Revised Answer to Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint

    | CV 89-0360977S 

| MILO SHEFF, ET AlL., : SUPERIOR COURT 

Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

| : HARTFORD /NEW BRITAIN 
iy. : AT HARTFORD 

| WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. 

Defendants : NOVEMBER 25, 1994 

REVISED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 
  

For their answer to plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended 

| complaint dated February 26, 1993 the defendants offer the 

| following: 

1. With respect to paragraph 1 the defendants have no 

| knowledge regarding the first sentence since this reflects the 

I intent ion of the plaintiffs. The remainder of the paragraph is 

| admitted only insofar as it alleges that there is a relatively 

' high concentration of children from poor families and black and 

| Latino students in Hartford public school as opposed to the 

public schools in most of the contiguous or adjacent school 
| 
! 

| districts. Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

  
 



  

2 With respect to paragraph 2 the defendants have no 

| knowledge regarding the first sentence since this reflects the 

| intention of the plaintiffs. The remainder of the paragraph is 

denied. 

3. With respect to paragraph 3 the defendants admit only 

| that Hartford students as a whole do not perform as well on the 

| state Mastery Test as do the students as a whole in some 

| surrounding communities and that poor and minority children have 

| the potential to become well-educated. Otherwise the paragraph 

| is denied. 

4. Paragraph 4 is admitted only insofar as it alleges that 

| the defendants have recognized that society benefits from racial, 

| ethnic, and economic integration and that racial, ethnic and 

| economic isolation may have some harmful effects, but the 

| paragraph is otherwise denied. 

54 Paragraph 5 is denied except insofar as it encompasses 
- 

| recognized principles of constitutional law. 

 



  

II. PARTIES 
  

A. PLAINTIFFS 

6-12. Paragraphs 6 through 12 are admitted. 

i3. Paragraph 13 has been withdrawn and requires no 

| answer. 

14-23. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are admitted. 

B. DEFENDANTS 

24. Paragraph 24 is admitted insofar as it alleges that 

William O’Neill or his successor is the Governor and insofar as 

lit correctly describes the legal responsibilities of the Governor 

| under the mentioned statutes, but is otherwise denied. 

1 
I 25. Paragraph 25 is admitted. 

| 26. Paragraph 26 is admitted insofar as it alleges that the 

| named individuals were, at one time, the members of the State 

| 
| Board of Education and insofar as it alleges that these 
i 

| 

| 

1 

  

 



  

individuals have been succeeded by others as members of the State 

‘Board of Education. The paragraph is also admitted insofar as it 

‘alleges that the State Board of Education as a whole has 

responsibilities as defined by law. 

27. Paragraph 27 is admitted insofar as it alleges that 

Gerald N. Tirozzi or his successor is the Commissioner of 

| Education and insofar as it correctly describes the legal 

responsibilities of the Commissioner under the mentioned 

statutes, but is otherwise denied. 

| 
28. Paragraph 28 is admitted insofar as it alleges that 

| Francisco L. Borges or his successor is the Treasurer and insofar 

is it correctly describes the legal responsibilities of the 

| Treasurer under the law, but is otherwise denied. 

| 29. Paragraph 29 is admitted insofar as it alleges that J. 
i 

| Edward Caldwell or his successor is the Comptroller and insofar 

las it correctly describes the legal responsibilities of the 

comptroller under the law, but is otherwise denied. 

1 
| 

 



  

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 
  

A. A SEPARATE EDUCATION 
  

30. Paragraph 30 is denied insofar as it alleges that 

|school districts in the state are “segregated by race and ethnic 

orion.” It is admitted only insofar as it alleges that some 

|sencol districts, including Hartford, serve higher percentages of 

|african American and Latino students than others, but is 

|otherwise denied. 

I 31. Defendants admit that in 1986 12.1% of the school 

| population was black and 8.5% was Hispanic. Since the defendants 

lare not aware of the sources of the other figures presented in 
i 

| 

|paragraph 31 or the methods used by the plaintiffs to develop 

|tnose figures the defendants lack sufficient knowledge or 

|information to form an opinion as to the truth of the other 

Inatters contained in this paragraph and leave plaintiffs to their 

|proot. The defendants note that the court has received into 
Re 

‘evidence the Minority Students and Staff Report for 1986-87 and 
1 
il 

{1 

i 

 



  

the defendants admit that the numbers contained in that report 

‘are accurate. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 119. 

32. Paragraph 32 is denied. 

33. Paragraph 33 is denied except that the figures for 

| total school population and percent minority for the towns which 

| are listed are admitted. 

