Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 1 of 15 PageID #: 231

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION

WILL GRAY, et al. VS. LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
CONSOLIDATED WITH WALTER SHINN, et al. V. CHARLES JOHNSON, et al.
CONSOLIDATED WITH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

PLAINTIFFS NO. 1:02CV256-M-A
DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS NO. 1:03CV623-M-D
DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF NO. EC70-55 DEFENDANTS

ORDER This cause comes before the court on the motion of the Lowndes County School District (“The District”) for declaration of unitary status in the above-entitled school desegregation case. The United States does not oppose the motion, although certain private plaintiffs have, in fact, responded in opposition thereto. Having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, and having conducted a Fairness Hearing on July 31, 2012, the court is now prepared to rule.

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 2 of 15 PageID #: 232
I. History of the Case The United States initiated this action against the District and many other Mississippi school districts more than forty years ago, alleging the unlawful operation of a racially dual system of public education in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6. In an order dated September 5, 1970 (“1970 Order”), this court permanently enjoined the District from discriminating on the basis of race or color in its operations. The 1970 Order contained provisions governing, among other things, student assignment, faculty and staff, transportation, school construction and site selection, extracurricular activities, and a bi-racial advisory committee. Since the 1970 Order, the court entered other consent orders in this case. These orders included a February 15, 1989 Consent Decree (“1989 Consent Order”), which provided for, among other things, construction of a new West Lowndes Elementary School to replace three existing schools and educational enhancements to programs offered at the West Lowndes schools. This court also entered a June 23, 2001 Consent Order (“2001 Consent Order”), which provided for renovations and construction of, inter alia, a new football facility with practice field and a new baseball facility at West Lowndes High School and which required replacement of the above-ground sewage lagoon at the West Lowndes Middle School with an underground system. In 2002 and 2003, certain private plaintiffs brought separate lawsuits, Gray et al. v. Lowndes County Schools and Shinn et al. v. Charles Johnson, seeking compliance by the District with its desegregation obligations. On May 26, 2004, this Court consolidated these two lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs (“Private Plaintiffs”) with the original desegregation case brought by
2

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 3 of 15 PageID #: 233
the United States. After discovery and good faith negotiations, the United States, the Private Plaintiffs, and
the District agreed to a Consent Order, which this Court approved on January 3, 2006 (the “2006 Consent Order”). In the 2006 Consent Order, the court found that the District was partially unitary with respect to (a) student assignment, (b) faculty and staff assignment, and (c) transportation. The 2006 Consent Order provided that when the District complied with the 2006 Consent Order, it could file its motion for unitary status and dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice.
On August 21, 2008, the District moved for unitary status, asserting compliance with the 2006 Consent Order. On October 1, 2008, the United States opposed the District’s motion and moved to enforce the 2006 Order on four grounds: (1) the West Lowndes High School baseball field was not comparable to the fields of the other two high schools because it did not drain as well and had low spots, resulting in rescheduled or cancelled home games, (b) the West Lowndes High School entryway did not function properly, (c) there was an absence of policies and procedures at West Lowndes Middle and High Schools related to advanced instruction, and (d) there were continued community complaints of racial harassment and discrimination at the District’s majority white schools. The parties moved to withdraw their respective motions and to engage in good faith settlement negotiations to resolve the District’s remaining desegregation obligations. On October 16, 2008, this court approved withdrawal of the parties’ respective motions.
The result of the negotiations between the United States, the Private Plaintiffs, and the District is set out in the Consent Order entered on February 3, 2009 (“2009 Consent Order”).
3

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 4 of 15 PageID #: 234
The 2009 Consent Order required the District to address four remaining specific issues before obtaining unitary status: (1) improvements to the baseball field at West Lowndes High School; (2) improvement of the entryway at West Lowndes High School; (3) implementation of an advanced placement program in the District; and (4) implementation of a policy against racial harassment and discrimination in the District. Id. The District has filed formal reports related to these issues, as required by the 2009 Consent Order.
II. District’s Motion for Unitary Status and Fairness Hearing On May 15, 2012, the District filed the instant motion seeking for this court to declare that it had achieved unitary status, to dissolve all prior injunctive orders issued in this case, and to dismiss the case with prejudice. The United States filed a response stating that it does not object to the District’s obtaining unitary status or to the dismissal of this case. The Private Plaintiffs filed a response objecting to the District’s request for unitary status on limited grounds. The Private Plaintiffs, the United States, and the District (collectively, the “Parties”) agree that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the jurisdiction of this Court. Although the style of the case names the Columbus Municipal Separate School District (“Columbus”) as a defendant, Columbus and the District are separate legal entities operating separate school systems subject to different desegregation plans. Therefore, the District’s motion for unitary status pertains only to the Lowndes County School District. By order of June 7, 2012, this court set a Fairness Hearing for July 31, 2012, to consider the District's motion for unitary status. This court ordered the District to publish notice of the hearing and invite comments in two newspapers, one in Lowndes County where the District is located and the other with a predominantly African-American circulation. All parties agreed to
4

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 5 of 15 PageID #: 235
the content and form of the public notice. Proof of publications were filed with the court. On July 31, 2012 this court conducted the Fairness Hearing. The court found the proof in
opposition to the declaration of unitary status at the hearing to be minimal. Notably, while twenty-five individuals wrote letters opposing the District's motion for various reasons or only stating a general objection, no private citizens actually appeared to voice their concerns at the hearing. Testifying in support of the District's motion was Mike Halford, who served as Superintendent of the District from January 2004 through December 2011. The Private Plaintiffs subpoenaed one witness, Dr. Peggy Rogers, Assistant Superintendent for the District. The United States presented no witnesses and no documentary evidence.
III. Legal Standard for Unitary Status The ultimate inquiry in determining whether the District is unitary is whether (1) it has demonstrated “good-faith compliance” with its desegregation orders “for a reasonable period of time,” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 498 (1992), and (2) has eliminated “the vestiges of de jure segregation . . . as far as practicable.” Board of Education of Oklahoma Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991). In determining whether the District has eliminated vestiges of de jure desegregation as far as practicable, the Supreme Court has identified six areas of school operations, commonly referred to as the Green factors: student assignment, faculty, staff, transportation, facilities, and extra-curricular activities. See Bd. of Educ. of Okla. City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991) (discussing Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968)). By the 2006 Consent Order, this court, with the agreement of the United States and the Private Plaintiffs, has already declared the District partially unitary with respect to four of the
5

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 6 of 15 PageID #: 236
Green factors: student assignment, faculty, staff, and transportation. The only remaining Green factors for full unitary status are facilities and extracurricular activities. In addition, the 2009 Consent Order required the District to implement a policy against racial harassment and an advanced placement program and to make periodic reports to the Court and to the United States and Private Plaintiffs. This court will address these issues in turn.
IV. Facilities The 2009 Consent Order implicitly confirmed that the facilities in the District were equitable except for the baseball field and the entry way at West Lowndes High School. Neither the United States nor Private Plaintiffs raised any objection to facilities generally across the District. A. WLHS Baseball Field The 2009 Consent Order required the District to engage a consultant to resolve drainage issues on the West Lowndes High baseball field so that the field would be comparable to the baseball facilities at the other two high schools in the District and to train the baseball coach in field maintenance and management. At the fairness hearing, Private Plaintiffs and the United States stated to the Court that they had no objection with respect to District’s compliance with the 2009 Consent Order regarding the WLHS baseball field. The District’s baseball field consultant concluded that the West Lowndes High School baseball field is comparable to or in better condition than the fields at Caledonia High School and New Hope High School. Also, Halford testified that the District worked with the consultant, as well as professional architects, to improve the field. The court finds that the proof on this issue supports the granting of the District’s motion for declaration of unitary status.
6

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 7 of 15 PageID #: 237
B. WHLS Entryway The 2009 Consent Order required the District to “repair the new entryway [at West Lowndes High School] so that rain water does not leak through the canopy or gutters at any part of the covered entryway” and to document the repairs for the opposing parties. Halford testified that the entryway has been repaired, thereby resolving the leaks. The Private Plaintiffs and the United States stated to the Court that they had no objection under the 2009 Consent Decree regarding the repairs to the WLHS entryway. Although not raised in their response to the District’s motion for unitary status, the Private Plaintiffs questioned for the first time at the fairness hearing whether the District had provided requisite parking spaces at WLHS per the 2006 Consent Order. Halford testified that more than seventy parking spaces were added to the WLHS parking lot, but he was unsure of the exact number. He testified that, since these spaces were added, he has never observed any parking problems since these spaces were added other than on graduation day, when the volume of guests at all the District’s high schools typically overwhelms available parking. Subsequent to the hearing, in order to address this concern, the District provided to counsel for the Private Plaintiffs an affidavit of Greg Wheat, Maintenance Supervisor for the District, that WLHS has a total of 218 marked parking spaces and 7 handicapped spaces at the facility, more than was required by the 2006 Consent Order. The court finds that the proof on this issue supports the granting of the District’s motion for declaration of unitary status. V. Extracurricular Activities The court finds that all students, regardless of race, are provided the opportunity to participate, and do participate, in the District's extracurricular activities. Photographs from the
7

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 8 of 15 PageID #: 238
most recent school yearbooks show both black and white students participating together in the schools’ clubs, athletic teams, academic teams, and other extracurricular activities. Halford testified that at Caledonia High School, where the majority of students are white, the student body elected two black students as Mr. and Miss Caledonia High School in 2010. He also testified that the Caledonia student body elected both a black homecoming queen and a black prom king. The yearbook photos and Halford’s testimony establish that black students routinely participate in extracurricular activities at Caledonia Middle School, New Hope High School, and New Hope Middle School, including athletics, academic teams, and student superlative honors. The court finds that the proof on this issue supports the granting of the District’s motion for declaration of unitary status.
VI. Advanced Placement Program The 2009 Consent Order requires the District to implement an advanced placement (“AP”) program pursuant to a policy agreed upon by all the parties. The Order specifically required the District to provide professional development for the staff involved in the program and to establish mechanisms for identifying and encouraging students qualified for advanced courses. The District was required to communicate with students and parents regarding the availability of the program and to encourage increased participation for those students who qualify. Halford testified that the District implemented the program under the direction of Curriculum Coordinator Superintendent Edna McGill. He further testified that as a result of the District’s efforts, the number of students at West Lowndes who were involved in AP courses increased from 5 students to 82 students over a four year period during the program’s
8

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 9 of 15 PageID #: 239
implementation. He testified that he has no reason to believe the District will discontinue the AP program if it is declared unitary.
The United States represents to the Court that it has no objection regarding the District’s implementation of the AP program. For their part, the Private Plaintiffs note that Assistant Superintendent Peggy Rogers testified that the number of students at West Lowndes passing their AP examinations has been “very low,” and they accordingly contend that the District has failed to establish that it has fully implemented effective AP classes at West Lowndes High School. While the AP examination pass rate at West Lowndes is concerning, the court finds that, on balance, the proof on this issue supports the granting of the District’s motion for declaration of unitary status.
VII. Miscellaneous Issues
In addition to the specific items listed in the 2009 Consent Order and the Green factors, counsel for Private Plaintiffs questioned Halford regarding the time for school board meetings. Pursuant to Board policy, the regular time for meetings is 11:00 a.m on the second Friday of each month, with any special called meetings held at 5:00 p.m. or 5:30. Board member Gray complained about the meeting time, and she has been able to attend the meetings. The court concludes that, while it is certainly arguable that the District should choose a more convenient time to hold its school board meeting, this issue does not constitute a basis for denying unitary status in this case.
9

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 10 of 15 PageID #: 240
VIII. Non-discrimination Policy The 2009 Consent Order requires the District to develop and implement a formal nondiscrimination policy agreed upon by all the parties. The Order also required the District to train all of its employees regarding the policy and to engage a consultant to assist in training. Neither Private Plaintiffs nor the United States contend that the District did not comply with its duties in this regard. Halford testified that the policy requires the District to follow specific procedures in the event of a complaint of racial harassment or racial discrimination. Each complaint is to be investigated by a designated representative at each school and then reported on to Assistant Superintendent Peggy Rogers, a black female, designated as the District Compliance Officer (“DCO”) for the policy. Subpoenaed to testify, Dr. Rogers confirmed that she generally oversees the implementation of the non-discrimination policy and ensures that complaint forms are completely filled out and investigated. Halford explained that the complaint forms are available to students and parents at each school and on the District’s website. Copies of the investigation reports and discipline decisions are included in the District’s reports to the Court, the United States, and the Private Plaintiffs. Examples of discipline imposed on students found to have violated the policy include in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, assignment to the alternative school, and, where necessary and appropriate, expulsion and/or report to law enforcement. Cross-examined about complaints of use of the racial slur “nigger,” Halford was clear that use of the word is not acceptable, and students are trained and counseled against its use. The
100

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 11 of 15 PageID #: 241
District’s reports of race complaints show that for the first semester of school year 2010-11, there were 17 complaints of all kinds for all District schools, with 13 for that particular racial slur. For the second semester of school year 2011-12, there were 21 complaints of all kinds across all District schools, with 13 alleging the racial slur. Halford testified that he does not consider the complaints regarding use of the word to be “prolific,” contending that 26 complaints is a small number in the context of approximately 5,000 students multiplied by the total number of school days in two semesters. In all instances, the allegations were investigated and the students disciplined. Further, the 2009 Consent Order requires only that the District receive and investigate such complaints, not guarantee that such incidents will never happen.
Questioned by the Court regarding a biracial committee referenced in the original desegregation order, Halford testified that the committee remains in place but has not had a quorum at its meetings. He testified that the committee’s stated purpose of promoting interracial harmony and understanding has been fulfilled through alternative means, specifically through training and education of students at both grade level and home-room discussions and staff development with employees about the non-discrimination policy. Mr. Halford testified that he has no reason to believe the District will discontinue implementation of the non-discrimination policy if it is declared unitary. The court finds that the proof on this issue supports the granting of the District’s motion for declaration of unitary status.
IX. Use of Nickname “Confederates” and Playing of “Dixie” at Caledonia
Of all the issues raised in the motion for declaration of unitary status, the one which
111

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 12 of 15 PageID #: 242
concerns the court the most is the continued use of the “Confederates” nickname at Caledonia High School. Simply stated, the court can discern no good reason why a Mississippi public school would wish to associate itself with any divisive nickname or symbol. At the hearing, Halford recalled that “Confederates” had been the school’s nickname since at least 1992, and he conceded that the Caledonia student band plays a version of the song “Dixie” when its team scores a touchdown at football games.1 Halford appeared to recognize that such a nickname can hinder the school’s mission of educating students of all races. At the hearing, Halford sought to emphasize the limited nature of the school’s association with the name, testifying that the Caledonia team uniforms now use the words “Caledonia,” “CMS,” or “CHS,” instead of “Confederates” except for limited use of the word “Fed” on a baseball uniform.
The use of words and symbols in a pejorative sense hardly advances the cause of education or personal and community growth. On the one hand, some will say “we mean no harm, we are only honoring our heritage.” On the other hand, another will say “this is a heritage which demeans me.” The best minds of the South have long known that those with competing interpretations of the past need to find a way to overcome the past.
We need to talk, to tell, since oratory is our heritage. We seem to try in the simple furious breathing (or writing) span of the individual to draw a savage indictment of the contemporary scene or to escape from it into a makebelieve region of swords and magnolias and mockingbirds which perhaps never existed anywhere.
1The court notes that, as a song written by a northerner from Ohio, “Dixie” has not always been a symbol of southern identity only. Indeed, during public celebrations on the day after Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant in April 1865, Abraham Lincoln asked that the band play the song, remarking that:
“I have always thought `Dixie’ one of the best tunes I have ever heard. Our adversaries over the way attempted to appropriate it, but I insisted yesterday that we fairly captured it.”
122

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 13 of 15 PageID #: 243
- William Faulkner, “An Introduction to The Sound and the Fury,”1933. Faulkner’s words of recognition of a need to talk, to reconcile, are still appropriate nearly 70 years later. There is nothing harmful in essence in pictures of Confederates or the playing of a tune. The harm comes to institutions and individuals when such symbols are used to purposely offend, provoke or hurt another. Such outcomes are not legitimate aims of public education.
This court seriously considered denying a declaration of unitary status based upon this issue, before ultimately deciding not to do so. After viewing the evidence at the hearing, it is the court’s impression that inertia and an unwillingness to address a controversial issue have more to do with the continued use of the “Confederates” nickname at CHS than any official resistance to a unitary system. It is apparent that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and, in such a situation, simple inaction is often the political path of least resistance. It was the court’s impression that Halford’s “heart was in the right place” on this issue. In his testimony, Halford emphasized how the school did not replace the painting of a Confederate soldier on the wall in Caledonia High School’s gymnasium after it was destroyed in a tornado, but it strikes this court that men and women of good conscience should be able to summon the resolve to do the right thing without relying upon acts of God or the federal courts to do so.2
This court would have been more inclined to deny unitary status if the Private Plaintiffs had made a stronger showing at the hearing, but, to reiterate, no resident actually showed up to testify on this (or any other) issue. Halford testified that he is unaware of any student
2The Private Plaintiffs note that Halford is no longer the superintendent and that, accordingly, he is not in a position to determine future policy at the District. While this is a legitimate objection, the court nevertheless found Halford’s testimony to be helpful in understanding the context in which this issue arose.
133

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 14 of 15 PageID #: 244
disturbance or student violence at the Caledonia schools associated with the use of the word “Confederate,” and he recalled only a single complaint about the playing of “Dixie” at football games. Moreover, the United States has recommended a granting of the motion for unitary status in spite of the limited use of the “Confederates” nickname at CHS. Finally, the court notes that the issues in this case have been steadily narrowed with each successive consent order, and the nickname issue is not one which was raised in the 2009 Consent Order.
In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that, while this issue is a troubling one, it is one regarding which the District is making steady progress and should not serve as a basis for denying declaration of unitary status. In particular, the court finds that the limited use of the Confederate nickname and the playing of Dixie are not vestiges of segregation that are “so real that they have a causal link to the de jure violation being remedied.” Freeman, 503 U.S. at 485486. Further, there is no proof that the diminished use of the word “Confederate” or the playing of “Dixie” represent official resistance to a unitary system or were the source of racial tension. See Augustus v. School Board of Escambia County, Florida, 507 F.2d 152, 157 (5th Cir. 1975). The court will therefore not deny unitary status based on this issue, based on this court’s trust that local leaders should decide local issues absent federal direction, to the fullest extent possible.
IX. Ultimate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Relief Based on the testimony and all evidence presented, the court finds that the District has eliminated all vestiges of de jure discrimination to the extent practicable, has complied with this Court's desegregation plan and orders for a reasonable period of time, and has demonstrated its
144

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 15 Filed: 10/24/12 15 of 15 PageID #: 245 good-faith commitment to the constitutional rights that were the original predicate for the injunctive relief this Court awarded. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491 (1992); Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-250 (1991). The Lowndes County School District’s motion for declaration of unitary status [114-1] is therefore granted, and this case is hereby dismissed.
A separate judgment will be entered this date pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. So ordered, this the 24th day of October, 2012.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
155

 
 No. 77-626
reme Tourt of the Pnitert tales
OCTOBER TERM, 1977
COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL., PETITIONERS V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
WADE H. MCCREE, JR., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 20530.

