HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171996 - D7 .. D.7
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IOC-065E-.:L ..o� Contra
- FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE o 's Costa
.� County
,.o
DATE: December 16, 1996
SUBJECT: REVIEW ` F THE -COUNTY'S MBE/WBE PROGRAM IN LIGHT OF THE
PASSAGE OF-PROPOSITION 209 AND SUBSEQUENT LEGAL ACTIONS
Skaf- REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. REQUEST that the Affirmative Action Officer submit a copy of future reports
to the Federal District Court on the Affirmative Action Consent Decree to the
Board of Supervisors on the Consent Calendar for the Board's information.
2. REFER the issue of the County's compliance with the provisions of
Proposition 209 to the 1997 Internal Operations Committee for continuing
oversight following definitive action in the Federal Courts regarding efforts to
stay implementation of the provisions of Proposition 209.
BACKGROUND:.
Our Committee has on referral the subject of the County's compliance with its
MBE/WBE goals. As a part,of this referral, our Committee has asked to review the
County's MBE/WBE Program with the County's Affirmative Action Officer and County
Counsel's Office in light of the passage of Proposition 209.
Attached is a memo from Phillip Althoff, Deputy County Counsel, to which are
attached the relevant papers relating to the Federal District Court restraining order
preventing the implementation of Proposition 209, pending a hearing on December
16, 1996. Motions to certify a defendant class and to grant a preliminary injunction
against all defendants (of which Contra Costa County is one) will be heard on
December 16, 1996, at which time the County Counsel's Office expects the Court to
grant both motions.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): GAYL�RISHAQPa IM R
ACTION OF BOARD ON DeGembeF 1, 1 996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ---------- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator ATTESTED December 17 1996
Contact: Affirmative Action Officer PHIL HELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Counsel PE RS AND COUNTY AD RATO
General Services Director
Public Works Director
BY P
IOC-06
Assuming these motions are granted and implementation of Proposition 209 is
enjoined, no further action by the County should be required to address Proposition
209 until this litigation is final.
We are, therefore, asking that this issue be referred to the 1997 Internal Operations
Committee for continuing oversight. We are also asking that the County's future
reports to the Federal District Court on our compliance with the consent decree be
forwarded to the Board for informational purposes.
[Following the conclusion of the Committee meeting, it was learned that the Federal
District Court had apparently continued the injunction for one week pending issuance
of an order regarding the requested temporary injunction].
-2-
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 3 , 1996
TO: Members of the Internal Operations Committee of the
Board of Supervisors
FROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel ;
By: Phillip S . Althoff, Deputy County Counse ..
RE: Status of Proposition 209 Litigation
As you are aware, Contra Costa County is a defendant in the
federal action pending before The Honorable T.E. Henderson of the
Northern District of California. As you are also aware, the
Court has granted a temporary restraining order against Governor
Wilson and Attorney General Lungren as well provisionally
certified a plaintiff class and permitted Pacific Legal
Foundation to intervene .
Motions are currently before the Court to certify a
defendant class and to grant a preliminary injunction against all
defendants . These motions will be heard on December 16, 1996 .
We expect the Court to grant both motions .
Assuming the preliminary injunction is issued, no County
action should be required to address further Proposition 209
until this .litigation is final . Of course, no further action may
be required at that time depending on the Court' s judgment .
Attached to this memorandum are copies of : (1) plaintiffs'
Notice and Motion for Preliminary Injunction against All
Defendants; (2) plaintiffs' proposed Order re Preliminary
Injunction; and (3) the County' s answer.
PSA:dp
h:\dpfis\psa\memo53
• JAN-29-100 SUN 14:04 ID: TEL N0: 4178 P12
i
Mark D. Rosenbaum
2 David S. Schwartz
Taylor Flynn
3 Silvia Argueta
Daniel P. Tokaji
4 ACLU FOUNDATION OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
5 1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
6 (213) 977-9500
7 Edward Chen
ACLU FOUNDATION OF
8 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
1663 Mission Street, 4th FIoor
9 San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 621-2493
10
William C. McNeill, III
11 Julian Gross
THE EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
12 A PROJECT OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
13 1663 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
14 (415) 864-8848
15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
FOR TIME NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19 CASE NO. 96-4024 TER
. 20 COALMON FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY, et al. ) NOTICE AND MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
21 plaintiffs, AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
22 vs. ) Date; December 16, 1996
�1 Time: 10:00 a.m.
