STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
95 CVS 1158
HOKE COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
)
)
)
)
and
)
)
ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD
)
OF EDUCATION, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs-Intervenors
)
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; )
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
Defendants
)
AMICI CURIAE’S INITIAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW
SUGGESTING CONSIDERATIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST THE COURT
DURING THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 EVIDENTIARY HEARING
This memorandum of law is submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union of
North Carolina Legal Foundation, Inc., Carolina Legal Assistance, Inc., and the North
Carolina Justice & Community Development Center (hereafter “amici”), in their limited
role as amici curiae, approved by this Court in its order of September 12, 2001.
Amici do not propose to present or analyze any specific body of evidence in this
memorandum. Since none of the evidence solicited by the Court has yet been heard, such
a task clearly would be premature. Yet it does seem timely to offer certain overarching
considerations that might assist the Court and the parties as they expand and develop the
factual record during the next several weeks.
The Court has announced its intention to address the question “whether or not the
at-risk students . . . are failing to obtain a sound basic education because of lack of
funding, or because of a lack of sound, cost-effective educational programs being
implemented in low performing schools.” (Order Amending Memorandum of Decision of
March 26, 2001, at 7). The Court alternatively has framed the question as “ whether the
failure [to implement successful educational programs and strategies] is lack of funding
or lack of proper allocation of resources within the LEA [local educational agency] or a
lack of cost effective implementation of successful strategies because of lack of
leadership and effort within the LEA itself, or a combination of two or more of these
factors.” (Id. at 8).
To assist it in resolving this crucial question, the Court wisely has chosen to look
at five North Carolina public schools—West Hoke Middle School in Hoke County;
Kingswood Elementary School in Wake County; Gaston Middle School in Gaston
County; Baskerville Elementary School in Rocky Mount-Nash County; and Winstead
Elementary School in Halifax County—that seem to be achieving educational success
despite the presence of high percentages of at-risk students. In addition, the Court will
look at two western LEAs chosen by the parties.
What will make this hearing especially challenging are its multiple objectives.
The Court first hopes to learn precisely what principals and superintendents are doing in
those five schools to achieve their success—whether by some unique in-class
pedagogical methods, some especially inspired classroom and school-level leadership, or
instead by thoughtful allocation of school resources—and then to determine whether
2
those successful methods and techniques can be replicated in other schools without the
need for additional financial resources.
These tiered objectives will require the witnesses to demonstrate not only (1) what
practices are in use, but (2) to clarify whether the precise practices have, in fact, produced
the successful outcomes the schools now celebrate, and if so (3) whether those practices
are sustainable over the long haul, even in the selected schools. Just as important, the
Court (4) will have to assess whether the practices are replicable in other schools and
other settings. When the parties turn to the financial issues, they (5) will need first to
specify the out-of-pocket expenditures in these successful schools, but (6) they will also
need to uncover and quantify any unbudgeted or uncompensated expenditures that might
hide the total costs of the educational techniques or strategic choices that emerge.
Without full knowledge of unbudgeted or uncompensated expenditures, of course, it will
be difficult to make accurate judgments about the sustainability of any program.
We hope to touch briefly on each of these issues, on which the Court will likely
want concrete answers before it resolves this matter with its customary care.
I.
WHAT THE COURT MIGHT WANT TO KNOW:
THE BASICS
A.
Demographic Characteristics of Each Districts, and
Each School & Classroom
The Court has singled out these selected schools because of their success in
achieving educational gains for at-risk children. The parties should assist the Court’s task
by carefully detailing the racial and socioeconomic characteristics of each district and the
particular schools within each district. It will be important to learn, not only the numbers
3
and percentages of the African-American, Latino, and Asian children in each district, but
the percentages of these children who come from families that are poor (or are eligible
for free or reduced price lunches).
Indeed, it would be ideal if the Court were given demographic information on every
potential at-risk category specified by the Court, including children: (1) from low-income families;
(2) who receive free or reduced-price school lunches; (3) whose parents never graduated from high
school; (4) whose parents have a racial/ethnic minority background; (5) who are LEP; (6) who have
physical or mental health problems; (7) who live in single-parent families; (8) who are homeless or in
unstable housing situations; (9) who live in high-crime areas; and/or (10) whose parents are
unemployed. Memorandum of Decision, at 4-9, Hoke County Bd. of Educ. v. North Carolina (Wake
Co. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2000) (hereinafter “October 26th Decision”).
