Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_74-cv-00090/USCOURTS-azd-4_74-cv-00090-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Roy and Josie Fisher, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

United States of America,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

Anita Lohr, et al.,

Defendants,

and

Sidney L. Sutton, et al.,

Defendants-Intervenors,

CV 74-90 TUC DCB

(Lead Case)

Maria Mendoza, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

United States of America,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

Tucson Unified School District No. One, et al.,

Defendants.

CV 74-204 TUC DCB

(Consolidated Case)

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

NOTICE OF FILING BY SPECIAL MASTER OF REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO DIETZ NARA

The Special Master hereby respectfully submits the attached Report and 

Recommendations relating to the Dietz NARA and recommends Court approval of the District’s 

proposal.

On May 9, 2015 TUSD submitted a proposal to the Court to approve the location of two 

portable classroom buildings on the Dietz K-8 campus to be used beginning in August 2015 (see

Exhibit A). Both the Fisher and the Mendoza Plaintiffs oppose the District’s Dietz proposal. The 

Department of Justice has no objection. For the reasons set forth herein, including the undisputed 

fact that the introduction of portables at Dietz will have no effect on the racial composition of the 

school or of any other school, the Special Master recommends that the Court approve the 

District’s proposal.

Procedural History

On April 14, 2015, the District administration submitted to the Governing Board a 

proposal for locating portable buildings on the Dietz campus, and the Board then approved the 

proposal. On May 1, the District submitted this proposal to the Plaintiffs and the Special Master 

along with the required Desegregation Impact Analysis and requested approval in order to avoid 

burdening the Court with a contested Notice and Request for Approval (NARA) (Exhibit B). On 

May 15, the Mendoza Plaintiffs expressed their objections (Exhibit C) as did the Fisher Plaintiffs 

expressed their objections (Exhibit D). Also on May 15, the Department of Justice indicated that 

it had no objection to the District’s proposal (Exhibit E).

On May 17, the Special Master sent a memo to the parties indicating what his response to 

the proposal and the objections would be if he were to submit a Report and Recommendation to 

the Court on this matter (Exhibit F). The Special Master asked the Fisher and Mendoza Plaintiffs 

to examine his conclusions and decide whether they wished him to proceed with an R&R. 

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 8
CROWELL

& MORING LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- ; CASE NO.

Neither set of Plaintiff responded. On May 22, the District submitted the NARA to the Court 

(Exhibit G).

Analysis of Objections

Fisher Objections

The Fisher Plaintiffs raise four objections to placing portables at Dietz. The Special 

Master’s response to each of these objections is as follow: 

1. The Fisher Plaintiffs claim that the District’s assertion that the student population 

will increase at Dietz is incorrect. In fact, the District makes no such assertion. 

Rather, it asserts that the population at Dietz has already increased beyond 

predictions and explains why this occurred. This increase in the student 

population, and in particular among students with special needs, is one of the 

justifications for the proposed portables.

2. The Fisher Plaintiffs argue that the court order relating to school closures February 

2013, which limited the use of portables in receiving schools, applies to the Dietz 

portables. However, no students from closed schools still attend Dietz, and no 

student will be learning in Dietz portables for any extended period of time during 

the school day (see Exhibit A, p.5, Section 3a).

3. The Fisher Plaintiffs claim that the land mass at Dietz is inadequate to support 

portables and link this claim to an assertion that middle school students at Dietz 

are receiving an inferior education. No evidence is provided to support this claim 

(although Dietz is a C school) or to suggest that the introduction of portables 

would make things worse. One of the reasons given for adding the portables is to 

increase student access to a broader curriculum and to provide enrichment 

activities intended to increase student performance. 

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 8
CROWELL

& MORING LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4- ; CASE NO.

4. The Fisher Plaintiffs argue that inadequate attention was given to the District-wide 

impact of placing portables at Dietz. A related argument is made by the Mendoza 

plaintiffs and is addressed below. The educational opportunities that will be 

offered or facilitated by the addition of the portables at Dietz do not appear to be 

unique – similar programs are available at a number of other schools.

Mendoza Objections

A primary concern of the Mendoza Plaintiffs is that the introduction of CORE enrichment 

courses that will be offered in the portables should be offered throughout the District and, in 

particular, should be available in West Side schools. This concern was based, at least to some 

extent, on misinformation initially provided by the District. In the NARA submitted to the Court, 

the District corrects earlier information and indicates that the program at issue, which seeks to 

facilitate the transition of students from self-contained classrooms to classrooms that focus on 

particular subjects, exists at five West Side K-8 schools, one Central school, and one school on 

the East Side. This does not suggest that students in West Side schools are disadvantaged 

because some do not offer this program. Moreover, it is not clear that the program makes a 

substantial difference in student outcomes.

That there is variation in educational offerings across the District is not, in itself, evidence 

of discrimination or inequitable distribution of resources. Most school districts struggle with 

finding a balance between the need for common programs districtwide, especially with respect to 

core academic curricula, and the desirability of allowing for variation that is responsive to:

 differences in student needs

 the availability of community resources that support different opportunities

 unique capabilities of faculty

 traditions

 physical space and facilities

 experimenting with new ideas that might have district-wide usefulness.

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 8
CROWELL

& MORING LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-5- ; CASE NO.

Finding the right balance requires analyses that determine that the variation among schools does 

not result in differences in educational opportunities and outcomes by race, ethnicity and 

language facility. There is no reason to believe that the introduction of portables at Dietz would 

have invidious consequences for Latino or African-American students elsewhere in the District. 

