US v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF CHICAGO

• Decision Date: 30 June 1983
• Docket Number: No. 80 C 5124.,80 C 5124.
• Citation: US v. BD. OF EDUC. OF CITY OF CHICAGO, 567 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Ill. 1983)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

567 F. Supp. 272

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant.

No. 80 C 5124.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

June 30, 1983.

William Bradford Reynolds, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alexander C. Ross, Civil Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Dan K. Webb, U.S. Atty., Margaret C. Gordon, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Robert C. Howard, Robert M. Weissbourd, Hartunian, Futterman & Howard, Chtd., C. Richard Johnson, Reynaldo Glover, Hugh R. McCombs, Jr., Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

SHADUR, District Judge.

This Court has conducted hearings on June 1, 7, 8, 22 and 27, 1983 on a petition filed by the Board of Education of the City of Chicago("Board").It has considered the testimony and exhibits submitted at those hearings, designations from the deposition testimony of Monika Edwards Harrison and Jack Simms, affidavits of those two deponents and of Carol Cichowski and J. Maxey Bacchus("Bacchus"), stipulations of the parties and the United States' answers to the Board's First and Second Set of Interrogatories and First Request To Admit.

Findings of Fact ("Findings")

Based on all the evidence this Court determines pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule")52(a) that each of the following Findings is supported by a preponderance of all the evidence now before it:¹

1.This is a proceeding to enforce compliance with a Consent Decree between the United States of America and Board, the terms of which were embodied in this Court's September 24, 1980 Order.Specifically, it is to determine the nature and extent of the United States' obligations undertaken by the inclusion of Consent Decree I§ 15.1("Section 15.1," App.A).

2.Since September 24, 1980 Board has made good faith efforts to implement fully the Comprehensive Student Assignment Plan and the Educational Components of the Chicago desegregation plan (collectively "the Plan").Stip.

3.Since September 24, 1980 Board has made every good faith effort to find and provide every available form of financial resources adequate to pay the cost of full implementation of the Plan.Bacchus Testimony

4.Since September 24, 1980 Board has expended approximately $120 million in its efforts to implement fully the various elements and components of the Plan.Stip.

5.In school year 1982-83² Board has expended or will expend approximately $57.9 million to implement the Plan.Stip.

6.For school year 1983-84 Board has budgeted $66.9 million for implementation of the Plan.Stip.

7.Board presently projects a budget deficit of approximately $200 million for its 1983-84 fiscal year.Stip.

8.During school year 1980-81, specifically on September 28, 1980, Board received a Title IV planning grant in the amount of $422,800.Stip.

9.During school year 1980-81, specifically on June 15, 1981, Board received a Title IV grant in the amount of $298,639.Stip.

10.During school year 1981-82, specifically on September 22, 1981, Board received an out-of-cycle Emergency School Aid Act ("ESAA") grant in the amount of $1,813,025, in response to an application that requested $23,138,977.All the reasons for the difference in funding are not before this Court.Stip.

11.All the amounts of funding referred to in Findings 8-10 were received directly from the United States through the Department of Education or its predecessor agency, the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and were available to Board for implementation of the Plan.Stip.

12.During school year 1982-83 Board received a block grant pursuant to the Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 ("ECIA") in the amount of $5.385 million, of which $1.8 million was allocated by Board for implementation of the Plan.Board used the remainder of the block grant to fund other educational programming allowable under ECIA, which would not have been funded absent the allocation of block grant money.Bacchus Testimony

13.Board received approximately $674,432 of desegregation-related assistance under Title VII for school year 1981-82 and approximately $528,267 for school year 1982-83. Stip.

14.Beginning in federal fiscal year 1981,³ and for federal fiscal years 1982 and 1983, it has been a priority and a policy objective of the Executive Branch of the United States and the Department of Education to dismantle the Department of Education and turn most of its functions over to state educational agencies.Stip.