:14 n file ,i.tprettie Total of fi l e Puffed tales
OCTOBER TERM, 1977
No. 77-626 COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ET AL., PETITIONERS V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
Petitioners, a Mississippi school district and some of its officials, seek review of a judgment requiring the school district to desegregate four overwhelmingly black elementary schools, schools that had been designated for black students when state law required a dual school system.'
The United States instituted this suit in 1970; it sought desegregation of petitioners' schools. A consent decree was entered that year, desegregating the junior and senior high schools (Pet. App. 2a and n. 2).
'Petitioners maintained their dual system for more than 10 years
after this Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483.
See Pet. App. 2a n. I.
(1)

2
The current proceedings began in 1975, when the United States sought relief with respect to the elementary schools. Three elementary schools, formerly reserved by law for black students, still had student populations more than 90 percent black (Pet. App. 2a and n. 4). A fourth school, except for the attendance of some white children from a military base outside petitioner's geographic boundaries, had a student population more than 98 percent black (ibid.).
Petitioners conceded in the court of appeals (Pet. App. 1 a, 4a) that these schools were substantial vestiges of the statutorily-mandated dual system, and that the Constitution required a remedy. 2 The district court required petitioners to "establish three pairings, one involving each of the most heavily segregated black schools" (id. at 3a; see also id. at 40a-49a).
Petitioners argue that they should have been permitted to implement one of the two remedial plans they proposed in the district court. The court of appeals, in an opinion on which we rely, considered petitioners' contentions and rejected them (Pet. App. 6a-8a). It noted that petitioners' plan would leave four grades at one school and two grades at another "virtually 100% black" (id. at 6a-7a), and it observed that allowing such racial identifiability to continue would not comply with the constitutional
2 A great deal of petitioners' argument in this Court (Pet. 5-20)
seems to take issue with this concession and to contend that the United States has not established a violation of the Constitution. This argument, to the extent it is contrary to petitioners' concession below, has not been properly preserved. It is, in any event, frivolous, because state law required racial separation in petitioners' schools, and the school district preserved total separation until 1965 (Pet. App. 2a n. I). There was unquestionably intentional racial discrimination, and the only open questions concern the formulation of a remedy that will eliminate all vestiges of that discrimination.

3

requirement to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination

"root and branch." Green v. County School Board, 391

U.S. 430, 438. After concluding (Pet. App. 4a-6a) that the

I

remedy selected by the district court was consistent with

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,

402 U.S. 1, and Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman,

No. 76-539, decided June 27, 1977, the court of appeals

considered and rejected petitioners' contentions based on

factors such as transportation time (Pet. App. 7a and n.

14) and expense (id. at 7a and n. 15).

The decision of the court of appeals applies settled principles to the particular situation of this school district. There is no reason for this Court to review the essentially factual conclusion, concurred in by two lower courts, that the desegregation plan favored by petitioners was inadequate to overcome all of the lingering consequences of the dual school system the school district had maintained for many years.

It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

WADE H. MCCREE, JR., Solicitor General.

DECEMBER 1977.

DOJ-1977-12

 
 Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA As of: 04/08/2019 06:34 PM CDT 1 of 3
CLOSED,SAA2
U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi (Aberdeen Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA

United States of America v. Columbus Municipal Separate School District Assigned to: District Judge Michael P. Mills Referred to: Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/29/2010 Date Terminated: 10/24/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

United States of America

represented by Whitney Marin Pellegrino U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE − Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section − PHB 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Email: whitney.pellegrino@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Columbus Municipal Separate School District
Defendant Lowndes County School District

represented by Holmes S. Adams ADAMS AND REESE 1018 Highland Colony Parkway Suite 800 Ridgeland, MS 39157 (601) 292−0723 Fax: 601−355−9708 Email: holmes.adams@arlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/29/2010
05/11/2012 05/15/2012
05/17/2012 05/23/2012
05/24/2012

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF ENTRY of docket sheet, school desegregation case EC 70−55. (5/27/04 consolidated with 1:02CV256 and 1:03CV623) (mhg, USDC)
Case Reassigned to S. Allan Alexander. (dlh)
3 MOTION Declaration of Unitary Status (Placed on this docket per order #130 in case Lead Case 1:02CV256) (dlh) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
2 ORDER REOPENING CASE. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 5/17/2012. (lpm)
Remark − For a complete docket report for these cases see Case No. 1:02CV256. Associated Cases: 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (dlh)
4 RESPONSE to Motion re (88 in 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA) MOTION for Declaration of Unitary Status, (114 in 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA) MOTION for Declaration of Unitary Status , 3 in 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA) MOTION Declaration of Unitary Status filed by United States of America. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (Pellegrino, Whitney) Modified on 5/24/2012 (dlh).

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA As of: 04/08/2019 06:34 PM CDT 2 of 3

05/29/2012 06/07/2012 06/15/2012 06/18/2012 07/17/2012 07/17/2012 07/20/2012
07/31/2012
07/31/2012 08/10/2012

5 REPLY to Response to Motion re (88 in 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA) MOTION for Declaration of Unitary Status, (114 in 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA) MOTION for Declaration of Unitary Status , 3 in 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA) MOTION Declaration of Unitary Status filed by The Lowndes County School District. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (Adams, Holmes) Modified on 5/29/2012 (dlh).
6 AGREED ORDER setting fairness hearing. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 6/7/2012. Associated Cases: 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (lpm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/12/2012: # 3 Exhibit) (dlh).
7 NOTICE by Holmes S. Adams on behalf of The Lowndes County School District June 2012 Report to Court Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (Adams, Holmes)
8 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness Hearing set for 7/31/2012 10:00 AM in Oxford Courtroom 1 before Chief Judge Michael P. Mills. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (spw)
9 NOTICE by Holmes S. Adams on behalf of The Lowndes County School District of Proof of Publication − Commercial Dispatch re Notice of Fairness Hearing Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (Adams, Holmes)
10 NOTICE by Holmes S. Adams on behalf of The Lowndes County School District of Proof of Publication − Columbus Packet re Notice of Fairness Hearing Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (Adams, Holmes)
11 Objections or Comments to (135 in 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 6 in 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 91 in 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA) Order. (Main Document B. Phillips) (Attachments: # 1 A. Buckhalter, # 2 R. Phillips, # 3 E. Suggs, # 4 A. Gardner, # 5 C. Brewer, # 6 A. Brewer, # 7 S. Crawford, # 8 D. Neal, # 9 D. Crawford, # 10 A. Crawford, # 11 B. Ridgeway, # 12 W. Shinn, # 13 J. Blaylock, # 14 L. Shinn, # 15 B. Lewis, # 16 C. Lewis, # 17 J. Lewis, # 18 V. Lewis, # 19 C. Glenn, # 20 T. Shinn, # 21 M. Shinn, # 22 L. Jennings, # 23 J. Glenn, # 24 L. Shinn, # 25 J. Gray)Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (jtm)
12 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Michael P. Mills: Motion Hearing held on 7/31/2012 re (88 in 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA) MOTION for Declaration of Unitary Status, (114 in 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA) MOTION for Declaration of Unitary Status filed by The Lowndes County School District, (3 in 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA) MOTION Declaration of Unitary Status filed by United States of America. (Court Reporter Young.) Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (spw) (Entered: 08/06/2012)
14 Exhibit List.(Fairness hearing, 7/31/2012 − exhibits on file in Aberdeen Clerk's office) Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (spw) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
13 Transcript of Proceedings held on 7/31/12, before Judge Michael P. Mills. Court Reporter/Transcriber Rita Davis Young, Telephone number 662−416−2038.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The Policy is located on our website at www.msnd.uscourts.gov.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/31/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/10/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA As of: 04/08/2019 06:34 PM CDT 3 of 3

10/24/2012 10/24/2012

for 11/8/2012. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (mhg)
15 ORDER granting (114) Motion for declaration of unitary status in case 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 10−24−2012. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (lpm)
16 JUDGMENT. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 10−24−2012. Associated Cases: 1:02−cv−00256−MPM−SAA, 1:70−cv−00055−MPM−SAA, 1:03−cv−00623−MPM−SAA (lpm)

 
 U.S. v. Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist., 558 F.2d 228 (1977)

558 F.2d 228 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 76-3781. |
Aug. 9, 1977.
Synopsis School district appealed from order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Orma R. Smith, J., which ordered pairing of elementary schools to achieve desegregation. The Court of Appeals, Goldberg, Circuit Judge, held that in view of the relative merits of the pairing plan proposed by the court and the alternate plan proposed by the district, court did not err in ordering the pairing and rejecting the district’s plan.
Affirmed.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*229 Shields Sims, Columbus, Miss., for Columbus Mun. Sep. School Dist.
William G. Burgin, Jr., Columbus, Miss., for Lowndes County School Dist.
Jeremiah Glassman, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Alexander C. Ross, Atty., Jerris Leonard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ross Connealy, Atty., Brian K. Landsberg, C. J. Calnan, Ben Krage, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:

In this school case we review the district court’s order desegregating several elementary schools in Columbus, Mississippi. The area of disagreement between the parties is narrow. Appellant School District concedes that the current elementary student assignment pattern is invalid but asserts that the district court went too far in adopting a remedy pairing three sets of schools. The District seeks implementation of an alternative plan that would achieve less desegregation. We conclude that the district court exhibited appropriate sensitivity to the important interests on both sides of the issue, reasonably rejected the District’s alternative plan, and conscientiously performed its constitutional duty. We affirm.
I.
Columbus is a small city in northeastern Mississippi having almost equal numbers of black and white students. Prior to 1970 its schools were overwhelmingly segregated.1 The United States brought this action in July
1970 seeking to remedy that situation. See 42 U.S.C. s 2000c-6. In August 1970 the district court entered a consent decree desegregating the junior and senior high schools.2
The United States returned to court in July 1975 seeking relief with respect to the elementary schools. Half the district’s ten elementary schools were racially identifiable, and none approached the district’s even *230 balance between blacks and whites.3 Hughes, by far the district’s largest elementary school, was 100% black and gravely overcrowded. Coleman, Mitchell, and Union, the other traditionally black elementary schools, remained predominantly black.4 Two-thirds of the district’s black elementary students attended identifiably black schools. Sale and Brandon, on the other hand, were identifiably white, having white populations of 99.0 and 93.2%.
The School District originally opposed modification of the consent decree, arguing that the existing desegregation met constitutional requirements.5 The district court rejected that position, emphasizing that half the elementary schools were effectively segregated. The lawsuit’s focus then shifted to the formulation of a remedy. The District came forward with two similar proposals,

U.S. v. Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist., 558 F.2d 228 (1977)

referred to by the parties as Plans A and B, using attendance zone changes. The district court originally approved these proposals but later concluded they were constitutionally inadequate. The District had advanced no other alternatives, and the court accepted the government’s suggestion of pairing.6 Consistently with the government’s recommendations, the court ordered the District to establish three pairings, one involving each of the most heavily segregated black schools, Hughes, Coleman and Mitchell.7 On this appeal the District no longer contends that further relief is unwarranted.8 Conceding that the elementary schools must be desegregated, the District’s sole contention is that its Plan B should have been adopted rather than the government’s more extensive pairing plan.9 It is to that narrow issue that we now turn.10
II.
There can be no doubt that Columbus’s systemwide constitutional violation *231 called for systemwide relief. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, the nature and extent of the constitutional violation must determine the scope of the remedy. See, e. g.,
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I ); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). When there has been “a systemwide impact” courts must fashion “a systemwide remedy.” See Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, —- U.S. ——, ——, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977).
The district court’s task was therefore to fashion a remedy eliminating the systemwide violation “root and branch.” See Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 213, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973), quoting
Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 438, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). The court could not, of course, blind itself to interests other than those served by achieving complete desegregation. Its mandate was to formulate an effective remedy while simultaneously considering the interests of local authorities in “managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution” and the decree’s “burdensome effects” on the children and the educational process. Milliken v. Bradley, —- U.S. ——,

—— & n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (Milliken II ). The overriding goal, however, was “to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the
situation.” Davis v. Board of School Commissioners, 402 U.S. 33, 37, 91 S.Ct. 1289, 1292, 28 L.Ed.2d 577 (1971).11 The district court’s application of these principles was beyond reproach. The parties narrowed the remedial alternatives to two: pairing and Plan B. In light of the proposals’ effects on desegregation and the other implicated interests, we uphold the district court’s choice of pairing.
Pairing promises far greater desegregation, bringing every school in the district within a relatively narrow range of the racial composition of the district as a whole. Under Plan B, in contrast, only three of the ten elementary schools would have black populations falling within twenty percentage points of the systemwide figure of 53%. The black populations in the four traditionally black schools would vary from 74% to 82%. The black populations in three traditionally white schools would vary from 22% to 26%.12 These figures, moreover, provide a misleadingly optimistic view of the degree of desegregation that Plan B would achieve. Although the overall black enrollment at Hughes Elementary would be reduced from the present 100% to the more promising level of 82%, grades one through four at *232 Hughes would remain virtually 100% black. Plan B would substantially integrate grades five and six, thus improving the school’s overall ratios, but would not noticeably affect the lower grades. Similarly, Union Elementary would become virtually all black for grades five and six.13
In sum, pairing clearly will achieve much greater desegregation than Plan B. That conclusion alone does not end our inquiry; there are other interests at stake. The desegregation disparity between the plans is substantial, however, and the pairing plan would therefore be preferred absent a showing of important other advantages attributable to Plan B. Plan B concededly has virtues pairing lacks. By adhering more closely to the neighborhood school concept, Plan B allows more students to walk to school. Busing, however, was a tool of this and other educational systems long before desegregation became an issue, and many Columbus students will ride buses regardless of the choice between pairing and Plan B. The burden students will bear as a result of the pairing proposal’s increase in busing, with routes of less than half an hour for any

U.S. v. Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist., 558 F.2d 228 (1977)

student,14 pales in comparison to the interests in attending schools free of racial discrimination. Similarly, the added expense of pairing, small in terms of the District’s budget, does not provide a persuasive justification for the substantial desegregation losses that Plan B would occasion.15 Finally, the district court found, and the School District does not contest, that traffic does not constitute a significant problem.16
One additional factor counsels approval of the district court’s choice of pairing. Plan B raises substantial questions concerning the fairness of its distribution of the burdens arising from desegregation. The district court noted this problem generally, and some members of the Bi-Racial Committee17 noted specifically that Plan B placed a disproportionate burden on students from the Columbus Air Force Base. No white students other than those from the air base would attend Hughes Elementary, the heretofore all black school that has concededly been severely overcrowded. And air base students, unlike any

others in the system, would be required to change schools at the end of the fourth grade.
Reconciling the various interests implicated in any school desegregation case is no easy task. No formula exists for solving the trade off between the level of desegregation and the burdens imposed upon a school district and its students. In the case at bar, pairing achieves much greater desegregation than does Plan B, and it does so without posing intolerable burdens. The district court, showing great sensitivity to the delicacy of its task, chose pairing. The Constitution demands no less. The judgment is
AFFIRMED.
All Citations
558 F.2d 228

Footnotes

1

Pursuant to official policy antedating Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), the

Columbus schools were completely segregated until 1965. Before 1970 no white attended any traditionally black school, and less

than 5% of the system’s blacks attended traditionally white schools.

2

The decree assigned all seventh graders to a single school and all eighth graders to another. It established geographic attendance

zones for the two high schools giving each an almost even mix of black and white students.

3

These figures and those throughout this opinion exclude Barrow Elementary, a school devoted exclusively to special education.

4

Coleman and Mitchell were overwhelmingly black, having black populations of 91.5 and 92.5% respectively. Union’s black

population was 71.7%, and for purposes of this opinion we do not count it as racially identifiable. Union’s whites, however, were

primarily from nearby Columbus Air Force Base, which was not within the geographic boundaries of the Columbus Municipal

Separate School District. Excluding air base students, Union was 98.3% black.

5

The District did seek to modify the order by altering high school attendance zones. The court approved the modification without

objection from the government. The District also sought to transfer 200 Hughes students to Hunt, which houses all seventh

graders, in order to alleviate the acknowledged overcrowding at Hughes.

6

Two schools are paired by combining their attendance zones and assigning each school only certain grades. In the system

proposed here, two formerly 1-6 schools would be paired, one taking grades 1-3 and the other grades 4-6.

7

The court originally specified the pairings but later, without objection from the government, withdrew its order and substituted a

District proposal utilizing three alternative pairings and amending various attendance zones.

8

By agreeing to the consent decree in 1970 the District conceded a constitutional violation, and, as the District now acknowledges,

adequate relief has not yet been afforded. Thus further relief is appropriate. See e. g., United States v. Seminole County School

District, 553 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1977); Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction, 465 F.2d 878 (5th Cir. 1972) cert. denied, 410 U.S. 966, 93

S.Ct. 1438, 35 L.Ed.2d 700 (1973) (Ellis II).

9

Plan B would achieve greater desegregation than Plan A, and the District now relies on Plan B.

U.S. v. Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist., 558 F.2d 228 (1977)
10 The government challenges our jurisdiction of this appeal, asserting that the notice of appeal was untimely under our decision in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211, 1222 (5th Cir.) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds, 396
U.S. 290, 90 S.Ct. 608, 24 L.Ed.2d 477 (1970). Appellants filed their notice of appeal more than one month after the judge’s original pairing order but only five days after the amended pairing order adopting the plan now before us. See note 7 supra. The notice purported to appeal both orders. The appeal is undoubtedly timely with respect to the later order, and all issues in the case are properly presented on review of that order. We therefore deny the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
11 The School District cites Justice Powell’s concurrence in Austin Independent School District v. United States, 429 U.S. 990, 97 S.Ct. 517, 50 L.Ed.2d 603 (1977). Justice Powell, speaking for only two other justices, said that “large-scale busing is permissible only where the evidence supports a finding that the extent of integration sought to be achieved by busing would have existed had the authorities fulfilled their constitutional obligations in the past.” Id. 97 S.Ct. at 519. Justice Powell’s brief concurrence did not attempt a comprehensive statement of the standard he envisioned. He did not question the validity of such earlier decisions as Swann, and his concurrence was presumably fully consistent with them. Those cases, moreover, have been reaffirmed in Dayton and Milliken II, cases more recent than Austin. We thus adhere to the principles recounted in the text. At any rate, while we cannot say with assurance where people would have lived, where schools would have been located, and how much integration would have obtained absent the long standing constitutional violation indeed, no court will ever be able to do so in any school case we have no reason to suppose that the schools of Columbus would have been less desegregated than they will be under the pairing plan. Housing patterns would not have resulted in strict segregation, and as the District stipulated, “the availability of quality education is a factor which people consider when making the decision of whether to buy a home in a particular area.”
12 We do not, of course treat such statistics as independently controlling. The Supreme Court has made clear that racial ratios provide a useful point of departure for analyzing various plans but are not to be used as rigid barriers. See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).
13 The grade disparities would result from Plan B’s transfer of Columbus Air Force Base students from Union to Hughes at the end of fourth grade.
14 Under the court’s original pairings, travel time between the paired schools would have been 14, 17 and 22 minutes respectively, one-way including loading and unloading. Under the alternative pairings ultimately adopted at the School District’s behest, the corresponding times would be 8, 17 and 26 minutes.
15 The maximum marginal expense of pairing would be $135,000 per year. The District’s annual school budget is nearly $7,000,000.
16 Pairing also forces students to change schools after third grade. Though that is undoubtedly an undesirable effect, its importance is mitigated by the fact that students retain their same classmates despite the change of schools. Moreover, the District’s own Plan B would force air base students to transfer after fourth grade. See note 13 supra.
17 The court established the Bi-Racial Committee to aid in the desegregation process.

