Marsh v The County School Board of Roanoke County Brief and Appendix for the Appellees

    BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR THE APPELLEES

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 8535

GWENDOLYN YVETTE MARSH, an  I n f a n t , a nd  RAY­
MOND M. ISELEY a nd  HELEN ISELEY, H er Gra n d fa th er  
and  G ran d m o th er  and  N ext F r ie n d s ; JUDY CAROL WEST, 
ALVIN WEST, JR., LULA MARIE WEST a nd  BARBARA 
LYNN WEST, I n f a n t s , and  ALVIN WEST, T h e ir  F a th er  

and  N ext F r ie n d ,
Appellants,

v.

THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, 
a B ody Corporate ; HERMAN L. HORN, D iv isio n  S u p e r in t e n d ­
e n t , R oanoke  Co u n ty  P u b lic  S chools, a nd  E. J. OGLESBY, 
EDWARD f. JUSTIS, and  ALFRED L. WINGO, I ndividually  
and  C o n s t it u t in g  t h e  P u p il  P l a c em en t  B oard of t h e  Co m ­

m o n w e a l t h  of V ir g in ia , R ic h m o n d , V ir g in ia ,
Appellees.

B e n j a m in  E. C h a p m a n  
Salem, Virginia

Counsel for Roanoke County 
School Board, and Division 
Superintendent

A. B. S cott
Peyton, Beverley, Scott & Randolph 
1200 Travelers Building 
Richmond 19, Virginia

Counsel for Pupil Placement 
Board



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

P r e l im in a r y  S t a t e m e n t ..... ................... ............................... ...................  1

No I ssue  of D is c r im in a t io n ............ .......................................................... 2

T h e  S ole I ssue  ........................    2

R easona blen ess  and  V a lid ity  of S ix ty -D ay  R u l e ....................  3

C er ta in  S ta tem en ts  of A p pella n ts  D en ie d  ................................... 4

C o n c lu sio n  .................................   5

A ppe n d ix  :

Additional Exhibits from Record...............     App. 1

Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2 ..........   App. 1

Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 ...........................    App. 2

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2 ........................ .A pp. 3

Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 .......................................... App. 4

Additional Excerpts by Appellees from Transcript......... App. 5
Testimony of Herman L. H orn................................... App. 5

Direct Examination________      App. S

Testimony of Ernest J. Oglesby................................. App. 10
Direct Examination................................................  App. 10
Cross-Examination ......      App. 13
Redirect Examination...............................    App. 14



United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit

No. 8535

GWENDOLYN YVETTE MARSH, an  I n f a n t , and  RAY­
MOND M. ISELEY a nd  HELEN ISELEY, H er Gra n d fa th er  
and  G r a n d m o th er  and  N ext F r ie n d s ; JUDY CAROL WEST, 
ALVIN WEST, JR., LULA MARIE WEST and  BARBARA 
LYNN WEST, I n f a n t s , a nd  ALVIN WEST, T h e ir  F a th er  

a nd  N ext F r ie n d ,
Appellants,

v.
THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ROANOKE COUNTY, 
A B ody Corporate ; HERMAN L. HORN, D iv isio n  S u p e r in t e n d ­
e n t , R oanoke  C o u n ty  P ublic  S chools, and  E. J. OGLESBY, 
EDWARD T. JUSTIS, and  ALFRED L. WINGO, I ndividually  
and  C o n s t it u t in g  t h e  P u p il  P la c em en t  B oard of t h e  Co m ­

m o n w e a l t h  of V ir g in ia , R ic h m o n d , V ir g in ia ,
Appellees.

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEES

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In order that the Court of Appeals might the more readily 

have a more complete picture of the case, the original 
exhibits consisting of the letter from local counsel for the 
appellants to the Division Superintendent of Schools of 
Roanoke County under date of July 16, 1960, and of the 
letters from the Pupil Placement Board to each appellant 
parent, dated August 30, 1960, as well as additional excerpts 
from the transcript of the testimony of witnesses during the 
trial below with suitable ties in, for continuity’s sake, to the



2

same pages of the transcript and evidence printed in the 
appellants’ separate appendix, are printed in the appendix 
to the appellees’ brief. Reference is made to the same since 
the two should be read alongside and considered together at 
the appropriate places.

