Main Street; Interview with Wesley Horton

Right. We start having you say your name. I would identify you. Sure my name is Wesley Horton. I'm a partner in the law firm here of Morton shields and Knox and I am one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs and Scheffer says O'Neill. Let's begin with the Horton Mescal case. You're the Horten. No actually it's my son Barnaby. It's important but I you know I came up with the case. It gives me overview of that case that proceeded certainly. Well you have to go back the fact that I lived in Canton all my life. My father was chairman of the school board when I was growing up. And once I grew up and went to college and came back and inherited the family home I ran for the school board in 1071 and I was on the school board for six years in Canton from 1071 to 1977. And one of the first things I determined was that Canton was a fairly poor town in terms of property values at least at the

time. And yet. There wasn't much we could do about it because we had relatively high tax rates compared to the surrounding towns so they were able for example to steal our teachers by paying more. And even though they had lower tax rates they had more property to tax and therefore they were able to give their students a more equal educational opportunity than Canton was able to even though Canton was spending more money then or are raising more taxes and taxing the taxpayers more in Canton than the surrounding towns. So I felt that as a lawyer that we should do something about that legally and at that point there had been a decision from the California Supreme Court and in 1973 in the spring a decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court both very prestigious courts that had held that. You could make a equal protection and education clause argument based on inequities in

ability to raise money and it wasn't as though the state did anything about it because all they had at that point was a flat grant of two hundred fifty dollars per child. If you lived in granite you got $250 if you lived in Canton you had two hundred fifty dollars if you lived in Sterling. In eastern Connecticut you get two hundred fifty so the formula for state aid didn't do anything to rectify the problem. So at that point in 1073 I asked the school board to do something about it you know and brings a lawsuit but they didn't like to that idea. So I brought the case myself in the name of my son Barnaby who was then four years old hadn't even started school yet. And then we added when the state questioned whether he was too young to bring a lawsuit. I talked to the school board and they furnished two more students who were actually in school at the time and so we proceeded with the case the case went quickly through the judicial system and the trial was in the summer of 1974 before Judge Ruben now and he ruled in our

favor and declared the system in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the education clause of the Connecticut Constitution. No federal constitutional Constitution was involved because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled to the contrary. Under the can the United States Constitution. But under Connecticut law judge Ruben now said that everybody was entitled to an equal educational opportunity. And you were able to get it in Canton because of the way the tax structure was so show was another step away along that path toward you know extending it now toward academic equality. Would you agree. Absolutely. There's no question that the theory of chef. It is based to a large extent on the Syria of Horton vs. meth Horton had to come first in other words in order for chef to follow after it. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed a 41 decision in 1977. And then there were proceedings in the 1980s to get the state to comply with the mandate and

they did change the school finance system starting in 1909 to make the state aid to the town's based on need and based on their own effort. Now you are free these days you just presented to the court. Yes yes yes yes that's right. And that was all the force Jeff because Jeff wasn't blind until 1989. OK. Yeah yeah. But by the time Jeff was brought up I won't say the school finance problem was solved because it hasn't been solved today. But certainly the state has made considerable strides since 1973 when we brought the case and all they had was a $250 grant for everybody. So there were substantial changes in the way Orton did. Come about with bring about many changes that were very good in terms of financing local education without destroying local control which is one of the things the opponents said would happen. I mean schools are still basically in charge of the towns and the town school boards.

What do you see as the conditions that prompted a shift. Well there's no question that the conditions are prompted our racial isolation. I mean that was not an issue in Horton I mean Horton. My son and I are obviously white and we're from Canton and Canton is 97 percent white in terms of its school and general population. So that was not the issue there in Hartford. I mean the schools were 90 percent minority. When the case was brought another like 95 percent 96 percent minority. So it's gotten even worse and sick Ace was brought so it was strictly an equal protection case. You know concerned with race is the question. And then do you get to tell me again in arguing the shifting. Yes well there had already been preparations for bringing the chef case in the mid 80s. Professor John Britton Martha St. Philip Pegler from the Civil Liberties Union were involved in it before I was along with Elizabeth Sheff of course. And her son Milo and I

signed up a body a year before the case was actually brought and I was involved in decisions like for example what court do we go to because I was the one most familiar with the state court system most of the lawyers were more familiar with the federal courts but this was a case that belonged in the state courts after the Horten versus Mescal case was decided and it was seen that the test of tuition has teeth in it. And in fact the county Constitution has one thing that was not involved in sheff in Horton is not found in the United States Constitution but is relevant to sheff. And that's in the equal protection clause that connects us to Sion specifically prohibits both discrimination and segregation. So our argument was the Connecticut Supreme Court eventually accepted was that those terms were not redundant but they meant meant separate things. Discrimination was intentional. You know segregation was not intentional. Not necessarily intentional. It's just not good.

