Misplaced Pages

#171828

38-497: CREC is supported by local, state, federal and private funds. Local school districts become members of CREC with an annual fee of 20 cents per pupil. Each CREC program is discretely funded with a budget that completely supports its operation and contributes a proportionate share to CREC’s overall management and development. CREC provides professional development and consultation services for school districts, municipalities, corporations, and non-profit organizations. The CREC Foundation,

76-767: A choice of educational programs for children. Currently, more than 1,300 students participate in Open Choice. Students are admitted to all CREC Magnet Schools and the Open Choice program through a lottery that is regulated, administered, and supervised by the Connecticut State Department of Education’s Regional School Choice Office in compliance with the Sheff v. O'Neill decree and Settlement Agreement. CREC Schools also operates programs and schools for students with special educational needs, including birth to three programming, Family Enrichment Services,

114-519: A constitutional amendment creating the intermediate Connecticut Appellate Court . The court's ruling on April 19, 1977, in Horton v. Meskill (172 Conn. 615) held that the right to education in Connecticut is so basic and fundamental that any intrusion on the right must be strictly scrutinized. The Court said that public school students are entitled to equal enjoyment of the right to education, and

152-478: A landmark decision regarding civil rights and the right to education . A judge finally approved a settlement of the matter January 10, 2020. On April 27, 1989, eighteen school aged children from the metropolitan Hartford, Connecticut area, acting through their parents, commenced a civil action in the Hartford Superior Court. The lead plaintiff was fourth-grader Milo Sheff. The suit named

190-653: A number of other measures related to magnet and regional charter schools and included a requirement for the Connecticut State Department of Education to come up with a five-year plan to assess and eliminate inequalities between school districts. [5] In 1998, the Sheff plaintiffs filed a motion for a court order to require the state to adhere to the Supreme Court ruling. [6] . On March 3, 1999, Superior Court Judge Julia L. Aurigemma ruled that

228-564: A statement on the suit and its status. In State v. Santiago , 318 Conn. 1, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that, after the state legislature had abolished capital punishment for prospective cases in 2012, imposition of the death penalty for already convicted and sentenced prisoners was unconstitutional under the Constitution of Connecticut as "excessive and disproportionate punishment". Justice Palmer authored

266-661: A suit brought by the Boston Globe , Hartford Courant , The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2002. On October 5, 2009, the United States Supreme Court rejected a request by the diocese for the court to stay or reconsider the Connecticut opinion ordering the release of the documents. The documents were released at the Waterbury Superior Courthouse on December 1, 2009. The diocese has provided background and

304-411: A system of school financing that relied on local property tax revenues without regard to disparities in town wealth and that lacked significant equalizing state support was unconstitutional. It could not pass the test of strict judicial scrutiny. The Court also held that the creation of a constitutional system for education financing is a job for the legislature and not the courts. Chief Justice House wrote

342-715: A tax-exempt charitable 501 (c)(3) organization, was established in 2005 to support the Capitol Region Education Council its members, programs, and schools. The Foundation is governed by a board of directors. By design, the majority of CREC Foundation directors also serve on the Capitol Region Education Council. In order to assist the CT State Department of Education meet the benchmarks of the Sheff Settlement Agreement , CREC operates 16 interdistrict magnet schools in

380-405: Is a landmark Connecticut Supreme Court decision ( Sheff v. O'Neill , 238 Conn. 1, 678 A.2d 1267) regarding civil rights and the right to education . On July 9, 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state had an affirmative obligation to provide Connecticut's school children with a substantially equal educational opportunity and that this constitutionally guaranteed right encompasses

418-488: Is open to students in the Greater Hartford area. Hartford students can apply to Open Choice for the opportunity to attend public schools in suburban towns. Suburban students can apply to Open Choice for the opportunity to attend Hartford public schools. Open Choice is no cost to families. The goals of the Open Choice program are to improve academic achievement; reduce racial, ethnic and economic isolation;and provide

SECTION 10

#1732801844172

456-455: Is studied as a continuation of the expansion of governments' power to seize property through eminent domain , although the widespread negative popular reaction has spurred a backlash in which many state legislatures have curtailed their eminent domain power. On Monday, June 21, 2004, Gov. John G. Rowland announced his resignation amid allegations of graft and a movement to impeach him for accepting gifts. The resignation came several days after

494-559: Is the highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut . It consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices . The seven justices sit in Hartford , across the street from the Connecticut State Capitol . The court generally holds eight sessions of two to three weeks per year, with one session each September through November and January through May. Justices are appointed by the governor and then approved by