 
 Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 1 of 20 PageID #: 1

CIVIL DOCKET

EC70-55-S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Jury deiW!nd date:

:. Form No. 106 Rev.

TITLE OF CASE

ATTORNEYS

:tion arose at:

NAME OR RECEIPT NO.

REC.

DISB.

DATE

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 2 of 20 PageID #: 2

;,

(!

~.~.~~-

EC7055 S USA v. :Oiil:iutlt- Municipal Separate School District, et al

PROCEEDINGS

EC70-55
Date Or Judgmen

lr..At!c. on LOwnaes county School District by servin_g same on A n Hatch.,,... c,.,.,, ...

!UL .t:.aucat:l.on of Lowndes County, Miss.

•

r..At!c · on JOnn tl • .tlaroy, Member of the LOwndes County Boarq.~~o',hf_EL;t.:d!.Liul.U..Jc:a:;LJtt.._:ju1n.JU...n,..__ _ _- - 1 - -

•

lr..xec • on .J • 1<.. J:Srown, Member of the Lowndes County Boar.,.d.,..__o~f..._.E...,W_"'lu...,._,c:.a""L.:t.i....,io..LLLn~-----+--­

l.~:.a~::c • un KBLpn uaom, Member of theLowndes County Board of Education. - - - - - - - 1 - - -

ILxec • on .Jonn Kel.Chle, Member of the Lowndes County Board of Education.

f£1At!c. on l>OLumbus Mun1.cipal Separate School District by servine: ~ nn T!>m.oo ""'

l

lt>uuLsoy, ::>up t: or Columbus Municipal Separate School Distric.t... lrJXJUfXYtW~
rx x

j

~C<At!c • un noara o:r Trustees by serving same on Carl McKeller, Ch. of the Board. ~xec • on t:nar les Betts, Member of the Lowndes County_B_oard _o_f_Rdnc.<~t-i ........

-+---

! 7-24-70"' 1Fi1P.d 'RP.nort 0-F {"'.,,..·.,_"'.;,... T'I.:>-FonA,.... +o ... A n

• ..:1 n. ,.,

,.... . .:1

r

I
odosn
ll'i1"'r1

I

~ ....1

•

~P"n.Anwrtc-JPn.r-KF '

T

{"'orint-h
rw•.,.,rJo., l"r

.

•
Mias.
•+-• co.'!.

•
(Colllmhus
.1 ...,.

•

M

t

-J
mi

c

-
i

p

·-
al

-

-Se~p-.a_.t..a..t..e·~orv-p+yri~I.hUTlw.mrs• 5".tF.'-y----t--O'-'l1VVJ.l_._1,....,1"1'""'""::.-rr1-J=-r=-+--~

Corinth Mi"'"'

-,

- ·------ '"''"'1:'.1 o..v wm. ·p. Dodson, Law Cl.erk,

' 7-27-70. Fil~d Repm;t Of The tJnitQd States , Copy mailed to Will_iam_E_ Dodson T..am- 1"'1o,...lr Cor1.nth, M1.ss.

Att-v C:::imQ

···-J .. .. -

l:lml..::n ~- ~-~ ~._,~.............. vvf:'y o.v .... ~~o'-

8-5-70 J iFtiele:d~xAbxRtielpeoxrt&!TqomrTihHeuKSuapebrinm~tx=ex=n=:d:f;:±e::i.ne_ti--=b=--->y-t--=h=--e-D-1.-.V-l.·.-s-~-::-.o_n_o_f-=--E-:q_u_a--:1:--E-d=-u-c~a~t-i:-o~n-0->p-plortunit ies

United States Office of Education, Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Copy of Report mailed to Han. Bill Burgin, Hon Christenberry Mr. Ray, U. S. Attv.

and Law Clerk, Judge Smith.

~-----------~ - - - - + - -

__::8::....-~6::....-....!7~0~---+H'-=e:s::a!..!:r~i""'nu:;l?t:)__l,O!!Ln..'J0r>!.l..1a,.5;ui'.JnJtut.:·c..;~·...Jf..f.L_'.lQ:L_eA....rc•.:..rr.; ~;·JnJ.nIl_,aAO.g"<a>.iJ'.."c'.sa.:ti-:_T'I!J'<.e>•-.JF; '."e''R"(lrl.g.c'•"n'+'l-;T-J... .ow:nTJnu•r.ol.,.e"a'~';iIl"'-'0-"'3"';"n'ACJ.-.iT'IbJ."e,"'£;J;...-_,.Tt,.~"gwj•·•"a<'.Ag..'~e,·"8--1'"'f::T91·i:m:ii?fj[----~
------1-~'...J!1":.llilO>S!.'lLil.LUCOm~~.~.p.n•l!.>ua_:dun·uot":__sC!LPe•t.-JfL:_'•oor..r.....l8:).!-:.J1L.:3t:::·-:.7.J0..JJ..,.....q:...·~0J1.L0_JAL,..~M-,--.l,;.r~..t..l::aa;l'rl:ll;,.lk=;.~;u:'LuLa..wtl.e...e-_ _ _ _ _~-----~-·_···_'~-J-+--·-

--=:8-;;;-::-6-;;--~7~0=-+"'k·i~l~ed-.}Mi!!.fll"'I!.J.)J.·t:....1;..·.nlnll_ll'!;!..',nu.r:.r.....;l-TI!I",'E:!.'"'a,..;.t.::;:bl•nl:li'"'Eh----:-'C._u:'ou_p;nv~mw>'"'EL'iL.'1.u.:>:.c••r1J.-...lt-r:.c·n,::l--JTbl"'~''uHf'1;,'·1~1:.'-l·l~,JC..._:Ju.<~;wl·r.~k:C!;;.l;!•r..luiJ'!;h•l~-""-i!-------- - - - - + - - - · ~-10-70-~ Filed Answer to Cross-=elaim - Copy to Lww Cl:.:::ec::r.k.:.:..:.•__' __________________ _ _
4
( 8-10-70 'Entered Consent Decree in Civil Order Book 9, pages 320-33.8 Noti ""' n-F 'Rnt-..-.r ... ,_

'-

Counsel of Record·-~-

~-----t---

8-24-70 Entered Order pursuant to opinion rendered from bench on 8-2C-71J_,_.si-gnn.eeGd-4)b¥y'----+--·-·-

, Judge Orma R. Smith Aug. 21, 1970. COB 9, pgs. 354-356 . .Mail.e.d...c..e.rH-F-iorl

----------+-~c~o~p~y~o~r~d~e~r~t~o~c~o~u~n~s~e~l~.--~M~o~t~i~o~n~t~o~d~i~s~m~i~s~s~a~s~t:~o~r,~rnww~n~d~e~s~c~a~u~n~t*y~Buo~a~r~d_go~f-~-----+---­

lr

Trustees iixmixxei d~e~n~~~·e~d~-~·~e~t~c~·--------------~---------------------------------1----~

8-26-70 .f 'RYhihi tJ:: rAi-n>"nor! 'bu T.T~ ,-. _D,

T.

n.'l.

.:L '

-'1.

Entered ~rder, signed oy Judge .()rina"'R.-Smit:li' sept."' 5';-1'97tr;petmanEmtly__enj.oin.ino- dP-fPnil-"'nt-

1

from discriminating on basis of color or race in operation of school system- to

I

operate a single, non-racial unitat::y system of _t:ublic schools. COB 9- pgs. 389-

,,.~

, 402, incl. J. s. 6.

.

Mailed Not1.ce ot entry.

--~-~---+-~-

9-2l-70JiFiled copy of Ruling Of The Court- Aug. 20, 1970- (Inez Edmondson- Court Reporter. tEntered Amended Consent Decree- signed oy Judge Smitn Sept. 1~, 1970. Columbus Se parat
----~--+1s=-c-h~l-.Dist. to accept students residing W. ··of Tombigbee River for 1970 & 1971 on y-

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 3 of 20 PageID #: 3 CIVIL DOCKET EC7055 S USA v. Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist. , et al

DATE

FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

AMOUNT REPORTED IN EMOLUMENT
RETURNS

Thereafter, it shall be the responsibility of the Lowndes County School

Dist. to educate all of its children except on the Colurnbvs AFB. COB 9

I

pgs. 410- 413. Mailed Notice of entry.

11-20-70 Entered Order, signed by Judge Smith Nov. 18, 1970, appointing members of

the bi-racial advisory committee for the Columbus Municipal Separate

School District. COB 10, pgs. 70-73, incl. Mailed Notice of entry.

12-9-70

Filed Report of Lowndes County School District. Copy to William P. Dod so p., Law Clerk, Oxford, Miss.

3-25-71 Entered Order, signed bv Judge Smith 3-24-71. appointing_ Col. Alva N.

Temple to the Bi-racial Committee to serve in the place of Robert E.

I

4-26-71'

nun ... , .L<Oo::>.L&•""u.
Filed Petition.

\,sVJ.) .l.VJ 1:'5'?• '+UL ()1: '+UJ,

' Filed Report Of Lowndes County School District •

.r J. J.eu

app.LJ.cc:n:J.on .r vi: au urue:r: 10 ;:,n01i\!,r ~,.;i:iUSe.

Conv rn T..<~T.r f'1 .,.,..k

4-30-71

Hearing on Application By 1). S. For Order To Show Cause & on Motion For l:l.J:>pLUVCI.l. UJ.. .LLUJ:>U~t::U Cli.;UUU.I. OUU::;L.LU!,;L..LUU ::;t;:L. LU:L~ Ut:i:ll:.Lll!5 i:ll.. UX.LOru, J.V.lJ.SS,,

on Fri. Mav 14 1971 before .Judge Smith

•

5-6-71 Mailed Jacket file toM. Armstrong, D. c .• Oxford. Miss.

6-1-71 '1 Entered Consent Order, signed by Judge Smith on 5-29-71, approving plans

filed on April 23, 1971, by deft. to construct an adiacent building to

the Motley Attendance Center. COB 11 pages 8-10. Notice of entrv mailed.

7

Order appointing Maier Clarence 0. Eyer to the Bi-racial Advisory

bommittee to take the place of Major Andrew C. Baldridge who has resigned.

"'"' ~ ~
•V.U ..L.LJ ,1-'5• JVo

li-ntered Order appointing Dr. John H. Allg~od to serve as chariman of the

Bi-racial committee. COB 11, pgSI~ 91 & 92. Mailed Notice of entry.

8-18-71 Filed Report Of Lowndes Countv School District. Copy to Judge Smith.
. 11-1-71 Filed Report of Columbus Municipal Separate School District

12-8-71 Filed supplemental report of Columbus Municipal Separate School District.

7-25-72 Received and entered Order appointing Mrs. Annie Catherine

Carter to serve on the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee in the

8-39-72

p., .(L)..,a...c, e o1,:..:,,..,.M ,.., r,s...,

Ranao.Lpn.
, 1::

uraer s1gnea uy uuuge

..:! , t.:

"'T

,,.,. .... _...,,...,. '!>11

;:,mll-u u ul.y -zc ,
~

•

-...~~ ~-• .r-:;J• - - ••.

-~· ~·~

Filed Report of Lowndes County School District. Copy to Judge Smith.

10-31-72 Filed report of Columbus Municipal Separate School District Conv m.<~i1Prl rn Judge Smith by Atty. Shields Sims.

4-16-73 Filed report of Columbus Municipal Separate School District. ~_t_o .Tud12 e Smith by Atty. Sims.
7-18-73 Entered Order , signed by Judge Smith 7-17-73, appointing Major Wayne L. Gosnel
~o Bi Racial Committee- as Major Clarence 0. Eyer, the CAFB representative on the Committee has been reassigned. COB 15, pages 19 & 20. Copies of Order
~ailed to all counsel & Mrs. J. W. Davidson, Jr.' Secretary & Major Wayne JL.

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 4 of 20 PageID #: 4 EC70-55 S USA V. Columbus Mun. Separate School Dist., et al

DATE

FILING8-PROCEEOINGS

AMOUNT REPORTED IN EMOLUMENT
RETURNS

11-2-73

Gosnell.Mailed Notice of entry. Filed Report of Columbus Municipal Separate School District. Copy mailed to Judge Smith by Atty. Shields Sims.

1-9-74

Entered Order, signed by Judge Smith 1-7-74, appointing Captain Francis

Christ, Jr., Chief, Social Actions, Columbus, AFB. as representative of he

~••

_,_ ~••~

pgs. 18

.,., • ,..,

• 1

~

"'

-~ --~~ ... ~ "- 4>UV J-0'--"•:f VVLUUL.LI..~~~ 0 vvt>-.L"'<i>

& 19. Mailed Notice of entry.

• .. ·-" 1"-Q.L.LC:U
·

1 ., I..V O.L.L '--UU'-'"'.LLlt::U o

\JVJ

.LV'

lJ-12-7lJ Filed Columbus Municipal Sep- School District's Report as Provided for in Consent Decree, August 6, 1970 and copy

mailed to Judge Smith by Atty. Reeves

10-18-74 Filed Columbus Municipal Separate School District's Report As Provided For In

v.-...,.
( 4-7-75

Consent Decree, August 6, 1970. Copy mailed to Judge Smith by Atty. Darrell
Reeves & Edward S. Christenberry, Counsel for the u. s. A.
Filed Report of Columbus Municipal Separate ro. _,_ 1 District- Copy to Judge Smith by Atty. Reeves.

7-3-75 Filed Application For An Order To Show Cause. Copy to Law C erk.<~.S

7-9-75 F,..,,ile.d,, Petition For Modification Of Consent Decree. Copy to ~aw v

.._.~,_.._no

7-10-7t:i Entered Order, sianed bv Judae Smith Julv 9, 19·75 settincr earirlcr·

on defts'

petition .·for

m

o

d. .

i

f

i

c

a

t

i

o

n
'

for

7-31-75,

at

9 am,

i

.M.JJCJ.UCCHt J.•J..::>r f:JO.J.I...J.C>::> 1.-U J...L...L.O::: HU ..L.CI.I...C.L L..l1CI.l1 I '.&..J-1-Jt .LCJ:'..L..L.C <..V

• -----t~i...n..,.s.....,t:a..,n-t..._t.l; <o•.l..,.._e!.a....,t•d.....,.i......,'.n....::tcr~rs......_,.o......_f-""'.l;;<oo~oot..s....,i'_n~t·cr~o:::.-••..aL..r..........,.t..i..,..e....,.!Su.;......~COB..~.l...9.._._.·....~:D"-'='-"cr~'--""2'"""0""'-3"""-'-&...._2.._0.,.......__-t--­

l

Entered Order To Show Cause, signed by Judge Smith. 7-9-75, m 7-31-75,

~ -----+~a.:::r+.._--E;;:;-l:-c:nTT:uu-,--i..-1.T. iL.J.~<..I-h-ucz:r-'--r';run•T•u'."T"P"".L+-.rlL...-urun..-m-J.Il,-n'li+JJn:::rrc.L: -ru.'hL'cc=:a~,.--izl..,..,:.>~ -.-: -,--+.._.+.n.,,c:::r--<;;,ll".,.r,r.JJ~:''n=rr,c.._-'•~.unTf--l=E.._c..,.ruu."h':c,::rn-u,11-nu,rJf."":..........r-----

; ,-----t___.jE~chtd..!.ll~c.lio~'aut...,•i...w.o.n~~.w.!~.lo•....__ft.~...::hwLe~c~o,l....,_uwml.u.LI.d:buLu;;t_Su.w..Mum...,:i*''·c..,_,~i.~.,~·.o~a,l~S!J,ii:e~n·•a..._r:..w.<aL.-t:.li<......JeS"'-l:c""'~h~to~o,]...__.,D!..a!.~i....,..su..t:~.r-i~c-blooo.l:o""--"s,_....lh~ow!.....-

;

cause why defts.should not be required, for the 1975-76 sch ol

c::tm ------t--Y""E:t' t::::Cc::rru.-a.a:Tilt.l:a--u."tL..•:.1a!e:t:::..LL1.t::::-:'a.c.rfLl.t,.tt;::.!LT',";;--1-.::.tu:r-rdu.EIc':\1vrce:J.LtU:UJ.Jl::-l::r-Cila±rr.rr:r.j_J:"ta~rr~.l.t--a- .!:-' .Ltca..:riTuluO'J•:E.-". S:::>i1...u:-mu.!te::l,dLr...Ct-ia.::-E:::'>:>:r:sf..jL.lCjimHT·'-=--

ment which will fu l J v ne5=:earecrate the oublic e 1~=>mentarv sch' 1nl ~ df

Columbus, etc. Certified copy of both orders mailed to coun el.

7-14-75' 7-17-75 7-21-75 7-22-75

J.'J.C...L..L<:::U_ 1.'11\J\..~vC VJ., Clll...~:i,•

,

•

,

Entered Order, s1gned by Judge Sm1th July 11, 1975, appo1nt ng Capt.

Gary F •.Norr1s to serve in the place of Capt. Franc1s E. ChJ: ist, p-r.-

.1-1-

"'• _n

1 1\..:3·

,.,

... .._J::" ... .._~-·•-~--

,_

~••

._,_.,_ .._..._

• • "''"'-'-'~.....,~

....._v~'""'"'"-.1

& 215. Mailed Notice of entry.

. .:

,.,,.,..,.., , n

h, A

,..,._.._.._. -~- - - t J::"~~• ,... . . . .

Entered Order, signed by Judqe Smith 7-15-75, defts. to have unti~

July 21, 1975, in which to submit a proposed planoJ deseglagatibn

.,

..

.., " ... ,... ~- ., "

.... .., • I.

.!:"''-'-"-"'._....._.._..., '-'"' '-U'-" .._.....,._...._._ "' '-'"-'"'-C.L CH'--=.1-<;;;V. '-'H

J

/..Jo '-''-""-' ..L.Jf .1:"'';:1• w..J-..:o

Mailed Notice of entry •.

Filed copy of Report Of Proqress On Development Of A Plan 0 Stud~nt

Assignment Which Will Fully Desegregate The Public Elementa1y Schpols

,.....£: ,.... ,

.1..

u.•

•

•

•

...

,...

•

.::1 ,....

I"!

'"' .::!

,...

.::!

,,

n.

10~

F i l e d Response Of The u. s . To D e f t s ' P e t i t i o n For M o d i f i c a t i o n Of ......................................... , .-.~ ........ ~ ............l:"'J::""'-f .............. ':J. ... ~--~ '-'.1 ....................... ~---- - - - - -

•J. _ , ~-

consent Decree. Copy to Law Clerk.

7-24-75 Filed Reply to Application for Order to Show Case-copy to Law Cl~.