NO ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION
At the very outset, let it be emphasized that the opinion 

and decision of the lower court speaks eloquently enough 
for itself, and involves no question of discrimination. No 
statement of the case, or of the pleadings, or of the ques­
tions including any so-called subsidiary issues, or of the 
facts, or extraneous arguments on behalf of the appellants 
can change one whit the essential complexion of this case, 
and to the extent inapplicable or irrelevant, as on only super­
ficial analysis they clearly are, they should be disregarded 
and put aside.

THE SOLE ISSUE
The sole, plain, and simple question here is whether the 

appellants sought in timely manner assignment to a specific 
school desired by them for the I960 school session, and as 
a corollary thereto the reasonableness and validity of the 
regulation requiring them so to do at least sixty (60) days 
prior to the commencement of such session.

That they did not is clearly and firmly established by the 
record. Indeed, this is undisputed. Such being the case, 
no action of any nature was taken on the then pending 
requests, but without prejudice, clearly expressed, to any 
future rights. Since no action was taken, it necessarily 
follows that there was not and could not have been any 
discrimination.



3

REASONABLENESS AND VALIDITY OF 
SIXTY-DAY RULE

We feel that it would in no small measure impugn if not 
insult the knowledge and intelligence of this Court to labor 
this point seriously or at great length. Suffice it to say that 
in addition to what is a matter of common everyday knowl­
edge, the late District Judge Thompson said in the Pulaski 
County School case that “advance knowledge of the number 
of students who expect to attend said Institute (Christians- 
burg Institute) should be available to the school authorities 
so that they may plan and make the necessary arrangements 
for the operation of each school session”. He specified 
March 15 as the dead line.

And District Judge Paul in the Grayson County School 
Case said:

“* * * it is always desirable and frequently necessary 
that the authorities charged with the maintenance of 
the schools should have some knowledge prior to the 
opening of the school year as to how many students 
may be expected to attend school, in order that they 
may be able to outline the proper school program and 
to make the preparations of various sorts for accommo­
dating the number of children that may be fairly expect­
ed to attend”.

Judge Paul specified that application should be made “at a 
reasonable time before the beginning of the school year”.

Local counsel for the appellants in this case from its incep­
tion was also the only counsel for the plaintiffs in the Pulaski 
and Grayson County School Cases above referred to and 
also in the appeal hearings held by the Pupil Placement 
Board at Pulaski prior to the trial of the Pulaski and 
Grayson County cases.



4

CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF APPELLANTS 
DENIED

It is with regret and extreme reluctance that counsel for 
the appellees feel compelled, in justice to the respective clients 
they represent, to assert that many of the positive state­
ments made on behalf of the appellants in their brief are 
not only frivolous. They are misleading, inaccurate, and in 
some instances even false.

That local counsel for the appellants was not aware or 
should not have been aware of the sixty-day rule simply 
isn’t so! Even if it was, any such claim is immaterial.

There is ample and sufficient space on the application 
form for the designation of a specific school that is desired. 
That this is so is best illustrated by the fact that specific 
schools were designated in this case and in the companion 
case involving Roanoke City.

That the sixty-day rule is discriminatory and not appli­
cable to all cases regardless of race, color, or creed, or school, 
simply isn’t so! Its express terms are clear enough, and 
there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. The only 
exceptions are cases of change of residence in order not to 
work an undue hardship, and cases of necessary moves in 
large numbers or en masse, which are called administrative 
transfers or removals, especially to cope with an emergency.

That the applications were filed on June 16, 1960 is not 
true! They were received after July 16, 1960, and were in 
fact considered in August at the first ensuing meeting of the 
local school board, and promptly thereafter at the first meet­
ing of the Pupil Placement Board immediately following 
their actual receipt.

That the appellees made no reasonable effort to publicize 
the sixty-day rule is unfounded and untrue. It was circu­



5

lated throughout the state and, more importantly, given to 
the newspapers and to the United Press and Associated 
Press. It was widely run as a news article in newspapers 
throughout the state. A news item is much more apt to be 
seen, noticed and taken in, than some formal notice hidden 
away in the classified section usually at the back of the paper.

That even if applications are filed in time, sufficient time 
is not allowed to exhaust the administrative remedies is 
shown to be false, as counsel for the appellants well know, 
by the results of the Roanoke City appeal hearings for the 
1961 school session in August of that year, and as a result 
of which the Pupil Placement Board reversed itself in six 
(6) of twelve (12) instances.

