On December 15, 1995, the Court granted the Groundswell motion to terminate all court jurisdiction and discharge the writ of mandate, and gave the parties six months to prepare for finalizing a final order at that time. The ruling was construed by me as one which would then approve a modified integration order, after input by counsel, and finally terminate jurisdiction by discharging the writ of mandate along the lines of the Crawford order. My construction was based upon the following words as reflecting the tenor of the ruling terminating jurisdiction the coming June:

THE COURT: ... [I]t seems to me that the best purposes of all involved would be assured by terminating this writ and setting a period of six months to create an opportunity for hearings, for discussions, for input as to what the final order should look like and where certain provisions that trouble me as far as the current order is concerned, and allow the institution take its own course and do what it has to do. The fact that the court may think it is appropriate to back out of this case at this time, giving another six months to finalize the order, doesn’t especially mean that the court is not available if the school engages in activities that warrant a new writ of mandate. That is why we are here. We are here on a situation-to-situation basis ....

MR. ENSTROM: Do I understand that the motion is granted then —

THE COURT: You’re right.

MR. ENSTROM: — The motion by Groundswell.