Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents

    { 
{ } 

i 
i 

tl 

H 

i 

Cv 89-0360977S 

SUPERIOR COURT 

J.D. HARTFORD/NEW 

Plaintiffs NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

MILO SHEFF, et al 

v. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants Mod y 1990 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SECOND REQUEST FOR 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

1. All documents identifying the DOE staff who worked on the 

proposed regulations on racial imbalance in schools from 

1969-1979. 

ANSWER: No such documents could be located. 

2. All documents on the distribution of funds for the 

transportation of children to private schools from 1980 to the 

present and any documents which provide information on the 

receipt or use of such funds in individual school districts 

currently receiving such funds and any documents indicating the 

basis for the amount of the allocation to such districts. 

ANSWER: Plaintiffs are referred to the Connecticut General 

  

J
 

 



  

  

  

  

  

Statutes for information concerning the basis for the amount of 

the allocation of state funds for non-public school     transportation. Such other documentary information as the 

defendants have is included in Exhibits 2 (a-1i). 

3. All documents concerning efforts by school districts to enter 

  into cooperative arrangements with other school districts which 

could lead to greater interdistrict racial, ethnic and cultural 

diversity from April 1, 1989 to the present, including but not 

limited to documents on the financial incentives to encourage 

districts to join such arrangements, transportation grants for 

intercommunity programs and competitive grants for the 

establishment of interdistrict cooperative programs. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 3(a-o). Exhibits 3(p) and 3(q) are packets 

of material relating to Hartford and New Haven magnet schools. 

Also see Exhibits 4 (e), 4 (dd) and 5 (g-j). 

4. All documents which list or describe the programs described 

in defendants' August 21, 1989 Memorandum in Support of 

Defendants’ Motion to. Strike (pp. 41 et seg.), including programs 

i 

 



  

created and funded by the State to address the needs of "at risk" 

students poor performing and otherwise disadvantaged children     from January 1988 to the present, including but not limited to:   
compensatory education grants, bilingual education grants, 

special education grants, free lunch program grants, 

"intercommunity" programs, priority school district grants for | 

districts facing comparatively more difficult educational 

challenges and school breakfast program grants.   
ANSWER: Plaintiffs are referred to the relevant provisions of 

the General Statutes identified in defendants' August 21, 1989 

Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike in regard 

to the legal description of the identified programs. In addition 

the plaintiffs are being provided with Exhibits 4 (a-dd). Also 

see Exhibit 6. 

5. All documents which describe or relate to grants for extended 

day kindergarten and summer school in Hartford and the 

surrounding communities from April 1989 to the present. 

| ANSWER: 

 



  Extended Day Kindergarten 

Exhibit Hartford (5 documents) 
Exhibit Newington (3 documents) 
Exhibit West Hartford (2 documents) 
Exhibit Bloomfield (1 documents) 
Exhibits ) East Hartford (2 documents) 

) Torrington (3 documents) 

Summer School 

Exhibits 5 (g-j) 

6. All documents which describe or relate to grants to or 

designation of remedial, priority school districts in the State 

from January, 1988 to the present. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 6 

7. All documents for Hartford and the surrounding communities 

related to funding substantial increases in teachers' salaries 

and offering money to improve the teacher-pupil ratio in such 

districts. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 7  



  

8. All documents for Hartford and the surrounding communities   explaining the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) formula and the 

school districts receiving funds in accordance with the formula 

from 1980 to the present. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 8 (a-r). Note that the ECS formula was 

first used in the 1989-90 school year. 

which a) agency heads within DOE submitted to the Commissioner, 

and b) the Commissioner submitted to OPM. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 9 (a-e) 

10. All documents concerning school construction and expansion, 

including but not limited to: 

a. Currents requests for school building projects, form 
ED-040; 

b. school building projects rating by educational need for 
1989: 

Cc) internal DOE documents that list or summarize school 
construction projects other than the rating list;   

~5& 

  

| 
! 

9. All documents indicating the DOE budget options for 1990-1991] 

 



  

  

  

i 

LH 
(| 
i 
Lf 
H 

ANSWER: 

In regard to new construction and major renovations see: 

Exhibit 10(a) Avon; 5 documents 
Exhibit 10(b) Bloomfield; 2 documents 
Exhibit 10(c) East Hartford; 2 documents 
Exhibit 10(d) East Granby; 2 documents 
Exhibit 10(e) East Windsor; 1 document 
Exhibit 10(f) Ellington; 4 documents 
Exhibit 10(g) Farmington; 2 documents 
Exhibit 10(h) Glastonbury; 3 documents 
Exhibit 10(i) Granby; 6 documents 
Exhibit 10(3j) Hartford; 13 documents 
Exhibit 10(k) Manchester; 4 documents 
Exhibit 10(1l) Newington; 1 document 
Exhibit 10(m) Simsbury; 4 documents 
Exhibit 10(n) South Windsor; 5 documents 
Exhibit 10(o) Suffield; 3 documents 
Exhibit 10(p) Vernon; 8 documents 
Exhibit 10(q) West Hartford; 6 documents 
Exhibit 10(r) Wethersfield; 10 documents 
Exhibit 10(s) Windsor; 3 documents 

Also see Exhibits 10 (t-v). 

