NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR., Senior U.S. District Judge.
Came on to be considered this day the joint motion of the Parties in the above styled and numbered cause, moving the Court to approve a Settlement Agreement negotiated and submitted by the Parties. The proposed Settlement Agreement was signed by Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, as representative of the Class of Plaintiffs; John R. Moore, attorney with the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Ronnie Musgrove, Governor, State of Mississippi; Mike Moore, Attorney General, State of Mississippi; Carl Nicholson, Jr., President of the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning; and their respective counsel. Having submitted a Settlement Agreement proposal to the Court, the named Parties request a hearing to obtain required Court approval and issuance of Notice to the Class of Plaintiffs to advise them of the terms of the Agreement and their right to object thereto.
In considering a proposed settlement agreement in a class action and whether it contains a fair settlement for all persons affected thereby, the court has the following three options:
1. Reject the settlement in toto;
2. Accept the settlement in toto; or
3. Reject the settlement with suggestions which could lead to an acceptance. Evans v. Jeff
D., 475 U.S. 717, 729, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 757, 106 S.Ct. 1531 (1986).
After mature consideration of the Settlement Agreement, the Court has serious reservations about parts of the proposed plan. The Court described said reservations to the Parties and their attorneys at a conference held in chambers on March 30, 2001. These reservations fall into three main areas:
1. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CALLS FOR MERELY SUBSTITUTING ONE COURT-ORDERED PLAN FOR ANOTHER.
The Parties' proposed settlement is not a settlement in the pure sense of that term in which the Parties come to the Court, advise the Court that they have resolved their differences, and no longer need the Court's involvement in the case. Rather, in this plan presented by the Parties, the Court is requested to sign an order which would bind the Mississippi Legislature to fund the Parties' plan with a specified amount of tax dollars each year for the next seventeen years. This order would replace the order previously entered in 1995 which funds the Court's plan. The Court's plan, formulated after a lengthy trial, has been substantially affirmed on appeal, has been in the process of implementation since that time, and is, for the most part, completed.
Exhibit A, attached hereto, sets forth a summary schedule of proposed Ayers funding under the Settlement Agreement.
This court issued an order on January 10, 2001, pointing out that all significant expenditures at JSU have been completed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered The Board in 1997 to submit a plan for dealing with desegregation of the Delta, but that order has yet to be complied with.
2. COST TO TAXPAYERS IS HIGHER IN PARTIES' PLAN.
The Parties' proposed plan is more costly in tax dollars than the Court's plan. An example of this additional cost is that in the Parties' settlement proposal, Jackson State University (JSU) would be given approximately sixty-eight million dollars ($68,000,000.00) during the first six years of the plan for "academic program" funds and a share of a seventy million dollar ($70,000,00.00) tax-funded endowment created by the plan to fund sixteen new programs and enhance two other programs. In 1998, The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning (The Board), in response to the Court's Remedial Decree, advised the Court that substantially all of these programs could be established at a cost of approximately thirty-one million dollars ($31,000,000.00) for the first six years, less than half the amount given to JSU under the Parties' plan during the first six years. In addition, it is anticipated by the Board that the new programs ordered by the Court will become self-sustaining after several years and will need no more special funding; but, under the Parties' plan, special funding would continue for seventeen years as called for by this plan.
Another example is that in the proposed settlement plan, JSU is given twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) for a building to house the engineering program that has already been ordered as a part of the Court's plan. The Board previously advised the Court that the cost of such a building would be ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) in carrying out the Court's Remedial Decree. Other increased costs are also present in the settlement proposal, such as a nine million dollar ($9,000,000.00) fine arts building for Alcorn State University (ASU) and the purchase of an office building, now empty and formerly occupied by State Farm, for JSU, neither of which was ordered nor was contemplated in the Court's 1995 Decree. Other increased costs in the Parties' plan are also present.
The Court has a serious reservation about ordering a state legislature to appropriate funds in amounts beyond that which has been held necessary to meet constitutional requirements. Of course, the Legislature could appropriate on a voluntary basis whatever funds it pleases above those found by the Court to be necessary to meet constitutional mandates.