That the hearing procedure is burdensome and unreason­
able because Richmond is far removed from certain sections 
of the state is refuted by the testimony of the chairman of 
the Pupil Placement Board that effort is made to suit the 
greater public convenience by balancing the numbers and 
distance involved in a specific case; and by the actual facts 
that hearings were held in Pulaski concerning residents of 
the Counties of Pulaski and Grayson, in Waynesboro as to 
residents of that city, and in Roanoke concerning residents 
of such city and the adjoining county of the same name.

That the building of the Pinkard school was designed as 
an escape from the possible rights of these appellants is 
disproved by the fact that it was planned and discussed long 
before this action was instituted.

CONCLUSION
Further discussion simply confuses and gets away from 

the one fundamental issue treated above. To the extent 
necessary, however, reference can also be made to the



6

points made by the appellees in the preceding case involving 
Roanoke City for the same school year of 1960.

We submit that the District Judge should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

B e n j a m in  E. C h a p m a n  
Salem, Virginia

Counsel for Roanoke County 
School Board and Division 
Superintendent

A. B. S cott
Peyton, Beverley, Scott & Randolph 
1200 Travelers Building 
Richmond 19, Virginia

Counsel for Pupil Placement 
Board



A P P E N D I X



ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS FROM RECORD 

Defendant’s Exhibit No. 2

[Letterhead of Reuben E. Lawson, Attorney at Law] 

July 16, 1960

Dr. Herman L. Horn, Superintendent 
Roanoke County Public Schools 
Salem, Virginia

Dear Dr. Horn:
Enclosed you will find, properly executed, Pupil Place­

ment Forms for the following students who are seeking 
admission to the school nearest their homes in Roanoke 
County, Virginia, to-wit: Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, Jean 
Millicent Ferguson, Gregory Morris Ferguson, Judy Carol 
West, Alvin West, Jr., Lula Marie West, and Barbara Lynn 
West, all of whom seek transfers to Clearbrook Elementary 
School.

You will kindly direct all communications relative to these 
applications to the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

Reuben E. Lawson

REL: E 
Enclosures



App. 2

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
P u p il  P l a c e m e n t  B oard

August 30, 1960

Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1

Airs. R. M. Iseley 
Route 5, Box 823 
Roanoke, Virginia

Dear Mrs. Iseley:
This is to advise that the Pupil Placement Board at its meet­
ing on August 29, 1960 denied your request for the enroll­
ment of your daughter, Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, in the 
Clearbrook School and continued her enrollment in the 
Carver School in Roanoke County, in accordance with Pupil 
Placement Board regulations requiring the submission of 
such requests sixty days prior to the commencement of any 
school session.
This action was taken without prejudice to your right to 
make new application at least sixty days prior to the opening 
date of the 1961-1962 school session, if you desire to do so.

Yours truly,

(s) B. S. Hilton
Executive Secretary

BSH :gj
CC: Mr. Plerman L. Horn, Div. Supt.

Roanoke County Schools



App. 3

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
P u p il  P l a c e m e n t  B oard

August 30, 1960

Mrs. Jacquelyn L. Ferguson 
Route 5, Box 790 
Roanoke, Virginia

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2

Dear Mrs. Ferguson:
This is to advise that the Pupil Placement Board at its 
meeting on August 29, 1960 denied your requests for the 
enrollment of your children, Gregory Morris Ferguson and 
Joan Millicent Ferguson, in the Clearbrook School and 
continued their enrollment in the Carver School in Roanoke 
County, in accordance with Pupil Placement Board regula­
tions requiring the submission of such requests sixty days 
prior to the commencement of any school session.
This action was taken without prejudice to your right to 
make new applications at least sixty days prior to the opening 
date for the 1961-1962 school session, if you desire to do so.

Yours truly,

Is) B. S. Hilton
Executive Secretary

BSH :gj
CC: Mr. Herman L. Horn, Div. Supt.

Roanoke County Schools



App. 4

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
P u p il  P l a c e m e n t  B oard

August 30, 1960

Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1

Mr. Alvin J. West, Sr. 
Route 5, Box 824 
Roanoke, Virginia

Dear Mr. West:
This is to advise that the Pupil Placement Board at its 
meeting on August 29, 1960 denied your requests for the 
enrollment of your children, Barbara Lynn, Alvin, Jr., Lula 
Marie and Judy Carol in the Clearbrook School and con­
tinued their enrollment in the Carver School in Roanoke 
County, in accordance with Pupil Placement Board regula­
tions requiring the submission of such requests sixty days 
prior to the commencement of any school session.
This action was taken without prejudice to your right to 
make new applications at least sixty days prior to the opening 
date for the 1961-1962 school session, if you desire to do so.

