agencies in terms

of: LEAA funding; minority persons presently employed by

agency; minority population of the State, county or city

served by the agency; existing complaints received by

LEAA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or

the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice; and

pending related civil suits. Priorities for scheduling compli-

ance reviews have been developed on the basis of these fac-

tors, with preference being given to those departments

with the highest funding and the greatest disparity be-

tween minority employment and minority percentage of the

service population.

Compliance reviews runs one to two weeks and are con-

cerned with both equal employment and program services.

The areas examined are: recruiting, qualifications and

tests, promotions and assignments, utilization of minority

and female employees, disciplinary procedures, handling of

citizens’ complaints and community services. Community

services can include the types of arrest by race, the number

of arrests by race, location of equipment and personnel by

neighborhood, response time to service calls from identifia-

ble minority areas as compared to non-minority areas, and

police handling juveniles by race and sex. The review team

does extensive interviewing of community interest

groups—particularly in minority areas of the com-

munity—to determine the community perception of the po-

lice department and the services which it provides.

285

Reviews of State and local corrections systems focus on

equal employment opportunity and on equality of services

to those individuals under the supervision of correctional

authorities in institutional settings as well as community

programs. Examples of areas studied during the review

process include disciplinary proceedings and actions within

adult and juvenile institutions, classification systems, equal

access by both sexes and all ethnic groups to employment

and education programs offered by corrections agencies,

parole hearings and assignments to specialized treatment

programs such as halfway houses and group homes. The re-

view team interviews staff, clients nd prisoner advocate

groups to learn how each group perceives the civil rights

compliance posture of the agency or facility. A full-scale

compliance review of the Virginia State Department of

Corrections was undertaken in FY 1975. The review in-

volved a complete evaluation of the entire Department’s

hiring practices and a study of its services delivery mecha-

nisms for juvenile offenders.

Recommendations were made for improvements in the

Department’s hiring practices regarding minorities and fe-

males for both corrections and administrative staff. Recom-

mendations for the adult systern were forwarded to the

Governor of the State on December 16, 1975.

The review was large in scope, encompassing a full two-

week period.

In July 1975 OCRC received a complaint alleging dis-

criminatory employment practices against the New York

Police Department, the largest in the country. To investi-

gate these allegations we have scheduled an on-site compli-

ance review.

2. Equal Employment Opportunity Program Audit Pro-

gram

The Compliance Review Division in December 1974 initi-

ated a program of conducting desk audits of the EEOP’s of

selected LEAA recipients. LEAA regulations require an

EEOP as a condition of new and continued funding of all re-

cipients receiving more than $25,000 with minority popula-

286

tions greater than 3 percent and who employ fifty or more

persons (28 C. F. R. 42.301 et se., Subpart E). Where the

minority population is less than 3 percent, the agency must

still prepare an EEOP relating to women.

Since the initiation of the program, numerous State

planning agencies have voluntarily submitted recipient's

EEOP’s to OCRC for audit. Occasionally, an SPA or OCRC

stops the drawdown of new grant awards until complete

EEOP’s are received. The California State planning agency

has submitted over 20 EEOP’s for OCRC’s review. Under

this program, the Compliance Review Division conducted

or is conducting desk audits of 33 criminal justice agencies.

3. Survey

OCRC in FY 1975 conducted a sworn force employment

survey of the 16 law enforcement agencies it has conducted

on-site reviews of since 1972. This survey discovered that

since the time of review the number of black officers on all

of these departments has gone from 1,821 (8.2 percent of

the total officers on these departments) to 2,290 (9.9 per-

cent of the total officers), an increase of over 25 percent.

The number of Hispanic officers has increased from 362 (1.6

percent of the total officers on these departments) to 533

(2.4 percent of the total officers) for an increase of over 50

percent. Female sworn officers have gone from 255 (1.1

percent of total officers) to 584 (2.5 percent of total officers)

for an increase of over 125 percent. The total overall sworn

force size of these 16 departments has gone from 22,177 to

23,061 for an increase of 4 percent.

