Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING <br />OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE <br /> CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />November 11, 1977 <br /> <br />The meeting convened at 5:03 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, <br />22 Civic Center Plaza, and was called to order by Mayor Vernon <br />S. Evans. The following Council members responded to roll call: <br />David F. Ortiz, Harry K. Yamamoto, John Garthe, David L. Brandt, <br />Gordon Bricken, James E. Ward and Mayor Evans. Also present <br />were Staff members City Manager Bruce C. Spragg, City Attorney <br />Keith L. Cow, Police Chief Raymond C. Davis, and Clerk of the <br />Council Florence I. Malone. <br /> <br />INVOCATION <br />PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />Following the Pledge of <br />Allegiance to the Flag, <br />the Invocation was given <br />by Councilman Brandt. <br /> <br />LULAC LITIGATION Mayor Evans announced <br />A.A. NO. 40 - APPROVED that a public'hearing was <br />PARTIAL CONSENT DECREE - APPROVED being held to inform the <br /> citizens of Santa Ana <br />of Council's intention to act on a proposed partial consent <br />decree to settle some of the issues in the case of the League <br />of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. City of Santa Ana. <br /> <br />A report dated November 8, 1977 prepared by Director of Person- <br />nel Donald E. Bott, and memorandums dated November 8, 1977 and <br />October 14 and 20, 1977 from the City Attorney, were provided <br />to Council, and Deputy City Attorney Robert Sangster gave a <br />brief summary of the issues addressed in the proposed partial <br />consent decree. He stated that negotiations had commenced last <br />April between the attorneys to determine what issues raised by <br />the judgment of the Court in this case should be appealed, and <br />what issues should not be appealed and settled at this time; <br />that if Council approves the decree it must still be approved <br />by the Court at a noticed hearing where class members would have <br />a right to come and express their views; that the decree is not <br />an admission of liability; that the City Attorney feels that <br />there is a good chance of prevailing on appeal on the fire apti- <br />tude test, and on that issue we have been assured of amicus <br />curai briefs from other agencies, including the Attorney General <br />for the State Personnel Board, and the League of California Cities <br />that the partial consent decree would limit the attorneys fees <br />to a total of $275,000; and that the partial consent decree also <br />limits the extent of the City's back-pay liability to $100,000 <br />on issues being settled, and to $25,000 if the City does not <br />prevail on the fire aptitude test being appealed. <br /> <br />Thomas Hunt, Attorney for the Plaintiffs, stated that he wished <br />to emphasize that to agree to the proposed partial consent decree <br />is not an admission to engaging in any purposeful or intentional <br />discriminatory practices; and he stated that he and the follow- <br />ing members of the plaintiff organization were present to answer <br />any Council questions: <br /> <br />Steve Baca, President of the Santa Ana Chapter, LULAC <br />Gloria Perez, Past National Vice President for Western U.S. LULAC <br />Rachel Nelson, Vice President of Santa Ana Chapter, LULAC <br />Anita Aurelio, Representing District #1 of Orange County LULAC <br />Laurie Lopez, Member of LULAC <br />John Lopez, Secretary of Irvine Professional Council, LULAC <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 411 <br /> <br />NOVEMBER 11, 1977 <br /> <br /> <br />