Ochoa and Sillas Report Exhibits, VOL 2

Ri!C& VED
APR 0 41991
JWS
INVESTIGATION
OF
THE GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
HIRING AND EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
AS THEY PERTAIN TO
RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
VOLUME II
Submitted
by
OCHOA & SILLAS
January, 1988

LIST OF EXHIBITS
FOR
VOLUME ONE
Volume One
Number
Page
1
Jauregui v. City of Glendale; Case No.
CV-85 6236, filed in the u.s. District
Court, Central District
1
2
Daily News, Burbank, Glendale Publication,
March 11, 1987.
2
3
Retainer Agreement between the City of
Glendale and Ochoa & Sillas, January 16, 1987.
2
4
Glendale's Affirmative Action Policy.
18
5
Discriminatory Work Place Harassment
Policy, December 1, 1983.
18
6
Planning Division · Publication "Facts About
Glendale" (January, 1984) -- Map page 66.
20
-i-

Volume One
Number
Page
7
Planning Division Publication "Facts About
Glendale" (January, 1984) Taxable
retail sales graph, page 75.
20
8
Glendale Unified School District,
Informational Report No. 3, May 19, 1987.
21
9
Organization al chart of the Glendale
Police Department.
24
10
Employment opportunity bulletins for
Department positions.
28
11
Department General Order No. 715, May 1,
1987.
32
12
Glendale Newspress, September 12, 1981.
47
13
Background to City Discriminatory Work
Place Harassment Policy, page 1, (see
Exhibit No • 5 ) •
50
14
"Arizona State Game Commission."
52
-ii-

Volume One
Number
Page
15 Newspaper photograph with racial caption.
53
16 "Official Runnin' Nigger Target."
54
17 "Nigger Boy."
58
18 Christmas party - a.
60
19 Christmas party - b.
60
20 "Police I.D. Photograph.
64
21 "Swinging monkey."
64
22 "Chimp & Dale."
65
23 "Wanted" poster.
69
24 "New hair styles."
70
25 "White man's car."
71
26 "Famine drawing."
72
-iii-

Volume One
Number
Page
27
Chief's letter dated November 22, 1985.
89
28
Questionnaire.
94
29
Letter from USC professors regarding
questionnaire.
95
30
Computation of responses from USC.
95
31
Computation of responses from Ochoa &
Sillas
95
-iv-

