You are on page 1of 46

~S 44

(Rev. 12107)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neitherreplace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is reqUired for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose ofmitiating tile civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Student Does 1 through 9 and Parent/Guardian Does 1 through 10
I. (a)
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Student Does 1 through 9 and Parent/Guardian Does 1 through 10
The School District of Lower Merion, 301 E. Montgomery Ave,
Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003
0
(b)
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Montgomery
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Montgomery
(EXCEPT IN u.s. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(IN u.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED.
(c)
AttorneY'S (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (IfKnown)
David G. C. Arnold, Esquire, Suite 109, Royal Plaza, 915
Mont ome
Avenue, Narberth, Penns Ivania 19072 "'64 S'6Z­
II.
BASIS OF JURISDICTION
(Place an "X" in One Box Only)
III.
CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
 

(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF

 

and One Box for Defendant)

 

LJI

U.S. Government

l!!I 3

Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

DEF

 

PTF

DEF

Plaintiff

Citizen of This State

LJ

I

LJ

I

Incorporated or Principal Place of Business In This State

LJ

4

LJ

4

o 2

U.S. Government

LJ

4

Diversity

Citizen

of Anofuer SIllIe

LJ

2

LJ

2

Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

 

LJ

5

Defendant

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

   
 

Citizen

or Subject of a Coon

LJ

3

LJ

3

Foreign Nation

LJ6

LJ6

Forei

 

IV NATURE OF SUIT

(Place an "X"in One Box Onlyl

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"in One Box Onlyl LJ \10 Insurance 1 2 0
IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"in One Box Onlyl LJ \10 Insurance 1 2 0
IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"in One Box Onlyl LJ \10 Insurance 1 2 0

LJ

\10 Insurance 120 Marine

 

PERSONALINJURV

 

PERSONAL INJURV

o 610 Agriculture LJ 620 Other Food & Drug LJ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 LJ 630 Liquor Laws LJ 640 R.R. & Truck LJ 650 Airline Regs. LJ 660 Occupational SafetylHealfu LJ 690 Other

LJ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Wifudrawal 28 USC 157

 

LJ

400 SIllIe Reapportionment

LJ

 

LJ

310

Airplane

0

362 PersonallnjlllY­

 

0

410 Antitrust

o

130 Miller Act

0

3I5 Airplane Product

 

Med. Malpractice 365 PersonallnjlllY Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injwy Product Liability PERSONALPROPERTV

LJ

LJ

LJ

430 Banks and Banking

LJ

140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability 320 Assanl!, Libel &

 

LJ

450 Commerce 460 Depor1ation

LJ

150

Recovery of Overpayment LJ

 

"

LJ

& EnforcementofJudgment 151 Medicare Act

 

Slander 330 Federal Employers'

LJ 820 Copyrights LJ 830 Patent LJ 840Trademark

 

0

470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit

LJ

LJ

o

152

Recovery

of Defaulted

Liability 340 Marine

 

LJ

 

Student Loans

LJ

 

0

490 Cable/Sat TV 8 I0 Selective Service 850 Securities!Commodities! Exchange 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC3410 890 Other Smtutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts

(Exc!' Veterans) LJ

345

Matine Product

 

0

370

Other Fraud Trufu in Lending

 

LJ

LJ

153

Recovery of Overpayment Liability

 

LJ

371

 

LJ

of Veteran's Benefits 160 Stocl<:holders' Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

LJ

350

Motor Vehicle

 

0

380 Other Personal Property Damage

 

LJ 710 Fair Labor Standerds Act

LJ

861

IDA (J395ff)

 

LJ

LJ

355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury

 

LJ

862

Black Long (923) DIWCIDIWW (405(g»

U

LJ

 

LJ

385

Property Damage

LJ

720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 730 LaborlMgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act

LJ

863

LJ

LJ

 

Product Liability

LJ

LJ

864 ssm Title XVI

 

LJ

LJ

 

LJ

865 RSI (405(g»

 

LJ

 

mn

S~ti LJ

740

Railway Labor Act

 

'L~SOrrs;'i;'". 0 892

Economic Stabilization Act

LJ

210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure

LJ

441

Voting

0

510 Motions to Vacate Sentence

 

o

790 Other Labor Litigation

LJ

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 87llRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

LJ

893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom oflnformation Act

LJ

LJ

442

Employment

o

791

Empl.

Ret. Inc.

 

LJ

o

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment

LJ

443

Housing!

Habeas Corpus:

 

Security Act

 

o

LJ

o

240 Tarts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

 

Accommodations

 

CJ

530 General

 

LJ

0

444

Welfare

p

535

Deafu Penalty

 

, .Gl.&\nQ~'!(ii!~

 

LJ

900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice

LJ

0

445 Amer. wlDisabilities- Employment

LJ

540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition

LJ

462 Naturalization Application

 
 

LJ

LJ

463

Habeas Corpus -

 
 

LJ

446 Amer. wlDisabilities - Other

CJ

LJ

Alien Detainee 465 Oilier Immigration

 

a 950 Constitutionality of State Smtutes

'" 440 Other Civil Rights

 

Actions

V.

ORIGIN

(Place an "X~ in One Box Only)

 

Appeal to District Judge from MagIstrate Jud ment

lSI!

Original

o

2 Removed from State Court

0

3

Remanded from

o

4 Reinstated or Reopened

0

5

Transferred from

0

6

Multidistnct

0

7

Proceeding

Appellate Court

anoth!"r district

Litigation

 
s eel VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: This is a Civil Kights
s
eel
VI.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Brief description of cause:
This is a Civil Kights Action seeking injUnctive relief to stop megal busing
o VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACfION DEMANDS CHECK YES only
o
VII.
REQUESTED IN
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACfION
DEMANDS
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
UNDER FRC.P. 23
COMPLAINT:
Injunctive
Relief
JURY DEMAND:
0
Yes
giNo
VIII.
RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
05/14/2009
FOR OFFICE USE ONLV
RECEIPT #
--------
AMOUNT
------------
MAG. JUDGE
---------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - assignment to appropriate calendar.