34. Paragraph 34 is denied except that the number of staff 

|in the listed towns for the 1986-87 school year is admitted. 

| Furthermore the minority percentages are admitted, except for the 

| percentages given for West Hartford and Wethersfield. The 

| correct percentage for West Hartford is 1.8% and the correct 

I 
| percentage for Wethersfield is 1.9%. The defendants wish to note 

| that the Minority Student and Staff Report for 1986-87 has been 

| admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 119 and the 

| defendants admit that the numbers contained in that report are 

| 
| accurate. 

- 
| 

{| 
il 

{ 

H 
1 

i 
it 

 



  

B. AN UNEQUAL EDUCATION 
  

35. Paragraph 35 is denied except insofar as it alleges 

| that the Hartford schools serve a greater proportion of students 

| from backgrounds that put them “at risk” of lower educational 

achievement than the identified suburban towns and that, as a 

result, Hartford has a comparatively larger burden to bear in 
i! 

|addressing the needs of ”at risk” children. 

| 

36. Paragraph 36 is denied insofar as it alleges that 

| Hartford school children are being denied the right to equal 
( 

| educational opportunity. The paragraph is admitted insofar as it 

alleges that ”at risk” children have the capacity to learn and 

| insofar as it alleges that ”at risk” children may impose some 

| special challenges to whatever school system is responsible for 
i} 

i 

| providing these children with an education. Otherwise the 

| paragraph is denied. 

| 

| 37. Paragraph 37 is admitted insofar as it identifies some 

|indicia of ”at risk” students and insofar as the figures listed 

| 

 



  

lin this paragraph are consistent with the figures reported in 

‘Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 120. Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

38. Paragraph 38 is denied. 

39. Paragraph 30 is admitted only insofar as it alleges 

| that Hartford students as a whole do not perform as well on 

| measures of achievement like the State Mastery Test as do the 
| i 

students as a whole in some surrounding communities. Otherwise 
hi 

| the paragraph is denied. 

| 40. Paragraph 40 is admitted except insofar as it attempts 
1 

Ito characterize the purpose of the Mastery Test. The purposes of 

|the Mastery Test are accurately described in the Mastery Test 

| reports found in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308 and, to the extent 

| that the plaintiffs’ description of the Mastery Test differs, it 

ie denied. 

| 41. Paragraph 41 is admitted only insofar as it is 

consistent with the description of the levels of performance on 

  

 



    

the Mastery Test described in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 290-308. 

| otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

42. Paragraph 42 is admitted insofar as it alleges that 

|Hartfora students as a whole do not perform as well on the State 

| Mastery Test as do the students as a whole in some surrounding 

| communities. The particular performance levels of Hartford and 

| suburban children as alleged in this paragraph are admitted only 
tH 

| insofar as the figures appear in Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 297, 298 

| and 299. Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 
i 

1 
|] 
iH 
¥ 

43. Paragraph 43 is admitted insofar as the figures which 

| appear in this paragraph are identical to figures found in 

| Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 297, 298 and 299. Otherwise the paragraph 

| is denied. 
il 

I] 
i | 

I 44. Paragraph 44 is admitted insofar as the figures which 

| appear in this paragraph are identical to figures found in 

| Plaintiffs” Exhibits 297, 298 and 299. Otherwise the paragraph 

I 
| is denied. 

i 

i 

| 

1 
il 
1 | 
il 

Li 
1 

1 

i 

i 

| 
| 

{ 

i} 
{ 

i 

 



  

45. Paragraph 45 is denied insofar as it alleges that 

Hartford children are not receiving an education which satisfies 

the requirements of the constitution. The paragraph is admitted 

insofar as it alleges that the defendants are not satisfied with 

the performance of Hartford school children as a whole or of any 

| children who perform below the mastery level. 

| 46. Paragraph 46 is admitted only insofar as it alleges 

| that there are some differences between Hartford students taken 

|as a whole and students as a whole in some of the surrounding 

| communities in terms of the number who drop out before 

| graduation, the number who enter four year colleges and other 

| orograns of higher education, and the number of others who obtain 

| full time employment within nine months of graduation. Otherwise 

| the paragraph is denied. 

47. Paragraph 47 1s denied. 

48. The defendants lack the knowledge and information 

‘necessary to form a conclusion as to the truth of the allegations 

contained in paragraph 48 and leave plaintiffs to their proof, 

 



  

except insofar as the paragraph alleges or implies that the 

plaintiffs are being denied an equal educational opportunity, 

‘which is denied. 

49. Paragraph 49 is admitted insofar as it alleges that 

| improved integration of children by race, ethnicity and economic 

status is likely to have positive social benefits, and insofar as 

it alleges that such integration in the schools is not likely to 

have a negative effect on the students in those schools. 

| 

|Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

  

| 

| C. THE STATE’S LONG-STANDING KNOWLEDGE OF THESE INEQUITIES 

50. Paragraph 50 is admitted only insofar as it alleges 

that state officials have, for some time, been aware of a trend 

by which the percentage of Latino students in the Hartford Public 

|schools has been increasing while the percentage of white 

| students has been decreasing. Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

| 
1 
| 51. -Paragraph 51 is admitted insofar as it alleges the 

| existence of the 1965 United State Civil Rights Commission 
i 

il 
| 

-11- 

 



  

report. The document speaks for itself, therefore the defendants 

‘do not admit plaintiffs’ characterization of that document. The 

| last sentence of this paragraph is denied insofar as it suggests 

that the defendants failed to take any appropriate action to 

| address the concerns voiced in that report. 