Documents relating to other school districts and to minor code 

compliance projects will be made available for inspection upon 

request. 

11. All documents from 1985 to the present indicating public 

school enrollment projections. 

  

    
 



  

  

| 
| 
| 

  

ANSWER: See Exhibit 11 

  12. All documents from 1985 to the present indicating teacher 

supply and demand, including drafts of final reports. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 12(a-i) and Exhibit 14. | 

13. All documents relating to any "Report On Schools and Staff" | 

or similar document prepared by DOE for 1988 and 1989. 

ANSWER: See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Request 

for Production of Documents, Exhibits 38 (a-e). 

14. All documents describing or summarizing fall hiring for 1989 

and for 1990, including but not limited to any data on the race 

of teaching applicants, vacancies by subject and district, and 

any other information. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 14. The defendants have no information on | 

the race of the teaching applicants. 

 



  

    

    

15. All documents for Hartford and the surrounding communities 

on the teacher shortage survey, 

to the present. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 14 

16. All documents indicating the total number of hours in 

session per year for districts and schools in districts in 

Connecticut from 1984-1989. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 16 

17. All documents relating to vocational 

1988-1990. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 17 

Form ED 156, 

statistical 

from January, 

18. All documents which include or relate to any "grand 

follow-up" or any other analysis of data collected on race, 

1988 

reports for 

family income, gender, language and mastery test performance from 

January 1988 to the present, including but not limited to any 

  

  

 



documents which include or refer to studies to correlate the 

relationship between povery/wealth of the students and       performance on the mastery test. 

ANSWER: See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Request 

for Production of Documents, Exhibits 16(e) and 16(f). 

19. All documents which include the mastery test scores for 

1989-1990 including any analysis of follow up reports. 

ANSWER: See Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Request 

for Production of Documents, Exhibit 23(a-c). 

20. All documents, including correspondence, among the Governor, 

DOE and/or the Office of Policy and Management on school 

desegregation from January, 1988 to the present. 

ANSWER: See Defendants Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for 

Production of Documents, Exhibit 20. 

21. All documents, including minutes, tapes, transcripts or  



    

    

notes of DOE hearings held in four towns on April 17, 18, 24, 25, 

1978 on the Racial Imbalance Regulations. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 21 

22. All documents, including minutes, tapes, transcripts or 

notes of DOE hearings on new regulations held September 18 and   27,1979, 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 22 

23. All documents, including any memorandum by the Attorney 

General on the legal sufficiency of the Racial Imbalance Act and | 

the Racial Imbalance Act and the Racial Imbalance Regulations as | 

mentioned by Commissioner Shedd in testimony before the Education 

Committee on February 21, 1980. | 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 23(a-b). 

24. All documents, including a letter dated September 24, 1979 | 

from Senator Gunther to Commissioner Shedd explaining that the  



  

    

  

State Board of Education could not develop new regulations after 

the Regulations Review Committee had rejected the first set. 

ANSWER: See Exhibit 24 

25. All documents, including drafts of legislation which were 

incorporated in SB 415 in 1969-1970. 

ANSWER: 

OBJECTION: Insofar as the plaintiffs seeks copies of 

material reported in the legislative history or committee 

hearings, the material is as easily accessible to the plaintiffs 

as it is to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no 

basis for insisting that the defendants locate and produce the 

material. 

Defendants could not locate any documents other than those 

which might appear in the legislative history or committee 

hearings which is responsive to this request. 

~11- 

  

 



  

  

  

  

26. All documents, including opinions by the Attorney General in 

1967, 1968 and 1969 on the authority of the State Board of | 

Education to require local boards of education to take action to 

correct racial imbalance. 

ANSWER: No such documents could be found. 

27. All documents, including policy statements concerning 

educational quality adopted by the State Board of Education in 

December, 1966, amended in June, 1967, and revised in 1968. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 27(a-e) 

28. All documents, including a survey and results prepared by 

Commissioners Sanders and Dr. Ross, a DOE staff member, that DOE | 

submitted on May 1, 1968 to the Subcommittee on Education of the 

Legislative Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. 

ANSWER: See Exhibits 28(a-b) 

YD 

 



  

By: 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 
| 7 /! 

/ Vy, 7 

ol ER SW   
John 'R. Whélan 
Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Telephone: 566-3696 

-13- 

 



  

    

  

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, 
Fr 

postage prepaid on \ pris 

/ 

counsel or record: . 

! 

John Brittain 

University of Connecticut 
School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
Hispanic Advocacy Project 

CERTIFICATION   

7 iL + 1990 to the followiing 

Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler 
Martha Stone 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Wesley W. Horton 
Mollier, Horton & Fineberg, P.C. 

90 Gillett Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers 

John Charles Boger 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell 

Helen Hershkoff 

American Civil Liberties Union 

“1d 

  

 



  
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

/ 4 
/ y y f y/ al JE 

vi ( ~\ £E © 

John /R. Whelan 
Assjystant Attorney General 

  

BY 
5 §