Correspondence from Stone and Tegeler to Counsel and Plaintiffs; from Whelan to Judge Hammer; from Slavin to Tegeler

    FOUNDATION 
ThirtyTwo Grand Street. Hartford, CT 06106 

203/247-9823 Fax 203/728-0287 

September 4, 1992 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 

TO Sheff v. O'Neill Plaintiffs and Lawyers 
  

FROM: Martha Stone & Philip Tegeler 

RE Notice of meeting on remedial options and legislative 
proposals to be held on September 24, 1992 

\ 
Please note that we are planning an important meeting for 

plaintiffs and lawyers on Thursday evening, September 24, to begin 
promptly at 7:15 p.m., at Wes Horton's Office, 90 Gillette Street, 
Hartford, to make some decisions about the contours of remedial 
options, and to discuss possible proposals in the upcoming 
legislature that may affect our case. William Gordon, one of our 
expert witnesses, will be present at the meeting. 

  

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

ot 

 



  

  

&rts to te 
in education case 

By ROBERT A. FRAHM 
Courant Staff Writer 

"iv Some ‘of 
+i perts on’ sch 

ted to testify wh 
awsuit against Connecti 

“nally goes to trial Nov, 17. 
The trial could af 

children and ra 
state's city an 
boundaries. ~: « 4 FAR 

perior Court Judge" 
he date for the 

y after denying a mo- 
ey general to post- 

gregation are 

fect thousands of i 
dically alter the | : 

d suburban school ft 

Hammer set th 
trial Wednesda 

, tion by the att 
pone it further. =~ =~ Ge 
eye will iaijeed, favs our day in court. 1 am extremely excited,” 

Elizabeth Sheff, y i 
parents who filed a lawsu 
ing  Hartford’s mo 
city school system. 
is the lead plaintiff 

“We believe the children of the 
state of Connecticut deserve much 
better than the educ 

stly segregated 
Sheff’s son, Milo, 

ation they are 
she said at a press confer- 

ence called by the plaintiffs. 
. Lawyers for the state had no com- 
ment on the case Wednesday, a 
spokesman for the attorne 
al’s office said. 

State lawyers twice have tried un- 
to block the lawsuit, 

which challenges Connecticut’ 
standing practice of operatin 
rate — and largely segreg 
city and suburban school systems. 

he state also had hoped to po 
pone the trial, saying it has had diffi. 
culty getting certain information 
from the plaintiffs, including an out- 
line of possible court-ordered rem. 

successfully 

ers for the plaintiffs again 
to discuss specific solutions 

Wednesday, but it is clear that de- 
segregation could not occur without 
the movement of thousands of sty. 
dents between Hartford and its sub- 

  

Pret 

Schools 
a. 

. 

goon trial 

~Continued from Page 1 

v....In Hartford public schools, more + than 90 percent of the students are »anembers of minority groups, and 
- Many are from low-income families. 
‘Many of the city’s suburbs are pre- 
«dominantly white, dite, Po 

« 

. panies, predicted the trial would 
+last at least eight weeks. 
- = A decision could take months long- 
er, but the trial itself could provide 
» interesting drama. . 
+ - The list of prospective witnesses 
for the two sides is a who's who in 
+ ‘school desegregation. : 
+ -»- Among those expected to be calle 
wby the plaintiffs are Harvard Uni- 
rversity researchers Gary Orfield 
and Charles V." Willie, among the 
~nation’s leading proponents of the 
, benefits of desegregated schools. 
;.The list also includes Columbia Uni- 
+-versity Professor Robert L. Crain, 
author of a 1985 study outlining the 
vbenefits of Hartford's Project Con- 
rcern, a long-running program that 
~allows a small number of city chil- 
.dren to attend school in Hartford's 
r suburbs. Re : 

, ».. Wesley Horton, a lawyer for the 

tion. 

  

p-. The state will counter with wit 
such as Boston Universit; 

essor Christine Rossell,’ whos: 
tudies outline the advantages o 
oluntary desegregatioh; program: 
er court-ordered plans, and Davic 
rmor, a noted researcher who con 

ds desegregated schools have 
sdemonstrated. no significant effec 
ton the achievement of black chil: 
sdren. REL 
pe. The state’s efforts to block the 

     

   

      

  

   
    

     

    

     

Wo sides spent months ‘gathering 
ousands of pages of ‘documents in 
trial preparation... . 