Address of Plaintiff: See footnote 1 on page 1 of Complaint AddressofDefendant:301 East Montgomery Avenue, Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003

DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to iodlcate tbe category of the case for the purpose of

PlaceofAecident,lncidentorTransaction:Montgompry

coun t ;1i'

ppn~l van; a

(Use Reverse

ide For Add' .

'Pace)

Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock?

(Attach two

copies

of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7.1(a»

Yes O

NoXOC

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?

YesO

NoD

RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

Case Number:

Judge

Date Terminated:

Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

Yes O

NoXllC

2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated

action in this court?

Yes 0

NolClK:

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously

 

terminated action in this court?

YesO

No!X!X

4.

Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?

 

Yes O

NoOi:lX

CIVIL: (Place V' in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A.

Ftukral Question Cases:

B.

Diversity Jwisdiction Cases:

1.

0

Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts

1.

0

Insurance Contract and Other Contracts

2.

0

FELA

2.

0

Airplane Personal Injury

3.

0

Jones Act-Personal Injury

3.

0

Assault, Defamation

4.

0

Antitrust

4.

0

Marine Personal Injury

5.

0

Patent

5.

0

Motor Vehicle Personal Injury

6.

0

Labor-Management Relations

6.

0

Other Personal Injury (Please specify)

7.XCit Civil Rights

7.

0

Products Liability

8. 0

Habeas Corpus

8.

0

Products Liability

Asbestos

9. 0

Securities Act(s) Cases

9.

0

All other Diversity Cases

10.

0

Social Security Review Cases

(please specify)

11. 0

All other Federal Question Cases (please specify)

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION

(Check appropriate CAtegory)

I,,--,,,Do<.:a,,,,-,,v-,i=--d=--,G,,,-,,-o--'C:::,

:

---!A~r.=.n:.:o~l.;:d=-- --" counsel

of record do hereby certify:

o Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case

exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs;

ft Relief other than monetary damages is soug

May

'4,

2009 49819 Attorney I.D.# Iy if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. 2009
2009
49819
Attorney I.D.#
Iy if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
2009

DATE:

I certify that, to my Imowledge, the within except as Doted above.

DATE:

CIV.

MEiY

14 I

609

(6/08)

APPENDIXG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student

Doe

1

by

and

through

his

.

Parents/Guardians

Does

1

and

2,

et;

al.

The

School

V.

District

of

Lower Merio~

Civil Action

No: ------­

Please check one box:

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM

Not

applicable

in

that

plaintiffs

are

individuals.

o

The nongovernmental corporate party,

-:--_-:­

, in the above listed civil action does not have any parent corporation and publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.

o

The nongovernmental corporate party,

-:--

--.---:--:--_

, in the above listed civil action has the following parent corporation(s) and publicly held corporation(s) that owns 10% or more of its stock:

Date

Counsel for:

Signature

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Disclosure Statement

(a) WHO MUST FILE; CONTENTS.

A nongovernmental corporate party must file

two copies of a disclosure statement that:

(1)

identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning10% or more of its stock; or

(2)

states that there is no such corporation.

(b) TIME To FILE; SUPPLEMENTAL FILING. A party must:

(1)

file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court; and

(2)

promptly file a supplemental statement if any required information changes.

APPENDIXG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student

Doe

1

by

and

through

his

.

Parents/Guardians

Does

1

and

2,

et;

ala

V.

Civil Action

 

.

No:

The

School

District

of

Lower Merio~

-------

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FORM

Please check one box:

Not

appl icable

in

that

plaintiffs

a The nongovernmental corporate party,

are

individuals.

-:­

, in the above listed civil action does not have any parent corporation and publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock.

a The nongovernmental corporate party,

-:--

--:-:---::--:--_

, in the above listed civil action has the following parent corporation(s) and publicly held corporation(s) that owns 10% or more of its stock:

Date

Counsel for:

Signature

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 Disclosure Statement

(a) WHO MUST FILE; CONTENTS. A nongovernmental corporate party must file two copies of a disclosure statement that:

(1) identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning10% or more of its stock; or

(2)

states that there is no such corporation.

(b) TIME To FILE; SUPPLEMENTAL FILING. A party must:

(1)

file the disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court; and

(2)

promptly file a supplemental statement if any required information changes.

APPEl\TJ)IX I

IN 11lE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Il'OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OI? PENNSYLVANIA

CASE J\-fANACKi\lENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

Student

Doe

1

by

and

through

his

Parents/Guardians Does 1

and

2, et. al. v.

The

School

District

of Lower

Merion

ClvlL ACTION

NO.

In acconlance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court> counsel for

plaintiff shall complete a case Jvfanagement Track Designation Fonn in all civil cases at

filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (Sec § 1:03 ofthe plan set forth on the reverse

In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said

with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on

the plaintiffand all other parties, a case management track designation form specifying the track to

which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.

designation, that defendant shan.

the time of

side of this fonn.)

SELECT ONE OF THE .FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus

-

Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 through §2255.

(

)

(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review ofa decision ofthe Secretary ofHealth

and Human Services denying plaintiffSocial

Security Benefits

(

)

(c)

Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2.

()

(d)

Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from

exposure to asbestos.

(

)

(e) Special Management - Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side ofthis fonn for a detailed explanation ofspecial management cases.)

. (f) Standard Afanagement - Cases that do not fall into anyone of the other tracks.

May

14,

2009

Date

(484)

562-0008

'felcphone

~ttorney-at-Iaw
~ttorney-at-Iaw

--~~~~~----~

.t ;t llI/:.a,intiffs

Attorney for

I?AXNumbcr

E-Mail Add.rt'Ss

(x )

(

)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Student Doe 1 by and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Student Doe 1 by and through his Parents/Guardians Does 1 and 2

and

Student Doe 2 by and through her Parent/Guardian Doe 3

and

Student Does 3 and 4 by and through their Parent/Guardian Doe 4

and

Student Doe 5 by and through his Parent/Guardian Doe 5

and

Student Doe 6 by and through his Parents/Guardians Does 6 and 7

and

Student Doe 7 by and through his Parent/Guardian Doe 8 and

Student Does 8 and 9 by and through their Parents/Guardians Does 9 and 10 1

Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Action No.

