The Consent Decree

NU/Evanston Committee

The Consent Decree was originally entered February 17, 2004. It includes the T1 District. The Northwestern University West Parking lot located in the U2 District is part of the T1 District.

What follows is a series of documents showing the attempt by Nicholas Cummings (Evanston's Corporate Counsel) and Northwestern University's Priya J. Harjani ( Associate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel)  to remove the NU West parking lot from the Consent Decree and thus quash any discussion regarding  NU proposals which would affect the neighboring residents of the T1 District.

On May 1, 2023, the City filed a motion asking this Court to modify the Consent Decree entered February 17, 2004 (hereafter the “Decree”). Dkt. 116. On May 31, 2023, this Court held a hearing on the motion and requested the parties provide additional briefing on the authority of the court to modify the decree, as well as ordered the parties to provide recommendations for modification. Dkt. 120. The specific issue at hand is the language in Paragraph 3 of the Consent Decree which the Parties agree should be amended by the Court. The Court has the authority to modify the consent decree on at least two bases: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the change in circumstances brought about by the University’s Construction Project.

Transcript of Proceedings before the Honorable Nancy L. Maldonado

5/31/2023 

For the Plaintiff: Northwestern University By: Ms. S. Priya Jenveja Harjani

For the Defendant: Mr. Nicholas E. Cummings

Read how Cummings' is actually acting on behalf of NU.

"Ms. Harjani is saying that she and I see eye to eye, because for me, the exhibits that are attached to the consent decree show the intent to limit the area to the historic district.

… the idea that the Ryan Field project is not within the historic district at all.

… I agree with Ms. Harjani, I think if we limited the scope of what the committee's jurisdiction, that would in hand limit the agenda inherently"

See transcript below

Filed 5/1/2023,  and entered 5/31/2023

ORDER asking for a modification of the Consent Decree to restrict the Committee’s purvey only to the Historical District.

See document below

Supplemental Brief to the City’s Motion to Modify the Consent

The motion was submitted by Nicholas E. Cummings (City of Evanston Corporation Counsel), Alexandra Ruggie (Assistant City Attorney for the City of Evanston Law Department) and Priya J. Harjani (Associate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel - Northwestern University)

NU argued:

The Consent Decree was never meant to encompass any T1 zoning district outside the Local Historic District and that the Court has the authority to modify the consent decree on at least two bases: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the change in circumstances brought about by the University’s Construction Project.

It was not until September 2022 that anyone in the community considered a meeting of the Committee to discuss the University’s Construction Project

In April 2023, the Committee began discussing the T1 District located at 1600 Livingston Street over objection of the University. City appointed committee members argued that the plain language of the Decree made the University’s Construction Project an appropriate topic for a Committee meeting.

See document below

EMERGENCY MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO INTERVENE

 7/24/2023

Excerpts from the document:

The Committee Members were not notified of the Motion for Modification by either of the current parties to this action and only learned of its existence late last week. The Committee Members do not seek to intervene for the purpose of delay; they are prepared to appear at the Status Hearing set for July 25, 2023 at 10:30 am and present their views in opposition to the pending Motion for Modification.  The Committee Members oppose the Motion for Modification for the reasons stated in the accompanying brief.

Clare Kelly, Julie Johnson, and David Schoenfeld (together, the “Committee Members”) respectfully move to intervene in the above-captioned matter for the purpose of opposing the pending Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Consent Decree

See Emergency Motion below

INTERVENOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION

7/24/2023

Excerpts from the document:

The Committee Members were not notified of the Motion for Modification by either of the current parties to this action and only learned of its existence late last week. The Committee Members do not seek to intervene for the purpose of delay; they are prepared to appear at the Status Hearing set for July 25, 2023 at 10:30 am and present their views in opposition to the pending Motion for Modification.  The Committee Members oppose the Motion for Modification for the reasons stated in the accompanying brief.

The Motion for Modification fails to establish any error in the drafting of the Consent Decree, nor any change of circumstances warranting the Court’s intervention to rewrite the unambiguous Consent Decree.

The Consent Decree does not qualify this language in any way. In particular, Paragraph 3 does not refer in any way to the Northeast Evanston Historic District (the “Local Historic District”)

Indeed, the Parties’ Brief instead asks the Court to “modify” the Consent Decree’s unambiguous language to insert a limitation that is absent from the current Consent Decree. As explained next, the omission of that language was not an error, and no change of circumstance justifies the material alteration of the Consent Decree that the Parties seek.

For the following reasons, the Committee Members oppose the Motion for Modification

The Parties Do Not and Cannot Establish an Error in the Consent Decree

 No “Change of Circumstances” Warrants Rewriting the Consent Decree

There Is No Need to Restrict the Committee’s Agenda

CONCLUSION

The Consent Decree has fulfilled its central purpose of avoiding new litigation between the Parties over land use issues for 19 years. The University’s current strong disinclination to talk with its neighbors about the major changes it plans to bring to their neighborhood is not a reason to fundamentally change that Consent Decree. Indeed, the scope of the Ryan Field project and the potential for serious disputes now make this the worst possible time for the Court to weaken the Consent Decree. The Court should deny the Motion for Modification.

See Memorandum below

7/25/2023 U.S. District Judge Nancy Maldonado denies the motion to exclude Ryan Field parking lot from NU decree

I have crystal clear contractual language, and you all are asking me to read in this limitation... No one put this in there, no one limited the discussion of the committee to the local historic districts.

8/31/2023  NU/Evanston committee meeting

 https://evanstonroundtable.com/2023/08/24/letter-to-the-editor-black-community-dispute-northwestern-ryan-field-claims/

Below is the document presented at the 8/31/23 NU-City Committee.

8/31/2023 NU-City Committee

See video transcript below