I
I
•

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 5 of 20 PageID #: 5

USA V. COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DIST., et al

D. C. 110 Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

EC 7 0- 55 S

DATE

PROCl!lml>INGS

Tl-4-75 .-5-76

e U. S. To The Alternate Plans Of Elementary Submitted B The Columbus Munici al Separate Sch
the U.S. to the Alternate Plans of Submitted by the columbus ~un~cipal
l
5/f{/.?:::::_6. . , - - -

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 6 of 20 PageID #: 6

USA vs. Columbus Mun. Sep. School District, et al

EC 70-55-S

D. C. llOA Rev. Civil Docket Continuation

DATE

PROCEEDINGS

5/6/76 Filed civil minute sheet - hearing in Oxford. 5/12/76 Entered order signed by Judge Smith on 5/ll/76: (1) approving implementation of
Alternative Plan A or B as submitted by defendant school board, with the court reserving the right to, prior to 7/l/76, specifically designate which of the two plans shall be implemented; (2) requiring defendants to file with the court and serve on counsel opposite designation of the plan which the school board desires to implement on or before 5/31/76; (3) requiring defendants to file with the court and serve on counsel opposite description of zone boundaries to be employed under either Plan A or B by 5/31/76; (4) requiring defendants to fi 1e with the court and serve on counsel opposite statement setting forth details of operation of Plans A and B and the relative effect of each of such plans upon pupils served by the district on or before 5/31/76; (5) requiring counsel for plaintiff to respond to pleadings filed by defendants no later than 6/15/76; and (6) granting defendants authority to increase size of libraries at individual elementary schools when such increases are necessary for accreditation purposes without securing prior leave of the court. COB 23, Pages 27-29. Notice of entry mailed. 6/l/76 Filed Designation by Defendants of Elementary(Student Assignment Plan to be Implemented. Filed Affidavit of the Chairperson of the Bi-Racial Committee. Copies to law clerk.
6/8/76 Response &Motion of United States to amend judgment &request for hearing.
Copy to law clerk. 6/ll /76 Filed Response to Motion of the United States. Copy to law clerk. 6/22/76 Mailed notice of hearing on motion to amend judgment to be held in Aberdeen on
6/28/76 at 9 a.m. 6/28/76 Filed (in Oxford) letter from Biracial Committee. 6/29/76 Filed appearance sheet with witness list.
Filed exhibit list Filed civil minutes of hearing had on 6/29/76 in Oxford. Court rejects plan B of proposal. Attorney for government and school board to come up with agreed busing system for students in city limits. 7/6/76 Filed USM-285 served on J. V. Carr, Superintendent of Schools, Columbus, on 6/25/76. Filed USM-285 served on Shirley Davidson, Columbus, on 6/25/76. Filed USM-285 served on George Lee, Columbus, on 6/25/76 Filed USM-285 served on John Allgood, Columbus, on 6/25/76. Filed USM-285 served on Bill McBryde, Columbus, on 6/25/76, by leaving subpoena with McBryde•s daughter, Tamie McBryde, on instructions of John A. Hailman, Assistant U.S. Attorney. 7/13/76 Entered order in Civil Order Book No. 23, pages 285-295, signed by Judge Smith on July 12, 1976, implementing plan for desegregation commencing September 1976. Notice of entry mailed. 7/29/76 Filed plaintiffs• REQUEST TO ADMIT OR STATE FACTS and PLAINTIFFS• SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS. Copies to be mailed to Judge Smith by Phillip J. Brookins, Attorney. (EC 75-98-S) 7/30/76 Received extra copies of above docket pleadi-gs - forwarded to law clerk. 8/9/76 F~led ANSWER. Copy to law clerk. (EC 75-98-S)
--\+Haf:rtt-FTM!'l'HffiHtE-Q.F-.-!I.ff'ff":ftttt"cmdr-Meflt)IN-fl~~~~rmm:J;1~'Fft'§-AI~~~
!if

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 0E7C/279/01-0575-oSf 20 PageID #: 7

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET PLAINTIFF
Unit:eed Stat:es of An:erica vs.

DEFENDANT
Columbus Municipal Separate School District

DOCKET NO. - - - -

PAGE_OF

PAGES

OATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

8/13/76
8/16/76
8/24/76 'B-27-76 8-30-76 8/31/76
8/31/76 9/15/76
9/22/76 /B/23/76
10/6/76 10/8/76 10/15/76

Entered order signed by Judge Smith on 8/11/76 with reference to defendants' alternative plan for pairing and zone arrangements for desegregation of t.be Columbus Schools. COB 24, Pages 8-17. Notice of entry mailed. Filed: (1) NOTICE OF APPEAL; (2) SUPERSEDEAS BOND ON APPEAL ($250 cash bond); (3) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL: and (4) MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION. Copies to law clerk.
Mailed notice to counsel of hearing set for 2:00 p.m. on 8/27/76 at Oxford.
Filed (in Oxford) Responce of the United States In Opposition To Motion To Stay Execution of This Courts Order. Filed Civil Minutes - General. Hearing held 8-27-76, Oxford, before Judge Smith. DEFT. MOJION TO STAY: SUSTAINED. Entered order signed by Judge Smi~ on 8/27/76 sustaining motion of defendants for a stay pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit to the extent that the effective date for implementation of provisions and
I directives of the orders rendered on 8/11/76 and 7/12/76 is fixed a
• 8/1/77, with provisions and directives epumerated in said orders to be in full force and effect for all purposes from and after said date of 8/1/77. COB 24, Pages 56-57. Notice of entry mailed.
Filed NOTICE OF MOTION and MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY. Copies to law clerk.
Enteredorder signed by Judge Smith on 9/13/76: (1) sustaining Plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling defendants to answer interrogatories; (2) requiring defendants to file answers and/or objections to interrogatories, with copy to plaintiffs' counsel, within 10 days of entry of this order; and (3) taking under advisement, for disposition at a later date, plaintiffs' request for awar of expenses and attorney fees. COB 24, Pages 111-112. Notice of entry mailed. Mailed certified copies of docket entries and notice of appeal to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Filed Notice of Appeal submitted by Shields Sims, Attorney for Columbus Municipal Separate School District (considered as and treated as a designation of r~cord).
Filed defendants' ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES. Copy to be mailed to Judge Smith by Shields Sims, Attorney. Filed court reporter's transcripts. Mailed record on appeal to Fifth Circuit. Filed defendant's ANSWERS TO REQUEST TO ADMIT OR STATE FACTS. (Copies to law cler Filed defendant's ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES. (by.Shtelds Sitns. Filed copy of defendant's REPLY TO MOTION FOR AN ORDER STAVING FURTHER PROCEEDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER RENDERING A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDAN Original mailed to Judge Smith by Shields Sims, Attorney. Filed notice of hearing on plaintiffs' motion for order staying further proceedings, etc., and hearing'on consideration of imposing sanctions upon defendants for failure to comply with court order of 9/14/76. To be held at Oxford on 10/18/76 at 2 ~.m. Notices mailed to counsel by Margaret K. Tubbs, D.C. Entered order signed by Judge Smith on 10/12/76 re hearing as set out above. COB 24, Pages 182-183. Notice of entry mailed.

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
USA vs. Columbus Mun. Sep. School Dist. EC 70-55-S
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT

DOCKET NO. - - - -

DATE

NR.

i
PROCEEDINGS

PAGE

OF ___ PAGE

10/22/76
10/27/7i
11/1/76'
11/2/76 11/29/76 '
12/1/76 1
I
12/8/761
12/10/7)
I
4/14/771
i 5/18/77
5/27/77 6/06/77 6/27/77 7/01/77
7/01/77 ' 7/20/77 j
I

,Entered order signed by Judge Smith on 10/21/76: (1) striking defendants• answet
to plaintiffs' request to admit or state facts filed on or about 10/15/76;

I(2) deeming admitted for the purposes of this case the facts as stated in plaintiffs' request to admit or state facts; and (3) granting defendants permis-

I l
I

sion to COB 24,
Filed

seek leave of Pages 238-239.
PETITION of

court to amend or modify the facts Notice of entry mailed.
defts for School Improvements

now
-

deemed
copy t

admitted.
o law cler

l

, mailed by Shields Sims. 1 Filed REPORT of Lowndes Co. School District.
Filed report of COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT. Copy to Judge Smi1 by Darrell Reeves, Attorney. Filed NOTICE OF MOTION and MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES w/affidavits. Copies to law clerk. Entered order signed by Judge Smith on 11/30/76 appointing Captain James H. Lea to serve in the place and stead of Captai~ Gary F. Norris as a member of the Biracial Advisory Committee to the Columbus School Board. COB 25, Page 87.
!Notice of entry mailed. ntered ORDER, signed by Judge Smith 12/6/76, AUTHORIZING certain improvements and expansions in defts'petition filed 10/27/76 and EMPOWERING defts to take the necessary steps to procure the

1 funds to finance said improvements in COB 25, pgs. 117-119.
I Notice of entry mailed.

Wiled, in this and EC 75-98-S, RESPONSE of defts to MOTION of plff(l
I for AWARD OF ATTORNEY' s FEES and EXPENSES • Copy to law clerk by

Shields Sims.

tiled COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT of Shields Sims in this and EC 75-98-S. CO] to law clerk by Shields Sims. eceived Memorandum of defts in opposition to motion of plff, John

Dickerson, Jr., for award of attorney's fees and expenses.

Forwarded to law clerk.

Filed COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPORT AS
I1 PROVIDED FOR IN CONSENT DECREE,AY.GUST 7, 1970.

~ iled deft's MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION and NOTICE OF MOTION. Copy to Law

Clerk along with Brief in Support of Motion.

.

ailed NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' ~10TION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION to be held

at 9 a.m. on June 28, 1977, before Judge Smith in Aberdeen.

Filed RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COLUMBUS MUNICIPA

SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S r-10TION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION. Copy to Law Clerk.

Filed AMENDED HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' t-10TION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION, reset for Hear~

at Oxford, MS on 6/30/77 at 9 a.m. before Judge Smith.

ntered Order signed by Judge Smith on 6/30/77 denying deft's motion for stay of E

COB 27, pg 297. Notice of entry mailed. ntered AGREED ORDER signed by Judge Smith

on

6/30/77,

regarding

deft's

permissior

to sell property known as "arrow School 11 • COB 27, pgs 297-300. Notice of entr.]

~mailed.
Filed minutes of hearing before Judge Smith on 6/30/77 at 9 a.m., in Oxford. Deft's motion for stay of execution of court•s order: overruled. iled transcript of RULING OF COURT of hearing before Judge Smith on 6/30/7:.

I Three copies mailed to Fifth Circuit Crt of Appeals as supplement to plead1ngs t!

I

I

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
EC 70-55-S
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT

COLU~·1BUS r4UNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL

DOCKET NO. _ __

USA

DISTRICT

PAGE _OF__ PAC

DATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

8/15/77 11/02/77 1/23/78 3/22/78
~
4/6/78 4/17/78 5/24/78
9/22/78 11/02/78 1/17/78 1/5/79

Filed CERTIFIED COPY OF OPINION-ORDER of USCA issued as and for the mandate 8/9/77, AFFIRMING DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.
Filed COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOLD DISTRICT''S REPORT AS PROVIDED FOR HI CONSENT DECREE, AUGUST 7, 1970.

Received letter from U. S. Court of Appeals advising that Supreme Court denied certiorari in cause.

Entered ORDER of 3/20/78 (1) That Mrs. Nan Brown be appointed to fill vacancy on BiRacial Advisory Committee of the Columbus Municipal Separate School Dist created by resignation of Dr. John Algood; (2) That ~1r. George Raiford Smith be appointed in fill vacancy created by resignation of Mr. J.D. Davis; and that a copy of this order be forwarded to new appointees, to counsel for part and to Mr. Hatcher. COB 30~ pgs 232-233.
Filed ORDER APPOINTING MARY MATTOX SISSON to fill vacancy on Bi-Racial Adv. Corn to take place of Dr. John Algood.

Filed COLUIVIBUS t4UNlCIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOLfDISTRICT'S REPORT AS PROVIDED FOR IN CONSENT DECREE.
iled ORDER of 5/22/78 APPOINTING Major Thomas J. Cunningham a member of the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee of the Columbus School Board in the place and stead of Captain James H. Lea.

Received copy of Memo re REGISTRY FUNDS mailed to partys.

Filed COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPORT AS PROVIDED FOR IN

CONSE:r-."T DECREE.

REPORT of SCHOOL DISTRICT pursuant to Order of 9/5/70 filed.

Entered ORDER of 1/5/79, DIRECTING clerk to take administrative action of remov

case from active docket. COB 32, page 290.

_J;...;;S'---'-6~--

4/16/79 5/11/79 7/13/79 7/31/79
... 0/22/7

SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REPORT AS PROVIDED FOR IN CONSENT DECREE of 8/7/70.
REPORT OF LmmDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. MOTION of deft FOR ADDITIONAL AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. CONSENT ORDER of 7/30/79 authorizing improvements and additions of three elemen
schools. REPORT of School District pursuant to Order of 8/7/70 .

4-15_:80
6/6/80
10/29/8P j-2/3/80
,,,p'
12(12('EO 1/30/8

CONSENT ORDER relieving the school district from making the 4/15 report as required under ,fiX of the consent decree, and directi that hereafter the reoort shall only be required annually on 11/1 of each year until further order of this ct.
CONSENT ORDER ALLOWING Col. School Dist. to eliminate Route No. 28 from transporation system, COB 36, pgs. 96-98. Notice mld. and copies.
REPORT of School District pursuant to Consent Decree of 8/7/70. CONSENT ORDER that school district provide USA Elem. and Sec.
School CR Survey, etc.
ORDER AJ?J?OI'NT!NG Major N. Steven Linder to Bi-Racial Adv. Comm. ORDER TO REIMBURSE CASH APPEAL BOND with copy of check #502 in
amt of $282.18 made payable tg Columbus Mun Sep Sch Dist.

OC·lllA REV. ( l/75)

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 10 of 20 PageID #: 10

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

EC 70-55

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT

DOCKET NO. _ __

USA

..CJOLlJMBUS 'SEPARATE SCHOOL, 'DIS'J;'. PAGE _OF__ PAG!

DATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

1/7/83 2/8/83 5/26/8
7/22/83 8/21/84 12/17/84
8/14/8~
1/2/86 5/5/86

REPORT OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
REPORT OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT - School years 1980-1~ REPORT OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT - School years 1981-1~

CONSENT ORDER

(LTS-5/25/83) Authorizing school district establish Kindergarten at any existing pur elementary school for 1983-84 school year in future years; (2) AUTHORIZING district assign kindergarten students to elem schoc closest to student's residence provided sc offers kindergarten program with sufficier capacity to accomodate these students; All other orders in this case REMAIN IN Ft FORCE & EFFECT except as modified by this
,f

ORDER

(LTS-7/19/83) APPOINTING Robert L. Kustet Member of Bi-Racial Advisory Committee.

REPORT OF LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT - April 1983-84 REPORT OF LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT - November 1983-84

REPORT of SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 1984-1985. REPORT of SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 1984-1985

REPORT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 1985-1986

!VIOTION

~0 ENFORCE 1970 ORDER AND FOR ~UPPLEMENTAL

6/19/86 7/7/86

MOTION (Ds} RESPONSE (Ds) RESPONSE (USA}

to move 7 & 8 grades from Plum Grove and Crawford. to mo to enforce 1970 order and supp. reli
to Deft's MO to modify deseg plan

~/26/86

ORDER (LTS-8/26/86)

APPOINTING Major Jerald Jackson as Bi Raci Advisory School Board Member

l2/l2/8p

CONSENT ORDER (LTS}

ORDER (LTS)

APPROVING CONSENT ORDER; Hrg to consider fir

approval/entry 2/26/87, 9 a.m., Aberdeen;

APPROVING Notice of Hrg-Notice/Consent Ordel

~ ('1-11~

to be published in local newspapers over period of 2 wks prior to deadline for recpt

U~::.J!.J..I:....b~i-"=:=::1===---------~ . of statements frgm affectec pe;r;.soas.

•

1/26/87

LETTER (Alva N. Temple)

re PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER TO MODIFY ATTENDA ZONE LINES FOR CALDWELL & LEE HIGH SCHOOLS
Copy to Judge Senter

2/10/87

LETTER

RE REDRAWING ZONE LINE BETWEEN CALDWELL & LI

(Billy McBryde, Chrm. HIGH SCHOOLS Copy to Judge Senter

Bi-Racial Committee)

DC-IIlA REV. (t/75l

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 11 of 20 PageID #: 11

DC lllA (Rev. 1/75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

No. EC 70-55-S

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT

DOCKET NO.-------

COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE$ SCHOOL

DISTRICT

PAGE_OF_ _ PAGE

DATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

2/17/8

LETTER (E J Stringer)

OPPOSING PROPOSED CHANGE IN ATTENDANCE ; LINES FOR CALDWELL & LEE HIGH SCHOOLS. C Judge Senter

2/18/8

LETTER (Al Hatcher)

OPPOSING RE-DRAWING SCHOOL BOUNDARY LINE! Copy to Judge Senter

2/19/87 2/20/87 2/25/87

LETTER

OPPOSING RE-DRAWING SCHOOL BOUNDARY LINE~

(Esther Harrison,

Copy to Judge Senter

Pres. Lowndes Co. NAACP)

OBJECTIONS (Mary Helen Harvey, a minor)

re SCHOOL BOUNDARY LINES

MOTION (Carolyn B Harvey and Ma~y Helen Harvey) to INTERVENE

2/27/87
3/2/87
3/12/81
3/25/8~ 3/27/8~
4/28/87 b/9/87

MINUTES

HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO CONSENT ORDER
before Judge Senter 2/26/87. Crt will pr order (Moody)

STATEMENT (Dr. E. J. Stringer)

OPPOSING PROPOSED CHANGE in zone lines

TRANSCRIPT ORDER (LTS)

HEARING OF INPUT ON PROPOSED SCHOOL LINE REZONING BEFORE JUDGE SENTER 2/26/87. Mo
OVERRULING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVA OF CONSENT ORDER MODIFYING ATTENDANCE ZON FOR LEE & CALDWELL HIGH SCHOOLS

REPORT (Lowndes Co. School Dist) Apri1Jl985-1986

REPORT (Lowndes Co. School Dist) Nov., 1986-87

ORDER (LTS)

DENYING application of Harveys to interve1

REPORT (Lowndes Co. School District)

April 1986-1987

,'/
~-r;

./ /,:;

/

·~

if

I

I

f

. ' '

: I

NoCtea:se3: /11:17/08-8cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 12 of 20 PageID #: 12 DC lllA Vclool.s.edIVfi&le rcooopmy of CONSENT DECREE entered 8/10/70 ACTIVE FILE - other r _ in all _....;.__;;;__;;;.;.____;;;__,__;;;;:..:...~-------=-_.......----==-:-==::.......::.

