Supervisors Support Latinos in Clash Over Hiring Goals

Overriding the protests of black employees, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors sided Tuesday with Latino activists and backed a controversial study showing that the county has failed to meet its affirmative action goals in hiring and promoting Latinos.

Although wary of an issue that has split the county’s two largest ethnic groups, the board voted unanimously to adopt the report--prepared by the county’s Office of Affirmative Action Compliance--and its conclusion that Latinos are “considerably under-represented” in the 70,000-member county work force.

Latino leaders have used those findings as evidence that the county’s affirmative action program has been ineffective since it was implemented more than 20 years ago, and they have pushed officials to step up their efforts on behalf of Latinos.

In approving the study Tuesday, the supervisors also directed Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon and Robert Arias, the county’s affirmative action compliance officer, to develop a plan to improve the county’s program.

Although representatives from other ethnic groups, including Asian-American and Native American employees, had voiced concerns about under-representation, officials from Latino organizations have been the most vocal.

“We’re very pleased with the board’s action,” said Raul Nunez, president of the Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Assn. “I can only assume that the board is now going to go ahead aggressively to see that we have an ethnic balance in this (work force).”

Alan Clayton, representing the California League of United Latin American Citizens, also described the board decision as significant.

“Statistically, the report gives a dismal picture of affirmative action, and now that the board has accepted the report, they can begin to correct the discrimination against Latinos that has been long ignored,” Clayton said.

The report found that the county, which based its affirmative action goals on the 1980 population census, had largely failed to achieve those goals in its Latino work force. In fact, Latinos had achieved “parity” in only two of 38 departments surveyed, the report said.

By comparison, the number of blacks in the county work force was more than double their proportion of the county population, according to the study.

However, in urging the board to reject the report, black leaders said Tuesday that the report was “flawed” and ignored the true picture of black employees in the county.

“We believe that . . . the report is based on inadequate evidence and documentation,” said Clyde Johnson, president of the Black Employees Assn., who called for an independent study. One complaint of the black critics of the report is that it used inflated numbers of Latinos in the county population in calculating how many Latinos should be included in the county work force.

Mamie Grant, another black leader, told supervisors that “we support affirmative action but we do not support preferential treatment”--an apparent reference to the push to recruit and promote more Latinos. Later, she called the board vote “a political move” designed to win favor with Latino voters and said blacks would not give up any gains they have already made.

The tensions between the two ethnic groups, which make up nearly half the county work force, has been evident since the report was issued two months ago. Board Chairman Deane Dana said Tuesday that the supervisors had delayed voting on the affirmative action report at that time primarily because of the lingering dispute.

“But we had to move on with this,” Dana said Tuesday. “You can’t debate this thing forever.