4. Pre-Award Compliance Review Program

The Compliance Review Division routinely conducts com-

pliance reviews of all discretionary grants awarded by

LEAA amounting to $750,000 or above. The dollar amount,

however, will change when the proposed OCRC Master

Plan is finalized. At that time, OCRC will have discretion

to review all DF applications of $500,000 or more. It is esti-

mated that this will result in substantially increasing the

number of pre-award reviews to be conducted.

287

In pre-award reviews, the measures of compliance are:

(a) non-discriminatory employment procedures; and

(b) non-discriminatory delivery of services, i.e., are the

various groups which make up the eligible service popula-

tion to be equally served and, if not, is there a valid justifi-

cation for any significant disparities?

Since this program was initiated in October 1973, it has

taken the vast majority of the Compliance Review Divi-

sion’s resources, i.e., over 70 percent of available person

hours. The time required to conduct a pre-award compli-

ance review, including the period at which the application is

received through on-site review and drafting of special con-

ditions, averages 21 person hours each application.

In FY 1975, OCRC undertook initial investigation of 41

pre-award compliance reviews. Of that number, 17.1 per-

cent (7) resulted in on-site reviews, while another 15 per-

cent (6) were conducted through desk audits of EEOP’s. Of

the 28 remaining, approximately 90 percent of these appli-

cations were rejected for funding. The other 10 percent

would include applications which were withdrawn or which

fell below the $750,000 cut-off figure.

Of the pre-awards culminating in either desk audits or

on-site reviews, 92.3 percent (12) resulted in special condi-

tions to the instrument of grant.

5. Compliance in Federally-Assisted Construction Con-

tracts

Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 prohibit discrimina-

tion based on race, creed, color, national origin or sex by

Federal contractors and subcontractors and place upon the

Secretary of Labor the responsibility for their implementa-

tion. The Secretary in turn has delegated to the Office of

Federal Contracts Compliance (OFCC) of the Department

of Labor the authority to adopt rules and regulations neces-

sary to implement the Orders and to monitor and supervise

the activities of all Federal agencies in this area. Accord-

inglyn the OCRC coordinates with the OFCC in meeting

LEAA's responsibilities for monitoring the equal employ-

ment practices of contractors awarded contracts for con-

288

struction or renovation of facilities with LEAA financial as-

sistance. Guideline G 7400.1A, issued February 1973, and

Guideline G 7400.1B, i sued June 4, 1974, advised the State

planning agencies that they are the primary source of infor-

mation on construction projects.

Upon approval of a grant application for LEAA funding

exceeding $10,000, the State planning agency must provide

OCRC with identifying information on the forthcoming

project. OCRC will then provide the identified contractor

with monthly reporting forms that detail the utilization of

minority and female employment on the project by trade,

person-hours and numbers of minority, female and total

employees.

Affirmative action plans are required of all contractors

and subcontractors awarded Federally-assisted contracts of

$50,000 or more and who employ 50 or more persons. Such

plans include consideration of recruitment, promotions,

transfer, lay-offs or terminations, rates of pay and selection

for training, including apprenticeship. Plans must include

numerical goals and timetables for the achievement of full

and equal employment opportunity for minorities and wom-

en, where Federally-assisted contractors have personnel

practices that are deficient as they affect persons in either

of those categories.

Construction project information is analyzed by both

LEAA and OFCC—particularly regarding those LEAA-

funded projects in communities that have Hometown or

Imposed Plans. LEAA Contract Compliance staff have par-

ticipated regularly in OFCC construction compliance re-

views and audits in communities with Hometown or

Imposed Plans. These reviews consist of pre-bid and pre-

construction conferences, of on-site visits, and of evaluation

of reports submitted by the contractor. Additionally,

LEAA Contract Compliance staff conduct pre-bid confer-

ences on contracts, as deemed necessary. As of August

1975, the Contract Compliance Division, OCRC, is moni-

toring 17 construction projects in Plan Areas which repre-

sents over $33 million in Federal funds. This represents

289

more than half of the construction money provided by

LEAA in FY 1973, FY 1974 and FY 1975.