(Rev. 1/75) .==-=-::....::..::.__;;;;;;;;;;;__;;;_;;;;;;;;;;;_;;;;;;;;;;;;__

EC 70-55-S
CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT

I DOCKET NO. - - -

USA
DATE

LOWNDES CO. SCHOOL DISTRICT, • PAGE _OF__ PAC et al
PRocEEDINGs)~;;_,,~~ 10j 3 1f P

12/10/8~

NOTICE (USA)

2/3/88

NOTICE

3/ll/88

SCHEDULING ORDER (LTS) Case reopened JS-5

4/l3/8f 4/15/88

NOTICE NOTICE OF RECEIPT

Disc 7/l/88, Expert witnesses to be designated 60 days prior to disc, PTC 9/7/88, 1:30 p.m., before Judge HEARING ON MOTION OF GOVERNMENT TO DESEGRATION ORDER 10/3/88, 10:00 a.
PTC 9/7/88, 1:30, Aberdeen. Sane. be imp. if PTO is not subm within days prior to trial.
Of Original Depo of Joe Odom by attys for pltf

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

of Adela P. Santos as atty of rec for USA, pltf

5/2/88

DESIGNATION (P)

OF EXPERT WITNESS

5-ti-fr-f"8"tl----- f- -:A:NSWER- -(iT "'School: )------- tcr -RM:END:E1T "COMPi.-tn-N'I( should have been dkt on 69-37)

5/16/88

INTERR (P-USA)

to Lowndes Co. School District

NOTICE (P-USA)

5/23/88 5/6/88

lst REQUEST (P) NOTICE

to TAKE DEPOS of Sammy Townsend and A. C Beal 5/26/88, Fred Young, Roger Hill, Ro Phillips, Barbara Jenkins, Dwight Colson and Roosevelt Bridges 5/27/88, Trudy Bac Troy Holder and John Seay 6/1/88, Robert Ivy and Gary Bailey 6/29/88
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE LOWND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Setting PTC before Judge Senter, 9/9/88, 10:00 a.m., Aberdeen

6/6/88 7 /21/8~
8/12/8B

MOTION (P)

for Extension of Discovery Schedule

ORDER (LTS)

Granting Extension of Discovery Schedule Disc extended to 8/12/88

ORDER (LTS)

Appointing Member of Bi-Racial Advisory

Committee, Captain John H. Thrasher, III appointed a member of the Bi-Racial Advi~

Committee to the school board in this cal

APPLICATION (P-Intervenors) for Leave to Intervene

8/19/8

NOTICE

PI 8/25/88 10 a.m. , ABERDEEN

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 13 of 20 PageID #: 13

DC lllA (Rev. 1!75)
PLAINTIFF USA

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET

0

I ELFEONWONADNETS co

t 1

., e a

No. EC 70-55-S
I DOCKET NO. - - -
I• PAGE - OF- - PAGE

DATE

NR.

r PROCEEDINGS fJ1-r~.I.f..,

8/25/8

AMENDED APPLICATION of*Roy N. Stewart, Arthur Hairston, Johnson Bridges, Jr. & Rev. Bobby L. McCarter
TO INTERVENE

Rec. APPLICATION MINUTES

of*Intervenors FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF.
HEARING scheduled for 8/25/88 on mo for preliminary injunction NOT HELD; MATTER RESOLVED BY PARTIES.

8/26/8

ORDER (LTS) ORDER (LTS)

APPOINTING BI RACIAL ADVISORY COMMITTE
DISMISSING application of Roy N. Stewart, Artr Hairston, Jonnson Bridges, Jr. and Reverend Be L. Carter to INTERVENE

9/2/88
10/17/~8
12/15/l 8 12/21/88 02/15/8
/25/89
7/6/90 7/17/90 9/19/90
1/9/91 3/29/91 4/24/91 6/14/91 11/15/91

ORDER (LTS)
NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE

DENYING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re Plum Gr Elementary School. PTC reset 10/21/88, 10, Aberdeen NJT 12/19/88, 10, Aberdeen.
CONTINUING PTC UNTIL FURTHER ORDER.
RESETTING NJT 2/21/89, 10, Aberdeen.

REPORT TO THE COURT OF Columbus Municipal School CONSENT DECREE (LTS 2/15/89).

CASE CLOSED -----------------------------------------------------

REPORT

of the Lowndes Co., MS School Dist. April 1989

REPORT

Of the Lowndes Co., MS School Dist. Nov. 1988

REPORT
ORDER ORDER
REroRl' REF'ORT

of the Lowndes Co., MS School Dist. April f
1987-88 (LTS) Appointing Bi-Racial Advisory Cmmittee
( LTS) Appointing Major John A. Arrigo member of the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee
of Lowndes County School Dist
of Lowndes County School Dist

Nai'ICE OF CONSTRUCTION (D) w/plans attached

REPORT

of Lowndes Co. School Dist., March 1991

AMENDED NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION (D)

MOTION (D)

to modify consent decree

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 14 of 20 PageID #: 14

DC lllA {Rev. 1/75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
LOWNDES CO. SCHCX)L DISTRICT

EC 70-55-S
DOCKET NO. _ _ PAGE _ O F_ _ P..t

I DATE

NR.

ll/15/91

NOTICE

PROCEEDINGS
hearing 12/23/91,

') f .
/Jf._,t£!U4Ltq
0
lOAM, Aberdeen

1/26/91
12/3/91 12/10/91 12/11/91

ORDER
OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN OBJECTICN

(LTS) setting hrg for 12/23/91 and directing publication of notice
Charles Rhea
Rissa Lawrence Sherry Harmond Lee Ford June Boyd. Ron Locke Penny Coleman Sharri Cockrell anoa.Ymous Lee High student (sophomore) Dorothy McMullan Nan Wyckoff anonymous concerned student Primrose Fox Conner Parrela Cox Selma. Lash Vivian Irby Jennifer Moses Dixie Shirley Brenda Round Marjorie Canon Lauren Bearden
Mr & Mrs Gene Alexander, Lori & Jonathan
Pat Wallace

12/12/91

OBJECTICN
OBJECTICN
OBJECTICN
OBJECTICN
OBJECTICN
OBJECTICN
APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL APPROVAL
OBJECTICNS

William Canon Student, Stephen D. Lee Mrs. Lucian Ward, Jr. Mrs. W. M. Cox, Jr. Karen McClure & W. E. McClure 47 plus 23 narres, on petition Morris Denton Mary Young Nancy Bishop Donald Bishop William Luecke of Rev. Mickey Dalrymple John Davis D. K. Curtis Joy Jarres Earl Weeks John Griffin, Jr. Rhonda Ferguson Phyllis Bearrer appx 590 narres on petition

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 15 of 20 PageID #: 15

DC lllA (Rev 1/75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

DATE

NR.

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
I...CWIDES CO. SCH<X>L DISTRICT
PROCEEDINGS

EC 70-55,-z' j$ rtr)

DOCKET NO. -····--

PAGE

OF_ _ PAGES

12/13/9
12/16/91 12/23/91

APPROVAL APOOVAL APPOOVAL APPOOVAL APPOOVAL APPOOVAL APPOOVAL APPOOVAL APPOOVAL
OBJECTIO\I
APPOOVAL APPOOVAL
OBJECTIO\I
OBJECTIO\I
OBJECTIO\I
APPOOVAL
OBJECTIQ\J OBJECTIQ\J
OBJECTIO\I
APPOOVAL
OBJECTIO\I
APPOOVAL
APPROVAL
OBJECTIO\I OBJECTIQ\J OBJECTIQ\J
OBJECTIO\I OBJECTIO\I

PROOFS OF PUBLICATION

OBJECTIO\I
APPROVAL

APPROVAL APPOOVAL
APP:OOVAL APP:OOVAL APPROVAL OBJECTION

(copy)

M1NU'IES

EXHIBIT LIST CCNSENT ORDER

12/24/91

REPORT (D)

Alpha Phi Alpha Moore's Creek Sarrruel Crawford Joe Roseburgh Patrick Bibbs Miss. Union Church George Irby Debbie Fancher Charles Faulkner Thcrnas Pelphrey Linda Lennon
Birney Irnes, III
Ein:ily Dt$1 Wanda Shelton Donna Baker Gary & Patsy Conquest Becky Johnson Kim Golden Cald:lr.lell Spirit Students E. J. Stringer Mr. & Mrs. F.rank Golden W. H. Jolly, Jr.
Caldwell High School Petition
Karen Overstreet Carol Newell Doris Alexander Sherry Harmond. Military Hardware
Notice of hrg on mo to modify consent decrees
Amanda Tatl..IDl
Gerald Scallions
Leroy Brooks Alton Beck Dupler Family J irrmy Fannon Barbara Holland NAACP (orig mld to judge)
hearing held 12/23/91 on rrotion of defts to m:xiify consent decree, Aberdeen, before Judge Senter: Objs & supporters testified; USA had no objs: ct APPROVED Consent Order (witness list attached} (LTS} 9th & lOth grades COMBINED, located on Lee & Columbus West; 11th & 12th grades COMBINED, located Caldwell & Columbus East; 7th & 8th grades COMBINED, located Hunt Jr High, etc. - copies hnd. to counsel ofLowndes Co MS School Dist, 11/91

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 16 of 20 PageID #: 16

DC lllA {Rev. 1/15}
PLAINTIFF
USA

DATE

NR.

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET
I DEFENDANT
LOWNDES CO., ET AL
•
PROCEEDINGS

1EC70-55-.$'-/Pif)
DOCKET NO. - - · · -
PAGE _OF__ PAGE

4/28/92 7/21/92 8/12/92 12/7/92
12/10/92 4/26/93 6/16/93
8/12/93
9/7/93 9/20/93 10/1/93

REPORT LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

April, 1992

REPORT COLUMBUS MSD and MOTION TO MODIFY CONSENT ORDER

CONSENT ORDER (LTS-8/11/92)

ORDER (LTS 12/7/92) APPOINTING Dr John Robinson Jr as member of the Bi-Racial Committee to Columbus MSSD

REPORT LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT November~ 1992

REPORT LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT March 1993

ORDER

(LTS) appointing Major Cameron Holland as member of the Bi-Racial Advisory Comm

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RENOVATE/REMODEL old West Lowndes Elementary School for purpose of providing office space for administrators and related personnel

RESPONSE (P)

to notice of contsruction

NOTICE (D) MOTION (School District)

of intended construction projects to modify Consent Order

10/21/93
3/31/94 6/10/94 8/29/94 9/13/94 2/21/95 4/27/95 5/30/95 10/3/95
11/20/95 12/18/95 10/25/96
11/27/96
12/3/96

CONSENT ORDER (LTS 10/21/93)

GR MO to modify consent order re placement

of Alternative School on Joe Cook Campus,

etc.

REPORT OF LOWNDES CO MS SCHOOL DISTRICT as of 11/93

REPORT OF LOWNDES CO MS SCHOOL DISTRICT as of 3/94

MOTION (D-Columbus Mun Sch)

to modify consent decree

CONSENT ORDER (LTS-9/13/94)

REPORT OF LOWNDES CO MS SCHOOL DISTRICT as of 11/94

NOTICE (D)

of intended const'ruction project

RESPONSE (P)

to notice of construction

NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION (School Distruct) intended construction project at New Hope High School(plans/specs attat

REPORT OF LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION re proceeding with construction ~ORT OF WWNDES CO MS SCHOOL DISTRICT as of 11/95

REPORT OF LOWNDES CO MS SCHOOL DISTRICT AS OF 4/96 NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION (D)

MOTION (P) ORDER (LTS)

for extension time to respond to notice of construction
granting USA 30 days to respond to defendants construction proposal and further orders defe1 to respond to US requests for information w/i 15 days of its receipt (mld to Gary Haugen,

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 17 of 20 PageID #: 17

DC IliA (Rev. 1/75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

DATE

NR.

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET I DEFENDANT
LOWNDES CO., ET AL
I
PROCEEDINGS

iEC70-55~ IJ.-ff)
OOCKETNO. --------
PAGE _OF__ PAGES

12/24/96 10/.27/91 10/31/97 11/5/97 11/7/97 11/13/97
11/18/97 12/3/97 2/23/98

Response of the United States to Notice of Construction

NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION (D)

Report to Court (D)

Withdrawal of Submission to Justice Department (D) Withdrawal of Submission to Justice Department

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

of D. Judith Keith as counsel for plaintiff

RESPONSE (P) AMENDED REPORT to Court SECOND RESPONSE (D)

to notice of construction to noti~ of construction

HOTICE OF COHSTRUCTIOH (D)

3/10/98 4/1/98
'4/10/98 3/13/00

. Destroyed exhibits I!MOTION (P)
RESPONSE (P) MOTION

(were in vault since 1970)
for extension of time to respond to notice of construction
to Notice of Construction
to appoint Mason B. Daniel and Allen Wayne Bryan to the Bi-Racial Advisory Committee of th~ Columbus Municipal School District

3/21/00 6/22/01 6/28/01 12/26/01 10/31/02 3/7/03 4/28/03
5/13/03 6/23/03
12/31/0 1/20/0l
1/30/04

ORDER (LTS)
Resumes (2) JOINT MOTION COHSENT ORDER (LTS 6/27/01) REPORT TO COURT (D) REPORT TO COURT (D) LETTER LETTER CASE REASSIGNED MOTIOH (D) ORDER (WAP 6/18/03)
MOTION MOTION (D) ORDER (WAP 1/26/04)

granting motion to appoint Mason B. Daniel and Allen Wayne Bryan to the Bi-Racial Committee of the Columbus Mun Sch Dist
of nominated Bi-Racial Committee members
of USA and Lowndes Co Sch Dist for approval of Consent Order re construction and r~novation of athletic facili
from Jacqueline G. Gray re biracial meeting held 2/23/03 - copies to counsel from Allen Wayne Bryan regarding obligations and duties of Biracial committee members. to Judge W. Allen Pepper Columbus School District to appoint Bi-Racial Committee Members appointing Joe Brandon, Jr., Bette Jane Taylor Rhe< and Louella J. Anderson to the Columbus Municipal School District Bi-Racial Committee by Columbus Municipal School District to appoint Bi-Racial Committee Members to appoint Bi-Racial Committee Members appointing McArthur Dawkins and Jamie Nettles to Bi-Racial Committee; copy to be mld by District Att

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 18 of 20 PageID #: 18

DC lllA (Rev. 1;75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

DATE

NR.

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET PROCEEDINGS

DOCKET NO.EC 70-5~
PAGE _OF_ _ PAG
1

3/29/04
5/27/04 5/27/04 6/23/04 7/2/04 7/19/04 7/20/04 7/29/04 8/6/04 10/25/04 12/10/04 12/22/04
1/14/05 2/9/05
2/18/20 5
3/31/200~
10/2.0/05 11/2/05 1/10/06 1/18/06 2/9/06

to USDJ Attorney, Washington, D.C. and to each new appointee

MOTION ~)

to consolidate with cases 1:02CV256-M-D a1

1:03CV623-M-D

ORDER

consolidating case with 1:02cv256 and 1:03cv623 with 1:02cv256 be designated as lead case. (Signed by Mag. Judge Davis 5/26/04)

Case Transferred to Judge Mills. New Case Number EC70-55-M-D

Ntc of Substitution of Counsel for plaintiff by Javier M. Guzman and Iris Golds

Motion by Defendant to Modify Consent Order

Supplemental Motion by dft and pla to modify consent order
,
Order modifying Consent Decree (Signed by Judge Pepper 7/16/04)

Motion

of interested party Wayne Bryan to stay order modifying consent

decree of 7/16/04 (copy to Judge Pepper)

ORDER

Bryan's motion to stay order modifying consent decree of 7/16/04 j

denied (signed by Judge Pepper 8/4/04)

Report to the Court (D)

NOTICE OF SERIVCE (P) ORDER (MPM)
MOTION (P-USA) ORDER (JAD 2/9/05)

of first set of interrogatories and requests foJ production of documents to defendants denying motion for trial continuance but granti1 revised scheduling order; PTC set 4/15/05 Aberdeen before Mag Judge Davis; discovery ddl reset to 3/15/05; plaintiff's designation of ex1 reset to 1/15/05, defendants 2/15/05, motion fi: ddl to 4/1/05
for revised scheduling order
denying motion for revised scheduling order as requested

ORDER (MPM)

rescheduling trial for 12/12/05 in Oxford before Judge Mills; FPTC reset for 11/14/05 Aberdeen before Mag Judge Davi~; discovery reset to 7/27/< plaintiffs designation of experts reset for 5/231 defendants designation of experts reset to 6/27/(
motion filing deadline reset to 8/8/05

AGREED ORDER (MPM)

of dismissal of defendants' Charles Johnson,

State Superintendent of Education and Mississippi

State Department of Education in 1:03CV632

Report to the Court as of 9/30/05

Order Modifying Consent Decree signed by Judge Pepper 11/1/05

CONSENT URDEF (maps on file in Case 1:02cv256) signed by Judge Mills 1/3/06

MOTION (D)

to appoint Bi-Racial Committee members

ORDER

appointing Sally Brown-Tate and Geneva Atkins to Columbus Municipal School District Bi-Racial Comm that a copy of this order be sent to the USDOJ At

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 19 of 20 PageID #: 19

DC lllA (Rev. l/75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
Columbus Municipal School Dist

DOCKET NO. EC70-55·
PAGE_OF__ PAG

DATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

5/2/2007 7/2/7
7/30/20(7

ORDER

modifying consent decree

PETITION by defendant for Determination of Unitary Status, to Terminate

St,pervision by the Court and to Dismiss Case

WITHDRAWAL (D)

of Petition for Unitary Status, to Terminate

Supervision by the Court and to Dismiss Case

8/2/07 8/6/7

REPORT TO THE COURT

signed by Chief Judge Mills 8/2/07.

JOINT MOTION for Declarati~n of Unitary Status, to Terminate Supervision

by the Court and to Dismiss Case

8/6/7 8/9/2007 8/21/2008 9/4/8 9/8/2008
9/11/2001
9/18/200
9/22/200~
9/25/200l 9/29/08
9/29/08
10/1/200~
l0/2/2om 10/2/2om
10/2/2om 10/8/200E

WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION FOR Determination of Unitary Status, to Terminate Supervision by the Court and to Dismiss Case

AGREED ORDER of Unitary Status and Dimi~al signed by Judge Mills 8/6/2007

~OTION (D)

for Declarat' oration of Unitary Status

~~ORANDUM (D)

in support of Motion for Declaration of Unitary Sta·

PRDER

EXTENDINg ~esppnse deadline to Motion for Declaration of Unitary ~

en or before October 1, 2008 (by Judge Mills 9/4/8)

ORDER (MPM)

concerning Notice of Fairness Hearing on Motion for

Unitary Status (attachment-Notice of Fairness Hearing

on Motion for Unitary Status Lowndes County School

District Desegregation Case) hearing set for 10/21/08

9:00 am Aberdeen

NOTICE HEARING

Fairness hearing set for 10/21/2008 9:00am Oxford

before Judge Mills (place of hearing changed from

previous order)

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS

re Motion for Unitary Status by Kathryn Hill and Oran

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS

P. Hill re Motion for Unitary Status by Novelka S. Buck and

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS

Creed Buck re Motion for Unitary Status by Brenda Hall, Betty Ivy

and Robert L. Phillips, Sr.

Response and Objection to Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status by Private Plaintiffs

Memorandum of Authorities in Opposition to Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status by Private Plaintiffs

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS MOTION.

re Motion for Unitary Status by Novella S. Buck and
Creed Buck by Plaintiff United States to Enforce the 2006 consent

MEMORANDUM

in opposition to defendant's motion for Declaration of Unitary Status, and in support of Plaintiff's motion to enforce the 2006 Consent Order

ORDER COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS

denying The Commercial Dispatch's request to take photos and record the fairness hearing scheduled for 10/21/08
RE Motion for Unitary Status by Jesse Harrell

Case: 1:70-cv-00055-MPM-SAA Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/29/10 20 of 20 PageID #: 20

DC lllA (Rev. 1/75)
PLAINTIFF
USA

CIVIL DOCKET CONTINUATION SHEET DEFENDANT
WWNDES COUNTY, ET AI..

DOCKET NOEC 70-5
PAGE ______ OF_ _ PA

I DATE

NR.