23 PETE WILSON, et al.,
24 Defendants. )
25
26
27
28
NOV-27-1996 16:50 P.012
JAN-29-'00 s NJ 14:04 ID: TEL NO: 41178 P13 -
1 Eva J. Paterson
Robert Rubin, Jordan C. Budd
2 Theodore IHsien Wang ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF DIEGO
3 THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA &U"ERIAL COUNTIES
301 Mission Street, Suite 400 P.O. Box 87131
4 San Francisco, CA 94105 San Diego, CA 92138
(415) 543-9444 (619)232-2121
5
Martha F. Davis Joseph S. Avila
6 Julie Goldscheid AVILA &PUTNAM
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION 515 S. Figueroa.Street, Suite 1550
7 FUND Los Angeles, CA 90071
99 Hudson Street, 12th Floor (213) 892-1444
8 New York, NY 10013
(212) 925.6635 Elliot M. Mineberg
9 PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN
Evan H. Caminker WAY
10 UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW 2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
405 Hilgard Avenue Washington, D.C. 20036
11 Los Angeles, CA 90095 (202) 467-4999
(310) 206-7323
12 Christopher F. Edley, Jr.
Karl Manheim HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
13 LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL 1525 Massachusetts Avenue
.Post Office Box 15019 Cambridge Massachusetts 02138
14 919 S. Albany Street
Los Angeles; CA 90015-0019 Attorneys for All Plaintiffs except
15 (213) 736-1106 California Labor Federation
16 Brad Seligman Glenn Rothner }
The Impact Fund Ellen Greenstone
17 1604 Solano Ave. ROTHNER, SEGALL, BAHAN&
Berkale ,, CA 94707 GREENSTONE
18 (510) 528-7344 200 E. bel Mar Blvd,, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
19 Stewart Kwoh
Jule Su Attorneys for Plaintiff
20 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER California Labor Federation
1010 S. Flower Street, Suite 302
21 Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 748-2022
22
Abby J. Leibman
23 CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
6024 Wilshire Boulevard
24 Los Angeles, CA 90036
(213) 935-4101
25
Judith Kurtz
26 Kim W. Pate
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, INC.
27 1663 Mission St., 4th Floor
(415) 621-0672
28
NOV-27-1996 16:51 P.013
`+ •I JAN-29-100 SUN 14:05 ID: TEL NO: 4178 P14
1 TO ALL DEPENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 16, 1996, at 10:00 a.m. plaintiffs will
3 move for a preliminary injunction enjoin all defendants from implementing or enforcing
14 Proposition 209 insofar as said amendment to the Constitution of the State of California purports
5 to prohibit or affect affirmative action programs in public employment,public education,or public
6 contracting.
7 This motion is based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities in support
8 of the application for temporary restraining order, the reply memorandum to be filed subsequent
9 to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion, the pleadings and records filed in this matter, and
10 any argument made by counsel at the time of hearing.
11 DATED: November 27, 1996
12
Edward n
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOV-27-1996 16:52 P.014
�► "' T JAN-25-'00 SUN 14;0. Ill: TEL NO: U178 P15
1
Mark D, Rosenbaum
2 David S. Schwartz
Taylor Flynn
3 Silvia Argueta ..
Daniel P. Tokoji
4 ACLU FOUNDATION OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
5 1616 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
6 (213) 977-9500
7 Edward Chen
ACLIJ FOUNDATION OF
8 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
1663 Mission Stmt, 4th Floor
9 San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 621-2493
10
William C. McNeill, III
11 Julian Gross
THE EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
12 A PROJECT OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
OF SAN FRANCISCO
13 1663 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
14 (415) 864-8848
15
16 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19 CASE NO. 96-4024 TEH
20 COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY, et al. ) [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
21 Plaintiffs, )
Date: December 16, 1996
22 vs. } Time. 10:00 a.m.