6. Resolution of Complaints

As evidenced by the foregoing discussion, OCRC con-

ducts a number of other vitally important civil rights fune-

tions in addition to the important task of resolving com-

plaints. However, complaint resolution has assumed a

prominent position in the responsibilities of OCRC.

Any person who has a complaint of discrimination based

on race, color, national origin, creed or sex in the personnel

practices of an agency receiving LEAA funds, or in the pro-

vision of program services by such an agency, may notify

OCRC, or the relevant State planning agency, which will

forward a copy of the complaint to OCRC.

Upon receiving the complaint, OCRC examines the

charge to determine if the allegations indicate discrimina-

tion prohibited by civil rights laws and regulations applica-

ble to LEAA and if the agency being complained about is

an LEAA recipient. If OCRC determines that it has juris-

diction, the individual filing the complaint and the SPA are

informed that the complaint is being processed. If a com-

plaint appears valid but falls under the jurisdiction of an-

other unit of the Federal government, LEAA refers it to

that unit.

The respondent agency is then informed of the charges

and is directed to respond to an interrogatory letter re-

questing data and information relative to the issues raised

by the complaint. When the requested information has been

received and analyzed, an on-site investigation is scheduled

unless the matter can be settled on the basis of information

received by mail.

OCRC is currently formalizing its referral relationship

with several EEOC District Offices and has promulgated

new guidelines that would give those State planning

agencies that have the interest and capacity to engage in

civil rights compliance activities the opportunity to do so.

OCRC will retain substantial oversight over the State

planning agency’s conduct of these activities. These

guidelines became effective January 21, 1976.

290

The OCRC complaint desk caseload, as of January 21,

1976, is as follows:

Fiscal Years Totals

FY 1973 1974 1975 1976 (incl. FY 1972)

*Active Cases 18 50 112 9 276 oe

**In-Active Cases 17 29 6 0 5⁴

(Open)

Cases Closed So 8 2 0 97

Totals Rec'd Per FY 64 101 130 90 427

It is estimated that approximately 200 complaints will be

docketed in FY 1976.

The 427 complaints which have been received by LEAA

are broken out into the following criminal justice agency

categories:

296—Police Departments

21—Sheriffs’ Departments

52—Corrections and Prisons

10—Courts

11— Universities (these are referred to DHEW under

a delegation: of authority)

4—Probation and Parole

4—Juvenile Detention Centers

12—Various Miscellaneous Criminal Justice Agencies

21—State Planning Agencies

Note: There may be more than one complaint against an in-

dividual agency. These are total complaints, by cate-

gory.

*This was prior to the 1973 amendment to Section 518 of the Crime

Control Act of 1973 which added Section 518(c).

*OCRC is presently undergoing reorganization along functional

lines. Notwithstanding formal divisions, personnel will continue to be

assigned to meet specific needs.

*Includes cases where OCRC is monitoring litigation.

**Being monitored for compliance with agreements.

291

7. Technical Assistance Grants and Contracts

LEAA is implementing a comprehensive program of civil

rights enforcement and activities involving the fullest use

of resources at the State and local levels. Accordingly, it is

developing a technical assistance capability at the Federal

level which will be shared with State officials as each State

begins to develop a comprehensive compliance program.

LEAA has funded a number of technical assistance

grants and contracts in the civil rights area. A brief de-

scription of the most significant grants follows.

The first grant awarded to strengthen the civil rights ca-

pabilities of State planning agencies and criminal justice

agencies established the Center for Criminal Justice Agen-

cy Organization and Minority Employment Opportunity at

Marquette University. The main function of the Center is

to recruit and retain minority personnel and women. The

Center through its full-time staff and consultants has pro-

vided assistance to 87 law enforcement agencies during the

past calendar year. To broaden and apply its expertise, the

Center is currently researching:

—The extent of minority employment by police

agencies;

—The minority recruitment drives of major police

departments and the reasons for their success or

failure;

—The extent of discrimination in police forces as a

factor hindering recruitment and retention of mi-

norities;

—Methods of improving the police image in minority

communities;

—Police employment standards and employment

testing as they affect the recruitment of minori-

ties for law enforcement work.