Yours truly,

(s) B. S. Hilton
Executive Secretary

BSH:gj
CC: Mr. Herman L. Horn, Div. Supt.

Roanoke County Schools



App. 5

ADDITIONAL EXCERPTS BY APPELLEES 
FROM TRANSCRIPT

Testimony of Herman L. Horn
DIRECT E X A M IN A T IO N

[tr. PP. 33-37]
Q What was your reason for recommending—did you 

have a reason for recommending that these transfers be 
denied?

A Yes, sir.
M r . C h a p m a n  : I object to that, sir—to the question. I 

think it is irrelevant. The applications are in that show 
the dates and they speak for themselves.

T h e  Court : What is the relevancy of his reason ? What 
bearing does it have ?

M r . N a b r it : Your Honor, to answer that, probably I 
should state my position. It is our position that the Pupil 
Placement Board in actual practice operates too routinely, 
ratifies the action that is really taken locally; that the local 
people exercise any real effective judgment in actual practice 
here in Roanoke County. Now, I recognize that any reasons 
that Mr. Horn may have had for making a recommendation 
which he did not communicate would be of dubious value.

T h e  Co u r t : That application itself is in evidence. All 
I see on there is the recommendation as to school, which 
pupil should be assigned. And this application is signed by 
the Assistant Superintendent.

M r . N a b r it : Y es, sir.

T h e  Co u r t : And it says “Carver School.” No question 
that that is the recommendation. What difference does it 
make why they recommended it. He is bound by the recom­



App. 6

mendation, whether it is good or bad. In other words, he 
may be wrong in his recommendation. But even though he 
had a good reason for it, if he is wrong in his recommenda­
tion, that wouldn’t change it, would it ?

M r . N a b r it : Well, Your Honor, Plaintiffs’ basic con­
tention in this case is that there is racial discrimination. I 
don’t know how much of this you want me to state now. I 
realize it is not the appropriate time to argue the case. But 
we feel that the reasons the administrative body give for 
their own action are relevant.

T h e  C ourt : Well, the body that has the power to assign 
it might be an appropriate question under certain circum­
stances as far as the Pupil Placement Board is concerned. 
Am I incorrect that the Pupil Placement Board of Virginia, 
under the existing law, is the one that assigns pupils in this 
County and the local School Board doesn’t have anything 
to do with it under the law; isn’t that correct ? I know you 
don’t think the law is correct, but that is what it requires; 
does it not ?

M r . N abrit  : I don’t know if I could agree with the State 
that the local people don’t have anything to do with it. They 
have something to do. But under the law of assignment, it 
is invested in the Pupil Placement Board.

T h e  Court : All right. If it is invested in them, regard­
less of what he might do, other than to influence them, if he 
could, the power is in the Pupil Placement Board.

M r . N a b r it : We don’t dispute that, sir.
T h e  Court : How much he recommends, what difference 

does that make ?
M r . N a brit  : Because we can establish and the testimony



already indicates that the Pupil Placement Board follows his 
recommendation s.

T h e  Court : Assuming that to be true—
M r . N a b r it : And to connect that up, the local assign­

ment system is based upon a set of school zones, determined 
upon the basis of race and those are—

T h e  C o u r t : In this particular case, on these applica­
tions, the Pupil Placement Board has not acted thereon; 
isn’t that correct ?

M r . C h a p m a n  : That is correct.
T h e  C o u r t : They haven’t acted on them. That is what 

the record shows.
M r . N a b r it : I don’t think that is entirely true. One 

child, a beginner, the Placement assigned her to Carver 
School.

T p i e  Court : The others ?
M r . N a brit  : The others, the Board.
T h e  Co u r t : Isn’t it a fact now whether they have that 

right—that is what you are asking me to determine. Well, 
isn’t it a fact that the Pupil Placement Board refused to act 
on these applications because they were not timely filed, 
according to their indications? In other words, they were 
not filed within 60 days. Isn’t that correct?