52. Paragraph 52 is admitted insofar as it alleges that in 

11965 the Hartford Board of Education and the Hartford City 

| Council commissioned and received a report prepared by 
§ 

| consultants affiliated with the Harvard School of Education. The 
i 

| content of that report speaks for itself and the defendants do 

| not admit plaintiffs’ characterization of the contents of that 
Hi 

| report. 

H 

53. Paragraph 53 is admitted insofar as it alleges that the 
{| 11 

civil Rights Commission recommended legislation which was not 

| adopted. Any other implications of the paragraph are denied. 

54. Paragraph 54 is admitted insofar as it alleges that a 

| committee of Greater Hartford Superintendents prepared 

I -12- 

 



  

    

  

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4. Any other implications of the paragraph 

are denied. 

| 55. Paragraph 55 is admitted insofar as it alleges that the 

| Legislature did not adopt legislation in 1968 providing for the 

if creation of ”education parks.” Otherwise the defendants lack 

|sutficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the matter 

alleged and leave plaintiffs to their proof. 

56. Paragraph 56 is admitted insofar as it alleges that the 

| Legislature did not adopt legislation in 1968 which contained the 

|provisions described in the paragraph. 

57. The defendants admit that the number of children 

|participating in Project Concern has declined over time but deny 

| the accuracy of the specific numerical figures presented in 

| paragraph 57. The defendants also admit that the Superintendent 

lot Schools in Hartford called for an expansion of Project 

| concern. Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

58. Paragraph 58 is admitted. 

-13- 

 



  

59. 

60. 

6l. 

62. 

63. 

64. 

65. 

66. 

| socioeconomic, 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

Paragraph 

| including Hartford, 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

is 

is 

is 

is 

is 

is 

is 

is 

| defendants have announced 

land incremental” approach 

racial and 

denied. 

admitted. 

admitted. 

admitted. 

admitted. 

admitted. 

admitted. 

admitted insofar as it alleges that the 

that they intend to pursue a “voluntary 

toward the problem of de facto 

ethnic isolation in urban schools, 

in accordance with the mentioned report. 

| Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

66a. ‘Paragraph 66a is denied. 

-14- 

 



  

66b. Paragraph 66b is admitted only insofar as it alleges 

‘that the 1993 General Assembly passed a public act known as P.A. 

93-263; all other allegations contained therein are denied. 

E. THE STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION 
  

67. Paragraph 67 is admitted insofar as it accurately 

| describes the role of the state in education under the law, but 

|is otherwise denied. 

68. Paragraph 68 is admitted only insofar as it alleges 

that the defendants must carry out their respective 

responsibilities in accordance with the State Constitution. 

|Otherwise the paragraph is denied. 

  
I 69. Insofar as the plaintiffs claim, in paragraph 60, that 

| the defendants have the power “to provide the relief to which 

Ipidintiers are entitled”, the defendants lack sufficient 

| xnowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this 

| matter because the plaintiffs have failed to identify the 

| specific remedial action they are seeking. To the extent that 

-15- 

 



  

‘the plaintiffs are seeking orders which require that the 

‘defendants redraw school district lines, disassociating the 

‘school districts from the individual municipalities they serve, 

| or which would require the defendants to force children to attend 

school in districts other than the district in which their 

| parents live, vote and pay taxes, these defendants have no such 

| powers. The remainder of the paragraph is admitted insofar as it 

|correctly describes provisions of the law, but is otherwise 

denied. 
(1 

| 70. Paragraph 70 is denied. Specifically defendants deny 

i 
the implication that appropriate steps have not been taken to 

| address the various problems identified in the paragraph in 

I 
accordance with the Constitution and laws of this state. 

| 71. Paragraph 71 has been withdrawn and requires no answer. 

72. Paragraph 72 is denied. 

  
-16- 

 



  

IV. LEGAL CLAIMS   

FIRST COUNT 
  

73. Defendants’ responses to Paragraphs 1 through 34 are 

| incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 73. 

74. Paragraph 74 is admitted 

|that state mandated segregation of 

minority and non-minority students 

protection provisions of the State 

| The paragraph is denied insofar as 

only insofar as it alleges 

educational systems for 

would violate the equal 

and Federal Constitutions. 

it alleges that educational 

| systems are inherently unequal when a de facto concentration of 

minority and/or non-minority students exists and it is denied 

| insofar as it implies that the defendants have created segregated 

| educational systems for minority and non-minority students. 