In addition, the Center is currently providing long-range

technical assistance to several police departments, and the

Center is also holding workshops in numerous cities to de-

velop an awareness among those who should be concerned

with structuring solutions to the problem.

292

The civil rights contract with the N ional Urban

League, creating the Law Enforcement Minority Manpow-

er Project (LEMMP), has been renewed for a third consec-

utive year of operation. LEMMP conducted successful pro-

grams during FY 1973 in three cities (Cleveland, Ohio;

Dallas, Texas; and Newark, New Jersey) and in three dif-

ferent cities (Springfield, Massachusetts; Sacramento,

California; and Little Rock, Arkansas) during FY 1974.

LEMMP currently (FY 1975) has minority recruitment pro-

grams at four new locations (Lexington, Kentucky;

Jackson, Mississippi; Topeka, Kansas; and White Plains,

New York). The scope of LEMMP has been expanded to

impact counties and entire States, and there is greater em-

phasis placed on recruiting Hispanics and American Indi-

ans. During the first three years of LEMMP, 11,600 minor-

ity prospects were interviewed and 4,000 were hired by

criminal justice agencies.

A contract was awarded to the International Association

of Official Human Rights Agencies (IAOHRA) to train

members and staffs of State planning agencies, local crimi-

nal justice planning agencies and State and local human

rights agencies in matters relating to civil rights compli-

ance in the criminal justice community. At this writing the

Association has trained 4,670 individuals and has visited

122 State or local criminal justice agencies.

During 1975, IAOHRA provided training to State

planning agencies and criminal justice agency EEO person-

nel in the ten LEAA regions. This training focused on new

LEAA regulations affecting recipient civil rights compli-

ance responsibilities and LEAA requirements for the de-

velopment and implementation of EEOP’s in LEAA-funded

criminal justice agencies.

A grant was awarded last year to the Hispanic Law En-

forcement Training Institute of Justice. Its activities were

aimed toward improving the relationship between the His-

panic community and criminal justice systems by recruit-

ing, counseling and training men and women of Hispanic or-

igin interested in law enforcement careers. The geographic

focus of its work has been in the New York metropolitan

area.

293

The project has serviced over 2,000 persons to date. It is

hoped that the pending evaluation will show the program to

have been highly successful and serve as a valuable model

for replication in other areas of the country where there are

large concentrations of Hispanic people.

The project’s activities in New York have now been

phased out. New York City, which was the laboratory for

the project’s work, has ceased hiring and is likely to place

police officers on payless furloughs. Under these circum-

stances, it was determined that it would be unlikely that

the project could carry on with its work.

LEAA has funded a project of national scope to improve

the methods of selection for employment of law enforce-

ment personnel. This grant, involving industrial psycholog-

ical testing, has been awarded to the University of

Chicago’s Industrial Relations Center.

The grant has as its objective the development of a test

instrument for selection of municipal police officers in de-

partments ranging in size from approximately 700 officers

to 7,000 officers. Also, a similar test instrument will be de-

veloped for use by State highway patrols and State police

agencies. Another objective of this grant is to develop new

test items which can be shown to be job-related, and have

at the same time, a minimum adverse impact on minority

applicants. This project is budgeted on a three-year basis,

but funded one year at a time. Funding in subsequent

years, if available, will aim at concurrent and predictive

validation of the test instruments involving all areas of the

country.

LEAA awarded a grant for $125,000 to the City of

Cleveland for the benefit of the Police Department. This

grant, the first of its kind funded by LEAA, is for the de-

velopment of job-related promotional examinations which

have no significant adverse racial or sexual impact. The

grant also funds development of non-discriminatory en-

trance level screening procedures such as background in-

vestigations and polygraph tests. Finally, the grant calls

for development of training curricula for each rank of the

police department, which training is job-related and not

294

limited to members of a particular race or sex. A replica-

tion document will be prepared as part of the grant which

will enable other departments to benefit from the research

done in Cleveland.

8. Negotiation and Enforcement

The primary purpose of civil rights law is to establish

equal opportunity, not to withhold Federal assistance.