3. THE PARTIES' PLAN ACKNOWLEDGES ONLY IN A CURSORY FASHION THE HEART OF THIS CASE, DESEGREGATION.
Likewise, the private endowment of thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000.00) referred to in the Settlement Agreement needs no approval of the Court for it to be started. Moreover, the Court has no jurisdiction in this case to order any person to establish or not establish private endowments.
While conventional wisdom is under the misconception that this case is primarily about unequal funding of historically black universities, the true issue in this case, the issue upon which the case has been tried at every court hearing, is desegregation. The main reason why funding of universities has been addressed in this case is for the purpose of determining whether instituting some additional academic programs and policies at historically black universities will attract white students, and whether some programs at the historically white universities may attract black students. As the Court has emphasized in previous opinions, the universities have no constitutional status as to any category of funding; rather, it is the students who have a constitutional right to equal educational opportunities.
This case has never been about attracting international students to historically black or white universities, or creating a multi-racial diversity of students at universities. This cause has always had the theme of eradicating any policies of the State, via educationally reasonable means, which prevent black students from attending historically white universities or which may channel black students to historically black universities and white students to historically white universities.
The Court's Remedial Decree in 1995 equalized admission standards of the State's universities, and thereby addressed the concerns of the Supreme Court about state policies which channel black students to historically black universities or prevent some from attending historically white universities. If a student is qualified to matriculate at one of the historically black universities of the State, he or she is qualified to attend any of the historically white universities. This being so, it is clear that African-American students in Mississippi now have public institutions of higher learning available to them to attend which are equal in quality to the institutions of higher learning which white students have available to them to attend, in that all eight public institutions of higher learning are equally available to both black and white students.
Contrary to the Court's plan, the Parties' plan contains a racial quota. The quota requires historically black universities to reach a ten per cent "other-race" student body over a period of seventeen years to be eligible for control of certain funds in a seventy million dollar ($70,000,000.00) endowment created by the Parties' plan. The term "other-race" in the Settlement Agreement is defined as "non African-American." By this definition, the ten per cent quota could be reached with students from Asia, South America, or other such nationalities, with few or no white students attending the institution. Even foreign students from Nigeria would be considered "other race" at the historically black universities under the Parties' plan. Such is not desegregation within the context of this case.
The most recent information shows that the average percentage of white students at public historically black four-year universities in the South is 15.1 per cent. The historically white universities in Mississippi average 26 per cent black students in their student bodies, without counting Asians, and other such nationalities. The Court has a serious reservation about that part of the Parties' plan which allows Asians, Indians, and even some black students to be counted toward desegregation at historically black universities.
Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute of The United Negro College Fund.
Another provision of the Parties, supposedly inserted to address desegregation but which raises serious questions about its effectiveness to do so, is that part which calls for adding certain academic programs at Mississippi Valley State University (MVSU). A significant portion of those programs is already offered at nearby Delta State University (DSU), approximately forty miles away, and therefore merely duplicates DSU's present offerings and would not promote desegregation by attracting white students to MVSU. As has been seen in other states and as was pointed out in the Court's Remedial Decree, when new academic programs are instituted at historically black universities which merely duplicate existing programs at nearby historically white universities, the effect is not to help desegregation but rather to decrease existing areas of desegregation, by causing black students taking those courses at historically white universities to leave and go to historically black universities for the same courses.
The Supreme Court admonished the Plaintiffs in this case when it said:
If we understood [Plaintiffs] to press us to order the upgrading of Jackson State, Alcorn State, and Mississippi Valley State solely so that they may be publicly financed, exclusively black enclaves by private choice, we reject that request.
United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 743, 112 S.Ct. 2727, 2742 (1992).
FAIRNESS HEARING
The Court advised the Parties at the March 30 in-chambers conference that, notwithstanding the Court's reservations about the Parties' proposed plan, the required legal test of whether a fairness hearing should be held appears to have been met, that is, whether there is a possibility that the proposed plan can be approved as is or approved with suggested changes. Armstrong v. Bd. of School Dirs., 616 F.2d 305,314 (7th Cir. 1980).