The Court might also want to determine whether the schools in each district that
have achieved special success have done so with disproportionately high or low
percentages of all such at-risk groups of children, compared to percentages in the district
as a whole. In other words, does West Hoke Middle School have significantly more, or
fewer, Limited English Proficient children than do other middle schools in the district?
What about physically or mentally challenged students, homeless students, or students
from single-parent families? If its student population departs substantially in any of these
characteristics from the Hoke County norms, further investigation would be warranted
before one could safely conclude that educational practices being undertaken within the
schools, rather than the special demography of those who attend the schools, has led to
the greater rate of educational achievement.
4
Moreover, it would be important to learn whether the gains in educational
achievement are uniform among every at-risk group, or instead, whether performance
gains vary substantially among different at-risk groups. Uniform gains would be the
cause for celebration and imitation. Yet if achievement among some at-risk groups—for
example, Limited English Proficient or special needs children—has fallen or remained
static even as other groups surge forward, the Court will need to determine whether these
gains for some groups are being “purchased” at the cost of neglect of others.
For example, because of limited resources, are Level I children being neglected
because of tactical decisions to focus on those Level II children with greatest promise to
rise to Level III performances? It is not impossible to imagine some principals or
superintendents, hampered by inadequate overall educational resources, making painful
triage decisions on educational methods or resource allocation to serve some students at
the expense of others. Even amid general rising performance scores, such triage decisions
could deny to groups whose special needs were neglected the sound basic education
promised by Leandro. Only by carefully examining the educational demographics of each
school and district can the Court be sure that such trade-offs are not present.
Finally, the Court will doubtless want to know about substantial changes that may
have occurred in the composition of the student populations during the academic year.
Many schools experience substantial changes in enrollment between August and May, as
some students leave while others arrive. To evaluate the effect of school on academic
performance over the course of an academic year, it is necessary to ascertain what
percentage of the students tested at the end actually were present in school long enough
to experience whatever benefits the school had to offer.
5
B.
School Organization
Beyond the demographics of each school, there are features extrinsic to teaching
methods that are likely to affect the performance of students in those schools.
(1) School Size – One of those factors is school size. A substantial body of
educational research suggests that students in schools with smaller total enrollments often
perform better than similar cohorts of students in larger schools. If any or all of the
schools under consideration have unusually small (or large) student bodies, the Court
might press the parties to assess the causative effect of school size on students’
performances. In addition, if any schools have attempted to create artificial reductions in
their size (via “schools within schools” programs or some similar plan) this would also be
useful information.
(2) School Features: Time & Classes – Presumably, among the most significant
questions the Court will ask is how the principals and superintendents choose to organize
the workday and social structure of their schools. Do they depart from other schools in
their organization of the educational day: a longer school day, more before-school or
after-school educational offerings, unusually long (or short) class periods, etc.? Does the
school follow “block scheduling” to allow all teachers some regular in-school time for
class preparation and/or consultation with other teachers?
Do these schools group their students in unusual ways: inter-grade classes, more
small-group settings, more pull-out assistance, more mainstreaming for all students?
What is the role of ability grouping or tracking, and how is it conducted and managed?
Are students sorted into different groups according to their performance in, or perceived
6
aptitude for, particular subject-areas, or are they grouped more generally, by their overall
performance? If so, what criteria are used?
How does the school handle the composition of its classes over the course of the
school day and the school week? Do classes stay the same all day, or are students
grouped and regrouped for various purposes throughout any one day? Do groupings vary
over the course of the school week, and if so, for how long, and with what objectives?
(3) Teachers, Teacher Assistants, Support Personnel, and Other Staff –
Among the most important decisions a principal can make to affect students’
education involves their teachers. The Court might request detailed information about the
educational, demographic, and socioeconomic background of each teacher in each
school. The information should include data on whether the teachers are fully certified,
whether they have additional degrees beyond the B.A. or B.S., their years of teaching
experience, and whether they have other special expertise. The Court should be especially
interested in whether teachers in these schools have received special training, or bring
other expertise, responsive to the needs of at-risk students. How many are qualified to
teach LEP children? How many have special education training? Does the school offer
professional development to better serve students across racial lines, or families from
poverty backgrounds?
