Opinion ID: 594417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Facilities Committee

Text: 22 Paragraph 24 of the CSA provides in relevant part: 23 Should the district desire to open the other three newly constructed schools ... it shall: ... 24 (c) by September 15, 1990, convene a seven person committee to study facility needs and educational programs in the Duval County Public Schools as outlined in the agreement ...; 25 (d) provide said committee staff support and resources necessary to produce a report on facilities needs in the core city by November 15, 1990, identifying those schools it believes need to be renovated; substantially rehabilitated and/or replaced; 26 (e) agree to review the proposals of the facilities committee and determine by January 15, 1991 which of its recommendations to adopt.... 27 CSA, p 24 (emphasis added). 28 After the parties entered into the agreement, the Board convened this so-called facilities committee. In November 1990, however, the Board ended its association with the committee and treated the committee as disbanded. The NAACP argues that because the agreement does not give a deadline for the completion of the committee's study on educational programs, the committee was intended to be of permanent duration. Therefore, the Board is violating a continuing duty to accommodate the committee in its study of educational programs. The Board replies that the agreement anticipates the termination of the committee upon completion of its November report. 11 29 The district court concluded that the agreement read as a whole supported the conclusion that the committee was not permanent, but rather would cease to exist once it completed its assigned duties. The district court pointed to terms of the CSA which do not appear to anticipate the committee's further involvement with facility needs once it submitted its November 1990 report. Therefore, the district court denied the NAACP relief. 30 We remand the committee issue back to the district court for further consideration of the committee's responsibilities with respect to its study of educational programs. The CSA unambiguously requires the committee to study both educational programs and facility needs. The November 15, 1990 deadline appears to apply only to the committee's report and recommendations on facility needs. 12 Courts must try to give effect to each provision in a contract or consent agreement. See Roberts v. St. Regis Paper Co., 653 F.2d 166, 171 (5th Cir.1981). The CSA clearly anticipates that the committee would continue to exist until it completed both of its assigned functions. The district court on remand should determine the precise nature and duration of the committee's duty to study educational programs, and make factual findings as to whether the committee ever fulfilled its duty to study the Board's educational programs.