Swint v. Pullman-Standard Memorandum of Law in Support of Opposition to Motion for Stay of Proceedings

    CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al., SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, JUDICIAL ‘DISTRICT OF 
HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

Vv. : AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A, O'NEILL, et al., : 

Defendants. : September 15, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  

  

Defendants offer the following answers and objections to the 

plaintiffs’ fifth request for production of documents. 

1. All correspondence, reports, and memoranda among the 

Commissioner of Education, the Department of Education, the State 

Board of Education, and the Governor's office from January, 1991 

to the present, relating to issues of school desegregation. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 1(a)-(b) 

2. Inspection and copying of the research file and any 

drafts, correspondence, memoranda, reports, and any other 

documents used in the preparation of "The Issue of Racial 

  
 



    

  Imbalance and Quality Education in Connecticut's Public Schools” 

(February 5, 1986). i 

ANSWER: The defendants are unable to identify the report 

described in this request and cannot, therefore, provide any 

drafts, correspondence, memoranda, reports or any other documents 

| used in the preparation of that report. | 

3. All documents relating to a March 25 "Forum on 

Diversity" sponsored by the Connecticut Recruitment Network ‘for 
b 

Education Diversity. * 

ANSWER: See exhibit 3(a) 

4, All documents relating to the internal Department of 

Education Committee working to study and implement the proposals 

of the Governor's Commission on Quality and Integrated Education, 

as reported in the "Highlights from the Monthly Meeting of the 

State Board of Education," June 3-4,.1992. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 4(a) 

5. Inspection and copying of all "Research Bulletins’ 

issued by the Connecticut Department of Education, 1950 to       
 



  

        

present. (If a list is available, please provide prior to 

inspection and copying). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 5(a) consisting of eleven (11) 

bulletins. 

6. A text, transcript, or. recording of the speech or 

sermon delivered by Governor Weicker on Sunday, May 31, 1932 at 

the United Church on the Green in New Haven. 

ANSWER: As of the date of this response no such documents 

have been located and the defendants do not believe any such 

documents can be found within their possession or control. 

7. Copies of all texts, outlines, transcripts and 

recordings of each speech or address given by Governor Weicker 

relating to the subject of school segregation, educational 

equity, urban education and racial integration. 

ANSWER: As of the date of this response no such documents 

have been located. It cannot be determined whether such 

documents exist outside the possession and control of the 

defendants. To their extent that they do, the plaintiffs can 

secure this material as easily as the defendants. 

  
 



  

  

  

    

8B. Final reports submitted by all expert witnesses 

retained by defendants. 

ANSWER: Objection: Any reports, correspondence, or other 

documents provided to defendants' counsel by the defendants’ 

expert witnesses, other than those which have been or will be 

turned over to the plaintiffs at the time of the experts’ 

depositions, represent attorney work product and are privileged 

communications not subject to disclosure. ; 

9. Copies of all exhibits prepared by defendants’ expert 

witnesses for presentation to the court. 

ANSWER: Objection: (See objection to request # 8.) 

10. Inspection and copying of the most current set of all 

documents which provide the basis and underlying data for 

exhibits provided in response to request 7, Plaintiffs' First 

Request for Production. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 10(a) 

11. Inspection and copying of all documents which provide 

the basis and underlying data for Exhibit 19(d) (Plaintiffs 

First Request for Production). 

  
 



  

  

    

ANSWER: Documents provided in response to Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

12. District-by-district report on PSAT, SAT, MAT and CAT 

scores for Hartford and the surrounding communities for 1990 to 

the present. 

ANSWER: Defendants do not have PSAT, MAT, or CAT scores 

for the identified school districts. The only SAT results in the 

defendants' possession are State-wide results and these havé been 

provided to the plaintiffs in response to he Rindone deposit ion 

subpoena. 