Equally important is whether teachers in these schools are teaching in fields of
their substantive expertise, or instead are teaching out-of-field. If and insofar as the five
schools have especially well-qualified teachers, the principals should clarify whether
those schools’ teacher forces have been assembled at the expense of other schools within
the district, or whether teaching quality has been distributed relatively equitably
7
throughout the district. Finally, how often, and for how long, does the school use
substitute teachers? In what grades, and for what classes? Are students at higher levels of
achievement spared regular substitute teachers more often than students with lower
achievement?
Beyond the teachers themselves, the Court might want to know to know about the
principals’ use of teachers’ assistants and other classroom aides. Some advocates of
school reforms have written of schools in which many teachers’ aides were dismissed in
favor of additional regular classroom teachers, trading a smaller number of adults in each
class for additional regular teachers, hence lowering the average class size. In addition,
the parties should inform the Court about the numbers, percentages, and qualifications of
other school employees, including school psychologists, school social service supports,
and nurses.
(4) Special Programs – Some schools employ an array of special programs
targeted at specific children or specific educational problems, including special tutoring
programs for children who are falling behind, whole school reforms such as Dr. Robert
Slavin’s Success for All, or unique summer school offerings. Sometimes school programs
are not overtly directed at pedagogy, but address children’s health or nutritional needs, or
their families’ broader needs. The possible effect of any such programs needs to be
explored.
(5) Changes Over Time – It will be helpful to know which features of the
schools’ organization have changed over the past ten years and which have remained
constant. One frequent misunderstanding in interpreting a phenomenon occurs when it is
viewed only in “cross-section,” at one particular moment in time, without casting one’s
8
eyes “longitudinally,” to look for patterns over time. No matter how persuaded a witness
may be that particular educational methods or resources have proven decisive, it is
important to know whether, for example, the method or allocational decision has been in
place for years during which it did not appear to affect student achievement, or whether it
is so new that its likely impact is still not certain.
C.
The Views of Principals and Superintendents About Their Schools
Since the chief witnesses for this hearing will be principals and superintendents
from the selected schools, much of the hearing will naturally focus on their views: about
their objectives and goals, about their chosen strategies to achieve those goals, about their
allocation of educational resources, and about the “secrets of their success” as they view
it. These are critically important issues, perhaps the most important in the whole hearing.
The parties and the Court will explore them intensively and should probe deeply during
their examination. The witnesses’ testimony should be subjected to scrutiny based upon
the objective criteria set forth above—demographic characteristics of the schools, their
organizational features. The superintendents should also explain what special features
distinguish these schools from others within their school districts that did not achieve
similar success. By the same token, principals should explain why these schools may
have succeeded while others, which they may have led previously as principals, or in
which they have taught as teachers, did not.
In short, the principals’ and superintendents’ success with these schools should
open a dialogue about the entire LEA. Both principals and superintendents should be
asked what it might take, in their judgment, not only for the selected schools, but for
9
every school within their districts, to have ninety percent of students performing at Level
III or above on state end-of-grade tests.
D. The Search To Identify Resources
Presumably, every superintendent and principal will be asked to produce and
work carefully through his or her annual budget, accounting for every major category of
receipts (including federal, state, and local funds), as well as all expenditures. Ideally, it
would be helpful to follow these dollars not only to each school, but also into each
classroom or each separately funded program in each school.
As formidable as that task is, the fiscal questions should not stop there. It is
crucial—to develop a true picture of the resource needs in North Carolina’s public
schools—that the Court be informed about many forms of off-budget resources that
might have contributed to the success of these five schools. Such information should
include data on uncompensated services to these school children, including unpaid
activity by teachers or other school personnel, such as regular pre-school, after-school,
weekend, summer or other educational activity, and other efforts such as home visits,
etc., whether by teachers, teachers’ aides, other support personnel, or administrators.