But I'm not sure I completely answer your question yes or I can if I sense it. OK all right. Now when the Connecticut Supreme Court handed down its decision there was no clear plan you know or timetables or no clear definition of who was accountable. Consequences for noncompliance. How did the plaintiffs How did you and the other attorneys and the plaintiffs respond. Well that was expected. You have to remember that Horton vs. Mescal went the same route the Connecticut Supreme Court said out of deference to other branches of government. We will initially just declare what's unconstitutional and then we will you know leave it up for a reasonable time for the other branches of government to fill in the blanks as to what exactly what's done. And that's exactly what happened in Horton. They declared the system unconstitutional and then the legislature came up with what's called a guaranteed tax base which the court did not

order them to do. They they figured that was the way to do it so it was perfectly expected that that would happen. And you know I certainly advised everybody of that. So that was no surprise. That was no surprise at all I mean we were. Let me put it this way. Everyone was very happy when we won because you have to remember that startles was very. Everyone was very happy and our team was very happy when we won the case at all. You have to remember that judge hammer the previous year had the trial judge had ruled against us. And my role was primarily as the appellate lawyer I was the one which means handling appeals. So I was the one who argued the appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. And at that time I was arguing an uphill battle because I was r r so I was a loser at that point I had to convince the Connecticut Supreme Court to reverse and in fact they did reverse but it was on a four to three vote so we were very pleased to have

gotten a declaratory judgment. Good now the state chose a voluntary approach to compliance with the mix. Each town would come up with a mix of voluntary programs and the plaintiffs have gone back to court several times saying that things are just moving too slowly. Can you talk. Certainly. Well first of all the voluntary. Obviously we have not proposed as you can tell over the past few years anything that's purely of a mandatory nature. It doesn't mean in the future we won't but up till now we you know we have gone along with voluntary approaches. And when we get to the settlement that was reached I can go into more detail but obviously that is really difficult trying not to touch this I'm sorry. Yeah I mean and that was really good but I'm going to start again because I'm hearing that ok sorry. OK so this is some of that. Yes the question yes the state has chosen a voluntary approach to comply with the ruling and the plaintiffs have gone back to court now

several times arguing that that things are slowly changing. Yes. First of all we have not disagreed with the state at this point about the voluntary nature of the response to the chefe decision. We all want to be practical. We want to come up with something that's going to work and not just scream and yell and make headlines. So we've have attempted to work with the state as much as possible to come up with voluntary things because it is certainly true that if you're not forced to do something perhaps if you do it it's because you want to do it and maybe you'll be more successful. So certainly we're trying to work on a voluntary approach. We in fact did nothing for the first couple of years. I mean we didn't go back to court at all after the 1996 decision until late in the millennium. And when we did go back the judge basically you've jumped the gun. Come back later and rather than appeal and complain about that.

We said all right and we waited and we did come back later. A couple of years ago and we had a hearing. And in 19 in 2002. And Annette went over in till 2003 I'm sorry no 2002 that's right I forgot what year it is in 2002. We we had a hearing before the judge and it seemed rather clear that we were not premature at this point in doing something so at the end of the hearing the judge herself came out in the courtroom and was talking to the lawyers on both sides and suggested before she ruled that maybe we should continue consider attempting to settle a case as a matter of fact. We met with Commissioner surgey for five people on his side four or five people on our side for like 10 sessions over the next six months all throughout one thousand and two. In an attempt to reach a settlement and in fact we did reach a settlement in January of

2003 which is all voluntary. You know all voluntary steps. You know the keystones of it are magnet schools which obviously is not forcing anybody to go there. The idea is hopefully the schools will be good enough that people from the suburbs will want to go to city schools. And in fact there's some evidence of certainly in the learning corridor that's exactly what's happening because people want to go there and that's good. If it works and the other one is the successor to project concern called Project Choice which is a voluntary program for children in Hartford to go to the suburban school so both of those the keystones of the settlement are voluntary and we've all agreed with that it's just Alright you've agreed to it now do it. It went to the legislature and the legislature did not disapprove it which is the legal test. When the state approves something and so at that point in March 2003 judge or Gemma who was a trial judge at that point approved the settlement

and now it's a question of implementing the agreement. OK two questions just just so I have my facts straight. How many times have you gone back to court after. After the settlement you know after after the initial ruling by us we've been twice. Twice we went once I believe it was one thousand ninety nine and the second time in the hearing was in 2002 and the second time did not. There was no ruling obviously because we were just so I can't talk for me. With me for a minute about what is a decision what is a de segregated school setting. In other words in looking for fair equitable or a lack of racial isolation. What does that mean in the school day. Does that mean all day being in school like in a magnet school setting where you have you know real good mix of racial ethnic and socio economic and diverse group of kids. Or

does that mean getting together once a year with kids suburban suburban programs. Can you talk a little bit about that. Certainly I will. First of all the supplement is temporary it's for a four year period and then we take a look see to see what should be done so it's not like it's a permanent plan because everyone agrees that we have to see how it's working and if it's not working. After four years and we go back to court in addition we can go back to court in less than four years if there hasn't been compliance. I can't talk about that right now because it's a sensitive time. But as far as a direct answer to your question in terms most of the compliance has to be based on full day programs. There is some wiggle room concerning part day programs in the agreement but mostly compliance has to be with a full day programs and the there actually is a definition and a percentage and it has to do with the hundred metropolitan area the towns