23 PETE WILSON, et al.,
24 Defendants,
}
25 1
26
27
28
NOV-2?-1996 16:52 P.015
JAN-29-'00 SIRJ 14:06 ID: TEL N0: 4178 P36 �r
I Eva J. Paterson
Robert Rubin Jordan C. Budd
2 Theodore Hsien Wang. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SAN
LAWYERS CONOMTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF DIEGO
3 THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA &IMPERIAL COUNTIES
301 Mission Street, Suite 400 P.O..Box 87131
4 San Francisco, CA 94105 San Diego, CA 92138
5 (415) 543-9444 (619)232-2121
Martha F. Davis Joseph S. Avila
6 Julie Goldseheid AVILA & PUTNAM
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1550
7 FUND Los Angeles, CA 90071
99 Hudson Straet, 12th Floor (213) 892-1444
8 New York, NY 10013
(212) 925-6635 Elliot M. Mincberg
9 PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN
Evan H. Caminker WAY
10 UCLA SCHOOL OP LAW 2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
405 Hilgard Avenue Washington, D.C. 20036
1 i Los Angeles, CA 90095 (202) 467-4999
(310) 206-7323
12 Christopher F. F.dley, Jr.
Karl Manheim HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
13 LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL 1525 Massachusetts Avenue
Post Office Box 15019 Cambridge Massachusetts 02138
14 919 S. Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-0019 Attorneys for All Plaintiffs except
15 (213) 736-1106 California Labor Federation
16 Brad Seligman Glenn Rothner
The Impact Fund Ellen Greenstone
17. 1604 Solano Ave. ROTHNER, SEGALL, BAHAN&
Berkeley, CA 94707 GREENSTONE
18 (510) 58-7344 200 E. Del Mar Byrd., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105
19 Stewart Kwoh
Jule Su Attorneys for Plaintiff
20 ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LWAL CENTER California Labor Federation
1010 S. Flower Street, Suite 302
21 Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 748-2022
22
Abby J. Leib=
23 CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER
6024 Wilshire Boulevard
24 Los Angeles, CA 90036
(213) 935-4101
25 -
Judith Kurtz
26 Kim W. Pate
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, INC.
27 1663 Mission St., 4th Floor
(415) 621-0672
28
NOV-27-1996 16:53 P.016
JAN-29-100 SUN 14:06 ID: TEL NO: tI1?8 P1?
1 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
2 Good cause having been shown,defendants,and their officers,agents,servants,employees
3 and attorneys and those in active concert of participation with them are HEREBY MODUM
4 from implementing or enforcing Proposition 209 insofar as said amendment to the Constitution
5 of the.State of California purports to prohibit or affect affirmative action programs in public
6 employment, public education, or public contracting.
7 XT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: , 1996
9
THE HONORA13LE THELT H NDERSON
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOV-2?-1996 16 53 P.01?
I PHILLIP S. ALTHOFF; SB 119622
Deputy County Counsel
2 VICTOR J. WESTMAN, SB 34044
County Counsel
3 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
4 (510) 335-1834
5 Attorneys for Defendant
County of Contra Costa
6
7
8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY; ) No. C96-4024 TEH
CALIFORNIA NAACP;NORTHERN CALIFORNIA )
11 NAACP; CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, ) COUNTY OF CONTRA
AFL-CIO; COUNCIL OF ASIAN AMERICAN ) COSTA'S ANSWER TO
12 BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS, CALIFORNIA; CHINESE ) COMPLAINT FOR
AMERICAN CITIZENS' ALLIANCE; WOMEN ) INJUNCTIVE AND
13 CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OWNERS AND ) DECLARATORY RELIEF
EXECUTIVES, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER; UNITED )
14 MINORITY BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS; CHINESE )
FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION; BLACK ADVOCATES )
15 IN STATE SERVICE; ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN )
LABOR ALLIANCE; LA VOZ CHICANA; BLACK )
16 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF CALIFORNIA; )
MICHELLE BENNETT; NANCY BURNS; FLOYD )
17 CHAVEZ; CHRISTOPHER CLAY; DANA )
CUNNINGHAM through her next friend DIANA )
18 GRONERT; IRAN CELESTE DAVILA; SHEVADA )
DOVE through her next friend MELODIE DOVE; )
19 JESSICA LOPEZ; VIRGINIA MOSQUEDA; )
SALVADOR OCHOA ; CLIFFORD TONG; and all those )
20 similarly situated, )
Plaintiffs, )
21 )
VS. )
22 )
PETE WILSON, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF )
23 CALIFORNIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; )
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, ATTORNEY GENERAL )
24 FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL )
CAPACITY; JOANNE CORDAY KOZBERG, )
25 SECRETARY OF STATE AND CONSUMER )
SERVICES AGENCY AND CABINET MEMBER, IN )
26 HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DELAINE EASTON, )
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, IN )
27 HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JAMES H. GOMEZ, )
DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DECL. RELIEF 1
I CORRECTIONS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THE )
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; THE )
2 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; THE COUNTY OF )
CONTRA COSTA; THE COUNTY OF MARIN; )
3 ,THE CITY OF PASADENA; and all those similarly )
situated, )
4 Defendants. )
5
6 ANSWER
7 Defendant County of Contra Costa("Contra Costa"),for itself and for itself only,
8 responds to Plaintiffs' ("Plaintiffs") Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
9 ("Complaint") by admitting, denying, and alleging as follows.
