# Appendix — Richard W. Velde v. National Black Police Association, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1933%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1982 - **Citation:** 458 U.S. 591 ## Text 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 CAFOATION 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 / 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 re [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1933%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.