MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT By Dr. Amy Gutierrez
ON POINT By Gil Moreno
Three Latino Groups Ask U.S. to Challenge Supervisorial Redistricting Plan By Robert Greene, Staff Writer Los Angeles Metropolitan News
WHY WE CAN’T WAIT By Alan Clayton
DOJ Asked to Overturn County Districts By Raul Vasquez
Latinos seeking Valley district By Michelle Rester, Staff Writer

It’s fair to say that although we’re a small organization, we’re in the thick of things. As you can see from the newspaper articles reprinted in our newsletter, the CEA has taken the lead in the efforts to literally change the political map in LA County. We believe that our efforts will be successful. As a member, you are part of that history.

Our proposed map, discussed in some detail in each story, is a progressive one, in tune with the changes in demographics and the law involving Latinos in the county.

We hope that changes, if any, we effect on the LA County Board of Supervisors will benefit not only county Latino and Chicano employees but the community as well in terms of access to everything from health care to law enforcement.

Of course, as CEA board director John Serrano points out in his article, we need your continued support. Sign up one new member a month. Tell your Latino coworkers about the CEA.

Tell them if they get in a jam at work, they can consult with our attorney. Many times I hear county employees say that they’ve never heard of us until they have a problem. Sometimes, it’s too late. So spread the word!

In December last year, the Wall Street Journal had a column about annual performances. It raised the question, “What career advice is truly valuable? Does it come during a formal review or during the everyday exchanges between a boss and employee?”

Although the story concerns CEO’s in the private sector, there’s some elements that are applicable to the public sector.

The reporter asked various CEO’s what was the “best advice a boss ever gave them, when they got it, and how they review their employees.

” There’s a quote from one that’s worth keeping in mind: “`You can’t just hope that promotions will happen,’ he says. ‘A good review has to help you understand how you are truly viewed, and what experiences and skills you have to acquire if you want to pursue a certain path.’”

In my experience representing employees regarding promotional issues, hope is never enough to pursue an upward path.

As you should know, under the civil services rules, managers in the county are supposed to give you an annual performance evaluation. Be sure to get that Performance Evaluation. If you’re dissatisfied with a score, you might simply approach your supervisor and mention that he or she overlooked a particular project you completed, an issue you resolved or some other assignment that was omitted from the PE.

The WSJ story says some CEO’s say that informal feedback was the key to their career-development. “The best feedback I got was from bosses who took the opportunity to give me guidance on an as-needed basis—while riding in cars to meetings, or on airplanes, or in the office hallway,” says one.

So, really, both informal feedback and formal annual reviews will guide an employee’s career. Ideally, you’ll have a good rapport with your supervisor that leads to positive feedback and, when it’s time to complete your PE, he or she includes all the wonderful things you have done to earn an overall high rating.

Now I know that you’re all not trying to become CEO’s. Many of you are blue-collar and clerical workers —painters, laborers, parking lot attendants, typist clerks. But I’ve seen employees in these positions get promoted.

And whenever I’ve represented employees in these classifications who are seeking promotions, the PE’s are one of the first things I want to see. And it’s usually the last 3 PE’s that county managers use in assessing a person’s strengths and weaknesses for a higher position.

So in terms of strategy, it doesn’t hurt to develop a good rapport with your supervisor. Then, get positive feedback in writing.

While you’re at it, develop a good rapport with coworkers. You might end up supervising some of them….

I hope that if you’re reading this you’re not a temporary employee with the county. That means that if you get fired—let’s be blunt about it—then you’d have to appeal your discharge to the county director of personnel, not the Civil Service Commission. Why is that? Because a temporary employee does not have the civil service protections that a permanent employee has. Say a temporary employee is discharged for fighting with a coworker or stealing county equipment. The employee adamantly denies that he initiated the fight or that he stole anything.

In such circumstances, suppose further that the DOP reviews the employee’s appeal and upholds the discharge. Arguably, the employee could appeal to the Civil Service Commission citing legal precedent that the discharge stigmatizes him and diminishes his chances of finding work in the future. So there’s an exception to the general rule that the Civil Service Commission does not have jurisdiction over “the release” of temporary employees. But even if a hearing is granted, the potential remedies are limited.

Generally, the employee can only clear his name in a “liberty hearing.” He is not entitled to back pay or reinstatement. So in the best case scenario, a temporary employee might prevail in a hearing but not get back pay or his job back, whereas a permanent employee who prevails would be, arguably, entitled to the broader remedies. ¡Trucha!