75. Paragraph 75 is denied. 

-17- 

 



  

  

SECOND COUNT 
  

76. Defendants’ responses to Paragraphs 1 through 72 are 

| incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 76. 

77. Paragraph 77 is denied in that the defendants do not 

maintain separate educational systems for minority and 

non-nminority students. The paragraph is also denied insofar as it 

|a11eges that the defendants have provided the plaintiffs with 

unequal educational opportunity within the meaning of the law. 

I 78. Paragraph 78 is denied. 

THIRD COUNT 
  

| 79. Defendants’ responses to Paragraphs 1 through 72 are 

| incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 79. 

80. Paragraph 80 is denied. 

-18- 

 



  

FOURTH COUNT 
  

81. Defendants’ responses to Paragraph 1 through 72 are 

| incorporated herein by reference in response to Paragraph 81. 

I 82. Paragraph 82 is denied. 

RELIEF 

| With regard to plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, the defendants 
I 

| deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any of the forms of relief 

| which they are seeking. 

il 
{1 

IR 
| 

| SPECIAL DEFENSES 
  

FIRST SPECIAL DEFENSE 

I 83. The court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because 
H 

| the action is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity in 

| that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the 
[| 

{| 

| constitution has been violated and this suit is not otherwise 
11 
i 

| authorized by law. 
I 
1 

i 

-19- 

 



  

SECOND SPECIAL DEFENSE 

| 84. By operation of the doctrine of stare decisis any claim 

|being made by the plaintiffs that the defendants have failed to 

finance the Hartford school system in a manner which is 

|consistent with the Constitution (see, especially, Complaint ¢ 
i 
i 

{72) is foreclosed. See Horton v. Megkill, (Horton JIJ), 195 Conn. 
  

124 (1985). 

THIRD SPECIAL DEFENSE 

85. All or part of the matters raised by the plaintiffs in 

[eneir Complaint are matters which rest exclusively within the 

|province of the General Assembly by operation of Article Eighth, 

|section 1 of the Constitution. By reason of the doctrine of 

separation of powers the Court has no jurisdiction to decide upon   
lor make orders with regard to these matters. 

FOURTH SPECIAL DEFENSE 

86. To the extent that the plaintiffs are asking the Court 
| 
to impose affirmative obligations on the defendants which would 

{Hl 

Hl 
| 

H 
i! 

i 

-20- 

 



require legislative action to carry out, the Court lacks the 

‘authority to grant the relief requested because to do so would 

violate the principles of separation of powers. 

| FIFTH SPECIAL DEFENSE 

87. To the extent the plaintiffs complain about matters 

which are committed by law to the discretion of the City of 

‘Hartford or the Hartford Board of Education or any of the 

| suburban cities, towns, or school boards, the court does not have 

|jurisdiction over the matter because of the plaintiffs’ failure 

'|to join necessary parties. 

I 

SIXTH SPECIAL DEFENSE 

88. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable cause 

‘of action in that they have not proven that state action is a 

direct and sufficient cause of the conditions about which they 

are complaining. 

 



  

SEVENTH SPECIAL DEFENSE 

89. Plaintiffs have failed to establish a cognizable cause 

‘of action because the state has taken reasonable and appropriate 

|steps to address the educational problems identified in 

plaintiffs’ complaint and the court may order nothing further. 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  
By: 
  

Bernard F,//McGovern, Jr. - 085230 
Assistant//Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
| Tel. 566-7173 

| 2 | fh J a AZZ 
I “MArth& M. Watts”= Juris 40617 
| Assistant Attorney General 
I 110 Sherman Street 
1 . Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
1 Tel. 566-7173 

-22=- 

 



  

CERTIFICATION 
  

This is to certify that on this 25th day of November, 1994 a 

| copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following counsel of 

‘record: 

'|John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
| School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 
165 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
|Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, Cr 06112 
i 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
|Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 
|| Connecticut Civil Fineberg, P.C. 
| Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
|32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06105 
|Hartford, CT 06105 

| sandra Del Valle, Esq. Julius L. Chambers 
| Ruben Franco, Esq. Marianne Engleman Lado, Esq. 
|Jenny Rivera, Esq. Ronald Ellis, Esq. 
'|Puerto Rican Legal Defense NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
land Education Fund Education Fund, Inc. 
1199 Hudson Street 99 Hudson Street 
|14th Floor New York, NY 10013 
|New York, NY 10013 

||John A. Powell, Esq. 
|Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
|Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
|American Civil Liberties Union 
11132 West 43rd Street 
|New York, NY 10036 

4 

  A 

| Beynard/F. McGovern, Jr. 
Assistght Attorney General 

il 

-23=-