.. Milo Sheff, now & student at Hart- 
Ford's Quirk Middle School, was in 
fourth grade at Annie Fisher School 
n 1989 when the suit bearing his 

shame was filed against state offi- 
tcials, including then-Gov. William A. 
»Q’Neill. : He 
p- “In my school now we mostly have 
tAfrican-American and Latino stu- 
dents,” the eighth-grader said at a 
spress conference’ Wednesday. 
s.'There are not a lot of Caucasians. 

er.” : 
we Lhe case focuses on Hartford but 
Ford establish a precedent for other 

ih need to learn more about each 

redominantly segregated school 
‘woystems, such as those in New Haven 

nd Bridgeport. 
“ms The trial is likely to draw national 
wattention because it charts new ter- 
itory in school desegregation. Un- 
wlike lawsuits filed in federal courts, 
(the Sheff lawsuit does not argue that 
‘Ptonscious policies by the state or by 
bgchool officials led to a segregated 

Paystem. It maintains only that the 
L&jtuation exists and is illegal under 

he state constitution. Most previous 
~ y8chool desegregation cases have al-' 

Fleged violations of the U.S. Constitu- 

~..The plaintiffs are expected to ar- | 
ue that state officials for more than 

ktwo decades have failed to correct 
Epatterns that have led to high con- 
scéntrations of racial minorities and 
R poor children in Hartford's public 

  
pschools. 

| p>. The concentration of poor chil- 
dren, children from one-parent fam- 
lies and children who do not speak 
Knglish places severe burdens on the 

chool system, making it unable to | 
rovide education comparable to 

kthat of schools in the suburbs, the 
Suit alleges. : 
.As evidence, the suit cites poor 
est scores, high dropout rates and a 
ow proportion of college-bound stu- 
ents. 

*- The state’s chief argumeit is that 
e segregation is not. intentional 
d, therefore, the state cannot be 

  

    

  

    

     

   

  

eld liable. = | gre HE 
~- In attempting to block the suit last 
year, Assistant Attorney General 
John R. Whelan said, “The court has 

» 10 power ... to order the executive 
w.and legislative branches to do any- 
mung unless the court first finds the 

mexecutive and ‘legislative branches 
A have done something unlawful.” 

  

    

 



» 

  

State to pay bonuses for joint schools 
By ROBERT A. FRAHM 

{ Courant Staff Writer 

State education officials, hoping 
to promote racial integration in 
schools, are drafting a plan that 
would pay bonuses to neighboring 
city and suburban school systems for 
building schools jointly. 

- Education Commissioner Vincent 
L. Ferrandino also said Thursday 
the state will study the idea of pay- 
ing transportation bonuses to school 

systems that cooperate on voluntary 
integration plans. y 
_Ferrandino, appointed commis- 

sioner in June, mentioned the ideas 
during a back-to-school press con- 
ference in Hartford. He said that a 
court case seeking to force Connecti- 
cut to desegregate city and suburban 
schools will not stall the state’s ef- 
fort to integrate schools voluntarily. 

During the press conference, Fer- 
randino welcomed nearly half a mil- 
lion students back to Connecticut’s 

public schools, and also discussed 
issues ranging from reschool edu- 
cation to the state’s long economic 
slump. : 

But his remarks on desegregation, 
. along with the appointment this. 
week of a top aide to focus on urban 
school policy, were further signals 
‘that his - administration plans to 
make city schools a priority. 

“We intend to continue to actively 

Please see State, Page D9 
— 

i g" 

das amen ate 

set up joint s hools 
by Ferrandino this week to head the 

state education department's new 

Office of Urban and Priority School 

Districts. 

Williams, who had been a desegre- 

gation consultant for the education 

department, said he also plans to 

encourage schools .to adopt volun- 

tary desegregation measures. 

“My efforts will be to continue to 

do those things we identified as the 

correct approach,” he said. 

Through state grants, several 

school systems have started jointly 

operated specialty schools, such as 3 

science and technology school that 

opened this week for students from 

East Hartford and Glastonbury, he 

said. = 

ett be te 

State to pay b onuses to systems that 
direction,” said Martha Stone of the 

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. 