M r . N a b r it : That is correct.
T h e  Co u r t : Now, if they have the right—and that is 

one of the questions that we have to determine. You set a 
cut-off date for assignment. That is one thing. If they do 
not have the right and do not act on it, how can the Super­

App. 7



App. 8

intendent be charged with discrimination when he has no 
power to do anything about it ?

M r . N a brit  : Well, sir, I think the problem we have here 
is that when the Board fails to act, it in effect reassigns the 
pupil. When the Board refuses to consider an assignment, 
the child still goes to—

T he C ourt : Since I am hearing it without a jury, at the 
same time I will let him answer the question. But I don’t 
know how it could be relevant, because let’s assume that he 
recommended that these children be sent to the school they 
applied for. Let’s assume that he did that. Of course, he 
didn’t but let’s assume he did. He recommended that. But 
the Board that has the power and the duty of assigning 
children would not entertain it because it wasn’t filed in 
time. Would his recommendation in their favor have any 
more bearing if it was just the opposite ? Don t we get back 
to the pertinent question as to whether or not the State 
Pupil Placement Board has a right or whether they used 
subterfuge to deny these children of their rights ? Let him 
answer the question.

M r . N a b r it : I think his recommendation would bear on 
racial discrimination.

T h e  Court : What reason did you have ? First let me ask 
you: These recommendations are signed by E. B. Broad­
water, Assistant Superintendent. That is not you?

T h e  W it n e s s : No, sir.

T h e  C o u r t : Did you make any written recommenda­
tions ?

T h e  W it n e s s : No. Mr. Broadwater signed them at my 
request.



App. 9

T h e  Court : As an assistant ?
T h e  W it n e s s : M y responsibility. I m ade the decision.

%

[t r . p . 47]
Q Everyone that comes in goes to school in the zone; 

doesn’t he?
A I would think that is pretty generally true, yes.
Q Can you take Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2, the map, and make 

an indication for the Court as to where these people, what 
neighborhood these people live in ?

T h e  C ourt : I believe it is conceded that these applicants 
live near and within the zone, that is, the white school zone, 
and he testified to that before.

M r. N a brit  : I thought Your Honor might want to know 
where they were on the map so the map would be more 
useful.

M r. C h a p m a n  : Your Honor might recall, in Richmond, 
that they actually live closer to a school called Ogden than 
they do to Clearbrook, We admit they live where they live. 
And Clearbrook, located where it is, is closer that Carver.

T h e  Court : I don’t have any objections to spotting it on 
the map. Now, it is very clear to the Court that these chil­
dren live closer—put it in the record last time—to Clear­
brook School than they do to the Carver School and some 
of them, not all, live closer to Ogden than they do to Clear­
brook.

*  *  *



App. 10

Testimony of Ernest J. Oglesby
DIRECT E X A M IN A T IO N

[t r . PP. 112-114]
A Then it is handled by the Placement Board.
Q Your Board has provisions for still further proceed­

ings when you reject, turn down assignment requests? You 
have protests proceedings, don’t you ?

A If we reject any request made to us by a parent for 
any reason whatsoever, we notify the parents in writing 
from our Board that they have within IS days to apply for 
a hearing.

Q Do you notify through—■
A I don’t know the exact administrative machinery. We 

notify the parent. We see that they get notification. The 
parent knows that he has 15 days to ask for a hearing. If 
he asks for a hearing, he gets a hearing. And we will make 
that hearing as easy as we can for him by going to the 
community where the parent lives to have the hearing rather 
than forcing him to come to Richmond at his expense and 
all his troubles.

Q Since you have been in office, how many such protest 
hearings have you had ?

A We have had two.

Q You had two ?
A Two hearings.
Q What community ?
A One in Richmond; one in Waynesboro.

Q Now—
T h e  Co u r t : Have you had any requests for protest 

hearings that you didn’t hear ?



App. 11

T h e  W it n e s s : No, sir. We have had none that we did 
not grant. I assure you, sir, that we will always grant any 
requests of that kind and make it as easy as possible for a 
parent to have a perfectly fair hearing on it.
B y M r . N a br it  :

Q Now, Mr. Oglesby, when you notify a parent that 
his request for transfer is denied and he has the right to 
apply for this hearing, does your Board always notify him 
why this request was rejected ?

A I can’t answer that. I am not familiar enough with 
the letter that goes to the parent.

Q Do you have any formal rules on this ?
A No.
Q Regulations ?
A Not that I know of.
Q Do you have any rules with respect to the hearings ?
M r . S c o t t : I f  M r. N a b rit  will fam iliarize  him self w ith 

the law, I don’t  th ink  it is in the law itself.