09

2095

I Students Doe and Parents/Guardians Doe's true names and addresses do not appear in this pleading pursuant to Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 5.1.3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Said infonnation will be made available to this Honorable Court upon request.

The School District of Lower Merion 301 East Montgomery Avenue Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003

Defendant

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, now file the present Civil

Rights Action in order to contest the final redistricting plan adopted by the School

District of Lower Merion on January 12, 2009, and to request that this Honorable Court

enjoin said government action. In support of their claims, plaintiffs aver the following:

Parties

1. Plaintiffs, Parent/Guardian Does 1 and 2, are the parents and/or guardians of

Student Doe 1.

2. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 3, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Doe

2.

3. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 4, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Does

3 and 4.

4. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 5, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Doe

5.

5. Plaintiffs, Parent/Guardian Does 6 and 7, are the parents and/or guardians of

Student Doe 6.

6. Plaintiff, Parent/Guardian Doe 8, is the parent and/or guardian of Student Doe

7.

7. Plaintiffs, ~arent/Guardian Does 9 and 10, are the parents and/or guardians of

Student Does 8 and 9.

2

8.

All of the above noted plaintiffs live in a neighborhood bounded by Athens

Avenue, Wynnewood Road, County Line Road, and Cricket Avenue in South Ardmore,

Pennsylvania.

9. All ofthe parties identified as "Student Doe" attend either an elementary school

or middle school in the School District of Lower Merion.

10. All of the parties identified as "Student Doe" are minority students, and the

South Ardmore neighborhood in which they live is the only neighborhood in Lower

Merion which has a significant African American population.

11. Defendant, School District of Lower Merion, hereinafter referred to as "Lower

Merion," is located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and its administrative offices

are located at 301 East Montgomery Avenue in Ardmore, Pennsylvania.

12. Lower Merion is the entity charged with the legal responsibility to provide,

among other things, both regular and special education services to school age children

residing in Lower Merion Township and Narberth Borough.

13. Lower Merion is run by the duly elected Lower Merion School Board which

consists of nine (9) School Board Members.

14. These School Board Members are chosen in at large elections in Lower

Merion Township and Narberth Borough.

15. None of the sitting School Board Members reside in the neighborhood where

Students Doe reside.

Jurisdiction

16. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the claims set forth

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

3

herein

Facts Common to All Counts

17. Lower Merion operates six (6) elementary schools (i.e.

Belmont Hills

Elementary School, Cynwyd Elementary School, Gladwyne Elementary School, Merion

Elementary School, Penn Valley Elementary School, and Penn Wynne Elementary

School), two (2) middle schools (i.e. Bala Cynwyd Middle School and Welsh Valley

Middle School), and two (2) high schools (i.e. Lower Merion High School and Harriton

High School).

18. Despite

the

fact

that

numerous

children

in

Lower

Merion

attend

a

"neighborhood school" for either elementary school or middle school, Students Doe do

not attend a "neighborhood school" for either elementary or middle school because there

is no such school in their neighborhood. Students Doe's only "neighborhood school" is

Lower Merion High School which is located less than one (l) mile from their homes.

19. Lower Merion is not at the present time, nor has it ever been, subject to a

busing decree entered by any Federal and/or State Court.

20. Lower Merion has received in the past, and continues to receive, ongoing

Federal Funding.

21. As the final stage of its Capital Improvement Program that began in 1997,

Lower Merion decided to rebuild both Lower Merion High School and Harriton High

School.

22. Lower Merion formed the Community Advisory Committee in January 2004

in order to assist it in determining whether its two (2) high schools would be built to

house approximately the same number of students, or whether the two (2) high schools

would be built to house their current student populations. According to Lower Merion's

4

statistics, Lower Merion High School presently houses one thousand five hundred and

sixty (1,560) students while Harriton High School presently houses eight hundred and

seventy five (875) students.

23. In its report dated May 24, 2004, the Community Advisory Committee

advised Lower Merion that it recommended that Lower Merion High School and Harriton

High School be built to house approximately the same number of students.

24. Lower Merion subsequently adopted the Community Advisory Committee's

recommendation in 2004.

25. Lower Merion's actions in 2004 set the stage for the present busing dispute.

When Lower Merion decided to change the size of its existing high schools, it became

necessary to redistrict students away from Lower Merion High School, and to then direct

them to Harriton High School. It is the manner in which Students Doe were selected to

attend, and then mandated to attend Harriton High School, which is at the very heart of

this litigation.

26. Throughout the redistricting process, "race" issues have been of paramount

concern.

27. Lower Merion started the redistricting process in March of2008.

28. According to its records, Lower Merion adopted a multi-step process in order

to devise, to deliberate on, and then to adopt a redistricting plan.

29. Lower Merion apparently conducted initial internal, non-public meetings in

April 2008 about redistricting. Documents obtained pursuant to a Pennsylvania Right to

Know Request indicate that "race" played a part in redistricting. Specifically, in a

document titled Redistricting Recommendations dated April 18, 2008, "The distribution

5

of minority students" is listed as an item "that must be addressed before a redistricting

plan can be established." A true and correct copy of the aforementioned document is

appended hereto as Exhibit "A."

30. At its April 28, 2008, School Board Meeting, the Lower Merion School

Board adopted guidelines which it termed "non-negotiables." The School Board took the

position that any redistricting plan presented and/or adopted would have to comply with

these guidelines.

31. These adopted guidelines were:

(a). The enrollment of the two (2) high schools and two (2) middle schools would

be equalized;

(b). Elementary students would be assigned so that the schools would be at or

under the school capacity;

(c). The plan would not increase the number of buses required;

(d). At a minimum, the class of 2010 would have the choice to either follow the

redistricting plan or stay at the high school of their previous year; and

(e). Redistricting decisions would be based upon current and expected future

needs, and not based upon past redistricting outcomes, or perceived past promises or

agreements.