Ferrandino mentioned the propos- 

als in response to an announcement 

this week that a trial date has been 

set in the desegregation case. The 

lawsuit, which was filed 3%2 years 

ago, will go to trial in Hartford Supe- 

rior Court Nov. 17. 

The plight of urban schools has 

been a familiar theme for Ferran- 

dino, who headed schools in the 

wealthy town of Weston before be- 

coming commissioner. Some critics 

questioned his lack of experience in 

urban schools, but he quickly 

pledged to make city schools a pri- 

ority. 
Much of that responsibility will 

fall on Elliott C. Williams, appointed 

schools. Ferrandino said the state 

might consider financial penalties 

for systems that reject joint con- 

struction projects in favor of build- 

ing schools separately. 

Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., who 

has warned that the state should not 

wait for the courts to order school 

desegregation, also has expressed 

interest in the idea of financial in- 

centives to promote school integra- 

tion. 
One of the lawyers for parents 

who are suing the state to force 

Hartford and its suburbs to desegre- 

gate praised the idea of financial 

incentives for building integrated 

schools. ; 

«I don’t think it would pre-empt 

the lawsuit, but it’s a step in the right 

Continued from Connecticut Page 

encourage local and regional school 

districts to develop new interdistrict 

initiatives that promote desegrega- 

tion and reverse conditions of racial 

and economic isolation in Connecti 

Suis system of public education,” he 

said. oF 

The suggested financial incentives 

to encourage joint construction and 

transportation among neighboring 

systems could be a werful tool in 

breaking a longstanding Connecticut 

tradition of operating separate — 

and often mostly 3epregaisd — city 

and suburban school systems. - 

‘Under current practice, the state 

reimburses school departments for 

part of the cost of building new   

  

   



  

MacKenzie [Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hardord, CT 06105 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
\TTORNEY GENERAL 

FAX (203) 523-5536 

  

Office of The Attorney General Tel: 566-7173 

State of Connecticut 

September 4, 1992 

Honorable Harry Hammer 
Judges' Chambers 
Superior Court 
P. O« BOX. 325 
Rockville, Connecticut 06066 

RE: Sheff v, O'Neill 
Cv89-0360977S 
  

Dear Judge Hammer: 

Enclosed please find a letter which we recently sent to the 
plaintiff's counsel outlining matters relating to the deposition 
schedule in the above-captioned case. We thought you should be 
aware of this matter in light of the date which has been set for 

    

    

    

trial, 

Very truly yours, 

RICH BLUMENTHAL 

ATT ny 
/, 

/ // 4 Ah / 7 3 y/- A 

a ‘ 
BY:/ John R. Whelan 
Ksfdistant Attorney General 

JRW: jm 
enc. 

cc: All Counsel of Record 

W/Enc. 

 



  

MacKenzie Hall 

110 Sherman Street 

Hardord. CT 06103 

RICHARD BLUMENTIIAL 
\TTORNEY GENERAL 

  

FAX (203) 523-5536 

Office of The Attorney General Tel: 566-7173 

State of Connecticut 

September 4, 1992 

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

Hartford, CP 06105 

RE: SHEFF v. O'NEILL/DEPOSITIONS   

Dear Phil: 

Due to the time constraints under which the defendants are 
now forced to operate, we must abandon our plans to take the 
depositions of the following individuals who have been listed by 
the plaintiffs as expert witnesses or witnesses with experience 
and background in education who are expected to testify regarding 
their background and experiences: 

Donald Carso 

Eddie Davis 
Richard Montanez Pietri 
Edna Negron 
Freddie Morris 

Joshia Haig 
Katherine Kennelly 
Alice Dixon 
Robert Nearine 

10. John Hubert 

11. Antres Buford 

12. Charles Senteio 

13. John Shea 

14. Jeffrey Foreman 
15. Adnelly Maricheal 
16. Gladys Hernandez 
17. Thomas O'Connor 
18. Brad Noel 

19. Diane Cloud 
20. Winzola Perry 

O
W
O
o
O
J
o
u
l
d
&
e
 

W
w
 

H+
 

LJ
 

Please advise the individuals whose depositions have been 
scheduled that their depositions are cancelled. 

The following list represents my understanding of the 
deposition schedule as it now stands along with the dates we have 
chosen for the depositions of the three new "outside" expert 

 



Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
September 4, 1992 
Page 2 

  

witnesses which the plaintiffs have recently identified and a 
date for continuation of the Trent and Allison depositions. 