E X H I B I T 1

( .
2
3
4
5
6
'
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-- 22
23
24
25
26
DAVID ALKIRE
11726 San Vicente Boulevard
Suite 450
Los Angeles, California 50b49
( 2 .1 3 ) 2 0 7 - 1 0 5 0
Attorney for Plaintiff
RICARDO LUIS JAUREGUI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFOFNIA ·~
Ricardo Luis Jauregui, ) CASE NO. CV-
Plaintiff,)
v. )
City of Glendale, )
~~~--~~efencant.)
Plaintiff alleges:
)
)
)
)
85 sz:.-:6
C0~2LAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICERS PROCEDURAL BILL OF
RIGHTS; AND DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL
FIEST COUNT
[Violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964]
1. Plaintiff has complied with all the jurisdictional
prerequisites to action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act o
1964, as follows:
(a) On or about February 5, 1985, and at other times,
defendant City of Glendale (hereinafter "defendant
City") failed to promote plaintiff to the rank of
Sergeant, and continues to refuse to promote
plaintiff, because of the policies, practices,
27
28
II
customs and usages complained of herein;

( (
(b) On or ab0ut May 10, 1985, plaintiff filed a writte
2
3
4
5
6
'
8
9
10
I 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. - - 23
24
25
26
27
28
charge of discrimina.tion with the Eq~al Employn:ent
Opportunity Commission;
(c) On or about September 16, 1985, the Eaual
Employment Opportunity Commission notified
plaintiff in writing of his right to sue within 90
days of the receipt of said notification; and
(d) Plaintiff has filed this action within 90 cays of
the receipt of his notice of right to sue.
2. At all ti~es mentioned herein, defendant City was and no
is a chartered city located in the County of Los Angeles, State o
California. At all times mentioned herein, defend~nt C~ty has
maintained as a unit of its government the Police Department-of
the City of Glendale (hereinafter "Glendale Police Department").
3. Plaintiff has been employed as a sworn police officer in
the Glendale Police Department from· February 26, 1973 to the date
of filing this Complaint, and continues in said employment.
4. Defendant City, in violation of the provisions of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has denied and continues to
deny plaintiff equal opportunity for employement because of his
national origin, which is Hispanic. In particular, defendant Cit
has engaged in and is engaging· in the following practices with th
purpose and effect of maintaining a supervisory hierarchy in the
Glendale Police Department which consists entirely of white,
non-Hispanic males, and thereby denies Hispanics, females and
blacks equal opportunity for employment. Said unlawful ernploymen
practices include, but are not limited to, the following:
II
2
.

( (
(a) Administering and grading test~ for prc~otion to
2 the rank of Sergeant, Lieutena~t and Captain in a
3 manner so as to 9ive preferential treatment to
4 white, non-Hispanic male applicants for promotion,
5 and to exclude from promotion all other persons,
6 particularly including plaintiff, who are sirnilarl
7 qualified.
8
(b)
r;aintaining a promotional system under which a
g
so-called "Rule of Three" is applied to the list o
10
a?plicants for promotjon, so as to enable pro~otio
11
of candidates who are not most aualified, as
12
determined by testing procedures.
Plaintiff has
13
been at or near the top of the promotional lists
14
for the position of Sergeant during the past five
15
years, but discriminatory application of the "Rule
16
of Three" has resulted in numerous appointments of
17
white, non-Hispanic males to the position of Polic
18
Sergeant, instead of plaintiff, who was similarly
19
or better qualified.
20
(c)
Maintaining a sham grievance procedure for
21
administrative review of promotional decisions
22
within the Glendale Police Department.
Said sham
23
procedure purports to provide civilian review of
24
decisions, including promotional decisions, by an
25
26
/
agency of defendant City which is supposedly
independent of the Glendale Police Department.
Th
27
practice, custom, usage and effect of said sham
28
grievance pro~edure
is to deprive plaintiff of any
3

( (
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
:
-
23
24
25
26
27
28
meaningf~l opportunity to obtain a review of
discriminatory failuFes and ~efusals_to . promote
to the rank of Sergeant, and also to deprive him o
those rights to which he is entitled under the
California Public Safety Of.ficers Procedural Bill
of ~ights, set forth in California Government Code
§§3300, et seq.
5. Because of the limited number of positions in the job
classification of Sergeant in the Glendale Police Department,
unless defendant City is preliminarily enjoined and restrained
from making any promotions to that rank during the pendency of
this action, there will be no Sergeant's position available at th
conclusion of this action in the event that plaintiff prevails
herein. Moreover, so long as the present unlawful and
discriminatory practices continue in effect, plaintiff will
continue to be unlawfully discriminated against during the
pendency of this action. Defendant City will suffer no prejudice
if no persons other than plaintiff are promoted to Sergeant curin
the pendency of this action. It is therefore necessary to enjoin
and restrain, preliminarily, defendant City from promoting any
.[.> ~ cs 1) •l o th~ c than p 1 a int i ff to the rank of Sergeant during the
pe11dency of this action.
6. Plaintiff has been damaged by the foregoing unlawful and
discriminatory acts and conduct of defendant City, in that he has
not received the benefits, particularly including back pay, which
would accrue to him if he had been promoted to the rank of
Ser~eant at the time when he should have been so promoted, based
on his demonstrated abilities and position in the pro~otion lists
4

( (
J...s a direct c.nd proxir.iate result of the forego.ing acts and conduct
2 o f d e fen c ant C i t y , p 1 a i n t i f f h a s been damaged · _i n an _2 mo u n t at
3 least equal to the difference between ~hat he actually received as
4 a Glendale Police Officer, and what he should have received if he
5 had been ti~ely p~o~oted, without regard to national origin.
6 7. In order to prosecute this action, plaintiff has been
1 reauired to retain the services of counsel, and has retained
8 attorney David Alkire for that purpose. Upon the conclusion of
9 this proceeding, plaintiff is entitled to a sum representing a
10 reasonable attorney's fee for the pra.s€cution of this action.
11
12
13
14
SECO~D COUNT
[Violation of Public Safety Officer~
Procedural Bill of Rights Act-~California
Government Code §§3300, et seq.]
15 8. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates as though fully set
16 forth herein all averments in paragraphs 1 though 7, inclusive.
17 9. Plaintiff is a Public Safety Officer within the meaning
18 of California Government Code §§3300, et seq., which chapter bears
19 the short title of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of
20 Rights Act.
21 10. Pursuant to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of
-.
22 Rights . Act, plaintiff may not be subject to punitive action or
23 deriial of promotion on grounds other than merit, without being
24 provided an .opportunity for administrative appeal.
25 11. As set forth more particularly in paragraph 4
26 hereinabove, the sham grievance procedure of defendant City does
27 not constitute an administrative appeal as contemplated in the
28 Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Riqhts Act.
5

t
(
1 12. Plaintiff has been subjected to punitive action or denial
2 of a promotion on 9rounds other than merit, as more fully set
. ... -
3 forth in paragraph 4 hereinabove. In addition to the foregoing,
4 after plaintiff filed a written grievance in February 1985,
5 pursuant to the sham grievance procedure of defendant City,
6 efforts were made by aqents of Defendant City and the Glendale
1 ?olice Department to pressure laintiff's immediate supervisors
8 into changing their favorable and complimentary annual evaluation
9 of plaintiff, in order to create evidence from which the wrongful
10 refusal to promote him could then be justified, ex post facto.
11 Said efforts to pressure other police officers into changing their
12 evaluation constitute punitive action, for which there is no
13 opportunity for administrative appeal.
14 13. Said violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural
15 Bill of Rights Act will continue unless restrained and enjoined by
16 this Court. Plair-tiff therefore seeks an injunction against
17 defendant City, its agents and employees, prohibiting any further
18 punitive action against him with reference to annual evaluations
19 or any subsequent promotional examinations, and particularly
20 prohibiting any interrogation by Lieutenants or Captains of those
21 immediate supervisors of plaintiff who are responsible for
22 preparing his annual written evaluation, which interrogation or
23 questioning differs from or is in addition to any ordinary contact
24 among such employees of defendant City; prohibiting any revision
25 of annual employment reviews of plaintiff, after they have been
26 prepared in writing and signed by those immedi.ate supervisors who
27 are customarily responsible for preparing annual evaluations of
28 plaintiff; and establishinq an actual opportunity for
6

( (
admin istrative appeal from such conduct, whic~ includes at least
2
3
4
5
6
the following rights:
....
(a) the right to a hearing before a neutral arbitrator,
(b) th€ opportunity to question under oath those
persons responsible for any decision or conduct
constituting punitive action or denial of promotion
o n grounds other than merit,
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(c) the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and tangible
evidence,
(d) the opportunity to question all witnesses under
oath, and
(e) otherwise to be afforded an administrative appeal
which comports with minimal standards of due -
process and the requirements of applicable
California statutes.
THIRD COUNT
[Violation of 42 u.s.c. §1981)
14. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates as though fully set
forth herein all averments .contained in paragraphs 8 through 13,
inclusive.
2l 15. As described in paragraph 12 hereinabove, after filing a
22 written grievance with the Glendale Police Department, in which h
23 set forth his claims of unlawful discrimination, agents of
24 defendant City and the Glendale Police Department attempted to
25 bring pressure upon plaintiff's immediate supervisors to change
26 their annual written evaluation, which was prepared during
27 February of 1985. Each year, the Glendale Police Department
28 requires that each officer be evaluated, in writing, by ·-his
7

( (
supervisors, at the tim~ of that of~icer's "a~hiversary date"
2 ( i . e. , the date upon which each officer was o rJ g in a 11 y hired ) •
3 Coir.cioentally, plaintiff's anniversary date is February 26.
4 · After plaintiff filed his written complaint, those supervisors who
5 had prepared written evaluations (which favorably evaluated
6 plaintiff's ~ork) were subjected to auestioning and other pressure
i in an effort to cause them to chanqe their evaluation, and make it
8 less favorable. The final version of the written evaluation was
g delayed for many weeks while the Chief of Police and his i~mediate
10 subordinates improperly atte~pted to .cause it to be re-written so
11 as to be less favorable. Both the delay and the efforts to
12 pressure plaintiff's irr~ediate supervisors were unprecedented, and
13 were done in response to and as a result of plaint~ff's writt~n
14 complaint. Said acts and conduct constitute an effort to
15 fabricate evidence for use against plaintiff in this or any other
16 action which he may contemplate, based on the improper conduct
17 described in his written complaint.
18 16. Said acts of retaliation will continue unless restrained
19 and enjo{ned by this Court. Plaintiff therefore seeks an
20
21
injunction against defendant City, its agents and employees, as
set forth in paragraph 13 hereinabove.
22 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant
23 City as follows:
24 1. For an order that defendant City promote plaintiff to the
25 position of Sergeant, and award such seniority in said position as
26 if plaintiff had not been unlawfully discriminated against as set
27 forth herein;
28 2. For an award of back pay, with interest thereon, for the
s

( (
~eriod duri ng which plaintiff was unlawfully ~iscriminated
- ..
2 and n')i: pr:u:10ttJ. to Seraeant, based on the cifference
3 bet~een the sums paid during said time period to a Sergeant, and
4 those su~s actually paid to plaintiff as a Glendale Police
5 Officer;
6 3. For plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
suit incurred herein;
8 4. For an injunction that defendant City, its employees and
g those actir.g together with it or at its direction are permanently
JO restrained and enjoined from continuing or maintaining the policy,
11 practice, custom and usage of denying, abrid9ing, conditioning,
12 li~iting, or otherwise interfering with plaintiff'~ pro~otional
13 opportunities on an equal basis with defendant City's other -
14 employees, without r ~ :ard to plaintiif's national origin;
15 5. For an injunction that defendant City, its employees and
16 those acting together with it or at its direction are permanently
17 restrained and enjoined from altering or amending the score
18 assigned to plaintiff or any other person in any examination for
19 promotion to the rank of Sergeant, Lieutenant or Captain, which
20 score is determined by whichever independent agency or board is
21 administering each such promotional examination;
22 6~ For an injunction that defendant City, its employees and
23 those acting together with it or at its direction are permanently
24 restrained and enjoined from interfering in any way with the
25 preparation of those annual evaluations of plaintiff which are
26 prepared at or about the time of his anniversary date, and
27 particularly prohibiting any interrogation by Lieutenants,
28 Captains, or the Chief of Police, of those supervisors of
9

( (
plaintiff who are responsible for preparing his annual written
2 evaluation, which questioning diffe!s from or ~ is in_addition to
3 any ordinary contact among such em?loyees of defendant City, and
4 further proh ibiting any revision of annual employment reviews of
5 plaintiff after they have been prepared in writing and signed by
6 those immediate supervisors who are ·customarily responsible for
7 preparing such evaluations;
8 7. For an injunction requiring that defendant City, its
g e~?loyees and those acting toqether with it or at its direction
10 establish written procedures which pr:.ovide an actual opportunity
11 for administrative appeal from conduct that is said to be in
12 violation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural _Bill _of Rights
13 Act, including but not limited to a hearing before a neutral-
14 arbitrator, the opportunity to auestion under oath those persons
15 responsible for any decision or conduct constituting punitive
16 action or denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, the
17 opportunity to subpoena witnesses and tangible evidence, and the
18 opportunity to question all witnesses under oath; and that this
19 Court retain jurisdicti6n to supervise implementation of such
20 system of administrative appeal;
21 8. For an injunction that defendant City, its employees and
22 those acting together with it or at its direction are permanently
23 restrained and enjoined from using or applying any purported "Rule
24 of Three" or equivalent system which allows a Chief of Police to
25 bypass whichever officer is ranked first on the promotional list
26 to Sergeant, Lieutenant, or Captain~ and select for such opening
27 an officer ranked lower on said list;
28 9. For a preliminary injunction, during the pendency of this
10

( (
-c~ior. ~ha~
11 -::;. defendant City is prohibited from promoting any
I- ., I.. '-
~e~son
2
other than plaintiff to the rank of Seroeant in the
I 1
3 l 1 GlEr.dale Police DP.part~e~t:
4
5
I .
.:.ct i on,
10. For a preliminary injunction, during the pendency of this
that defer.dant City is orohibit ed from conducting any
6
! 9cc~otional exam for the position of Sergeant, and is orohibited
I
_I fr~n eststlishinq any new p~omotion lis t for the position of
I I
0 . Serce2nt, except on such terMs and conditions as this court may
0,
,..._.,...-ccr·1·-;....c. ....... ...:i
9 I :.- - C - I.. - I C l . '..l
I
11
10
11. For such other and further relief as the Court deemd just
I 1
1 ! I .:;.;,d proper.
1 0 D .z.. 'I.' 2 D : S e o t em b e r l ~ , 1 9 8 5 •
1 •• •
!3
I 41
!:) 1 j
~~I
JOI
ll I
18
191
20 I ?eC:eral
I
'. ~ j 'I
MJ1
•./-11
,, ~..) 1 ••V I
2-!
DAVID fl._~KI RE
Attorney_ for Plaintiff
Ricardo Luis Jauregui
DEMAND FOR JURY T~IAL
?la{ntiff demands a jury trial, as provided in Rule 38 of the
~ules
of Civil Procedure.
2sl
'25 .
"71
;81 , ,
~a;J~--·-
DAVID ALKIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Ricardo Luis Jaurequi

E X H I B I T 2

t.rt..b11#'JLE Ne~ ~~rs
~-11-87
Black officer files bias suit against Glendale
By DOLORES WOOD
Daily News Statt Write<
GLENDALE - A black police
officer has filed a racial discrimination
suit against the city
of Glendale, claiming he has
been the target of a .. concerted
campaign of harassment" by the
Police Department since testifying
in the successful suit by an-
other minority officer, his attorney
said Tuesday.
Officer Ronald Jenkins filed
the suit on Feb. 23 in Glendale
Superior Court. He asks for a
minimum of $15,000 damages
from the city and 30 unnamed
defendants who will be identified
as the case proceeds, said
attorney Michael Worthington.
Sgt. Dean Durand said the
Police Department would not
comment on the case.
.. It is not appropriate at this
time," he said.
Worthington said he has not
yet served the city with the suit
because the court only recently
returned it to him for service.
He said he plans to do so in the
next few days.
Jenkins remains on duty as a
patrol officer, Durand said.
Jenkins testified last Septem