32. Lower Merion then allegedly sought to engage the community at large by

conducting focus group meetings during May and June 2008. The purpose of these

meetings was purportedly to identify "community values" that would assist in the

formation of a final redistricting plan.

6

33. Focus group meetings were conducted under the direction of a private

contractor named URS on May 29,2008, June 8, 2008, June 9, 2008, June 10,2008, and

on June 19, 2008. In addition, feedback was also collected from the community via

online surveys during this period.

34. During each of the aforementioned focus group meetings, the participants

identified the lack of diversity as a concern in Lower Merion's schools.

35. URS subsequently reported its findings to the Lower Merion School Board in

a report dated July 11, 2008.

36. According to URS' report, exploring and cultivating "whatever diversity­

ethnic, social, economic, religious and racial-there is in Lower Merion," was a value

based principle that arose in the focus group meetings.

37. While the aforementioned focus group meetings were taking place in May and

June of 2008, Lower Merion hired a consultant, Ross Haber Associates, Inc., in June of

2008 to assist it in identifying demographic trends that would be used in drafting a

redistricting plan.

38. According to Ross Haber's contract with Lower Merion, Lower Merion was

to provide Ross Haber with a six (6) year enrollment history. The contract goes on to

state that "This data should include not only enrollment, but also information regarding

ethnicity and socio-economic status." A true and correct copy of the June 25, 2008

contract between Ross Haber and Lower Merion is appended hereto as Exhibit "B."

39. Under the terms ofthe aforementioned contract, Ross Haber was to provide to

Lower Merion, among other things, "[e]nrollment trends based upon ethnicity," as well

as "[e]nrollment trends based upon socio-economic factors."

7

40.

In addition to identifying demographic trends within the district, Lower

Merion also retained Mr. Haber to assist it in drafting the redistricting plan.

41. Using the

information

acquired

from

the

May-June 2008

focus

group

meetings, and the Lower Merion School District's non-negotiable guidelines, as well as

the demographic information from Ross Haber, Lower Merion and Ross Haber went

about drafting Lower Merion's Redistricting Plan in the Summer of2008.

42. Lower Merion's First Redistricting Plan was presented at the Lower Merion

School Board Meeting on September 8, 2008.

43. Although the First Redistricting Plan did not change the existing school

placements for Students Doe, it drastically changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion

High School and Harriton High SchooL

44. The First Redistricting Plan achieved the changes at the high school level by

altering school feeder patterns at the middle school level. According to the proposed plan,

The Penn Valley Elementary School Community was redistricted from Welsh Valley

Middle School to Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then to Lower Merion High School.

The Penn Wynne Elementary School Community was redistricted from Bala Cynwyd

Middle School to Welsh Valley Middle School, and then onto Harriton High Schoo1. 2

45.

Lower Merion prominently displayed its "diverse" high school

student

populations during the course of its slide show presentation on its First Redistricting Plan.

Lower Merion proudly displayed this data in order to affirm that it was honoring the

community value of diversity. A true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the slide

show is appended hereto as Exhibit "C."

2

The

proposed

map

for

the

First

Redistricting

Plan

can

be

accessed

via

the

internet

at

8

46.

Public comment was then permitted on the First Redistricting Plan.

47. Thereafter, Lower Merion presented its Second Redistricting Plan at the

Lower Merion School Board Meeting on October 20, 2008.

48. Although the Second Redistricting Plan also did not change the existing

school placements for Students Doe, it again drastically changed the racial make-up of

Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School.

49. The Second Redistricting Plan achieved changes at the high school level by

changing attendance patterns at the middle school level. Under the Second Plan, all

children attending Belmont Hills Elementary School and Gladwyne Elementary School

would attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High School. Those

children attending Penn Valley Elementary School that lived in the Penn Valley area, and

that lived in the Haverford area, would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then

Harriton High SchooL Those children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School that

lived in the Wynnewood area bounded by East Lancaster Avenue and Ballytore Avenue

to Ballytore Circle would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton

High SchooL Those children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School that lived in the

South Ardmore area bounded by Cricket Avenue, Wyoming Avenue, and Lancaster

Avenue to County Line Road would also attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then

Harriton High SchooL Those children attending Merion Elementary School that lived in

the area bounded by East Lancaster Road, East Wynnewood Avenue, the North side of

Rockland Road, and Merion Road to East Montgomery Avenue would also attend Welsh

Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High School. All children attending Cynwyd

Elementary School would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then Lower Merion

9

High School. Those children attending Penn Wynne Elementary School that did not live

in the Wynnewood area identified above would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and

then Lower Merion High School. Those children attending Merion Elementary School

that did not live in the area identified above would attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School,

and then Lower Merion High School. Those children attending Penn Valley Elementary

School that did not live in the Penn Valley and Haverford areas identified above, and

those students living in the Lower Merion High School Walk Zone would attend Bala

Cynwyd Middle School, and then have a choice to attend either Lower Merion High

School or Harriton High School. Those children attending Belmont Hills Elementary

School living in the Lower Merion High School Walk Zone would attend Welsh Valley

Middle School, and then have a choice of attending either Lower Merion High School or

Harriton High School. 3

50. Lower Merion once again prominently displayed its "more diverse" high

school student populations during the course of its slide show presentation on its Second

Redistricting Plan. A true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the slide show is

appended hereto as Exhibit "D."

51. Public comment was then permitted on the Second Redistricting Plan.

52. Thereafter, Lower Merion presented its Third Redistricting Plan at the Lower

Merion School Board Meeting on November 24, 2008.

53. Like the previous plans, the Third Redistricting Plan once again drastically

changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School.

3

The

proposed

map

for

the

Second

Redistricting

Plan

can

be

accessed

via

the

internet

at

10

Unlike the previous plans, the school placements for Students Doe changed in that they

no longer had a choice to attend Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School.

54. Despite contending vehemently during the early phases of the redistricting

process that it could not present a workable 3-1-1 model (i.e. three designated elementary

schools feeding a single middle school which would in tum feed one high school), Lower

Merion changed its position entirely and presented in Redistricting Plan Three a 3-1-1

model.

55. The Third Redistricting Plan achieved changes at the high school level using

the aforementioned 3-1-1

model.