10 1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
11 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
12 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except Contra
13 Costa admits that Proposition 209 may affect Plaintiffs as alleged.
14 2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
15 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
16 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except Contra
17 Costa admits that Proposition 209 may affect Plaintiffs as alleged.
18 3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
19 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
20 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
21 Contra Costa admits the allegations in the last sentence in said paragraph, except Contra Costa
22 admits that Proposition 209 may affect Plaintiffs as alleged.
23 4.(first)Answering the first Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the
24 allegations in said paragraph.
25 5.(first) Answering the first Paragraph 5 of the Complaint,Contra Costa is without
26 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
27 said paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DECL. RELIEF 2
I Contra Costa admits that it is located in this judicial district.
2 4.(second) Answering the second Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without
3 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in
4 said paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
5 5.(second) Answering the second Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the
6 allegations in said paragraph.
7 6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
8 said paragraph.
9 7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
10 said paragraph.
11 8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
12 said paragraph.
13 9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
14 said paragraph.
15 10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
16 said paragraph.
17 11. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
18 said paragraph.
19 12. Answering Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
20 said paragraph.
21 13. Answering Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
22 said paragraph.
23 14. Answering Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
24 said paragraph.
25 15. Answering Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
26 said paragraph.
27 16. Answering Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
28.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DELL. RELIEF 3
Y
I said paragraph.
2 17. Answering Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
3 said paragraph.
4 18. Answering Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
5 said paragraph.
6 19. Answering Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
7 said paragraph.
8 20. Answering Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in,
9 said paragraph. .
10 21. Answering Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
11 said paragraph.
12 22. Answering Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
13 said paragraph.
14 23. Answering Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
15 said paragraph.
16 24. Answering Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
17 said paragraph.
18 25. Answering Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
19 said paragraph.
20 26. .Answering Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
21 said paragraph.
22 27. Answering Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
23 said paragraph.
24 28. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
25 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
26 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
27 Contra Costa admits the allegations in the first and last sentences in said paragraph .
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DECL. RELIEF 4
1 29. Answering Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
2 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
3 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and-every allegation contained therein, except that
4 Contra Costa admits the allegations in the first, second to last, and last sentences in said
5 paragraph-
6 30. Answering Paragraph 30-of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
7 said paragraph.
8 31. Answering Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
9 said paragraph.
10 32. Answering Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
11 said paragraph.
12 33. Answering Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
13 said paragraph.
14 34. Answering Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
15 said paragraph.
16 35. Answering Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits that County of
17 Contra Costa is a county and alleges that, given the information available to it at this time, it may
18 administer"programs jeopardized by Proposition 209."
19 36. Answering Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
20 said paragraph.
21 37. Answering Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
22 said paragraph.
23 38. Answering Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
24 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
25 paragraph,and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
26 Contra Costa admits the allegations in the first sentence of said paragraph.
27 39. Answering Paragraph 39 of the'Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC.-AND DELL. RELIEF 5
I knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
2 paragraph,and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
3 40. Answering Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
4 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
5 paragraph, and on that.basis denies each and every-allegation contained therein.
6 41. Answering Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
7 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
8 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
9 42. Answering Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
10 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
11 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
12 43. Answering Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
13 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
14. paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
15 Contra Costa specifically denies that it has "threatened to act and will continue to act on grounds
16 generally applicable to the class as a whole."