15.Since federal fiscal year 1981 it has been the policy of the Department of Education not to provide desegregation assistance to local educational agencies through direct grants to local educational agencies of funds appropriated by Congress under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964("Title IV").HarrisonDep. 35-36;SimsDep. 11-14;Bd. Ex. 16

16.After federal fiscal year 1981 the Executive Branch of the United States and the Department of Education sought repeal of all categorical programs under which the United States could provide direct grants to local educational agencies for desegregation assistance and replacement of those programs, along with all categorical programs under which the United States provided other assistance to local educational agencies, with a block grant of federal funds.Such block grants are allocated to local educational agencies by the states and can be used for the various purposes set forth in ECIA, including the purposes of the former ESAA programs.Title IV remains as a categorical program, as is more fully explained in other Findings.Stip.

17.Since federal fiscal year 1981 it has been the policy of the Department of Education and the Executive Branch of the United States to reduce the total amount of funds provided by the United States to the states for the various purposes set forth in ECIA.Request To AdmitNos. 25, 26.

18.Since federal fiscal year 1981 it has been the policy of the Department of Education and the Executive Branch of the United States not to seek any legislation or appropriation other than through ECIA that would provide direct financial assistance for desegregation to local educational agencies implementing desegregation plans, and specifically to Board.HarrisonDep. 105-06;Bd. Ex. 16

19.All the United States' policy decisions not to provide direct grants to local educational agencies pursuant to Title IV, to provide funding to the states only through block grants, to reduce federal funding to the states for any of the purposes listed in the block grant legislation, and not to seek legislation or appropriations that would directly provide financial desegregation assistance to Board, were determined by the general priority and objective of dismantling the Department of Education and turning most of its functions over to state governmental agencies.Stip.

20.Since fiscal year 1981 it has been the policy of the Department of Education to use funds in the Secretary's Discretionary Fund only for the programs required by 20 U.S.C. § 3851(b) or to support projects for research, demonstrations, training, dissemination or other activities that address some national education emphasis, as determined by the Secretary, not including the funding of specific desegregation plans.HarrisonDep. 124;Request To Admit 27;Bd. Ex. 25

21.In fiscal year 1981 and in each of the succeeding fiscal years it was, and still is, the position of the Department of Education that it could not and would not approve state educational agency criteria for allocation of block grant funds that were based in part on the amounts local agencies within the state received or could have received under ESAA because such criteria would not adequately reflect "a higher than average cost per child."HarrisonDep. 133-35;HarrisonDep. Ex. 26, 27

22.In its development of the policies and in taking its actions described in Findings 14-21, the United States did not give any consideration to its obligations under the Consent Decree in general and under Section 15.1 in particular.HarrisonDep. 41

23.Before October1, 1982 ESAA was the primary means for the United States to provide direct desegregation assistance to local educational agencies.Stip.

24.In furtherance of the policies and priorities described in Findings 14-21, the Executive Branch of the United States and the Department of Education have:

(a) requested a significant reduction in ESAA funding from Congress for fiscal 1981; Stip.

(b) requested no ESAA funding from Congress for fiscal 1982; Request To Admit 11

(c) sought and supported in Congress the repeal of ESAA, which became effective October 1, 1982; Request To Admit 6

(d) supported the passage by Congress of the ECIA block grant legislation(as described in Finding 15), which became effective October 1, 1981; Stip.

(e) requested from Congress for fiscal 1982 an appropriation of ECIA block grant funding in the amount of $487,525,000, which was (1) $103,843,000 less than Congress had authorized and (2) $50,852,828 less than the amount appropriated by Congress in fiscal 1981 for the categorical grant programs, including ESAA, which the ECIA block grant funding was intended to replace; Request To Admit 25

(f) requested from Congress for fiscal 1983 an appropriation of ECIA block grant funding in the amount of $406,080,000, which was (1) $183,288,000 less than Congress had authorized and (2) $130,297,828 less than the amount appropriated by Congress in fiscal 1981 for the categorical programs, including ESAA, which ECIA block grant funding was intended to replace; Request To Admit 26

(g) continued a similar request policy for fiscal 1984; Stip.

(h) done nothing to ensure that, in fiscal 1982 and 1983, any portion of the ECIA block grant for Illinois was used to support a purpose related to school desegregation;HarrisonDep. 120

(i) opposed congressional efforts to reenact ESAA; Stip.

(j)

...