Local Cities Expect No Impact From Prop. 209

It’s exactly the kind of case backers of Proposition 209 recounted during their successful campaign: Ventura County Fire Chief James Sewell cancels a Firefighters Academy class because it does not reflect the racial mix of the community.

But as the new law barring job and education preferences for women and minorities works its way through the courts, local officials said Thursday the affirmative action plan under which Sewell made his recent controversial decision probably won’t change.

Even if the initiative is ultimately judged constitutional, it would not force county and city governments to abandon current policies aimed at hiring a diverse work force, officials said.

“As far as I know it has no impact on our affirmative action plan because our plan merely sets goals for diversity and doesn’t give preferences to any group or individual,” said Ron Komers, county personnel director. “Nothing needs to change.”

Officials in several local cities said just about the same thing: They would study the wording of the proposition, but they said their hiring programs reflect guidelines set forth under federal law and are specifically exempt from the strictures of Proposition 209.

The philosophical basis for those hiring programs is that a municipal work force should reflect the racial and gender composition of the surrounding community, and that such programs are sanctioned under federal equal opportunity laws, they said.

*

Critics said Thursday, however, that such local affirmative action programs give women and minorities the type of “preferential treatment” specifically banned by Proposition 209. And they cite Sewell’s recent cancellation of a training class for 12 firefighter cadets as a key example.

“They’re not telling the truth. They have illegal quotas in Ventura County and they just call them goals,” said Steve Frank, county coordinator of the the pro-209 campaign. “And the most vivid case is that of James Sewell. Now he can no longer make those types of decisions, and if he does under 209 he can be prosecuted for discrimination.”

But on Thursday, Sewell said his decision on the cancellation followed county policy and offered no one preferential treatment. Of 1,600 applicants, Sewell said, he interviewed 130 applicants who were ranked the highest after tests. “It’s a factor but it’s not a preference,” Sewell said of race and gender considerations. “In my mind a preference is if we set aside everyone else just to get to a certain group--if I would have dipped down further on the list to get unqualified cadets.”

Even opponents of Proposition 209 say it is far from clear whether municipal affirmative action plans will be found legal by state appellate courts.

“The term preferential treatment is legally undefined,” said Patty Bellasalma, state research director for the anti-209 campaign. “It is a statement of broad principle, but it is so vague a term that what it covers is limited only by one’s imagination. We’ll see what the California Supreme Court’s imagination allows.”

*

Where the impact would be most clear is on local agencies with ties to statewide programs:

The California community college system’s hiring practices have been identified as preferential in that they use race as a factor for employment. County Supt. of Schools Charles Weis said some public university outreach programs for minority high school students could be curtailed. And the proposition specifically forbids governments from giving a set percentage of contracts to firms run by minorities and women, as now occurs in state government.

Local officials said cities generally do not offer such preferences to minority contractors. “So I don’t see any change coming down the pike,” said Tom Gill, county purchasing director.

Whatever the impact, it could be years before the law is implemented, local officials said.

“I expect it to go the way of Prop. 187,” said Oxnard City Atty. Gary Gillig, referring to the 1994 initiative to eliminate most government services for illegal immigrants. “I expect there will be lots of litigation over the interpretation of 209.”

County Supervisor Frank Schillo said he will not even ask the Board of Supervisors to discuss the legality of the county affirmative action plan until the courts rule on the new law. “It’s too premature,” he said. “We’re in limbo waiting for the lawsuits to be settled.”

Wednesday, three lawsuits were filed over the initiative, two seeking to force its implementation and one aimed at finding it unconstitutional. Wilson’s legal counsel projected that the courts would not resolve the issue until 1998.

But decisions such as Sewell’s could now force the board to give the matter a more prompt consideration, Prop. 209 backer Frank said.

“Under 209, Mr. Sewell could be charged by the attorney general and sued personally by those individuals who were not allowed to go to the firefighters school,” he said.

When Sewell canceled the class in September, he stressed that the 357-employee Fire Department is underrepresented with women and minorities. It has 66 minorities and 14 women. By contrast, women make up 43% of the countywide work force and minorities represent 31%.

Schillo, who in September said he did not believe Sewell’s action represented county policy, said Thursday that the situation had been resolved satisfactorily since the cadets awaiting training have been informed that they can retain their initial scores instead of retaking tests.

Schillo also said he now knows that Sewell canceled the class at least in part because the money for some of the 12 new hires--11 of whom were men--had dried up.