17 44. Answering Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
18 said paragraph.
19 45. Answering Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
20 said paragraph.
21 46. Answering Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
22 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
23 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
24 Contra Costa alleges that, given the information available to it at this time, it may have "in place
25 programs jeopardized by Proposition 209. . . ."
26 47. Answering Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
27 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DECL. RELIEF 6
1
I paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
2 48. Answering Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
3 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
4 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
5 49. Answering Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
6 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
7 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
8 50. Answering Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
9 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
10 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
11 51. Answering Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
12 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
13 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
14 52. Answering Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the,allegations in
15 said paragraph.
16 53. Answering Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
17 said paragraph.
18 54. Answering Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, Contra Costa admits the allegations in
19 said paragraph.
20 55. Answering Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
21 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
22 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
23 56. Answering Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
24 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
25 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
26 Contra Costa admits that the ballot analysis prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office stated, --
27 "The programs that would or could be effected by the proposition were commonly referred as
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DELL. RELIEF 7
I `affirmative action' programs--despite the fact that measure itself does not contain the phrase
2 `affirmative action."'
3 57. Answering Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
4 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said-
5
aid5 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
6 Contra Costa admits that the ballot analysis prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office refers to
7 ."programs intended to increase the opportunities for various groups-- including women and
8 racial ethnic minority groups."
9 58. Answering Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
10 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
11 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
12 59.. Answering Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
13 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
14 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
15 60. Answering Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
16 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
17 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
18 Contra Costa alleges it has denied no contentions whatsoever regarding Proposition 209.
19 61. Answering Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, Contra Costa realleges the answers set
20 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 60 above and incorporates them here by this reference.
21 62. Answering Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
22 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
23 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
24 63. Answering Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
25 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
26 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
27 64. Answering Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DELL. RELIEF 8
I knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
2 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
3 65. Answering Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
4 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
5 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
6 66. Answering Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
-7 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
8 paragraph,and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
9 67. Answering Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
10 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
11 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
12 Contra Costa specifically denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any attorneys' fees and costs
13 whatsoever from it.
14 68. Answering Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Contra Costa realleges the answers set
15 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 60 above and incorporates them here by this reference.
16 69. Answering Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
17 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
18 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
19 Contra Costa admits the allegations in the first and second sentences in said paragraph.
20 70. Answering Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
21 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
22 paragraph, and on that basis denies-each and every allegation contained therein.
23 71. Answering Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
24 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
25 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein. -
26 72. Answering Paragraph 72 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
27 knowledge or information to form a belief as-to the truth of the allegations contained in said
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DELL. RELIEF 9
1 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
2 73. Answering Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
3 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
4 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein.
5 74. Answering Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, Contra Costa realleges the answers set
6 forth in Paragraphs 1 through 73 above and incorporates them here by this reference.
7 75. Answering Paragraph 75 of the Complaint,Contra Costa is without sufficient
8 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
9 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
10 Contra Costa alleges that it is not"taking or threatening action to enforce Proposition 209" and is
11 not"failing and refusing to desist from its enforcement. . . ."
12 76. Answering Paragraph 76 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
13 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
14 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that
s.
15 Contra Costa alleges that it is not"taking or threatening action to enforce Proposition 209" and is
16 not"failing or refusing to desist from enforcing Proposition 209. . . ."
17 77. Answering Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, Contra Costa is without sufficient
18 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in said
19 paragraph, and on that basis denies each and every allegation contained therein, except that Contra
20 Costa specifically denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any attorneys' fees and costs whatsoever
21 from it.
22 WHEREFORE, Contra Costa prays relief as set forth below.
23
24 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
25 Contra Costa makes the following affirmative defenses to the Complaint.
26 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 As a first affirmative defense, regarding any"facial"challenge Plaintiffs may make to
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DECL. RELIEF 10
I Proposition 209 in the Complaint, Contra Costain its capacity as a political subdivision of the
2 State of California had nothing whatsoever to do with the drafting,publicizing, or adoption of
3 said proposition.
4 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 As a second affirmative defense, regarding any"as applied"challenge Plaintiffs may make
6 to Proposition 209 in the Complaint, Contra Costa in its capacity as a political subdivision of the
7- State of California, did not change, and has not at this time changed, its activities relevant to the
8 matters addressed by said proposition in any way since the effective date,of said proposition.
