Report at 1. Plaintiffs vitriolic argument, however, is based on unsubstantiated assertions thatthe Mayor is impeding implementation of the court-ordered reforms and that the agencyresponsible for implementing these reforms -- the CFSA -- is in “a state of fundamental chaos,”assertions directly contradicted by the Court Monitor’s recent findings. Motion at 2 & 6.Putting aside these inaccurate conclusions, plaintiffs’ argument is narrowly based on theDistrict’s recent submission of a motion asking this Court to approve a six-month plan for whichit was unable to get the approval of the Court Monitor (Monitor) by the date it was required to befiled. This is the unacceptable progress which, plaintiffs argue, now support a finding of contempt. Such a finding is unsupported and unwarranted. Plaintiffs’ motion is nothing morethan an expression of their disagreement with defendants’ recently submitted six-month plan;there are no facts contained therein that can support a finding of contempt against the District.
The District Of Columbia Has Met Or Exceeded The Requirements Of The Stipulated Order And Its Submission Of A Motion Seeking ThisCourt’s Approval Of A Six-Month Plan, As Recommended By TheConsultants Retained Pursuant To That Order, Does Not Support AFinding Of Contempt.A. Procedural Background.On July 24, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a finding of contempt. The District’sopposition to that motion was filed on September 5, 2008. The District will not repeat the factsand arguments made in its opposition, but does incorporate them here by reference. As notedabove, plaintiffs’ motion was resolved by the Stipulated Order. Therein, the plaintiffs reservedthe right to seek a finding of civil contempt based on the matters previously raised in theirmotion if acceptable progress is not made relative to the actions required in the Stipulated Order.Order at 1.2
Case 1:89-cv-01754-TFH Document 912 Filed 02/05/2009 Page 2 of 14