T h e  Court : All this witness is saying: he didn’t know. 
He wasn’t familiar with the exact form of the letter. The 
objection is overruled.

Go ahead.
B y M r . N a brit  :

Q I asked you if your Board had adopted any rules and 
regulations for the conduct of protest pursuant to the 
statute ?

A Well, we adopted this rule. So I am not sure whether 
that rule was one adopted by the previous Board. But we 
have a rule that they have 15 days to protest. If they ask 
for the protest, we then proceed to go there and have a



App. 12

hearing and give them every chance to present the facts. 
Now, I don’t know what you mean by procedure otherwise. 
We try to have a fair hearing and give them every opportu­
nity to bring out all of the facts.

Q You don’t have any written set of rules governing 
your conduct at hearings, right?

A No, we don’t have any regular set rules governing our 
conduct. We try to act in a fair way, trying to bring out 
the truth and see what the truth is and to see whether the 
protest granted and our ruling changed.

Q Now, Mr. Chairman, are you aware of any announce­
ments by your Board relating to announcement or communi­
cation to local school authorities relating to school zones, 
separate zones for Negro and white children?

A No, we haven’t had any announcement of that kind. 
We had been asked to approve, in the case of Waynesboro, 
certain * * *

* * *
[ t r . p p . 123-124]

T h e  C o u r t : In other words, if they moved on July the 
second, they would be entitled to go to school the next year 
and the Pupil Placement Board would assign those students ?

T h e  W it n e s s : Yes. It is my intention—
M r . S cott : The regulation so specify.
T h e  Court : I want to get it in the record. We have been 

talking about this question for two hours.
M r . N a br it  : I have no fu r th e r  questions.

M r . C h a p m a n  : I have no questions.

T h e  Court : Do you have any questions ?
Mr. S cott : Yes.



App. 13

C R O SS-E X A M IN A TIO N

B y M r . S c o t t :
Q Doctor, you said that since you have been on the 

Board, there have been two appeals to your Board ?
A Two cases of hearings.
Q Of hearings.
A We turned down no appeals.
Q What were the results of those hearings ?
A We granted one. We declined one. The one that was 

declined, as you know—you want me to explain ?
Q That is all I want to know. Now, you refer to a 

recommendation of the local school board or local school 
authorities. To what extent do you pay attention?

A I would say, Mr. Scott, that in only one of the cases 
where we put Negro children into a predominantly white 
school last year did we have—by the wildest imagination— 
could be described as being the recommendation of the local 
school board: that in every other case, this Board acted on 
its own and certainly contrary to any formal recommenda­
tions of any kind made by any local school board. Now, we 
talk it over and we try to find out everything we could about 
the situation, about the quality of the children and the kind 
of work they do and the rest of that, but those integrations 
that we did in the school last year were done by the Pupil 
Placement Board and certainly not on the recommendation 
of the local school board.

Q Do you consider that you are controlled by recom­
mendations of the local school board?

A I don’t think we are controlled by anybody on earth.
*  *  *



App. 14

REDIRECT E X A M IN A T IO N

[ t r . p . 133]
M r . N a br it  : I didn’t understand the witness to say that 

it makes any difference. We were talking about a limited 
category of pupils.

T h e  Co u r t : I understood him to say that if the local 
board had a school board that interfered with their meas­
urement of distance, if it reverted to that, they decided the 
matter on distance; is that correct ?

T h e  W it n e s s : That is correct, sir.
M r . N a b r it : Y ou w ouldn’t accept a school b o a rd ’s rec­

om m endations on the basis o f zones? Y ou would ignore it?

T h e  C o u r t : No, no. He said where there was a dispute 
between the school board’s recommendation and the appli­
cant. Now, it didn’t make any difference what the school 
board recommended. He then hears the case. In case of 
agreement, the State Board leaves them where the parent 
and the School Board mutually agree they want to go.

Mr. N abrit  : Mutually agree, sir?
T he Court : I thought a mutual agreement—if they are 

in accord, why wouldn’t it be a mutual agreement? If there 
is no dispute, it is bound to be a mutual agreement. But 
everybody has a right to disagree with * * *

* * *



Printed Letterpress by
L E W I S  P R I N T I N G  C O M P A N Y  • R I C H M O N D ,  V I R G I N I A