Laserfiche WebLink
• KENNEDY & GRAVEN <br /> CHARTERED 2,Z <br /> Altornevs at Law JAMES J.THOMSOti,JR <br /> 470 Pillsbury Center, Mlnne2pOli-, Minnesota 55402 LARRY M. HomsHEIN <br /> ROBERT A.ALSOP (612)337.9300 80811E . w'ERTHs <br /> BALD H.BATTY JOE%I YANG <br /> PHE,V J.Bt BLrL Facsimile(612)337.9310 _ <br /> .toH!!B.DEAY DAVID L.GRAVEN(19.9.1991) <br /> DANIEL J.GREE.YSWEIG <br /> DA1.7D J.KviVEDY <br /> CHARLES4 LEFEVEROF COUNSEL <br /> BRUCE M.BATTERSOV <br /> IOHV M..LEFEtiltE,JR.. SOti <br /> ROBERT C.CARL <br /> ROBERT J.UxDALL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL ROBERT I.DAVIDSON <br /> ROBERT C.LONG (612)337.9.15 <br /> WELLINGTON H.L.Aw <br /> JONES%11.STRONNEv CURTIS A.PEARSON <br /> CORRINE HERE THONSO\ <br /> T.JAY SAL%1M <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: All Defendant City Attorneys, City Managers or Administrators and Police Chiefs <br /> FROM: Charlie LeFevere C-�� <br /> DATE: January 3, 1996 <br /> RE: Starks v. MPRS and Fields v. MPRS; Affirmative Action Proposals <br /> On December 21, 1995, interested parties in the above noted case met with Judge Solum to <br /> discuss issues raised by paragraph 14 of the court's order of November 6, 1995. City <br /> representatives described affirmative action efforts which the cities already have in place as well <br /> as practical problems which affect the cities' ability to respond to the court's order. Judge <br /> Solum, to a limited extent, explained what he expected from the cities. The judge did not agree <br /> to accept any specific proposals in response to paragraph 14 of his order. However, it does <br /> appear that the court will not insist that all cities join in a collective proposal; that is, individual <br /> cities may make their own proposals to the court in response to the court's order. It also appears <br /> that the judge is at least willing to consider means of increasing minority hiring other than those <br /> described in paragraph 14 of the order. <br /> The judge established a new deadline, February 9, 1996, for submitting the detailed plans or <br /> programs for compliance with paragraph 14 of the Order. <br /> We have now arrived at a point at which the cities must decide whether to submit individual <br /> proposals or join in a collective proposal to present to the court. The MPRS executive committee <br /> has decided to recommend that the MPRS develop a joint proposal for those cities which wish <br /> to be included. I would recommend that the MPRS treat development of this plan and proposal <br /> as a service for cities which wish to be included in the joint proposal. The MPRS joint powers <br /> agreement allows the MPRS to contract with a consultant for this project and pass the costs along <br /> to those who wish to have this service provided. Therefore, neither members of the MPRS who <br /> are not defendants in the lawsuit, nor parties to the lawsuit which wish to submit their own <br /> CLL9?6C3 <br /> 1!P110-2 <br />