ber in the discrimination suit o
Glendale Officer Ricardo Jaure
gui. who alleged the departmen
discrimjnated against him wher
it chose to promote a less-quali
fied Anglo officer to the rank o
sergeant.
Please see JENKINS I Page 4
~1ack police officer alleges
·bias in suit against Glendale
JENKINS I From Page 1
In a ruling filed Dec. 18, U.S.
District Court Judge Dickran Tevrizian
found that Jauregui had
been discriminated against and
should be promoted to sergeant
with seniority rights and back pay
as of Feb. 16, 1985.
Tevrizian wrote in his conclusion
that from 1980 until Jauregui
filed his lawsuit in 1985, '"There
has been an atmosphere at the
Glendale Police Department in
which racial insults and harrassment
were ignored and/or condoned
by the management of said
JX>lice department and peJnnel
department."
The trial judge said the force
had a .. day-to-day climate of racial
and ethnic harrassment."
City officials have appealed the
Jauregui case and have denied
that there is any discrimination in
the Police Department.
In January, Herman Sillas, a
Los Angeles attorney with strong
ties to the Hispanic community,
was appointed by City Manager
James Rez to conduct an independent
investigation into allegations
of racial harassment within
the department. His report is not
expected for several months.
During the Jauregui trial, Jenkins
testified that a year after he
became the Glendale Police Department's
first black officer in
1979 he was invited to an off-duty
party at a fellow officer's home
and found a cross burning on the
laYm.
..This was supposedly done in
jest, but I didn't think it was funny,"
Jenkins testified.
During the trial, about · 20 racist
cartoons and fliers that were hung
in the Glendale Police station,
courthouse, library and public
works building were introduced as
evidence. The cartoons portrayed
black officers as apes and as a
killer on a wanted poster.
""The racist cartoons used in the
Jauregui case were provided by
Ron (Jenkins)," Worthington said.
.. They go back to 1979 when he\
was hired." ·
Jenkins was unavailable for ·
comment on Tuesday, but Worth- ·
ington said the officer has been
the target of discrimination since
he joined the police department
and it has increased since his testimony.
.. After the trial, the Police Department
handed out commendations
to the white officers who testified,"
Worthington said. ..They
(the commendations) were prepared
by the city for the exercise
of restraint and professionalism in
their testimony.
••Not only did lea,.ing him off
imply that Jenkins did not ex- :
ercise restraint and that he was .
unprofessional, but also he did not
get a commendation in his personnel
file, and those are good for
promotions and raises ...
I

E X H I B I T 3

The Ci:y o~ Glend~le (Ci:y) hereby ret3ins the la~ firm of
Ocho~ & Sillas (O~S) to cond uct an i~vestig3tion of the Glend3le
Police Depa~t~en:'s e m ~loy~ent policy and practice as it pertains
to ethnic m:nority me~~ers of its force and more specifically an
incident in~alvin8 t~o cartoons d e picting Blacks in a derrogatory
manner. T~e City s~all instruct all personnel to fully cooperate
wit~ · the investigation and shall m~ke available to O&S all
inforraation in its possession whic~ is relevant.
O&S sh2ll pe~iodically provide an oral status report to the
City Manage~, City Attorney and the Chief of Police. Drafts of
O&S reports will be made available to the above stated persons in
a control settin3 to provide the~ an oportunity to comment at
appropriate junctures in the investigation.
O&S s~all · submit a final w~itten report
findings, conclusions and recomwendations
employment practices and policies of the
Department as it pertains to ethnic minorities.
shall be delivered to the City Manager who
responsibility of making the rep~:t public.
containing its
regarding the
Glendale Police
The f ina 1 re po rt.
·shall take the
O&S shall be paid on a · monthly basis for their services
under the following scale:
Partners s 175 pi::>r
-. hour
Associates s 125 per hour
Invest.:.ga:.or $ 75 per hour
Parale3e.ls s 55 p e :- hour
~ord ?~ocessor s 17 per hou:
O&S shall be rei~bursed for re3sonable out of pocket expenses and
s~all obtain prior autho~iz3tion fro~ the City Manager of any
expenses in excess of $100.00 O&S shall submit a monthly
state~ent i:emizing their services.
Dated: January 16, 1987
Aut~orized Agent for the City o:
Glendale
The terms o: this Agreement are acceptable.
Dated: January 16, 1987
1

E X H I B I T 4

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
CITY OF GLENDALE
CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHED 6-16-72
Revised 12-19-74
Revised 8-30-79
Revised 8-18-83
Revised 8-12-86
.. - - --.. -~· ,. .... ... .. .. ·~·-..:.-· ._._ . __ _ • - -- · •. •• - # __ .. -

1. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
General Policy Statement
It is the policy of the City to ensure that the
recruitment, employment, training, advancement, layoff, or
termination and compensation for all job classifications
within the City of Glendale shall always be on the basis of
qualifications or performance without regard to race,
color, national origin, religious beliefs, sex, or age;
except were age is a bona fide occupational qualification
and as provided by Section 703(e) of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. The City shall continue to strive to widen
opportunities to make equal opportunity a reality for· all
levels of our work force.
II. OBJECTIVE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN
A. To establish and maintain employment level goals for racial
minorities in relative proportion approximately equal to
the levels in the relevant labor market. These goals
include a representative number of women and handicapped.
B. To distribute this employment throughout the job classes in
the City service.
C. To eliminate and prevent the occurrence of arbitrary and
discriminatory practices relating to employment practices
and administrative policy.
D. To follow the merit principle in employment practices.
III. DISSEMINATION OF POLICY STATEMENT
A. Internal
1. Management seminars
2. Supervisory training sessions
3. Employee associations and unions
4. Employee orientations
5. Bulletin boards
B. External
1. Community groups, agencies, and interested individuals
2. Press releases
IV. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN
A. Top Level Support
1. This plan is a commitment for action in all areas and
at all levels of Glendale City service.
2. This plan commits all managers, supervisors, and
general service employees to follow the spirit and
intent of this plan and support of its goals.
· ·-- - .... ..... ~r~ ... ,.....__.._ ••

B. Responsibility for Action
1. The Director of Personnel is responsible for the
administration of the Affirmative Action Program.
2~ The Director will monitor the program's effectiveness
through audits and reporting systems.
3. The Director will review and update the program on an
annual basis.
4. The Director will identify problem areas and establish
special programs to aid in their solution.
5. The Director will be responsible for communicating to
all the City divisions the goals of the Affirmative
Action Program and their legal responsibility to pursue
a course of equal employment opportunity.
6. Division and section heads are responsible for the
implementation of this program in their respective
areas of control.
C. Work Force Analysis and Goals
1. An analysis of Glendale's present work force is being
conducted to determine the ethnic composition of
present employees.
2. Based on this analysis and the ethnic composition of
Relevant Labor Market goals have been projected to
place the ethnic composition of the permanent full-time
Glendale work force on a par with the ethnic
composition of the labor market in the Relevant Labor
Market. The Relevant Labor Market data will be utilized
in determining affirmative action goals, keeping in
mind that such data may not be representative of the
labor market composition. These goals shall include a
representative number of women ~nd the handicapped.
3. These affirmative actions goals will not be considered
as quotas to be met. They have been established as our
ideals and a yardstick by which we can measure future
progress. The extent to which we are able to meet or
exceed these goals using a merit system of employment
selection depends on numerous factors such as the
general state of the economy, the expansion or
contraction of the work force, the possibility of an
increasing or decreasing turnover rate, and the
changing ethnic composition of the Relevant Labor
Market.
D. Recruitment: In an effort to make members of minority
communities aware of our employment opportunities and
increase communication so our outreach employment efforts
succeed, we have done and will continue to do the
following:
·-··- ··-... -· · · ~~s. - -- - - ......

l. Identify community areas where outreach employment
efforts can be expected to bring the desired results
and develop these areas as recruitment resources.
2. Advertise job opportunities in newspapers and
publications serving the minority community
3. Advertise job opportunities on radio and television
stations which have substantial minority audiences.
4. Advertise job opportunities in business, schools,
clubs, and churches and other establishments frequented
by members of the minority community.
5. Personal contacts with business, church, and community
leaders in· the minority community to develop rapport,
communication and job referrals.
6. Advertise and actively recruit job applicants on
school campuses with a substantial number of minority
students.
7. Personal contact with community service and employment
organizations in the minority community.
8. Soliciting job referrals . from present minority
employees of the City.
9. Monitor the effects of our outreach recruitment to
further develop successful sources and find new areas
to enter.
E. Examination and Selection
1. The City's employment examination and selection system
will be monitored, evaluated, and whenever appropriate
restructured to create an employment selection system
that is in compliance with Supreme Court decisions,
State and Federal laws and regulations.
2. Action taken will include, but not limited to, the
implementation of minimum job requirements based on:
(a) Essential skills, abilities, and knowledges
necessary to do a job.
(b) Realistic and valid minimum job requirements.
(c) Valid job perfornance ratings.
(d) Valid examinations and other selection devices.
3. All parts of the selection process from application to
the final interview must be:
(a) Realistically and directly related to the actual
duties to be performed on the job •
. ....... . -.. - ··· -- .. -....... ~ ... ,

(b) Designed to measure the person for the job and not
the person in the abstract.
(c) Free from arbitrariness.
(d) Free from adverse effect.
.. ; _... . . , . -..._
.............. ..

E X H I B I T 5

Z-7
CITY OF GLENDALE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE December 1, 1983
TO
FROM
All City of Glendale Employees
James M. Rez, City Manager
SUBJECT Policy Statement and Procedure on
Discriminatory Workplace Harassment
Attached is a copy of the policy statement and procedure - on discriminatory workplace
harassment. This policy and procedure is now in force. We urge you to be
aware of its existence and purpose.
Should you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact your supervisor
or the Personnel Division at 956-21109
Thank you.
City Manager
!
•

City of Glendale
Policy Statement end Procedure on
Discriminatory Work-Place Harassment
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Policy Statement ts to formalize the City of
Glendale's commitment to compliance with the law and to disseminate
clear guidelines .concerning policy implementation and administration
at all levels of the organization.
II. BACKGROUND
Federal la~~provides that it is unlawful practice for an employer to
discriminate against nny of its emolovees, prosnective employees, and
aonlicants with respect to any matter directly or indirectly related
to employment based on the national origin, race/color, sex, religion,
handicap, age, or pregnancy of that person. Harassment of an employe.e
on the basis of the above-specified categories also violates Federal law.
To help clarify what is an unlawful practice relative to national
origin, race/color, sexual, religious, handicap, age, or pregnancy
harassment under the law, the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, (EEOC) has issued guidelines on these subjects.
A. National Origin or Race/Color Harassment:
These guidelines state that ethnic slurs and other verbal or
physical conduct relating to an individual's national origin
or race/color constitute unlawful harassment on the basis of
national origin or race/color when this conduct:
1. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive working environment;
2. has the purpose or effect or unreasonably interfering
with an individual's work performance; or
3. otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment
opportunities.
B. Sexual Harassment:
Sexual harassment occurs wh~n unwelcome sexual advances, requests
for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature:
1. is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition
of an individual's employment;
2. is used as the basis of employment decisions affecting
such individual; or
3. has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with an individual's wcrk performance or creating an
intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
*See Addendum.
c. Other Types of Discriminatorv Harassment:
Similar guidelines have been issued by Federal and State
agencies (EEOC/FEHPC) covering other types of work pl~ce
discriminatory harassment. Guidelines have not been included
here. However, the City's Personnel Division will, upon request,
provide you with information concerning the issues.

III. POLICY
The City of Glendale declares that discrimination or harassment based
on national origin, race/color, religion, sex, handicap, age, or
pregnancy is absolutely prohibited between supervisors and employees,
fellow employees, and nonemployees in the work place.
A. Subject to Disciplinary Action
Anv emrlovee, reg

C. Formal Complaint - Filed Within 5 Days of Preliminarv Comolaint
If an initial investigation is conducted and if no conciliation
of the preliminary complaint can be achieved, a fornal complaint
can be filed by the complainant. The Personnel Division will
then issue a Discriminatory /Work Place Harassment Form (l/CS-212)
to the complainant. The complainant will be instructed to complete
and sign statement form and submit it to the Personnel Division
within five (5) calendar days from the issuance of the form to the
comp lain ant. ·
D. Personnel Dividion Contacts Person(s) Alleged to be Involved in
Harassment - 10 Days to Respond
Upon receipt of the formal written complaint, the Personnel
Division's designee will contact the person(s) who allegedly
engaged in the harassment on the basis of national origin, race/
color, sex, religion, age, handicap, or pregnancy and inform him
or her of the basis of the complaint and the opportunity to
respond. That person will then have ten (10) calendar days to
respond to the complaint. The response must be in writing and
addressed to the Director of Personnel.
E. Review of Resnonse and Findings
Upon receipt of the response, the Personnel Division designee
may further investigate the formal complaint and make findings.
The Director of Personnel will then review the response and Findings,
and determine whether harassment on the basis of national origin,
race/color. sex, religion, age. handicap, or pregnancy has occurred.
Both parties will be notified of the Director's determination within ·
twenty (20) calendar days from the date the response was received by
the Director. The Director of Personnel's determination will be
final and binding.
F. Determination - Harassrr.ent Occurred
If it is determined that harassment on the alleged basis has
occurred, the findings will be known to the parties involved with
recommendations to the involved appointing authorities to take
disciplinary actipn up to and including dis.charge. Recommended
disciplinary action will be determined by the severity and/or
frequency of the offense.
G. Determination - No Harassment Occurred
If determination is that no harassment, as defined, occurred,
all parties involved will be notified of the findings.
H. Failure to Report Within Established Time
An employee's failure to report the occurrence of harassment
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the alleged
harassment incident will be deemed a waiver of any intra-departmental
-3-

action pursuant to the procedure set forth hereunder. Failure
to file a formal written complaint within five (5) calendar
days from the issuance of the f onn to the complainant will be
considered a withdrawal of the report. If the person against .
whom the complaint of harassment on the alleged basis is filed
fails to respond to the complaint within ten (10) calendar
days of notification, the complaint will be presumed valid,
and the appropriate disciplinary measure will be. recommended.
I. Time Extension·
When the interes!~s of fairness and justice to the parties will
be best served thereby, the Director of Personnel may approve
an extension of the established time requirements set forth in
this procedure.
J. Anti-Retaliation Clause
No person, division, or agency may discharge, or in any other
manner discriminate or retaliate against any person, or deny to
any person a benefit to which that person is entitled under the
provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding because such person
has filed a complaint, instituted or caused to be instituted any
proceeding under or related to this policy, has testified or is
about to testify in any such proceeding or investigation, or has
provided information or assisted in an investigation. Persons
found to have filed a malicious complaint may be subject to
disciplinary action up to and including removal.
K. Confidentiality Clause ..
The identity of any person who has furnished information relating