The proposal must be fair and reasonable "— and in the best interest of all those who will be affected by it." Austin v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrs., 876 F. Supp. 1437, 1456 (E.D.Pa. 1995); 7B Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 1797.1 at 378 (1986). The primary objective of requiring final court approval of class action settlements is to protect the interests of those "— whose rights may not have been given adequate consideration during the settlement negotiations." In re: Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, 927 F.2d 155, 158 (4th Cir. 1991). Ordinarily, in class actions, the court gives notice of a proposed settlement only to the members of the plaintiff class; however, in a case such as the one in which the State of Mississippi is named a defendant, and unusually large amounts of tax dollars are involved, in addition to the Governor and the Attorney General who have spoken for the State, the Court will allow comment from other resident Mississippians, in addition to those in the plaintiff class.
The Court having found that the legal standards have been met,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. A fairness hearing will be conducted by this court on September 4, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi.
2. The Notice of the Proposed Settlement of Class Action involving Mississippi's public universities, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is approved as the Notice to be published. On or before May 21, 2001, The Board, or The Board's designee shall cause the Notice to be published in the body of the following newspapers: The Clarion-Ledger, Commercial Dispatch, The Daily Corinthian, Delta Democrat-Times, Commonwealth, Hattiesburg American, Leader-Call, Enterprise-Journal, The Meridian Star, Natchez Democrat, The Mississippi Press, Starkville Daily News, Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, The Sun Herald, The Daily Leader, Bolivar Commercial, and Vicksburg Post. The defendants shall make copies of the Settlement Agreement available on the Board's website, address of www.ihl.state.ms.us, and at the main desks of libraries on the main campuses of each of the eight universities. This Order and the Notice shall be available on this Court's website at www.msnd.uscourts.gov.
3. On or before June 15, 2001, the Board shall file with the Clerk of the Court and serve upon counsel for the Class and the United States, affidavits or declarations establishing that publication of the Notice has been made, and the Settlement Agreement has been made available in accordance with this Order.
4. By August 5, 2001, counsel for the Class and the United States shall file with this Court, and serve on counsel for the Defendants, copies of all submissions in support of the proposed Settlement Agreement. By August 15, 2001, counsel for the Defendants shall file with this Court, and serve on counsel for the Class and the United States, copies of all submissions in support of the proposed Settlement Agreement.
5. Every resident citizen of the State, including Class Members, has the right to present his or her position on this proposed Agreement to the District Court in accordance with the procedures identified below. On or before July 25, 2001, any individual Class Member or other resident of the State may personally, or by a duly authorized representative of his or her choice, submit a written statement in support of, or in opposition to, the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposal by filing such statement with the Clerk of the District Court. If an individual desires to actually appear in person at the hearing, the statement of position must say so, and no person or his or her counsel shall be heard at the hearing and no written statement submitted by any such person shall be received or considered by the court, unless such person, on or before the above date of July 25, 2001, files with the Clerk of the District Court (i) a notice of his or her intention to appear, (ii) a statement of the position he or she will assert and the basis for that position. The court in its discretion will determine how many and how much time will be allotted for personal appearances. The Court will allow a representative cross-section of persons in allotting time for personal appearances. All submissions are to be filed and served as follows:
Clerk of the Court -. United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi — U.S. Courthouse — 911 Jackson Avenue — Oxford, Mississippi 38655-0727
As indicated above, any individual who has properly filed and served his or her position statement on the Settlement Agreement may, but need not, appear at the hearing. The Court will consider such statement regardless of whether such person actually appears.
6. If the Settlement Agreement is not approved, or is canceled or terminated, or fails to become effective for any reason, then the Agreement shall be void and have no continuing effect; and no reference to the fact of an Agreement or the terms thereof shall be made in this Court, or any other court, nor sought to be used by any person in any proceeding against any of the defendants as an admission or indication or evidence of any constitutional or statutory or regulatory violation.
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, on this the 8TH day of May, 2001.