Under the Third Redistricting Plan, all children

attending Belmont Hills Elementary School and Gladwyne Elementary School would

attend Welsh Valley Middle School, and then Harriton High School. Those children

attending Penn Valley Elementary School would all attend Welsh Valley Middle School.

Those children attending Penn Valley Elementary School that lived in the abbreviated

Lower Merion High School Walk Zone could choose to attend either Lower Merion High

School or Harriton High School. All other children attending Penn Valley Elementary

School

would

attend

Harriton

High

School.

All

children

attending Penn Wynne

Elementary School, Cynwyd Elementary School, and Merion Elementary School, would

attend Bala Cynwyd Middle School, and then Lower Merion High School. 4

56. Lower Merion once again prominently displayed its "more diverse" high

school student populations during the course of its slide show presentation on its Third

Redistricting Plan. A true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the slide show is

appended hereto as Exhibit "E."

4 The proposed map for the Third Redistricting Plan is included in materials that can be accessed via the internet at http://www.lmsd.org/documents/redistricting/081124 presentation.pd£

11

57. Public comment was then pennitted on the Third Redistricting Plan.

58. In a letter dated December 12, 2008, the undersigned counsel on behalf of

Concerned Ardmore Parents faxed a letter to the Superintendent of Lower Merion

advising him that the Third Redistricting Plan was illegal in the light of the United States

Supreme Court's holding in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School

District No.1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007), among other reasons.

59. Thereafter, Lower Merion presented its Third Redistricting Plan Revised at

the Lower Merion School Board Meeting on December 15, 2008.

60. Like the previous plans, the Third Redistricting Plan Revised once again

drastically changed the racial make-up of Lower Merion High School and Harriton High

School. Like the Third Redistricting Plan, the Third Redistricting Plan Revised changed

the school placements for Students Doe in that they no longer had a choice to attend

Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School. Under the Third Redistricting Plan

Revised, Students Doe had to attend Harriton High School.

61. The Third Redistricting Plan Revised once again achieved changes at the high

school level using the aforementioned 3-1-1 model. The difference between the Third

Redistricting Plan and the Third Redistricting Plan Revised is that the revised plan

restored choice of high school to the Belmont Hills Elementary students and Penn Valley

Elementary students in the historic Lower Merion High School Walk Zone, restored

choice to any student attending

Merion Elementary School, Penn Wynne Elementary

School, and Bala Cynwyd Elementary School, and it promised the creation of an

12

additional program at Harriton High School to lure prospective students assigned to

Lower Merion High School to seek enrollment at Harriton High School. 5

62.

Interestingly,

for

the

first

time

since

presentations

started

regarding

redistricting plans, Lower Merion did not present any information regarding its "more

diverse" high school student populations during the course of its presentation regarding

its Third Redistricting Plan Revised.

63. Furthermore, in an October 31, 2008, Memorandum to the Lower Merion

School Board, the Superintendent of Lower Merion acknowledged that use of a 3-1-1

model could create "a racially isolated group of African American Students at Harriton."

This is in fact what is going to happen in September 2009. True and correct copies of the

relevant pages of the aforementioned Memorandum obtained pursuant to a Pennsylvania

Right to Know Request are appended hereto as Exhibit "F."

64. Public comment was then permitted on the Third Redistricting Plan Revised.

65. In a letter dated January 9, 2009, the undersigned counsel on behalf of

Concerned Ardmore Parents faxed another letter to counsel for Lower Merion once again

advising that the Third Redistricting Plan Revised was illegal in the light of the United

States Supreme Court's holding in

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle

School District No. 1, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007), among other reasons, and that Lower

Merion could avoid the present litigation if it sought to increase diversity at Harriton

High School through legal means, rather than through mandatory, illegal busing.

66. On January 12, 2009, Lower Merion conducted a School Board Meeting

during which the Lower Merion School Board deliberated on the Third Redistricting Plan

5 The proposed map for the Third Redistricting Plan Revised can be accessed via the internet at

13

Revised, and then voted to accept said plan. Two (2) of the School Members voted

against the plan.

67. Having put Lower Merion on ample notice of their legal objections during the

course of the redistricting process, Students Doe find themselves with no other recourse

at this time to combat the clearly unconstitutional, illegal, and improper redistricting plan

adopted by Lower Merion than to take the present legal action.

Count I Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

68. Students Doe incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this

Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

69. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars state action

that discriminates on the basis of race.

70. Redistricting Plan Three Revised violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution in that it discriminates against Students Doe on the basis of

race by mandating that said students attend Harriton High School because they are

minorities.

71.

Redistricting Plan Three Revised also violates the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution in that it imposes an undue burden on minority students.

72. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a private citizen may bring a private

cause of action against

any "person who,

under color

of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within

the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution and laws

"

14

WHEREFORE, Students Doe respectfully request that this Honorable Court

grant them the following relief:

(1). Temporarily enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or

Harriton High School, until a full and proper hearing on this matter can be conducted;

(2). Permanently enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them following a full and proper hearing on this matter, and restore their option

to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School; and

(3). Award them attorneys' fees, costs, and expert fees in accordance with 42

U.S.C. Section 1988.

Count II Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981

73. Students Doe incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this

Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

74. 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 bars state action that discriminates on the basis of

race.

75. Redistricting Plan Three Revised violates 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 in that it

discriminates against Students Doe on the basis of race by mandating that said students

attend Harriton High School because they are minorities.

76. Redistricting Plan Three Revised also violates 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 in that

it imposes an undue burden on minority students.

77. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a private citizen may bring a private

cause of action

against any "person

who,

under color of any statute,

ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

15

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within

the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution and laws

"

WHEREFORE, Students Doe respectfully request that this Honorable Court

grant them the following relief:

(1). Temporarily enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or

Harriton High School, until a full and proper hearing on this matter can be conducted;

(2). Permanently enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them following a full and proper hearing on this matter, and restore their option

to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School; and

(3). Award them attorneys' fees, costs, and expert fees in accordance with 42

U.S.c. Section 1988.

Countm Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d et. seq.