LEAA is firmly committed to the principle that the initial

step in the resolution of civii rights compliance problems

must be a serious attempt to achieve a voluntary settle-

ment. This is the philosophy underlying the conduct and

follow-up of compliance reviews and the processing of com-

plaints by LEAA. Thus, after an investigation, OCRC

meets with the individual and criminal justice agency to

discuss resolution of the matter and make recommendations

for eliminating possible discriminatory practices. We have

found the process of negotiation an efficacious means of

achieving voluntary compliance with LEAA recommenda-

tions. After the recommendations have been implemented,

OCRC periodically monitors the results and makes certain

that the agency abides by the terms of the agreement. *

On August 26, 1975, I sent a letter to the Governor of

Hawaii advising him that the Honolulu Police Department

was not in compliance with Federal civil rights require-

ments and that lack of resolution would result in appropri-

ate enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, the Honolulu

Police Department deleted its minimum height require-

ments.

*Contrary to the allegations (par. 25) of plaintiff's complaint, an em-

ployment discrimination case was not filed by the Department of Jus-

tice against the South Carolina Highway Patrol. The Attorney General

of the United States has authorized the Civil Rights Division to file

suit in this case. However, I sent a letter to the Governor of South

Carolina on January 16, 1976, notifying him of the non- compliance and

that voluntary efforts have failed to resolve the situation. The Govern-

or was given until March 1, 1976, to try to effect a voluntary settle-

e No suit will be filed by the Civil Rights Division during this

295

In February 1975 I was made aware of a non-compliance

matter involving the Police Department of St. Louis in

which I was prepared to take enforcement action. In that

matter, officials in St. Louis, upon learning that they faced

the prospect of such action by LEAA, voluntarily complied,

obviating the necessity of taking enforcement action.

On January 29, 1976, I sent a letter to the Governor of

Pennsylvania, advising him of the non-compliance of the

Philadelphia Police Department, and requesting his assist-

ance in securing their compliance. If the Governor cannot

secure compliance by March 29, 1976, LEAA will initiate

fund-termination proceedings pursuant to Section 509 of

the Crime Control Act.

Since 1974, when EEOP desk audits were begun, we

have deferred drawdown of funds on new awards to 21

criminal justice agencies which had incomplete EEOP’s.

Complete EEOP’s are a prerequisite to funding.

In mid-January 1975, I was apprised of the fact that the

cities of Pittsburgh and McKeesport had failed to complete

an EEOP covering the local Police Departments as re-

quired. Cornelius M. Cooper, Regional Administrator of

LEAA, located in Philadelphia, wrote to John Snavely, the

Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State planning

agency, on January 24, 1975, directing the State planning

agency not to award any further subgrants to those cities

until compliance with the EEO Guidelines was achieved.

The action was done with my knowledge and full support.

The cities of McKeesport and Pittsburgh have now

submitted satisfactory EEOP’s.

When the Administration of LEAA determines, on the

basis of information and recommendations from OCRC and

the Office of General Counsel, that voluntary compliance

cannot be achieved, it must then resort to the appropriate

enforcement mechanism.

If the area in which non-compliance has been found falls

within Section 518(c) of the Act, the chief executive of the

State in which the non-compliance exists is notified and re-

quested to intervene and secure compliance. If within a

reasonable period of time after notification the chief execu-

296

tive is unable or unwilling to resolve the situation to

LEAA’s satisfaction, administrative proceedings for fund

cut-off must be initiated. If the Administration, after rea-

sonable notice and opportunity for a hearing finds that

there has been a failure to comply with Section 518(c), it

may suspend all funding to those areas or activities where

the finding of non-compliance was made. A recipient may

request a rehearing, and further provision is made for judi-

cial review of the Administration’s decision. Concurrent

with administrative proceedings, LEAA may pursue appro-

priate judicial actions as provided by law, if it so chooses.

Judicial and administrative sanctions are also provided

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the

LEAA Equal Employment Opportunity Regulations.

IV. Methods—Practical, Impractical, Appropriate and

Inappropriate

A. Plaintiffs’ Proposals

In their prayers for relief in the Amended Complaint,

plaintiffs propose various methods of seeking to effect civil

rights compliance.