In addition, witnesses should disclose private donations, whether dollars or inkind services, by whomever donated. Some schools are blessed with corporate
partnerships; others have special relationships with civic or governmental groups; still
others have extensive parent involvement through Parent-Teachers Associations or
volunteer classroom assistance. Oftentimes this assistance is not financial but comes
through the donation of personal services. If a school’s success is materially dependent
10
upon such marvelous but non-compulsory sources of assistance, it may be impossible for
other, less-well-supported or endowed schools to replicate that success.
A variant of this problem might be found in those schools that draw on their
“capital” in one of several ways to achieve short-term success. Some schools defer
necessary building maintenance, or defer other long-term obligations, to supplement their
teaching corps, thereby simply postponing an eventual day of fiscal reckoning. Others,
sparked by the inspiration of an especially able leader, press faculty members to make
special, intensive commitments that cannot be sustained over a decade or more. The
schools’ immediate gains under such a strategy may be impressive, but if those gains
come through the invisible depletion of the school’s human capital resources, their
sustainability is unlikely.
In short, these selected schools can be heralded as required models for other
schools only if they have achieved their success without resort to resources that other
schools cannot reasonably replicate. Perhaps the most problematic of those irreplaceable
resources, unfortunately, is extraordinary leadership. Just as replacements for Churchill,
Roosevelt, (or Dean Smith ) cannot simply be summoned upon command, likewise
extraordinary educational leadership is not a commodity handed out in gross by schools
of education. Instead, strong leadership is a quality that cannot be fully taught, or even
bought, and which may not come in 117 separate units, one for each of North Carolina’s
school districts.
11
II.
WHAT THE COURT MIGHT WANT TO KNOW:
A DEEPER LOOK
A.
The Educational Histories of Children in These Schools
Ideally, even if the Court found what appeared to be successful methods or
resource allocation decisions, it would want to be sure that the achievements in those
schools and classes actually reflected the input from those schools, rather than prior
achievement that the entering students brought with them to class. To study that
retrospectively might be impossible, since it would require the data-intensive
investigation of the “value added” by a particular grade or class that was pioneered by the
Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System research under Dr. William Sanders. To
make judgments about the impact of each class, Dr. Sanders charted the performance of
each child in the school from grade to grade (and in many cases, among a series of
schools). With that information, he could discern precisely how much additional
achievement came in any one class or grade, and how much was attributable to earlier
learning.
What would be more possible, and highly significant, would be to chart the
progress of students in subsequent years who had surged ahead in each of these five
schools. Even if such evidence could not attain the precision of the STAR research, a
look at the subsequent history of student cohorts from these five schools would reveal
whether their academic gains were sustained or lost, whether they remained in school at
higher rates or dropped out at the same or greater rates as other children. This information
should ideally be disaggregated by race, socioeconomic status, and all the indices of at-
12
risk status that the Court identified earlier, so that we could discern the continuing impact
of the apparently successful practices in these schools.
B.
The Long-term Educational Trajectory of These Schools
Just as important as plotting the continued success of the “graduates” of these five
schools would be plotting the longitudinal success of the schools with successive groups
of students. It is possible, of course, that the academic gains of any one or two years
constitute an anomaly in the life of that school—a sharp, upward spike in performance
that later vanished as the performances of the school’s children reverted to the mean.
Some of that data may not be available, of course, since many of the successes are recent.
Yet until their successes can be maintained for some significant period of time, it may be
premature to decide either that every methods being employed is the cause of the success,
or that they can produce repeated successes.
C.
The Various Measures of Success
The Court’s focus on these selected schools gives direction and concreteness to
what might otherwise become an unmanageable survey of educational literature and
research. However, this focus should be supplemented before the Court’s ultimate
determination on whether school districts need additional State resources to meet the
obligations of Leandro. At a subsequent hearing, the Court should turn directly to the
needs of the State’s high schools, particularly in light of the high dropout rates in schools
across the State. In its earlier decisions, this Court wisely has noted that assessing the
soundness of the State’s education requires multiple measures. It is not enough that fourth
graders are provided with adequate assistance if insufficient financial resources are
devoted to the problem of potential dropouts or to the more intellectually demanding
13
science and mathematics courses necessary to sound high school education. Yet the five
schools under consideration, as the Court well knows, offer no direct opportunity to
investigate these serious issues, since they all serve elementary or middle school students.