78. Students Doe incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 of this

Complaint as if set forth herein at length.

79. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. C. Section 2000d et.~, "No

person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be

excluded

from

participation

in,

be

denied

the

benefits

of,

or

be

subjected

to

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

80. For purposes of Title VI, "program or activity" means all of the operations of

"a

local

system

educational

agency

,

system

of vocational

"

42 U.S.C. Section 2000d-4a(2)(B).

16

education,

or

other

school

81. The actions of Lower Merion are governed by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

in that it is operating a school system that receives Federal Funds.

82. Lower Merion's Redistricting Plan Three Revised violates Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act in that it discriminates against Students Doe on the basis of race by

mandating that said students attend Harriton High School because they are minorities.

83. Redistricting Plan Three Revised also violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

in that it imposes an undue burden on minority students.

84. A civil action may be brought against Lower Merion pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Section 2000d-7.

85. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a private citizen may bring a private

cause of action against

any "person

who, under color of any statute,

ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within

the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution and laws

"

WHEREFORE, Students Doe respectfully request that this Honorable Court

grant them the following relief:

(1). Temporarily enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them, and restore their option to attend either Lower Merion High School or

Harriton High School, until a full and proper hearing on this matter can be conducted;

(2). Permanently enjoin the imposition of Redistricting Plan Three Revised as it

relates to them following a full and proper hearing on this matter, and restore their option

to attend either Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School; and

17

(3). Award them attorneys' fees, costs, and expert fees in accordance with 42

U.S.C. Section 1988.

Dated: May 14, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

David G. C. Arnold
David G. C. Arnold

P. nnsylvania Attorney Identification No. 49819

Suite 109, Royal Plaza 915 Montgomery Avenue Narberth, Pennsylvania 19072 (484) 562-0008

Attorney for Plaintiffs

18

EXHIBIT A

Redistricting Recommendations

Important facets to keep in mind

April 18, 200&

o

Population distribution - where people live in relation to the schools

o

LMSD Transportation Policy - key parameters (l) \val-king distances - eiementary

3/4 mi~e and secondary 1 mile (2) we transport students that live on hazardous roads that have !,leen so certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation '

o

Capacity ofschools -elementary, middle and high

Herns that must pc addres~ed before a redistricting plan oan be:established

o

A grandfatliering scheme for high school students

o

The cent(ai offlce must.ieview and assi&lt~hespeciaJ education c1assToe.ms to the schools

a

Ind.i:vi~school capacities should be,~ustedafter special education classrooms

have beef' ~sigtled

o

The distribution of minorily st-udents

o 0' .'
o
0'
.'

o

o

Reviewa,nd modify the current attend.ance area~olicycx'C,eptions te only jnolude,

, Sheuld there be feeder patterns fur students movin~ through Ute schools. element~:ryto middle and middle to high

special education,and IB siudtmt'S

,Adrninistratien recommended "tlon-negoti~les~for the redistricting pian - items the

plan.MUST addtess:

c(' .Eq!-taf~:~nron~bet\\"etn;thtr:twe,highschools,~the two roid91e schools

"

As$ign'srudents and:cOtiSider the.etrect~fthe Iiigh'schOol grandfatherin"g scheme - CD

A;si~minontf s,tudents in a9COrd~ncewiUt above dooision

'

Assign elemenflW,Y: students so that tlie schools are at 9flU):der'the school capacitY.

Plan-may notincrease number ofbuses.required

Objectives - things ':F-~-W9uJd li~eto accomplish

o

Maintain a~ason.ablebu.s travel time for students

o

MrucimJze students that can \valk to schoo.l

o

Determine the degree at which the MELe can continue to provide day care

progra~at our eieme.ntary schools

.

o

Consider what impact of the Narberth School may have in tlie future

progra~ at our eieme.ntary schools . o Consider what impact of the Narberth School may have

\

April 18, 2qoS

Redistricting Recommendations

Important facets to keep in mind

[]

Population ·distribution : where people live in relation to the schools

[]

LMSD Transportation Policy - key p8:1llD1eters (1) walking distances - elementary 3/4 mile and secondary 1 mile (2) we transport students that live on haza:roous roads that have been so certified by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

o

Capacity ofschools - elementary, middle and high

Items that must be addressed before a redistricting. plan

o

A grandfathering scheme for high school

d

The central office mustreview and

~J:OOlltlS'to the

schools'

o

Individual school capacities should

have been assigned

o

The distribution of miIlLOn1y'.

o

Review and modify.the

special educatloh and'm

o

Should there be'f~er'

I

\

i

"

elementaty to .

schools and the two middle scho,ols

high school grandfatliering·&cheme

aboy,e'decision

that.the schooI$ are at or under the school.capacity

of buses required

Objectives ­

[] Maintain a

bus lqivel time for students

o Maximize students that can walk to. school

[] Detennine the de~ at \Vhich the 'MELC can continue to provide.day care

programs at our ~lementatY'schools

o Consider what impact of the Narberth School may have in the future

EXIDBITB

.-.

t

Agreement for a Demographic Study

This agreement is made as of Iune ~2008between:

The Lower Merion School District, a Public School District with its administrative office located at 301-E Montgomery St, Ardmore, PA 19003, hereinafter referred to as the "District"

and

Ross Haber Associates, Inc., a New York State Corporation with offices located at 5 Sea Gull Lane, Port Washington, NY 11050, hereinafter referred to as the "Coosultanl"

At the request of the DiStrict, the Coosultant provided a proposal to conduct a demographic study.

The District, at its Board of Education Meeting dated _~ conduct said study.

I.

Services:

ZOO8 approved the Coosultant to

J

The Consultant will provide the following services to the District:

1. Enrollment Projectioos on a District Wide Basis

2. Enrollment·projections for each ofthe individual public schools within the District.

3. An analysis and projection for all students living with in the District and specifically within the attendance zones for each ofthe schools (this includes students who attend the District's schools as well as those who attend private and/or parochial schools-private and parocbial school analysis based upon availability ofdata)

4. Enrollment trends based upon ethnicity.

.

S.

Enrollment trends based t,1pOn socio

economic

factors.

