FEDERAL JUDGE QUESTIONS RANGE OF CONSENT DECREE.

Byline: Rick Orlov Daily News Staff Writer

U.S. District Court Judge William Keller raised questions Tuesday about the constitutionality and scope of a far-reaching consent decree negotiated by the ACLU and the Los Angeles City Council for hiring and promoting women and minorities in the LAPD.

In courtroom remarks, Keller criticized the rush to agree to the consent decree and get it approved by a magistrate on Election Day so that Proposition 209, the statewide initiative approved that day banning preferential treatment based solely on race and gender, would not affect the settlement.

Keller, in a three-page ruling in the case, which involves charges of discrimination and sexual harassment against the LAPD, took control of the consent decree from the magistrate. He noted that he had held nine hearings on the case since it was filed in May 1994.

``This court believes that the proposed consent decree, which imposes numerous obligations on the Los Angeles Police Department over an 18-year period should properly be reviewed by a . . . judge,'' Keller said. ``Eighteen years is a long time. Do you remember what you were doing 18 years ago?''

Keller said he is concerned about whether some of the provisions of the proposal - which would set up recruiting and promotional goals for women - were constitutional given recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over the past year, the high court has scaled back the ability of government to give preferences based on race and gender in admissions to colleges and universities and also has come out against reapportionment plans designed to elect minorities.

The proposed consent decree would require the city to set up a Discrimination Office to monitor complaints of discrimination and sexual harassment in the Los Angeles Police Department. It also would set up an outreach program to hire women and make an effort to promote women and minorities based on their percentage of the population and require the department to file highly-detailed reports with the American Civil Liberties Union and the court.

Keller said he would hold a hearing Dec. 12 on the status of the case as well as hear arguments on whether he should allow the Los Angeles Police Protective League and a group challenging the decree under Proposition 209 to enter in the case or file motions as a friend of the court.

Attorneys for the ACLU said they were not surprised at his action and remained hopeful that he would accept the proposed consent decree as approved by the Los Angeles City Council.

``It's understandable he would want more time,'' said Carol Sobel of the ACLU. ``He was the original judge on the case and he recognizes the importance of this. He wants to be sure of all the legal grounds on which this is based.''

Hank Hernandez, general counsel of the Police Protective League, said he also was encouraged that Keller was giving the league time to argue the importance of the case to the police union.

``All of our members could be affected by this,'' Hernandez said. ``All sides should get a chance to be heard on this.''

Keller made several pointed comments to both sides about their attempt to get the settlement approved by a federal magistrate rather than returning to his court.

Noting that he had set a status conference for next month to discuss the progress of any settlement, Keller said he did not ``recall the parties ever mentioning that they desired or intended to enter a consent decree.

``A consent decree is tantamount to the issuance of an injunction, which is traditionally an extraordinary remedy,'' Keller said.

``Courts are expected to closely scrutinize the substance of a proposed consent decree to ensure that it is fair to all parties, including those not involved in the litigation,'' he said.

Also, Keller complained that he did not officially learn until Nov. 5 that a consent decree was being proposed and without his approval.

Opponents of the agreement have argued that the City Council was hoping to get the matter approved before the end of the election that day on Proposition 209, the ``California Civil Rights Initiative'' approved by voters and which eliminates all preferences in hiring and contracting by government agencies.

The Independent Rights Foundation, a conservative group, has requested to intervene in the case, arguing that the proposal violates the provisions of Proposition 209.

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who supports the agreement, said she was disappointed there was no decision on the matter, but agreed with Keller's right to ensure it is constitutional.

``The one thing we don't want to do is have anything in effect that would violate anyone's constitutional rights,'' Goldberg said.