And, 65% of the students at Dietz are Latino or African-American.

The Mendoza Plaintiffs also expressed concern that placing services that address the 

needs of special education students in portables might stigmatize the students or provide them 

with inadequate facilities. The District’s counter-argument is that student privacy will be 

enhanced as will space for developing Individual Educational Programs (IEPs) required by law, 

teacher planning and family conferences, and this contention seems reasonable. The District also 

points out that many students who are not special-education students will be using the portables. 

Moreover, most of the instruction that special education students experience will be in regular 

classrooms. In short, stigmatization is unlikely, and portables should allow for meeting the needs 

of special education students more appropriately.

Recommendation

The Special Master recommends that the Court approve the District’s request to install 

two portables, each of which has two classroom sized spaces, at the Dietz K-8 School.

Comment on the Need to improve the Consultation Process

That this relatively minor matter – the installation of two portable classroom facilities that 

will have no effect on integration – made its way to the Court and consumed many hours of time 

by all the parties and the Special Master with the attendant costs is bleak testimony to the 

continuing absence of trust and goodwill among the parties and the failure to develop a viable 

process for approving actions by the District that are subject to the provisions of the USP.

On this matter and others, the Plaintiffs object to the District taking action without adequate prior 

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 5 of 8
CROWELL

& MORING LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6- ; CASE NO.

consultation. The District appears to believe that it must fully develop proposals (see Exhibit G, 

p.4, lines 7-10) before consultation and that it is often desirable to get approval of the Governing 

Board for such consultation, as is the case in the Dietz issue. And in some cases, the District 

engages in what can only be seen as preliminary implementation, as in the matter of the 

Fructhendler/Sabino restructuring that was recently before the Court.

It seems likely that the District considers consultation with the Plaintiffs and the Special 

Master a burden, one that impedes its responsibility to get on with the complex task of meeting 

the needs of its students. The District identifies what it believes to be good ideas and wants, 

understandably, to implement them expeditiously. 

Even though the USP does not require consultation prior to the District’s submission of a 

proposal to the Governing Board, such submissions suggests that the District does not see 

consultation as productive in shaping its proposals and further does not believe that the Board 

should be considering the positions of the Plaintiffs or the Special Master when it makes its 

decisions. When the District moves forward in developing a proposal without consultation, not 

only does it deny itself the benefit of input from the Plaintiffs and the Special Master, but it 

engages staff in the development of proposals in which they become invested, thus making

acceptance of “external” input more difficult. When such matters go to the Board for action and 

approval is given, this signals to the community that something is about to be done and puts the 

Plaintiffs and the Special Master in a position of undermining public confidence in the District 

and/or in the USP.

The Court is not unaware of this problem and has consistently urged the parties and the 

Special Master to work collaboratively. From time to time, the parties pledge to work together 

more constructively and do so. But, this commitment is not consistently applied, and each time it 

is not, the situation can be perceived by the Plaintiffs as a lack of goodwill on the part of the 

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 6 of 8
CROWELL

& MORING LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-7- ; CASE NO.

District. 

On the face of it, the solution seems relatively simple. When a significant proposal for 

new or revised District-wide policies and practices that would fall under provisions for comment 

and review provided for in the USP is being seriously considered by the District, the District 

should share these ideas with the Plaintiffs and ask for a one week turnaround for comments. If 

this feedback suggests that conflict might occur, a telephone conference should be scheduled and 

the matter discussed. A proposal could then be formalized and the procedures outlined in the 

USP followed. Arguably, the USP provides for relatively extensive periods of comment and the 

parties should discuss whether specific timelines should be shortened. The District should not 

take an action item to the Board about which there is continuing consultation although it surely 

should inform the Board of issues about which it would need to make a decision during study 

sessions. At the study sessions, the District should provide the Board with information about the 

dispositions of the Plaintiffs and the Special Master. Policies would not be enacted by the Board 

before Court approval in those instances in which the Plaintiffs have requested that a Report and 

Recommendation be made to the Court by the Special Master. 

The Special Master urges the Court to require the parties to, once again, develop a viable 

procedure for addressing the comment and review provisions of the USP and to make a report to 

the Court about the results of this effort.

Respectfully submitted,

________/s/_____________

Willis D. Hawley

Special Master

Dated: May 27, 2014

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 7 of 8
CROWELL

& MORING LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-8- ; CASE NO.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on, May 27, 2014, I electronically submitted the foregoing NOTICE OF 

FILING BY SPECIAL MASTER OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RELATING TO DIETZ NARA for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 

following CM/ECF registrants:

J. William Brammer, Jr. 

wbrammer@rllaz.com

Oscar S. Lizardi 

olizardi@rllaz.com

Michael J. Rusing 

mrusing@rllaz.com

Patricia V. Waterkotte

pvictory@rllaz.com

Rubin Salter, Jr.

rsjr@aol.com

Kristian H. Salter

kristian.salter@azbar.org

Zoe Savitsky

Zoe.savitsky@usdoj.gov

Anurima Bhargava

Anurima.bhargava@usdoj.gov

Lois D. Thompson

lthompson@proskauer.com

Andrew H. Marks for 

Dr. Willis D. Hawley, 

Special Master

Case 4:74-cv-00090-DCB Document 1805 Filed 05/27/15 Page 8 of 8