PROCEEDINGS

10/9/08 cm!IME!l'Iu.SI OBJECTIONS REMotion for Unitary Status of Ethel Shelton.& Shaperara She

10/9/08 CUI!'lr'ml u.S/OBJECTIONS re Motion for Unitary Status of Tommy Bernie Samantha SheltOD

10/9/08 cm!IME!l'ru.SI OBJECTIONS

re Motion for Unitary Status by Kenny Bridges, Paula Malone, Essie Miller, Marisa Wells,. Katrina Sanders, Aneolia Turner, Sharita Rogers, Earnestine Malone, Jamonika Rogers, Latoya Cl Killlberly Rogers, Katina Wilbrun, Annette Rogers, Walter Farme Christine Farmer, Stephanie Rice, Darlene Rogers, Carolyn Rice Delores Rice, Gloria Baptist, Debra Bilbrew, Megon Bibbs, Arlesle Meir, Gary Brewer, Valinda Stallings, Lucy Dell Henley ~obert L. Phillips, Pauela Stallings, Annie Mae Roger, Will Ro Hattie Martin, Verlinda Humphires, Sheila G.. Boswell, Tiffany Sanders, Dorothy P. Rogers Brown, Falisa Wilburn, Tonya, Stalli and Allen Wilburn

10/9/08 ~~MK S/OBJECTIONS re Motion for Unitary Status by Eve Priester

10/9/08

~~MK S/OBJECTIONS

re Motion for Unitary Status by Joscia Shinn, Eugene Suggs, Jo Shinn, Joyce Blaylock, Stella L. Brock, Mary Shinn, Bryant Shi Florence Shinn, Lucille Conner Shinn, Donald L. Jennings, Tiff Johnson, Alice Stroud, Dacyl Shinn, Walter Shinn, Diane Brando Tonja Dancy, Darecia Shinn,

10/9/08 ~

,~s/OBJECTIONS

re Motion for Unitary Status by iaide Baptist, Velma L. Givens Carol Malone, Joseph Williams, Samara Brooks, .A1:ma Chambliss, Sabrina R. Smith, Doris Mayfield, Johnny J. Edwards,. Gregory D King,. Bessie E. Edwards, Anthony King, Latoya King, Keith Washington,. Julius Young,. Tamala Brooks,. LaPrecious Lowery, Liz Jackson, Tiquellia Ledbetter, Chancie Phillips, Shnell Jackson,. Natasha Wilson, Lena Lowery,. Vantee Phillips,. Gwen Phillip, Dev Lowery, Kary Lowery, Ray Short and Lweis Edwards.

10/10/20P8

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS re Motion for Unitary Status by Fran Howard

10/17/08 AG tEED ORDER

Granting leave to withdraw motions

1012o/2op8 10/28/08

JOINT MOTION to withdraw Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status and Motion Enforce the 2006 Consent Order
REPORT (D) as of 10/1/08

12/29/2008
2/3/2009 10/26/2009

~GREED ORDER (MPM) granting parties until 1/16/2009 to submit proposed Consen Order
CONSENT ORDER (MPM)
REPORT TO COURT (D)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
V.

)
)
CIVIL ACTION ) NO.

COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL

)

DISTRICT; JOHN R. HENRY, President, )

and CARL McKELLAR, J. D. EDMONDSON, )

HARRY R. OSWALD, and JAMES M. TROTTER,)

Members of the Board of Trustees of )

the Columbus Municipal Separate School)

District, and JAMES E. GOOLSBY, Super-)

intendent of Education of Columbus

)

Municipal Separate School District, )

COMPLAINT

Defendants.

)

The United States, as a claim against the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, John R. Henry, Carl McKellar, J. D. Edmondson, Harry R. Oswald, James M. Trotter and James E. Goolsby, alleges:
1. This is an action for specific performance of certain written assurances made and given on behalf of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District to the plaintiff. This action is also to protect the interest of the United States that members and civilian employees of its Armed Forces and their dependents be not unconstitutionally discriminated against on account of race or color in the use and enjoyment of educational facilities which have been built or are being maintained and operated with the use of funds of the United States under the provisions
9

of P.L. 819 anti P.L. 874, 81st Congress (Chapters 13 and 19 of Title 20 U.S.C.), with the resultant detriment to their service and morale.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under Section 1345 of Title 28 United States Code.
3. The State of Mississippi maintains a statewide system of free public schools.
4. The Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District (hereafter referred to as the Board) is vested under Mississippi law with the general administration and supervision of the public schools of the City of Columbus. The Board is composed of five members. Its principal office is in Columbus, Mississippi.
5. John R. Henry is President of the Board and Carl McKellar, J. D. Edmondson, Harry R. Oswald and James M. Trotter are members of the Board. Each resides in Columbus, Mississippi,
6. James E. Goolsby is the Superintendent of Education of the Board of Trustees and, as such, is the chief executive officer of the Board. He resides in Columbus, Mississippi.
7. The plaintiff maintains Columbus Air Force Base in Lowndes County, Mississippi, as a part of its national defense establishment. Columbus Air Force Base, a Strategic Air Command installation, is the headquarters of the 454th Bombardment Wing. Its mission is to be prepared to conduct global strategic air operations on an instantaneous basis with a long-range nuclear jet striking force.
-2-

8. Columbus At lo'ce Base is located on property owned by the plaintiff in Lowndes County, Mississippi, approximately seven miles from Columbus, Mississippi.
9. There are approximately 3100 military personnel and approximately 400 civilians stationed or employed at Columbus Air Force Base. Of these, approximately 170 military personnel and approximately 45 civilians are Negro.
10. The plaintiff has constructed approximately 800 family housing units on Columbus Air Force Base. These units, which are owned and maintained by the plaintiff, have been constructed ,mm that servicemen who are stationed at Columbus Air Force Base may live together with their families. The housing units are assigned to the officers and airmen stationed at the Base without regard to their race or color. At the present time there are approximately five Negro airmen residing in such housing units with their families.
11. There are no educational facilities on Columbus Air Force Base available to the school-age dependents of the members and civilian employees of the plaintiff's Armed Forces.
12. On November 4, 1956, the Lowndes County Board of Education adopted a resolution that it would be to the best interest and advantage of the Lowndes County School District, and of the pupils residing on the Columbus Air Force Base, to attend school and to receive an education in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District rather than in the Lowndes County School District. The Lowndes County Board of Education further resolved that
-3-

all pupils in gtades I. through 12 residing on the Columbus Air Force Base at any time prior to IAugust 31, 1978, be legally transferred to and attend school in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District. In its resolution the Lowndes County Board of Education petitioned the Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District to accept the transfer of the pupils. A copy of the resolution of the Lowndes County Board of Education is attached to this complaint as Appendix A..
13. On November 13, 1957, the Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District adopted a resolution accepting the transfer of all pupils in grades 1 through 12 wo at the time of the resolution resided or would .-hereafter reside at any time from the date of the resolution until August 31, 1978, in that part of the Lowndes County School District which constitutes the Columbus Air Force Base. A copy of the resolution of the Board is attached as Appendix g to this complaint.
14. Since the adoption of its resolution of November 13, 1957 and until the present time the Board has made the school facilities of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District available to children residing on the Columbus Air Force Base. During the 1962-63 school year approximately 890 children residing on the Base attended the schools administered by the Board. Approximately the same number of children residing on the Base have enrolled to attend the schools of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District for the fall semester of the 1963-64 school year. These children include members of both the white and Negro races.
-4-

15. Under' the provisions of Chapter 13 of
Title 20 of the United States Code, the Commissioner of Education has approved and the plaintiff has paid to the Board during the period from 1951 through June 30, 1963, a total of $820,344 for the maintenance and operation of its schools. These grants were approved and the payments made on account of the Board providing public education for the dependents of the military personnel and civilian employees of the plaintiff, and the proceeds have been used by the Board to defray the general cost of maintaining and operating its public schools. A tabulation of the grants paid and the number of dependents on whose account they were paid, for each year since 1951, is set forth in Appendix C to this complaint.
16. Under the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code, the United States Commis-
sioner of Education has approved and the plaintiff has ps,.R.d of agreed to pay grants in the total amount of
319,8'3,87 during the period from 1950 to the present time for the construction and improvement of the schools under the operating jurisdiction of the Board. A tabulation of the funds p aid or approved by the plaintiff to the Board on individual construction projects appears as Appendix D to this complaint.
17. Brandon Elementary School is located on U.S. Highway 45 approximately one and one-half miles north of Columbus and sic.: and one-half miles south of Columbus Air Force Base. The construction of Brandon Elementary School, consisting of four self-contained classrooms, four regular classrooms, library with workroom, milti-purpose room with stage, kitchen with service
-5-

areas, one teadhets i Workroom, teachers' lounge, administration suite, one music room, clinic, Auxiliary facilities, site work, and equipment, was completed on September 14, 1959, at a total of $279,218.97. The plaintiff has paid to the Board the entire cost of this construction under a grant applied for by the Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code. An addition to Brandon Elementary School, consisting of two selfcontained classrooms, four regular classrooms, electric heating controls, drives and parking areas, auxiliary facilities and necessary equipment, was completed on February 2, 1960, at a total cost of $52,577.07. The plaintiff has paid to the Board the entire cost of this addition under a grant applied for by the Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of C! i. •$er 19 of Title 20, United States Code. A further addition to Brandon Elementary School, consisting of four regular classrooms and two self-contained classrooms, workroom, corridor, toilet facilities and equipment, was completed on September 8, 1961, at a total cost of $55,297.79. Of this total cost of construction the plaintiff has paid $55,283.39 to the Board under a grant applied for by the Board and a p proved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code.
18. Cook Junior High School is located on North 7th Street in Columbus. The plaintiff has paid $55,245.69 to the Board to purchase equipment for Cook Junior High School under a grant applied for by the Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education
^Z

pursuant to the pz'ovisions bf Chapter 19 of Title 20,
United States Code. The total cost of the equipment p urchased by the Board, in a project completed on December 19, 1961, was $67,855.98.
19. Barrow Elementary School is located on 6th Avenue South between 8th and 9th Streets in Columbus. An addition to Barrow Elementary School, consisting of six self-contained classrooms, covered walk and necessary equipment, was completed on September 15, 1961, at a total cost of. $60,098.93. Of this total cost of construction the plaintiff paid $59,957.09 to the Board under a grant a p
-pliedforbythBadnprovebythCmisoner of Education pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code.
20. Hughes Elementary School is located on 19th Avenue North between 23rd and 24th Streets in Columbus. An addition to Hughes Elementary School, consisting of four self-contained classrooms, two regular classrooms and equipment, was completed on September 8, 1961, at a total cost of $51,071.32. Of this total cost of construction, the plaintiff has paid $51,013.72 to the Board under a grant ap p lied for by the Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code.
21. Coleman Elementary School is located on 22nd Street South between 7th and 8th Avenues in Columbus. An addition to Coleman Elementary School, consisting of two self-contained and four regular classrooms, additional toilet fixtures, corridor and equipment, was completed on September 15, 1961, at a total cost of $50,622.64. Of this total cost of construction, the Plaintiff has paid
-7-

$50,554.24 *0 the Board under a grant a pp lied for by the
Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United
Statos Code. 22. Union Academy Elementary School is located
on 10th Avenue North between 14th and 15th Streets North in Columbus. The construction of Union Academy Elementary School, consisting of nine self-contained and eleven regular classrooms, two music rooms, cafetorium with stage, kitchen with service areas, clinic, toilet rooms, book storage, administrative suite containing teachers' lounge, princip al's office and secretary's office, lobby, corridors, storage, covered walk area and equipment, was completed on August 24, 1962, at a total cost of $260,902.70. The plaintiff has paid to the Board the entire cost of this construction under a grant applied for by the Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code.
23. Mitchell Memorial School is located at 15th Street South in Columbus. An addition to Mitchell Memorial School, consisting of six classrooms, multi-purpose room with stage, kitchen, two offices,toilets, storage rooms, corridors, auxiliary facilities and site improvements, is currently under construction. The plaintiff has authorized the expenditure of $75,123.00 of federal funds for the construction of this addition. The total cost of this addition is $77,804.00, of which the plaintiff has paid $67,611.00 as of June 25, 1963, to the Board under a grant applied for by the Board and approved by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code.
-8-

24. In c6htection with each of its applications

for a grant under Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States

Code, , referred to in p aragraphs 17 through 23, the

Board gave written assurance, as required by 20 U.S.C.

636, that the school facilities of the Board "will be

available to the children for whose education contributions

are prov= pied . . . on the same terms, in accordance with the

laws of the state in which applicant is situated, as they

are available to other children in applicant's school

district."

25. At all times herein mentioned it has been and

is the policy and practice of the defendants, in operating

the public schools under their jurisdiction, to segregate

Negro students in separate schools maintained and operated

solely for students who are of the Negro race. Pursuant

to this policy and practice the defendants have operated

Brandon, Barrow and Coleman elementary schools, Joe Cook

Junior High School and Mitchell Memorial School exclusively

for children of the white race, and Hughes Elementary

School exclusively for Negro children.

26. Negro military personnel stationed at and

residing on Columbus Air Force Base have applied to the

Board for assignment, for the

semester of the 1963-64

school year, of twelve of their children to schools pre-

viously attended q lely by white children.

27. The public schools under the jurisdiction

of the Board are scheduled to open for the 1963-64

school year on August 30, 1963.

28. On August 22, 1963, the Board adopted a

resolution that no children living outside the Municipal

Separate School District would be enrolled in the public

-9-

schools of the City of Columbus unless they qualified
under State Education Finance Commission provisions made '_n 1956 in the reorganization of the county and city school districts. It is the purpose and effect of this resolution that school children residing on Columbus Air Force Base will be excluded from the public schools
of the City of Columbus.
29. On August 22, 1963, the Board adopted a second resolution closing the Brandon Elementary School and abandon ag its use for educational purposes. During the 1962-63 school year the Brandon Elementary School was attended by approximately 680 children of servicemen residing on Columbus Air Force Base.
30. The defendants have failed and are failing to make the public school facilities under their jurisdiction available to Negro dependents of military personnel and civilian employees of the plaintiff upon the same terms as such facilities are available to white children.
31. The defendants threaten, by implementation of the Board's resolutions of August 22, 1963, to make the public school facilities under their jurisdiction completely unavailable to the children of military personnel of the plaintiff residing on Columbus Air Force Base.
32. The Board has failed and is now failing and refusing to perform each of its assurances referred to and described in paragraph 24.
33. The acts and conduct of the defendants herein alleged violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and impose an undue and unreasonable burden upon the plaintiff in the exercise of its power to raise
-10-

and support atmies dnd to provide for the national defense.
34. The acts and conduct of the defendants cause immediate and irreparable injury to the plaintiff, consisting of the unavailability of a suitable education for the dependents of the plaintiff's personnel at Columbus Air Force Base, and the consequent impairment of the service and morale of the military and civilian personnel of the Base and the impairment of rights owing to the plaintiff under the Constitution and laws of the United States and under the written assurances given to the plaintiff as hereinabove set forth.
35. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court enter an order enjoining the defendants, their successors in office, agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from: (a) failing or refusing to make the
school facilities of the Board available to the children of military and civilian personnel of the plaintiff residing on Columbus Air Force Base and for whose education the plaintiff has made contributions to the Board under Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code, and (b) assigning children of military or civilian personnel of the plaintiff stationed, employed or residing at Columbus Air
-11-

Force Base to particular schools upon the basis of their race or color. Plaintiff further prays that the defendants be ordered to pay the costs of this action, and for such other relief as the interests of justice may require.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
By:
ROBERT F. KENNEDY Attorney General
BURKE MARSHALL Assistant Attorney General
HOSEA M. RAY United States Attorney
ST. JOHN BARRETT Department of Justice
-12-

VERIFICATIGN CITY OF WASHINGTON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS:
St. John Barrett, being first duly sworn, says: I am an attorney of the Department of Justice and am one of the counsel for plaintiff in the foregoing case. I have read the allegations of the foregoing complaint and they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
ST. JOHN BARRETT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of August, 1963. Notary Public My Commission expires
- 13 -

APPENDIX A
RESOLUTION PETITIONING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ACCEPT THE TRANSFER OF ALL PUPILS IN GRADES 1 THROUGH 12 THAT NOW RESIDE, OR THAT SHALL HEREAFTER RESIDE AT ANY TIME FROM THE DATE HEREOF UNTIL AUGUST 31, 1978, IN THAT PART OF THE IOWNDBS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHICH CONSTITUTES THE COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASE
WHEREAS, the territory constituting the Columbus Air Force Base in Lowndes County, Mississippi is located within the territorial limits of the Lowndes County School District, and there are now, and will be for so long as said Columbus Air Force Base shall remain active, certain educable children residing at said base, who will be entitled to receive an education; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Lowndes County Board of Education, it would be to the best interest and advantage of said Lowndes County School District, and of the pupils who now reside or who may hereafter reside on the Columbus Air Force Base, to attend school and to receive an education in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, where the educational program provides for a nine month school term, and
WHEREAS, this Board desires that the transfer of all such pupils residing upon the Columbus Air Force Base be effective, pursuant to the requirements of Section 6248-07 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated.
NOW THBRBFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lowndes County Board of Education, acting as the Trustees of the Lowndes County School District, that said Board does hereby find and declare that it would be to the best interest and advantage of said Lowndes County School District, and to the best interest and advantage of the pupils involved, that all pupils in grades 1 through 12 residing at the

present times or who Shall hereafter reside at any time prior to August 31, 1978+ upon the Columbus Air Force Base in Lowndes County, Mississippi, be legally transferred to, and attend school in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District.
BE IT FURTHER RBSOLVED that this Board does hereby respectfully petition the Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District to accept the transfer of said pupils, and to agree to educate them in the manner and form required by Section 6248-07 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 Annotated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Board be and he is hereby authorized and directed to furnish a certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, and to do and perform all aciys and things by and on behalf of this Board that shall be necessary or required to obtain the consent in writing of said Board of Trustees to the transfer of said pupils.
This the 4th day of November, A. D., 1957. The foregoing resolution was offered by Mr. John B. Hardy, who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Mr. W. R. Taylor and unanimously adopted.

CERTIFICATE
I, J. M. Thatch, Executive Secretary of the Lowndes County Board of Education, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Lowndes County Board of Education at the regular meeting of said Board on the 4th day of
November, A. D., 1957, as the same appears of record on
the minutes of said Board. WITNESS MY SIGNATURE, this the 4th day of November,
A. D., 1957.
/s/ J. M, Thatch Executive Secretary

APPENDIX R
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRANSFER OF ALL PUPILS IN GRADES 1 THROUGH 12 THAT NOW RESIDE, OR THAT SHALL HEREAFTER RSSIBE AT ANY TIME FROM THE DATE HEREOF UNTIL AUGUST 31, 1978, IN THAT PART OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHICH CONSTITUTES THE COLUMBUS AIR FORCE BASS
Whareas, the Lowndes County Board of Education, heretofore, to'wit: on the 4th day of November, 1957, at a regular meet– in; thereof, adopted a resolution petitioning the Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District of Lowndes County, Mississippi to accept the transfer of all pupils in Grades 1 through 12 that now reside, or that shall hereafter reside at any time from the date thereof until August 31, 1978, in that part of the Lowndes County School District which constitutes the Columbus Air Force Base, and
Whereas, the Board of Trustees of - the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, after mature deliberation, and in view of the desirability of undertaking' the instruction of said pupils of the Columbus Air Force Base within the framework of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District in view of the longer school term to be afforded said pupils, and other considerations,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT That all pupils in Grades 1 through 12 that now reside, or shall hereafter reside at any time from the date hereof until August 31, 1978 in that part of the Lowndes County School District which constitutes the Columbus Air Force Base be accepted by transfer fiom the Lowndes County School District in accordance with the laws of the State of Mississippi, as the school facilities are available to other children in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District; provided, however, that the Columbus Municipal Separate School District receives sufficient funds from the federal government with which to construct a building for said purpose.
I, Th omas L. Hayslett, Secretary of the Board of Trustees of
Columbus Municipal Separate School District, do hereby certify
that the above and foregoing constitutes a true and correct
copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the
Columbus Municipal Separate School District at a regular
meeting of said Board held on the 12th day of November, 1957,
and as the same appears of record in the minutes of said
Board of Trustees.
Given under my hand this the 13th day of November, 1957.
Is/ .......T.h..o.mas L. Hayslett
Secretary

APPENDIX C.
FEDERAL PAYMENTS MADE TO COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI, FOR CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES OF SCHOOLS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 874 AND THE NUMBER OF FEDERALLY CONNECTED CHILDREN 3Y CATEGORY COUNTED FOR PAYMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1Q51 THROUGH 1963

Number of Children Counted for Payment

Fiscal Year

"A" Category 1 /

"B" Category 2/

"E" Category 3/

Federal Payment

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1954

--

235

1955

--

235

1956

--

142

1957 4/

--

--

1958

--

306

1959

418

292

1960

583

407

1961

621

505

1962

877

471

1963 (est.)