September 3, 1992 9:30 p.m. Steahr (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 8, 1992 9:30 a.m. Calvert (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 9, 1992 9:30 a.m. Braddock (defendants' deposition) 

September 10, 1992 9:30 a.m. LaFontaine (defendants' deposition) 

September 11, 1992 9:30 a.m. Prowda (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 11, 1992 3:00 p.m. Breen (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 14, 1992 9:00 a.m. Ferree (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 14, 1992 12:00 p.m. Armor (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 15, 1992 9:30 a.m. Rossell (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 18, 1992 2:00 p.m. Tirozzi (plaintiffs' deposition) 

September 22, 1992 9:30 a.m. Natriello (defendants' deposition) 

September 24, 1992 9:30 a.m. Gordon (defendants' deposition) 

September 29, 1992 9:30 a.m. Orfield (defendants' deposition) 

September 30, 1992 9:30 a.m. Kennedy (defendants' deposition) 

October 1, 1992 2:00 p.m. Ferandino (plaintiffs' deposition) 

october 2, 1992 10:00 am Levine (plaintiffs; deposition) 

October 5, 1992 10:00 a.m. Walsh (defendants' depositon) 

October 7, 1992 9:30 a.m. Willie (defendants' deposition) 

October 8, 1992 10:00 a.m. Slavin (defendants' deposition) 

October 13, 1992 9:30 a.m. Morales (defendants' deposition) 

October 15, 1992 9:30 a.m. Allison (defendants'cont. deposition) 

October: 15, 1992 1:00 p.m. Trent (defendants' cont. deposition) 

October 20,1992 9:30 a.m. Sergi (plaintiffs' deposition) 

October 22, 1992 9:30 a.m. Behuniak (plaintiffs' deposition) 

October 22, 1992 1:00 p.m. Congero (plaintiffs' deposition) 

 



  

Philip Tegeler, Esq. 
September 4, 1992 

Page 3 

At your request, we are continuing our effort to identify a 

date for the depositions your wish to take of SBE members Mannix, 

Wright and Cuevas. Mr. Mannix has recently been released from 

the hospital so we are in a better position to choose a date. I 

have asked the department of education to work with these three 

individuals to identify a date or dates between October 15, 1992 

and October 31, 1992 on which all three depositions can be taken 

in two hour increments as previously scheduled. Since these 

individuals are not paid for their work on the Board and must 

attend to their own work we hope you will make every effort to 

accommodate the schedule we will be proposing. 

We will make a decision as to whether we wish to take Dr. 

Margolin's deposition on September 21st, as you have suggested, 

after we receive the description of his expected testimony from 

you. 

Very truly yours, 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORNEY ER oS ia 
+/ JO R. Whelan 

     
spistant Attorney General 

JRW: ac 
| / 

cc: Hon. Harry Hammer oe 

Mark Stapleton, Esq. 

 



% Johns Hopkins University » 

CDS 
Center for Research on Effective Schooling 

for Disadvantaged Students 
3505 North Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218-2498 

(410) 516-0370 / FAX (410) 516-6370 

  

  

September 4, 1992 

Philip Tegeler 
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
32 Grand St. 
Hartford, CT 06106 

Dear Mr. Tegeler: 

Enclosed is a copy of my vita and of a few articles that should help you understand my 
perspective. Included in the set are two, one on class size and one on “Realities and Remedies,” 
that may cause you distress -- both were found by the defense in Alabama (especially see p. 136 
of “Realities and Remedies”). I have changed my views somewhat on these points, but what I'd 
now say is that reducing class size does have significant but small effectin the early grades, and 
there is evidence that overall “macro” expenditures can make a difference. However, I’m much 
more comfortable showing that money can make a difference if spent on effective programs. I'm 
also comfortable supporting the effects of desegration. 

We did not discuss fees. For the Alabama case I charged the ACLU $1500 per day for 
work done outside of Baltimore, and $45 per hour for time spent in my office. I assume I'd do 
the same for Connecticut. 

I spoke with Adam Cohen yesterday afternoon, and will be meeting with him later this 
month. Please call on me if you need anything further at this point. 

Sincerel 

rs / 

  

   

   
Robert Slavin, Director 
Elementary School Program 

RS:cj 

Enclosures