13. All documents relating to the "Urban Agenda" and/or 

"Urban Initiative" program. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 13(a) 

14. Documents indicating number of assessors and teachers 

participating in BEST Program from Hartford and surrounding 

districts. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 14(a) 

15.; Pinal reports documenting 1590-31 and: 1991-92 

assessment of dominant language statistics and limited english   
 



  

  

    

proficiency counts referred to in plaintiffs' Fourth Request for 

Production, Exhibit 9(a). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 15(a)-(f). 

16. Documents relating to a curriculum survey regarding 

arts and library/media referenced in plaintiffs' Fourth Request 

for Production, Exhibit 9(b). 

ANSWER: Objection: Reference to the Pourth Request for 

Production, Exhibit 9(b) appears inappropriate. The request 

lacks the clarity necessary to advise defendants what 1t 1s that 

is being requested. 

17. Any documents which compare the rate of growth on the 

Connecticut Mastery Test of any students in Hartford and students 

in the surrounding school districts (this request is for 

documents generated for the Hartford region only, not including 

discovery Exhibits 16(e) and 16(f), Plaintiffs' First Request for 

Production or exhibit 4(ff), Plaintiffs' Second Request for 

Production). 

ANSWER: No such documents exists. 

  
 



  

  

    

18. A copy of the "Krupa Study" referenced in discovery 

Exhibit 2(a) (Third Request for Production) and any other 

curriculum study done by defendants since 1990. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 18(a). 

19. A report on dropouts, 1987-1989, prepared by Catherine 

Oleksiw, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs' Third Request 

for Production and any dropout reports prepared since 1991. 

i 
’ 

ANSWER: See defendants' response to Plaintiffs' First 

Request for Production, exhibit 4(a). 

20. A report on teacher supply and demand and 1interdistrict 

mobility prepared by Barbara Beaudin, referenced in Exhibit 

11(b), Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 5(a) and exhibit 20(a)-(b). 

21. A report entitled, "NELS 88 -- Achievement" by Judith 

Thompson, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs' Third Request 

for Production. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 5(a) and exhibit 21(a). 

  

  

 



  

  

  

    

22. A report on "Indicators of Success" prepared by Judith 

Thompson, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs' Third Request 

for Production. 

ANSWER: Already provided as exhibit 18(e) and 18(e)(1l) in 

response to the Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of 

Documents. Also provided in response to Rindone deposition 

subpoena. 

23. A report entitled, "NELS 88 -- Demographics by Judith 

Thompson, referenced in Exhibit 11(b), Plaintiffs' Third IL 

for Production. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 5(a) and exhibit 23(a). 

24. A report or reports by William Gauthier regarding 

"instructionally effective schools: a model and a process" (circa 

1983), 

ANSWER: See exhibit 24(a). 

25. Copy of a DOE report entitled "Statement of Activities" 

for the years 1988-1989, 1989-1990 and 1991-92. 

ANSWER: See exhibits 25(a)-(b). A 1991-92 "Statement of 

Activities" does not exist. 

  

  

 



  

  

    

26. Any studies and staff analyses forming the basis for 

the following three reports, (and any studies and staff analyses 

undertaking in preparation for the following three reports): 

a. "Report on Three Perspectives on the Education 

Achievement of Connecticut Students" (September 7, 

1988). 

b. "Overview of the January 17, 1988 Presentation on 

Selected High Performance/Growth Schools Report” 

(January 17, 1989). ; 

Cu "Special Connecticut Mastery Test Research REport : 

Students at Risk Academically" (May 2, 1990). 

ANSWER: The reports listed in this request for production 

are the reports of the studies and staff analyses upon which the 

reports are based. The defendants have no further documents to 

provide in response to this request. 

27. A copy of a report of the Department of Education, 

entitled "Research-Based School Improvement Practices." 

ANSWER: See exhibit 27(a). 