Exhibit A to Settlement Agreement Summary Schedule of Ayers Fundingfn1 Fiscal Years 2002 — 2018 FY FY FY FY FY FY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Student Fin'l Assistance $ 300 300 300 300 300 300 Academic Programs 16,946 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200 20,200 Public Endowment 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Capital Inprovements 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 — Attorneys' Fees 1,000 — 1,250 — — — Total $ 38,246 $ 40,500 $ 41,750 $ 40,500 $ 40,500 $ 25,500 FY FY FY FY FY FY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Student Fin'l Assistance $ 300 300 300 300 — — Academic Programs 20,200 13,467 13,467 13,467 13,467 13,467 Public Endowment 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 — Capital Inprovements — — — — — — Attorneys' Fees — — — — — — Total $ 25,500 $ 18,767 $ 18,767 $ 18,767 $ 18,767 $ 13,467
Summary Schedule of Ayers Funding Fiscal Years 2002 — 2018 (Cont'd) FY FY FY FY FY 17-Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Student Fin'l Assistance $ — — — — — $ 3,000 Academic Programs 13,467 6,733 6,733 6,733 6,733 245,880 Public Endowment — — — — — 55,000fn2 Capital Inprovements — — — — — 75,000 Attorneys' Fees — — — — — 2,250 Total $ 13,467 $ 6,733 $ 6,733 $ 6,733 $ 6,733 $381,130 Funding thru FY 2001 83,856 Total Public Funding $ 464,986 Privately Funded Endowment 35,000 Total Settlement Funding $ 499,986
The total public endowment being created under the settlement is $70,000,000. See footnote 3 addressing transfer of funds presently constituting the Ayers Endowment Trust.
EXHIBIT "B" IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION INVOLVING MISSISSIPPI'S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
TO: ALL RESIDENT CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL BLACK CITIZENS RESIDING IN MISSISSIPPI, WHETHER STUDENTS, FORMER STUDENTS, PARENTS, EMPLOYEES OR TAXPAYERS, WHO HAVE BEEN, ARE, OR WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ON ACCOUNT OF RACE IN RECEIVING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE UNIVERSITIES OPERATED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING.
This proceeding (Ayers v. Musgrove, hereinafter "the Action") is a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi addressing the desegregation of Mississippi's public universities. The purpose of this notice is to advise you of the status of the Action, including a statement of your rights with respect to a proposed settlement of the Action.
Nature of the Action
1. The complaint was filed by a group of black Mississippians on January 28, 1975. On April 21, 1975, the United States intervened as a party plaintiff. The defendants are the Governor of the State of Mississippi in his official capacity; the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning ("the Board"); Delta State University (DSU), Mississippi State University, Mississippi University for Women, the University of Mississippi, and the University of Southern Mississippi; and, in their official capacities, the institutional executives of such universities, the Commissioner of Higher Education, and the individual members of the Board (collectively, the "Defendants"). On September 17, 1975, the District Court certified and defined a plaintiff class ("the Class") as follows:
All black citizens residing in Mississippi, whether students, former students, parents, employees or taxpayers, who have been, are, or will be discriminated against on account of race in receiving equal educational opportunity and/or equal employment opportunity in the universities operated by [the] Board of Trustees [of State Institutions of Higher Learning].
2. The Action first proceeded to trial in April 1987. The Class and the United States (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") asserted many claims of discrimination against the Defendants. Among other things, the Plaintiffs contended that Mississippi at the time of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) had established racially separate systems of public higher education and that the institutions designated to serve blacks were inferior to institutions serving whites. Plaintiffs contended that from 1954 forward the Defendants had continued the racially dual system of public higher education through policies and practices governing student admissions, employment of faculty and administrative staff, and through operation of historically white universities, or branches, close to historically black universities. Plaintiffs asserted that black students and faculty had been denied equal educational opportunity by Defendants' discrimination against Alcorn State University (ASU), Jackson State University (JSU), and Mississippi Valley State University (MVSU) with respect to institutional missions, number and level of academic programs, quality of instructional staff, allocation of land grant functions, level and quality of buildings, and distribution of financial resources. Plaintiffs sought extensive injunctive relief to remedy the alleged discrimination.