532-587: Is unconstitutional, and cited a statute that bounds school districts by town lines as a key factor in the high concentrations of racial and ethnic minorities in Hartford. [4] As a result of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, in 1997 the Connecticut State Legislature passed legislation titled " An Act Enhancing Educational Choices and Opportunities ", which encourages voluntary actions toward racial integration. The act also included

570-933: The Connecticut General Assembly . As of September 30, 2024 , the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court are: Justices must retire upon reaching the age of 70. They may continue to hear cases as Judge Trial Referees in the Superior Court or the Appellate Court. Justices may assume Senior Status before attaining age 70 and continue to sit with the Supreme Court, as needed. Multiple justices have availed themselves of this option. For example, Justice Ellen Ash Peters took senior status in 1996, continuing to sit until 2000 and Justice Angelo Santaniello assumed senior status in 1987 and continued to sit as needed until 1994. Justice Armentano assumed senior status in 1983 but continued to sit with

608-507: The State of Connecticut , constitutionally elected officials, including Gov. William A. O'Neill , and others from various state commissions and agencies as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged significant constitutional violations under applicable sections of the State constitution which they believe constituted a denial of their fundamental rights to an education and rights to equal protection under

646-677: The Appellate or Superior Court may be called to sit with the Supreme Court. One of the most recent instances of a lower court judge being called to "pinch-hit" was Judge Thomas Bishop of the Appellate Court in Bysiewicz v. Dinardo .Then-Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper Jr. (who later served as a Justice of the Supreme Court) also sat with the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health . Judge Francis X. Hennessy also frequently served by designation on

684-527: The Connecticut Constitution established an independent judiciary, with the Supreme Court of Errors as the state's highest court. (The words "of Errors" were deleted in 1965). The creation of an independent judiciary established the third branch of government, which is responsible for interpreting the laws enacted by the legislative branch of government. In 1982, in response to an overwhelming Supreme Court docket, Connecticut's voters approved

722-584: The Council (or upper chamber of the General Assembly), and, in 1794, the Governor. In 1806, the number of Superior Court judges was increased from five to nine and those judges, sitting together, constituted the Supreme Court, replacing the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Council Members. The General Assembly, however, retained the power to overturn the court's rulings. Twelve years later, in 1818,

760-565: The Court as needed. Chief Justice Callahan assumed senior status in 1999 but served for approximately another year as a Senior Justice. Chief Justice Sullivan assumed senior status in 2006 but continued to sit until 2009. Justice Vertefeuille assumed senior status in March 2022 and remained active with the Court until she turned 70 in October 2022. In the event of a recusal or absence, a judge of

798-461: The Court ruled on June 18 that the state House Select Committee of Inquiry, which was weighing whether to impeach Rowland, could compel the governor to testify. Those joining the majority in this opinion ( Office of the Governor v. Selected Committee of Inquiry to Recommend Whether Sufficient Grounds Exist for the House of Representatives to Impeach Governor John G. Rowland Pursuant to Article Ninth of

SECTION 20

#1732801844172

836-563: The Court. Notable former justices include: The Supreme Court of Connecticut was created in 1784. Prior to this, the power to review lower court rulings was vested in the General Assembly , which determined appeals by examining trial court records. Even after its creation, the Court was not completely independent of the executive and legislative branches, since its members included the Lieutenant Governor, members of

874-583: The Farmington Valley Diagnostic Center, Integrated Program Models, the John J. Allison Polaris Center, River Street School, Soundbridge, and Health Services. CREC Manages sixteen interdistrict magnet schools throughout Greater Hartford. Sheff v. O%27Neill Sheff v. O'Neill refers to a 1989 lawsuit and the subsequent 1996 Connecticut Supreme Court case ( Sheff v. O'Neill , 238 Conn. 1, 678 A.2d 1267) that resulted in

912-757: The Greater Hartford region and the Hartford Region Open Choice Program. CREC Magnet Schools are tuition free for families. Each school has a specific theme that drives the development of curriculum and the delivery of instruction. Themes include STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), arts and culture, international studies, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, aerospace and engineering, ecology, public safety, museum studies, and medical professions & teacher preparation. CREC Schools enroll more than 7,000 students in Pre-K Age 3 through Grade 12. The Hartford Region Open Choice Program

950-524: The State Constitution , SC 17211), included Justices Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille. In an extraordinary action, all five majority justices signed their names as authors of the opinion. Dissenting were Chief Justice Sullivan and Justice Zarella. On October 10, 2008, the court ruled in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that gay and lesbian couples could not be denied