28. Most recent PIP and MIP description for the following 

DOE employees: 

  

  
 



  

  

    

a. Douglas Rindone 

b. William Congero 

1 Peter Behuniak 

a. Elliot Williams 

a, Robert Brewer 

f. Peter Prowda 

g. Theodore Sergi 

he. Thomas Breen 

ANSWER: Objection: To the extent that this request far 

production seeks information regarding the performance 

evaluations of the listed individuals, the information requested 

in confidential and irrelevant to present matter. To the extent 

that the request seeks only information relating to the goals and 

objectives for the listed individuals see exhibits 28(a)-(h). 

29. A copy of the "Bilingual Program Data Analysis" 

described on page 10 of Exhibit 9(b) (Fourth Request for 

Production of Documents). 

ANSWER: Documents provided in response to the Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

-10-   
 



  

  

    

  

    

30. Copy of any "assessment plan" referred to at page 5 of 

Exhibit 13(a) (Fourth Request for Production of Documents). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 30(a). 

31. Federal grant proposals for bilingual programs from 

1989 to present. 

ANSWER: See exhibits 31(a)-(b). 

32. Annual reports since 1989 prepared by DOE regarding 

delivery of bilingual services to student populations in Hartford 

and surrounding communities. 

ANSWER: See exhibits 32(a)-(c). 

33. Any assessments of the Hartford bilingual program not 

previously requested or produced. 

ANSWER: See exhibits 33(a)-(b). 

34. Connecticut Public School Expenditures Report, 1391-92. 

ANSWER: Requested document does not exist and will not De 

available before November, 1992. 

-11-     
 



  

  

    

35. Any truancy reports filed with DOE from Hartford and 

surrounding communities from 1991 to present. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 35(a). Note that the defendants 

seriously question the validity and usefulness of this data. 

36. DOE budget and budget options for 1993-94. 

ANSWER: See exhibits 36(a)-(b). 

37. A copy of the grant proposal and description of grant 

awarded to DOE by the National Science Foundation. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 37(a). 

38. Strategic School Profiles for Hartford and surrounding 

communities. 

ANSWER: Documents requested will not be available before 

October, 1992. 

39. Any studies showing numbers of gifted and talented 

students identified in Hartford and surrounding communities. 

ANSWER: See exhibits 39(a)-(b). 

-12- 

  

  

 



  

  40. Any studies showing number of students enrolled in 

advanced placement courses in Hartford and surrounding 

communities. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 40(a). 

41. A study of course and curriculum offerings in 15 high 

| school districts (1977) (if different from item 18, above). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 18(a). 
H 

i 
3 

42. A guide to school staff and instructional materiats   
prepared by Thomas Breen (1981). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 42(a). 

43. A study of course offerings prepared by Peter Prowda 

{1982}, 

ANSWER: See exhibit 44(a) for a copy of the survey form on 

course offerings. The survey results were published in Town and 

School District Profiles. No other study is extant. 

44. A study of advance placement courses by TOC prepared by 

David Cleaver (1983). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 44(a). 

-13-       
 



  

  

      

45. A study of high school course offerings, wealth, and 

school size prepared by Ted Sergi (1983). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 45(a). 

46. A study of advanced placement and honors courses 

prepared by David Cleaver (1985). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 44(a). 

47. A study of advanced placement courses and graduation 

3 

requirements prepared by Jim Wade (1986). = 

ANSWER: See exhibit 47(a). 

48. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present 

analyzing staff/student ratios for Hartford and the surrounding 

districts. 

ANSWER: Documents provided in response to Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

49. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present 

analyzing the mean staff salary for Hartford and the surrounding 

districts, not already provided to plaintiffs. 

-14- 

  
 



  

  

    

ANSWER: Documents provided in response to Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

50. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present 

analyzing the staff cost per pupil in Hartford and the 

surrounding districts. 

ANSWER: Documents provided in response to Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

Ie 
’ 

51. Any documents prepared from 1989 to present analyzing 

the "breadth of programs" in Hartford and the surrounding 

districts. 

ANSWER: The defendants know of no documents which fall 

within this description. 

52. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present 

analyzing the educational attainment of parents in Hartford and 

the surrounding districts. 