to or assisting in, an investigation of a possible violation of
this policy shall be kept confidential to the extent possible, as
provided by law.
L. Limitations
The use of this procedure is limited to cooplaints related to
workplace discriminatory harassment on the basis of national origin,
race/color, religion, sex, handicap, age, or pregnancy. All other
complaints shall be handled through the .Employee Grievance Adjustment
Procedure as established by the Employee Relations Ordinance (3830),
and appears in the City of Glendale's Supervisors' Manual (pgs. 20-21.)
Any questions, concerns, or comments related to this policy should be directed to
the Director of Personnel or ,his designee.
-4-

POLICY o~~ DISC:\I :n ~.\.TORY 1~·0R...1'?LACE HAR.ASS:·rE:;T
STATE A..~D EDER.AL L\J.1S REGULATEG E::rLOY:!E:;T DISCRI:H~~ ATIO N
A • S t a : e ta i. ..
; s
l. The Califo::-nia Fai::- S:-:i::ilo•nTtent cind Housinq Act,
Cali:o~~ia Gove r~~ e~ ~ Coce Sestions l2000 , et seq., ?rOnl ~lt S
dis2=:~:~ation in e~~lo ~~en t on the b~sis of the race, religious
creed, color, nation~l origin, allcestry, physical handicap,
medical con~ition, ~arital stcitus, sex, age (ahove 40), and
p.::-egnancy.
2. Cal .if~rnia Government Code Section.s 11135 through
11139.5 prohibJt discri~ination against any person in the st~te
of California or denial of benefits on the basts of ethnic group
identification, religion, age, sex, color, or physical or mental
disability under any program or activity that is funded direc~ly
by the State or receives any financial assistance.
3. California Labor Code Sec~ion 1197.5 prohibits
payment of wages less than rates paid to employees of the
opposite sex in the same establis~~2nt for eaual work reauir\na
equal ski lJ.., effort, and reso_onsibili ty perfonned under · simiTar
workin9 conditiuns~
4. Califorllia Labor Code Section 432.7 prohibits
em~loyers from re~uiring that arrP.st records be listed on the
initial application form.
5. California Lab0r Code Sections 1735 and 1777.6
prohibits discrimination in the employment of persons upon
public works hecause of race, religious creed, color, national
origin, ancestry, physical h~ndicap, medical condition, marital
status or sex [or age, 1777.6].
B. Federal Laws
1. Title VII of the Cjvil Riqhts Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e-2000e-17) prohibits discrimination in em~loyment on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy or national origin.
2. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 u.s.c. § 1981)
prohibits discrimination in employment on the hasis of race.
Some Courts have held that § 1981 applies to national ori?in
discrimination, while others have not. It does not apply to sex
discrimination.
3. The Civil Riqhts Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
prohibits the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities
under the color of law.
-1-

(Cont.·· d. ) 2
4. The Age Discrimin~ticn in E~oloyment Ac~ of 1967
( ,\OS?\.), (29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., l proninits aisc.:-.:..minat.ion
in e~ploy~ent on the basis of age (40-70).
5. The Er: ual P~y A~t (29 U.S.C. § 206(d)) prohibits
es?loyers ~=o~ ~isc=.l.~inating in wage pQ yments on the basis of
sex :or jobs w~ich .:-equire equal skill, effort, and responsibility,
a~d which are per:ormed u~der similar working conditions, unless
the wage di::erentials are attri~utable to a seniority system,
a merit system, a sy~tem measuring earnings .by quantity or
quality of production, or any other factor other than sex.
6. Exe

E X H I B I T 6

THE GLENDALE MARKET AREA
TUJUNGA
NORTH
PLANNING DIVISION . CITY OF GLENDALE
0 I
~s
2 3
SCALE IN MILES
4
I

E X H I B I T 7

~
c::x:
...J
...J
0
a
u..
0
~
2
0
...J
...J
~
800
>oo
600
soo

E X H I B I T 8

--1
GlENLJALE UN IF I ED SCtlOOt 0 IS TR I CT
RACIAL-ETHNIC SURVEY - OECEMOER 1986
School
Balboa
Cerritos
Columbu~
Oun5more
Edison
frank.I In
fre1110nt
Glenoak.s
Jefferson
Keppel
La Crescenta
Lincoln
Hann
Harsha II
Honte V
l sta
Mountain Ave.
Huir
/unl>rlciln
lndlc"n ~
/\lasktln
Natl ve Olack
Ho. 1.
Ho. I
4
3
Aslan
---
No. I
0.25 0.31 0.99
0.92 4.62
3 0.46 14 2.12 44 6.68 0
5.46 0
0.15 7 1.08
1.92
0.53
0 0.00 0.41
0.15 1.19 108 16.00
3 0.35 0.81 172 20.02 2
0 0.00 0.25
0 0.00 0.24
4.56 2
2 0.21 0.75 97 10.33 0
1.25 109 19.46
0.18 0.73 53 9.67
0 0.00 0.25 26 6.40 0
0.53 82
1.22 95 19.31 0
0.17 5 0.84 56 9.40 0
42 10. 37 4
15
0 0.00 2 0.50 22
0 0.00 6
0 o.oo
0 0.00
0 0.00
Verdugo Wdldc;. 0 0.00
Whl te
2
2
8
7
7
7
4
3
6
22
3.38
19 6.09
24 6.35 0
99 20.16
50
19
12.41 0
14.41
Paclf lc
Islander
No~ __
I_
0.31 13
o.oo 2
Tota I
White
Flllplno tllspanlc Ml nor I lies Hld-Easterner Easterner
~~-- __
,_ ~-- __
-- --
Tot.1 I
Minor I llec;
Inc l11cllng
MI d-Eac; t.
i_ Ho. 1. No. I No. I tlo. l
0.99 2 0.49 74 18.27 127 31.36 278 68.64
4.00 222 60.31 255 7S.46 70 21.54
0.00 29 4.40 278 42.19 368 55.84 291 44.16
0.50 17 4.22 43 10.67 360 09.33
0.15 11 l.69 490 75.38 532 81.85 118 18.15
0.32 7 . 2.24 213 68.27 246 78.85 66 21.15
80.95
0.20 27 5.50
61.91
0.15 19. 2.81 276 40.89 413 61.19 262 38.81
0.23 14
66.59 143
0.00 10
71.90
0.48 9 2.16 . 33 7.91 64 15.35 353 84.65
0.00 57 6.07 475 50.59 638 67.94 301 32.06 232
0.18 28 5.00 172 30.71 317 56.61 2~3 43.39 154
0.18 6 l.09 6.02
0.25 3.69
0.18 48 8.44 182 31.99 316 55.54 253 44.46 Ill
0.00 l l 2.24 24 4.88 136 27.64 356 72.36 74
o.oo 4
o.oo
o.oo l l
Including Mld-
--r-
l .06
42 11.11 72 19.05 306
58 11.81 187 38.09 304
89 10.36 287 33.41 572
52 12.90 113 28.04 290
33
15
90 17.88 450 82.12
43 10.59 363 89.41
1.85 86 14.33 .J21 25.68 -~11.. 73.32 114
52
2
77
13
55
3
26
28
71
21
17
19
12
12.84 17~ 44.20
0.62 257 79.09
ll.68 415 67.53
3.23 56 13.90
8.46 587 90.31
0.96 249 79.81
6.88 98 25.93
5.70 215 43.79
10.52 484 71.70
16.65 430 50.06
5.21 134 33.25
4.08 81 19.42
24. 71 870 92 .65
27.50 471 84.ll
3.47 117 21.35
2.96 55 13.55
19.Sl 427 75.04
15.04 210 42.68
19.13 ill 45.81
Total
Enrollment
405
325
659
403
. 650
312
378
491
675
859
403
417
939
560
548
406
569
492
596
Total
Elementary
14 0.14 90 0.89 1.154 ll.44 16
0.16 309 3.06 2.831 28.07 4,414 43.76 5,673 56.24 1.224 12.13 5,633 55.89
l0,087

----·
School
Roosevelt
Rosemont
Toi I
WI Ison
Total
Junior lllgh
Crescenta Val.
Glendale
Hoover
Dally
Total
Sen I or Ill gh
· College View
l\mE>rlcan
Indian &
Alaskan
Nathe
Black
---
Ho. I No. S
0.10 9
3 0.39 4
5 0.36 15
3 0.25 JO
JZ 0.20 38
0.05
3 0.15
5
7
Aslan
~_I_
0.94 123 12.84
0.52 62 8.12
l .07 . 217 15.53
0.84 209 - 17 .58
0.88 611 14.18
0.27 152 8.10
0.34 373 18.25
0.05 10 0.53 281 14.94
0 0.00 2 0.55 18 4.92
s 0.08 24 0.39 824 13.36
0 0.00 5 7.58 5 7.58
TOJf\l OJSJRICT 31 0.15 157 0.76 2,594 12.58 21
Paclflc
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RACIAL-ETHNIC SURVEY - DECEMBER 1986
Islander Filipino
!!2.:,. __
0
0
2
0
2
3
0
0
0
3
0
o.oo
0.00
0.14
0.00
I_ ~ __
55
36
56
White
Total Including Hld-
Hispanic Minorities Hld-Easterner Easterner
I_ ~ __
Total
Minorities
lncludlng
Hid-East.
s_ Ho. s ~ I ~ I ~ I
5.74 490 51.15 678 70.77 280 29.23
0.13 67 8.77 137 17.93 627 82.07
2.58 395 28.27 670 47. 96
----
4.71 192 16.15 470 39.53
U.7 52 .O'\
719 60.47
o.os 148 J.44 1,144 26.56 1,955 45.38 2,353 54.62 602
0.16 17
o.oo 108
o.oo 49
0.00 4
0.91 131 6.98 309 16.47 1,567 83.53
5.28 434 21.23 925 45.2~ 1,119 54.75
2.60 493 26.21 831 44.34 l,017 ~5.6S
----
1.09 114 31.15 l 38 37.70 228 62.30
o.os 178 2.89 1,172 19.00 2,206 35.77 3,961 64.23
0.00 2 3.03 __
159
32
213
198
82
388
274
23
767
16.60 837 87.37
4.19 169 22.12
15.25 803 63.21
~68 56.18
13.97 2,557 59.35
4.37 391 20.84
18.98 1,313 64.24
14.57 1,108 50.90
6.28 161 43.99
12.44 2,973 48.21
17_ 25.76 ~ 43.94 _ll_ ~ 0 0.00 37 56.06
Total
Enrollment
958
764
1,397
lJ.!!2.
4,300
1,876
2,044
1,881
366
6,167
66

GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
~y 19, 1987
INFOR~!ATIONAL REPORT NO. 3
TO: Board of Education
FROM: Robert A. Sanchis, Superintendent
SUBMITTED BY: Donald W. E~pey, Deputy Superi ntendent, Instruction
PREPARED BY: Sally Buckley, Education Specialist II, Intercultural
SUBJECT: LANGUAGE CENSUS REPORT, SPRiliG 1987
Each year the District is required to submit the Language Census Report
(R-30 LC) to the California State Department of Education. This census
includes the following statistics: pupils whose primary language is other
t~an English, those who are limited-English proficient (LEP), those ~ho
are fluent-English proficient (FEP), those enrolled in state-mandated
programs, and LEP pupils who have met the District's language reclassification
criteria. This data is current as of March 1, 1987 and was submitted
to the State Department of Education on April 1, 1987.
DEFI~ITIONS
0
Limited-English proficient (LEP) students are students who have a
primary language other than English, who were assessed to have
limited oral skills in English, and who are not achieving academically
in English.
° Fluent-English proficient (FEP) students are students who hav~ a
0
primary language other than English, who were assessed to have
fluent oral skills in English, and who are achieving academically
in English. Determination of academic achievement is made on the
basis of scores on a norm•ref erenced standardized test and a writing
sample.
Reclassification occurs when an LEP student meets the criteria
for FEP status: fluent oral skills, achieving academically in
English, passing score on the writing sample, curriculum mastery,
and teacher judgment.
LA...'iGUAGE CENSUS RESULTS
Appendix "A" summarizes the district-wide primary language information
compiled for LEP students. Appendi..""< "B" swm:iarizes like informat:'..on
SS

Glendale Unified School District
~y 19, 1987
Informational Report No. 3
Page 2
for FE? students. Appendix "C" sucrnarizes and compares data on a schoolby-school
basis including, in part, figures relating to the percentage of
LEP/FEP students at a given school. This category reflects the percentage
of non-English language background students enrolled at a school. Appendix
"D" lists the languages in the District as reported in the 1987 census.
Appendix "E" summarizes the statistical information in graphic form.
CONCLUSIONS
A number of conclusions can be drawn from this year's data compilation:
1. The number of LEP students has increased since last year (+621).
This increase, however, needs to be viewed within the conta~t of
several other factors: an increase in District enrollment (+769),
and an increase in the number of FEP students (+29) (LEP + FE?
combined total is 6jQ).
2. The number of bilingual classrooms continues to increase because
the number of Ar.nenian and Korean LEP students has grown. These
students are concentrated at particular school sites. New bilingual
classes in these languages will be needed to meet these students'
programmatic needs.
3. The percentage of non-English language background students is now
50.9 percent of total District enrollment; 49.1 percent of the
total District enrollment is of English-only background.
4. Eight elementary schools have greater than the total District
percent of non-English language background students (LEP + FEP)
at the school: Cerritos (78.2 percent), Columbus (69.0 percent),
Edison (84.9 percent), Franklin (72.6 percent), Jefferson (65.3
percent), Mann (84.l percent), Marshall (78.9 percent), and
Muir (68.2 percent).
5. Five secondary schools have greater than the total District percent
of non-English language background students (LEP + FEP) at
the school: Roosevelt (78.4 percent), Toll (58.9 percent), Wilson
(54.4 percent), Glendale High (62.4 percent), and Hoover High
(56.2 percent).
6. Three hundred twenty-two (322) LEP students at the elementary
level were reclassified to FEP this year. Four hundred five (405)
LEP students at the secondary level were reclassified to FEP this
year.
-

Glendale Unified School District
May 19, 1987
Infer.national Report No. 3
Page 3
7. Spanish continues to be the largest contingent in the LEP
category (3,269), followed by Ar.nenian (1,454), Korean (87j),
and Vietnamese (271).
PROCEDURE FOR DETER..~INI N G CENSUS
The primary language of each pupil enrolled in the District is determined .
with completion of the Horne Language Survey. The· Ho~e Language Survey must
be completed for each new kindergarten pupil and each newly-enrolled pupil .
For students returning the Horne Language Survey and indicating English as
the only response, no further census procedures are necessary.
Pupils for whom there is at least one response other than English on the
Ho~e Language Survev are designated as having a primary language other than
English and will have their English language proficiency assessed with t~e
Language Assessment Scal es (LAS), the state-designat ed proficiency instrument
used bv this District. The pupils assessed wit h the LAS fall into
two categories: limited-English speaking and fluent -English· speaking.
For the purpose of initial identification, English reading and WTiting
assessments are desirable. However, assessments in reading and WTiting
become optional for all pupils in kindergarten through grade two as well
as for pupils in grades three through twelve who score in the limited-English
speaking range on the LAS. The reading and writing skills of pupils in
grades three through twelve who score fluent-English speaking on the LAS
mu~t ~e ass~ss~d ~y ~si..46 the Re~di~g 3nd ~a~guag2 Arts sub-t~sts of the
~alifornia A~hievemsnt Test at that gr3de level. This initial assass~ent
of new anrollaes takes place within 30 school days of enrollment. The state
also ::iandates assessment of the students' primary language proficiency so
that students receive appropriate instruction that will facilitate English
language acquisition.
All limited-English speaking students in grades kindergarten through twelve
are initially placed in an appropriate instructional program mandated under
state law AB 507.
Student progress in English achievement in basic skills is reviewed periodically
within the AB 507 program. English achievement is assessed in several
ways; District criteria have been developed to see if a child is achieving
in English:
1. California Achievement Tests (CAT):
Attainment of ·a score at or above the 36th percentile in
reading> language arts and mathematics, or attainment of a
score in the 31-35th percentile range in t he three areas
and the approval of the school appraisal team, and
90

Glendale Unified School District
May 19, 1987
Informational Report No. 3
Page 4
2~ Writing Sample:
Holistically scored sample judged against the norm established
for the student's grade level (District WI'iting proficiency
results are used whenever possible), and
3. Curriculum ~stery:
Mastery of curricuium in skills ·areas at a level commensurate
with English-speaking peers as indicated by a grade of C or
better, and
4. Teacher judgment and observation. of student's cognitive and
affective behavior.
If a pupil is initially assessed as limited-English speaking, has received
sL~ months of bilingual learning opportunities and is now achieving in
English according to District standards, then that pupil is a candidate
for reclassification.
Reclassification is the determination of when a pupil with a primary
language other than English has acquired English language skills to be
able to profit sufficiently from instruction given in English. Reclassification
implies that a student is fluent-English proficient (FEP). Corroboration
of this classification occurs when a student is assessed or reassessed
on the LAS and results indicate fluent-English speaking skills.
Fluent-English proficient students are pupils who have clearly developed
English language skills of comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing
necessary to enable the~ to participate meaningfully in an educational
setting where only English is used.
91

Appencii.x A
L~~ GUAGE CE ~ SUS REPORT - SCHOOL DATA
SPRI~G, 198i (R-30)
~l~ER OF LEP AT A SCHOOL wITii A GIV2i LA.i.~G~AGE
Language ciJ ciJ I' '- ....-
-
c
en ~ ""-- rn c :0 :c
~ en 0 ciJ c Q,I
=
c ::"'- ~ .....
.i::. E ~ c 00 ::7 ~ Ql ~ ca - - -
en C'O c c ~ 0 co w Q,I
-= -
CJ
Cl
0 ca Q. ...-4 :::
=
c 0 c .... .... i...
-
c ~ ..i ~
School
C'O ciJ c
Q. .... C'O 0 .
""'
- C'O
~ ~ C'O ..:l ~ C1.I
"'"'1 00 w ,..
...-4 C'O 0
~
.... -
,..
ciJ C': ~ ..
Q. s =
w ca ... ... ....
~
r~
w :t: w ...
~ c c
en >
C) v c.. :- c..
- <
~ ~ 4 7 7~ ~ !.:. I ,.. '
Glenoaks 34 8 7 28 8 1 4 11 2 I 1 lrJ~ o~ I Q~
.Je£:e:-son 216 I 3 -.,
Ka-:~el 35
/ _ 3 5 4~ 11 1 I 1 ., l1rn I "' I -
_) _
... ..,
' ... "'\ I ~~::)
' 3 1 iO 4 3 ~R 11 ~ , 1 ? 1 /, I ., ... I ., rr
La Crescenta 28 1 26 8 11 ,
1 Q P. 7 ~fl I ~ :...
Lincoln 20 3 1 3 5 11 R c;1 :;~ 1 7
~.ann 401 21 2 44 27 3 1 198 2 20 I 12 731 6-a
.J ,, 632
Ha rs hall 14 7 29 5 42 20 1 121 11 16 18 Li.10 1fl l I 1:. ~
~cnt:e Vista 12 3 1 1 Q 2 1 7 ~ c;1 1L ~ o
Mountain Ave. n ., a ,
1
") I ~
''"'
,., 11 I -, :;
!1uir 135 12 9 28 29 2 73 5 13 I 20 326 11292 I ., - -
Verdugo Wds. 17 5 27 9 2 2 28 7 8 7 112 10 j qo
R. D. wni. te 65 3 2 33 5 2 1 6 85 11 I 10 16 239 185 148
Totals
H86 119 38 468 152 7 10 31 862 83 961 168 422( 3892 3826
Colle!Ze Vie'N 8 1 1 1 11
_ / )
!Roosevelt: 313 28 2 40 16 1 2 1 92 2 6 8 511 1489 :. 9 i
Rosemont 23 19 1 1 1 6' 3 8 62 43 32
rroll 232 20 6 76 4 5 2 217 24 6 19 521 335 310
Wilson 80 25 2 54 16 2 2 5 2 90 6 6 22 312 286 23 3
Totals 648 73 10 189 36 4 10 9 2 315 35 18 57 140€ 1153 1092
c.v. High 34 5 45 3 2 3 25 1 1 11 130 99 92
Glendale Hhh 159 55 10 78 22 1 10 2 14~ l? q ?n =\? 1 q() ::; ~;,
:J.t,.,l"'IVP"" "1i o~ l Q"
, f, f, P,1,
',
? Cj
,
? H\1 1h h
,, /.J.. 7'iJ. !....!....>'.. 6.: Q
-
n~~lv ~ .. oh ,~ ? , t... 1 4~ c;~ I..~
Totals 427 78 16 207 46 3 17 6 2 277 29 19 52 117S 113511113
Secondary 1075 151 26 396 82 7 27 15 4 592 64 37 109 258 2290 2205
Totals
Grand 3269 271 65 865 234 14 37 46 4 1454 147 133 277 681 6195 6039
Total

Appendix o
LANGUAGE CE~SUS R..::?ORT - SCHOOL DATA
SP RI~~ G , 1 9 8 7 ( R- 3 0 )
:Il:fBER OF F::? AT A SGlOOL wIIB A GiVDr LA.i.'1G~AGC:
Langl..!age
~ QJ I" -.c ...r
,..
en QJ ........ en c a:
e QJ c: 00 :::i ..... ca
- .... -
~ CD 0 QJ c QJ ca c: O"\ ="
in ...
en as c: c ..... 0 CD 1.4 QJ "O
..... (.) en
..... c:: 0 CIS Q.~ :::i as c 0
c ~ .... QJ ~as ~ "O ca .a
c ..... ..... I.I ....
~ ....
QJ C1l ~ ~ ::
~
School as QJ c 1.4 ~ 00 1.4 c: c. e e 1.4 ~ ....
4..1
c.
""""
l'a 0