we're talking about. It's not precisely the metropolitan area but it's twenty three towns and in the Hartford area. And you have to be there's a particular percentage of the minorities in the whole area and it can vary from that by more than a certain percentage. But it's a very generous percentage. So I mean for example you can be 60 percent minority and be in compliance but you can't be 80 percent minority and be in compliance and on the others hand you know you can have a very low number of minorities in the minority in a in a suburban town and maybe in compliance I mean we but you've got to move. You can't be in a situation like it is in Hartford now where you're 95 96 97 percent minority that virtually nobody is in a segregated setting just since the last year. It's gone up 1 percent. In terms of the nobodies and and say Yeah I mean we've got good programs

started but they don't involve a lot of people a lot of students yet. Now hopefully they will. That's the idea. You know each of the. Most have two magnet schools a year for four years and each of them is supposed to have 600 students a year. That doesn't seem to be happening so far by me that's the theory. And in addition there's a certain number of students are supposed to be involved in projects top choice. It requires real leadership by the state that were a little disappointed about right at the moment. But in any event that's the theory. I mean right at this moment there are a lot of numbers to show for it but there are certainly some promising things in the learning corridors certainly among the most promising if you ever been there it's pretty impressive. One from New Haven where there's been very very active in two districts and the public school system and I think serves in some way as a model for what Harvard is trying to do right now. So it's interesting and I think it is. I come from a pretty optimistic viewpoint the fact

that we we feel same way. That's why we agreed that this was worth trying. It hasn't been tried. Litigation bases anywhere in the country such as you know as as being sort of the keystone of what you're doing. I mean it's done elsewhere but as far as the main component or one of the two main components it hasn't been done elsewhere and we're very excited that. But it needs leadership. Yes it needs its flow and it needs push push push. You Know You're Right now what about the idea of just like a larger school districts regional school districts is that then talk to what's been talked about but obviously it is you know to have the court order that is is a tall order. That's all I can say about that it now. Chef is built on the idea that reducing racial. And economic isolation will raise achievement and offer a fairer educational opportunity

for four schoolchildren in Hartford. But I think it's also fair to say that everyone minority white black Hispanic families are really looking for a focus on education to be on and that is equality. So how do how do you think about you know these two sort of critical goals you know reducing racial and economic isolation but at the same time raising achievement closing the gap. Obviously they go together I mean they have to go together. In fact you'll know that some of the plaintiffs are white from Harvard and white from the suburbs. And that's deliberate because the chef isn't just for minority kids it's for everybody because we all have to live in society together and we better start doing it when we're in high school or is going to or in grade school or it's going to be much harder to do it when you get out in real life. What I think is important for people to know that I think it's important for well first of all I think it's important for people to realize they should be

very proud that this is something we're doing in Connecticut under our own laws. This is a state constitutional issue. And I don't think most people even know we have a constitution or what it says or what it means for anybody practically. And here is a good example of education is quintessentially a state function and a local function obviously and we're doing something about it in Connecticut. Nobody is doing elsewhere. This is unique to Connecticut. What the case there's no case anywhere else in the country like it. That's the first thing they need to know. The second thing we need to know is it's all voluntary. Nobody's being forced to go anywhere or do anything. And the third thing I think people should know especially suburban parents is if they want to see one thing that is really working and they should be excited take a trip down Broad Street or Washington Street and take a look at the learning quarter and

say that's what we'd like to see everywhere. Good. And as you look sort of down. How are you feeling. What do you see. Well I'm as optimistic as you are I mean you have to be optimistic to be involved in something like this otherwise you discourage easily and you say oh the heck with it. Nothing's being accomplished. I'll go do something else. I mean when I got involved in this case it was like Horton I knew that it was going to be a long term proposition. You know we have to have students as plaintiffs. They've all graduated long graduated from the case. Milo himself is in his mid 20s now. But basically you're doing it for the next generation. And I look at it that way I'm in this for the long term. I'm excited about the future. I think it's just great that Connecticut has established itself in the forefront of this area. And we just have to keep the pressure on for the state to be the push push push in this

area. I think the fact that it's voluntary and magnet schools work elsewhere certainly New Haven is a good example of that. We should be able to do it in the Hartford area and so I'm very optimistic if we keep pushing that good things will happen. And that's basically I want to ask you one thing what about funding. How do we stand with funding. Well it's in the middle of the legislative session obviously we're a little discouraged about the governor's budget request but that's just a request. So you know we we were hoping that the governor's budget would have more money in it for magnet schools we're disappointed that doesn't have it but we were hopeful of the legislative leadership will see that it's key to the success of the of the settlement that the state agreed to last year and has the state overall you know put enough money to deal with. Well it's that they've got I don't want to have a categorical answer to that. I mean they're in the middle of the budget

discussions right now. And I just hope that they take those seriously into account and realize that it takes money to make this program work. OK.