In this final sense, the Court may find it needs a deeper look to obtain the information
ultimately necessary for a comprehensive ruling on the resources issue.
III.
MINIMIZING THE INHERENT RISKS
IN GENERALIZING FROM SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
We have great respect and admiration for this Court’s capacity to comprehend
and analyze vast quantities of educational information; those abilities have already
manifested themselves in the Court’s earlier decisions in this case. We nonetheless urge
some caution in choosing which programs and practices should be adopted statewide.
A.
Determining Whether Successful Practices Are Necessary
The most irresistible conclusion, if the Court finds certain practices in these
selected schools that appear to lead to success, is that all other North Carolina schools
should adopt those selfsame practices (whether they be pedagogical methods or resource
allocation strategies). Yet it is possible for a strategy to be effective without being
essential, especially if alternative practices that can regularly yield the same or more
success. If schools that do not use the methods employed in these five schools
nonetheless achieve similar or greater academic success, then the methods employed in
these five schools might not be necessary to educational success. (Of course, if practices
in these five schools can achieve those ends with fewer fiscal resources, they might well
be preferable for that reason alone.)
14
B.
Determining Whether Successful Practices are Sufficient
The available Green Book data suggest that the hypothetical risk outlined in
subsection A. above is probably minimal in North Carolina, since there are regrettably
few school districts that are achieving academic success with their at-risk students. Far
more realistic is the risk of concluding that whatever methods appear successful in these
selected schools will surely succeed anywhere in the State. There are many reasons why
this assumption might not prove reliable. For example, methods that might lift the
educational performances of a heavily African American rural population in Eastern
North Carolina might not work, either with urban African American students in Charlotte
or Winston-Salem or with predominantly white students in the far Western mountain
counties.
Moreover, it is possible that some communities may profit from methods that
particularly address the problems of some at-risk children who predominate in one
district (for example, single-parent children) while slighting other children (for example,
special education children) who are underrepresented in that district. A different district,
one with a different student population, might discover that the methods that maximize
educational achievement for one student population may fail to reach the unique needs of
another student population in another district.
For these reasons, whatever educational and/or fiscal measures ultimately emerge
as successful should be ones that raise educational levels of at-risk children everywhere.
C.
Determining Whether Successful Methods Meet The Needs of
Children in All At-Risk Categories
Closely related to the point above is the concern that some educational methods or
resource allocation decisions might help some categories of at-risk children, but only at
15
the expense of others. For example, if a district aggressively acts to meet the need of local
LEP by hiring of extra Spanish-speaking or Hmong-speaking teachers, it is likely that
academic performances will be lifted among these deserving students. Yet if the funds to
make those hires have come from a decision to reallocate resources away from services
needed by autistic or hearing-impaired children, the district has in fact been forced to
decide that some children will learn at others’ expense—a result that is inconsistent with
Leandro.
D.
Determining Whether Practices are Sustainable Over Time
As we have elsewhere intimated, it is crucial to assess whether promising
practices, however successful for a year or two, can be sustainable over time. Educational
history is littered with stories of “breakthrough” methods and techniques, especially for
at-risk children, that prove only to be of temporary benefit. Regrettably few researchers
have gone back to these eventual disappointments to pinpoint the sources that led to
eventual failure. Hence, we have no fixed set of warning signs that might alert an
observer about whether an apparently successful strategy might be possess no more than
a temporary life span. One observation seems likely; if the success is founded upon
extraordinary leadership by a principal or a superintendent, then almost by definition, the
eventual departure of that out-of-the-ordinary leader will lead to diminishment of the
school’s performance (unless lightning strikes twice and the board manages to locate an
equally extraordinary successor).
E.
Determining Whether Practices Are Replicable in Other Settings
Related to the challenge of sustainability, but even more important and more
complex, is the challenge of replicability. As we have noted above, because of
16
differences among school districts in a variety of measures—geography, demography,
economics, culture—an educational device that shows promise in one setting can prove
less effective in another. Perhaps the best assurance of the replicability of any promising
methods that emerge from the schools under consideration during this hearing would be
identification of other schools in different regions and different settings (urban, suburban,
large districts, small districts), all of whom have adopted the same methods and all of
which are experiencing similar gains. This empirical evidence would go a long way to
quell concerns about replicability.
E.
Assessing Any Promising Methods or Techniques In The Light of
The Best Educational Practice and Research
The final check on the witnesses’ testimony and the parties’ evidence, and a
prelude to reliable findings, would be to assess whatever practices emerge against the
best educational research findings that are available. Those findings need not be decisive
in a North Carolina setting, but they can nonetheless constitute guideposts, or landmarks
that might help the Court find the best next steps.
Amici’s own experience with the educational needs of at-risk children, and our
careful reading of educational research literature, suggest at least eleven such practices,
many of which have already been documented by the parties earlier in this case, and
some of which the Court has already identified and embraced in its prior opinions. This is
not the moment for us to contend in depth about the necessity of any of these practices,
but we feel compelled to mention them in passing, for the consideration of the Court and
the parties during this hearing. They include:
(1) Smaller schools;
(2) Smaller class size;
17
(3) Pre-kindergarten education for at-risk children;
(4) Whole school reforms (such as Success for All) in early grades;
(5) Qualified teachers, all teaching in their fields;
(6) Strong well-funded programs for professional development of teachers;
(7) Appropriate, fully funded LEP programs for all LEP children;
(8) Appropriate, fully funded special education programs for all special education
students (with no preset caps on the percentage of children who can receive
needed services);
(9) Remedial programs and/or individual educational programs for every at-risk
child;
(10) Fully funded dropout prevention programs; and
(11) Leadership development for principals and superintendents.
Our experience strongly suggests to us that if any of these practices is omitted
altogether or not fiscally supported, some significant cohort of at-risk children is likely to
suffer adversely. We urge the Court to keep these practices in mind, and to probe the
expected witnesses from the five schools about their use and/or desirability, during the
coming evidentiary hearing.
One final note: the Court’s announced purpose for conducting this hearing is to
discern whether necessary educational programs for at-risk children can be delivered
18
without additional expenditure, through wise reallocation of current resources. It will be
crucial, as we have noted, to assess the realistic actual costs to deliver whatever programs
prove necessary, not simply in one school, but across all schools at different grade levels
through the school district, and across all districts throughout the State.
CONCLUSION
We respectfully commend these thoughts to the attention of the Court, and wish
all of the parties well as they commence, with obvious good faith, the difficult search for
the best way to deliver the sound basic education promised by Leandro v. State.
This 17th day of September, 2001.
____________________
Deborah K. Ross
State Bar No. 17590
P.O. Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 834-3466
___________________________
Deborah Greenblatt
State Bar No. 2847
P.O. Box No. 2446
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 856-2195
Counsel for the
American Civil Liberties Union
of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Inc.
Counsel for Carolina Legal
Assistance, Inc.
________________________
Carlene McNulty
State Bar No. 12488
________________________
John Charles Boger
School of Law, CB # 3380
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599
________________________
Sheria Reid
State Bar No. 24477
P.O. Box 28068
Raleigh, NC 276211
(919) 843-9288
Counsel for the North Carolina Justice
& Community Development Center
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Law was this day placed in the United
States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to:
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS
Roy A.Cooper, III, Esquire
Edwin M. Speas, Jr. Esquire
Tiare B. Smiley, Esquire
Office of the Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602-0629
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Robert W. Spearman, Esquire
Robert H. Tiller, Esquire
Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP
P.O. Box 389
Raleigh, NC 27602
H. Lawrence Armstrong, Jr., Esquire
Hux, Livermon & Armstrong
P.O. Box 217
Enfield, NC 27823
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-INTERVENORS:
Richard W. Ellis, Esquire
Gary R. Govert, Esquire
Smith, Helms, Mullis & Moore
P.O. Box 27525
Raleigh, NC 27611
Allen R. Snyder, Esquire
Kevin J. Lanigan, Esquire
Paul A. Minorini, Esquire
Hogan & Hartson, LLP
555 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
This 17th day of September, 2001.
______________________________
Sheria Reid
20