.,..j CIS 0 1.4 as 1.4 ....
; -
~ ~ r~
Cf) :> ~ 1 ....... c... E--o c.. < ~
< c
Balboa 12 1 18 4 11 2 2 7 ji I so
I
1..c:r::. cos 1-
1 2 3 4 I l 38 I 2 :- I
_ ;
~
:c
0 0
Col i:.ibus 49 5 1 3 11 2 24 1 4 13 111 I 01 j"l
Dl..!ns:'lore 2 5 l 1 l 3 i; 1 o I ~ 1. c
:::d:.son 34 I 1 !. '3 5 ? !i_Q ;. .; I
~....,
Franklin 19 4 1 2 2 1 l 1 11 4
,~
ln ~l
Fre:nont 6 l 9 l 1 5 1 !.i.
'~ '~ I
Glenoaks 13 I 12 2S 9 2 l 1 I 10 1 2 I 10 89 I .:;9 I 36
Je::e:-son 26 I . 2 22 2 9 2 I 31 66 II ;a I ~;;.
Ke~oel 30 I 10 I 2 67 7 9 42 5 t.. I 22 10~ : .,a I
La Crescenta 4 3 l 16 I 3 1 4 l =i 1~ I 1() ., 1
Lincoln 7 1 1 9 1 1 1 3 24 II 17 . u
~.ann 30 6 l 18 13 l 1 13 2 c; 1 en I O? ~()
Marshall 6 4 5 20 6 1 10 2 l c; ~(')II =;~ (:.,~
~ante Vista 11 ? 1 1 i; l 1 c; 2 1 1 ~(') Iii 1n
~ol..!r.tain Ave. 3 5 7 3
'
•
- .!.
--
.,
"l I
.. ~I"'\
!.i. ?~ ?~ i 1
Muir 29 4 8 6 11 8 11 6 7 3 11 50 • 5 i.
Verdugo t,.;ds. 5 1 3 41 1 4 2 18 3 I 13 9111 -a
I,, 5:!
.t

G:E~DAL2 UNI?IE~ SCHOOL DISTRICT
LA..~G~AGE c~srs RE?OR! - SCHOOL DATA
Appenci:·: c
SP!ZI~G, 1987
Preoared bv:
Sall'-' Buck.lev, Educational Soecialist II
I~:crcult~ral Education De~art~ent
District Enrollment:
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Junior High
Senior High
College View
TOTAL
4,385
5,959
10,293
10, 344
130
20,763
District LEP Students: District FEP Students:
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Junior High
Senior High
College View
1,406
1,179
4,220
2,585
11
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Junior High
Senior High
1,007
1,517
1,218
2,52~
TOTAL
6,816
TOTAL
3,742
Percent of Total District Enrollment that are LEP
: 32.8
Percent of Total Elementary Enrollment that are LEP
: 41.0
Percent of Total Junior High Enrollment that are LEP
Percent of Total Senior High Enrollment that are LEP
Percent of Total Secondary School Enrollment that are LEP
Percent of Total District Enrollment that are LEP and FEP
: 32.1
: 19.8
: 25.aO
. 50.9

L..\:~G L: .~GC: CC\ SliS REPORT - SCHOOL DATA
SPRING,
1987 (R-30)
!! c--
-
I
::... w
,.....
:I)
c;
cx:J
..J Q.. ...:
:::::: :.. :......
UJ
.......
0 t.r.JZO ~ :r.
C/'l w UJ ::... ::... e- .....
0 ......; .... s
I e- :::l e- 0 oz .......
...:
c
-
I
z -z t.rJ
C"'i
~ ..J CM
ex: w :s U CM u ::...
t.rJ c::: C/'l ex: Q ...J- oc 0 C/'l 0 c.. r:.~
t.rJ Q ZQ
CZ
:iJ e- t.rJ ::::i 0 0 t.rJ ~
::> az E3 e- 0 e- t.rJ = t.rJ e- t.rJ ...: >- t.rJ
z e- -'- t.rJ
~~
""" en :z c:..:l u c:..:l < c:..:l er::: c,; Q..
~ en ::> Q ::> u t.rJ < en < < ..J < z Q.. en ~ e- e- Q.. E-

Gi...: ::J .\ :..:: v: : r E J SCHOOL DISTRICT
L!J~GUAGE CE~SUS REPORT - SCHOOL DATA
S?RI~G, 1987 (R-30)
r
I
JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOLS:
.ROOSEVELT
ROS210NT
TOLL
WILSO~
j .H. S. TOTALS
SENIOR HIGtt
SCHOOLS:
CR.ESCENTA VALLEY
DAILY
GLENDA.LE
HOOVER
H.S. TOTALS
SECONDARY TOTALS
COLLEGE VIEW
{Ungraded)
I
L
SCHOOLS
-~ c.rJ c.n
c
- "'
co
c::: cn .......
~~
"""
""" E-
..-1
0 0% .......
t:J M """,.J
:::::: c.n :::> c.rJ :::::: cn c:i:: Q ...J- 00
r.:.: E- zc c.rJ E- c.rJ :::> 0 0
~ t;
Cf""4
~z :::> a:: z
§~ =
Zf-4 - c.rJ
~~ < cn
...., cn :5 Q
t:J =
:z: 0 u
:z: ~
z~ % c.. f""4
-= Cll 0 c.rJ ,.J c.n ...J""" ...J ,.J t:J <
t:J c.. f""4 t:J ,.J z f""4
< ~ ...J < < ........

GLENDALE L~IFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Addendum to Language Census Reoort - School Data
Statistical Changes of Total Number of LEP Students from 1986 to 1987
El ementarv level:
Nunber of Spanish decreased by 15
~umber of Vietnamese decreased by 27
Nucber of Cantonese decreased by 12
Nuober of Korean increased by 103
Nuober of Filipino increased by 16
Number of Portuguese decreased by 3
Number of Mandarin decreased by 1
Number of Japanese increased by 7
Number of Cambodian stayed the same
Number of Armenian increased by 203
Number of Persian increased by 33
Numbe~ of Arabic increased by 16
Number of 'Others' increased by 5
Enrollment + 658
Junior High level:
Number of Spanish increased by 69
Number of Vietnamese decreased by 4
Number of Canton~se increased by 1
Number of Korean increased by 51
. Number of Filipino increased by 6
Number of Portuguese increased by 2
Number of Mandarin decreased by 1
Number of Japanese stayed the same
Number of Cambodian decreased by 1
Nu:nber of Armenian increased by 96
Nu:nber of Persian increased by 19
Number of Arabic increased by 5
Number of 'Others' increased by 8
Enrollment + 58
llLEP + 251
97

Statistical ChaEges of Total ~umber
(Continued
of LEP Students from 1986 to 198i
Senior High level:
Number of Spanish decreased by 35
Number of Vietnamese decreased by 20
Number of Cantonese decreased by 1
Number of Korean increased by 39
Number of Pilipino increased by 19
Number of Portuguese increased by 2
Number of Mandarin decreased by 1
Number of Japanese decreased by 1
Number of Cambodian decreased by 1
Number of Armenian increased by 26
Number of Persian increased by 10
Number of Arabic increased by 4
Number of 'Others' increased by 3
Enrollment 80
+ 44
College View (Ungraded):
Enrollment + 37
t!LEP 2
Overall District Chan~es:
Number of Spanish increased by 19
Number of Vietnamese decreased by 51
Number of Cantonese decreased by 12
Number of Korean increased by 193
Number of Pilipino increased by 41
Number of Portuguese increased by 1
Number of Mandarin decreased by 3
Number of Japanese increased by 4
Number of Cambodian decreased by 2
Number of Armenian increased by 325
Number of Persian increased by 62
Number of Arabic increased by 25
Number of 'Others' increased by 16
Enrollment + 669
l!LEP + 621

GL:::~:D.-\.'....E l 7 ~~IFI:.'.!) SCHOOL DIS7RICT
L\ \GL~GE c::::srs REP ORT - SCH OOL DATA
Appe!1di:< D
S?:\!~:G, 1987
Pre!)ared bv:
Buck.lev, Educational Soecialist II
Inte=cultural Education Deoartment
S~ll v
Lan~uages
Reoorted
Languages listed individually :
(In order of greatest n u~ber of speakers (LEP + FEP) in the District)
LEP FEP Total
1. Spanish 3,269 336 3,605
2. A!Ult:!!1ian 1,454 188 1,642
3. Korean 865 302 1,167
4. Vietnamese: 271 47 318
s. Pilipino/Tagalog 234 82 316
6. Persian 14 7 27 174
7. A::abic 133 28 161
8. Cantonese 65 41 106
9. Japanese 46 57 103
10. Thai 41 34 75
11. Rumanian 30 31 61
12. Mandarin 37 10 47
13. Greek 14 32 46
14. Ger:nan 18 22 40
15. Gujarati 17 19 36
16. Italian 18 16 34
17. Assyrian 22 6 28
18. Portuguese 14 9 . 23
19. Hungarian 8 12 20
Other languages spoken by fewer than 20 students:
20. Hindi 37. Croatian 54. Pompango
21. Russian 38. Tamil 5:;. Serbian
22. Yugoslavian 39~ Visayan (Filipino) 56. Amey
23. French 40. Dari 57. Sinhalese
24. Czech 41. Burmese
25. Taiwanese (Chinese) 42. Hebrew
26. Indonesian 43. Norwegian
27. Bulgarian 44. Bengali
28. Polish 45. Danish
29. Lithuanian 46. Ilocano
30. Punjabi (East Indian) 47. Samoan
31. Cambodian 48. Tongan
32. Marathi (E. Indian) 49. Ukranian
33. Urdu so. Cepuano (Filipino)
34. Dutch 51. Native American
35. Swedish 52. Finnish
36. Turkish 53. Kennada
(Sri Lanka)
9~

3400
- -
~
-
3269
3200 'l'he Number of LIMI'i'Eo- rrnGLI Sll PROFIC IEN'I' S'l'UDl·;r ITS
2800
-
in the Four Major La n

S'!'tID E~T'!' S
:I i
2
l
::
1 0
ij
0 I.
I
i I I
I I I
5
II I I I I I
I I I I
I
5
II I I I I I I
I.I I I I I I
ii 1981 1982 1983 . 1984 1985 1986 1987

GLE~1DALE UNIFIED SCEOOL DISTRICT
L -~
;:...
ELE~.E~7ARY, SECONDARY AND DISTRICT LEVELS
44
i:...
40
36
C:.l 32
..:l
e:..
0
~
c
ie::
e-.
z
C;J
CJ
c:::
~
i:...
28
24
20
Jn .a
25.0
16
12
8
4
0
I
YEARS
1980 1981 1982 1983
1984 1985
1986 1987
I 41.0% ELEMENTARY THAT ARE LEP
II 32.8% DISTRICT THAT ARE LEP
III 25.0% SECONDARY THAT ARE LEP
102

GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PROJECTED
NU~!B~R OF BILINGUAL CLASSROOMS
J o . II
.
I
\
I
i
15 0 I
143 •
161
•
II
145 ••
.l.0 0
II
91 ~a
I
I
114 .
II
123 ~
5 0
52 •
66 l
'.
-'-
1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-1~
I

G ~::~~JALE: l:~l!?:ED SCHOOL DIS-::'RICT
Intercultural Ecucation
Prajection of Dist~ict Bilingual Classrooms for 1987-88 School Year
Based on April 1937 R-30 Infer.nation
-
SCHOOL / L-\~GtJAGE Kdgn. 1 2 3 4 5 6
B •
.U.30A
Spanish 1 l
Total
2
CE::t..Q..ITOS
COL t.J}!.3 US
EDISm!
Spanish 2 2 2 l l l l
Spanish 2 2 2 2 l 1 1
Ar:::.enian 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1
Spanish 3 3 2 4 2 3 2
10
11
7
19
.
8A.\'11!)I
Spanish 2 2 2 1 1 l 1
JE?FERSON
KE? PEL
Spanish 2 2 2 2 l 2 1
Korean 1 1 1 1
Ar.:nenian
Korean 1 1 1
HORACE MA.\1N
l 1 1
Spanish 3 3 3 2 2 2 3
Armenian 2 2 1 2 1 1 1
MARSH.!.LL
Spanish 1 1 1 1 l l 1
Armenian 1 1 1 1 1 1 l
Korean 1 1 1
JOHN MUIR
Spanish 1 l l 1 1 1 l
Armenian l 1 l 1
R. D. WHITE
Armenian 1 1 l 1 l l
Spanish l l
TOTAL 24 24 22 24 18 17 16
10
12
4
3
3
18
10
7
7
3
1
4
6
'
145

lECLASSIFICATION HISTORY
~
c.w
"'4
g
700
600
Cl.4 500
~
..J
Q
c.w
~
"'4
~
tll
tll
j 400
u
~
c:i:::
tll
E-4
z
~
§
t; 300
~
0
c:i:::
I
200
100
I
I -
j
'
I
I
II
I
•
=
I
I
I
/!
A
I I
h I ~·
I \
I ' v;
I \ I I I
~/
4~ · ; ~ I
I~ /__ /~ I
\(
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
!
19
32 19 B 19l4 19 h5 19 ~6 l~ Si
I
I District
II El emen e. a ry
III Second~ "':j

E X H I B I T 9

~
OFFICE OF POLICE ClllEF
AOM I H I S 1 RAT I V l
I\ I OE
ClllEF
HCl\UARY OF
1-
I
IHTllllClHCE POLICE ·
AOHI tll STRATI VE
SERVICES
01 VIS I Oil
0 _1_
L
(j)
UNlFUHH
INVES T l(;AT IVE TACTICAL
SERVICES 0 SERVICES SEHVICES
0 IV IS I Ot~ DIVISIOll 0 I VVi I 011
SUPPQl\T
OPEIVITIOH~
BUIHf\U
BUDG[l MW
rROPlll.IY
/'IAHAG[MUH
CIVIC
CCIHEP. JAIL
GAllAG£
OlTHTIVl
DUl\[AU
JUVlHIU VIC[
PAll\Ol Pt.I ROL· Gt.Lllf\lt.
Gl\OUI' GP.our MOHTROS[
lRMf IC
DUI\ LAU 8Ul\£AU BURlAU
A ( fl[LO Sll\V
c=J
, ..
,., .. l
rAortAll
\U,.l f
rt ( ftA"I (.\l
U"llNClD
~UIO
r

E X H I B I T 10

City
of
En 1p1 o ,\ · t 11c11 t 0 Pl) o l 'tun it y
OFFICER RECRUIT
- - ~~ ~ *- . :: = - : :/'.
-=-:= =~~-~:-=: ~:. · --::~:- c~::-_::. is c. r:c:- .- s .. ·Jc:· ..... ~ os ~:~cn . w:r r1 t;1e e:w c eJt~ ~r- c:- c
!;~~:s~ ~":: \ :::;:~- . s:: c~~c~:3~~~ ~ ~: ~-2 ::5 i~i~n of Pcl~ce Of~~:e: ~111
f~ : ~ : :~ :~~~5~:~~~ 25 F : :ic~ C:~i:~~ ;~: r ~ ~t. ~~ indi1~~ual wi li re ~dl~ 3 ~ J
. __ __ :. c;=-f i - -. - ~~-=~--: :_:-_ .... ; ~=- ~ -= c .:i~..:-,,..
1 t :-3 i ,...1i;-.. ~ , ar1c: - .. :e a c~ucl t:-=.i-: -:~
~:~~~ r, . u::- ~:s:~~:i:~ :r:~ t~e tr3 i~iGg acsde~y, an: 2porJ val of P: lic5
:-:--. ·· :~:: · - ~· :, ~ - ~ ;::~~=~ :J·- --~:el r\e~ ~ :J~: ·:.:ll. be c :ac~C ir. ~ti c classi~:. .:EJ:~ "Ji1 J:
P~~~-=~ J ·· r~: ~:-- .
... e
r . 1 : · .~ : .. ' . _ . ,. = : : _ ~ :=~,,.~, , - 3
;:. 1:_:._: ~ .. ::
.. "":_-:_,.. , 2·;= :-1~ v~ =-=>·
i. r~;- ~:- : :: ~:::_ ~ :~: - :~ C~~ a: C~5~~ eau~ v s l~~t .
2 . ;:~:~:s~~s - - ~ : ~e ~~~cc: mara! : ~a :acte~, ~:.tn 'IO felony convic:ions.
c:rI:~~5~ : =: U. 5. Ci::. :e ns;-i~ is re~ ~ :.re d .
o::sr::.:.t=,_:: c:·.' .:._i =-: .:..:.'!'r::.3:
! . CJlle;e lev~: c:~: se ~ o r~ i n ~ r i t:e ~ 3nd era! co~t.tunicati:n, Police Sc i ence
a: a :~!3:e: fie~:.
2. ~~li n:~~ : 2~ ~ ii :i e~.
11.E'.:•i C..1,_ s~;,: . ~);:...~s:::.: .t:l:~ s;:.:; G:~: a 1t s mL..st ac;ss a ;1:edical exat.tination which includes
~sv c;-~~ ::ic e val_3 : ia~ . g~oiicants wii! not be certified to the Police Civisian
.... ~:i ! t-e ; ha.e s~ c:~ss~ ~:! y cs~ci eted all p~a s es of the medica l examination.
He:.:.=:-.:: ::i:•::": i.1 e:;c e.=r ,,~:rc ·...Jt usi:-.g a n ea~i'lg aiJ.
v::: ::-·:: 2 C/ ~:::- .!..- e:::'"' e,.e '1.ithG.J: ::: o:rec:i.on , a1c .1c i ess than 20/3J \'iith
g:~s ~~~ . ~ ::~J :a: le :J!J: vis~Jn .
~::::~-: ~=i~, : in ;:.:;::c::~ ic~ t J h eign~ a:_o:di;-; t c me~ i :al s:andar~s.
SE~E:7I0~ ~~ cc ~: ~ F~
.. ::..:r -:.· :: ( c::ss ' f a ~!) ':-'::/ inclL.:c'.2 ger:e:a l ati!i~y ar.c aptitude fer !=>o: i ce wcrt.:.
;:;~ · ,:; : : .
.'.\'._ P::~:=-'.Jr. t.1,.:. ,' i Ci:: (~355 / f a'.. l) ~Aa 1
be ~he;. for the pur;Jose of exa ;;;ini~g tn;;
ca ~j:c 2 :e 's a:i!ity tJ ~er: s:~ the ph ysical asJe:~s of la ~ enforce~ent ~or~.
PH "S:C~i... ;;:::;=-·:J?->

Emplo~·rnent OJ)portunity
PO! 1,....r:
,_ l .. ·c OFFICE
D"'N R
. .. EXl\~!Nfl1'10!J
- LATERAL TRANSFER
P HOBATIONJ\RY
Revised 7/87 BullHin f.4314
ENCOURAGED TO APPLY

City
of
@
E1riplo.\·n1ent Opportun1ty
PROl'iU'rIONAL EXNHNATION - Qt;E YEAR PP.OEATIOtiAP.Y PERICO
S~ S3275 - S4276 ?er r.lon th ($3456 afte r 6 ;:-,on ths l
(Sal3:; includes pay~ent b~ t~e City o f 2/ 3 of the
9~ e ~~loye e's P~RS cont:ibution. Salar1 fi;~:e~ are
e::ffective 7/ 1/ 87 ) .
f..lL_~NG Pf!RIOO A? ril 13, 19 87 - April 24, 1987
[ti
~
~
w
·~
Ill.LRQSlll QB
Se::r;ean:s p:cvide S U? er vi si o~ , dir ec : ion , and coordination
of a n assisned srou? of ~ers on nel e~;3gec in per:orn ins la ~
en for: e ~en t tasks. This ~ a y be in Patrol, Traffic Enforce;:-ent,
Investi;ation, or Ad ~ini stration.
MINU!JJlLRJ:;.Q._UIRE~~NTS
l. Till_~ years of service as a Pol ice Officer witl': the Glencale Police
De;:art;:-.e r.t at ti ;;: e of a::: :;l ication, I l-: CU.iDI ~:G ~ vear's as.:i::ri:cent as
a fi~ ld ?atrol Of ficer ~;~plete d t y t:~e cf a;; ci;t~en t. -
2. Possessicn o f t he In:er c e ~ iate Ce:tificate at ti~e of a c~oin : ~ ert. be
Cert ificate must be presented and verified bv t he ?olice.Personnel
Bureau before your na;;:e can be certified fr o; the eligible l i st.
Certificates s~e ci fied are those establ i shed t; t he State o:
Cal ifor~i a D ~part~ent of Justice, Co ~~i ss i on o f Peace Office:
Standards and Training, ~ace effective July 1, 197~.
DRIVE~' S LICEtiSE: Class 3
.fil_LECTIQlL.fFOCEDOR.E
~ill include a written and a perfor~ance test.
\·.':>T':'T ::_;,:: (l·iei;ht of 50%) Hay ir.clu:Je kn owl edge cf su;:ervisory
pr1~c i ; l es and practices, Law of Arrest, Law of Evi~ence, Investi;ation,
I nte rviewir.~, Interro~atior, Cri~i nal Law, Traffic Law, Patrol Prccedure,
Fre ~en t ior. , Hucan a~d ? ~blic Relations, the Glendale Police De:!rt~ent
~an~al a nd Glendale Pclice Officers' Association and Glendale t i t v
E= ployees' Association ~erorand~~s of Understanding; City of Gle::n;ale's
Supervisors ~anual.
PERF O ~·l M:CE: (1-.;ight of 50%) Candidates who achieve a passir.s •ritten
score ~ay participate in a variety of group a nd individual exercises
wh ich shall i nclude: an oral intervi~w; and may also include: a role
play-cour.seling interview with a subordinate; a role play-speech to a
group of "citizens" about a s~ecific subject; and/ or a "Leaderless grou;•
discussion about a Sergeant's job-related issue. A group of s~:jectrracter-ex;erts
will rank candidates according to their perfor=a~ce in
these exercises.
FROMOT!m 1 ~.L E'!:.IGIEILITY: See Minirnur.i Require:.ients
~
-~
f
~
TIME At:D PLACS OF THE EX.a./''.INATION WILL BE At;NOUNCED.
The provisions of this b~lletin do not constitute an express er i~pl i~ d
contract.
POLICE SERGEANT Date Posted: 4-13-87 BULLETIN t4~47
WOMEN. MINORITIES & HANDICAPPED ENCOURAGED TO APPLY
1se~ reverse s1ae1

En--iplo~-rnent Opportunity
LI EU~ EN ANT
S370~ - s~ S91 ~e= ~or.tr.
(Sala=¥ i~cl~jes 7\ ~E?S =eimbursement)
F:::sG ?~~IO~ Septemte= 29, 198 6 - October 10, 1986
':':-i::'. ? )SI:'::::
P.-:s:::onsir:T c -f:ir s ·..i~~rvi s ing the activities c: an assigned p·.Jlice
cc:-:-;,:;.nd. S uoe r vis~s s u:::ordinates ir. patrol work, crimi nal
i:-·1'1estigatio; a r.d j1.:•1enile delinquency control and in·.;estigation.
May te assigr.2d to perform a nd direct other specialized staff
fur.ctic ns of tr.e di v isic~.
!·! ~ :: r : . ::.~i·I ?. ~ ) UI::.::.: .. :.:::: :-s
1. T~o y~a rs as a Police Sergeant , AND
2. A: -tir..e cf a~ ,?oino::.rr.er:.c muse be npossession of the
A~van=ed Ce=tifica te .
NC~E: Certificates specified are those ~stablished by the
S:ate of California Department of Justice, Commission
~n Peace Officer Standards and Training at time of
a ,?~ .::> in tner.t.
D~!~SR' S LIC::'.NS::'.: Class
A. S U ??LE~ENT~L APPLI C~TION QUESTIONNAIRE: (Weight - Qualifying)
A:l applica~:s must s ubmit a comple:ed supplemental application
qt1e s tic:-.:-.aire a lor.g with t he official City of Glendale e:r.ployment
application form. A~~lications filed without the completed
s upplemental questionnaire will be automatically rejected .
SrECr .:.r... !J.JTE: All apt=ilications ar..d supplemental questionnaire will be
reviewed, e va luated, and g r aded by a panel of s ub j ect mat t er experts
and or.ly the ~op 16 scores will be invited to participate in the
assessment cen~er exam in a~ ion .
ASS ES5 i·LEN':- CE:!E:::\ L: ..:..Hii.:.~.T:!:Ot~: (Weight of 100%) Up to 16 candidates
wili participate in t he Assessment Center Examination. The
e xa~in at i on will consist of a Mana~ement Assessment process composed
of a variety of group a r..d individual exercises related to the duties
and responsibilities o f a Police Li eutenant. Participants will be
expected to demonstrate b~eadth of managerial skill and understanding
of managerial requi rements of a Police Lieutenant's position.
A group of trair:ed assessors / subject-matter experts will grade and
rank candidates according to the i r performance in these exercises.
PR·Jl·iOTI ·JW . :. £ LIG!SE.IT'i : See Minimum Requi rements.
TIME AND PLACE OF THE EXA!1INATION WILL BE ANNOUNCED.
The provisions of this bulletin do not constitute an express or
implied cor.tra=t. Any p:~visions contained in this b~lletin may be
modified or revc ked without notice.
Date Posted : 9-29-86 BULLETIN H397
-, ·· .,:,. - ~ . :-.... .. _ :_ ·_ ;_. .1 : ·~ .· ~
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
WOMEN. MINORITIES & HANDICAPPED ENCOURAGED TO APPLY
uee reverse s1oe1

I
I
E1np10~·111c11t Opportunity
S4 266 - S5239 per rno:1:~
(Salar7 in=ludes 7% PERS reimbursement)
r:::.: :,;.:; P:::

E X H I B I T 11
j

'
GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT
DAVID J. THOMPSON, CHIEF OF POLICE GENERAL ORDER #715
SUBJECT: RACIAL, REL IGIOUS, AND ETHN IC VIOLENCE MAY 1, 1987
I. PURPOSE:
The Glendale Police Department will take a proactive role in
promoting peace and harmony within the community, and in ensuring
that rights guaranteed by state laws and the U.S. Constitution are
protected for all citizens regardless of their race, color,
ethnicity, or religion. When such rights are infringed upon by
violence, intimidation, threats or other harassment, the Department
will use every necessary resource to rapidly and decisively
identify the perpetrators, arrest them, and bring them before the
court.
All acts of racial or religious violence or threats will be viewed
as serious, and the investigations will be given priority
attention. Such acts may generate fear and concern among victims