988-439: The access to a public education which is not substantially and materially impaired by racial and ethnic isolation. This was a split 4–3 decision, which was authored by Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters . Peters was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Robert Berdon, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr. , and Joette Katz . Justice David M. Borden authored the dissent, with Justices Robert Callahan and Richard Palmer concurring. One of

1026-544: The composition of the city and suburban school enrollments. [2] [3] This decision was appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court . On July 9, 1996, the court overturned Hammer's ruling, in a split 4-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters ( Sheff v. O'Neill , 678 A.2d 1267 (1996), 678 A.2d 1267). Peters was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Robert Berdon, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr. , and Joette Katz . Justice David Borden authored

1064-515: The dissent, with Justices Robert Callahan and Richard Palmer concurring with the dissent. The court ruled that the state had an affirmative obligation to provide Connecticut's school children with a substantially equal educational opportunity and that this constitutionally guaranteed right encompasses the access to a public education which is not substantially and materially impaired by racial and ethnic isolation. The Court further concluded that school districting, based upon town and city boundary lines,

1102-534: The importance of the case and the high likelihood that the United States Supreme Court would grant certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in favor of the city, in a 5–4 decision, with the dissent written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas . The Kelo decision

1140-402: The issue back to court in 2007 and the two sides began talks on a second settlement. In June 2008, a second settlement was negotiated [10] , calling for building more magnet schools in the Hartford suburbs and expanding the number of openings for Hartford children in suburban public schools. The new settlement also included state-run technical and agricultural high schools. [11] In Dec 2008,

1178-545: The law. The reason for the case was that the resources the state spent on schools in areas with majority black/Latino populations were lower than those spent on schools in areas mainly inhabited by white people. In 1995, Judge Harry Hammer ruled in favor of the State in the case. His decision rejected claims that officials are obligated to correct educational inequities, no matter how they came to be. Further, he ruled that without proof that government action helped foster racial isolation, courts cannot require steps that would change

Capitol Region Education Council - Misplaced Pages Continue

1216-499: The majority opinion of the court, authored by Justice Katz, and joined by Chief Justice Rogers, and Justices Palmer and Vertefeuille, effectively ordered the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport to release thousands of legal documents from previous lawsuits filed against priests accused of sexually abusing children. A dissenting opinion was authored by Justice Sullivan. The Connecticut Supreme Court case stemmed from

1254-411: The majority opinion. Justices Bogdanski, Longo, and Barber concurred in the decision, and Justice Bogdanski filed a concurring opinion. Justice Loiselle dissented from the majority opinion. The Court (610 A.2d 1225), speaking through Justice Robert I. Berdon, delineated a six-factor test to assess claims of rights under the Connecticut Constitution. The six factors are: This test has subsequently formed

1292-405: The most important cases the court has decided was Kelo v. City of New London (2004), appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court . The state court sided with the city in a 4–3 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Norcott and joined by Justices Borden, Palmer and Vertefeuille. Justice Zarella wrote an unusually lengthy and considered dissent (joined by Justices Sullivan and Katz), due to

1330-732: The right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. This decision made Connecticut the third state (along with Massachusetts and California ) to legalize same-sex marriage through judicial decree of the state supreme court. Chief Justice Rogers, who did not participate in the decision, was replaced by appellate Judge Lubbie Harper Jr. The majority opinion was written by Justice Palmer, and joined by Justices Norcott, Katz, and Judge Harper. Justices Zarella, Vertefeuille, and Borden dissented. In George L. Rosado et al. v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation et al. (SC 17807) , 292 Conn. 1 (2009)

1368-404: The state and the plaintiffs issued a 50-page document that outlined exactly how the new goals would be met. The plan called for a mix of existing programs, creating new magnet and charter schools, increasing support for the programs and collecting data on progress. [12] Connecticut Supreme Court The Connecticut Supreme Court , formerly known as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors ,

1406-580: The state of Connecticut had complied with the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. [7] In 2002, Judge Aurigemma held a hearing on the progress of the case and negotiations began on a settlement which was approved in 2003 [8] . It included a goal of having 30 percent of Hartford minority students in reduced-isolation school settings by 2007. In 2007, the 2003 settlement expired short of its goal. An independent Trinity College report found that only 9 percent of Hartford's minority students attended less racially isolated schools. [9] The plaintiffs brought

1444-644: The underpinnings of subsequent decisions interpreting and guiding the meaning of the Connecticut Constitution, including that the Connecticut Constitution affords greater protections than its Federal counterpart—including the Kerrigan decision discussed below, and Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Educational Funding v. Rell. Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters and Justice David Shea and Justice Robert Glass joined Justice Berdon's majority opinion. Justice Alfred Covello dissented. Sheff v. O'Neill

#171828