Thus, in the prayer for relief numbered D4, plaintiffs

seek to require LEAA:

“to award LEAA funding only to those departments

which have been determined by the defendants to be

in civil rights compliance and to place all pending

LEAA funding in escrow until there has been a deter-

mination of civil rights compliance.”

This seems to mean that LEAA should make no grant to

any department until there has been a determination that

the particular department is in civil rights compliance. This

is inconsistent with the approach taken in the statute; it

would be impractical; and it would result in a frustration of

the purposes of the statute because of the indefinite delay

in funding that would result.

A second proposal by plaintiffs is that, upon a judicial

finding of discrimination, LEAA should immediately sus-

pend and terminate funding. Prayer D1. This proposal can

297

be tested against a hypothetical case that has points of re-

semblance to that involving the Indiana State Police dealt

with in the Appendix.

Let us take a case in which a complex factual stituation is

the subject of litigation between a private party and a po-

lice agency. The private party is represented by an organi-

zation with expertise in this area and the resources and

abilities to prosecute the case energetically. The case re-

sults in a lengthy judicial opinion which takes a few months

for the court to prepare. The court’s findings agree with

some allegations and reject others. Rendering appropriate

relief will take an additional period of time. To say that

LEAA should jump into such a case in the middle is to

counsel administrative action that is imprudent and un-

sound.

The reasons: LEAA resources would be diverted to a

purpose that would be duplicative; LEAA would be in-

jecting itself into a situation in which the court had made

findings in the first instance, but LEAA would be unaware

what remedy the court would deem appropriate for the vio-

lation it found. Considering the relationship that courts and

agencies should have toward one another, such action by an

agency—absent some strong special circumstance—would

be presumptuous.

In this regard, it should be remembered that, under the

Act, fund cut-off is coercive not punitive. There is no rea-

son to presume that if a lower court orders relief and the

order is not stayed, the police agency will violate it. If an

order is issued and obeyed, it is difficult to find the warrant

for instituting fund cut-off proceedings.

On the other hand, if the order should be stayed, there

would be, at a minimum, a presumption against initiating

fund cut-off. For, if a court exercises its discretion to make

the remedy await appellate action, the court might be just-

ly displeased if LEAA were to insist on action in advance of

appellate review.

To put the matter another way: Assuming that a court

finds discrimination, there is not a magic wand that can be

waved that can immediately eliminate discrimination. The

298

court must determine the appropriate relief and the practi-

cable pace of relief to eliminate discrimination. This is the

task of LEAA where it negotiates with a department or

makes a determination of discrimination. But ordinarily it

is not appropriately the role of LEAA where the court had

adjudicated the case and has the discretion to set appropri-

ate terms of relief.

Plaintiffs would have LEAA immediately terminate fund-

ing to law enforcement agencies which have been judicially

determined to be in violation of civil rights laws. However,

Section 518(c) provides that the Administration, after

determining a failure to comply, must afford the chief exec-

utive of the State a reasonable time to secure compliance.

Plaintiffs’ proposal that LEAA immediately suspend and

terminate funding to agencies judicially determined to be in

violation of civil rights laws runs into at least the following

obstacles:

First. It ignores LEAA’s legal responsibility to seek the

voluntary compliance of a recipient it believes to be in non-

compliance.

Second. It assumes that the Administration can and

should automatically make the same determination as a

court.

Third. It reads the opportunity for an administrative

hearing out of the statute.

Fourth. It reads the opportunity of the chief executive to

secure compliance out of the statute.

Even if all that plaintiffs sought were for the Administra-

tor to commence administrative proceedings immediately

upon a judicial finding of violation, their proposal would be

unsound. In order for the Administration to afford the chief

executive the opportunity to secure compliance, LEAA

would have to establish the appropriate remedy for the dis-

crimination he determined to exist. If the court had not yet

established a form of relief, the Administration would have

to preempt the court by deciding what relief is appropriate.

If the court had already established relief by means of an

order, it is difficult to understand what purpose LEAA in-

tervention at that stage would serve.