and the public, and have the potential of recurring; thus,
escalating and possibly causing counterviolence.
II. POLICY:
It shall be the policy of this Department to bring the
investigative and enforcement elements of the police department
into quick action following any and all reported or observed
incidents of racial, religious, or ethnic hatred. There is to be
special emphasis placed on victim assistance and community
cooperation in order to reduce victim/cormnunity trauma or fear. It
must be remembered that the actions taken by this agency in dealing
with incidents of racial, religious, and ethnic bias are visible
signs of concern and corrrnitment to the community on the part of
Glendale government and its police department.
The proper investigation of racial, religious, or ethnic incidents
is the responsibility of all Glendale police officers. Each
officer must be sensitive to the feelings, needs, and fears that
may be present in the community as a resu l t of incidents of this
nature.
In addition to our existing procedures for reporting and
investigating matters of this nature, the office of the Chief of
Police may conduct a concurrent line of inquiry into any incident
involving racial, religious, or ethnic violence. Therefore,
supervisors/commanders apprised of ~uch an incident will ensure
notification as soon as practical to the agent-in-charge of the
Criminal Intelligence Unit.

. ,
RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, ANO ETHNIC VIOLENCE
May 1, 1987
GENERAL ORDER #715
Page 2
III. PROCEDURE:
A. Definition:
A racially, ethnically, or religiously targeted incident is an act
or a threatened or ,attempted act by any person or group of persons
against the person or property of another individual or group that
may in any way constitute an expression of racial, ethnic, or
religious hostility. This includes threatening phone calls, hate
mail, physical assaults, vandalism, cross burnings or destruction
of other religious symbols, and firebombing. This list is not all
inclusive. Some incidents may not clearly fit a specific
definition. In those cases, a common-sense approach must be used ..
If an incident appears to be an incident of racial, religious, or
ethnic bias, it should be investigated as such. Verification can
be made during the investigation.
Officers must recognize that single incidents such as vandalism or
threats may initially appear as less serious when viewed in the
larger context of all crime. Incident reports should be reviewed
for patterns of incidents occuiring at either the same location or
directed at a particular individual or group. Very often what may
begin as a minor incident escalates into a more serious crime.
B. Procedures:
When an officer on the scene makes a determination that an incident
is of racial, religious, or ethnic bias, the following procedures
are activated. To achieve a thorough investigation and a sensitive
response to the victims and community, responsibilities shall be as
fo 11 ows:
1. Whenever any incident as described above comes to the
attention of a department member, the incident will be
immediately reported to the field supervisor.
2. Field officers shall:
a. Respond in a sensitive way to the feelings and needs of
the victim(s).
b. Preserve the crime scene and evidence.
c. Immediately take all possible investigative and
enforcement action.
d. Notify the crime laboratory or investigator (if
applicable) if any religiously, ethnica1ly, or racially
motivated physical violence towards persons or property
occurs.

RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ETHNIC VIOLENCE
May 1, 1987
GENERAL ORDER #715
Page 3
2. Field officers shall: (Continued)
e. Prepare a detailed report.
3. The field supervisor shall:
a. Respond immediately to the scene of all incidents covered
by this order.
b. Ensure that the crime scene is protected.
c. Ensure that the investigative personnel have been
notified if their presence would serve the best interest
of the investigation.
d. Notify the Chief of Police, or the Acting Chief in his
absence, and agent in charge of Criminal Intelligence
Unit.
e. Ensure that the scene is properly processed and evidence
gathered.
f. Make a follow-up visit to assure the victim that the
investigation will be actively pursued to apprehend the
suspect(s).
g. Notify the Watch Commander or Operations Supervisor as
soon as possible of the following information (if
applicable):
1. Any disturbance, physical violence, or destruction
of property that is racially, religiously, or
ethnically motivated.
2. Type of vandalism and the materials involved.
3. Exact time and location of the incident.
4. Type of neighborhood (racial, ethnic, and
socio-economic make-up).
5. Whether arrests are imminent, or the names,
addresses, dates of birth, sex, and race of any
persons arrested.
h. Arrange for an immediate increase of patrols throughout
the affected area. If, in the judgment of the patrol
supervisor, there still exists the potential for further
acts of violence, a unit should be specifically assigned
to the location in a fixed post position.

RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ETHNIC VIOLENCE
May 1, 1987
GENERAL ORDER #715
Page 4
.3. The field supervisor shall: (Continued)
i. Ensure that all physical remains of the incident are
removed after processing is completed. If the remains
cannot be removed (example: paint on walls), the
supervisor shall attempt to impress upon building or
property owners the need for complete restoration as soon
as possible.
j. Ensure that the police report contains full data on the
materials used (cross, literature, paint, etc.),
including size, construction, wrappings, messages; plus,
the method of removal and the disposition of the remains.
k. Ens ure that a copy of the police report is dispatched to
the agent-in-charge of the Criminal Intelligence Unit as
soon as practical.
1. Maintain contact with community l eaders at the scene
concerning the progress of the investigation.
4. Investigative personnel shall, upon being directed by a
commanding officer or his designate, respond to the scene of
any racially, religiously, or ethnically ·motivated act of
physical violence and/or destruction of property and shall (if
appl icable):
a. Obtain a sample of the cross, paints, or other materials
used.
b. Photograph and process the scene (including any victim of
physical viole~ce).
c. Gather and take custody of any related evidence.
d. Generate appropriate and necessary supplemental crime
reports.
e. Contact appropriate state and/or local law enforcement
agencies for assistance with serious cases.
f. Maintain liaison with the department Criminal
Intelligence Unit for intelligence information exchange.
g. Keep the arresting officer informed of the status of the
case.

RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ETHNIC VIOLENCE
May 1, 1987
GENERAL ORDER #715
Page 5
5. The agent assigned to the Criminal Intelligence Unit shall:
a. Conduct a parallel ihquiry into all confirmed racially,
ethnically, or religiously targeted incidents and report
the facts of such incident directly to the Chief of
Police. Additionally, the agent shall respond to the
scene of any hate or bias incident whenever directed by
the Chief of Police or in his own opinion such personal
examination warrants it.
b. Coordinate the efforts of his inquiry with other assigned
police personnel in a cooperative and professional
manner.
c. Report the findings of his inquiry as soon as pracLical
directly to the Chief of Police and, where appropriate,
makes reco~mendations for further actions.
d. Make a follow-up visit to ensure the victim that the
police are doing everything possible to eliminate the
fear factor and apprehend the suspect(s).
e. Maintain contact with community leaders concerning the
progress of the investigation.
f. Ensure that victims and other concerned parties are
informed of a case clearance.
g. Maintain all reports of racially, ethnically, and
religiously targeted incidents and catalog such reports
with the aid of a Confirmed Bias Incident Log number.
h. Keep the Chief of Police informed at all times concerning
matters covered in this General Order.
i. Maintain liaison with federal, state, and local agencies
for intelligence information exchange. When appropriate,
share relevant information with department personnel so
that they are aware of potential problems in the
community and can perform in a proactive manner.
j. On a routine basis, meet-and work with the Chief of
Police, community members, leaders, or groups such as the
Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission to assist,
coordinate, and facilitate the efforts of those involved
in preventing reoccurrences_of these types of hate
crimes. -

RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ETHNIC VIOLENCE
May 1, 1987
GENERAL ORDER #715
Page 6
The Glendale Police Department firmly believes that
meetings with group representatives often provide a
positive mutual confidence through which rumor can be
quelled with factual information. This trust is crucial
to preventing col'TITlunity unrest, which is often based on
misinformation or lack of information. Immediate contact
with community leaders is essential to maintaining order.
RESOURCE: IACP model racial, religious, and ethnic violence policy
dated February 1, 1987, with modifications that allow
adaptions to this department.

E X H I B I T 12

~I.
policy causes police· discord
Rkharcl' Navarro -:- to' remove their names from the top When Bruce pDt bll name back, however, the other two officer claim!! the system is abused within the Glend_ale
Police Department.
"At the time I liked Bruce to . waiv~ becalise the . therelol'j!, only these ·three cal'! be coruldered for the post. .
manaaement ' and. start di~ not (eel be ~d enough ex- Baker requested ~he list be cancelled.
personnel and training and commander or the juveriile
division. now with San Francisco State University's Departmettt
The three foUo'ifed Baker'• request. At a later date, ,J3ruce l>ttn In effect for a y~r and we've got eight promotions off
or Public Safety. has been a critic ,r the waiver process
three poelUons on a list tor Bef1eant. · ofrlcen also reinstated their names. By civil service rules,
ptri~." Baker aald. . · · . · · · "The reason. 1 1 .uked for the cancellation Is the list has
. wu requested lo put hlt name back lor reco~lderatlon. . It," Baker AAld .. A ;nwnbef of positions wiU be opening, he
"We uked h~ be relnalated so he could be r~valuated for said, and "oumy more peoph! would be eligible If eumlna·
certlflcaUoa/' .Baker '.aald. ''A' declllon · wu , ~de by the.· ,

E X H I B I T 13
f -·

( 1. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
General Policv Statement
It is the policy of the City to ensure that the
recruitment, eraployment, training, advancement, layoff, or
·termination and corapensation for all job classifications
within the City of Glendale shall always be on the basis of
qualifications or performance without reg~rd to race,
color, national origin, religious beliefs, sex, or age;
except were age is a bona fide occupational qualification
and as provided by Section 703(e) of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. The City shall continue to strive to widen
opportunities to make equal opportunity a reality for all
levels of our work force.
II. OBJECTIVE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN
A. To establish and maintain employment level goals for racial
minorities in relative proportion approximately equal to
the levels in the relevant labor market. These goals
inclu6e a representative number of women and handicapped.
(
B. To distribute this employment throughout the job classes in
the City service.
C. To eliminate and preven ~ the occurrence of arbitrary and
discriminatory practices relating to employment practices
and administrative policy.
D. To follow the merit principle in employment practices.
III. DISSEMINATION OF POLICY STATEMENT
A. Internal
1. Management seminars
2. Supervisory training sessions
3. Employee associations and unions
4. Employee orientations
5. Bulletin boards
B. External
1. Community groups, agencies, and interested individuals
2. Press releases
IV. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN
A. Top Level Support
1. This plan is a commitment for action in all areas and
at all levels of Glendale City service.
2. This plan commits all managers, supervisors, and
general service employees to follow the spirit and
intent of this plan and support of its goals.
- ,_ • • :. ~ • • - ~~.........-~- ... .. ~ .,,. • • - - • • • - • • 4 • • - .. . - ~

E X H I B I T 14

~: .- ~ho 1981-82 bi9 «JADe sea;·on ;. iri . tlle '. state of Arizona will be eancelled
... -due. to t.he short.we of · ·b1g gan'\e animals . .. The follo'-iing will not be
:--;.· hunted ~·i thin th3--Ctate 'G boundaries .this sell son: · Bear, Deer, ·Elk '
•I. .i ,..._· Sh . .., . ·.: .. . . . . . . . . ...
-~ ~ ~ .. g ..-rn eep • . ·1 ··.:·'.".·.···· -~ -~ .··.· .. . ,. : . -: ·· ... i.
..., . • 4. . · ·~ . .. . . . . . ; • .·. ·
t(Dawever, int~ ~ ~1~ -~~~- · ~{ .~~i ~ ~- · anima- ls~· ...
. . : . ·.. . : '\
.. ;here-~ill be a~ open
f.:./Z)etuon on the South Western wet Back (known· locally as Mex1can..., ·"'
;
~Gre.aser, Greaseball,. Spic, Mex, or ·Lov:Rider). The Geason wi i l
fCfJOn October i, · iga1 and close '_ April .1:, .1982 . The '\ie_t Backs
t .._. . .. ·..
::_~~$t · . .be ·thinned _ out. a .vary .two or . three. yea.rs .
: · ~;, .
:..·, . :, • ... . :· .. . ~ ·. ·; .
. ~"'; .:.~l. ?So "•ill be · u~: ~~.w~ul . t.o~ · , · : ·~_::· ..... : . ..... .
. ,.-, . ·
:· · : .- ~\ .•·. · :,
.... · ·. . ... ~ .. . ":" . . . .. .. . . .,,, . .. .. . . . ... .:~ ..:. .
· ~· f · th~ -.. follwinq: ia·) >A ,r:cacotdi.lg _.- of· .e~y~tal- ~le '.s
r · ~; -. .
;.:~ ~ ~ont. · ~ :~~ M~~ ;~ · -: .. ~1'.~.' - ~~~:S. . ~ .~,u~ .. ~ ~--, < ~ .'~· ~~/~'.~~ -~~>". '._ ·':: .···: . - ~ -.; : ·
. . · · •
{ :.!~GT~~ ii •P~iai -;~~~ft . ~;- · · be • P~~Cho.G~d ·f~ ul:ie . .);Me:cica li Baby•. '· ~ ' ..
f :~ ~~- -~ ,.~~-~'~*~,'.~

E X H I B I T 15

,
..
'·-
D11d~ I)
(\
' .
I I '
.--
EYc. S
r·.\.oTt~ A fu Kb
(- . ( ,..
ii I
d" ,
'~ .f"!. ~u CLS
I l
1 '-( ~
~
I
- !O
.. _,
~,NC7.10,~
SA

E X H I B I T 16

__ d-
NOTE: ALL BODY SHOTS COUNT 5.
SHOTS TO HEAD DO NOT COUNT
UNLESS METAL PIERCING CART­
RIDGE IS USED.
1D

EX H I B I T 17

~ .
~ .
i.
'
I"
,-
~
I
i
I
'
/
.. , 1
..
l

E X H I B I T 18

...._
,, j
GETTlNG
Je}Jt:::ttJs 5k(s
A~~\ 'SAT"lr-.Ju A
kA12.c:E5'
\JeGE:TABJ-E lS
~lt~ 11
CASE NO. ( \~

E X H I B I T 19

I
\\_./
• .
.
.. .....
.
:-
·1
. ~ ... .. ' (
\ ..
· j
!
CASE NO. ( \\ 73S-t.P';) 3& )I
..
. J'
·.
~ ·
vs.1:~:t~ I£&
.. , PLAINTIFF'S EXH!BIT-B~I.___ ___ _
DATE
DATE
__
1_1 _S_E_P_19_8_5 ___ IDEN .
___________ EVID.
j •
AO 386

E X H I B I T 20

·.·.~
•
..
f
·,
------------· ~ ------'
.•
,·
i: x ~/V ::;-c-N /

E X H I B I T 21

. .....
\
~. . .i
~ .
\ ,
. /"
/
--

E X H I B I T 22

A ~
Q LSl!i~
. .
.s ~ r~). ·5~l.~ ~ rb\~ . -#!!.
~DJ~~ a·-~ e . \. ·
. \ . . . .. . ..
- ~.:; •.. . --.·, • . ··.1:· .. .. ' . ·
. •
. . .
:. -
- .. . .
. .
.. · ~. . ..
.. ~ .. -: _·:>···. ',,··. ~ ·.'-: ..
:
,, ... .. . .. -. . . .
... ,
. . .
. :.~ . ..
·' . .
, - . .. - ..
. l!.~~ ,Mr ...
.. . • - . a .. •
~ . .
-
·· -·· .. . .... -. . . . . - . .. -
••. :.. • : .... - . • .. •' !':
. . .. . : ..
. ., . .
......
~
.
' • · I
. .. . - . .. . . . ..
. - . . ..
.· .
.
. - .
- · . • . • • · · ~ •• - : .··
..
.
.. . .
-·. ... : .. . . .•. . ·. . . .;, . .. .. :· ·.. . : . . .
. . .. . -.· . . .. · - . . . .. .. -. .
- .. . ~-· l . ·~· :·:·. -.
I
I.
. . ~ ~ .· . · . ,.:.. . . . .
~ . • .. · :· ..
I
,,.. .
'c.t.hwr?'J A Stu. j~Aa.. o~ IMAL~~ . 0~.Al...)C=.J7fh.J, ~
\.-hs. -r L4.l , e...\ S 's-f ~ e.:_ . ' ):;. A L'S. ' ·· ·: ~ s. '12.2 Q.~ a ~ 1 L..J .
O'R?t4AtV~~ . i.wi.tw aon,, . -rile.rt.. ?A~.s Wc:.pr:-
lRP.

E X H I B I T 23

GARDEN GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WANTED
---
•
JUSTICE KNIGHT
11
-· ·""
Susp "KNIGHT" while employed as a "JA..'HTOR" for the
Garqen Grove City Zoo, was completing his work in
the Orangutang cage when confronted by Viets - oix
vacationers from Ic~a. Victn apparently mistook the
Busp as one of the apes, and attempted to feed him
bananas and peanuts. All six Viets were beaten to
death by Susp, who was armed .,,.~., .. ~ Et . broom and waste
paper scooper.
11
·• , ........ .... _ -
..-.. . . . ..... ,,

E X H I B I T 24

-

E X H I B I T 25

·.
..
• ' • • • ~ ~ '"' ' • • ~: . • . _,: • ' • • • . ._ " ·• J.• · •• • ; , •' • ' •., • ... '• , I ' •
\ ·
. · · ~ . . ·: .-. ·-··
- .· .. {
. ,,. .... .
.·. __
._, , _
·, ..
. . ~ ;. >: . ·
~ ·~:-.::._ .. ...
... ·: :_· ·
.·
..
.. ·
• __ f ·
'.
. .. ... '
-.·:; ; .
·;,.. , .. ·.
· ~ ... : . ·
~ -- . ,· : :
- . i
'.!,:
. . . .. · .: . .. '·: ·.-_;· .··
..... _·
..... - ~ ·
. ', \
: .. ~ ~:~
-·:·
. . : .. ... .
.; .....
-~>-;;,~~- ~: '- . ·
. : . .: . . :... :.. . - .. .• . ....
, .. .;.. - . ,. '\ . ._. ~-.: ..
..
,: : . .. ~:;~· ~,. _::-· .•. ··· · ~/.- :. "" .· . .. :: . :·...... -;, .... ,... ~ . ; . .
-~-~·._:_ .. ·~ . ·
.. .-:.... · ~ ·.: .._~ :". · _ < _:.·:
~ . ~ ' . . . . .. . _:;:.~ ..
... . :
.. ·
.. ,·.·
.. ··.. ,... ... ~~...- ··> :... .
.. ,··,_
;: . . . . : .~ : · . - -- .. ".: .·:··.~.- .:
~ ,· ·.:·, .. . ~ ·
... :...- ..
~_·_; _: ; ·.~ ·; . ~.:
__ . ;~_
.. :
_ :_.~.·,;_~· .·.··:·
•.
.. - ~~.: .. ~_ .. _, ..
.... · ·.;··"'
'. -. . ~".. .
..... ... ....
.. ..
-. ·~ .:-;.
..
. . . ~-.
- .. :- .. . ·. . .. ... : .. ·.•. -· -" -
·_:/ -.:; .:~ .. · ~ · ~-. :_ : . . --~ : .. -~ ~ . .-. . . . .
·'·
-:...:.:_._
~
·~, ....
·_~~-.:_~ .
~_; _
~
-· .· ·
·.· . . ~
.· . . ... ·
·
.. · _, ·· ... . · . -- .
....... : : '"· •.·
.• ' •7'
; -:·. . . :_·. . .. .. .
· .· ~~ ·: . • ..... · ... ~ -
·• . .. •. f ' . ... .... :· -:-.~ · • .. ·.·
.• .
,. .. . ...
:":" .. .
. : · ... ,.
·- .
.
....... ·.
:· .. .. .. ... .
. : . ..... - .. .. . '.:· ·.· .· . . . •
· .·t
.· ·•.:
·,-: .. -· .·: .
·:f ~:~'-·~::.~~:~>:~{};i~\~~'fl2~;~~.t~~~-/;:~:i-;=::::,
· ··~ ........ ~ ·· -:'·· . . ... -... . ·~:~-. ·: .·· ·~: .:.: · \ .·::... ~ · : ·. , ...... : ·-· . ... · .
. :., ..
;

E X H I B I T 26

"Momma, if they can put a baboon heart into a baby's body, why can't they i
put food into mine?" r
~~~~~~~~~~~~~-l
I
l •
I
l
I
l
r
~ .

