Correspondence from Whelan to Judge Hammer with Memo of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Material

    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, CT 06105 

  

FAX (203) 523-5536 

Office of The Attorney General 

State of Connecticut 
October 7, 1991 

Tel: 566-7173 

The Honorable Harry Hammer 
Superior Court 
Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain 

at New Britain 

177 Columbus Boulevard 

New Britain, CT 06051 

RE: Bheff v, O'Neill, Cv. 89-03609773 

Dear Judge Hammer: 

It has recently come to my attention that the page numbers 
were inadvertently omitted from the Index to our Memorandum of 
Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and 
Supporting Material. To make it easier for the court to locate 
particular points in our memorandum and to assist the court in 
developing a proper understanding of the legal issues being put 
before the court in our Motion for Summary Judgment I am 
enclosing a new introductory page and index to our memorandum of 
law. The only change which has been made to these pages is the 
addition of the page numbers to the index. 

At the moment we are working on our reply to the plaintiffs’ 
opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. We 
hope to have that to you by early November, 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

   
stant Attorney General 

JRW/mu 
Enclosure 

cc: Clerk of the Court, 

Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain 

at Hartford 

All Counsel of Record 

 



  

CV :89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, et al SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs J.D. HARTFORD/ 
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

Ve 

WILLIAM A. O'NEILL, et al 

Defendants July 8, 1991 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW_IN_ SUPPORT_OF DEFENDANTS" 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY _ JUDGMENT _ AND _ SUPPORTING MATERIAL 

(PART ONE) 

The present Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants 

Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Material is being 

provided to the court in two parts. Part One contains the 

defendants' discussion of the case and arguments of law. Part 

Two contains the affidavits and other material being submitted in 

support of this summary judgment motion. An Index to Part One 

and Part T™wo follows. 

 



  

INDEX 

PART ONE - MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

I. INTRODUCTION canes scvssassvrssvsnssssevsesnssscenasssnsnnnsel 

II. UNDISPUTED FACTSe snes svanssossssnssssssessevwntssssssssnsnns 

A. FACT 1: The Defendants And Their Predecessors Have Not, 

By Affirmative Act, Assigned Or Confined Children To The Hartford 

Public Schools Based Upon Their Race, National Origin, 

Socioeconomic Status, Or Other Status Which Might Be Said To Put 

Children "At Risk™ Of Poor Educational PerformanCe. sess eserves vieb 

B. FACT 2: There Is Not Now, And Never Has Been, A Distinct 

Affirmative Act, Step, Or Plan Which, If Implemented, Would Have 

"Sufficiently" Addressed The Conditions About Which The 

Plaintiffs COMDIAL Ne ee sens nsnssstvstns vinsomusssensesvninesnnwessd 

C. FACT 3: The General Assembly Has Adopted And The 

Defendants Have Implemented Legislation To Address The Conditions 

About Which The Plaintiffs COMPlaiNesssssorssnsssrsnteveen
sersvid 

(Discussion of Analyses Found in Attachment to the 

Brewer Affidavit, Exhibit 4) 

1. Average Daily Membership (ADM); Conn. Gen. 

Stat, § 10+261 1a) {2)Cecssducvrsnrsrivversvesld 

2: Special Education, State Supported 
Percentages; Conn. Gen, Stat. § 10-76g9.....18 

3s Transportation, State Supported Percentages; 

Conn. Gen. Stat. § YO ~ 260m. oso v sb anne nsrerelB 

4. School Construction, State Supported 

Percentages; Conn. Gen, Stat, § 10-2835a....19 

CF Total State Aid Per Pupilecssscvsvssnneesee2d 

FEE pe 

 



  

il. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

15. 

17. 

Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance, 

Grants for Public Schools; Conn. Gen. Stat. 

SL O= LAO. isis a sv sinnis eine a sees sen nd? 

Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance 

Grants for Non-Public Schools; Conn. Gen. 

SEat, 5 101400 viesnsineacecoestsssisvi
snses nnd 

Bilingual Education Grants; Conn. Gen. Stat. 

S 10“ 7 0isisn aviv cininamuitisnin ny snsewisnsvinnversinh23 

Interdistrict Cooperation Grants; Conn. Gen. 

SEAL. 8 10=748 4 eet vevencevnnrssvnneere
ssrsd3 

Agency Placement Grants; Conn. Gen. Stat. 

§ XB =T 6B UB) +o vn sss besiseevinainvrinsvne
siviessensdh 

Professional Development Grants; Conn. Gen. 

Stat. 'S 10~15530. cassnesvsradssnsr
vsennanss2b 

Teacher Evaluation Grants; May Spec. SesS. 

P.A. 86-1, § 15 (repealed) .«... eo 0 0 0 vie vs se ied 

Career Incentive Grants; May Spec. Sess. P.A. 

86-1, § 19 (repealed) ceeeeescescccssccccnce 26 

Teacher Evaluation Implementation Grants; 

P.A. 87-2, 3 11 (repealed) ...ssssvrvsrnrve27? 

combined Professional Development GrantSee+28 

Minimum Salary Grants; May Spec. Sess. P.A. 