ANSWER: The only information in the defendants' possession 

relating to the educational attainment of parents in Hartford and 

the surrounding school districts is census bureau data which is 

equally available to the plaintiffs. 

-15-     
 



  

    

53. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present 

analyzing student turnover in Hartford and the surrounding 

districts including annual net change and present change 1n 

number of students. 

ANSWER: To the extent that any such documents exist, these 

documents have been provided to the plaintiffs in response to the 

Rindone deposition subpoena, the Calvert deposition subpoena, and 

earlier requests for production. 

54. Any documents prepared from 1989 to the present 

analyzing school construction spending in Hartford and the 

surrounding districts including but not limited to any 

cumulations of school construction grants for the last 5, 10, and 

15 year period. 

ANSWER: To the extent that any such documents exist, they 

have been turnover to the plaintiffs in response to the Brewer 

deposition subpoena and earlier requests for production. 

55. A report showing the Aid for Dependent Children (ADC) 

counts for Hartford and the surrounding towns from 1979-80 thru 

1988-89 inclusive, and any subsequent counts that may be 

avallable.    



      

ANSWER: See exhibit 55(a) 

56. A copy of the most recent SEMIS report or equivalent 

report. 

ANSWER: Objection: The defendants are unable to identify 

documents which are responsive to this request in that SEMIS 1s a 

data base which is no longer in use, not a report. 

57. Any curriculum survey prepared pursuant to a 
: 
4 

"curriculum survey outline, framework for equity analysis," : 

January 12, 1987. 

ANSWER: Objection: The description of the documents being 

requested is not sufficient to permit the defendants to identify 

what it is they are being asked to produce. 

58. A copy of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 

Connecticut eighth graders (1988). 

ANSWER: See response to requests No. 21 and 23. 

59. A copy of the longitudinal study conducted in 1990 that 

examined achievement of Connecticut students judged to be at 

risk, referenced on p. 21 of "Meeting the Challenge" report 

-17- 

  

  

 



  

  

  

      

(1990-91 }. (Exhibit 27{(a), Plaintiffs’ First Set of 

Interrogatories). 

ANSWER: Document provided in response to the Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

60. A copy of the NAEP Trial State Assessment Program 

(reading and mathematics assessments), statewide and for Hartford | 

and surrounding communities. 

ANSWER: Document provided in response to the Rindone i 

deposition subpoena. 

61, Copy of reports of CCL Assessment Project. 

ANSWER: Document provided in response to the Rindone 

deposition subpoena. 

62. A copy of the results on Advanced Placement tests and 

Test of Standard Written English for Hartford and surrounding 

communities from 1990 to present. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 62(a). 

63. Updated to "Meeting the Challenge" report, 1990-91 

(Exhibit 27(a), Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories). 

-18-       
 



  

  

    

ANSWER: No such document exists. 

64. Documents relating to Hartford Partnership of the Urban 

Initiative program. 

ANSWER: See response to request No. 13. 

65. A complete copy of Volume I and II of a report entitled 

"The Condition of Public Elementary and Secondary Education 1in 

Connecticut, Fiscal Year 1979-80." 

ANSWER: The requested material is available to the - 

plaintiffs through the State Library. 

66. A complete copy of "A Plan for Promoting Equal 

Educational Opportunity in Connecticut," State Board of 

Education, January 1979. 

ANSWER: See response to request No. 18. 

67. A complete copy of a "State Board of Education Policy 

Statement on Equal Education Opportunity," included in circular 

letter C-15, October 27, 1986. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 67(a). 

-19- 

  

  
 



  

  

  

    

68. A complete copy of each document identified in response 

to Interrogatory 2 in plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories 

(July 15, 1982). 

ANSWER: The defendants are unable to identify the 

documents in question or locate complete copies. 