E X H I B I T 27

I
I
c:21 ctj GLEN DALE CALI FORNI~.
J~-~k C ear - . ' . 1 . F d Ch . f f P , • .
A
~ i o r i ; r:n n g e y o r g a n 1 z a ·. : :; r. a 1 s s u e c. n to p o . r.i y a g e n d a s . l e o o : 1 c e 1 s ..
t0 pr0iide a w~oleso ~~ a~d h~r~~nicus work enviror~ent for everyone,
r~~c.rJ~e5S of job cl-35Sificatior1. I firmly be1ieve thdt if w.e can all 't;r:-rk
t 1 :"J~~I-:::·· w~t:-. m : ~t 1 J.;I respE::t ard dignity, th2 departirEnt as i 1 ,.;hole wi!1
b-: r: ~ ~: i c. • W
: : h Ui i s t y q e of en v i r ·Y : n; e :1 t , w ~ c ~ r. a l 1 grow r. o t o ~ 1 y i n a
pr-o f.2-?- s ~ c;r.;: 1 sense: but a hurr a:: sense.
H c ' . ' • ~" · ::r, ! re::r.:r.~1y h~ud s c.•.~t: rr ; e : '"'~:et5 fee1 tr. .::t they a,...e not b~ing tre.;~eci
ir: a digr·, if1d :iit.~''.r.er be .~r:use of their r,ationcl origin, race/co10r, religion,
r. r s e x . Th i s g i v ~ s iTi E g re ,3 t co n c e r ti a s yo u r C h i e f a n d i t i s fc r t h i s re= s o n
I a~ writing this letter dir€ct1y to you.
Rest assur~d tha~ when I am made aw~re oF any impropriety such as hdrass~ent
i n th e w:: r k - ;> 1 c. c e , i rnn: e d = c t e a r. j s t ~ rn rr1
Ea s u .,.. es a re ta '.< E. ;i • Trad i t i on a 11 y ,
oi.;r o,·~ar.iz~~ion is fully CCi!rtl'littd to th2 principles e~bodie:f in p0licies
s1.1c'1 c.s E.E.0.C., /l,ffinr:ative ·Action, and Wcr~-Place Harassment. W!'"1er; ~ ... :
took a ~ oath of cffice to uphold the corstitution, we did net re1inquish our
persoral and ccnstitutiona1 rights - I bt:liev~ this. and JOU ~ust believe
this, too!
I f y Ct u i,.Ji 11 a c c: e p t my p e :"' s o n a 1 o b 1 i g a t i on t 0 c re a t e a w h c· 1 e s o tTi e a n d
har:1cn;ous wor~-place e:-:viror.:-.'ent, I must ask you in retiJrn for a r(?ciproca1
CC.o!1im it1r-Ent·to he'.p rre. The ·~efori::, shouid yo:; be awcre of forces a~ work thct
are dc7:r"i1-;-;e;--:tal to our efforts, take ir.~r; ; :;diate a~d appr-opriate a.:~ior, as c:n
indi·.'iduc1 ccnfid~r.t that ycu. will be free frcm criticism ar:d retdlidtior·.
This I pled~~ to ycu.
(
f'r!ay I tak.'.=: this opp~rtunity to· re:r:i!1d you of the City's written Po1ky
St~te:i:r:.: .·':: ar"d Proc::c:_.r"e or. ~!0rk-Piace Heiras~:-:ent dated May 31, 1983 w1idi- -w~s-
9Tv::r-.--~n - - e-2Eh ... e : n ·pro-;~ ·2-e ··~P l ,:;:; .. ·e-d-·at·-u3r-·t i1r.~--. --If you de not have a copy ,Jf
this 'lf:''J im~

Noveriber 22, 1985
Page 2
Your acceptanc~ of me as your Chief and the support that you hd~e rendered
during th i s time has bAen the most gratifying experier.ce of my life - for
w1ich I ar.i eternally indebted. By wcrking together in the years ahead, we
will contirue to be the best po1ice department in the nation.
David J. Thcmpson
Chief of Pol ice
OJ T: kc

E X H I B I T 28

GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
The Law . Firm of Ochoa & Sillas has been retained by the City of
Glendale to conduct an investigation into alleged discriminatory
practices pertaining to race and ethnicity within the Glendale
Police Department.
Please fill out this brief questionnaire. It should take only a
few minutes of your time. The questionnaire is important because
it will help us in our task.
The items ask questions about problems of race and ethnicity in
the Glendale Police Department. "Race" refers to major
distinctions of skin color, hair texture and facial
characteristics Cfor example, White, Black, ·oriental). "Ethnicity"
refers to national or cultural origin (for example, Hispanic,
Northern European, Middle Eastern) •
Each item can be answered by writing a number that best describes
your feeling in the box beside the statement.
For example, using this scile -
1 2
(strongly
disagr~e)
3 4 5 6 7 8 9

POLICE DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Please use this scale to indicate how you feel about the following
statements:
l 2

E X H I B I T 29

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORN IA 90089·0041
TELEPHONE: (21 3 1 743 · 224 1
vFFICE OF THE DEAN
ROSS CLAYTON
September 22, 1987
Mr. Herman Sillas
Law Off ices of Ochoa and Sillas
Oviatt Building, Suite 1010
617 South Olive
Los Angeles, CA. 90014
Dear Mr. Sillas:
The following summarizes the results of frequency
distributions and cross-tabulations of data from the Glendale
Police Department questionaire. This summary interprets findings
by discussing directionally collapsed frequencies and magnitudes
of tabled data to derive trends. You already have a copy of
handwriting-annotated tables.
Frequency Distributions
In the following discussion frequency distributions of
responses to questionaire items have been collapsed in a threeway
distribution (disagree, undecided, agree) or have been
otherwise reduced to ranges to facilitate inferential analysis.
1ili..en I ~ hired I expected race-ethnicity .t.Q he fill
important factor in~~ .Qf. ~ department: predominant
disagreement (disag. 143, undec. 35, agr. 15).
Face-ethnicity makes D.Q difference in HhQ ~ hired:
predominant agreement (disag. 37, undec. 47, agr. 109).
Ethnic-raciai representation is. important in~ department:
predominant agreement (disag. 31, undec. 45, agr. 117).
~ .Q.L. offensive racial-ethn~ remarks occur freQuent~:
predominant disagreement (disag. 112, undec. 42, agr. 39).
Race-ethnicity makes ~ difference in prornotjoos and
transfers: predominant disagreement (disag. 119, undec. 27, agr.
4 7) •
Cliques in .the. department az...e. formed .on .the. basis Qf. raceethnicity:
predominant disagreement (disag. 113, undec. 42, agr.
3 8) •
Face-ethnicity n.e~ affects police officer ~erformanc~
evaluation~: predominant agreement (disag. 46, undec. 64, agr.
83). There is a trending towards disagreement if one dichotomizes
categories by colla~sing in the direction of undecided and
disagree. At least it indicates less strength of agreement.

~ have ~ ferson~ offended ~ racial incidents among
employees: predominant disagreement (disag. 137, undec. 20, agr.
35) .
l
Department rules ~ enforced differently .f.Q..r.. djfferen~
racial-ethnic groups: predominant disagreement (disag. 136,
un a e c • 2 6 , a gr • 3 0 ) •
There at..§ DQ racial-ethnic problems in th_e. department:
predominant disagreement (disag. 84, undec. 48, agr. 60).
Strength of disagreement is weakened if undecided and agree are
combined, thus indicating less stength of disagreement.
i have ~ fersonally offended ~ racial incidents between
the department. .and ~ public: predominant disagreement (disag.
135, undec. 23, agr. 34).
i object to being supervised ~ anyone .b.u.t. a white m.a.l..e:
predominant disagreement (disag. 180, undec. 3, agr. 9).
Minority culture training would h.e.ll2 ~ jQb_ performance:
predominant disagreement (disag. 98, undec. 46, agr. 49).
Collapsing agree and undecided categories does not surpass the
opposite trend, but it is close to it.
Below are ranged data for respondent population descriptors:
Sex: 140 males; 52 females
Sworn status: 131 sworn; 61 nonsworn
Years with department: 67 Mean 8.71
other than English: 53 yes; 136 no
Race/ethnicity: 134 Anglo; 53 other
Age: 24 or < 24
25-2 9 49
30-34 44
35-39 33
40 or > 27
Education: High school 63
< Bach. degr. 62
Bach. degr. or > 62
Number of racial incidents known about since January,
1984: 0 93
1-2 50
>2 49
2

To recapitulate, most responses reflect a general
unawareness or denial of racial-ethnic problems or attitudes.
There is some evidence of awareness or appreciation of these
problems and perhaps need for corrective action. For example,
there is appreciation of need for ethnic-racial representation in
the department. Also, if undecided respondents are counted in
determining directionality of response, there is an indication of
sentiment leaning towards: race-ethnicity affecting police
officer performance appraisals, existance of racial-ethnic
problems in the department, and need for training about minority
cultures. Additionally, more respondents have perceived racial
incidents since January, 1984 than have not.
Cross-Tabulations ~ Degree .Q.f Racial .a.ruJ Ethnic Concern
Tables 1-21 cross tabulate a summary indicator which we h~ve
labeled "degree of ethnic and racial concern" with all other
variables in the questionaire. The handwriting-annotated tables
show circled cell frequencies to indicate trending in the
distributions. Most of the findings in these tables are
intuitively logical, ·but preponderantly in one direction.
Degree Qf ethnic-racial concern is not significantly
associated with: sex, sworn status, years with the department,
language fluency, age, education. It is significantly associated,
and trends as follows: expect race and ethnicity to be important
in work--low and disagree; race-ethnicity makes no difference in
who is hired--low and agree; race-ethnicity representation is
important in the department--low and disagree; rude ethni~-racial
remarks occur frequently--low and disagree; race-ethnicity makes
a difference in promotions and transfers--low and disagree;
cliques in the department are formed on the basis of raceethnici
ty--low and disagree; race-ethnicity never affects police
officer performance evaluations--low and disagree; personally
embarrassed by racial incidents--low and disagree; department
rules are enforced differently for different racial-ethnic
groups--low and disagree; there are no racial-ethnic problems in
the department--high and disagree, and low and agree; I have been
personally offended by incidents among employees--low and
disagree; I would object to supervision by anyone but a white
rnale--low and disagree; training to help me understand racerninor
ity cultures would improve my job performance--low and
disagree.
For control variables, degree .Qf. ethnic-racial concern is
significantly associated with: race-ethnic identification--low
concern by Anglos; number of racial incidents which respondents
knew about--high concern and high number of incidents, and low
concern and low number of incidents
Cross-Tabulations ~ Control Variables
Among the control variables (questionaire coded items 14-22,
3

eginning with sex), degree Qf racial-ethnic concern is
significantly associated with only race-ethnic identification,
and number of racial incidents which respondents knew about. High
ethnic-racial concern is associated with high number of racial
incidents and vice versa for low-low. Racial-ethnic
icentif ication trends in the direction of low concern by Anglo
respondents.
Tables 22-30
When L ~ hired i expected race-ethnicity .t..Q .Q.e .fill
i mportant factor in .tru;. Yl.QLk Qf ~ department is n.o..t.
significantly associated with: sex, sworn status,, number of
years with the department, language fluency, racial-ethnic
identification, age, education, number of racial incidents known
about. Only frequency of degree of racial concern significantly
trends in the direction of low concern and disagreement that
race-ethnicity was an important factor.
Tables 31-39
Race-ethnicity makes .IlQ. difference in rzhQ .i.§. hired is .D.Q.t.
significantly associated with: sex, sworn status, number of
years with the department, language fluency, racial-ethnic
identification, age, education, and number of racial incidents
known about. It is significantly associated with degree of
racial-ethnic concern, and trends as follows: high on agreement
that race-ethnicity makes no difference in who is hired with low
on degree of racial ethnic concern.
Tables 40-48
Ethnic-racial representation .iS. important in ~ department
is IlQ.t significantly associated with: sworn status, number of
years with the department, language fluency, racial-ethnic
identification, age, and education. It is significantly
associated, and trends as follows: sex, showing agreement by
both males and females; number of racial incidents known about,
in the direction of agreement and highest numbers of incidents;
and, degree of ethnic-racial concern and agreement.
Tables 49-57
Rude QL. offensive racial-ethnic remarks occur frequently is
llQ.t. significantly associated with: sex, sworn status, number of
years with the department, language fluency, and education. It is
significantly associated, and trends as follows: race-ethnicity
identif ication--Anglos disagree; age--mostly disagreement by
young and old; number of racial incidents known about--those who
have no knowledge diagaree and the opposite is true for those who
know about incidents.
Tables 58-66
Race-ethnicity makes ~ difference in. promotions an.Q.
4

transfers is .D.Q..t. significantly associated with: sex, sworn
status, language fluency, age, and education. It is significantly
associated with, and trends as follows: years with the
department--high years and disagree; racial-ethnic
identification--Anglos and disagree; zero number of racial
incidents known about and disagree, versus three or more
incidents and agree; and low degree of ethnic-racial concern and
disagree, versus high degree of concern with agree.
Tables 67-75
Cliques in. .th_e_ department ~ formed Qil .t.hg basis Qf raceethnicity
is Il.Q.t significantly associated with: sex, sworn
status, years with the department, language fluency, age,
education. It is significantly associated, and trends as follows:
racial and ethnic identification--Anglos and disagree; number of
racial incidents known anout--zero and disagree, and three or
more and agree; and degree of racial-ethnic concern--low and
disagree, and high and agree.
Tables 76-84
Race-ethnicity never affects police officer performance
evaluations is n.o.t significantly associated with: years with
department, language proficiency, race-ethnic identification,
age, education, and number of racial incidents known about. It is
significantly associated with, and trends as follows: sex--males
agree and females are uncertain; sworn status--sworn agree;
degree of ethnic and racial concern--low concern and agreement.
Tables 85-93
i ~ ~ personally offended ~ racial incidents among
employees is IlQ.t. significantly associated with: sex, sworn
status, years with department, language fluency, race-ethnic
identification, education. It is significantly associated with,
and trends as folows: age--disagree irrespective of age; number
of racial incidents known about--zero and disagree; degree of
ethnic-racial concern--low concern and disagree, and high concern
and agree.
Tables 94-102
Deoartment rules ~ enforced differently fQL. different
racial-ethnic groups is 1lQ.t. associated with: sex, sworn status,
years with the department, language fluency, age, education. It
is significantly associated with, and trends as follows: raceethnic
identif ication--Anglos disagree; number of racial incidents
known about--zero and disagree; degree of ethnic-racial concern-­
low concern and disagree, and high concern and agree.
Tables 103-111
There ~ D.Q racial ethnic problems in the. department is n.o.t
significantly associated with: sex, language fluency, racial-
5