891

498

155

$12,792

--

9,928

--

5,772

--

--

--

21,488

--

84,243

--

124,106

--

148,311

--

199,396

--

214,298

Total

3,390

3,091

155

$820,334

]/ Children who live on Federal property with a parent employed on Federal property. 2/ Children who live on Federal property or with a parent employed on Federal property, but not both. 3/ Children for whom 3(b) entitlement was increased by the amount of State aid for which the school
district was not yet eligible (State aid lag). This provision was eliminated by Public Law 248, effective July 1, 1954. 4/ No application.

APPENDIX
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 815 FOR COLUM3US IhUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOIV'ID :S COU;ITY, i'?.ISSISSIPPI, INCLUDING APPLICATION P_sRIODS, PRcJLCT NUMBERS, DATES OF PROJECT A 'PROVAL, FEDERAL AN LOCAL FUNDS EXPEND?y:J Ar4D TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FOR FISCAL 1951 THROUGH 1963

Application leriod (1)
1956-58 1958-60 1959-61 1959-61 1959-61 1959-61 1959-61 1960-62 19t0-62

Project Number
(2)
58-C-601A8 60-C-601A10 61-C-601A11 61-C-601311 61-C-601C11 61-C-601D11 61-C-601E11 62-C-601Al2 * 62-C-601312

Date Project Approved (3)
March 21, 1958 June 15, 1959 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 May 1.9, 1961 October 9, 1962

Federal Funds (4)
$279,218.97 52,577.07 55,245.69 55;283.39 59,957.09 51,013.72 50,554.24
260, 902.70 75,123.00

Local Funds
(5)
$ ---
12,610.29 14.40
141.84 57.60 68.40 --
2,681,00

Total Cost (6)
$279,218.97 52,577.07 67,855.98 55,297.79 60,098.93 51,071.32 50,622.64
260, 902.70 77,804.00

Total

$939,875.87

$15,573.53

$955,449.40

* Under constructions

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

Plaintiff, )

v.

)

COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE

)

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

)

Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION NO.

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff applies to the Court for the entry of an order, without notice or hearing, temporarily restraining the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, John R. Henry, President, and Carl McKellar, J. D. Edmondson, Harry R. Oswald and James M. Trotter, Members of the Board of Trustees of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, and James E. Goolsby, Superintendent of Education of Columbus Municipal Separate School District, their successors in office, agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from failing or refusing to make the school facilities of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District available to the children of military and civilian personnel of the plaintiff residing on Columbus Air Force Base, pending a

hearing upon plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
This motion is made pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and is based upon the allegations of fact in the verified complaint, the affidavits of Rail I. Grigsby and Colonel Samuel T. Jordan, attached hereto, and the attached memorandum brief in support of the motion.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
By: HOSEA M. RAY United States Attorney ST. JOHN BARRETT, Attorney Department of Justice
- 2 -

APP .T. DP V:T OF IAA ice. • sRI GSBY CITY OF WASHINGTON )
SS: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )''
My name is =call 1. srigsby, I am an Assistant Commissioner and the Director of the Division of School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas in the Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.. As such, I am responsible for administering federal financial aid for school construction and for maintenance and operation to eligible school districts under Public Laws 815 and 874 (81st Congress), as amended. In my official capacity I have custody and control of all the records, forms, applications for financial assistance, and project approval summary forms pertaining to applications for and approval of federal financial assistance under Public Laws 815 and 874 for the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, Columbus, Mississippi.
These records disclose that the Commissioner of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has paid $820,334.00 to the Columbus Municipal Separate School District under Public Law 874 for the fiscal years 1954 through 1963 for the current operating expenses of the District's schools following application by the District for such funds. These records also disclose that the Commissioner of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has,.during the period from 1958. tb the present time, approved grants-in the total amount.of $939,875 ° 87 to the Columbius l unicipal Separate School' District :under 'Public Law 815 for the construction"of.school. _ facilities*--' Of this amount, $932,863.87 has actually been paid to the District up to the present time`
These federal payments have been made on account of the education by the District of children who reside on Columbus Air

w2+.
Force Base with a parent stationed or employed on the Base or who reside without the Base with a parent stationed or employed on the Base.
Of the total amount of $932,363.87 paid to date by the Commissioner of Education to the District under Public Law 815, $387,093.83 has been paid for the construction of and additions to Brandon Elementary School located six axed one-half miles from Columbus Air Force Base. This elementary school has been used since its construction primarily for the education of children of personnel at Columbus Air Force Base. In an application of November 12, 1957 for aid under Public Law 815 to construct Brandon Elementary School, the District stated, "The proposed elementary school will furnish needed class rooms to house a majority of federally connected children who could not otherwise be properly housed."
The federal payments for children who reside on Columbus Air Force Base have been made in reliance on a resolution adopted on November 12, 1957 by the Columbus Municipal Separate School District. In this resolution the Board undertakes to make its schools available to children who reside on the Base "+.n acco2nce with the laws of the State of Mississippi, as the school facilities are available to other children in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District. . • t' until August 31, 1978. This resolution was set forth in an application submitted by the District on November 5, 1958 for federal funds under Public Law 815.
In each of its applications submitted to the Commissioner of Education for federal funds under Public Law 815, the District, as required by that statute, has made the following assurance:
"The*Applicant i s school facilities will be available to the children for whose education contributions are provided in Public Law 815,

«, 3 ..
as amended, on the same terms, in accordince with the laws of ' the State - in which ar^plicant is situated, as they are available to other children in applicant's school district."
The payment of federal funds under Public Law 815 by the Commissioner of Education to the District has been made in reliance on the foregoing assurance.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 28th day of _\ugust, 1963.

Rail I. Grigsby

Notary Public My Commission 3xpires:

A F F ID A V I T

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI )

COUNTY OF LOWNDES

)

I, Samuel T. Jordan, having been duly sworn, state as follows:
My name is COL. SAMUEL T. JORDAN. I am 46 years old and was born and raised in Virginia. I am married and have 3 children. Since 5 July 1963 I have been Base Commander of the Columbus Air Force Base. The 454th Bomb Wing (Heavy) S.A.C. has its headquarters at the Columbus Air Force Base. Our mission is to be prepared to conduct global strategic air operations on an instantaneous basis with a long-range nuclear jet striking force.
The Columbus Air Force Base is located about 10 miles north of Columbus, Mississippi, in Lowndes County. There are approximately 3,142 military men assigned to the base and about 299 civil service workers at the base. The annual payroll for the base is approximately $119800.00.

Approximately 333 officers and 1,905 airmen live on the base and approximately 929 officers and airmen live off the base.

-a-
It is my responsibility, under Air Force regulations, to insure that the school children of the men under my command are furnished a suitable, free, public education,
During the 1962-1963 school year, approximately 1,005 children from the base attended Columbus city schools. The breakdown by school was as follows:
156 at Lee High School 119 at Cook Junior High School 630 at Brandon Elementary School
3 at Demonstration 41 at Franklin Academy 56 at other schools 1,005 Total Most of the children from the base attended the Brandon Elementary School which is about 6 miles from the base. Brandon has the first 6 grades of school only. I arrived at the Base on the first of July this year. My first contact with the School Board of Columbus was on the second of August, at a meeting held in the Wing Commander's office, John Henry, President of the Columbus School Board, W. F. Bruce, Jr., Assistant Superintendent of Columbus Schools, and two other

-3-
people from the community who belonged to the Base Community Council were present. At this meeting, we informed the school people of the Defense Department
Directive pertaining to the assignment of dependent children of military personnel to schools on a non-
racial basis and requested information from the school people with respect to the procedure which pupils follow to transfer from one school to another. We explained to the people that they might be getting requests for transfers from children wanting to attend school on a non-segregated basis.
We met again on 7 August 1963 with Mr. Henry,
Mr. 3. B. Goolsby, Superintendent of Columbus City
Schools, and other school officials from Clay County, Aberdeen, Mississippi and West Point, Mississippi. The purpose of this meeting was to review the proposed letters to military personnel which we had drafted to comply with an Air Staff Directive and to make certain we had included the correct information on the school transfer provisions.
At neither of these meetings was there any intimation that the schools might be closed or that the children from the base would not be allowed to attend the schools.

-4-
Registration for the Columbus city schools was
scheduled for the period from August 15th until school
starts. The children from the base were registered
for this coming school year by taking their birth cer-
tificates and an adult with them to the schools. On
August 19th or 20th, my older son, who is 18, took my
youngest son to the Brandon School where he was regis-
tered for the third grade.
On the morning of August 23rd, at about 7:25 a.m.,
I walked into my office and Mrs. Carr, who works in the
office next to me and whose husband is principal of the
Lee High School, asked me if I had heard that in a
special meeting of the School Board the previous night
the Board voted to close Brandon School. I immediately
called Mr. Goolsby, the Superintendent of City Schools,
at about 7:30 a.m. He read to me an extract of the
resolutions approved by thr School Board on August 22
which stated, in part, as follows:
1. Resolved that the first duty of the Trustees is to those pupils and parents residing in this school district,
2. Resolved that the Brandon Elementary School be closed and not opened for the school year 1963-1964.
3. Resolved that the 1963-1964 budget be amended
by changing item 13, page 1, from $120 @ 000 to read
Public Law 874 $43,374 and by crediting said budget with the savings resulting from the closing of Brandon Elementary School and the superintendant submit accordingly the revised budget to the board at a meeting to be held at 7 :00 p.m. 26th of August 1963.

-5..

4. Resolved that no student living outside Columbus separate school district be admitted as a student in any of the schools in the Columbus separate school district except as previously provided by the State Educational Finance Commission for the reorganization of Columbus separate school districts and the Lowndes County School District.

5. Resolved that any application for transfer received by the Superintendent pursuant to his letter of August 15, 1963, be denied with a sincere regret of the Board that any tuition fees received be returned.

When we learned the schools were closed to chil-

dren from the base, we took a survey to see who was

affected. This survey showed the following number of

children would be entering the following grades this

years GRADE

ICHLILDREN

let 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

136 ) 122 )
99 ) 90 ) All would have attended 78 ) Brandon School. 65 ) 5^56 41 40 35 31 850 children

An additional 100 children from the Base will be

attending a new parochial school for the grades 1-5.

The city schools are scheduled to open on Friday.

We don*t have any schools on the Base and we don*t have

any physical facilities we can use for a school, Even

if we had a building, the starting date for when we

-6could get books, teachers, chairs and other necessary items is uncertain. We haven't hired our first teacher yet.
If we could lease Brandon School and get the money, we might be able to open by October, but even then we would have to double shift it until we could build a building. Brandon only has 24 rooms, a cafeteria and a principal's office. It has no laboratory, auditorium or gymnasium since it was only an elementary school.
All the parents are shook up. They are calling and asking should they move off base, stay on base, will the Air Force provide schooling for their children. And many of the parents are concerned that even if we could get a school started by October, we would not have any athletic programs, hence the children in the higher grades who were hoping to go to junior college and college on athletic scholarships will not be able to.
Also, there is the problem that even if we could start by the first of October, some of the men will get transferred to other bases during the year and their children will thus be behind other children who started school at the regular time. Particularly in the Air Force, we move so much that our kids have to go to many

7 f different schools and have troubles adjusting each time, so not starting on time this year makes it much worse.
There is also the question of accreditation. The juniors and seniors in high school are worrying the most and I'm worried most about them,

COL. SAMUEL 'r. JORDAN

Subscribed and sworn to before me

on this

day of August, 1963.

Notary Public My Commission expires:

 
 AFF! JA.V:T OF rA LL • sRI GSBY CITY OF WASHINGTON )
SS: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )'
My name is :all I. ri s'by, I am an Assistant Commissioner and the Director of the Division of School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas in the Office of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.. As such, I am responsible for administering federal financial aid for school construction and for maintenance and operation to eligible school districts under Public Laws 815 and 874 (81st Congress), as amended. In my official capacity I have custody and control of all the records, forms, applications for financial assistance, and project approval summary forms pertaining to applications for and approval of federal financial assistance under Public Laws 815 and 874 for the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, Columbus, Mississippi.
These records disclose that the Commissioner of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has paid $820,334.00 to the Columbus Municipal Separate School District under Public Law 874 for the fiscal years 1954 through 1963 for the current operating expenses of the District's schools following application by the District for such funds, These records also disclose that the Commissioner of Education of the department of Health, Education and Welfare has,:during the
period from 1958 tc the present time, approved grants •in the total
amount . of $939,875,87 to the Coluinb6s flunicipai Separate School' District under Public Law 815 for the` construction'of. school. facilities; , Of this amount, $932,863.87 has actually been paid to the District up to the present time,
These federal payments have been made on account of the education by the District of children who reside on Columbus Air

s2&.
Force Base with a parent stationed or employed on the Base or who reside without the Base with a parent stationed or employed
on the Base. Of the total amount of $932,363.87 paid to date by the
Commissioner of Education to the District under Public Law 815, $387,093.83 has been paid for the construction of and additions to Brandon Elementary School located six and one-half miles from Columbus Air Force Base. This elementary school has been used since its construction primarily for the education of children of personnel at Columbus Air Force Base. In an application of November 12, 1957 for aid under Public Law 815 to construct Brandon Elementary School, the District stated, "The proposed elementary school will furnish needed class rooms to house a majority of federally connected children who could not otherwise be properly housed."
The federal payments for children who reside on Columbus Air Force Base have been made in reliance on a resolution adopted on November 12, 1957 by the Columbus Municipal Separate School District. In this resolution the Board undertakes to make its schools available to children who reside on the Base "in accoance with the laws of the State of Mississippi, as the school facilities are available to other children in the Columbus Municipal Separate School District. . •" until August 31, 1978. This resolution was set forth in an application submitted by the District on November 5, 1958 for federal funds under Public Law 815.
In each of its applications submitted to the Commissioner of Education for federal funds under Public Law 815, the District, as required by that statute, has made the following assurance;
"The' Applicant's school facilities will be available to the children for whose education contributions are provided in Public Law 815,

3.4
as amended, on the same terms, in accord-
ance with the laws of "the State in which applicant is situated, as they are available to other children in applicant's school district."
The payment of federal funds under Public Law 815 by the
Commissioner of Bducation to the District has been made in
reliance on the foregoing assurance.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 28th day of August, 1963.

Rall I. Grigsby

Notary Public My Commission 3xpires:

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. )

COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE )

SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

)

Defendants

)

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
STATEMENT OF FACTS The following allegations supported by affidavits are set forth in the complaint and the affidavits and other documents affixed thereto: The Columbus Air Force Base is located within Lowndes County, Mississippi. There are approximately 3,142 :.:ilitary men assigned to the , ease and about 299 civil service wort:ers at the base.

I
M
In 1957 the Lowndes County Board of
Education and the Board of Education of the Columbus Municipal School District agreed that the responsibility for providing public education to children living within Columbus Air Force Base would be assumed by the Columbus school district.
The Columbus school district has filed seven applications, pursuant to Title 20, section 631 et. seq. of the United States Code, for grants of federal funds to assist in the construction or improvements of school buildings to be used for the education of air base children. These applications were approved by the Commissioner of Education and since that date the federal government has paid or agreed to pay $939,875.87 in federal funds to the Columbus school district for this purpose. Columbus school district constructed or improved with the aid of the federal grants several schools within its jurisdiction, and in return the Columbus school district has from 1958 until the end of the 1962-63 school term educated air base children, including 10D5such children during the last school term.
In connection with each of its applications for school construction funds the Columbus Board gave a written "assurance", which is required by section 636(b)(1)(F) of Title 20, that:
the school facilities of such agency will be available to the children for whose education contributions are provided in this chapter on the same terms in accordance with the laws of the state in
- 2 -

which the school district of such agency is situated, as they are available to other children in such school district .. Notwithstanding the written assurance submitted as part of the Columbus Board's application for federal funds, the Board on August 22, 1963, adopted a resolution stating that when the schools of the Columbus district reopen ': for the regular fall term on Friday, August 30, 1963, the Board would no longer provide education for children residing outside the Columbus Municipal Separate School District, i.e., children living on Columbus Air Force Base, As the affidavits affixed to the complaint allege, neither the United States Air Force nor any other agency of the federal government are able at this time to provide education for Columbus Air Base children. The federal government was not notified prior to August 23, 1963, that this action by the Columbus Board would be taken, or even that any such action was contemplated. There are no school facilities located on Columbus Air Force Base. It is, of course, physically impossible for the federal government to construct school facilities, or to modify existing facilities which might be adaptable for school purposes, in the near future. At best, several weeks would elaspe before even semi-adequate school facilities could be provided on the base, and a much longer time would be required before school facilities, teachers and other educational necessities could be organized on the base which would provide an education comparable to that normally provided by the Columbus school board.
- 3 -

If the defendants are allowed to exclude the air base children from their schools, it is quite obvious that for some time to come these children will not receive any formal education. This will be true even if the United States expends great energy and large sums of money as rapidly as possible to provide education for these children.
- 4 -

ARGUMENT

The plaintiff has applied to this Court for

a temporary restraining order to compel the defendants

to admit the Air Base children to the Columbus schools.

As the prayer of the com p laint reveals, the ultimate

relief sought in this case is in two parts. First,

the United States seeks to compel the defendants to

provide public education for the children of service-

men and civilian employees of the. United States who re-

side within Columbus Air Force Base. Second, the United

States seeks an , order requiring the defendants to elimi-

nate their settled practice of assigning children o'' Columbus

Air Force Base personnel, whether living

on or off

the base, to local schools on the basis of race or

color.

The second part of the relief sought is

also the subject matter of lawsuits in several other

federal districts. See, e.g., United States v. Biloxi

Municipal Separate School District, C.A. No. 2643

(S.D. Miss.); United States v. Gulfport Municipal

Separate School District, C.A. No. x,678 (S.D. Miss);

United States v. Madison County and City of Huntsville

Board of Education, C,A. No. 63-23 (N.D. Ala); United

States v. Bossier Parish School Board, C.A. No, 9282

(W.D. La.); United States v. Mobile Board of Education,

C.A. N. 2964 (S.D. Ala.); and United States v. Prince

George County School Board, C.A. No. 3536 (B.D. Va.).

