JUDGE INTERVENES IN LAPD BIAS DECREE.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

A federal judge signaled Tuesday that he intends to take jurisdiction over a proposed consent decree between the city and the American Civil Liberties Union that would set hiring and promotion goals for women and minorities in the Los Angeles Police Department.

U.S. District Judge William Keller told attorneys for the city and ACLU on Tuesday that he intends to revoke the referral of the case to Federal Magistrate Rosalyn M. Chapman, who had indicated she planned to sign the consent decree.

The decree would settle a portion of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of women and minorities in the department and would commit the city to hiring and promotion goals for 18 years.

The City Council overruled a Police Commission recommendation to postpone approval of the consent decree and approved it Nov. 5. One of the key sticking points is the city's open-ended liability that could run into the tens of millions of dollars despite the agreement.

The council and plaintiffs have been pushing for quick court approval before Proposition 209 banning race and gender based preferential treatment takes effect.

``I think the judge is taking an appropriately prudent course of action in providing review of this decree,'' said Police Commission Vice President Art Mattox. ``I think the City Council rushed to judgment and did not adequately consider its implications.''

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas disputed Mattox's criticism, saying, ``I think we tried to be as judicious as possible.''

Keller's intervention in the case will subject the proposed consent decree to additional review, but city attorneys said they don't expect the settlement to be scuttled because both sides agreed to it.

``Everyone signed the consent decree. Everyone supports the signing of the decree,'' said Deputy City Attorney Robert Cramer.

Carol Sobel of the ACLU noted that the judge has not made a final decision to take jurisdiction and she cautioned people not to read too much into the possibility.

``I don't think any conclusion can be drawn one way or the other,'' Sobel said.

Cramer said that because of the significance of the decree, Keller believed that it should be reviewed by and signed by a federal judge appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a lifetime tenure that guarantees independence.

Magistrates do not have that status, Cramer said.

Keller could ask attorneys for the city and ACLU to submit new briefs arguing why he should sign the decree, Cramer said.

``He maintained that he has not finally read it and has no views one way or the other on the consent decree,'' Cramer said.

On Tuesday, Keller told both parties to file briefs next week on the issue of whether he should assume jurisdiction.

Police commissioners said they were concerned that more review was needed into the implications of committing the city to such wide-ranging goals.

In addition to setting hiring and promotion goals, the consent decree requires the city within six months to set up an independent unit to investigate complaints of sexual and racial harassment and discrimination.

Backers of Proposition 209 on last week's ballot charged that the City Council had rushed to approve the consent decree before voters had their say on Proposition 209, which prohibits hiring and promotion decisions based on race and gender.

But Cramer said he does not believe that the delay will mean the agreement is affected by Proposition 209, approved by state voters Nov. 5, because the measure makes an exception for federal consent decrees.

``Our view is that all the parties consented to the decree in its present form on Nov. 5,'' Cramer said.

Riordan wrote to the council last month in opposition to an earlier form of the consent decree; he called it a rush to judgment that exposed the city to liability because it failed to deal with damages and did not include a review by the Police Commission.

``This is an extraordinarily complex document, which, if entered into, cannot be changed for nearly 20 years,'' he states in his letter. ``It warrants more than a few days of review. There is no compelling reason I know of to act hastily.''

The Police Commission agreed with Riordan's assessment of the proposal and came out against it.

With that pressure, the council changed the proposal to finesse the issue of damages and leave it for future negotiations. Riordan backed the revised plan, although he said he continued to have reservations over the 18-year period in which the city would be tied to the decree.