86-1, § 2 (zepealedY saves vecnvosssss tunes nse 

Salary Aid Grants; May Spec. Sess. P.A. 86-1, 

5 3 (reDR3led) cs eennnecroessnsssssnvrsnrens2 

~3ii- 

 



General Education Aid; May Spec. Sess. P.A. 

86-1, §§ 4, 6 repealed) cass ssresvscenassse3l 

Teacher Pupil Ratio Grants; May Spec. Sess. 

P.A. 86-1, § 5 (repealed) seesessscsesesssee30 

Combined Salary Aid GrantS.eeceeccccececeeed3l 

Education Equalization Grants; Conn. Gen. 

Stat. §§ 10-262c through 10-262e (repealed) 

and Conn. Gen. Stat. 83 10-262f through 

E0620 as ats canis sininmesenanissvrnsveensnsarseIl 

Vocational Education Equipment Grants; 

conn, Gen. Stat. § 10-2653 et S€Geevervesse3d 

Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance/ 

Project Concern Grant; Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 

10-140 (b) (2), 10=260 salen svnmans sins sasininns 3D 

School Building Project Grants; Conn. Gen. 

Stat. §§ 10-282 through 10-29 2b. ss vacservieeead 

Telecommunications Incentive Grants; 

Conn. Gen. Stat. § JOAN ts sie sc sin nnn sane sed? 

Extended Day Kindergarten Grants; Conn. Gen. 

Stat. EO ml It eas ies ainibininin es a aiehe ww pa Ny ee DD 

summer School Incentive Grants; Conn. Gen. 

Stat. § 10=74Dceceesesnscc
ecsssssnsvenes “+33 

Young Parents Program; Conn. Gen. Stat, § 

BAD oc ciois ons sin nsnin sin ssrswnsinensnnmeers39 

Primary Mental Health Grants; Conn. Gen.Stat. 

§ LOT Ole usvneeniitinmeisis
nessvevosse shines sviesdl 

Drop Out Prevention Grants; Conn. Gen. S5tat.§ 

102002 oi tsi ainssnnniansnsrntsnnini
e siunvsnehD 

-1V-—  



  

31. Child Nutrition State Matching Grants; Conn. 
Gen. SEA 5 10=21 0D censor ser nnsensennes sll 

32. Priority School District Grants; Conn. Gen, 
Stat. §§ 10-266p through 10-266r.cccceececss.dl 

33. State School Breakfast Grants; Conn. Gen. 

BEAL tS LO 2 OB Wess ss siss sass sonesvisssmynsicnndd 

III. ARGUMENT: JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

BECAUSE THE STATE HAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES 

THE CONSTITUTION AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REMEDY 

AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS sssnnssrssrenvsnsnnvssnsonnee sd? 

A. JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS ABOUT WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS 

COMPLAIN ARE NOT THE PRODUCT OF STATE ACTION::eeeeeesd? 

B. JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

BECAUSE THE STATE HAS SATISFIED ANY AFFIRMATIVE 

OBLIGATION WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE STATE 

CONSTITUTION sve ens sennsivesnssitnssssinssnsesnseietennssnisdd 

C. JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF HOW BEST TO ADDRESS THE 

CONDITIONS ABOUT WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN IS NOT 

JUSTICIABLE css ss etassccvssssrsdsssnsrnnssseevnssnsnneld 

Iv. CONC LTS I ON ste tees tosses simmons veinninnsssrvesnnveveenBh 

Vs CERTIFICATION os aieivinieswieinis so ssnnsensssvnsisesesessesed?d
 

 



  

PART TWO - SUPPORTING MATERIAL 

Exhibit 1; Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to 
Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories, February 19, 
1991 (44 pages) 

Exhibit 2; Plaintiffs’ Objection to 

Interrogatories, September 20, 1990 (4 pages) 

Exhibit 3: Affidavit of Gerald N. Tirozzi (2 
pages) 

Exhibit 4; Affidavit of Robert Brewer (2 pages) 

with attachment (148 pages) 

Exhibit 5; Affidavit of Elliot Williams (2 pages) 
with four attachments (5, 6, 11 and 22 pages 

respectively) 

Exhibit 6; Affidavit of G. Donald Perree, Jr. (2 

pages) with two attachments (2 and 9 pages 
respectively) 

Certification 

-vi- 

 



  

a Nntins » 
Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

MEMORANDUM 

  

TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 

RE: 

Ann Tremont, CCLU 

Ronald L. Ellis forrin lb of py Z AN 

October 3, 1991 

Support for CCEE Community Organizer 

Enclosed is LDF’s check for $2500.00 payable to "CCEE" for payments to 
the community organizer. Please transmit to the appropriate person. 

PLE 

Regional Offices 

Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 301 Suite 208 
deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K Street, NW 315 West Ninth Street 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its Washington, DC 20005 Los Angeles, CA 90015 

commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate (202) 682-1300 (213) 624-2405 
Board, program, staff, office and budget. Fax: (202) 682-1312 Fax: (213) 624-0075