“When we are really honest with ourselves...we must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us. So it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of men we are. It is my deepest belief that only by giving our lives do we find life. I am convinced that the truest act of courage, the strongest act of manliness is to sacrifice ourselves for others in a totally nonviolent struggle for justice. To be a man is to suffer for others. God help us to be men!” Cesar Chavez (Mar. 31 1927– April 23, 1993. Official state holiday observed April 1, 2002) as quoted in Jacques Levy’s “Cesar Chavez: Autobiography of La Causa.”

* Article was published with permission.

Three Latino Groups Ask U.S. to Challenge Supervisorial Redistricting Plan By Robert Greene, Staff Writer Los Angeles Metropolitan News

Three Los Angeles groups yesterday asked the U.S. Department of Justice to challenge a redistricting plan for the Board of Supervisors, hoping to repeat a successful drive a decade ago to throw out a supervisorial election and redraw boundaries to empower Latino residents.

Alan Clayton of the Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Association said he hoped the Justice Department would bring a lawsuit against the current plan under Sec 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He said his group, as well as the California Latino Redistricting Coalition and the Latino Coalition for Fair Reapportionment prepared maps detailing the superiority of a plan they prepared but was rejected by county officials last year in favor of another plan that makes only minor changes in boundaries of the five county supervisors’ districts.

“I think the Justice Department will pay attention to our maps,” Clayton said.

The groups argue that the county should be redivided in a way that will support the election of two Latino supervisors. The board currently has one Latino, one African American and three Anglos.

District lines are redrawn every 10 years based on demographic information in the latest census. Using 2000 census numbers, the Board of Supervisors adopted a redistricting plan last year that already has been precleared by the Justice Department—a step that was required by a federal court that found in 1990 that districts had been redrawn for years to support incumbents at the expense of the burgeoning Latino population.

But Clayton said the supervisors’ current plan in vulnerable under another section of the Voting Rights Act and under the 14th Amendment, as interpreted in the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case of Shaw v Reno.

He said the current First Supervisorial District amounted to a violation of the Shaw ruling because it is “packed” with a 74.9 percent Latino voting population.

“Packing” refers to the concentration of a minority group into one district, so that voters there may elect a candidate of their choice but are kept out of a majority position in other districts.

The [Chicano Employees Association] Plan does not pack Latinos into the First District and therefore does not fragment the Latino community in the San Gabriel Valley by taking large blocks of Latinos from the San Gabriel Valley (as does the adopted plan), the groups said in their request to the Justice Department. The result is that the LACCEA plan creates two Latino majority population supervisorial districts…, thus dealing with the Latino population and Latino voter registration and the growth of Latino new citizens in Los Angeles County since 1990.”

County supervisors adopted the current plan last July, following recommendations of a 10-member redistricting panel. The plan makes only minor adjustments to the district boundaries adopted under court order in 1990.

Until then, the Board of Supervisors consisted of five white males. A Republican Latino woman made a runoff in 1990 to fill an open seat but the election was voided by a federal judge in the case of Garza v. Los Angeles County.

The ruling, upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, invalidated a supervisorial election based on district lines that diminished the voting power of Latino residents. The county was ordered to draw new district lines, resulting in the creation of the current First District and the election of Gloria Molina, the first Hispanic Los Angeles County Supervisor in modern times.

The politics, as well as the demographics, have shifted in Los Angeles County since then. Molina’s election moved the board from a three-Republican majority to a Democratic majority. In the federal arena, the Department of Justice under Republican Attorney General John Ashcroft is absorbed in the apprehension and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

But the Garza case, which helped eliminate the Republican majority on the board, was prosecuted by a Republican administration’s Justice Department. Clayton and the Latino groups have been involved in a series of failed attempts to revamp the Board of Supervisors. They were unable to pressure the board to place a ballot measure to expand the board to nine members before voters and were likewise unable to put a term limits measure on the ballot. A lawsuit settlement with another group forced the board to put term limits on the March 5 ballot. Molina is also up for re-election on that ballot, facing one opponent, as is Zev Yaroslavsky—with no opposition. Redistricting efforts also are under way for the Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Clayton said he is looking for major changes in those districts as well and hopes to see Latinos obtain a voting majority in five council districts. Metropolitan News-Enterprise Copyright 2002. Reprinted with permission, emphasis added.

We believe that LACCEA’s historic Federal Voting Rights complaint filed with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Dept. of Justice will result in the DOJ filing a federal lawsuit to overturn the new L.A. County Board of Supervisor boundaries. Our complaint is supported by the Mexican American Bar Assn. of L.A. County, the L. A. County Hispanic Managers Assn., the American G.I. Forum of the U.S. (a National Latino Veterans Organization), the California Latino Redistricting Coalition, the Latino Coalition for Fair Reapportionment and the Latino Engineers, Architects and Developers Society.

If the DOJ files a lawsuit as it did in 1989, we believe that it will be successful and will result in tremendous benefits to the Latino community and to you, our members.

Currently, Latinos represent 44 percent of the population in L.A. County but only 20 percent on the board of supervisors. Our proposed districts would have Latinos comprising the largest block of voters in each of two districts with over 42.5 percent voter registration in each district. By contrast, the newly enacted supervisorial districts have one district with a 59.1percent Latino registration (Sup. Gloria Molina’s 1st District) and with the second highest Latino registration at 21.2 percent (in Supervisor Don Knabe’s 4th District).

Clearly, with plans the board approved in Sept. 2001, only one Latino will be on the Board of Supervisors until 2012.

Our proposed First District has a 68.2 percent Latino population with a Latino voter registration of 42.6 percent. Our proposed Third District has a Latino population of 58.3 percent and a Latino voter registration of 43.8 percent.

How do Latinos in general and LACCEA members specifically benefit by our proposed plans?The recruitment and hiring of and promotions for Latinos in the county have been largely ignored by the current board of supervisors. LACCEA has had to file suit in both State and Federal Courts to challenge County policies in these areas and also had successfully sought a U.S. EEOC Commissioners charge against the county’s Health Department for its lack of recruitment and hiring of Latinos. The Commissioner’s charge was still in force in 2001 against the department. Further, Latinos hold no department head positions in county departments with over 500 employees. Latinos are underrepresented in managerial, administrative, supervisory and professional classifications. Latinas are severely underrepresented throughout County government. The county does not have enough bilingual staff to provide equal delivery of services to the Spanish-speaking members of the Latino community.

Additionally, Latino community based organizations often do not get their fair share of contracts so that they can equally serve the needs of the Latino community. In conclusion, without our Federal Voting Rights complaint on behalf of you and the Latino community we would have the status quo until the year 2012. We are fighting to insure that the Latino community receives justice as soon as possible and not 10 years from now. We believe our fight is the most important Latino civil rights battle in L.A. County that will occur in the next 10 years.

Please tell your coworkers about our fight for justice for Latino County employees and for the Latino community and ask them to become members of the LACCEA. It is crucial that we show the Board of Supervisors that we will no longer tolerate their unfair treatment of the Latino community.

Additionally, Latino community based organizations often do not get their fair share of contracts so that they can equally serve the needs of the Latino community. In conclusion, without our Federal Voting Rights complaint on behalf of you and the Latino community we would have the status quo until the year 2012. We are fighting to insure that the Latino community receives justice as soon as possible and not 10 years from now. We believe our fight is the most important Latino civil rights battle in L.A. County that will occur in the next 10 years. Please tell your coworkers about our fight for justice for Latino County employees and for the Latino community and ask them to become members of the LACCEA. It is crucial that we show the Board of Supervisors that we will no longer tolerate their unfair treatment of the Latino community.

Shifting demographics and the growing tendency of Latinos to vote in Los Angeles County merit the creation of a new district where a second Latino L.A. County Supervisor would have a realistic chance of being selected, argued demographer Alan Clayton in a document sent to the U.S. Department of Justice last week.

Clayton, a redistricting expert who is also director of the L.A. County Chicano Employees Association, requests that the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ file a voting rights challenge to the 2001 county redistricting plan, which was approved by the L.A. County board of supervisors six months ago.

Joining Clayton is co-author Fernando Oaxaca, chairperson of the Latino Coalition for Fair Reapportionment, and Armando Duron, legal counsel for the California Latino Redistricting Coalition.

“This case will more than anything affect the way immigrants are treated,” claimed Clayton in a recent interview. “With two Latino county supervisors, they will have a big impact in the way the Latino community is treated and represented.”

Currently, Gloria Molina is the only Latina county supervisor on the L.A. County Board. She won her seat in 1991 after Clayton and others won a landmark battle against the county—with the help of the DOJ—to force the carving out of a Latino district.

County supervisors are notorious as much for their raw power as for their near unbeatability once they are in office. As a case in point, in the last county election cycle the three supervisors up for reelection ran unopposed. County board seats wield immense power, each representing just about 2 million people and together oversee the county budget of over $16 billion.

As an alternative to the county approved plan, which did little to alter the current makeup of the county districts, Clayton and company have reworked their own redistricting plan that would create a new San Gabriel Valley county seat at the cost of eliminating current county District 3, represented by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

The new San Gabriel Valley seat, according to the document, would have a high enough concentration of Latino voters to give those voters a chance to elect a second Latino supervisor.

While redistricting is often looked upon as a complicated and rather mundane process by much of the voting population, in reality it often decides the outcome of elections long before they come to pass.

From the federal level on down, politicians are mandated with agreeing on redistricting plans every 10 years, following the census count.

Clayton and others argue that the county approved plan in July is merely “an incumbent protection plan,” and that Latinos, because of their boom in numbers in the last decade and their slow awakening at the voting booth throughout L.A. County, deserve the chance to elect a second Latino to the board.

Currently, Latinos represent a little over 40 percent of L.A. County’s population of about 10 million.

“We are providing a lot of data to the Department of Justice, and to me, this is an easy case,” said Clayton. “There is a pattern of discrimination—in the county redistricting—that never went away.”

The cover letter to the document, which runs several dozens of pages and is packed with demographic data, asks the DOJ to file a federal voting rights challenge under the Federal Voting Rights Act against the current county plan.

“The First District—represented by Molina—is ‘packed’ with Latinos in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” stated the document. “The district currently has a 76.1 percent Latino population…”

Under Clayton and company’s plan, the First District would be slightly gouged of its overwhelming Latino majority, from 76.1 percent down to 68.21.

In addition, the coastline would fall under one district, and the San Fernando Valley would also be represented into one single district. That would mean, of course, that Yaroslavsky’s district would disappear off the map.

But Clayton’s plan, in turn, would create a San Gabriel Valley district, which today is cut up into three districts.

Copyright 2002 Eastside Sun Reprinted with permission, emphasis added.

Los Angeles Chicano Employees Association officials are battling to bring a second Latino seat to the county Board of Supervisors and to create a new district focused on the San Gabriel Valley.

Issues specific to the San Gabriel Valley, like groundwater contamination and freeway extensions, would get more attention and federal dollars with a different redistricting plan, says an association spokesman.

The five-member Board of Supervisors that Alan Clayton envisions is one with a seat that represents all but the foothill cities in the San Gabriel Valley. The second seat would include all the coast communities, another for the east portion of Los Angeles and downtown, one for the Antelope Valley, Burbank and Glendale, and another for the San Fernando Valley.

Clayton’s 1,200-member employee association has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to file a lawsuit against the county to get officials there to reconsider his alternative map. His group also alleges the county violated the Federal Voting Rights Act by packing most of the Latino voters into one district.

The Latino Coalition For Fair Reapportionment, the Mexican American Bar Association and the Los Angeles Hispanic Managers are also supporting the compliant, Clayton said.

“This would allow the San Gabriel Valley to dominate politically,” Clayton said. “I’m not making allegations that the board members don’t work hard. The issue is governance and federal law. I live in the San Gabriel Valley and I think the San Gabriel Valley should have its own seat.” County supervisors say they’re doubtful the Department of Justice will decide to file a lawsuit, given that it was that department that precleared the current district maps just last year.

Supervisor Gloria Molina, who became the first Latino supervisor in a century during a court-ordered special election in 1991, says she is confident that no Voting Rights Act violations have been made.

“To ensure that the board stayed in compliance in the next decade when changes in the county’s demographics are expected to occur, the board adopted my motion directing our counsel to provide us periodic updates on population growth, citizenship rates and changes to the Voting Rights Act,” Molina said.

Molina, as well as supervisors Don Knabe and Michael Antonovich, say they are committed to San Gabriel Valley residents and do not feel the area would be better served by having one instead of three districts.

Jay Gomez, a spokesman for Antonovich, says all supervisors have field offices in the San Gabriel Valley to keep a pulse on the area’s needs. Antonovich, for example, has offices in San Dimas and Pasadena. He also said Antonovich does not agree there is a need to question which ethnicities or how many serve on the board.

“What reassurances do we have that by electing one ethnicity or another it could better serve its constituents?” Gomez said. “The San Gabriel Valley is not made up of Latinos only…and I hope the Department of Justice upholds the Sept. 14 decision to approve the redistricting as submitted to them.” Officials say they are uncertain when the Department of Justice will decide whether to litigate the Chicano employees association’s case. Clayton is confident it will happen. If it’s later rather than sooner, he believes it could mean a change to the outcome of the March primary and November election. “We believe we put together a very credible complaint,” Clayton said. “We’re confident we’re going to prevail.”

Copyright 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune Reprinted with permission, emphasis added.