3. Defendants never disputed the existence of a segregated system through 1962. Defendants contended, however, that after 1962 the State had maintained for years nondiscriminatory admissions and operational policies, and had expended substantial affirmative efforts in good faith, with respect to students, faculty, staff and resource allocation to promote desegregation of the universities. Consequently, Defendants denied that Mississippi's present university system was unlawful.
4. On December 10, 1987, the District Court ruled in favor of the Defendants and dismissed the Action. In 1990 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. In 1992 the United States Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings in the District Court. On March 7, 1995, the District Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on some issues and in favor of the Defendants on other issues. The District Court entered a remedial decree requiring the Defendants to take additional actions directed toward the further desegregation of Mississippi's universities. Among other things, the remedial decree directed implementation of new, uniform admissions standards at all Mississippi universities for first-time freshmen, new academic programs and additional resources for ASU and JSU, a study of programs at JSU, establishment of endowment trusts for ASU and JSU for continuing educational enhancement and racial diversity, and additional study of ways to further desegregate DSU and MVSU in the Mississippi Delta as an alternative to consolidating the universities. Another appeal followed, and in 1997 the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the District Court with instructions for further implementation of its remedial decree and consideration of other possible additional remedies. The District Court has proceeded with such decree implementation.
5. Detailed information concerning the case, including the numerous full rulings of the courts, with comprehensive statements of the reasons for the rulings, are on file and available for your review at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court, 911 Jackson Avenue, Room 369, Oxford, Mississippi, 38655-0727. Certain of these rulings have been printed in the Federal Reporter system and are identified as follows: (1) Ayers v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1523 (N.D.Miss. 1987); (2) Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1990); (3) Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1990); (4) United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717, 112 S.Ct. 2727, 120 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992); (5) Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F. Supp. 1419 (N.D.Miss. 1995); and (6) Ayers v. Fordice, 111 F.3d 1183 (5th Cir. 1997).
Summary of Terms of Settlement
6. The Settlement Agreement is intended to achieve a full, complete, and final settlement of the Action, but the Agreement is expressly subject to approval of the District Court. The Settlement Agreement sets out and defines all the terms and conditions of the Settlement, including provisions that are to be put in place now but are to be carried out over a number of years. The Agreement, if approved by the District Court, will bind all members of the Class and all relevant branches of the state government. The Agreement is available for your inspection and is on file with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in Oxford, Mississippi. The Agreement is also available for your inspection at the main desk of the libraries on the main campuses of each of Mississippi's universities. Further, the complete Settlement Agreement may be reviewed on the Board's web site at the address, www.ihl.state.ms.us. This notice and the Court's May 8, 2001 Order related hereto are available on the Court's website address at www.msnd.uscourts.gov.
7. You are encouraged to review the actual Settlement Agreement in its entirety. Among other things, the Agreement provides:
(a) Financial assistance for summer developmental program. A pool of funds is to be established and maintained for 10 years to supplement the financial aid presently available to summer program participants. Funding is to be in the amount of $500,000 annually for five years, and $750,000 annually for five additional years. All Mississippi universities may participate in the pool.
(b) Academic programs. The Board authorizes continued implementation of the academic programs initiated under the District Court's 1995 remedial decree and implementation of additional new academic programs at ASU, JSU, and MVSU. The Board further authorizes enhancement of existing specified academic program areas at ASU, JSU, and MVSU.
(c) Endowments. Publicly-funded and privately-funded endowments are to be created for the benefit of ASU, JSU, and MVSU. The publicly-funded endowment is to be created over a 14-year period in the total amount of $70,000,000. The Board is to undertake to establish a privately-funded endowment over a seven-year period in the amount of $35,000,000. The principal of the endowments is never to be spent. Income from investment of the endowments will be allocated 28.3% to ASU, 43.4% to JSU, and 28.3% to MVSU. Income from the endowments is to be used to increase other-race presence and to enhance academic programs at each of these three universities. Income from the endowments is to be managed by a seven-person management committee which will include the presidents of ASU, JSU, and MVSU; but the endowments are to remain under the control of the Board until such time as the university attains a total headcount other-race enrollment of 10% and sustains such a 10% other-race enrollment for three consecutive years.