69. A copy of a FSUOPL entisied "Highlights of the 1969-70 

Study of the Distribution of Minority Group Pupils and Staff in 

the Public Schools of Connecticut," dated on or about March 31, 

1970. J 

ANSWER: See defendants' to response to the plaintiffs’ 

fourth request for production, exhibits 18(a)-(w). 

70. A complete copy of the "Interim Report" of the Advisory 

Committee to study the state's racial imbalance law and 

regulations, dated May 7, 1985. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 70(a). 

71. A complete study of an "Interim Report" by the Racial 

Equity Committee of the state Department of Education dated on or 

about May 5, 1987. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 71(a). 

-20- 

  
| 

  
 



  

  

    

72. A complete copy of the "State Board of Education's 

Policy Statement of Equal Educational Opportunity adopted May o, 

1989" as referenced in a memo from Joan Martin to the Governor's 

Commission dated March 1, 1990. 

ANSWER: Already provided to plaintiffs in response to 

plaintiffs' request to review all material provided to GCQIE. 

73. A 1971 report entitled "A Brief History of the Public 

School Building Aid Program in Connecticut from 1945 to the 
‘ 
J 

present. = 

ANSWER: See exhibit 73(a). 

74. A complete copy of a document or "critical issues 

paper" prepared for the State Board of Education by Edyth Gaines 

between 1975-1985, entitled "Advancing Equal Educational 

Opportunity and Access to Quality Integrated Education in the 

Public Schools of the State of Connecticut. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 74(a). 

75. A complete copy of the 1985 report entitled: 

"Connecticut's Challenge: An Agenda for Education Equity and 

Excellence." 

-21- 

  

  

 



  

ANSWER: See exhibit 75(a). 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS       By: 
  

{2 
Jobff “R. ‘Whelan 
Asdistant Attorney General 
‘110 Sherman Street | 
Hartford, CT 06105 | 
'Telephope: 566-7173 4 

  

  

Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7173 

  

-22-         
 



  
CERTIFICATION 
  

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

postage prepaid on September 15, 1992 to the following counsel of 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 

University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 

School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 

65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. ' 

Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & Finebergi P.C. 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street - 

32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chamberes, Esq. 

Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund Ronald Ellis, Esq. 

and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

14th Floor Educational Fund 

99 Hudson Street 99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 

American Civil Liberties Union 

132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

77 

in R. Whelan 
ssistant Attorney General 

  

7        



  

  

    

CV 89-03609778 

SUPERIOR COURT o
e
 

MILO SHEFF, et al., 

Plaintiffs, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

AT HARTFORD Ve. 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al., 

Defendants. September 15,1992 

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO THE 

PLAINTIFFS' FIFTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

The defendants hereby give notice that on the above noted 

  

  

date the defendants made copies of the documents requested By the 

plaintiffs by way of ther fifth request for production available 

to the plaintiffs' attorneys with the following exceptions: 

1. Objections were interposed to requests 8, 9, 16, and 

57. 

  

  
 



  

2. A partial objection was interposed in response to the 

request 28.   
| FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

a, 

  

       
  

    
   
    

BY: Y/ / LLL 

J BE 87 heen 
AsSistant Attorney General 
170 Sherman Street 
[raptors CT 06105 ‘ 
“Telephone: , 566-7173 ‘ 

ig Zid 
(4 

BY: i 

Assistant Att 

  

rney General 
/ 110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7173 

      
 



  

    

CERTIFICATION 
  

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

postage prepaid on September 15, 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. 
University of Connecticut 
School of Law 
65 Elizabeth Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Ruben Franco, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund 
and Education Fund 

14th Floor 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, 

Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

Esq. 

1992 to the following counsel of 

Wilfred Rodriquez, Esq. 

Hispanic Advocacy Project 
Neighborhood Legal Services 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06112 

Wesley W. Horton, Esq. A 
Moller, Horton & Fineberg, PC 
90 Gillett Street r 
Hartford, CT 06105 

Julius L. Chambers, 
Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

Esq. 