Each of these lawsuits, like this one, involves the

question of whether local school boards which have

obtained federal school construction grants may law-

fully segregate federally-connected children within

the local school system upon the basis of their race.

- 5 -

This quedtibh has received different answers in different courts. In the Eastern District of Virginia, after a trial, judgment was entered for the United States and the local board was permanently enjoined from segregating federally-connected children. In the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge Mize has dismissed the complaints in the Biloxi and Gulfport suits. Motions to dismiss have also been granted in the Western District of Louisiana and the Northern District of Alabama. No ruling has yet been made in the Southern District of Alabama. The defendants in the Virginia suit did not appeal the judgment for the United States. The United States has appealed each of the cases that have been dismissed in the district court.
-he issue invro! rrd in each o_` the above • ro-
proceedinf=,s, which is also involved in the appli- i cat_ oa off the plaintiff here for oer%. en injunctive relief, need not be reached in ruling upon the application of the United States for a temporary restraining order. The temporary restraining order we seek would not desegregate federally-connected children in schools of the Columbus Municipal Separate School District. It would merely serve the traditional function of preserving the status quo pending hearing on the motion for prelininary injunction. In short, the only question that need be reached on the application for a temporary restraining order is whether preliminary relief should be granted to compel the defendants to provide public education for Columbus Air Base children when school opens, and until such time thereafter as the legal issues are settled. This
- 6 -

education may be provided, under the terms of the
temporary restraining order, on the same basis as
it has been provided in the past.
Bearing in mind the narrow scope of the
relief sought on the application for a temporary restraining order, we turn to the legal questions involved. I. Defendants agreed in writing to educate Air Base
children A. Background -- the School Construction Act The defendant Columbus School Board has filed
seven applications with the United States Commissioner of Education for federal funds to be used for school construction purposes. The applications were filed pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 631 et. seq., the Federal School Construction Act of 1950.
The School Construction law was enacted in order to "provide assistance for the construction of urgently needed minimum school facilities in school districts which have had substantial increases in school membership as a result of new or increased federal activities," 20 U.S.C. 631. The "federal share" of any school construction project is computed according to the number and percentage of federal children who attend local schools. 20 U.S.C. 634-635. The Act sets forth the procedure to be followed in applying for federal funds for this purpose, and describes the information which must be included in the application papersand various "assurances" which must be given by the applicant. 20 U.S.C. 636.
Among other assurances which an applicant must give is an assurance that:
- 7 -

the school facilities of such agency will be available to the children for whose education contributions are provided in this chapter on the same terms, in accordance with the laws of the State in which the school district of such agency is situated, as they are available to other children in such school district. • • . 20 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1)(F). 1 / After the Commissioner of Education satisfies himself as to certain matters enumerated in section 636(b)(2), the statute provides that he "shall approve" the application and that he "shall pay" the approved amount in installments. Section 637(a). Section 640 describes the conditions under which the Commissioner of Education is authorized to provide schools for federally-connected children. Section 641 authorizes the Commissioner, if he determines that certain requirements and assurances are not being complied with, to notify the applicant that it will not longer receive federal payments. Judicial review of any rejection of any application, or of any refusal to continue payments or make future payments, is provided for. Section 641(b). B. The availability assurance requires the
defendants to admit Air Base children to their schools When the Columbus Board of Education applied for each federal grant under the School Construction Act it gave the assurance required by section 636 (b)(1)(F). To repeat, this assurance provides:
1/ The "school facilities" to which this assurance refers includes "classrooms and related facilities," and "initial equipment, machinery, and utilities necessary or appropriate for school purposes."
- 8 -

the school facilities of such
agency will be available to the children
for whose education contributions are provided in this chapter on the same
terms, in accordance with the laws of
the State in which the school district of such agency is situated, as they are available to other children in such
school district. . . . 20 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1)(F).
The Columbus Board had, as the complaint
makes clear, agreed with the Lovindes County Board' to educate Air Base children; and the school construction
funds were granted upon the representation to the
Commissioner of Education by the Columbus Board that this was the purpose for which the Board sought•
federal construction funds.
Nothing in Mississippi law prohibits the
defendants from educating the federal children. They
have contracted to do so. Their refusal is a clear violation of their written assurance. II. The assurance is a contractual obligation
The "availability" assurance is an obligation arising out of a contractual arrangement entered into between the United States and the CDlumbus School Board. See United States v. Prince George County School Board, No. 3536 (E.D. Va., June 24, 1963). Judge Mize appears to have agreed. See United States v. Gulfport Municipal Separate School District, C.A. No. 2678 (S.D. Miss. 1963). Pursuant to the statute the parties entered into an agreement by which the United States would provide school construction funds in exchange for certain "assurances" on the part of the Columbus Board. An "assurance" is a promise, Caband v. Federal Insurance Co., 37 F. 2d 23 (C.A. 2, 1930), and the entire arrangement, as prescribed by
- 9 -

the statute, had all the characteristics of an ordi-
nary contractual transaction. When the United States
makes a grant with the expectation of obtaining bene-
fits in return therefore, and extracts promises in
exchange, the grant is not a mere "gift", unaccompanied
by any obligation on the part of the grantee, but is,
on the contrary, a part of a binding contractual arrange-
ment. In Burke v. Southern Pacific Ry. Co., 234 U.S.
669 (1914), the Court said, with reference to a
federal grant of land to a railroad (234 U.S. at 679):
We first notice a contention on the part of the mineral claimants to the effect that the grant to the railroad company was merely a gift from the United States, and should be construed and applied accordingly. The granting act not only does not support the contention but refutes it. The act did not follow the building of the road but preceded it. Instead of giving a gratutous reward for something already done, the act made a proposal to the company to the effect that if the latter would locate, construct and put into operation a designated line of railroad, patents would be issued to the company * * *. The purpose was to bring about the construction of the road, with the resulting advantage to the government and the public, and to that end provision was made for cmmpensating the company, if it should do the work, by patenting to it the lands indicated. The company was at liberty to accept or reject the proposal. It accepted in the mode contemplated by the act, and thereby the parties were brought into such contractual relations that the terms of the proposal become obligatory on both. And when, by constructing the road and putting it in operation, the company performed its part of the contract, it became entitled to performance by the government * * * the grant should not be treated as a mere gift.
- 10 -

See also United States v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.,

256 U.S. 51 (1921);

Helvering v. Northwest Steel

Mills, 311 U.S. 45 (1940); Oregon & California Ry.

Co. v. United States, 238 U.S. 393 (1915); United

States v. Northern Pacific Railway, 311 U.S. 317

(1940); United States v. San Francisco, 23 F. Supp.

40, 45 (N O D. Calif. 1938), rev'd 106 F. 2d 569

(C.A. 9), rev'd, aff'g District Court, 310 U.S. 16

(1940).

These cases indicate that in general, when

the government grants money upon certain conditions

or obtains certain promises in exchange therefore,

the grant is to be considered a contract, enforceable

as such at the suit of either party. The grants

made pursuant to the federal school construction act

are no different. Here the United States agreed, by

approving the applications, to make certain payments

in exchange for certain promises; and it did make

such payments. Indeed, even if the contracts were

not now fully executed on the government's part, the

statute makes it clear that once the statutory con-

ditions are met the government is obliged to approve

(or "accept") and to pay. The statute declares that,

if the conditions specified are met, the Commissioner

"shall approve" the application, 20 U.S.C. 636(b)(2),

and he "shall pay" to the local school agency the

2 / In the Northern Pacific case the Court said:
* * * the Act and resolution [of Congress) embodies a proposal to the company to the effect that if it would undertake and perform that vast work, it would receive in return the lands comprehended in the grant. The company accepted the proposal and at enormous cost constructed the road and put the same in operation; and the road was accepted by the President. Thus the proposal was converted into a contract * * *•"

- 11 -

funds Agreed upon 6ttdrding to the statutory scheme. 20 U.S.C. 637(a), 637(b). Any doubt whether the Commissioner is bound to approve and to pay is dispelled by the provisions for a hearing and for judicial review of an adverse decision. 20 U.S.C. 636(c), 641(b).
In return for payment, the Board has agreed to do certain things specified in Section 636(b)(1), among them to make its school facilities available to federally-connected children. Indeed, this assurance is one of the. main inducements for the government to grant the funds, as the assurance itself makes clear by referring to "the [federal] children for whose education contributions are provided in this chapter * * 20 U.S.C. 636(b)(F). At this stage the government has paid and the contracts are therefore fully executed on its part. It follows that the defendants continue to be bound by the assurance required by Section 636(b)(1)(F). III. The United States has standing to enforce the
assurance We have demonstrated that the assurance is
a contractual obligation on the part of the Columbus School Board. The promisee , of this contractual undertaking is the United States. And it has long been settled that, notwithstanding the absence of express statutory authority, the United States has standing to sue to enforce contracts to which it is a party. As early as 1818 in Dugan v. United States, 3 Wheat. 1.72, 177, the Supreme Court said that "in all cases of contract with the United States, [the United States] must have a right to enforce the
- 12 -

performance of such contract, or to recover damages
for their violation, by actions in their own name,
unless a different mode of suit be prescribed by
law * * *. It would be strange to deny them [the
United States] a right which is secured to every
citizen of the United States." See also Jessup v.
United States, 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 147, 152 (1882);
United States v, Tingey, 5 Pet. 115, 127-128 (1831).
Similarly, in Cotton v. United States, 11
How. 229 (1850), the Supreme Court said:
* * * the powers of the United States as a sovereign, dealing with offenders against their laws, must not be confounded with their rights as a body politic. It would present a strange anomaly, indeed, if, having the power to make contracts and hold property as other persons, natural or artificial, they were not entitled to the same remedies for their protection. * * * Although as a sovereign the United States may not be sued, yet as a corporation or body politic they may bring suits to enforce their contracts and protect their property.
See also Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S.
148, 151 (1956); Hart & Wechsler, The Federal Courts
and The Federal System, 1114-1115 (1953); Corwin, ed.,
Annotated Constitution of the United, States of America,
584 (1953); United States v. Prince George County
School Board, supra.
The absence of express statutory authority
to sue to enforce these contracts is, therefore, no
obstacle to the maintenance of this suit, for the
assurance is enforceable, like any other contract to
which the Government is a party.
- 13 -

IV. A temporary rréStrain.ng order is required to prevent rrep ,rable injury Schools in Columbus are scheduled to open
on Friday, August 30. If Air Base children are not permitted to enroll on time they will fall behind in their education and may never be able to make it up. They may, indeed, miss an entire semester of schooling. And the United States will lose -- irretrievably -the benefits it contracted for. iioreover, the morale of their parents -- servicemen and civilians stationed or employed at the Base -- will clearly be impaired, with a consequent interference with the efficiency of this important military installation of the plaintiff. No order of this Court issued after time has been lost can remedy this situation or restore the status quo ante.
The injury to the plaintiff is plainly irreparable. A temporary restraining order is therefore clearly justified and required.
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the motion for a temporary restraining order should be granted.
)R,i :: i ARSHALL, ._, sistant Attorney General.
ST. JOHT4 BARRETT, HAROLD H. GREENE, ALAN G. MARER,
Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530

APPENDIX
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 815 FOR COLUMi3US hUNICIPAL SEPARAT , SCHOOL DISTRICT, LOkifJ aS COU,;TY, t',ISSISSIPPI, INCLUDING APPLICJ.TION PERIODS, PRU,JLCT NUMBERS, DATES OF PROJECT A PROVAL, EDLRAL AN., LOCAL FUNDS E XPEND:E.> AID TOTAL PROJECT COSTS FOR FISCAL 1951 THROUGH 1963

Application leriod (1)
1956-58 1958-60 1959-61 1959-61 1959-61 1959-61 1959-61 1960-62 1960-62

Project Number
(2)
58-C-601A8 60-C-601A10 61-C-601A11 61-C-601311 61-C-601C11 61-C-601D11 61-C-601E11 62-C-601Al2 * 62-C-601812

Date Project Approved (3)
March 21, 1958 June 15, 1959 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 January 25, 1961 May 19, 1961 October 9, 1962

Federal Funds (4)
$279,218.97 52,577.07 55,245.69 55;283.39 -C9,957.09 51,013.72 50,554.24
260, 902.70 75,123.00

Local Funds
(5)

$

--

--

1.2,610.29

14.40

141.84

57.60

68.40

--

20681.00

Total Cost (6)
$279,218.97 52,577.07 67,855.98 55,297.79 60,098.93 51,071.32 50,622.64
260, 902.70 77,804.00

Total

$939,875.87

$15,573.53

$955,449.40

* Under construction.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

TO EACH DEFENDANT AND EACH ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

Please take notice that on

, 1963,

at

o'clock .m., in the courtroom of the United

States District Court for the Northern District of

Mississippi in

, Mississippi, the plaintiff will

move the Court for a preliminary injunction, pending the

trial and determination of this case, preliminarily enjoin-

ing the defendants, their successors in office, agents,

employees, and all persons in active concert or participa-

tion with them, from failing or refusing to make the

school facilities of the Board available to the chi dren

of military and civilian personnel of the plaintiff res._-

ding on Columbus Air Force Base and for whose educatio..

i the plaintiff has made contributions to the Board under Chapter 19 of Title 20, United States Code.
The motion will be based upon all of the pleadings and other papers on file in this case, upon the affidavits appended to the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining order, and upon oral testimony and other evidence to be offered upon the hearing of the motion.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
By: HOSEA M. RAY United States attorney ST. JOHN BARRETT, Attorney Department of Justice
- 2 -

 
 wAl np , ±bA i V i tT

STATE OP MISSISSIPPI )

COUNTY OP LOWNDES

)

I, Samuel T. Jordan, having been duly sworn, state as follows;
My name is COL. SAMUEL T. JORDAN. I am 46 years old and was born and raised in Virginia. I am married and have 3 children. Since 5 July 1963 I have been Base Commander of the Columbus Air Force Base. The 454th Bomb Wing (Heavy) S.A.C. has its headquarters at the Columbus Air Force Base. Our mission is to be prepared to conduct global strategic air operations on an instantaneous basis with a long-range nuclear jet striking force.
The Columbus Air Force Base is located about 10 miles north of Columbus, Mississippi, in Lowndes County. There are approximately 3,142 military men assigned to the base and about 299 civil service workers at the base. The annual payroll for the base is approximately $11,800.00.

Approximately 333 officers and 1,905 airmen live on the base and approximately 929 officers and airmen live off the base.

-2-
It is my responsibility, under Air Force regulations, to insure that the school children of the men under my command are furnished a suitable, free, public education.
During the 1962-1963 school year, approximately 1,005 children from the base attended Columbus city schools. The breakdown by school was as follows:
156 at Lee High School 119 at Cook Junior High School 630 at Brandon Elementary School
3 at Demonstration 41 at Franklin Academy 56 at other schools 1,005 Total Most of the children from the base attended the Brandon Elementary School which is about 6 miles from the base. Brandon has the first 6 grades of school only. I arrived at the Base on the first of July this year. My first contact with the School Board of Columbus was on the second of August, at a meeting held in the Wing Commanders office. John Henry, President of the Columbus School Board, W. F. Bruce, Jr., Assistant Superintendent of Columbus Schools, and two other

people from the community who belonged to the Base Community Council were present. At this meeting, we informed the school people of the Defense Department Directive pertaining to the assignment of dependent children of military personnel to schools on a nonracial basis and requested information from the school people with respect to the procedure which pupils follow to transfer from one school to another. We explained to the people that they might be getting requests for transfers from children wanting to attend school on a non-segregated basis.
We met again on 7 August 1963 with Mr. Henry, Mr. J. E. Goolsby, Superintendent of Columbus City Schools, and other school officials from Clay County, Aberdeen, Mississippi and West Point, Mississippi. The purpose of this meeting was to review the proposed letters to military personnel which we had drafted to comply with an Air Staff Directive and to make certain we had included the correct information on the school transfer provisions.
At neither of these meetings was there any intimation that the schools might be closed or that the children from the base would not be allowed to attend the schools.

-4-
Registration for the Columbus city schools was
scheduled for the period from August 15th until school
starts. The children from the base were registered
for this coming school year by taking their birth cer-
tificates and an adult with them to the schools. On
August 19th or 20th, my older son, who is 18, took my
youngest son to the Brandon School where he was regis-
tered for the third grade.
On the morning of August 23rd, at about 7:25 a.m.,
I walked into my office and Mrs. Carr, who works in the
office next to me and whose husband is principal of the
Lee High School, asked me if I had heard that in a
special meeting of the School Board the previous night
the Board voted to close Brandon School. I immediately
called Mr. Goolsby, the Superintendent of City Schools,
at about 7:30 a.m. He read to me an extract of the
resolutions approved by the School Board on August 22 which stated, in part, as follows:
1. Resolved that the first duty of the Trustees is to those pupils and parents residing in this school district.
2. Resolved that the Brandon Elementary School be closed and not opened for the school year 1963-1964.
3. Resolved that the 1963-1964 budget be amended by changing item 13, page 1, from $120 0 000 to read Public Law 874 $43,374 and by crediting said budget with the savings resulting from the closing of Brandon Elementary School and the superintendant submit accordingly the revised budget to the board at a meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m. 26th of August 1963.

- 5 •.

4. Resolved that no student living outside Columbus separate school district be admitted as a student in any of the schools in the Columbus separate school district except as previously provided by the State Educational Finance Commission for the reorganization of Columbus separate school districts and the Lowndes County School District.

5. Resolved that any application for transfer received by the Superintendent pursuant to his letter of August 15, 1963, be denied with a sincere regret of the Board that any tuition fees received be returned.

When we learned the schools were closed to chil-

dren from the base, we took a survey to see who was

affected. This survey showed the following number of

children would be entering the following grades this

year= GRADE

CHILDREN

1st
2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

136 )
122 ) 99 ) 90 ) All would have attended 78 ) Brandon School. 65 ) 57T 56 41 40 35
31
850 children

An additional 100 children from the Base will be

attending a new parochial school for the grades 1-5.

The city schools are scheduled to open on Friday.

We don't have any schools on the Base and we don't have

any physical facilities we can use for a school. Even

if we had a building, the starting date for when we

- 6 w could get books, teachers, chairs and other necessary items is uncertain. We haven't hired our first teacher yet.
If we could lease Brandon School and get the money, we might be able to open by October, but even then we would have to double shift it until we could build a building. Brandon only has 24 rooms ' a cafeteria and a principal's office. it has no laboratory, auditorium or gymnasium since it was only an elementary school.
All the parents are shook up. They are calling and asking should they move off base, stay on base, will the Air Force provide schooling for their children. And many of the parents arc concerned that even if we could get a school started by October, we would not have any athletic programs, hence the children in the higher grades who were hoping to go to junior college and college on athletic scholarships will not be able to.
Also, there is the problem that even if we could start by the first of October, some of the men will get transferred to other bases during the year and their children will thus be behind other children who started school at the regular time. Particularly in the Air Force, we move so much that our kids have to go to many

different schools and have troubles adjusting each time, so not starting on time this year makes it much worse.
There is also the question of accreditation. The juniors and seniors in high school are worrying the most and I'm worried most about them.

COL. SAMUEL T. JORDAN

Subscribed and sworn to before me

on this

day of August, 1963.

Notary Public My Commission expires: