ADC statement on Court's denial of motion to intervene

Jan. 10, 2012 - Last Wednesday evening, the Court denied ADC’s motion to intervene, a motion made necessary by the failure of HUD and the U.S. Attorney to hold Westchester to account for its systematic violations of the Consent Decree.

ADC would obviously have preferred a different result, but is most disappointed by the Court’s failure to exercise its authority to vindicate its own interest in seeing that its order is obeyed. We had suggested the importance of following such a course back in May, pointing out in our memo in support of our motion to enforce that the Second Circuit has made clear that, “Until parties to [a Consent Decree] have fulfilled their express obligations, the Court has continuing authority and discretion - pursuant to its independent, juridical interests - to ensure compliance.”

Those interests exist regardless of the Court’s view of ADC’s right to intervene. It is unfortunate that what the Second Circuit describes as a court’s interest in “protecting the integrity” of a Consent Decree has not manifested itself in this case, where, over the course of 29 months, the Court has never probed Westchester about its noncompliance nor ever inquired about why the Government and the Monitor have not been more vigilant in defense of the Decree.

Ironically, just two days after the Court’s decision, the Monitor once again made clear that he is unwilling to set forth plainly the full scope of Westchester’s contemptuous conduct.