Thus, LEAA will ordinarily defer administrative action

on a complaint when the same matter is pending in a court

of law.“ This pragmatic approach which takes advantage of

the resources of the judiciary best serves the civil rights re-

sponsibility of LEAA. Discriminatory charges are being

aired in a forum competent to decide the issue. LEAA can

then draw on the findings and conclusions and proceed ac-

cordingly, obviating the necessity of expending its own re-

sources on a matter already competently reviewed. LEAA

can then direct its resources to matters that may not other-

wise surface in a court of law but are equally deserving of

attention. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is

a practical impossibility for LEAA to promptly resolve ev-

ery complaint it receives.

The deferral approach of LEAA was approvingly com-

mented upon in Hardy v. Leonard, 377 F. Supp. 831 (N. D.

Calif. 1974). Here, a class action by women who were

denied employment with the Oakland Police Department

was brought, seeking an order requiring LEAA to deter-

mine whether the police department was complying with

Federal equal employment requirements, and terminating

financial assistance to the department if it were not so com-

plying. The action was dismissed as being moot. In dis-

missing, the court reasoned that:

“Defendant’s evidence is convincing that LEAA has

now yr with its responsibility to monitor and

work with the OPD to assure 2 with relevant

statutes regarding employment discrimination. It ap-

pears to the satisfaction of the court that LEAA has

engaged in compliance discussion with the OPD, and

that it has seen to it that the OPD has complied with

the recommendations. While the height and weight re-

quirements for employment with the OPD remain in

controversy, LEAA is properly awaiting the decision

*It should be noted that I am not speaking here of a choice by

LEAA to go to court rather than to take administrative action. When

the Administration determines that a State or local government has

failed to comply with Section 518(c)(1) or an applicable regulation,

LEAA must notify the Governor in accordance with Section 518&(¢)2).

300

on that question which should be forthcoming from the

California Court of Appeals.” (Hardy v. Stumpf, 37

Cal. App. 3rd 958, 112 Cal. Rptr. 739.)

In addition to conserving resources, the approach of

deferring to a pending court action reduces the potential for

conflicting court and agency results. Such results would

promote confusion rather than the promotion of equal em-

ployment opportunity.

When an individual alleging discriminatory employment

practices brings an action in court, there may be instances

in which such action is accompanied by an administrative

complaint with LEAA, and others in which it is not. Where

it is not, it seems to me reasonable to assume that the indi-

vidual has chosen that procedure for prosecution of his

claim that he (or his counsel) deemed most appropriate.

Where the individual seeks to pursue both courses simul-

taneously, other considerations are relevant. As strongly as

an individual feels a grievance, his claim is only a claim un-

til authoritatively determined. Claims are made that are

determined to be valid as well as invalid. Where there are

not limitless resources in society to prosecute claims

through various means simultaneously, it is reasonable or-

dinarily to defer action administratively where an individu-

al pursues his judicial remedy.

Of course, if judicial proceedings are prolonged unduly,

or if an agency violates a court order, a different situation

may well be presented. There is no presumption, however,

that a court will unduly delay disposition of a case, or that

an agency will violate a court order.

Plaintiffs would also have LEAA initiate administrative

proceedings while litigation initiated by a private party is

pending and has not reached adjudication. Similar concerns

are applicable here. With the number of law enforcement

agencies in this country, and the number of civil rights ac-

tivities needed to be conducted by LEAA, the duplication

of effort that is involved in pursuing administratively mat-

ters being prosecuted judicially would be unsound and im-

practical administration. Even where the Civil Rights Divi-

301

sion has filed suit,* LEAA cannot automatically make a

determination under Section 518(c) on the basis of allega-

tions in a complaint filed by the Civil Rights Division. Simi-

lar questions of duplication of effort and intrusion upon the

courts are presented as in the case of individual lawsuits.

It should also be considered that intrusion of LEAA into

situations where a court of competent jurisdiction is consid-

ering a matter may in fact be counterproductive to the res-

olution of the problem in question. LEAA after all can only

by administrative process seek a cut-off of funds. A court,

on the other hand, commonly can afford broad individual or

class relief in a case it is considering. For instance, it might

order that a discriminatori

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.