Fisher, et al v. Tucson Unified, et al

Filing 2050

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 2026 Report and Recommendation. Further ordered that approving the Special Masters recommendation to address the 2015-16 SMAR Objections in the SY 2016-17 annual reports. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 8/15/2017. (BAR)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8

Roy and Josie Fisher, et al.,

No. CV-74-00090-TUC-DCB

Plaintiffs

9
10

and

11

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,

12
13

v.

14

Tucson Unified School District, et al.,
Defendants,

15
16

and

17

Sidney L. Sutton, et al.,
Defendants-Intervenors,

18
19

Maria Mendoza, et al.,

20

No. CV-74-0204-TUC-DCB

Plaintiffs,

21

and

22

United States of America,

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

ORDER

v.
Tucson Unified School District, et al.
Defendants.

27
28

Special Master’s 2015-2016 Annual Report: Objections

1

On June 16, 2017, the Special Master filed the 2015-16 Annual Report (SMAR).

2

There has been a wave of objections. On August 11, 2017, the Special Master responded

3

and recommended that the Objections be taken up in the context of the 2016-17 annual

4

reports which are currently underway. The District’s 2016-17 Annual Report (AR) is due

5

on October 1, 2017, and the SMAR is due December 1, 2017. The Court adopts this

6

recommendation.

7

The annual reports for SY 2016-17 will for the first time include, for each

8

component of the Unitary Status Plan (USP), an analysis of the extent to which the

9

District has met the provisions of the USP. Because the USP, functioning as a Consent

10

Decree, is the litmus test for attaining unitary status, the District’s SY 2016-17 AR,

11

followed by the SMAR, will be the starting point for a comprehensive review of the USP

12

to determine which components, if any, have been fully and successfully implemented.

13

The Court intends for this review to result in roadmaps, including time-lines, for attaining

14

unitary status for any USP component which has not been fully and successfully

15

implemented.

16

The District should take care to review the concerns of the Plaintiffs and the

17

Special Master expressed this past year and other years, especially specific alleged

18

deficiencies which have been identified and especially where alternative remedies have

19

been suggested by the parties or Special Master or the subject of Court Orders. Plaintiffs

20

should take care in future critiques to support generalized objections about the level of

21

commitment held by either the District or the Special Master with specific and concrete

22

examples, including clear alternatives that were ignored or rejected by either.

23

Accordingly,

24

IT IS ORDERED that the Special Master’s 2015-16 SMAR (Doc. 2026) is

25

adopted by the Court.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////

-2-

1

IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

approving

the

Special

Master’s

2

recommendation to address the 2015-16 SMAR Objections in the SY 2016-17 annual

3

reports.

4

Dated this 15th day of August, 2017.

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-