(d) Capital improvements. Capital improvement projects are authorized for implementation at ASU, JSU, and MVSU over a five-year period. Total funding for the facilities and projects may not exceed $75,000,000.
(e) Funding. In addition to the funding described in paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) above and in paragraph (h) below, special Ayers funding is to be provided over a 17-year period in the total amount of $245,880,000 for implementation of academic programs at ASU, JSU, and MVSU. Annual appropriations are structured to decline over time. The $3.6 million frozen by the District Court's July 6, 2000 order is to be released for use by ASU and MVSU. The Agreement includes a summary schedule of Ayers funding reflecting total settlement funding of $503,236,000, which amount includes funding to date under the remedial decree and the projected privately-funded endowment.
(f) Comprehensive university. JSU is recognized as a comprehensive university as defined in the Agreement.
(g) Mississippi Veterans Memorial Stadium and the Universities Center. Mississippi Veterans Memorial Stadium is to be designated as the home of the JSU Tigers and JSU is to become a member of the Stadium Commission. Subject only to the Board, JSU is to have control over the facility often referred to as the Universities Center.
(h) Attorneys' fees. Private plaintiffs are to receive $2,500,000 in payment of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
(i) Dismissal of action. After a hearing addressing the fairness of the Settlement, and upon court approval thereof, the Action is to be finally dismissed with prejudice, but the District Court is to retain jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of enforcing the Agreement in regard to the funding required from the Legislature over the succeeding seventeen (17) years.
Notice of Settlement Hearing
8. Notice is hereby given that a hearing on the Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held at the United States Courthouse, 911 Jackson Avenue, Oxford, Mississippi, 38655-0727, on September 4, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Neal B. Biggers, Jr., United States District Judge. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and whether the Settlement should be approved by the District Court and the Action dismissed in its entirety as to all Defendants and with prejudice as against all Plaintiffs, including the Class and the United States. Counsel for the Class and for the United States identified in the Settlement Agreement recommend court approval of the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interest of the Class.
Right to Address Settlement Agreement
9. Counsel for the Class and counsel for the United States identified in the Settlement Agreement, and counsel for the Defendants, will appear at the Settlement Hearing and may offer evidence and otherwise be heard in support of the Settlement Agreement.
10. Every resident citizen of the State, including individual Class Members, has the right to present his or her position on the Settlement Agreement to the District Court in accordance with the procedures identified below. On or before July 25, 2001, any resident citizen of the State, including any individual Class Member, personally or by a duly authorized representative of his or her choice, may submit a written statement in support of, or in opposition to, the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement by filing such statement with the Clerk of the District Court on or before July 25, 2001. If an individual desires to actually appear in person at the Settlement Hearing, the statement of position must say so and no person or his or her counsel shall be heard at the Settlement Hearing and no written statement submitted by any such person shall be received or considered by the District Court, unless such person, on or before the above date of July 25, 2001, files with the Clerk of the District Court (i) a notice of his or her intention to appear, (ii) a statement of the position he or she will assert and the basis for that position.
All submissions are to be filed and served as follows:
Clerk of the Court * United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi * 911 Jackson Avenue * Room 369 * Oxford, Mississippi 38655-0727
As indicated above, any individual who has properly filed and served his or her position statement on the Settlement Agreement may, but need not, appear at the Settlement Hearing. The District Court will consider such statement regardless of whether such person actually appears.
Requests for Information
Any questions you have about the matters in this notice should not be directed to the District Court, but may be directed by telephone or in writing to lead counsel for the Class or to counsel for the United States as follows:
Isaac K. Byrd, Jr. Byrd Associates 427 East Fortification Street Post Office Box 19 Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0019 Telephone: (601) 354-1210 Lead Counsel for the Class
John R. Moore U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Post Office Box 65958 Washington, D.C. 20035-5958 Telephone: (202) 514-4092 Counsel for the United States
SO ORDERED, THIS, the 8th day of May, 2001.