  

Joh 
Assistant Attorney General 

/   

  

 



  

  

    

CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al., : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs, : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

: HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN 

V. : AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al., 

Defendants. 3 September 15, 1992 

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS 

SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
  

  

= = 
T 

The defendants hereby offer the following responses to ithe 

Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories dated July 15, 1992. 

Y. Please list, by title, year, and number, all "Research 

Bulletins" issued by the Connecticut Department of Education, 1965 

to the present. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 5(a) in response to the Plaintiffs’ 

Fifth Request for Production of Documents. 

2. Identify, by author, title, and date, each document or 

document excerpt attached hereto at Exhibits A and B. (Plaintiffs 

also request full copies of each of these documents in their 

Fifth Request for Production.) 

  

  

 



  

  

    

ANSWER: The defendants are unable to provide the 

information requested by this interrogatory because they are 

unable to identify exhibits A and B or locate complete copies. 

3. State the total number of children receiving the free 

and reduced lunch program in Hartford and each of the surrounding 

districts. 

ANSWER: Information provided in response to letter from 

CCLU to defendants' counsel dated July 1, 1992. ! 

4. State the total number of children living below the 

poverty level in Hartford and each of the surrounding districts. 

ANSWER: Objection: The information requested is equally 

available to the plaintiffs from the Census Bureau. 

5. State the total number of children receiving aid to 

dependent children (ADC) in Hartford and each of the surrounding 

districts. 

ANSWER: See defendants' response to request No. 55 of the 

Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production of Documents. 

6, State the total number of Spanish language dominant 

children in Hartford and each of the surrounding districts.   
 



      

ANSWER: See defendants' response to request No. 15 of the 

Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production of Documents. 

2. State the total number of children receiving special 

education services in Hartford and each of the surrounding 

districts. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 7(a)-(d). 

8. State the total number of children on a full time 

equivalent basis (FTE) receiving special education services in 

Hartford and each of the surrounding districts. 

ANSWER: FTE is a mathematical computation which must be 

based on certain assumptions about special education. The 

assumptions which are used in computing the FTE could affect the 

validity of any use of the FTE to analyze special education 

expenditures, etc. The plaintiffs have been provided with the 

ISIS data base which contains all of the information available to 

the defendants upon which an FTE might be calculated. The 

defendants reserve the right to question the validity of any FTE 

computation the plaintiffs may derive from that data and the 

validity of the use of that computation for any purposes. 

  
 



      

9. State the total grant amount for special education 

reimbursement for Hartford and the surrounding districts for the 

years 1983-1990 (data missing from Exhibit 4, attached to 

defendants' July 8, 1991 Memorandum of Law 1n Support of 

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment). 

ANSWER: See exhibit 9(a) 

10. State the total grant amount for transportation 

reimbursement for Hartford and the surrounding districts for the 

years 1983-1990 (data missing from Exhibit 4, attached to : 

defendants' July 8, 1991 Memorandum of Law in Support of 

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement). 

ANSWER: * See exhibit 10(a) 

11. State the total special education budget for Hartford 

and each of the surrounding districts for the years 1983-1990. 

ANSWER: See exhibit 11(a) 

  

  

 



  

  

    

Wherefore, the defendants offer the foregoing responses to, 

the plaintiffs' second set of interrogatories. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

  

BY: 
  

Join R. Whelan 
Agsistant Attorney General 

10 Sherman Street 
artford, Cr 06105 : 

Telephone: 566-7173 ; 

  

  
pes 

A BY: _z. /Z Vl p72 
Fiha WM. Watts’. 2 2 — 

\§sistant Attorney General 
10 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 
Telephone: 566-7173 

  
 



  

  

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

postage prepaid on September 15, 1992 to the following counsel of 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriquez, Esq. 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. ’ 
Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & Fineberg, PC 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street : 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT» 06105 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Ruben Franco, Esq. Julius L. Chambers, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. Marianne Lado, Esq. 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 

14th Floor Education Fund 
99 Hudson Street 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

  

  

S6istant Attorney General