In April, Plaintiffs’ second motion for contempt of 2005 concerns the racial makeup of the HPD and their failure to provide a draft for an Affirmative Action ordinance after having promised such a document at a meeting the previous year. (Source) Defendants oppose each of the three pending motions for contempt. They argue that each allegation goes beyond the scope of the consent decree, which holds narrow room for noncompliance. They also call for the dissolution of Cintron v. Vaughan entirely. The parties hold fifteen hearings discussing the ongoing motions for contempt. (Source)