6. Analysis of the current attendance zones for all schools.

7. .Creation of new attendance zones for the two high schools to provide more equal balance in the enrollments of both schools.

8. Analysis of the impact on feeder patteros from the elementmy to middle to high schools.

9. Adjustment of middle school and elementary school attendance zones based upon needed changes in feeder patterns.

Other factors to be analyzed are the functional and operational C!lPacities of each of the buildings based upon current District policies regarding class sizes and room utilization (e.g.--specialty rooms such as art, music, computer), and pre-Idndergarten and special needs OODSideratioos.

1

The study will also examine ways of baLancing enrollments between buildings.

IL

Deliverables:

The Consultant will provide the following deliverables:

 

a.

Monthly progress reports updating the administration on the status of the project.

b.

Meetings between the Consultant and District Personnel (both Central Office, Building, and School Boaro) as needed based upon mutually convenient times.

c.

A preliminary draft of the fmal report presented to the District staff for review.

.

d.

A final report providing the District with a narrative along with tables, charts., and maps supporting the findings ofthe study.

e.

Presentations at School Board meetings concerning redistricting.

IlL

District Responsibilities:

.The District will provide the Consultant with materials necessaty to perform the study.

This will include, but may not be limited to:

.

a. At least a six.-yearenrollmenthistory of the District. This should be based upon the annual reports filed by the District with the Pennsylvania Department of Education and should be for the entire District and for each ofthe public schools.

This data should include not only enrollment, but also information regarding ethnicity and soclo-economic status.

2

b. A copy of the most recent enrollment study prepared for the District.

c. Either floor plans for each of the District's schools and/or a summary of classrooms available in .each building.

d. A map which delineates the current attendance zones for each of the District's schools.

e. A download from the District's students database. This may be requested several times over the course of the study. The data fields and file format will be provided to the District.

IV. Consultant Responsibilities:

The Consultant will research the following data:

a. History ofpermits for the construction of new residential housing, exclusive ofage restricted housing.

b. New housing deVelopments which have received approval from the Lower Merion Planning Board.

c. Birth data attributable to the District.

The Consultant will also obtain a digital map which will be used for locating students, schools, and attendance zones.

V.

Compensation:

As compensation for the services as descnoed above the Consultant shall recei ve

$20,000.

Payment shall be made as follows:

3

a.

June 30, 2008 (upon submission of the June progress report)

$4,000.

b.

July 31,2008 (upon submission of the July progress report)

$4,000.

c.

AugUst 3 I, 2008 (upon submission ofthe August progress report)

$4,000.

'd.

September 30, 2008 (upon submission ofSeptember progress report.)

 

$4,000.

e.

Final payment following.fmal public presentation of the study.

$4,000.

·ruz
·ruz

For Ross Haber Associates Date

4

Final payment following.fmal public presentation of the study. $4,000. ·ruz For Ross Haber Associates Date 4

Date

Final payment following.fmal public presentation of the study. $4,000. ·ruz For Ross Haber Associates Date 4

Date

RIDER 'TO AGREEMENT BE1WEEN LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT ("DISTRIGr') AND ROSS HABER ASSOCIATES, INC. (''CONSULTANT')

1. Termination - This agreement may be tenninated by either party giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party at the address stated above or at an address chosen subsequent to the execution of this agreement and duly communicated to the party giving notice.

2. Confidentiality - In the performance of its duties, Consultant may have access to

certain

ofthe District's records, including, but not limited to, student records, personnel records and financial records (''District Records',);

a. Consultant acknowledges that in performance of its duties under the Contract and in particular when Consultant has access to District Records, Consultant is acting as an agent of the District; b. - Consultant agrees not to copy, duplicate, retain or disclose any District Records or any information contained therein to anyone in any format, other than to a District administrator for purposes related to the Consultant's duties for the District; and

c.

Consultant agrees that it will indemnitY, defend and hold the District harmless from any claim or loss, including, buy not necessarily limited to any claim for - damages or loss offunding, arising fium Consultant's copying, duplication, retention or disclosure or alleged copying, duplication, ret~ionor disclosure of ­

any District Records or information contained in-any District Records.

3. Other Conditions - As an inducement to the execution of this Agreement by the District and in cOnsideration of the agreements to be performed by the District, ConsUltants covenant that:

a. Qualifications. Consultants are qualified to perfonn the services to be furnished Wider this Agreement and are permitted by law to perform such services.

b. Solic~tationof Agreement. Consultants have not employed any person to solicit -this Agreement and have not made and will not make any payment or any agreement for the payment ofany commission, percentage, brokemge, contingent fee, or otPer compensation in connection with the J>rocurement of this Agreement.

c. Facilities and Personnel. Consultants have and will continue to have proper facilities and personnel to -perform the services and work agreed to be performed. _Ifthe Consultants propose to employ any person or persons to perform any of the services which are the subject ofthis Agreement, the employment ofsuch person or persons for such putpose shall not place the District under any obligation to such employee, nor relieve Consultants offull responsibility for the faithful performance ofthe services to be furnished under this Agreement.

{°rV,TE!-'.M

~CoUin!i

Memo of Agreement

Pagel

d

Assignment. Consultants' rights, obligations, and duties under this Agreement shall not be assigned in whole or in part.

e.

Subcontracting. None of the work or services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior approval ofthe District.

f.

Records. Consultants shall maintain records of all details with respect to the services to be performed under this Agreement. All records maintained by Consultants pursuant to this section are subject to review by the District at the request ofthe District Superintendent.

g.

Independent Contractor - Consultants agree it is an independent contractor and agrees ~ perform the work under this agreement as an independent contractor. Medical, unemployment, life insurance, retirement, social security·and other benefits will not be accorded to Consultants. during the life of this agreement. The District agrees that manner and means of providing the services described are ~derConsultant's sole control.

4. Notices - All notices to Consultant shall be considered to be properly given if sent by certified mail to the address specified below, or delivered personally to Consultant

Ross Haber Associates, Inc. . 5 Sea Gull Lane

. Port Washington, NY 11050,

All notices or other papers given to the District shall be considered to be sufficiently given if sent by certified mail to:

Dr. Michael Kelly

Acting Assjstant Superintendent

310 E. Montgomery Avenue·

Ardmore, PA 19003

with a copy to:

Kenneth A. Roos, .Solicitor Wisler Peartstine, LLP

484 Nonistown Road

BlueBell, PA 19422

or such other representative or address as the District may designate to Consultant in

writing.

Fort Collins

{Q~T~M

Memo of Agreement

Pa~2of3

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT B~ -7~~~~r-~ ATIEST: B~ ::SSHyzTF$' me. ATIEST: By., Date (O~:r~M ·~CDllins Memo

B~ -7~~~~r-~

ATIEST:

LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT B~ -7~~~~r-~ ATIEST: B~ ::SSHyzTF$' me. ATIEST: By., Date (O~:r~M ·~CDllins Memo

B~

::SSHyzTF$'me.

ATIEST:

By.,

SCHOOL DISTRICT B~ -7~~~~r-~ ATIEST: B~ ::SSHyzTF$' me. ATIEST: By., Date (O~:r~M ·~CDllins Memo of Agreement
SCHOOL DISTRICT B~ -7~~~~r-~ ATIEST: B~ ::SSHyzTF$' me. ATIEST: By., Date (O~:r~M ·~CDllins Memo of Agreement

Date

(O~:r~M

·~CDllins

Memo of Agreement

Page 3

EXHIBITC

:·I·

7·"

9Z00 q~A\aSWl

EXHIBITD

I , I , , , I , , I , I I I •,
I
,
I
,
,
, I
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
•,
I
,•
i
I
,
:
!
I
I ,
I
,
I
,
·
i
,
,•
i
I
,
I
: •
I
I
i
n
.~
0
:
=
·
!(1Cl
:
I
!~ (C
Pd
o ~
• i • • I • • • , I : • I • • •
i .~" ~ , ! , , I I • I , I ! I
i
.~"
~
,
!
,
,
I
I
I
,
I
! I
I
I
J
I
I
I ,
I
t
•,
,
,
I ,
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I I
I
!
,
I
,
J
I
i
I
I
l
I
I
,
I
I
J
I
1

EXHIBITE

EXHmITF

" ,

.

'.

­

Memorandum

To:

Members of the Board of SChool Directors

From: C~ristopherMcGinley, superintende~~

Subject:

Redistricting

1. Background on Recent Meetings

2. Important Issues Needing Decision or Discussion on Monday

Date:

October 31,2008

Background Information on Recent Community Meetings

I wish to begin by providing you with a brief review of the meetings that were conducted this week relating,to redistricting. There were three meetings held at the request of parents representing three general communities, Penn Wynne, Merion and Narberth. Mike Kelly attended the meetings with me and Shawn Bernatowicz was present forth~~eetingat Penn Wynne. The meetings were generally respectful in tone although 'there was some '~I!lotionexpressed about the So~thArdmore community's history. Two of the meetings included the assertion that the curreritplan was racially motivated:

The largest of the three meetings was held on Wednesday evening at Penn Wynne. This meeting was requested in mid-September by the Co-Presidents of the HSA. Ischeduled' this meeting after.the second map or plan would be made public. ~re were about 60-75 people in attendance at the meeting including a number of parents from the Ballytore area and South Ardmore. I have attached a list of the questions that they had submitted in advance and the notes that I made in anticipation of answering those questions. In addition to answering the previously submitted questions, there was about an hour 'of comments and questions. The major points that were stressed In that session were:

• The Hchildren of Ballytore" belong with their friends and should not be "carved out:' Members of that area also view the bus travel to Harriton and Welsh Valley as an unfair burden on the children.

• The South Ardmore community has a history of losing school assets and the socio-economic conditions of the community need to be conSidered; the community (under any plan) should have an option of either high school. Comments were made alleging that South Ardmore was , being used to diversify Harriton.

• The district should redistrict the elementary schools if necessary in order to accomplish a 3-1-1 feeder plan.

The second meeting was held Thursday in my office with six representatives of the Merion community. The representatives had an outline for the meeting which we followed. Thatis also attached. The group also submitted a list of ty.'enty questions. By the time that we got '0the questions we had covered most of the issues. The group represented the Merion elementary school community as a unit that should

The idea that there is a 3-1-1 Solution

MV Perspective: Not FuliV Decided

At the meeting last week many people suggested a three-one-one, K-12 solution. Some people have even given me models that sh~w a three-one-one. As I explained at the meeting three-one-one works if onlv we give up a walking area for lower Merion High School or we plan on transporting from City Avenue. Here are two of the plans that are being discussed bV parents.

The Travel Equitv Proposal

GL,. BH, CY

to

BC

to

HH'

PW, PV,ME

to

WV

to

LM

This proposal claims to spread ,the'burden of transportation more fairlv a,cross the township when you look at travel from a K-12 perspective. It adds travel distanceto severar areas and it requires bus runs to Harriton from City Ave. It removes the walk . lone for Welsh Vallev. It creates a raciallv isolated group of African American Students at Harriton.

Use the Current Middle Schools

Gl, BH, PV

to.

WV

to

HH

PW, ME, CY

to

BC

to

LM

This proposal removes all of the walk zone for lower Merion. Travel times are not bad. Most of Ardmore moves to Harriton but not the part that is closest to Harriton.

All of Narberth goes to Harriton in both of these proposals. I have not had Ross run exact numbers on these scenarios.

New Proposals

MV Perspective: Not at all Decided

Parents who have discussed three-one-one with me often admit that they have onlv figured out part of

the plan and that their plan works "except for

" I can rela'te to that since mv plans work except for

In mv discussion with Diane and Usa this morning we discussed the need for me and perhaps the public to better understand the board's priorities in relation to the community values before working on future alternatives. Lisa identified them in her email as "walkability, distance/access, continuity of cohorts and community" Our current plan focused on waikabiJity first and was developed out from that point. The first plan assumed community as elementary school first and worked out from there. Different starting points lead to different plans. I want to make sure that we start the next plan or modify this one