Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit  /  Phase Six
Court Adopts "Final" Order Terminating Jurisdiction,
but Pyrrhically not until at least January 1, 2000
Previous Next

that, according to papers, there have been a substantial number of people at meetings to review this and to decide which way to go; that a high percentage — I think it was 89 percent — of those in attendance desired to have a continuing order of some sort rather than an absolute termination of the program.

I thought, this percentage came before the court two days ago and I had had no opportunity to answer that it gave a distorted picture of popularity; as did the many declarations submitted to the Court by the Board and Plaintiffs focusing upon continuing “as is” the program. They were, I felt, convincingly using a legislative approach selectively.

The Court shortly took up the contention of Plaintiffs that the Court should retain jurisdiction beyond the “sunset” provision of five years as proposed by the Board:

... THE COURT: I further understand that the proposal of a sunset provision is opposed by plaintiffs. That would be a provision that in a certain period of time the orders would no longer be effective at all....

On the other hand, if there is a sunset clause, it may well be that there could be some mechanism by which, by some democratic method, stipulation, it could be renewed for another period of years for good cause, or something like that, if the parties down the line feel it's necessary.

... I think it (sunset clause) should seriously be considered. If it becomes a problem so serious again that all efforts fail, certainly a new lawsuit can be pursued to set it on track again....

A sunset clause without providing for discharging the writ of mandate would be meaningless; I would somehow have to re-urge this point.

The Court continued to discuss the content of the order with opposing counsel, and turned to a layman regarding a request of Plaintiffs that the Court energize an administrative program to improve schools that had not performed well. This person started to give his reasons why this provision should be in the court order, but his absence from the lectern gave me an opportunity to rely on the informality of the Court and seize it: Next

Carlin Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
  Liberate: Phase 6, pages 80 - 90 — Previous Next

Liberate Public Schools
from Government by Lawsuit

A Long Pro Bono Struggle
Against Racially Balancing Public School Students
in a Thirty-Year Lawsuit
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
A chronological presentation of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a legal battle to reassert the "separation of powers" concept
of a republican form of government embodied in our Constitution.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation Bookmark and Share