ethnic identification, age, education, number of racial incidents
known about. It is sisnificantly associated with, and trends as
follows: sworn status--both sworn and nonsworn disagree; years
with the department--weak trend towards disagree by all seniority
levels except highest number of years; degree of ethnic-racial
concern--low concern and disagree, high concern--agree.
Tabl~ 112-120
I ~ ~ personally offended ~ racial incidents between
~ department an_Q ~ public is D..Q.i significantly associated
with: sex, language fluency, education. It is associated with,
and trends as follows: sworn status--sworn disagree; years with
department--disagree, irrespective of seniority; racial ethnic
identif ication--Anglos disagree; age--most age levels disagree;
number of racial incidents known about--disagree irrespective of
number of incidents; degree of racial-ethnic concern--except for
highest degree of concern, agree, low to moderate levels of
concern disagree.
Tables 121-129
i object .t..Q being supervised~ anyone hut. a white~ is
.n.o..t. significantly associated with: sex, sworn status, years with
the department, language fluency, racial ethnic identity, age,
· education. It is associated, and trends as follows: number of
racial incidents known about--disagree irrespective of number of
incidents; degree of ethnic-racial concern-- disagree,
irrespective of degree of concern.
Tables 130-138
Minority cultur~ training would ~ ~ j,Q.ll performance is
not significantly associated with: sworn status, years with
department, language fluency, race-ethnic identification,
education. It is associated, and trends as follows: sex--both
males and females disagree (females proportionately greater);
age--younger persons disagree; number of racial incidents known
about--zero disagree; degree of ethnic-racial concern--except for
those with highest concern, who agree, most levels of concern
disagree.
General Conclusions .aruJ. Observations .f.I..Qm Cross Tabulations
The mjority of respondents are Anglo and this large number
influences inferences from the cross-tabulations. Thus, in only a
few cross-tabulations are there distributions which are clearly
dichotomous (i.e., in terms of high, low and agree, disagree,
etc.). The following were variables for which dichotomous
relationships were shown:
6

degree of ethnic-racial concern, and there are no racialethnic
problems; number of racial incidents;
rude or offensive racial ethnic remarks occur frequently ,
and number of racial incidents known about;
race-ethnicity makes a difference in promotions and
transfers, and number of racial incidents known about;
cliques in the department are formed on the basis of raceethnici
ty, and number of racial incidents known about;
I have been personally of fended by racial incidents among
employees, and number of racial incidents known about;
department rules are enforced differently for different
racial-ethnic groups, and degree of racial-ethnic
concern;
minority culture training would help my job performance, and
degree of ethnic-racial concern.
There is clearly a tendency for those who are uninformed
about, or unconcerned with ethnic-racial incidents or problems to
deny the problems or the need for corrective action. The Anglo
majority in general is unaware of racial incidents, has a low
degree of racial-ethnic concern, and does not perceive a need for
intercultural awareness training.
Sincerely,
- - ----. .;?;:~ -~--?
.-- -~ - -"77 '

E X H I B I T 30

. .
Se p-c ember l ~ l '38 7
1'11r. Her r11ar1 Si 11 as
Law Offices of Ocnoa and Sillas
0 'I t at t 8 1J i i d i n g , S 1.t i t e 1 O l 0
E 1 7 S 1 : 1 u t n 0 l i ve
L •: 1 s A ·r 1 g e 1 es ~ CA • 3 0 0 1 4
0 e .::;. r iYI r . S l l l as :
T h e following summarizes the rasul-cs of cross-taoula-cions of
the Glenaale Police Department ~uestionaire. Tnis summary
i r1 "t er pre t s f i r-1 d i r1 g s t • y d i s c us s i r1 g rn a g n i t 1.l des of t a o 1 e d o at a t •:•
de~ive trends. Handwriting-annotated tables are also includeo.
Th i s l s pre par at c• r y t ·=· C• u r rn e et i rs g •=•rs t n e res •.11 t s.
Tables 1-21 cross tabulate a summary indicator which we have
lat:Jelec "degree c•f ethr1ic arid racial cc•r1cerr1 11 with all •:•ther
variables in the questionaire. The handwriting-annotated tables
sh•:•w circled eel l freq1.ter1cies t•:• ir1dicate trer1Clir1g ir1 tne
d i ~5 t r i but i 1 :• l'"1 s . M ·=·st o f t he f i r1 d i r1 gs i rs these tab l es a re
i r1 I: u 1 t i v e 1 y l •:• g .i ca l , b u t prep•:• r1 de r a r1 t 1 y i r1 •:• r1 e d i rec t i •:• r1.
Q§gcgg Qf §~Oni~=~~~i~l ~QD~~~n is not significantly
ass ~ ciated with: sex, sworn status, years ~ith the oepartment,
la·,...1guage fl uerscy, age, educat ii:•r1. It is sigr1i fican't ly -associatec,
and trends as follows: expect race and ethnicity to be important
in work--low and disagree; race-ethnicity maKes no cifference in
who is hired--low and agree; race-ethnicity representation is
importa ~ t in tne cepartme~t--low and d i sagree; rude ethnic-racial
rer11.;,rl-c. s •:•ccur frequer-1t ly--li:r~~ arid disagree; race-ethr1icity mal-

Pir1K•l'"1g the c•: 1 r1tr 1 : 1 l var1aoles (q1-1esti•:•r1aire cc•ded iter11s 14-22,
beginning w1tn sex>, gggc§~ Qf c~£i~l=~tnni£ £Qn£§rn is
significantly associated witn only race-etnnic iaentification,
anc nurntJer of racial incide·r1ts wnich respc•r1der1ts kr1ew ac;o1.1t. Hign
etnnic-racial concern is associated with high number of racial
ll"'1cioents a ·ncl vice versa f·:•r l•:•w-l•:•w. Racial-etnraic
i c er-it if i c~ ti c•r1 trends i r1 the di re ct i ·=··f"a c·f l •:•w c:•:•r1cerr1 t>y Arag i C•
t~es p •: · r·1 aer1t s.
~Q§D l ~~§ biC§Q l §~9§£!§Q r~£§=§!Oni~i!Y !Q Q§ ~n
i~Q9C!§D~ f~£!~r in !b§ ~~r~ Qf !n§ Q§g§r~~§n! is n2!
significantly associated with: sex, sworn status,, numcer of
years with the department, language fluency, racial-ethnic
identification, age, education, number of racial incioents known
aoout. Only frequency of degree of racial concern significantly
trends in the direction of low concern and disagreement that
race-etnnicity was an important factor.
B~£~=~!0Di£i!Y m~~g~ ~Q 9iff§r§n£§ iD ~OQ i§ Qlr§Q is nQ!
sign1f1cantly associated witn: sex, sworn status, numcer of
years witn the dep2.rtr11er1t; lc:.r1g•.lage fi1.ter1cy, racial-etnr1ic
id~ntification, age, eoucation, and number of racial incidents
krr•:•wn ab•:••Jt. It is sigr1ificar1t ly associated with degree •:•f
racial-ethnic concern, and trends as follows: hign on agreement
tnat race-ethnicity makes no oifference in who is nired witn low
on aegree of racial ethnic concern.
~~bDi£=~§£.i§l ~§Q~~§§D~~!i9D i2 im£Q~!§n~ in ~Q§ Q§Q§~~m§n!
is nQ~ signif1c:an~ly associated with: sworn status, numoer of
years with the departriier1t, lariguage flue·r"'1cy, rac1ai-etnr11c
i c e r1 t i f i cat i C• ra, a g e , a r1 d ea '-l cat i on. I t i s s i g r1 i f i c: a r1 t l y
assoc1at2d, and trends as follows: s2x, snowing agreemen~ cy
b 1 :
1tn males arid fernales; r1•.lriioer ·=·f· racial ir1cide·f"1ts l-'. r1i:·~n-1 aoout,
in tne cirect1on of agreernen~ anc highest numoers of inc1aen~s;
anc, oegree of etnnic-rac1al concern anc agreement.
B~~@ 2~ 9ff~~2l~§ c~~lsl=gIJD~£ ~§m~~~§ Q££~~ f~§g~§D£i~ is
DQi si~nificantly assoc1atec w1~n: sex~ sworn status~ nuriicer of .
ye a r ·= 11-' i t ;-, t r-, e a e part rn e '('1 t , l a r1 g u a g e f l u e ·r1 c y , a r1 o ea u ca i; i ·:· ·!"'1. I t 1 s
s i £ r"1 i f !. c a i"'1 t l y ass·=· c i at ea ~ a.,..., d t re.,..., a s as f ·=· l l •:• w s : r a c: s - Et n .,..., l c· i t 'J
ide~t1f1cation--~nglos c1sagree; age--mostly d1sagreemen~ oy
y •:·•Jr1g a ·r"'1d •:•id; r1•.lr11ber •:•f racia: ir1c1der1ts ~.r1•: 1 wf'1 atJ•:•ut--tn 1 :
1se ~'h·:·

.a'ie l"11:1 l-

Ib~C§ ~c~ ~Q c~~i~l §t~~i~ £~291§~§ i~ !~§ ~§9~~~~§Q! is ~~!
s l g r1 i f i c a r1 t l y as s ·=· c i a 't e d w i t h : s e x , l a ·r·1 g u a g e f l u e ·r1 c y , r a c 1 ,.3 1 -
e1=nn1c ider1t ific2'.t l•:•r1, age, educa-1:; i•:•f'1, r11.1r11ber c·f racial incide·,.·1ts
1-

etc.). The f 1 :•ll ·:·wi ·l"'1g were var1.=-.oles f 1 : •r whic:r-1 d1c:!1•:•t•:irn·:·u=:·
rela'tionsn1ps were snown:
c e gr e e ·=· f 2 t h n i c - r a c i a 1 c :: 1 r1 c er n, and t n e .,.., e are r1•:• r a c i a .l -
et:-1r1ic pr 1 :
0blerns; r1•.tr11r:ier •:•f racial incidents;
rude •:•r 1 : 1ffer1sive r.=1cial ett-1...-1ic remarks •:•cc1.1r frc~querd;ly,
a r1 c r11.t m Der 1 : 1 f r a c l a 1 i ., .. , c i ;~ e 't"1
t s 1~. r1 C• w n a a•:• u t ;
rci.ce-et il"l"'1 i cl t y rna'.-'.es a di ff ererice in pr··:•r111:•'t i r:·t·1s arid
t:ral""1 ·:;fers, ar·1d r-1ur11tJ(~r r:•f racial ii··1ci c;FJ"r'"1t ·;; ~c . t"1•:•Wl'"1 ab•:.:i•.Li;;
c l i q '.le s i r1 t r1 e d e part rn en t are f ·=· r r11 e d
e~hnicity, and number of racial
on the basis of raceincidents
k~0w~ ac0ut;
I have been persona 11 y off e...-1ded by rac i a 1 i r1c i dent: ariK:r1g
employees, and number of racial incidents known about;
department rules are enforced differently for different
racial-ethr11c gro•.tps, arid degree of r.a.cial-ethr1ic
c 1 :•ncerr1;
rn i r11:• r it y ct.t l t tlre t ra i r1 i rig w1:11.1 l d he 1 p my J i:•b perf •:•rmar:ce, arid
degree of ethnic-racial concern.
There is clearly a tendency for those wno are uninformed
about, or unconcerned witn ethnic-racial incidents or problems to
c2r1y the pr•:•tileriis •:•r t:-i2 't"1eed f•:•r cor·rective cict1r:•r1. The A't·1gl 1 :•
MaJority in general is unaware of racial incicents, has ~ low
d e g re e C• f r a c i a 1 - et :i f'1 i c c •:• l""1 c c r "n, a r1 d d •=•es r11:• t per c e i v e a f'1 e ~ d f ·=· ;~
l r1t ercu l t •.Lra 1 aware...-1ess t ra i r1 i ng.
'

E X H I B I T 31

(Indicates disagrees) (Indicates neutral opinion)
l 2 ) 4 5 6
(lnulcates
7 B
agn!c~)
9 TOT/\1,
l. When I was hired I expected race or
ethnicity to be an important factor
747. 197.
Bi.
19)
2. Race or ethnicity makes no difference
in who is or is not hired in this
department
19 7.
56%
19)
3. It is important to have racial or
ethnic repres~ntation in department
167.
60%
19)
4. Rude or offensive racial or ethnic
remarks occur frequently in this
department
9% 227.
207.
19)
5. Race or ethnicity makes a difference
in promotions or transfers in this
department
627. 147.
19)
6. Cliques in this department are formed
on the basis of race or ethnicity
597. 227.
20%
19]
7. Race or ethnicity never affects
police officer performance evaluations
247.
lt)7.
19)
8. I have personally be.en offcnclecl or
embarassed by racial incidents in this
department
70 i.
18%
19)
9. Oepnrtmentnl rules are enforced
differently for different racial
or ethnic groups
717. 147.
16%
19J

(Indicates disagrees) (InJJcates neutral oplnJon) (Iudlca t es a grees )
1 2 J '• 5 () 7 u 9
10. There are no racinl or ethnic
problems in this department 1157. 26/. Jl % 192
11. I have been personally of fended
or embarassed by racial incidents 70 7. .. 137. l 13% 192
between members of this department
and the public
12. I would object to being supervised
by anyone but a white male 92!% lH H 192
13. Training that would help me understand
racial and minority cultures 517. 257. 26% 192
would improve my job performance

(Indicates disagrees) (Indicates neutral opinion) (Indicates agrees)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL
l. When I was hired I expected race or *100 23 20 9 21 5 6 0 9 193
ethnicity to be an important factor 527. 12% 10% 5% 11% 3% 3% 0% 5%
2. Race or ethnicity makes no difference *19 6 12 11 24 12 24 20 65 193
in who is or is not hired in this 107. 37. 6% 6% 12% 6% 12% 10% 34%
department
3. It is important to have racial or *13 6 12 7 30 8 37 22 58 193
ethnic representation in department 7% 3% 6% 4% 167. 47. 19% 11 i. 30%
4. Rude or offensive racial or ethnic *46 36 30 14 21 7 18 9 12 193
remarks occur frequently in this 24% 19% 16% 7% 11% 4% 9% 5% 6%
s. Race or ethnicity makes a difference *81 30 8 5 16 6 14 14 19 193
in promotions or transfers in this 42% 16% 4% 3% 8% 3% 7% 7% 10%
department
6. Cliques in this department are formed *59 35 19 12 23 7 17 5 16 193
on the basis of race or ethnicity 317. 187. 10% 67. 12% 4% 9% 3% 87.
7. Race or ethnicity never affects *17 17 12 19 38 7 21 16 46 193
police officer performance evaluations 9% 9% 6% 107. 20% 47. 11% 8% 247.
8. I have personally been of fended or *101 22 14 1 12 7 12 4 19 193
embarassed by racial incidents in this 527. 117. 77. .05% 6% 4 7. 6% 27o 10%
department
9. Departmental rules are enforced *101 23 12 7 12 7 7 6 17 192
differently for .different racial 53% 127. 6% 4% 6% 4% 4% 3% 97.
or ethnic groups

(Indicates disagrees) (Indicates neutral opinion) (Indicates agrees)
l 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAL
10. There are no racial or ethnic *34 24 26 15 26 7 16 15 29
problems in this department 18% 13% 14% 87. 14% 47. 87. 87. 15 7.
11. I have been personally of fended *92 25 18 6 14 6 13 3 18
or embarassed by racial incidents 487. 13% 97. 37. 77o 37. 77.. 2% 97..
between members of this department
and the public
12. I would object to being supervised *161 18 1 2 1 0 2 0 8
by anyone but a white male 83% 97. • 057. 1% .057. 07. 1% 07. 47.
13. Training that would help me under- *69 21 8 13 26 7 9 15 25
stand racial and minority cultures 36% 11% 47. 77.. 147.. 4% 57. 87.. 137.
would improve my job performance
192
192
192
192
* This row indicates the number of people responding with that answer.
i. This row indicates the percentage of people out of the total count of people that responded with that answer.
-~ TOTAL This column indicates the total number of people that reponded with an answer.