9 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 As a third affirmative defense, Contra Costa will not oppose, and agrees to abide by the
11 terms of, any temporary restraining order or temporary injunction issued by the Court in this
12 action and, further, will not oppose, and agrees to abide by the terms of any further orders,
13 including the final order, of the Court, except insofar as any such order may assess attorneys' fees
14 and costs against Contra Costa.
15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
.16 As a fourth affirmative defense, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Contra
17 Costa upon which relief can be granted.
18 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 As a fifth affirmative defense, as an innocent party not having done anything relevant
20 whatsoever to the matters addressed by Proposition 209 and prepared to do what the law requires
21 relevant to the matters addressed by said proposition, on both legal and equitable grounds, no
22 attorneys' fees or costs should be assessed against Contra Costa.
23
24 WHEREFORE, Contra Costa prays relief as set forth as follows.
25 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by the Complaint as to the County of Contra Costa except
26 injunctive relief if so decided;
27 2. That the Court award the County of Contra Costa its attorneys' fees and costs;
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DELL. RELIEF 11
1 3. That the Court decline to award any attorneys' fees and costs against the County of
2 Contra Costa; and
3 4. That the Court grant such other relief as may be just and proper.
4 DATED: November 27, 1996.
5 Victor J. Westman
County Counsel
By: PhillipAlthoff
8 Deputy Cour Counsel
9 Attorneys for Defendant
County of Contra Costa
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANSWER TO
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNC. AND DECL. RELIEF 12
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
(Code C.V. Proc. . H 1012, 1013a, 2015.5: Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. , rule 5(b) .)
Re: COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY, ET AL. VS. PETE WILSON ET AL.
Case No. C96-4024 TEH
I declare that my business address is the County Counsel's Office of Contra Costa County,
Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor, Martinez, California 94553; that I am a citizen
of the United States, over 18 years of age, employed by the County of Contra Costa and not a party
to the within action; and,that I am readily familiar with the County Counsel's office business
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service,and know that in the ordinary course of the County Counsel's office business practice the
document described below will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same date
that it is sealed and placed at the County Counsel's office with fully prepaid postage thereon.
I further declare that I served a true copy of the attached
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
by placing said copy in an envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Mark D. Rosenbaum Joseph R. Symkowick
ACLU Foundation of Southern California Department of Education
1616 Beverly Boulevard Legal and Audits Branch
Los Angeles, CA 90026 721 Capitol Mall, Room 552
.P. O. Box 944272
Sacramento, CA 95814
William C. McNeill, III
The Employment Law Center Thomas G. Hendricks;
A Project of the Legal Aid Society of County Counsel
San Francisco County of Marin
1663 Mission Street, Suite 400 Civic Center, Room 342
San Francisco, CA 94103 San Rafael, CA 94903
Eva J. Paterson
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of Larry Newberry, Asst. City Attorney
the San Francisco Bay Area City of Pasadena
301 Mission Street, Suite 400 City Attorney's Office
San Francisco, CA 94105 100 North Garfield Ave., Rm.228
Pasadena, CA 91109
n n
t
Edward Chen
American Civil Liberties Union John Sansome,County Counsel
of Northern California County of San Diego
1663 Mission Street,4th Floor 1600 Pacific Highway,Room 355
San Francisco, CA 941,03 San Diego,CA 92101
Louise H. Renne, City Attorney Daniel E. Lungren
City and County of San Francisco Attorney General.
1390 Market Street, 5th Floor 1300 I Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Glenn Rothner
Rothner, Segall, Bahan& Greenstone Anthony T. Caso
200 E. Del Mar Blvd., Suite 200 Pacific Legal Foundation
Pasadena, CA 91105 2151 River Plaza Drive, Ste. 305
Sacramento, CA 95833
which place(s) has(have) mail service, which envelope(s)was(were) then sealed, postage fully
prepaid thereon, and deposited today for mailing either by directly depositing said envelope in the
United States Mail or by following ordinary business practices of the County Counsel's office for
collection for processing in the United States Mail at Martinez/Concord, Contra Costa County,
California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Martinez, California on April 3, 1996. -
orence entley
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL