Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1

Public Court Documents
July 16, 1969 - July 22, 1969

Cite this item

Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1 preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Topic
- Education
Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 5cf839ff-b99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1, 1969. 5cf839ff-b99a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/229ae690-39df-4c7a-8b0f-59a6631613d9/keyes-v-school-district-no-1-denver-co-appendix-vol-1. Accessed December 03, 2025.

Copied!

APPENDIX
Volume 1— Pages l a to 480a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1971

No. 71-507

WILFRED KEYES, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS,

—v.—

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL.

ON W R IT OF C ERTIO RA RI TO T H E U N IT E D STA TES

CO U RT OF A PPE A L S FO R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

CERTIORARI GRANTED JANUARY 17, 1972

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED OCTOBER 8, 1971

INDEX TO APPENDIX

Volume I
PA G E

Docket Entries —....... ................................................. la

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Declara
tory Judgment........... ..... ..................................... . 2a
Exhibits annexed to Complaint:

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3—Resolution 1520 ....... 42a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4—Resolution 1524 ............. 49a
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5-—Resolution 1531 ............. 60a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction.............. 71a

Answer of Defendants Amesse, Noel and Voorhees,
J r ............................................................................. 73a

Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969 85a

T estim ony

(M in u t e s oe H earing on P relim inary I n ju n c t io n
J uly 16-22, 1969)

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Rachel B. Noel—

Direct ............................................... 85a
Redirect .......... 104a

A. Edgar Benton—
Direct .................. 108a
Cross ................ 121a
Redirect .............. 123a

Paul 0. Klite—
Direct ....... ................
Yoir Dire ...................
Cross ...... ...................
Redirect ...... .............

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—
Direct ........................

George E. Bardwell—
Direct ........................
Voir Dire ......... .........
Cross ..........................

Robert D. Gilberts—
Direct ........................
Cross ..........................
Redirect .....................

Defendants’ Witnesses:
Gilbert Cruter—

Direct ........................
Voir Dire ..................
Cross ..........................

Howard L. Jolm son-
Direct ...... .................
Cross .........................
Recross ......................

Robert Gilberts—
Direct ........................
Cross .........................
Redirect ....................
Recross ......................

PAGE

126a, 133a
..... 132a
..... 139a
..... 142a

143a

151a,191a
..... 185a
..... 193a

227a
252a
255a

208a, 214a
..... 213a
..... 216a

256a
302a
369a

376a
393a
408a
414a

Richard Koeppe—
Direct ......... ........... ............... ........... .....419a, 437a
Voir Dire ________ ____ ____ _____ ___ 436a
Cross ........................................ ..................... 438a

Preliminary Injunction ............. ................................. 452a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court 454a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 5, 1969 .... 455a

Supplemental Findings, Conclusions and Temporary
Injunction by District Court ....... .......................... 458a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 27, 1969 459a

Order ...... ........... ................ .......................... ............... 463a

Opinion by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacating
of Stay .......... ................................. .................... 464a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated September 15,
1969 ........... ..........- .................................................. 467a

Answer ................ ....................................................... 470a

Memorandum Opinion and O rder....... .................. 475a

I l l

PAGE

Volume 2

(M in u tes oe T rial on M erits ,
F ebruary 2-20, 1970)

PAGE

Minutes of Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970 .... 481a

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
Paul Klite—

Direct ..................................481a, 493a, 502a, 523a,
530a, 533a, 537a

Voir Dire ..................................... 491a, 502a, 522a,
528a, 532a, 536a

Cross ............................................................. 564a
Redirect ....................................................... 621a

Lorenzo Traylor—
Direct ........................................................... 579a
Cross ............................................................. 607a
Redirect ........................................................ 621a

Gerald P. Cavanaugh—
Direct ...................................... 626a
Cross ....................................................... ...... 646a
Redirect ........................................................ 652a
Recross .................................................. 655a

Mary Morton—
Direct ........................................................... 656a
Cross .............................. ............................... 660a

Marlene Chambers—
Direct ..................................................... 665a, 671a
Voir Dire ...................................................... 670a
Cross ............................................................. 676a
Redirect ........................................................ 681a
Recross ......................................................... 682a

Palicia L ew is-
Direct ................................. 684a
Cross .................................... 693a
Redirect ................................ 696a
Recross ................ 696a

Mildred Biddick—
Direct ........................................................... 697a

PA G E

George E. Bardwell-
Direct .......................... 700a, 703a, 707a, 716a, 727a,

757a, 769a, 790a, 798a
Voir Dire .................... ........702a, 707a, 715a, 726a,

755a,767a, 786a,791a
Cross .......................................................... 800a
Redirect ........................................................ 818a

George L. Brown, J r . -
Direct ........................................... 857a

Dr. Dan Dodson—
Direct ...................................................... 1469a
Cross ............................................................. 1493a

Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert L. Hedley—

Direct .................
Voir Dire ............

Lois Heath Johnson—
Direct .................
Cross ...................
Redirect ..............
Recross ............

,820a, 834a
...... 833a

..... 893a
...... 922a
..... 955a
..... 956a

Palmer L. Burch—
Direct ........................................................... 963a
Cross ............................................................. 978a
Redirect ...... ........................................1023a, 1030a
Recross .......................................................... 1025a

PA G E

Volume 3

William Berge-—
Direct ..................... 1033a
Cross .................................................... -....... 1051a

James C. Perrill—
Direct ..........................................................- 1076a
Cross ............................................................. 1083a
Redirect ........................................................ 1100a
Recross .................................................. 1101a

John E. Temple—
Direct ....................................... 1101a, 1115a, 1129a
Voir Dire .............................................1112a, 1128a
Cross - ....................................... ..............-.... 1131a

Jean McLaughlin—
Direct .............................................- -.......- 1131a
Cross ........... -............................ -..................- 1146a
Redirect ....................................................... - 1150a

Dr. Harold A. Stetzler—-
Direct .................................................. - - 1150a
Cross ............................................................. 1189a
Redirect ........................................................ 1210a

Lidell M. Thomas—
Direct .......................................................— 1214a
Cross ............................................................. 1239a
Redirect .........................................- -....... 1252a
Recross ......................................................... 1253a

Charles Armstrong—
Direct ........................................................... 1254a
Cross ............................................................. 1289a

Kenneth Oberholtzer—
Direct ........................................................... 1299a
Cross ............................................................. 1393a
Redirect ........................................................ 1463a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court .. 1514a

V ll

PA G E

Volume 4
(M in u t e s of H eaeing on R e l ie f , M ay 11-14, 1970)

H e a r in g on R elie f, M ay 11-19, 1970 ...... 1515a

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:
James Coleman—

Direct ........ ......................................... 1516a, 1526a
Voir Dire ...................................................... 1520a
Cross ....... 1552a
Redirect - ..... 1561a

Neal Sullivan—
Direct ........................................................... 1562a
Cross ...... 1588a
Redirect .............. 1598a

George Bar dwell—
Direct .......................... 1602a
Cross .................................................. 1664a
Redirect ........................................................ 1683a

William Smith—
Direct ........................................................... 1688a
Cross ..................................................... 1698a

Robert O’R eilly-
Direct .................................................. 1910a,1925a
Yoir Dire ...................................................... 1920a
Cross .......... -................................................. 1942a
Redirect ............ 1968a

Defendants’ Witnesses:
Robert D. Gilberts—

Direct ............................ 1706a
Cross ................................................ -......... - 1763a
Redirect ...................................................... 1834a
Recross .............................. 1842a

James D. Ward—
Direct .......... 1844a
Cross .....- ...................................................... 1868a

George Morrison, Jr.—
Direct ........................................................... 1874a
Cross .................. 1892a
Redirect ........................................................ 1896a

Albert C. Reamer—
Direct .......... 1897a
Cross ............................................................ 1905a

Decision Re Plan or Remedy by District Court ......... 1969a

Final Decree and Judgment.................. 1970a

Defendants’ Notice of Appeal .................................... 1978a

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal......... .............. 1979a

PA G E

Decision by Court of Appeals on Motion for Stay,
etc............................................................................... 1981a

Decision by U. S. Supreme Court on Stay, etc.......... 1984a

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 ..... 1985a

Judgment of Court of Appeals dated June 11, 1971 .. 1985a

Decision by Court of Appeals for “Clarification of
Opinion” ............ ............ .............................. ..... ..... 1986a

Order Granting Certiorari............................... .......... 1988a

I ndex to E x h ib its A ppears i n E x h ib it V olume

PAGE

c f v n , H o c K i iT * " f\€PJS/\ L - 7 , ;
UNITED STATES I ' I S T aICT ■CO-’l t l ' ̂ ‘" v " f

Jury demand date:

i \ C. Form No. 105 Rev. f . 0

* i
TITL‘D OF CASE

t c n: t c A , /
ATTORNEYS ' * *•’ ‘ W /

6 - 1 9 - 6 9 6 / 8 / 7 0

UII.FKFD KEiF.S, i n d i v i d u a l l _ x ?>rtd o n :b e h a l f o f CHRISTI For plaintiff:
KEYJSSj a m in o r ; CHRISTINE A. COLLEY, i n d i v i d u a l l y and ■BARNES & JENSEN
on b e h a l f o f KRIS M. COLLEY and MARX A. WILLIAMS, C r a i g S . B a r n e s 7
m i n o r s ; IRMA J . JENNINGS, i n d i v i d u a l l y and on b e h a l f 2 4 3-0--Soufch-Un-i v-er-s-i-ty—B-l-vd. , / f j f ' J :.
o f ’RHONDA 0. JENNINGS, a m i n o r , ROBERTA R. WADE, i n - D e n v e r , C o l o r a d o 89-2-1-0 S y / ' J ' La-.
d i v i d u a l l v and on b e h a l f o f GREGORY L, UA.DE.a m in o r ; T e l : - 7 -4 4 - 6 4 5 5 - ,??J> •‘Z Y Y Z / .
EDWARD J . STARKS, J R . , i n d i v i d u a l l y and on b e h a l f o f
DENISE MICHELLE STARKSJ a m i n o r ; JOSEPHINE PEREZ, i n - G o r d o n G. G r e i n e r 7 \
d i v i d u a l l v and on b e h a l f o f CARLOS A. PEREZ, SHEILA R 5 0 0 E c f u i t a b l e B u i l d i n g
PEREZ and TERRY J . PEREZ, . m i n o r s ; MAXINE M. BECKER D e n v e r , C o l o r a d o 8 0 2 0 2 ________ ______
i n d i v i d u a l l y and on b e h a l f o f DINAH L. BECKER, a mine: ; T e l : 2 9 2 - 9 2 0 0
EUGENE R. WEINER, i n d i v i d u a l l y and on b e h a l f o f
SARAH S. WEINER, a m in o r . J a c k G r e e n b e r g Sc J a m e s M. N a f c r i t t . __J T1

\ C o n r a d K. H a r p e r ..... ........ . ....
1 0 Co l u m b u s _ C i r c l e . , ________________ 1_________

vs New York , . . . . .New..York._. l0 0 1 9_._A__ 1__________ _

. SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, DENVER, COLORADO; ( c o n t . o n n e x t p a g e )

. THE BOARD O? EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE,
DENVER, COLORADO; 3. WILLIAM C. BERGE, i n d i v i d u a l l y For defendant: - t
and a s P r e s i d e n t , Board o f E d u c a t i o n , Schoo l D i s t r i < •t /Vf'b / A ' - K . - ' A\
Number One, Denver , C o lo r a d o ; 4 . STEPHEN J , KNIGHT, y i / / ST” ■ S r fV-v-’ >'v / /» ," i /- •

- ' JR . , i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s Vice P r e s i d e n t , Board o f . >)i: -uy-- v-v,-.. .
E d u c a t i o n , School D i s t r i c t Number One, D e n v e r ,C o l o - f p , p - {jc j ->
r a d o ; 5 . JAMES C. PERRILL, 6. FRANK K . -S0UTHW0RTH,

. JOHN It. AMESSE, 8. JAMES D. V00RHEES, J R , , and b x ALL DENIS. EXCEPT V onrhnes , Amesae & Kps
RACHEL B. NOEL, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s members , Board ft • Mm. K. b i s __ _____
o f E d u c a t i o n , School D i s t r i c t Number One, Denver , ______ Dvr-Club Bldg-.-...... ......
C o l o r a d o ; 1C. ROBERT D. GILBERTS, i n d i v i d u a l l y and ' Denver P 'Coloy: ;244r5475 . .on.a>_./.o<q>__________
a s S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f S c h o o l s , School D i s t r i c t
Number One, Denver , C o lo r a d o , A ttys.. . f o r 1 ater_vexii u g.. H e f t s . .Y T L iA ts jx c _

_A 1 lec[ed violation of civil rights. Action
for dec1aratorv judgments on whether the
school board_ is donying s'orne children____
equal educational opportunities.

Charlfts_E ._Brega _and_Rober £-4SU-- Sfi;
2301 F irst National Dank Building
Denver, Colorado 30202 292-9000^

NAME OK
. RECEIPT NO. REG. DISD.

J .£ „ 7 0

0 .0

_____ ^ ~ v -- .y

?}■ d 7 : '7 .~ ,0 . . . jY '7 7

> o

/* _____

A ; -A / m - h b l /

Y f / y - ' L Y Z
.... . 7 O L —

....... / :

...;___ B r A t . /xJ> . 4 ,
____Z .. ,» ««

‘. — 6 .

J f

Wilfred "eyes, et al
vs

School District Number One, et a1

DATE
9 6 9
•19

5/27 _v/_

7/3 MOTION o f P l t f s . f o r Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g Ord e r
7/1.

7/11

7/14

/ jo -kici-rk-k

P R O C E E D IN G S

COMPLAINT
Summons issued
Motion for Prelininary Injunction
H e a r in g s Pre 1 rm ina ry I n j u n c t i o n . , . O r . d c re d : B o t h S i d es to_._s.ubmit 1 i s.t o f .

Exh i b i t s & ■wi t n 2 s,ses w l t h i n 10 d ays from t h i s d a t 1 fegk—tO_J&&t_Jlear ing_
d a t e In J u l y , e od 6 / 3 0 / 6 9

innrine; fUTDl he Tempor a r y Re s t r a i n in g Orde r . . .Arguments: oLJlQ.urifieJL.
M a t t e r c o n t i n u ed t o l a t c -r t im e . Re c g a s . eod..7/8./_69------------------------

P r e l i n i n a r y L i s t o f E x h i b i t s .

. .Ordered t_

PI t f £
R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n gs h e l d on 6 / 27 /69

Date Order or
Judgment Noted

-H .

M a rsh a l* s r e tu r n on S e r v ic e by s e r v in g W. C. Se rg e .Pr e.sidc.nt..._BQar.cL o f —E ducation .,
Sch o o l D is t #1 & P e rso n a l l y S t _ep.li en_ J . Kn i c j i t.,.. J r _ J arm s_iL—P e e r i l l »_Er ank. X .

____Southw or t h , Jo h n H. / m a sse . J a n e s D. Vo o rh e e s , J r . . Rac.he.l_R—No e l a n , L R o b art...-
D, G i l b e r t s , Duka W. D u n b a r , A t t y ._Genciral^Q.r_&tr,t2L_.Qf_CQla..on_j6/20/.69------------

MOTION o f Ra f t s , f o r E n l a rg e m e n t—QlLTisie__ _ _____________________________________________
.Bearii^i„(vTD0_0xdMrM^.D2l:ts^Juo.ti.csx..lo^XnLargBTfiant_o.hXim-e_w±thin_^whiclrTQ-Tile
___a n s w e r s i s Grani.e.cL_^_____________________

7 /15

7 / 16

S igne d (BED) 0 r der.JEor_Enlarg&g:an£-Of-
___a n sw e r s or.. o_tharKls .a_plead—-e.o.d_ZVl4/63_
P l t f s , P r e l i m i n a r y L i s t o f Wit n e s s es______

_D a f t s _h a_v.e_nn.til_7V.23-/ 6S._tO- T i l e_

P l t f s . P r e l i m i n a r y Memo, o f Law.
C e r t , o f S e r v i c e . _________________________ _______________________________________
ANSWER OR nSPTS. .TORN H. AMKSSF., RAfSLFJ^^, JjQEX&-J^.lSS__D —JVOOMEEX—JR .

o f S e r v i c e . ___ _ _____________ _____________________________
,Cert

P l t f s . P roposed F i n d i n g s o f F a c t

7-1.7

7 / 18

7 / 21
7/22

T r i a l n t o C our t 1 s t D a y . . , Wi t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . r e c e s s , eod 7 / l 7 ./6i3_
D efe n d a n t s ' P r e l i r a in a r y Li s t o f Ex h i b i t s
D e f e n d a n ts ' Pr e l im in a r y Li s t ..o f W itne; ; e s
S i g n ed (VIED) Order f o r Pro d u c t i o n o f D ocuT ';.en t^ .._ead ,llZ lB /.6 j_________________
T r i a l t o Co u r t fWED ) . . . 2 n d D a y . W i t n e s s e s . J_JEx.h.ibit.S^-r&C.es.S--t.Q V / l ft/JaiL

7 /2 l*'<v*

7 / 2 2

7 /28_

7/29

Tr i a l t o C ou r t (NED). . . 3 rd Day. . .Wi t n e s s e s . . .Exhlh.it.s.^jcec.e.5.s._tQ—7 - / 2 l / M __________
T r i a l t o Cou r t fWBDl. . . 4 t h D ay . . .Wit n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s si^ntls_sllbm i.tJ:fc.d-£t

t a k e n u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t . eod 7 /23 /69 .
D e f t s . P r e l i r a i n a r y Me-mo . o f Law ___
De f t s ._P r o p o s ed Conc lu s io n " , o f Law
D e f ts - Amendments t o P r e l i m i n a r y Findings_oJ:.-Pa,-Cl_&L_S-naplercjaiit a l_ P r o p o s e d _ E lu d in g

o f F a c t ____________________ _______________________________ ___________ _____________ ______ ____
S t i p u l a t i o n o f F a c t s as. t o P a r t i e s .to„..the_Cfl.s.e.__________ —---------------------------------------
TrLy._To...CoAi.rt^X795D) „̂.„.3.Lh-DayJ_._,Tindlngs_ o..f.T.cact_A.TOjicliislonr.„O.X.La.v;,"5_P.l.tfs

M otion f o r Pi:.elirdng,ry_Iti.iunc_tj.p.n—shQ.uld.Jb.e_&-hexfib-y_ia_GRAKTEIl— -Or.derod.
P . l t f . s c o u n s e l t o p r e p a r e an o r d e r ___Order& d.t-JD a£ts^-H Q t.ion._fo.c_a_stay.„is_

JSRANIE0_( 10...Ray ..S.t.6tyX—.. Recs s. s —.aod..7123/.6 2 -
Copy o f O f f i c i a l ' T r a n s c r i p t Volume V o f p r o c e e d ings h e l d o n , 7 / 2 2 / 6 9 _____ _____ ___
O b j e c t l o n s t o Form__o f P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i on______________ ________________ __________
S t i p u l a t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n of t ime f o r d e f t s ._t o f i l e p l e a d ings. , to. ..& . i n c l u d i n g ,

8 / 1 4 / 6 9 . ....... ........ __ ~ ~ ____~_______ J__________________ _____ - _______ _____
Signcd (WEI)) Ordor f o r En l a r g e m e n t o f T ime , g r a n t i ne, n e x t above , s t i puj._afci.Qn_.

. , ~ -f f~2S/(>9. ______ ____________________________ _______ ____ — .------—
P l t f s . Su p p le m e n ta ly L i s t o f E x h i b i t s . _ a nd Wi t n e s s e ;
Defts..,_S.up.p_l.eiBenfhry— L i s t ..of E xh ih i t s
S i g n ed (WED) p r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n , t h a t . temporary. , i n j u n c t i o n . .i:L.Rr.nnfeel £t_.tp. .
__ _ c o n t i n u e d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t l . i s su i t &, u n t i l . a c t i o n j.s._tric.d ..oft. i t s „ t n n r i .s_

- J n e f t Z ^ r a n t e d 10' days - from. I Z £ t e r - 7 '23 fb 9 -f o r • n^ e a l « r e view, , .pod. .? / 2 9 / 6 9
NOTICE OF APPEAL

8 9 5 0 .DO (com

KT AL" WILFRED KEE.8%
VS.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, ET AL

v c n o Rev. Civil p o c k e t C on tinuation ' ‘ - @

date
1969

..... ' PROCEEDINGS D ate Order or
Judgment Notei

7/31 A p p l i c a t i o n f o r S ta y o f P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n f i l e d by a l l D e f t s . except . James
D. Voorhees , J r . , John H. Amesse, and P,achel B. N o e l ,

.H ea r ing (WED) A p p l i c a t i o n f o r S t a y . , .O r d e re d : Aon l i c e t i o n i s DENTED. . . Tcrnoorarv
s t a y i s GRANTED.. . W r i t t e n o r d e r t o f o l l o w , eod 7 / 3 1 / 6 9

871, - Si.ened (WED) Memorandum O p i n i o n &. O r d e r , t h a t t h e M ot ion f o r p r e l i m i n a r y i n i u n c -
t i o n i.s G r a n te d , eod 8 / 4 / 6 9

8 /6 P l a i n t i f f s MOTION f o r H e a r i n g on Remand and R e q u e s t f o r Immedia te H e a r in g and
-Jp f o r Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r .
'T IT MANDATE. . . 10 th C i r c u i t . . .Remanding c a s e t o Judge D o v l e .

876 H e a r in g WED on M ot ion f o r H e a r i n g on Remand and f o r ’ Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r .
M a t t e r c o n t i n u e d to 8 /7

8/7 H e a r i n g (WED) M ot ion on Remand f o r Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g O rd e r GRANTED u n t i l
8 :0 0 a .in. 8 / 1 5 / 6 9 o r f u r t h e r o r d e r o f C o u r t . M a t t e r on Remand t a k e n u nde r
a d v i s e m e n t .

S inned (WED) Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r . S igned 1 2 : 2 0 p . n .

!1
7T;t
| 03 Mo t ion o f d e f t s t o d i s m i s s . . . C e r t o f M a i l i n g

- i i D e f e n d a n t s ' B r i e f on Remand
8-14 Copy r e p o r t e r ' s t r a n s c r i p t . . . p r o c e e d i n g s on 8 - 7 - 5 9

Signed (WED) S u p p le m e n ta l F i n d i n g s , C o n c l u s i o n s and Temporary I n j u n c t i o n and
O p in ion as t o A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f S e c t i o n 4 0 7 ( a ) o f fie. C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f 1964
eod 8 -1 4 -6 9

-18 NOTICE OF APPEAL ■
Appearance Bond on Appeal
A p p l i c a t i o n o f d e f t s . f o r S t a y o f P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n

.Hearing; .(TfSD) 1 - I o i i n n f o r S t a y . . . O r d e r e d M o t i o n . f o r S t a y i s d e n i e d
3 - 1 9 R e c e i p t f r o m U . S . C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r r e c o r d o n a p p e a l
8/25 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s h e l d on 8 / 7 / 6 9

Memo, i n S u p p o r t o f M otion to D i sm is s f i l e d by D e f t s .
3 /26 Deposit ion o f R o b e r t Dubois G i l b e r t s .

E x h i b i t s on n e x t above d e p o s i t i o n A ,7}
9/5 P l t f s . Memo. Oppos ing D e f t s . M otion t o D i s m i s s . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
9 /10 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s h e l d on 8 / 6 / 6 9

Reply Memo, i n S u p p o r t o f Motion to D i s m i s s . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
9/11 H e a r in g (WED) M ot ion t o D i s m i s s . . . O r d e r e d : M ot ion i s Denied , P l t f c o u n s e l to p rep : r c

an O r d e r . . . O r d e r e d : D i s c o v e r y to be co m p le te d i n 60 d a y s , eod 9 / 1 5 /6 9 /-•
9/2 6 Order L e t t i n g P r e T r i a l C o n f e re n c e f o r 1 1 / 4 /6 9
9-29 S t i p u l a t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e .

S ig n e d (USD) O rde re d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s h a v e u n t i l 1 0 -6 -69 t o f i l e an answer h e r e i n
E n t r y o f A ppe a ranc e o f K e nne th H. Wonraood f o r d e f e n d a n t s . T

. 1 0 / 3 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t , D e f t s Motion, t o D i s m i s s , o f p r o c e e d i n g s h e l d on fl 9 / 1 1 /6 9

10/6
_JBp:pne:At;xd,.s:<72x2KS$$SOTi:x?5%X52;:s’;'ar.i4i;n^3xh<2fchnn55x-872v(f;.9

ANSWER o f a l l d e f t s . e x c e p t D e f t s . 7 , 8 & 9 . . . C e r t , o f M a i l i n g
*9/15 C e r t , copy from C o u r t o f A n n e a l s t h a t t h e M ot ion i s Denied & f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

on t h e a p p e a l a r e h e l d i n ab e y an c e u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f C o u r t . u s d
10/17

—JL0/JL7
W r i t t e n I n t e r r o g s . by C e r t a i n D e f t s t o be Answered by P l t f s . y
Signed (WED) Memorandum O p i n i o n and O rde r t h a t m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e to.

______D e n i e d . . . D e f t . h ave 15 Days from 9 / 1 1 / 6 9 "to f i l e Answer.

....10/1.7.
Signed 1 0 / 1 6 / 6 9 . eod 1 0 /2 0 /6 9

P l t f s . F i r s t SAt o f I n t e r r o g a . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
__ 1.07 .JFJLtfs ^_Eixst_H.y.t.iop f o r P r o d u c t i o n o f Documents . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e ,

MOTION t o I n t e r v e n e a s D e f t s .
.TENDEREDANSWER AN D.j - R O S S CLAIM CF TNTHRVENORS

_10/21... —C o n f e s s i o n .o f _ A1 l _ l j a f t o . e x c e p t D e f t s . 7, 8 6 9 o f Motion t o I n t e r v e n e . . .C e r t .M a i r r
-1.0724__ C o p t ._o f K a i l ! e g Mot ion t o I n t e r v e n e & T ende red Answ er . HJ2L. f '

......... . ... 'V 1 r '?

SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE,
DENVER, • COLORADO, KT A L . ,

v s .

PA T H
1969

PR O C EE D IN G S

10/29

10/30

MOTIONS o f Al l D e f t s . E xc e p t . 7 , 8 & 9.. .f .Qr_Or:ders_Pr.otGCting_De£tS- ,- . iP- the.JEro.duct ion
_____ o f Dogtmants t . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e . ____________________________________ ________________
D e f t s . o f a l l L e f t s . Exc e p t 7 , 8 & 9 t o I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . . . C e r t . _Ql_SexvJ.ee.,________
P l t f s . P r e l i m i n a r.y_Lis_t_ o JLJ:tilxn.e_s.£.es_ft_Exhibits_________________________________ ________
P l t f s . Ob j e c t i o n s t o "W r i t t e n In te rm gs^_by_C ex ta in_ . .D a i : t s__ta_b.e_A.nawered.by_Pl t£ .

__ . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e . ________________ ________ _________ :___________________ ;____________

11/3

P l t f s . Second MOTON f o r P r o d u c t io n o f Do cumen t s ,
Pltfs.,_5_e.c<md_Sxt_o.f_lntexxQg.ai:oxiea._to._D.afi:s.^.-....C.e.xtu_QLf_S.e.rvjj£fe.
MOTION o f D e f t s . e x c e p t 7, 8 & 9 t o Vac a t e P re T r i a l & T r i a l S e t t i ngs . . Cer t . _o f
______ Serv.i c e .____________________________________________________________ ______ :______________
P l t f s . Th i rd Mo t i o n f o r P r o d u c t i on o f Documents
P_Ltfs^_Anawsr^_t.Q_lTitexx<iifS^_^JTexf^.o.f_S2Xvlce.
P i t fs_,_ I n t e r r o g s . , t o l n t e r v e n o x Ce;c
P l t f s . R e v i s e d L i s t o f E x h i b i t s

■Ce r t , o f Se r v i c e .

of Servi
C e r t , o f S e r v i c e

ce,_

1 1 / 4 __ i S t i p u l a t i o n t h a t P I t f s . w i l l r.ot o b j e c t t o I n t e r v e n t i o n
Jl 1 / 3 * * * .Me.rao . i n . .Si iD.o.ox. .Obj-.eot loxr ,_t£>_J[atexx£g8_._________ _—
11/4
11/3

Date Order .
Judgment Kf

11 /5 .

11713

11/13
11/14
1.1 / 1 7__

11/18

11/20
11/2 J

11/25

11/28

D e f t s _cxc e p t Voor h e e s , J r . Ain e s s e & N o e l , Answers t o I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t Mai l i n g
MOTION o f De f t s . e x c e p t Am e s s e , Noe l & Voorhe.es, J r . f o r Co s t Bond . . C e r t ._Ser v i c e
P l t f s . P r e T r i a l Memo ____
J o i n t R e p o r t _ o n _ S t a t u s o f O b j e c t i o n s t o D i s c o v e r y
Pr e T r i a l C o n f e re n c e (HEP) . . . O r d e r e d : Mo t io n o f De f t .^.tLQ__in.tarv£na..is. G r a n te d

O r d e re d : C o u n s e l t o p r e p a r e an or d e r . . . D e f t s . Mo t i o n f o r a co s t bond Ordered
t o be h e a r d a t a l a t e r t i m e . . .Or d e r e d : D e f t s . M ot ion f o r c o n t i n u a n c e o f p r e -
t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e i s GRANTED & w i l l b e. h e l d on 1 1 / 2 5 /6 9 . . .O rde re d : F u r t h e r ____
h e a r i n g t o be h e a r d 1 1 / 1 3 / 6 9 . ’cod 1 1 / 0 /

D e f t . Memo. B r i e f i n Suppo r t of- M o t ion f o r C os t Bond, a l l de f t s . ex c e p t Am esse ,
Noel & V o r h e e s , J r .

Supp le m e n ta l J o i n t Rep o r t on S t a t u s o f D i s c o v e r y _________ ______________________
H e a r in g (WED’) D i s c o v e r y St a t u s . . . D i s c o v e r y p±Ghleas_.r.aso.lvftd_A. *.u-f t t e n o ^ d e r wi l l
_______ be p r e p a r e d by c oun s e l . . .O rde r e d : Mot i o n f o r Cost bnnd h e l d i n ___ __
_______ o r d e r e d: Poe Tr i a l t o be_h£ld_l i /25u/ .69._&_£at—f o r T r i a l t o Cour t at- 1 / 3 /JO.
_______ ef ld_ . i l /14 /o2____________________________________________________________________________
Signed (TrgDl Or d e r Mot i on t o I n t e r v e ne a s D e f t s . i s G r a n t e d , eod 1 1 / 1 4 / 6 9________
R e p o r t e r s Tr a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n gs h e l d on 11 / 5 / 6 9_________ r_________________________

ANSWER OF DEFTS . EXCEPT Noel., Arr.esse & V o orhe e s , Jr. to Cr o s s C laim o f I n t e r v e n e r
____. . .Cert, o f M a i l i n g ____________ ___________________ __________ :____________________

Memo. o f Dc .f ts . i n R e p ly t o P l t f s . Pr e l i m i n a ry Memo, o f Law
P l t f s . Cone f u s i o n s o f L a w ___________________________ ____________
I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . 1 s t S e t o f I n t e r r o g s .
MOTION o f I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . t o D i s s o l v e P e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n__ - ~ ‘ ' .. Y" " “** ... ...... .
MOTION o f I n t e r v e n i n g D ef t , f o r P r o d u c t io n o f Documents . . . C e r t . o f M a i l i n g_

_I n t e ry e n i n e D e f t s . I n t e r r o g s - t o t h e Def t _____ ;___ __________ :_________ .__ _______
S u p p le m e n ta l Ansviers t o P l t f s . 1s t Se t o f I n t e r r o g s , ______ _______ ________________
Supp lem ent a l Answer s t o P l t f s . Second s e t o f I n t e r r o g s . _____________ __________
Pre T r i a l Con f >. cr.ce (WED) . . . T r i a l t o Co u r t . . . .10 t o 15 Day s . . . F i l e d I n s t a n t e r

________1 . S i g n ed ..TED Orde r Auth o r i s i ng P r o d u c t o n &. c opy ing__________________ _______
________ 2 t Deffs_._ p r e t r i a l Memo.__ _______ __________ ____ __________ ■ ______ ________
______ 3 . I n t e r v e n i ng Def t s __ Pre T r i a l Memo_:______ ______ ___________________________ ____
_______ 4 . P l t f s . Second Re v i s ed___l i s t o f E x h i b i t s . . . . O r d e r e d : A t t y s have 1.5 days t o

____ f i l e r e s u mes o f t h e f r . w i t n e s s e s . Orde r e d : P l t f s . t o p r e p a r e a n o t i c e t o b
_ f>ub 1 ished_ r e j _ a d d i t i o n e l i n t e r v e g o r r . . . .O rde re d :_Add i t l o n a l v?i t n e s n e s & HxO

____ ___h l b j t s __t.o_ b e . s.ubiai t t e d _ by _ 1 2/2 4 / 6 9 . . . / P e r t h c r_ he a r l n .. s e t f o r 1 2 / 1 / 69 ■ 31 /26
C e r t • o f Mail i n g f o r I n t e r v e n i n g, L e f t s . Pr e T r i a l Memo, f i l ed 11 7 2 5 / 6 9 ___
Def t s ♦ O b j e c t i o n s t o JSvidrjace _ & . . .Exhibi ts _ I n t ro d t t c o d a t t h e F r e l i mlpa ry ; l^-Um c t l c n

H e a r i n g . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .

j _ i _ _

'69

W . U-: r t K ; ..... - ;
VS.

SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, ET AL

D. C. 110 R ev. Civil D ocket C on tinuation

DATS
1969

PROCEEDINGS r t u .
Ju.;

7/31 A p p l i c a t i o n f o r S t a y o f P r e l i m i n a r y I n - j u n c t i o n f i l e d by a l l D e f t s . exceot . .lament
D. V o o rh e e s , J r . , J ohn H. Amessa, and Rache l B. N oe l .

^ H e a r in g (NED) A p p l i c a t i o n f o r S t a y . . .O r d e r e d : A p p l i c a t i o n i s DENTED. , Tr. ; : - , n r v , .
s t a y i s GRANTED.. . W r i t t e n o r d e r t o f o l l o w , eod 7 / 3 1 / 6 9 —

8 / l* _ S igned (WED) Memorandum O p in io n 6 O r d e r , t h a t t h e Motion f o r p r e l i m i n a r y i n i i m e - ■

t i o n i s G r a n t e d , cod 8 / 4 / 6 9 --*----

8 / 6 P l a i n t i f f s MOTION f o r H e a r i n g on Remand and R e q u e s t f o r Imm edia te H e a r in g and
irk-k'k f o r Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r .

8 /7 MANDATE.. . 10 th C i r c u i t . . .Remanding c a s e t o Judge Dov1«
----

(*** 8 / 6 H e a r i n g WED on M o t io n f o r H e a r i n g on Remand and f o r Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g orHerT
M a t t e r c o n t i n u e d to 8 /7

8 /7 H e a r i n g (WED) M ot ion on Remand f o r Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g Orde r CSAFtfEu u n t i l
8 : 0 0 a .m . 8 / 1 5 / 6 9 o r f u r t h e r o r d e r o f C o u r t . M a t t e r on Remand t a k e n unde r
a d v i s e m e n t .

S igned (WED) Temporary R e s t r a i n i n g O r d e r . S igned 1 2 :2 0 p. ia .
8-13 M otion o f d e f t s t o d i s m i s s . . . C e r t o f M a i l i n g ........

*8-11 D e f e n d a n t s ' B r i e f on Remand
8-14 Copy r e p o r t e r ' s t r a n s c r i p t . . p r o c e e d i n g s on 8 - 7 - 6 9

S igne d (WED) S u p p l e m e n ta l F i n d i n g s , C o n c l u s io n s and Temporary I n j u n c t i o n and
O p i n i o n a s t o A p p l i c a b i l i t y o f S e c t i o n 4 0 7 ( a ) o f t ie C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f 1.964
eod 8 - 1 4 -6 9

8-18 NOTICE OF APPEAL ' ~
Appea rance Bond on Appeal
A p o l i c a t i o n o f d e f t s . f o r S t a y o f P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n
H e a r i n g : CM.EIL)l U a t i a n . f o r S t a y . . . O r d e r e d M o t i o n , f o r S t a y i s d e n t d

8 - 1 9 R e c e i p t f r o m U . S . C o u r - t o f A p p e a l s f o r r e c o r d o n a p p e a l
8 /25 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s h e l d on 3 / 7 / 6 9

Memo, i n S u p p o r t o f M otion to D ism is s f i l e d by D e f t s .
8 /2 6 Deposi to r) o f R o b e r t Duboi s G i l b e r t s .

E x h i b i t s on n e x t above d e p o s i t i o n / -" -
9 /5 P l t f s . Memo. O ppos ing D e f t s . M ot ion t o D i s m i s s . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e
9 / 1 0 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t ' o f p r o c e e d i n g s h e l d on 8 / 6 / 6 9 .

Reply Memo, i n S u p p o r t o f Motion to D i s m i s s . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
9/11 H e a r in g (WED) M o t io n t o D i s m i s s . . . O r d e r e d : M otion i s Denied , P l t f c o u n s e l to prep..-. r e

an O r d e r . . . O r d e r e d : D i s c o v e r y to be com ple ted in 60 d a y s , eod 5715769
\ 9 / 2 6 O rde r S e t t i n g P r e T r i a l C o n f e r e n c e f o r 1 1 / 4 /6 9

9-29 S t i p u l a t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e . .
S i g n e d (WED) O r d e re d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s h a v e u n t i l 10’-6 -6 5 t o f i l e atk 'o h s v a r ”l i e f e i n ~
E n t r y o f A p p e a r a n c e o f K e nne th M. Worsucod f o r d e f e n d a n t s . "7;/ "

_ 1 0 / 2 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t , D e f t s M ot ion to D i s m i s s , o f proceedings}”T e l t r t c r f f T s / r t / f S

10 /6 ANSWER c f a l l d e f t s , e x c e p t D e f t s . 7, 8 & 9 . . .C o v t , o f M a i l i n g
****9 /15 C e r t , copy from C o u r t o f A p p e a l s t h a t t h e M ot ion i s Denied & f u r t h e r p ro ce e d in g ' s

_on t h e a p p e a l a r e h e l d i n a be yanc e u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f C o u r t . ' l u r F "
10/17 W r i t t e n I n t e r r o g s . by C e r t a i n D e f t s t o be Answered by P l t f s .

_ I Q / 17 . S igned ..(WED/ Memorandum O p i n i o n and O rd e r t h a t m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o
. . S t a t e a ..Claim. Ora D e n i e d . . . D e f t . h ave 15 Days from 9 / 1 1 / 6 9 t o f i l e Answer.

_ _ .....S igne d 1 0 / 1 6 / 6 9 . eod 1 0 /2 0 /6 9
10/17 P l t f s . F i r s t S b t o f J n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .

_____10 /2 'L. __P . i t f i r s . t . I ' . o . t . i o n . _ f o r . . P r o d u c t ion o f Documents . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
MOTIONto I n t e r v e n e a s D e f t s .

__________ __ _TENBERElL.AlTSV2iR._AND CLAIM OF INTERVFN0R3
_____1 0/2.1.. _ .Confess ion . _Q.f__A.ll. . D a r t s , e x c e p t D e f t s . 7, 8 6 9 o f Mot inn t o i n t e r v e n e . . .C e r t .M a i 1.
____ l.Q/24__ _CiO.Lt_*__Qf_Maj l i n g Mot ion to I n t e r v e n e L Tende red Answer. T Z

vs .
SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE e t a l

D ;C . 110 Rev. Civil P o ck e t Contfixu&lJon

DATK
1969

PROCj TIDING 3 I>ate Or* :
JuvlRtnfn' j

_ 1 1 / 2 8 — P l t f s . Response to M o t io n t o D i s s o l v e P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n f i l e d by I n t e r v e n o r s
C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .

C e r t , o f M a i l i n g S'. inolem.ental Anse.rs to P l t f s . F i s t s e t o f I n t e r r o g s ■ .

12/1 H e a r in g (WED) O r d e re d : Upon o r a l moton o f I n t e r v e n e r , t h i s m a t t e r i s c o n t i n u e d
eod 1 2 / 2 / 6 9 . . .

12/2 I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . Answers t o I n t e r r o g s P ropounded by P l t f . . . . C e r t o f ' M a i l i n g
12/3 P l t f s . P a r t i a l Answers A O b j e c t i o n s t o I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . F i r s t S e t o f I n t e r r o g s , T

to t h e P l t f s . . . . C e r t o f S e r v i c e . —

1W/4 F u r t h e r P re T r i a l C o n f e re n c e (WED). . . I n t e r v e n e r s E x h i b i t s A.B .C .D & E marked
--:

F i l e d I n s t s n t e r . “ — -

S igne d (WED) O rd e r Re C l a s s A c t i o n and N o t i c e o f P e n d in g o f C l a s s A c t i o n
eod 1 2 / 4 / 6 9

12/5 Answers o f a l l Daft;,'-.,.. .except Vobrhess . , . . J r^-Aivasae & M o e t t o . c e r t a i n I n t e r v e n o r s
- -------

I n t e r r o g s .
12 /8 9b l e c t i o n s t o I n t e r r o g s . by I n t e r v e n o r s t o B a f t s . . . - .C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
12 /8 P l t f s _ . . A d d i t i o n a l . t o Tjfi.tcrvgnnxs. J n f e r r . o g f . , :R e s v o e ■ oJLErcnacted Tes t imony

....... o f . . . P l t f s • W i t n e s s e s . , . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
. _ 12/10 Si g w 1 (WEB) Qr.dgx Ba_..Clays A c t i o n , t h a t p l t f s . may m a i n t a i n t h i s a c t i o n as a c I ju

_ .. . . a c t i o n . . . . a _ . N o . f i . c e i n t h e fo rm a t t a c h e d be p u b l i s h e d i n The Rocky Mt.Kews
A. in_thc_JD-3nver P o s t , f o r 3 c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s , eod A / t 1 2 /1 1 /6 9

12/11 P l t f s . R e q u e s t s f o r A d m iss io n s o f O r i g i n a l D e f t s . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
12/12 . R e p o r t e r s P a r t i a l TrrvasQxi.pt. c f p m a e M i n g s h e l d o n l 2 / l / 6 9

R e p o r t e r s . T r a n s c r i p t (P ro T r i a l ..Conff iraxca.) J i e i d on 1 1 / 2 5 /6 9
12/15 I n t e r r o g s . t o D e f t . Rac.haal B. M e a l . . . C e r t , o f M a i l i n g

I n t e r r o g s . t o D e f t . J o h n H. A r a e s s e . . . . C e r t , o f M a i l i n o
I n t e r r o g s . t o D e f t . James D. V o o r h e e s . J r . . . . C e r t , o f M a i l i n g

12/17 Resume o f E x p e c te d T es t im o n y o f P o s s i b l e I n t e r v e n o r s ’ s W i t n e s s e s . . C e r t , o f M a i l .
12/23 ( A l l D e f t s . E x e e o t V o o r h e a s . J r . j Arnaese &. Noel A d d i t c n a l Answers t o P l t f s . 2nd

s e t o f I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
A l l D e f t s . E x c e p t V o o r h e a s , J r . , Amesse & K e e l A d d i t i o n a l Answers t o I n t e r v e n o r s ’

I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
Vll D e f t s . e x c e p t V o o r h e a s . J r . . Amesse A Kos l Answers t o P l t f s . 1 s t s e t o f in te r ro - .

. . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
A l l D e f t s . E x c e p t V o o r h e a s . J r . . Amesse A Noel Response t o P l t f s . R e q u e s t s f o r

A dm iss ions o f D e f t s . . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
D e p o s i t i o n o f George E. B a r d v a l l

___ 12/30 . MOTION o f I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . f o r Leave' t o Check o u t A copy P l t f s . E x h i b i t #83
_Sig.nfi.d_ (WEDl...Granting M o t i o n . n e x t a bove .
S igned R e c e i p t f o r P l t f s . E x h i b i t 83

.....___1 2 /30 ...E.rii„JN:.LaL.Co;nf.crfei\c£v.TWXD) O r d e r e d : T r i a l d a t e o f 1 / 5 / 6 9 i s v a c a t e d A r e s e t t o
- .........1 /12 /2 .0___.wri t. ton. . .order t o f o l l o w , eod 1 2 /3 0 /6 9

P l t f s . Complete Pre T r i a l L i s t o f E x h i b i t s A W i t n e s s e s . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
D e f t s . MOTION f o r O rd e r P o s t p o n i n g Date o f Commencement o f T r i a l

.. . 1 2 / 3 1 D e p o s i t i o n o f Theodore R. W h i t e , J r . • '
JDeft.s.._Se.cond_._Se.t .of A d d i t i o n a l Answers t o P l t f s 2nd s e t o f I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t .

o f S e r v i c e .

__ l./2.Z.Z.0._
-Dcf.t.s ,...Acld.ltion-i 1 _ A n s w e rs ._ to . . I n te rve no rs I n t e r r o g s .

Answer o f D a f t . John H. Amesse t o I n t e r r o g s . t o I n t e r v e n i n g Deft:?. C e r t , o f S e r v i r e

_____1 /6 ____

_Aa3iy5X.._oJL.Te.ft^J.ames._D. V o o r h e a s , J r . t o I n t e r r o g s . o f i n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . C e r t .Se :vi ce
Ans.V7.ers c£. De£t*_R.i£hcl B, Noel t o I n t e r r o g s . o f I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . C e r t . S e r v i c e
J l e a r ip.pg_..(WED)._Pl tTs_..Motioi^ f o r C o n t in u a n c e o f T r i a l Date .. . . O r d e r e d ; W i l l i a m Ris

----- -------

— --------- GrantecL.1 cay. i_to_.en t a t:_h i&_ c ppe ax. e.tic.e_n $. .De f t_s. . C o u n s e l . . . O r d e r e d : T r i a l Data
______ of . .1 /12 /7 0 ..is . .vacated A w i l l be s e t a a l a t e r t im e , eod 1 / 7 / 7 0

1/9
1/12

S ig n e d ■■'(W3D) O rd e r t h a t T r i a l s h o u l d coKwence on 2 / 2 7 / 6 ~ e c t f 'T / T 2 7 7 0 "
D e f t s . Suimnaries o f E x pe c te d Tes t im ony o f l i e f t s . W i t n e s s e s V77Cer t . o f S< i v i c o — --------

(OVER)

* - SCHOOL DISTRICT LUMBER ONE,
DENVER, COLORADO, ET A L . ,

v s .

PATH
1970
1/15

PROCEEDINGS Date Order or
Judgment Noted

D e p o s i t i o n o f Paul. D. E l i t e •

1 / I 5 D e f t s , A d d i t i o n a l Answers . 'to. Jntery.e.tLQ£s.'„Inl;.Grxc?fts^ ^Csr.t_,..„Qf S e r v i c e ^ _ . -----
D e f t s . A d d i t i o n a l Answers t o I n t e r v e n e r s I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .

1/22 D e f t s . A d d i t i o n a l Answers t o P l t f s . I n t e r r o g s . . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
1/26 S t i p u l a t i o n R e l a t i n g t o A u t h e n t i c i t y o f P l t f s . E x h i b i t s . . . . , X*'
1/28 I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . L i s t o f W i t n e s s e s & L i s t o f E x h i b i t s . . . C e r t . o f M a i l i n g -
1 /BO D e f t s . Complete P r e t r i a l L i s t o f E x h i b i t s A W i t n e s s e s . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
7 /? I n t e r v e n e r s . Q b j e c i i m x i n to_Empf iS£d Q r d e r _ P l _ 1 2 / l / , 6 9 .h e a r i n g . ^ . ,-Cs.rtJ o.f H a i l i n g :
2/2 D e p o s i t i o n s o f Kenne th E. O b e r h o l t z e r , A l b e r t a jM, J e s s e r A Mary U, Morton .

q / o n c i ('WED') P re T r i a l O r d e r . . . T r i a l t o C o u r t . . . 20 t o 25 Days . eod 2 / 3 / 7 0
S ig n e d /WED) S u p p l e m e n ta l P r e t r i a l O r d e r , eod 2 / 3 / 7 0
P l t f s . T r i a l B r i e f
T r i a l t o C o u r t /WED). . . 1 s t Day. . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . R e c e s s . eod 2 / 3 / 7 0

2/3 D e p o s i t i o n o f A.,_Edgar Renton .......... .......... _.................. ......... .............. -......... N. ...................
T r i a l f-o Court- fw r » \ . . . 2nd Day. . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s . cod 2 / 4 / 7 0

2 / 4 T r i a l t o C o u r t /W E D ) . . , 3 rd D a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s . eod 2 / 5 / 7 0
2 /5 T r i a l at. O' C o u r t /WED) . . . 4 t h Day. . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s . eod 2 / 6 / 7 0
2 /3 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s h e l d on 1 2 / 3 0 /6 9
2 /6 S ig n e d (WED) O rde r A u t h o r i z i n g P r o d u c t i o n A Copying o f C e r t a i n R e c o r d s . . . s i g n e d

2 / 3 / 7 0 . eod 2 / 6 / 7 0
T r i a l t o C o u r t /WED). . .S t h u D a v i . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s , eod 2 / 9 / 7 0

2/11 M a r s h a l ' s r e t u r n on C i v i l Subpoena t o P ro d u c e Document o r O b j e c t (12)
2 /9*** T r i a l t o C o u r t / W E D ) . . . 6 th B a v . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s , cod 2 / 1 1 / 7 0

2 /1 0 T r i a l t o C o u r t /W E D } . , .7 th Day . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s eod 2 / 1 2 / 7 0
2 /11 T r i a l t o O.cmrt /WED) , . .8 t h Bay . . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s ..cod 2 / 1 2 / 7 0
2 /13 M a r s h a l ' s r e t u r n on C i v i l S u b p o e n a . t o P roduce Document o r O b j e c t
2 /1 6 T r i a l t o C o u r t (W E D ) . . . 9 th d a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . . r e c e s s eod 2 / 1 7 / 7 0
2 /2 4 D e f t s . Memorandum B r i e f

2 /17*** T r i a l t o C ou r t /WED). . . 10 th D a v . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s , cod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /18 T r i a l t o C our t (W E D ) . . . 1 1 th D a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s , eod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /1 9 T r i a l t o C our t / W ED) . .12 th Day . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . r e c e s s . cod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /2 0 T r i a l t o C our t (WED). . . 13 th Day. . . W i t n e s s . . . r e c e s s eod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0
2 /2 4 R e t u r n on C i v i l Subpoena
2 /2 4 T r i a l t o C o u r t (WED) . . . 1.4th Day. . . C l o s i n g A rg u m en t s . . . O rde re d rCounsa l have 10 day; '

t o f i l e a d d i t i o n a l B r i e f s . , . M a t t e r s t a n d s s u b m i t t e d A i s t a k e n u n d e r a d v i s e -
r i a n t . eod 2 / 2 5 / 7 0 /inZiS r-\

3/5 S igned (WED) Order t h a t D e f t s . be g r a n t e d an e x t e n s i o n o f t ime t o 3 / 9 / 7 0 t o f i l e
w i t h C our t t h e i r Rep ly B r i e f A a l s o t h e i r P ro p o s ed F i n d i n g s o f F a c t A Con-
e l u s i o n s o f Law. eod 3 / 6 / 7 0 Z

3 /6 I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . P r oposed F i n d i n g s o f F a c t . . . C e r t , o f M a i l i n g
3 /1 0 ANSWER to P l t f s , S u p p le m e n ta l B r i e f

D e f t s . P r o p o s e d F i n d i n g s o f F a c t . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
3/11 C e r t , o f S e r v i c e o f n e x t above .
3/21...... _ S igned (WED) Memorandum O p in ion A O r d e r . . . F i n a l Judgment w i l l be e n t e r e d a f t e r a . / . _

TOeatin^-i iAh-COuaaeL. ' id.Jthin t h e n e x t 30 d a v s . eod 3 / 2 4 / 7 0
4 /1 6 M e e t in g o f Counse l Re : I n j u n c t i o n . , , F i l o d I n s t a n t e r : D e f t s , P roposed J u d g m e n t . . .

O r d e re d : F u r t h e r h e a r i n g on 5 / 1 1 / 7 0 . a l lov ; 2 d a y s , eod 4 / 1 7 / 7 0 v/
4 /27 H e a r in g (WED) I n fo rm a l H e a r in g Re: P ro p o s ed R e s o l u t i o n s . eod 4 / 2 8 / 7 0

Copy o f R e s o l u t i o n
5 7 1 P t f s , Reply B r i e f and S u p p le m e n ta l B r i e f

I n t e r v e n i n g D e f t s . Memorandum B r i e f .
5 /5 MOTION o f I n t e r v e n i n g a t t o r n e y ' s t o w i t h d r a w . . . C e r t o f S e r v i c e ,

j {\ 1 D a f t s . P roposed p l a n . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
■--- ------- _ P t f s . Memo f o r the. H e a r in g on R e l i e f . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .

WI2,i. ...X' » Lu O j C- C. X
V S .

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 , e t c . e t n l 'V.. .

D. C. 110 R ev. Civil D ocket C on tinuation

{* - / • i v

.. f ■ '

*' DATE
1970

; PROCEEDINGS Date o
Judgrt^j

5 /11 TRIAL TO COUItT (WED) 15 th d a y . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s .
5/12 TRIAL TO COURT (WED),16th D a y . . . W i t n e s s e s , . . E x h i b i t s . eod 5 / 1 4 / 7 0 .... -
5 /13 TRIAL TO COURT (WED) 17 th d a y . . .W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s ___ eod 5 / 1 4 / 7 0

5 /1 4 J? i£ned (WED) Orde r a l l o w i n g C h a r l e s F. Brega a n d R o b e r t E. Temper t o w/draw as
c o u n s e l f o r I n t e r v e i n i n g D e f t s . . . e o d 5 / 1 4 / 7 0

TMAL TO COURT (llED^ 18 th Day. . . W i t n e s s e s . . . E x h i b i t s . . .O r d e r e d : M a t t e r t a k e n —

u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t . . . eod 5 / 1 5 / 7 0 ---—..

P l a i n t i f f ' s C o n f e re n c e Memorandum.. . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e . —
5/15 MOTION o f The B u i l d i n g Commit tee o f t h e F a c u l t y o f Manual High S choo l f o r l e a v - —

t o F i l e Amicus C u r i a e B r i e f . -—___.

S ig n e d (WED) O rde r A l l o w i n g above m o t i o n . . . eod 5 / 1 5 / 7 0 7i m-
5 /21 S igne d (WED) D e c i s i o n P.e Pier, o r Remedy. . . e o d 5 / 2 3 / 7 0 ( 2 5 >o k s )

c* A s / 1 4 .Marsha I d t u r n , .on S.uhp.aanz. - -r-
6 / 4 P l t f s , M o t ion t o Attend t h e C om pla in t f o r Pe rmanen t I n j u n c t i o n 6, D e c l a r a t o r Tvdu "

i n t h i s A c t i o n . . .Co ,r t . o f S e r v i c e 1 ' .. .

6 / a S i c o s d Qmp) F i n a l Dec ree & Ju d g m e n t , w i t h t h i s o r d e r The O r d e r s &. doeiruggy; cenv^ -
t a i n :d i n fch s t p i n i o n o f 5 / 2 1 / 7 0 A 3 / 2 1 / 7 0 art:: i n c o r n o v A t e d l - a r v l n , t h i s ...

.............rh,. 11 . l i a Fi.-anl . R d x y e u t , t h e r e he ir , ; no fm 'tb v .r s u b s t v n t i v < r,.Aimer
t o d e c i d e there- i s n e t j u s t ctMnie f o r d e l a y 6 t h e e n t i r e w e t t e r can re : ; be
e p p a a i o d . eod 6 / 1 1 / 7 0

6 / 1 6 IlOTIOiif o f £ ? . f t § . , jgnce i i t . J a m s D, V c y r h a e s . J r . , J ohn 11. Amoasa A Rachel R.
- - fe r T i B ^ r . « r y . &£ 1‘l m L ttesxfMi & . Jude : A n t tJ5Jl Car tu o f S e r v i c e .

6 /16 NOTICE. OF AEZEA1l_£q t ...all__.def„ts^_..£xcent: d e f t s . 7 . 8 . 9 .
. . 6 /1 7 _ .Cy...,Nat±C.&—mai.ljpd t o Hm. WhltJ-.ukp.r and p H r m m c o l

6 /19 —— —.fej ii / )_hat ioa. . to.— _2l&££&* n a t i o n i s D e n ie d . . „t?ri t t i»n Order
S.Q f o l l o w , cod 6 / 2 2 / 7 0 "

- P l t f r . ^ l ; i a X I i 2 ^ e r _ E e d u c . t i e a . o f Tirea_j&ar T r a n s m i s s i o n o f P e e re d
6 / 2 4 NQ.I.I.CJRQE 4PIAEAL_(.CE.QS8 -APPEAL 1
6 /25 Cy N o t i c e m a i l e d t o Wm. W h i t t a k e r , C l e r k , U.S. C our t o f A pnea ls and opposin' -'

. ____c o u n s e l .
Signed (WED) O rde r G r a n t i n g P t f s Motion f o r R e d u c t io n o f Time f o r T r a n s m i s s i o n
- a£_Be.cor,d..on...App-eal----- Jlejto.rd—t£L_bjw t r a n s m i t t e d J u l v 17, 1970.
S_Lgne.cL_(WEn) o r d e r Denying D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion f o r S t a y .

6/7.6 _ _ELe.ceipt from. Court. o f A ppea ls fox. Record .on Apneal
7/20 Motion f o r E x t e n s i o n o f Time f o r T r a n s m i s s i o n o f Record .

Sigaed_(TJFJl)—0xd.ex-.Gr an t i n s ex tens. i .o.n_ o f - t ime t o J j i ly 2 4 , 1970.
/ 7/7.4 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s h o l d on 6 / 1 9 / 7 0

7 /24 R e p o r t e r ' s Tr/c - c r i p : of p r o c e e d i n g s _held 5711/70 (Vo.l ume Toni v)
V 2 J _ Receipj :—jLrom_-C.oxir.t_ o.f. A p p e a l s ..£ur_Supplemenln. 1 Record on Appea l

Re.pjart.eri s . X r a n a c r i p t x a f _p.r.O-C.eeding,sdield 5 / 1 3 / 7 0 (Volume I I J9/11 . S t i p u l a t i o n .to Amend F i n a l M c r e e A..Judgiaenl: e n t e r e d on 7 7 8 /7 0
.. ._8igned_(WEj3)_..Order.. A'4.e.nding RjjxalJiecxce...Am-.J_utdgaient s e e f i l e d , eod 9 / 1 4 / 7 0

____ 10/22 . .t o AisetKL-Qr-Supp/Lorcon,t_JudgmanIt. C e r t , o f S e r v i c e
M.QXIOjL_£L£— —LQ-S.£riHv.C_I.5l.t,£-S-e_M o t io n to Around o r rf-

- . . ____ o f - H a i l i n g
10 /2 7 J l H M l g a . ° n .Hgt iong , . ( ^ S D ) . O r d e r ed : M otion o f P l t f s , t o be f i l e d i n C i r c u i t c o u r t

___ _____ £ ,L A ppc ,a lp . cod 1 0 / 2 8 / 7 0 ~ ............. ‘
- 1 2 / 2 8 .j?ltf§.«—M0T2QH-fee Si’p.plegientpi O r d e r s . , . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e1971 ~ _

1/4 LOIlO.v o f D e t t s . t o S t r i k e P l t f s . Motion f o r S u p p l e m e n ta l O r d e r s . . . C e r t . o f S a r v i r 0 »
—...------. . .__ co ^ l t f s . M otion f o r S u p p l e m e n ta l O r d e r s . . . Car t . o f S e r v i c e .
____ 1/14 . -ilv.l.Ricci-XvElQ— SrP-P.l<y»cnt.?. 1 _ 0 rde . r c da . . . W i t n e s s . . . O r d e r e d : B e r t s . t o r e p o r t t o t h e
---------------- -- — ...—.... Cour t . . 1 n ...3(Lilay,s...as to . i t s p l a n s . P l t f c o u n s e l t o p r e p a r e an o r d e r , r e c e s s .
----------___ L._______ c o d , 1 /1 4 /7 1
___ 1 /20 AASliefI O r d e r , same a s hea r ing , on 1 / 1 4 / 7 1 . cod ] / ' * l /7 1

/ wvol-)

DATE
1971

PROCEEDINGS Date Order or
Jud^mout Xg,*'.

2/16 I n t e r i m R e p o r t . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e .
2 /2 4 P l t f s . C o n s o l i d a t e d MOTIONS for. F u r t h e r S u p p l e m e n t a l O rde r & f o r H e a r i n g . . .

C e r t . o f S e r v i c e . / .
3 /4 Response t o P l t f s . C o n s o l i d a t e d M ot ions f o r (1). F u r t h e r A u p p le m e n la l O r d e r s

(2) H e a r in g . . . C e r t . .of S e r v i c e , y /
3 /17 H e a r i n g (WED) Judge Doyle & c o u n s e l d i s c u s s i n g m i s c e l l a n e o u s m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g

.j t o t h i s c a s e , eod 3 / 1 7 / 7 1
3/18 1 R e o o r t c o n t a i n i n g . a l t e r n a t i v e /Plans. f .or . I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o3L_C_Qiuit_Dx!ier_._. . . .C e r t . . -of

S e r v i c e . . . . . . . _ . . ___ . __ _____ . .. . __ ___ . -...... ...... ... __ _________
3/22 H e a r in g (WED) E x h i b i t s . . . O r d e r e d ; S e t f o r f u r t h e r h e a r i n g on 5 / 1 4 / 7 1 . . . R e c e s s . . .

eod 3 / 2 4 / 7 1 .

3/29 Hnnv n f O rde r f rom U. S , C o u r t o f A p p e a l s g r a n t i n g d e f t s . m o t i o n f o r a s t a y o f the
f i n a l d e c r e e and "judgment

1/28 H e a r in g (WED) O r d e re d : t h e May 14 h e a r i n g t o s t a n d . . .R e c e s s . . . eod 4 / 2 8 / 7 1 . * .
/14 H e a r i n g (WED) P ro p o s ed P l a n s . . . E x h i b i t s . . . W i t n e s s e s . . . O r d e r e d : M a t t e r c o n t i n u e d to

5 / 1 9 / 7 1 . eod 5 / 1 7 /7 1
3/14 P l t f s . Memo, f o r 5 /1 4 /7 1 H e a r i n g t o S e l e c t the. P l a n s t o be Implemented i n S e p t , 71.
5/19 H e a r in g (WED)Re: P r o p o s e d P l a n s , . . E x h i b i t s . . . W i t n e s s e s . . .R e c e ss t o 5 / 2 4 / 7 1 . . .

eod 5 / 2 0 / 7 1 .
5 / 2 L P i l e d h’’ Norms Mae N o b l e r Ana I t e m s t e S c hoo l I n t r e .g r a t i o n P lan
3/24 H e a r in g (WED) Re; P l a n s . . . W i t n e s s e s , . . E x h i b i t s . . . Judge Dovle c o n c lu d e s A d i r e c t s

t h a t P l a n C be a d o p te d bv t h e Schoo l Board A p u t i n t o a c t i o n as soon as
p o s s i b l e , r e c e s s , eod 5/25/71

5 /25 W ithd raw al o f A ppea rance o f A t t y . C r a i g S. B a rnes f o r P l t f , . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
6 /23 MOTION o f P l t f s . f o r D e s e g r e g a t i o n P l a n . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
6 /29 S t i p u l a t i o n t h a t P r e l i m i n a r y I n j u n c t i o n . . A F i n a l Judgment and Decree be m o d i f i e d
6 /29 Response t o M ot ion f o r D e s e g r e g a t i o n P l a n . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
7/7 Mandate r e c e i v e d from U. S. C our t o f A p p e a l s . . . The T r i a l c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o r e -

t a i n i u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c a s e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s u p e r v i s i n g t h e imp]eme.nta-
t i o n o f t h e p l a n , w i t h f u l l power t o c h a n g e , a l t e r o r amend t h e p l a n in the
i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e A to c a r r y o u t t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n as r e f l e c t e .1.1
by t h i s o p i n i o n .

2 / 1 9 P p o o - f p , - 1 s P a r t i a l of: p r o c e e d i n g s —h e l d —o n 5 / 1 4 /7 1 . . . . . _ . . . . A-
7 /28 S igned (WED) O rde r Re M ot ion f o r D e s e g r e g a t i o n P l a n . . . O r d e r e d : M ot ion d e n ie d w i t h o .it

P r e j u d i c e t o p l t f s . r i g h t s t o r e f i l e i t . . . e o d 7 / 2 9 / 7 1 .
3 /1 0 S ig n e d (WED) Orde r on Bottom o f S t i p u l a t i o n f i l e d 6/2.9/71 t h a t t h e S t inn l ar.i on i s

Approved A„ an ..Order i s here)) v n n i e t o d di r .ee t i n g _ t h a t .the..... t e n is... & c o n d i t i o n s o f
th e S t i m u l a t i o n be a r r i e d o u t . eod 8 / 1 0 / 7 1

8 /3 0 R e p o r t e r ' s P a r t i a l T r a n s c r i p t , commencing 3 / 2 2 / 7 1
9 /8 H e a r i n g (WED). . . W i t n e s s e s . , . O r d e r e d : P l a n PA" i s t o be p u t i n t o e f f e c t by 11/1 /71

. . . P l t f s . c o u n s e l t o p r e p a r e an o r d e r , eod 9 /9 /7 1
9/27 Aigned_(WED) Order.. .Re_.DMregregaiirin 0 f_l ial le .t . t_ .A Sf/adman. JE le ta ru ta ry S c h o o l s , f o he

... a c c o m p l i s h e d nfl_J_a£Ls.c .thap__llZgZZ/L___oil, o r bo / o r e 10 /8 /71 d e f t s . s h a l l p r e s e n t
_.t P t h e ..Co:rct..de.hal.l„s o J L l l i e . . p i c a to. _bn._imp_l cmer tod sm 1 1 /8 /7 1 . . . . r a c i a l & .e thn ic

___ C e ns use f__oi.ud.eji t s _ ivt_i a e _ g i 0 ^ap]iic__.ar_e a s ..u n d e r ...plan A, i n c l u d i n g Monfhel lo._A.__
____t o be cornuFeted _p.rlor_.fo p r t e r e i i t a i c i r . o f . thc...p la ir .on.. 10/&/.7.1, .eo<l 9 /28 /71

10/7 MOTION o f D e f t s . f o r S t a y . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e ,
NOTICE OF APPEAL by D e f t s .

10/8 ...Hallo 11 - Si._e.dman D eseg re g a t i o n P l a n . . . C e r t . o f S e r v i c e . . . . .
10/15 S t i p u l a t i o n Re Hal l e f t -S t e e lm a n P l a n

.Signed _(1>|E.D)._Order . t h a t __pr.evj.ons .Order. Re : . . .Pe3.egrati.oii . o f . .H a l l e i h and Steduian
____ E l e m e n ta r y Seliools, . i s . . .modi f ied t h e . . s p e r i f i c_ d e t a i l s . . o f " P l a n A" a s m o d i f i e d
........ ..in....the Ha lle±.t-=R.tedmun_ P l a n s h a l l be-dove. Ion; .-d-no-.l ;U;or_ than 12/1 / ' / 1 end

1 0 / 1 9 / 7 1 .
11/8 S t i p y l a t i o n _2.or...Di stars s a l of.. Appeal . , p u r s u a n t l o - P u l e 4 2 ( a ) ______________________ ___

__________________________________________CONTimiKP_______________________________________________

V S •

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. L, e t c . , e t a l
D. C. 110 K>jv . Civii D ocket C on tinuation

DATE
1?21

PROCEEDINGS I>utj ("
Judxuv

11 /8 S igne d (WED) O rde r D i s m i s s i n g A p p e a l , eod 1 1 /1 0 /7 1 —11/10 MOTION o f A p p l i c a n t s f o r I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r L i m i t e d I n t e r v e n t i o n
Memo. Ln S u p p o r t o f n e x t above M otion

^ l e a d i n g i n I n t e r v e n t i o n
Request f o r Im m ed ia te C o n f e r e n c e or H e a r in g
10TI0N o f A p p l i c a t n s f o r I n t e r v e n t i o n f o r L i m i t e d A d m iss ion
l e r t . o f S e r v i c e .

11/18 dopy o f l e t t e r on f i l e t h a t t h i s c a s e has been r e a s s ig n e d , t o Judge. F i n e s i l v e r .
11/23 Signed (SGF) O r d e r R e g a r d in g M ot ion t o I n t e r v e n e . . . O r d e r e d : t h a t c o u n s e l of r e c o r d

are. d i r e c t e d t o f i l e any s t a t e m e n t s o f p o s i t i o n and memo, i n o p p o s i t i o n o r
s u p p o r t o f m o t i o n to i n t e r v e n e on o r b e f o r e 1 2 / 8 / 7 1 . . . I n t e r v e n o r a p p l i c a t n s
a r e d i r e c t e d t o r e s p o n d t o a l l memoranda on or b e f o r e 1 2 / 1 3 / 7 1 . . . t h e m a t t e r w i 1i
be s e t f o r h e a r i n g a f t e r r e c e i p t o f a l l memoranda i f i t i s deemed n e c e s s a r y . . . ~
eod 1 1 / 2 6 / 7 1 .

S igne d (SGF) O rd e r D i r e c t i n g F i l i n g o f S t a t u s R e p o r t . . . O r d e r e d : t h a t c o u n s e l a r e
d i r e c t e d to subm i t w i t h i n 20 days a s t a t u s r e p o r t on t h i s c a s e . . . e o d 1 1 / 2 6 /7 1 . /

1276 _ P l c f s . Memo, i n O p p o s i t i o n t o T N te r .ven t ion . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .
12 /8 AsueaneOt fQiL.Es. tsa3i 0.tl_of T i n a . that ._ . . r .pp l ican ts f o r T r i t e r v e n t i n n may have t h r u

1 2 / 1 7 /7 1 t o f i l e r e p l y . _ _ . , _ . . _ ..... _ .
'.Signed_XS.GI0- O rd e r on bo t to m of.. n e x t .e.boAte. .̂ g r a n t i n g . . e o d 12 /8 /7 1
D a f t s . Memo, i n O p p o s i t i o n t o M otion t o I n t e r v e n e . . . C e r t , o f S e r v i c e .I -cs

I r” R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s commehcingS/14 /71 .
12 /14 MOTTON-.of.n.ef on... K x.tensi.an xxf.Time f o r r f i l i a c .Us,-. S,tai.us.JRep,OXitM:o A i n c lu.cl.int

1 2 / 2 1 / 7 1 .
S igne d (SGF) O rd e r t h a t t h e t im e f o r f i l i n g t h e s t a t u s r e p o r t i s e x t e n d e d t o £,

i n c l u d i n g 1 2 / 2 1 / 7 1 . eod 1 2 /1 6 /7 1 — .....
12 /16 Re.p.LY_JB.ris£_of AupJo'caiiLs . f o r I n t e r v e n t i o n . „__ Cent.. m£ S e r v i c e ,
12/21 S t a t u s R e p o r t I

S ig n e d (SGF) O rde r t h a t m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e i s d e n i e d . . . e o d 1 2 / 2 2 / 7 1 . 1
12/22 R e p o r t e r ' s T r a n s c r i p t o f p r o c e e d i n g s commencing 5 / 1 4 / 7 1 / ' I

1
1/27. . . , P l t f s . MOTION f o r o r d e r R e l e a s i n g t h e Record

S ig n e d (SGF) O rde r t h e C le rk o f Cour t i s a u t h o r i z e d to r e l e a s e t h e r e c o r d in t h e I
a c t i o n t o Gordon G. G r e i n e r f o r a p e r i o d o f 10 davs s t a r t i n g 1 / 2 7 / 7 2 . eod 1/3' U 2 ....

R e c e i o p t f o r A c t i o n
N 2/1 L e t t e r on f i l e f rom U, S. C o u r t o f a p p e a l s t h a t Supreme Court ' g r a n t e d c e r t i o r a r i
; 2 /9 JOINT CONSOLIDATED'MOTIONS R e l a t i n g t o t h e Record

S ig n e d (SGF) O rd e r R e g a r d in g Record
2 /18 c o p i e s o f e x h i b i t s o f L e f t s . Numbered 1 t h r o u g h 12

____ •
v,__
_______

__ __ ___
*-..-__ ,
*-• *__ ____

----

Docket Entries

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and D e c la ra to ry
Judgment

(Filed June 19, 1969)

1st th e

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F ob t h e D istrict of Colorado

Civil Action No. C-1499

W ilfred K eyes , in d iv id u a lly a n d on b e h a lf o f C h r ist i
K eyes, a m in o r ; Ch r ist in e A. C olley, in d iv id u a lly an d
on b e h a lf o f K ris M. C olley a n d M ark A. W illia m s ,
m in o rs ; I rma J. J e n n in g s , in d iv id u a lly a n d on b e h a lf
o f R honda 0 . J e n n in g s , a m in o r ; R oberta R. W ade,
in d iv id u a lly a n d on b e h a lf o f Gregory L. W ade, a m in o r ;
E dward J. S tarks, J r ., in d iv id u a lly an d on b e h a lf o f
D e n ise M ic h e ll e S tarks, a m in o r ; J o se ph in e P erez,
in d iv id u a lly a n d on b e h a lf o f Carlos A. P erez, S h eila
R. P erez a n d T erry J. P erez, m in o r s ; M axine N.
B ecker , in d iv id u a lly a n d on b e h a lf o f D in a h L. B ecker ,
a m in o r ; E u g en e R. W e in e r , in d iv id u a lly and on b eh a lf
o f S arah S. W e in e r , a m in o r,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

S chool D istrict N um ber O n e , D enver , Colorado; T h e
B oard of E ducation , S chool D istrict N um ber O n e ,
D enver , C olorado ; W illia m C. B erge, individually and
as President, Board of Education, School District Num
ber One, Denver, Colorado; S t e p h e n J . K n ig h t , J r .,
individually and as Vice President, Board of Educa
tion, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado;
J ames C. P err ill , F rank K. S o u th w o r th , J o h n H.

A m esse , J ames D. V oorhees, J b., and R a ch el B. N oel,
individually and as members, Board of Education,
School District Number One, Denver, Colorado; R obert
D. G ilberts, individually and as Superintendent of
Schools, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado,

Defendants.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

I. JURISDICTION
A. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from, main

taining, requiring, continuing, encouraging, and facilitat
ing separation of children and faculty, on the basis of race,
and further, from unequal allocation of resources, services,
facilities, equipment, and plant on the basis of race. Plain
tiffs also request specific injunctive relief pertaining to
certain resolutions passed and enacted by defendant Board
of Education, especially Resolutions No. 1520, 1524, and
1531. Copies of said Resolutions are attached to this com
plaint.

B. Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment under
Title 28, Section 2201 for the purpose of determining ques
tions of actual controversy between the parties, to w it:

1. The question of whether the rules, regulations, reso
lutions, policies, directives, customs, practices, and usages
of the defendants and each of them in denying, on account
of race, color, or ethnicity, to the minor Negro and Hispano
plaintiffs and other Negro and Hispano children residing
in the school district, educational opportunities, advan
tages, and facilities afforded and available to Anglo chil
dren of public school age similarly situated in the school
district, are unconstitutional and void, as depriving said

plaintiffs of equal protection of the law in contravention
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.

2. The question of whether the rules, regulations, reso
lutions, policies, directives, customs, practices, and usages
of the defendants and each of them in denying to the plain
tiffs who attend schools substantially segregated on the
basis of race or ethnicity and other children residing in the
school district the advantages, educational benefits, intel
lectual stimulation and practical preparation for a multi
racial world afforded by providing an integrated education
to other children of public school age similarly situated in
the school district are unconstitutional and void as depriv
ing said plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws in con
travention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu
tion of the United States.

C. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under
Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and (4). This is a civil
action authorized by law and arising under Title 42,
Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con
stitution of the United States.

D. All individual defendants reside within the District
of Colorado; defendant School District is a body corporate
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Colorado, CBS §123-30-1 (1964). Venue is therefore
proper in this District under Title 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b) and (c).

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

II. PAETIES

Complaint for Permanent- Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

A. Plaintiffs:
1. Plaintiffs Wilfred Keyes, Christine A. Colley, Irma

J. Jennings, Roberta E. Wade, Edward J. Starks, Jr.,
Josephine Perez, Maxine N. Becker, and Eugene E.
Weiner, are adults, citizens of the United States and the
State of Colorado, and residents within School District
Number One, Denver, Colorado.

2. Plaintiff children who sue by their parents and next
friends, are minor children, citizens of the United States
and the State of Colorado, and residents within School
District Number One, Denver, Colorado.

a. Plaintiff Christi Keyes, a minor, sues by her parent
and next friend, Wilfred Keyes; she will attend Hallett
Elementary School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7%
Hispano) beginning in September, 1969. They are Negro.

b. Plaintiff Kris M. Colley, a minor, sues by his parent
and next friend, Christine A. Colley, and is a resident
of an attendance area detached from the attendance area
of East High School by provision of Resolution No. 1520
described hereinafter. If action is taken to implement the
recision of said resolution, he will attend East High School
(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) in September,
1969. They are Negro.

c. Plaintiff Mark A. Williams, a minor, sues by his
guardian and next friend, Christine A. Colley, and is a
resident of an attendance area detached from the atten
dance area of Smiley Junior High School by Resolutions

No. 1520 and 1524 described hereinafter. If action is taken
to implement the recision of said resolutions, he will attend
Smiley Junior High School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro,
3.7% Hispano) in September, 1969. They are Negro.

d. Plaintiff Rhonda 0. Jennings, a minor, sues by her
parent and next friend, Irma J. Jennings, and is a resident
of an attendance area detached from the attendance area
of Cole Junior High School by Resolution No. 1524. If
the recision of said resolution is implemented, she will
attend Cole Junior High School (3.8% Anglo, 72.5%
Negro, 22.2% Hispano) beginning in September, 1969.
They are Negro.

e. Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, a minor, sues by his
parent and next friend, Roberta R. WTade, and is a resident
of an attendance area detached from Barrett Elementary
School by Resolution No. 1531 described hereinafter. If
action is taken to implement the recision of said resolu
tion, he will attend Barrett Elementary School (0.3%
Anglo, 96.9% Negro, 1.9% Hispano) in September, 1969.
They are Negro.

f. Plaintiff Denise Michelle Starks, a minor, sues by
her parent and next friend, Edward J. Starks, Jr., and
is a resident of an attendance area detached from Philips
Elementary School by Resolution No. 1531. If action is
taken to implement the recision of said resolution she will
attend Philips Elementary School (55.3% Anglo, 36.6%
Negro, 5.2% Hispano) in September, 1969. They are
Negro.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

g. Plaintiff Carlos A. Perez, a minor, snes by Ms parent
and next friend, Josephine Perez, and will attend West
High School (54.7% Anglo, 4.6% Negro, 39.8% Hispano)
beginning in September, 1969. They are Hispano.

h. Plaintiff Sheila R. Perez, a minor, snes by her parent
and next friend, Josephine Perez, and will attend Baker
Junior High School (15.4% Anglo, 10.0% Negro, 73.1%
Hispano) beginning in September, 1969. They are Hispano.

i. Plaintiff Terry J. Perez, a minor, snes by his parent
and next friend, Josephine Perez, and is a student at
Greenlee Elementary School (19.1% Anglo, 25.0% Negro,
54.5% Hispano). They are Hispano.

j. Plaintiff Dinah L. Becker, a minor, sues by her
parent and next friend, Maxine N. Becker, and is a student
at Merrill Junior High School (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% Negro,
0.8% Hispano). They are Anglo.

k. Plaintiff Sarah S. Weiner, a minor, sues by her
parent and next friend, Eugene R. Weiner. Prom January
through June, 1969, she was a participant in a voluntary
enrollment plan and was a student at Hallett Elementary
School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% Hispano). She
has been informed by defendants that there may or may
not be space available at said school in September, 1969,
and therefore does not know what school she can attend.
They are Anglo.

3. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and
in behalf of others pursuant to Rule 23(b) (1) (B), 23(b) (2)
and 23(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

(a) The class which the plaintiffs represent is so
numerous that joinder of all members thereof is
impractical; said class consists of:
(i) All those school children, who by virtue of

the actions of the Board complained of in
the First Cause of Action will be attending
segregated or substantially segregated schools
and who will be forced to receive an unequal
educational opportunity beginning in Sep
tember, 1969;

(ii) All those school children, who by virtue of
the actions or omissions of the Board com
plained of in the Second Cause of Action will
be and have been attending segregated schools
or substantially segregated schools, and who
will be and have been receiving an unequal
educational opportunity.

(b) There are questions of fact and law common to
all members of the class represented by plaintiffs,
namely:

(i) Whether in fact the members of said class,
by virtue of the actions of the Board com
plained of in the First Cause of Action will
be attending segregated or substantially
segregated schools, and will be forced to
receive an unequal educational opportunity,
and, further, whether in law such actions of
the Board are unconstitutional and void;

(ii) Whether in fact the members of said class,
by virtue of the actions or omissions of the

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Board complained of in the Second Canse of
Action will be and have been attending
segregated or substantially segregated schools
and will be and have been receiving an un
equal educational opportunity, and further,
whether in law such actions and omissions
of the Board are unconstitutional and void.

(c) The claims of the individual minor plaintiffs are
representative and typical of the class, in that
each such plaintiff reflects and illustrates either
or both of the types of deprivation complained
of in the First and Second Cause of Action.

(d) Said individual minor plaintiffs will fairly and
adequately represent and protect the interests of
the class, in that said plaintiffs and the class share
common objectives and purposes in presenting the
issues framed herein, and in seeking a declaration
of their constitutional rights.

(e) The prosecution of separate actions by individual
members of the class would as a practical matter
be dispositive of the interests of other members
not parties to the adjudications, and would sub
stantially impair their ability to protect their
interests.

(f) The parties opposing the class, i.e., the defendants
herein have acted and have also refused to act
on grounds generally applicable to the class, as
more fully appears herein in the First and Second
Cause of Action, and the final injunctive relief
and declaratory relief sought herein will apply
to the class as a whole.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

10a

(g) The questions of law or fact common to the mem
bers of the class predominate over any questions
affecting or relating only to individual members
of the class, and proceeding by way of this class
action is superior to any other alternate means
available, if any, for the fair and efficient adju
dication of the controversy and the granting of
adequate relief; thus the only alternative would
be the prosecution of separate suits relating to
each school within the District, but no adequate
relief could be formulated for the constitutional
defects of the school system as a whole under
such a piecemeal approach, nor would the differ
ences between schools be significant enough to
justify such a multitude of suits.

B. D efendants:

All defendants are sued individually and in their official
capacities:

1. Defendant School District Number One, Denver,
Colorado, (hereinafter “School District”) is organized and
exists under the laws of the State of Colorado. (Colorado
Revised Statutes, §§123-30-1 et seq.) (1964).

2. Defendant Board of Education of School District
Number One, Denver, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as
“Board” or “Board of Education”) is organized and exists
under the laws of the State of Colorado, CRS § 123-30-3
(1964); the Board is composed of seven school district
directors, elected to such office by electors residing within
the boundaries of the School District; said Board is vested

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

11a

with all powers delegated to a board of education or to a
school district by law, and is required to perform all duties
required by law; CRS § 123-30-3 (1964).

3. Defendant William C. Berge is President of the said
Board of Education; defendant Stephen J. Knight, Jr., is
Vice President of said Board of Education; defendants
James C. Perrill, Prank K. Southworth, John H. Amesse,
James D. Yoorhees, Jr., and Rachel B. Noel are school di
rectors and members of said Board of Education.

4. Defendant Robert D. Gilberts is Superintendent of
Schools of School District Number One, Denver, Colorado
(hereinafter “Superintendent”). He is the executive offi
cer of the Board of Education and is charged with the
responsibility of maintaining, managing, and governing the
public schools in the School District, in accordance with
the rules, regulations, resolutions, policies, directives, cus
toms, practices, and usages established by defendant Board
of Education. III.

III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

General F actual A llegations

A. Defendant Board of Education on or about January
30, 1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent,
passed and enacted Resolution No. 1520, making certain
changes in the attendance areas of certain secondary schools
in the School District. Said Board of Education stated in
said Resolution that such changes were designed to im
prove educational opportunity in the public schools by
revising and thereafter stabilizing the racial and ethnic
composition of pupil memberships in such schools. Schools

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

12a

affected by said Resolution and racial composition of such
Schools in September, 1968, were: East High School
(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano); South High
School (87.3% Anglo, 0.2% Negro, 12.2% Hispano);
George Washington High School (96.0% Anglo, 2.9%
Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Hill Junior High School (96.1%
Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano); Smiley Junior High
School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% Hispano).

B. Plaintiff Kris M. Colley, the son of plaintiff Christine
A. Colley, is a resident of an attendance area which was
detached from the attendance area of East High School
(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) and assigned
to George Washington High School (96.0% Anglo, 2.9%
Negro, 0.8% Hispano) under Resolution No. 1520; if action
is taken to implement the recision of said Resolution, he
will attend East High School in September, 1969, and the
racial composition of both schools will remain substan
tially as quoted. If Resolution 1520 is implemented the
racial composition of these schools will be: East High
School 68.0% Anglo, 25.0% Negro, 7.0% Hispano, George
Washington High School 87.0% Anglo, 12.0% Negro, 1.0%
Hispano.

C. Defendant Board of Education on or about March
20, 1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent,
passed and enacted Resolution No. 1524, making additional
changes in the attendance areas of certain secondary schools
in the School District in order to further implement the
aforesaid Resolution No. 1520. Schools affected by said
Resolution and racial composition of such schools in Sep
tember, 1968, were: Smiley Junior High School (23.6%
Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% Hispano); Merrill Junior High

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

13a

School (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% Negro, 0.8% Hispano) ; Grant
Junior High School (85.4% Anglo, 4.5% Negro, 9.3%
Hispano); Kunsmiller Junior High School (90.3% Anglo,
0.3% Negro, 8.8% Hispano); Hill Junior High School
(96.1% Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano); Thomas Jef
ferson Junior-Senior High School (99.2% Anglo, 0.3%
Negro, 0.2% Hispano); Hamilton Junior High School (no
figures available at this time); Cole Junior High School
(3.8% Anglo, 72.5% Negro, 22.2% Hispano); Byers Junior
High School (92.5% Anglo, 0.6% Negro, 5.7% Hispano);
Bishel Junior High School (75.0% Anglo, 0.3% Negro,
24.4% Hispano); Kepner Junior High School (70.7%
Anglo, 1.7% Negro, 27.5% Hispano).

D. Plaintiff Mark A. Williams, the ward of plaintiff
Christine A. Colley, is a resident of an attendance area
which was detached from the attendance area of Smiley
Junior High School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7%
Hispano) and assigned to Hill Junior High School (96.1%
Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano) under Resolution No.
1524; if action is taken to implement the recision of said
Resolution, he will attend Smiley Junior High School in
September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools
will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolutions No.
1520 and 1524 are implemented the racial composition of
these schools will be.- Smiley Junior High School 72.0%
Anglo, 20.0% Negro, 8.0%Hispano; Hill Junior High
School 81.0% Anglo, 17.0% Negro, 2.0% Hispano.

E. Plaintiff Rhonda O. Jennings, the daughter of plain
tiff Irma J. Jennings, is a resident of an attendance area
which was detached from the attendance area of Cole Junior
High School (3.8% Anglo, 72.5% Negro, 22.2% Hispano)

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

14a

and assigned to Kepner Junior High School (70.7% Anglo,
1.7% Negro, 27.5% Hispano) under Resolution No. 1524;
if action is taken to implement the recision of said Resolu
tion, she will attend Cole Junior High School beginning in
September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools
will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution No.
1524 is implemented the racial composition of these schools
will be: Kepner Junior High School 69.0% Anglo, 4.0%
Negro, 27.0% Hispano, and Cole Junior High School 6.0%
Anglo, 64.0% Negro, 30.0% Hispano.

F. Plaintiff Dinah L. Becker, the daughter of plaintiff
Maxine N. Becker, is a resident of an attendance area as
signed to Merrill Junior High School, (98.2% Anglo, 0.3%
Negro, 0.8% Hispano) and will attend said school in Sep
tember, 1969.

G. Defendant Board of Education on or about April 25,
1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, passed
and enacted Resolution No. 1531 making changes in the
attendance areas of certain elementary schools in the School
District. Said Board of Education stated in said Resolu
tion that such changes were designed to stabilize the racial
and ethnic composition of pupil memberships in these
schools and further the integration of the Denver Public
Schools and improve educational opportunity in such
schools. Said Resolution No. 1531 also contained provisions
for removal of mobile classroom units from Stedman Ele
mentary School, and provided transportation for pupils
previously therein to Denison, Force and Schenck Elemen
tary Schools. The schools for which attendance areas were
changed and their racial composition as of September,
1968, were: Montclair Elementary School (92.7% Anglo,

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

15a

2.5% Negro, 3.2% Hispano); Philips Elementary School
(55.3% Anglo, 36.6% Negro, 5.2% Hispano); Ashley Ele
mentary School (85.8% Anglo, 6.4% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) ;
Palmer Elementary School (91.7% Anglo, 4.9% Negro,
1.7% Hispano); Park Hill Elementary School (71.0%
Anglo, 23.2% Negro, 3.9% Hispano); Steck Elementary
School (86.1% Anglo, 10.7% Negro, 1.0% Hispano); Steele
Elementary School (85.0% Anglo, 6.6% Negro, 7.6%
Hispano); Whiteman Elementary School (88.1% Anglo,
8.0% Negro, 2.6% Hispano); Moore Elementary School
(79.3% Anglo, 8.3% Negro, 8.9% Hispano); Montclair An
nex Elementary School (98.1% Anglo, 1.9% Negro, 0.0%
Hispano); Barrett Elementary School (0.3% Anglo, 96.9%
Negro, 1.9% Hispano); Carson Elementary School (90.3%
Anglo, 6.7% Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Asburv Elementary
School (88.9% Anglo, 5.7% Negro, 3.9% Hispano).

H. Plaintiffs Christi Keyes and Mark Keyes, the chil
dren of plaintiff Wilfred Keyes, are residents of an un
changed attendance area assigned to the Hallett Elemen
tary School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% Hispano)
and will attend said school in September, 1969. I.

I. Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, the son of Roberta R.
Wade, is a resident of an attendance area detached from
Barrett Elementary School (0.3% Anglo, 96.9% Negro,
1.9% Hispano) and assigned to Carson Elementary School
(90.3% Anglo, 6.7% Negro, 0.8% Hispano) under Resolu
tion No. 1531; if action is taken to implement the recision
of said Resolution, he will attend Barrett Elementary School
in September, 1969, and the racial composition of both
schools will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution
No. 1531 is implemented the racial composition of these

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

16a

schools will he: Barrett Elementary School, 73.0% Anglo,
24.0% Negro, 3.0% Hispano, Carson Elementary School,
78.0% Anglo, 20.0% Negro, 2.0% Hispano.

J. Plaintiff Denise Michelle Starks, the daughter of Ed
ward J. Starks, Jr., is a resident of an attendance area of
Philips Elementary School (55.3% Anglo, 36.6% Negro,
5.2% Hispano) which was altered to become a part of the
attendance area for Palmer Elementary School (91.7%
Anglo, 4.9% Negro, 1.7% Hispano) under Resolution No.
1531; if action is taken to implement the recision of said
Resolution, she will attend Philips Elementary School in
September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools
will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution No.
1531 is implemented the racial composition of these schools
will be: Philips Elementary School, 70.0% Anglo, 22.0%
Negro, 8.0% Hispano, Palmer Elementary School 81.0%
Anglo, 15.0% Negro, 4.0% Hispano.

K. To implement the aforesaid Resolutions No. 1520,
1524, and 1531 defendant Board of Education has required
defendant Superintendent to initiate a purchase of twenty-
seven (27) school buses. In addition the defendant Super
intendent substantially completed steps designed to imple
ment such Resolutions in September, 1969, including initia
tion of in-service training for over eight hundred (800)
faculty and staff, preparation of class schedules, schedules
of course availability, pupil assignments, space assign
ments, transportation utilization and other actions.

L. On May 20, 1969, pursuant to regular statutory re
quirements two new members were elected to seats on the
defendant Board of Education, these being defendants

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

17a

James C. Perrill and Frank K. South-worth.. Defeated in
the same election were two incumbent members of the Board
of Education who had voted for passage of the aforesaid
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531. The victorious candi
dates, defendants Perrill and South worth, had campaigned
on slog'ans such as “Against Forced Busing! ” “For Neigh
borhood Schools!” and promised, if elected, to vote for re-
cision of the aforesaid Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and
1531. Said slogans and promises intensified racial polariza
tion within the School District,

M. Having seated its two newly elected members, de
fendant Board of Education on June 9, 1969, passed by a
vote of 4-3, three motions rescinding each of the three
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531.

N. If defendants are permitted to implement the mo
tions to rescind Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, as by
implementing substitute resolutions now or hereafter
passed by the Board, such implementation will or may en
tail modification or cancellation of said presently-existing
purchase order for twenty-seven school buses; modification
or recision and destruction of all work already accom
plished with regard to prior implementation of the now-
rescinded Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531; e.g., class
assignments, pupil assignments, space assignments, sched
ules for utilization of transportation facilities, which if
destroyed will irreparably injure the minor plaintiffs and
others similarly situated, as follows: In the event that
this Court should ultimately decide to grant to plaintiffs
the permanent relief prayed for herein, such relief will
not be possible for the school year beginning September,
1969, unless during the pendency of this action the status

Complaint for Perm-anent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

18a

quo is maintained; i.e., unless the contracts, schedules and
assignments already prepared to implement the now-re
scinded Resolutions are retained. If the status quo is not
maintained, the minor plaintiffs and their classes will be
segregated and forced to receive an unequal educational
opportunity during the school year beginning September,
1969, as is more fully detailed herein in paragraphs A
through M.

O. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 are not rein
stated and implemented, and if the motions for recision
and any substitute resolutions or motions are not declared
unconstitutional and void as depriving said minor plain
tiffs and those similarly situated of equal protection of
the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States, said plaintiffs and
those similarly situated will be irreparably harmed and
injured because they will be segregated on the basis of race
and ethnicity, and forced to attend schools which will be
segregated, and which would not be segregated if Reso
lutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 were reinstated and imple
mented, resulting in their being forced to receive an un
equal educational opportunity during the school year
beginning September, 1969, and for subsequent years
thereafter, as is more fully stated in paragraphs A through
P herein.

P. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, adequate or com
plete remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts com
plained of herein, other than this suit for injunctive relief.
Any other remedy to which plaintiffs and those similarly
situated could be entitled would be atttended by such
uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief,

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

19a

would involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further ir
reparable injury, and occasion damage, vexation and in
convenience, not only to plaintiffs, and those similarly situ
ated, but to defendants as well.

First Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. The recision of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531
will have the effect of encouraging private acts of racial
discrimination and is therefore a derogation of the minor
plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States.

Second Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. In rescinding Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531
defendant Board members were motivated by racial and
ethnic considerations.

C. Negro and Hispano plaintiffs, and the classes which
they represent, view the actions of said defendants in
rescinding these Resolutions as a significant defeat of their
attempt to obtain equal educational opportunity and the
equal protection of the laws for all Negro and Hispano
students in the School District.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

20a

Thibd Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524
and 1531, the pupil population of the schools affected
thereby were substantially segregated on the basis of race
or ethnicity.

C. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 had been
implemented the effect would have been to substantially
relieve the actual segregation of the pupil populations of
the schools affected thereby.

D. In rescinding these resolutions the defendant Board
members voting in favor of recision, and, therefore, the
defendant Board itself, were motivated by a desire to
maintain, require, and facilitate the racial and ethnic
separation which existed in the schools affected prior to
the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, and
which would have been significantly alleviated by the
Resolutions rescinded.

F ourth Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. By the recision of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and
1531 defendants Board and Board members knowingly

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

21a

reassigned children whom it had previously designated
to receive an integrated education to schools which will
as a result of the Board’s action be substantially segre
gated, and thus resegregated such children on the basis
of race and ethnic origin.

Fifth Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524
and 1531, the pupil populations of the schools affected
were substantially segregated on the basis of race and
ethnicity, and those schools with predominantly Negro or
Hispano populations were providing unequal educational
opportunity due to the fact that such schools were (on the
average for all Denver schools) assigned less-experienced
faculty, had higher drop-out rates, were assigned and
allocated a disproportionately large number of Negro or
Hispano faculty, had a disproportionately large number
of mobile units, and had pupil memberships derived from
generally lower economic status.

C. Implementation of the aforesaid Resolutions No.
1520, 1524 and 1531 would have resulted in substantial
alleviation of the racial and ethnic segregation in such
schools.

D. The benefits which would have accrued from integra
tion under Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 would have

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

22a

significantly eliminated the existing inequalities in educa
tional opportunity as set forth in paragraph B above, and
the recision of those resolutions therefore operates to deny
minor plaintiffs an educational opportunity equal to that
accorded students in schools the pupil population of which
are not predominantly Negro or Hispano.

Sixth Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega
tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524
and 1531 the pupil populations of the schools affected
thereby were substantially segregated on the basis of race
or ethnicity.

C. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 had been
implemented the effect would have been to substantially
relieve the actual segregation of the pupil populations
of the schools thereby affected.

D. By reinstating the racial and ethnic separation
existing in the affected schools prior to the passage of
Resolutions 1520,1524 and 1531, and by assigning plaintiffs
and the class they represent to those segregated schools
to which they would have gone had Resolutions No. 1520,
1524 and 1531 never been passed, defendants have acted
to deny plaintiffs an equal educational opportunity by
implementing and effectuating a policy the effect of which
is to confine plaintiffs to schools which because of the

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

23a

recision will be actually segregated on the basis of race
or ethnicity.

PRAYER FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

A. Wherefore, plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, pray as follows:

1. That defendants, and each and every of defendant
School District’s officers, agents, servants, em
ployees and each of them, and all other persons
in active concert or participation with them be,
preliminarily during the pendency of this action
and permanently thereafter, restrained and en
joined
(a) from in any way interfering with, modifying,

cancelling or rescinding the purchase order
for said twenty-seven school buses;

(b) from destroying, changing or otherwise modi
fying, in any manner whatsoever, or relocating
all those documents, contracts, schedules, or
other writings and memoranda relating or
pertaining to the implementation of Resolu
tions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

24a

and 1531 at the start of the school year in
September, 1969, with the exception that de
fendants shall not otherwise dnring such time
be prevented from simultaneously preparing
for the implementation of alternate or addi
tional plans concerning the matters described
herein as they so desire.

2. That those motions passed by defendant Board
rescinding Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531,
and resolutions, policies, directives, plans and
actions passed, enacted or implemented by defen
dants or any of them attempting to further the
purposes of said rescinding motions or to prevent
the full and complete implementation of Resolu
tions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 be declared null and
void and of no force and effect whatsoever as a
denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States.

3. That defendants be required to implement fully
and completely the provisions, plans and actions
outlined in Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531
beginning in September, 1969, and further that
defendants be forever enjoined from acting to
nullify, modify, delay, or deny to plaintiffs or
others similarly situated the equal educational
opportunity guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.

4. That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, ad
judge and decree that:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

25a

(a) The actions of defendant Board in rescinding
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, have
denied to the minor plaintiffs who are Negro
or Hispano and other persons similarly situ
ated, educational opportunities, advantages
and facilities equal to those afforded and
available to Anglo children in schools un
affected by such recision, and that said actions
are unconstitutional and void, as depriving
said plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws
in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States;

(b) The actions of defendant Board in rescinding
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, have
denied to the minor plaintiffs who are Anglo,
and other persons similarly situated, the ad
vantages, educational benefits, intellectual
stimulation and practical preparation for a
multiracial world afforded and available to
those Anglo children attending racially bal
anced and integrated schools within the school
District, and that such actions are unconstitu
tional and void, as depriving said plaintiffs of
equal protection of the laws in contravention
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu
tion of the United States.

B. That plaintiffs recover their costs, and for such other
and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

26a

IV. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

F irst Count
A. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and

every allegation of the First Cause of Action herein.

B. By the following described acts, among others, defen
dants and/or their predecessors have over the years and
are at present deliberately and purposefully attempting to
create, foster and maintain racial and ethnic segregation
within the School District:

(1) With full knowledge of the existence of racially
and ethnically segregated residential patterns, and
with full knowledge that the superimposition
thereupon of a so-called “neighborhood school”
policy would result in significant racial and ethnic
segregation in the School District reflective of said
segregated residential patterns, said defendants
adopted and continue to maintain such a neighbor
hood school policy with the intent, purpose and
effect of creating, fostering and maintaining ra
cially and ethnically segregated schools.

(2) Over a period of years and on repeated occasions
said defendants have created, altered and enforced
certain school attendance area boundaries with the
purpose, intent and effect of creating, fostering
and maintaining racial and ethnic segregation with
in the School District.

(3) With the purpose, intent and effect of creating,
fostering and maintaining racial and ethnic segre

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

27a

gation of the Denver public schools, said defen
dants during certain years have allowed certain
Anglo children optional transfer outside of estab
lished school attendance areas, in contravention of
said defendants’ existing published policies and
resolutions, with no apparent purpose other than
that of encouraging, promoting and continuing the
segregation of the Anglo students from Negro
and/or Hispano students.

(4) With the purpose, intent and effect of creating,
fostering and maintaining racial and ethnic segre
gation in the School District, said defendants have
assigned Negro and Hispano faculty and staff to
those schools having predominantly Negro and
Hispano pupil populations, thereby furthering,
confirming and solidifying the racially and
ethnically segregated character of those schools.

(5) As certain schools within the School District have
undergone transition to gradually increasing pro
portions of Negro and/or Hispano pupil popula
tions, said defendants have created optional atten
dance areas which were consciously and inten
tionally designed to promote and allow transfer of
Anglo pupils to predominantly Anglo schools and
thereby to retain and confine Negro and/or His
pano pupils to schools of predominantly Negro
and/or Hispano pupil populations.

0. These various actions of said defendants have effected
in the School District a significant segregation of pupils by
race and ethnicity, as evidenced by the following facts:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

28a

(1) In September, 1968, of the 63,385 Anglo students
in the public schools in the School District, 37,539,
or 59%, were in 43 schools the pupil population of
which were over 85% Anglo.

(2) In September, 1968, of the 13,639 Negro students
in the public schools in the School District, 8,451,
or 62%, were in 15 schools the pupil populations
of which were over 85% Negro and/or Hispano.

(3) In September, 1968, of the 18,611 Hispano students
in the public schools in the School District, 9,360
Hispanos, or 50.2%, were in 35 schools the pupil
populations of which were over 50% Negro and/or
Hispano.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Second Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in their First Cause of Action
and subparagraphs C(l), C(2), and C(3) of the First Count
of this Second Cause of Action in so far as those subpara
graphs allege the existence in the School District of actual
segregation on the basis of race and ethnicity.

B. By the following described acts, among others, de
fendants or their predecessors have allocated to those
schools in the School District whose populations are pre
dominantly Negro and/or Hispano resources substantially
inferior to those allocated to schools with predominantly
Anglo pupil populations:

(1) Defendants and/or their predecessors have pro
vided predominantly Negro and Hispano schools

29a

with physical plants, equipment, materials, sup
plies and curricula inferior to that provided to
schools with predominantly Anglo student pupil
populations.

(2) Defendants and/or their predecessors have allo
cated and assigned a disproportionately large num
ber of less-experienced faculty to those schools in
the School District with predominantly Negro or
Hispa.no pupil populations, while at the same time
allocating and assigning a disproportionately large
number of more-experienced faculty to schools
with predominantly Anglo pupil populations.

C. By providing those schools having predominantly
Negro and Hispano student populations with resources
inferior to those allocated to predominantly Anglo schools,
defendants and/or their predecessors have in the past and
are at present denying students attending those schools, in
cluding plaintiff Sarah 8. Weiner and those similarly situ
ated the equal protection of the laws by providing them
with an educational opportunity unequal to that provided
by other schools in the School District.

Third Count
A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in their First Cause of Action,
except in so far as they may be construed to allege an intent
on the part of defendants and/or their predecessors to seg
regate the School District’s pupil population on the basis
of race and ethnicity.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

30a

B. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and
every allegation contained in subparagraphs C(l), C(2) and
C(3) of the First Count of this Second Cause of Action, in
so far as those subparagraphs allege the existence in the
School District of actual segregation on the basis of race
and ethnicity.

C. Defendants and/or their predecessors have adopted
and continue to maintain a “neighborhood school” policy
which effects the assignment of students to schools accord
ing to a geographic limitation, and results in the racial and
ethnic segregation of students as is shown by the facts in
corporated in paragraph B above.

D. By the creation and maintenance of a school system
segregated on the basis of race and ethnicity, defendants
and/or their predecessors have and will continue to deny an
equal educational opportunity to those students assigned to
schools which are predominantly Negro and/or Hispano,
and to deny equal protection of the laws to such students
and to plaintiffs and other members of the classes which
they represent.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Foubth Count
A. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and

every allegation of their First Cause of Action.

B. Defendants and/or their predecessors originated and
defendants continue to administer throughout the School
District various systems of pupil ability grouping referred
to hereinafter as the “track systems”.

31a

€. Under these systems students are purportedly classi
fied according to ability to learn and then assigned either
to a regular or accelerated educational program and cur
riculum.

D. The effect of the application and administration of
these track systems has been the segregation and separation
of students on the basis of race and ethnicity and the denial
to the minor Negro and Hispano plaintiffs, and those simi
larly situated, an educational opportunity equal to that
offered Anglo students of comparable ability and qualifica
tions.

PRAYER FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

A. Wherefore, plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and
in behalf of those persons similarly situated, pray as
follows: 1

1. Under the First Count of this Second Cause of
Action,

(a) That defendants, and each of them, be perma
nently enjoined and restrained from directly or
indirectly continuing, maintainig, requiring, pro
moting or encouraging, through their rules, regu
lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs,
practices and usages, the segregation and separa
tion by race and ethnicity of the pupils of the
schools within the School District.

(b) That defendants be required to submit to this
Court, within a time which is both reasonable
and certain, and which would allow sufficient

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

32a

time for implementation of such program for the
beginning of the school year commencing on or
about September 1, 1970, a comprehensive plan
for the School District as a whole, and for each
school therein where such condition exists, which
will effectively:

(i) Remove the segregation and separation of
school children by race and ethnicity within
and among such schools;

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child,
regardless of race or ethnicity, and regardless
of the school which such child attends, an
equal educational opportunity;

(c) That defendants, and each of them, be perma
nently enjoined and restrained:
(i) From any further creation, alteration or

enforcement of any boundaries for any school
attendance area that is intended to or does
in fact discriminate on the basis of race or
ethnicity as between school children within
the District.

(ii) From any further creation or enforcement
of optional areas or zones or permissive pol
icies which are intended to or do in fact dis
criminate on the basis of race or ethnicity as
between school children within the District as
to the right of optional transfer outside of
established school attendance areas;

(iii) From any further utilization or adoption of
policies regarding the assignment of faculty

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

33a

or staff which are intended to or do in fact
assign faculty and staff to schools on the
basis of race or ethnicity, thereby furthering
and solidifying the racial and ethnic char
acter of such schools.

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants
in purposefully and knowingly creating and main
taining the segregation and separation by race
and ethnicity of the school children within the
District are unconstitutional and void, as depriv
ing plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of
equal protection of the laws in contravention of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.

2. Under the Second Count of this Second Cause of
Action,

(a) That defendants and each of them be permanently
enjoined and restrained from directly or indi
rectly continuing, maintaining, requiring, pro
moting or encouraging through their rules, regu
lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs,
practices and usages the unequal allocation of
resources which is intended to or does in fact
discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity as
between school children within the District.

(b) That defendants be required to submit to this
Court, within a time which is both reasonable
and certain, and which would allow sufficient time

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

34a

for implementation of such plan by the beginning
of the school year commencing in September,
1970, a comprehensive plan for the School District
as a whole, and for each school therein where
such conditions exist, which will effectively:
(i) Remove any existing disparity in the re

sources allocated to such schools; and
(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child,

regardless of race or ethnicity, and regard
less of the school which such child attends,
an equal opportunity to attend schools which
from the standpoint of facilities, faculty and
staff, are in fact equal or as nearly so as is
practical and feasible under the circum
stances.

(i) From adopting or continuing any policy
which is intended to or in fact does result
in an unequal allocation of such resources
as physical plant equipment, materials, sup
plies and curricula among and between
schools on the basis of race or ethnicity, or
which discriminates on the basis of race or
ethnicity as between school children within
the District.

(ii) From any further policy regarding the assign
ment of faculty or staff which is intended
to or does in fact assign less-experienced or

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

35a

less-qualified faculty or staff to schools which
are predominately Negro and/or Hispano in
their racial and ethnic composition.

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
adjudge and decree that the actions of the de
fendants in allocating resources among and be
tween schools within the District with the effect
of allocating inferior resources to those schools
which are predominately Negro and/or Hispano
in their racial or ethnic composition, are uncon
stitutional and void as depriving plaintiffs and
those persons similarly situated of equal protec
tion of the laws in contravention of the Four
teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.

3. Under the Third Count of this Second Cause of
Action,

(a) That defendants, and each of them, be perma
nently enjoined and restrained from directly or
indirectly continuing, maintaining, requiring, pro
moting or encouraging, through their rules, regu
lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs,
practices and usages, the segregation and separa
tion by race and ethnicity of the pupils of the
schools within the School District.

(b) That defendants be required to submit to this
Court, within a time which is both reasonable
and certain, and which would allow sufficient time
for implementation of such program for the begin

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

36a

ning of the school year commencing on or about
September 1, 1970, a comprehensive plan for the
School District as a whole, and for each school
therein where such condition exists, which will
effectively:
(i) Remove the segregation and separation of

school children by race and ethnicity within
and among such schools;

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child,
regardless of race or ethnicity, and regardless
of the school which such child attends, an
equal educational opportunity;

(c) That defendants, and each of them, be permanently
enjoined and restrained from any further creation,
alteration or enforcement of any boundaries for
any school attendance area that is intended to or
does in fact discriminate on the basis of race or
ethnicity as between school children within the
District.

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201,
adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants
which resulted in the actual segregation and sep
aration by race and ethnicity of the school children
within the District are unconstitutional and void,
as depriving said plaintiffs, and those similarly
situated, of equal protection of the laws in contra
vention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con
stitution of the United States.

4. In the alternative, under the Third Count of this
Second Cause of Action, that defendants be required to

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

37a

submit to this Court, within a time which is both reasonable
and certain, and which would allow sufficient time for im
plementation by the beginning of the school year commenc
ing in September, 1970, a comprehensive plan for the School
District as a whole, and for each school therein where such
condition exists, which will effectively:

(a) Mitigate, to the greatest extent possible and feasi
ble under the circumstances, the segregation and
separation of school children by race and ethnicity
within and among said schools;

(b) Minimize, to the greatest extent possible and feasi
ble under the circumstances, the adverse effects
upon equal educational opportunity caused by the
segregation which remains.

5. Under the Fourth Count of this Second Cause of
Action,

(a) That defendants, and each of them, be permanently
enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly
continuing, maintaining or applying the existing
track system or any other ability grouping, test or
device which is either intended to or does in fact
discriminate between pupils on the basis of race
or ethnicity or which is either intended to or does
in fact accord Negro and Hispano students an edu
cational opportunity unequal to that accorded
Anglo students of comparable abilities and qualifi
cations.

(b) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201
adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants
in creating, applying and administering the exist-

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

38a

mg “track systems” which both in fact discrimi
nates against Negro and Hispano students and
denies said students an educational opportunity
equal to that accorded Anglo students of compar
able abilities and qualifications are unconstitutional
and void, as depriving plaintiffs, and those simi
larly situated, of equal protection of the laws in
contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.

B. That plaintiffs recover their costs and for such other
and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

B arnes & Jensen
By /s/ Craig S. Barnes

Craig S. Barnes
2430 South University Blvd.,
Denver, Colorado 80210
Tel.: 744-6455

/s/ Gordon G. Greiner
Gordon G. Greiner

500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202
Tel.: 292-9200

Jack Greenberg,
James M. N abrit, III,
Conrad K. H arper,

10 Columbus Circle,
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

39a

Address of Plaintiffs:

Wilfred Keyes
2651 Ivanlioe St.,
Denver, Colorado

Christine A. Colley
3052 Krameria St.,
Denver, Colorado

Irma J. Jennings
e/o Craig S. Barnes
2430 S. University Blvd.,
Denver, Colorado

Roberta R. Wade
2719 Cook St.,
Denver, Colorado

Edward J. Starks, Jr.
2322 Monaco Parkway,
Denver, Colorado

Josephine Perez
1154 Kalamath St.,
Denver, Colorado

Maxine N. Becker
1356 Sonth Elm St.,
Denver, Colorado

Eugene R. Weiner
1484 South Eudora St.,
Denver, Colorado.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

40a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

Of Counsel:
Susan G-. Barnes, Esq.,
7000 West 14th. Avenue,
Denver, Colorado 80215

Robert T. Connery, Esq.,
500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202

Harold A. Haddon, Esq.,
American National Bank Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202

William H. Lewis, Esq.,
1839 York Street
Denver, Colorado 80206

Robert Bruce Miller, Esq.,
3216 Arapahoe Avenue,
Boulder, Colorado 80302

Grail E. Oppenneer, Esq.,
Western Federal Savings Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202

James W. Schroeder, Esq.,
1700 Broadway,
Denver, Colorado 80202

Lawrence W. Treeee, Esq.,
500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202

41a

Richard E. Young, Esq.,
1700 Broadway,
Denver, Colorado 80202

State of Colorado,
City and County of D enver, s s .

E ugene R. W einer, being duly sworn, deposes and says
that he is one of the plaintiffs in the within action; that he
has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents
thereof; that the same is true to his own knowledge, except
as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and
belief, and that as to those, he believes them to be true.

/ s / E ugene R. W einer

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of June,
1969.

Witness my hand and official seal.

/ s / M argaret P. A pperson
Notary Public

My commission expires:
May 22, 1972

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and
Declaratory Judgment

(Seal)

42a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint
(R esolution 1520)

Approved by the Board of Education
on January 30, 1969

W hereas, pursuant to the Resolution of this Board of
Education passed on May 16, 1968, and numbered 1490,
in response to the subsequent specific direction of this
Board of Education, and in accordance with Article VIII,
Section 2 of the By Laws of this Board, the Superintendent
of this School District has proposed certain changes in
the boundaries of the attendance areas of certain secondary
schools of this School District, which changes are one of
the steps designed to improve educational opportunity
in the public schools of this District by revising and there
after stabilizing the racial and ethnic composition of pupil
memberships in such schools;

W hereas, this Board of Education did receive said
proposals of the Superintendent for study and action and
did order that the citizens of this School District be given
an opportunity to express their views on said proposals
at a public hearing; and

W hereas, this Board of Education, having heard the
views of the citizens of this School District on the pro
posed changes in attendance areas and boundaries; having
considered traffic patterns, distances, housing patterns,
school building capacities, optimum pupil memberships for
the schools concerned, pupil achievement data, the need
for providing transportation to pupils and the cost thereof,

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

43a

and current policies of the Board of Education regarding
the provision of transportation for pupils; and having
otherwise informed itself on the questions presented by
the said proposals, Finds that, because of the housing
patterns in the City and County of Denver, East High
School and Smiley Junior High School contain growing
numbers of pupils of racial and ethnic minorities; that a
reduction of such numbers is desirable as one of the steps
to improve educational opportunity in such schools; and
that the changes in the attendance areas as proposed by
the superintendent are consistent with the foregoing and
as hereinafter set forth herein, will reasonably accomplish
such reduction and thereafter stabilize the racial and
ethnic composition of pupil memberships in these schools;
and that such changes are in the public interest.

Now t h e r e f o r e , i t is r e s o l v e d by the Board of Educa
tion of School District No. 1 in the City and County of
Denver and State of Colorado that, effective as of the
opening of school in September of 1969, the boundaries
of the attendance areas of the following secondary schools
in this School District be, and they are hereby, changed
as follows:

1. The following described area shall be detached from
the E ast H igh School attendance area and shall
become a part of the South H igh School attendance
area.
Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks and Clayton Street, thence: Easterly
along the railroad tracks to Colorado Boulevard,
South on Colorado Boulevard to East 32nd Avenue,

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

44a

West on East 32nd Avenue to Fillmore Street,
North of Fillmore Street to East 40th Avenue, West
on East 40th Avenne to Clayton Street, and North
on Clayton Street to the point of beginning.

2. The following described area shall he detached from
the South H igh School, attendance area and shall
become a part of the E ast H igh School attendance
area.
Beginning at the intersection of Logan Street and
the centerline of Cherry Creek, thence: South
easterly along the centerline of Cherry Creek to
Alameda Avenue, West along Alameda Avenue to
South Logan Street, and North on Logan Street to
the point of beginning.

3. The following described area shall be detached from
the George W ashington H igh School attendance
area and shall become a part of the South H igh
School attendance area.
Beginning at the intersection of South Colorado
Boulevard and East Arizona Avenue, thence: East
on Arizona Avenue to South Dahlia Street, South
on South Dahlia Street to the City Limits, North
west along the City Limits to the Colorado and
Southern Railroad tracks, Westerly along the Col
orado and Southern Railroad tracks to South
Colorado Boulevard, and North on South Colorado
Boulevard to the point of beginning.

4. The following described area shall be detached from
the E ast H igh School attendance area and shall

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

45a

become a part of the George W ashington H igh
School attendance area.
Beginning at the intersection of Ivanhoe Street
extended and Interstate Highway 70, thence: East
erly on Interstate Highway 70 to Syracuse Street
extended, South on Syracuse Street extended and
Syracuse Street to East 32nd Avenue, West on East
32nd Avenue to Monaco Boulevard, South on
Monaco Boulevard to Montview Boulevard, West
on Montview Boulevard to Jasmine Street, South
on Jasmine Street to East Colfax Avenue, West
on East Colfax Avenue to Ivanhoe Street, and
North on Ivanhoe Street to the point of beginning.

5. The following described area shall be detached from
the George W ashington H igh School attendance
area and shall become a part of the E ast H igh
School attendance area.
Beginning at the intersection of East Colfax Avenue
and Ivanhoe Street, thence: East on East Colfax
Avenue to Jasmine Street, South on Jasmine Street
to East 6th Avenue, West on East 6th Avenue to
Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorado Boulevard
to East Alameda Avenue, West on East Alameda
Avenue to the centerline of Cherry Creek, North
westerly along the centerline of Cherry Creek to
Steele Street, North on Steele Street to East 7th
Avenue, East on East 7th Avenue to Colorado
Boulevard, North on Colorado Boulevard to East
8th Avenue, East on East 8th Avenue to Grape
Street, North on Grape Street to East 14th Avenue,
East on East 14th Avenue to Holly Street, North

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

46a

on Holly Street to East Colfax Avenue, and East
on East Colfax Avenue to tlie point of beginning.

6. The following described area shall be detached from
the H ill, Junior H igh School attendance area and
shall become a part of the Smiley Junior H igh
School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East Colfax Avenue
and Kearney Street, thence: East on East Colfax
Avenue to Yosemite Street, South on Yosemite
Street and Yosemite Street extended to East 1st
Avenue extended, West on East 1st Avenue ex
tended and East 1st Avenue to the west boundary
the United States Air Force Reservation, North
on the west boundary of the United States Air
Force Reservation to the north boundary of the
United States Air Force Reservation, East on the
north boundary of the United States Air Force
Reservation to Quebec Street, North on Quebec
Street to East 6th Avenue, West on East 6th Avenue
to Kearney Street, and North on Kearney Street
to the point of beginning.

7. The area known as Montbello which was annexed to
the City and County of Denver by Ordinance No.
262, Series of 1965, of the Ordinances of the City
and County of Denver and State of Colorado, shall
remain in the E ast H igh School subdistrict and in
the Smiley Junior H igh School subdistrict.
Unless otherwise specified, references to city streets
and avenues as boundaries shall be taken as refer
ring to the centerlines of such streets and avenues.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

47a

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that, consistent with the fore
going, the Superintendent is hereby directed to make the
following recommendations by March 10, 1969, for con
sideration and action by this Board at its regular March
meeting:

1. To recommend further changes in the boundaries
of the Smiley Junior High School attendance area which
will detach therefrom attendance areas sufficient in size
to include approximately 850 pupils who would otherwise
attend Smiley Junior High School and designate such
detached areas as attendance areas for other junior high
schools within this School District, all effective with the
beginning of school in September, 1969.

2. To recommend whether or not each area so detached
from the Smiley Junior High School attendance area shall
continue as part of its present senior high school atten
dance area or he designated as part of the attendance
area for another senior high school within this School
District.

3. To make such other recommendations as he shall
deem necessary or desirable in order to carry out the
intent of this resolution.

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that the present policies of this
School District regarding provision of transportation for
secondary school pupils to and from school remain in full
force and effect, except, that from and after September,
1969, those senior high school pupils residing in the area
bounded by Clayton Street, the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks, Colorado Boulevard and East 32nd Avenue and
herein assigned to South High School effective September,

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

48a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

1969, shall he provided with transportation to and from
South High School without charge to them.

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that those pupils entering their
senior year of high school in September of 1969, and who
reside in the senior high school attendance areas changed
by this resolution shall have the option of attending the
senior high school of the attendance area in which they
continue to reside or the senior high school which they
attended at the close of the 1968-1969 school year, which
option shall be exercised in accordance with procedures
prescribed by the Superintendent of this School District.

49a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint
(R e so lu tio n No. 1 5 2 4 )

Approved by the Board of
Education March 20, 1969

W hereas, this Board of Education by its Resolution
Numbered 1520 and passed on January 30, 1969, directed
the Superintendent of this School District to make certain
recommendations for consideration and action by this
Board;
W hereas, in accordance with said Resolution 1520 and

Article VIII, Section 2, of the By Laws of this Board, the
Superintendent has recommended changes in the boundaries
of the attendance areas of Certain of the secondary schools
of this School District; and
W hereas, this Board of Education has considered the

recommendations of the Superintendent, finds them in ac
cord with the purposes and intent of said Resolution No.
1520, and finds that such changes are in the public interest;

Now Therefore, It Is R esolved by the Board of Educa
tion of School District No. 1 in the City and County of Den
ver and State of Colorado that the boundaries of the at
tendance areas of the following junior high schools in this
School District be, and they are hereby, changed as herein
after specifically provided; that on and after the opening
of school in September of 1969 all 7th, 8th and 9th grade
pupils from time to time residing in such changed attendance
areas are hereby assigned to the junior high school of such
changed attendance areas as follows:

1. The following described area shall be detached from
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here
inabove provided shall become a part of M errill Junior
H igh School attendance area.

50a

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks and Clayton Street, thence: Easterly
along the Railroad tracks to Dahlia Street, South on
Dahlia Street to East 35th Avenue, West on East 35th
Avenue to Cherry Street; South on Cherry Street to
East 30th Avenue, West on East 30th Avenue to
Colorado Boulevard, North on Colorado Boulevard to
East 32nd Avenue, West on East 32nd Avenue to Fill
more Street, North on Fillmore Street to East 40th
Avenue, West on East 40th Avenue to Clayton Street,
and North on Clayton Street to the point of beginning.

2. The following described area, shall be detached from
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here
inabove provided shall become a part of Grant Junior
H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific Rail
road tracks and Dahlia Street, thence: Easterly along
the Railroad tracks to Forest Street, South on Forest
Street to Thrill Place, West on Thrill Place to Dahlia
Street, and North on Dahlia Street to the point of
beginning.

3. The following described area shall be detached from
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here
inabove provided shall become a part of Byers Junior H igh
School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 35th Avenue and
Cherry Street, thence: East on East 35th Avenue to
Dahlia Street, South on Dahlia Street to Thrill Place,
East on Thrill Place to Forest Street, South on Forest
Street to East 28th Avenue, West on 28th Avenue to
Dexter Street, North on Dexter Street to East 30th

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

51a

Avenue, West on East 30th. Avenue to Cherry Street,
and North on Cherry Street to the point of beginning.

4. The following described area shall be detached from
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here
inabove provided shall become a part of K unsmillbr Junior
H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific Rail
road tracks and Forest Street, thence: Southeasterly
along the railroad tracks to Ivanhoe Street extended,
South on Ivanhoe Street extended and Ivanhoe Street
to East 29th Avenue, West on East 29th Avenue to
Forest Street, and North on Forest Street to the point
of beginning.

5. The following described area shall be detached from
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as here
inabove provided shall become a part of H ill Junior H igh
School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 70
and Ivanhoe Street extended, thence: East along Inter
state Highway 70 to Locust Street extended, South on
Locust Street extended and Locust Street to East 29th
Avenue, West on East 29th Avenue to Ivanhoe Street,
and North on Ivanhoe Street and Ivanhoe Street ex
tended to the point of beginning.

6. The following described area shall be detached from
Smiley Junior H igh School attendance area and as herein
above provided shall become a part of H amilton Junior
H igh School for 7th and 8th grade pupils and Thomas
Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh School for 9th grade pupils
residing therein from time to time.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

52a

Beginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 70
and Locust Street extended, thence: Easterly along
Interstate Hig*hway 70 to Syracuse Street extended,
South along Syracuse Street extended and Syracuse
Street to East 26th Avenue, West along East 26th Ave
nue to Locust Street, and North on Locust Street and
Locust Street extended to the point of beginning.

7. The following described area shall be detached from
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall be
come a part of Smiley J unior H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 54th Avenue and
the Burlington Bailroad tracks, thence: East on East
54th Avenue to Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorado
Boulevard to Vasquez Boulevard, Southwest on Vas-
quez Boulevard to East 46th Avenue, West on East
46th Avenue to the Burlington Bailroad tracks, and
Northeast along the Burlington Bailroad tracks to the
point of beginning.

8. The following described area shall be detached from
H ell Junior H igh School attendance area and shall become
a part of the attendance areas of H amilton Junior H igh
School and Thomas Jeeeerson Junior-Senior H igh School
effective as of the opening of school in September of 1969,
and thereafter all 7th and 8th grade pupils from time to
time residing therein shall attend H amilton Junior H igh
School: all 9th grade pupils from time to time residing
therein shall attend Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh
School.

Beginning at the intersection of East Kentucky Avenue
and the centerline of Cherry Creek, thence: Easterly
along East Kentucky Avenue and East Kentucky Ave-

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

53a

irue extended to the east side of South Dayton Street,
North on South Dayton Street to East Alameda Avenue,
Northeasterly on East Alameda Avenue to South
Havana Street, South on South Havana Street to the
Highline Canal, Southeasterly along the Highline
Canal to South Fulton Street, South along South Ful
ton Street to the boundary line of the City and County
of Denver as it now exists, East along said boundary
line to South Geneva Street, North along South Geneva
Street to the said boundary line of the City and County
of Denver, East along said boundary line to South
Havana Street, South on South Havana Street to East
Mississippi Avenue, West on East Mississippi Avenue
(not including the Cunningham School Site) to the
Parker Hoad, Westerly along the said boundary line of
the City and County of Denver to South Quebec Street,
South on South Quebec Street to South Quebec Way,
Southeasterly on South Quebec Way to East Louisiana
Avenue, West on East Louisiana Avenue to South
Quebec Street, South on South Quebec Street to East
Florida Avenue, West on East Florida Avenue to the
centerline of Cherry Creek, and Northwest along the
centerline of Cherry Creek to the point of beginning.

9. The following described area shall be detached from
M errtt.t, Junior H igh School attendance area and shall
become a part of the attendance areas of H amilton Junior
H igh School and Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh
School effective as of the opening of school in September
1969, and thereafter all 7th and 8th grade pupils residing
therein shall attend H amilton Junior H igh School; all 9th
grade pupils residing therein shall attend Thomas Jeffer
son Junior-Senior H igh School.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

54a

Beginning at the intersection of East Florida Avenue
and South Monaco Boulevard, thence: East along East
Florida Avenue to South Quebec Street, South on South
Quebec Street along the City Limits to East Yale Ave
nue, West on East Yale Avenue to South Kearney
Street, North on South Kearney Street to the center-
line of the Highline Canal, Northwesterly along the
centerline of the Highline Canal to the intersection of
East Ilitf Avenue and South Ivanhoe Street extended,
North along South Ivanhoe Street extended and Ivan
hoe Street to East Evans Avenue, East along East
Evans Avenue to South Kearney Street extended,
North along South Kearney Street extended and South
Kearney Way to East Jewell Avenue, East along East
Jewell Avenue to South Leyden Street, North along
South Leyden Street to East Mexico Avenue, East
along East Mexico Avenue to South Monaco Boulevard,
and North along South Monaco Boulevard to the point
of beginning.

I t I s Further Resolved that, the attendance area of
H amilton- Junior H igh School for all 7th and 8th grade
pupils shall be the attendance area of Thomas Jeeferson
Junior-Senior H igh School as of September 1968, and
those attendance areas described in the foregoing Sections
Numbered 6, 8, and 9.

I t I s F urther R esolved that the attendance area of
Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh School for all 9th
grade pupils shall consist of the attendance area of the
Thomas Jefferson Junior-Senior H igh School as of Sep
tember 1968, and those attendance areas described in the
foregoing Sections Numbered 6, 8, and 9.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

CITY tIMITS g

55a

56a

I t I s Further R esolved that, on and after the opening
of school in September 1969 the boundaries of the atten
dance areas for the following junior high schools in this
School District be, and they are hereby, changed as follows:

A. The following described area shall be detached from
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall become
a part of B yers Junior H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 35th Avenue and
York Street, thence: South on York Street to East 33rd
Avenue, West on East 33rd Avenue to the alley between
High Street and Williams Street, North along the alley
between High Street and Williams Street to East 35th
Avenue, and East along East 35th Avenue to the point
of beginning.

B. The following described area shall be detached from
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall be
come a part of K unsmiller Junior H igh School attendance
area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and
York Street, thence: East along East 34th Avenue to
Elizabeth Street, South on Elizabeth Street to East
28th Avenue, East on East 28th Avenue to Steele
Street, South on Steele Street to East 26th Avenue,
West on East 26th Avenue to York Street, and North
on York Street to the point of beginning.

C. The following described area shall be detached from
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall be
come a part of R ishel Junior H igh School attendance

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

area.

57a

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and
Elizabeth Street, thence: East on East 34th Avenue to
Fillmore Street, South on Fillmore Street to East 32nd
Avenue, East on East 32nd Avenue to Steele Street,
South on Steele Street to East 31st Avenue, West on
East 31st Avenue to Elizabeth Street, and North on
Elizabeth Street to the point of beginning.

D. The following described area shall be detached from
Cole Junior H igh School attendance area and shall become
a part of K epner Junior H igh School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 31st Avenue and
Elizabeth Street, thence: East on East 31st Avenue to
Steele Street South on Steele Street to East 28th Ave
nue West on East 28th Avenue to Elizabeth Street, and
North on Elizabeth Street to the point of beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

58a

(See Opposite) HŜ

;>
c

59a

60a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint
(R esolution No. 1531)

W h e r e a s , pursuant to the Resolution of this Board of
Education passed on May 16, 1969, and numbered 1490, in
response to the subsequent specific direction of this Board
of Education, and in accordance with Article VIII, Section
2 of the By Laws of this Board, the Superintendent of this
School District has made a proposal for stabilization of
memberships of elementary schools in Northeast Denver
and for further integration of the Denver Public Schools
which proposal suggests, among other things, certain
changes in the boundaries of the attendance areas of cer
tain elementary schools of this School District as one of
the steps designed to improve educational opportunity in
the public schools of this District;

W h e r e a s , this Board of Education did receive said pro
posal of the Superintendent for study and action and did
order that the citizens of this School District be given an
opportunity to express their views on said proposal at pub
lic hearings set for that purpose; and

W h e r e a s , this Board of Education, having heard the
views of the citizens of this School District on the said pro
posal of the Superintendent; having considered racial and
ethnic composition of pupil memberships in the elementary
schools of this District, traffic patterns, distances, housing
patterns, school building capacities, optimum pupil mem
berships for the schools concerned, pupil achievement data,
potential quality of the instructional program, the need for
providing transportation to pupils and the cost thereof;
availability of time and staff to develop programs, com
municate with parents and children, and to orient the per
sonnel involved; and having otherwise informed itself on

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5

61a

the questions presented by the said proposal, F inds that,
because of the housing patterns in the City and County of
Denver, certain elementary schools in Northeast Denver
contain growing numbers of pupils of racial and ethnic
minorities; that a reduction of such numbers is desirable
as one of the steps to improve educational opportunity in
such schools; and that the proposal of the Superintendent
is consistent with the foregoing and, as hereinafter set
forth, will reasonably accomplish such reduction and there
after stabilize the racial and ethnic composition of pupil
memberships in these schools and further the integration
of the Denver Public Schools; and that the adoption of the
said proposal is in the public interest;

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Now T h e r e f o r e , I t I s R e s o l v e d by the Board of Educa
tion of School District No. 1 in the City and County of
Denver and State of Colorado that the Superintendent is
directed to develop plans in accordance with the concept of
the Elementary School Complex as generally outlined in
his report heretofore received by this Board of Education
and entitled “Planning Quality Education,” and to initiate
implementation of such plans commencing with the opening
of school in September of 1969, for the following two group
ings of elementary schools of this District to be known as
Complex 1 and Complex 2 respectively:

Complex 1 Complex 2
Ashley
Carson
Hallett
Montclair
Montclair Annex
Palmer

Ashland
Barnum
Boulevard
Brown
Cheltenham
Colfax

62a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Complex 1

Philips
Steck
Teller

Park Hill

Complex 2
Cowell
Eagleton
Edison
Fairview

Whiteman Newlon
Perry

I t I s Further R esolved that, effective as of the opening
of school in September 1969, the boundaries of the atten
dance areas of the following elementary schools in this
School District be, and they are hereby, changed as follows:

The following described area shall be detached from
the M ontclair E lementary School area and shall become
a part of the Philips E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 16th Avenue and
Kearney Street, thence; East along East 16th Avenue
to Monaco Parkway, North on Monaco Parkway to
Batavia Place, East on Batavia Place to Oneida Street,
South on Oneida Street to East Colfax Avenue, West
on East Colfax Avenue to Kearney Street, and North
on Kearney Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from
the Philips E lementary School area and shall become a
part of the A shley E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 29th Avenue
and Oneida Street, thence; East on East 29th Avenue
to the alley between Olive and Pontiac Streets, South
along the alley between Olive and Pontiac Streets to
East 26th Avenue, West along East 26th Avenue to
Oneida Street, and North along Oneida Street to the
point of beginning.

63a

The following described area shall be detached from the
Philips E lementary School attendance area and shall
become a part of the Palmer E lementary School atten
dance area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 26th Avenue
and Kearney Street, thence; East along East 26th
Avenue to Niagara Street, South on Niagara Street to
East 23rd Avenue, West on East 23rd Avenue to
Leyden Street, North on Leyden Street to East 25th
Avenue, West on East 25th Avenue to Kearney Street,
and North on Kearney Street to the point, of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the
Park H ill E lementary School area and shall become a
part of the Steck E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 26th Avenue
and Clermont Street, thence; East on East 26th Av
enue to Dexter Street, South on Dexter Street to East
25th Avenue, West on East 25th Avenue to Clermont
Street, and North on Clermont Street to the point of
beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the
Park H ill E lementary School area and shall become a
part of the Steele E lementary School area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 26th Avenue and
Colorado Boulevard, thence; East on East 26th Av
enue to Clermont Street, South on Clermont Street
to East 25th Avenue, West on East 25th Avenue to
Colorado Boulevard, and North on Colorado Boulevard
to the point of beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

64a

The following described area shall be detached from the
Palmer E lementary School attendance area and shall be
come a part of the P hillips E lementary School atten
dance area:

Beginning at the intersection of East Louisiana Avenue
and South Oneida Street, thence; East on East Lou
isiana Avenue to South Quebec Street, South on South
Quebec Street to East Florida Avenue, West on East
Florida Avenue to South Oneida Street, and North on
South Oneida Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the
W hiteman, M oore, M ontclair, and M ontclair A nnex E le
mentary Schools attendance areas and shall become a part
of the Barrett E lementary School attendance area.

All of Lowry Air Force Base, east of Quebec Street,
within the limits of the City and County of Denver.

The following described area shall be detached from the
B arrett E lementary School attendance area and shall
become a part of the M ontclair E lementary School at
tendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 32nd Avenue
and Steele Street, thence; East along East 32nd Av
enue to Jackson Street, South on Jackson Street to
East 31st Avenue, West on East 31st Avenue to Gar
field Street, South on Garfield Street to East 30th
Avenue, West on East 30th Avenue to Monroe Street,
South on Monroe Street to East 29th Avenue, East on
East 29th Avenue to Garfield Street, South on Garfield
Street to East 28th Avenue, West on East 28th Avenue
to Cook Street, North on Cook Street to East 29th

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

65a

Avenue, "West on East 29th Avenue to Steele Street,
and North on Steele Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall he detached from the
B arrett E lementary School attendance area and shall be
come a part of the W hiteman E lementary School at
tendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and
Steele Street, thence; East on East 34th Avenue to
Monroe Street, South on Monroe Street to East 32nd
Avenue, West on East 32nd Avenue to Steele Street,
and North on Steele Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall he detached from the
B arrett Elementary School attendance area and shall be
come a part of the M oore E lementary School attendance
area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 36th Avenue
and Jackson Street, thence; East on East 36th Avenue
to Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorado Boulevard
to the north boundary of the Clayton College property,
West on the north boundary of the Clayton College
property to Jackson Street, and North on Jackson
Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall he detached from the
Barrett E lementary School attendance area and shall
become a part of the Carson E lementary School atten
dance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 29th Avenue
and Steele Street, thence; East on East 29th Avenue
to Cook Street, South on Cook Street to East 28th

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

66a

Avenue, East on East 28th Avenue to Monroe Street,
South on Monroe Street to East 26th Avenue, West on
East 26th Avenue to Steele Street, and North on Steele
Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the
B arrett E lementary School attendance area and shall
become a part of the A sbtjby E lementary School atten
dance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 36th Avenue and
Garfield Street, thence; East on East 36th Avenue to
Jackson Street, South on Jackson Street to the north
boundary of the Clayton College property, West on
the north boundary of the Clayton College property
to Monroe Street, North on Monroe Street to East
35th Avenue, East on East 35th Avenue to Garfield
Street, and North on Garfield Street to the point of
beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

36TH AVf

67a

68a

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that the Superintendent is di
rected to take steps to establish pre-primary educational
programs in the schools of the North-Central portion of
the District in September 1969, as proposed in his said
report “Planning Quality Education.”

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that the Superintendent is di
rected to develop and institute plans and programs to make
Hallett Elementary School a demonstration integrated
school as of September 1969, by use of voluntary transfer
of pupils with transportation provided by the District.

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that the Superintendent is di
rected to continue the present practices of transporting
pupils from Stedman Elementary School to relieve over
crowding at that school, and to obtain the reduction of a
number of pupils attending the Stedman Elementary School
necessary to permit removal of mobile classroom units
from that school by providing transportation for such pu
pils to Denison, Force, and Schenck Elementary Schools.

It is f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that the present practice of trans
porting pupils from Smith Elementary School to Alcott,
Asbury, Doull, Force, McKinley, Moore, Slavens, and Steele
Elementary Schools be continued.

I t i s f u r t h e r r e s o l v e d that, for the purpose of improv
ing education and furthering of integration the schools
included in Elementary School Complex 5 as described in
the report “Planning Quality Education” that such schools
be grouped for cooperative planning with the elementary
schools of other elementary school complexes as follow, or
with such other or different schools as the Superintendent

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

69a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

may designate from time to time, utilizing the criteria of
ratio of school and group memberships, racial composi
tion of memberships, potential for educational and social
improvement, and school facilities; that such cooperative
planning shall be accomplished by the local schools included
within such groupings through planning committees com
posed of school staff members, P.T.A. representatives and
other citizens in the community; that such planning com
mittees shall be selected and shall operate under rules
and regulations prescribed by the Superintendent; that
any cooperative plans so developed shall be mutually agreed
upon by such committees prior to implementation thereof;
and that implementation of such cooperative plans may be
undertaken by the Superintendent within the limitations
of law and the policies of this Board of Education,

Schools Grouped With
Schools in Complex 5 Complex 5 Sch
Crofton Bradley
Harrington Pitts

Slavens
University Park

W yatt Bromwell
Moore
Stevens

Columbine Godsman
Gilpin Goldrick

Gust
Sabin
Schmitt
Traylor

70a

Schools Grouped With
Schools in Complex 5 Complex 5 Schools

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Whittier Asbury
Lincoln
Eosedale
Thatcher
Washington Park

Mitchell
Stedman

Denison
Donll
Force
Johnson
Schenck

Smith Ash Grove
Cory
Ellis
Fallis
Knight
McMeen

71a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Filed June 19, 1969)

C ome N ow the Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and move
the Court for a preliminary injunction enjoining the de
fendants, and each and every of the defendant School
District’s officers, agents, servants, employees and each of
them, and all other persons in active concert or participa
tion with them be, preliminarily during the pendency of
this action and permanently thereafter, restrained and
enjoined

(a) from in any way interfering with, modifying, can
celling or rescinding the purchase order for said
twenty-seven school buses;

(b) from destroying, changing or otherwise modifying
in any manner whatsoever, or relocating those
documents, contracts, schedules, or other writings
and memoranda relating or pertaining to the im
plementation of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and
1531.

(c) from taking any action or making any communi
cation to faculty, staff, parents or students during
the pendency of this action or before permanent
orders are issued by this Court which would make
it impossible or substantially more difficult to pro
ceed with the implementation of Resolutions No.
1520, 1524, and 1531 at the start of the school year
in September, 1969, with the exception that de
fendants shall not otherwise during such time be
prevented from simultaneously preparing for the
implementation of alternate or additional plans
concerning the matters described herein as they
so desire.

72a

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

As grounds therefor plaintiffs incorporate herein by
reference the allegations contained in their Complaint and
further allege that certain of the defendants have been
directed to and are in fact implementing the recision of
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, and the substitute
Resolutions therefor, and in addition have been directed
to review the school bus purchase contract; that unless
plaintiffs are granted preliminary relief, said implemen
tation and review by the defendants may destroy, alter,
modify, revoke or otherwise irreparably injure or prevent
reinstatement and implementation of Resolutions No. 1520,
1524 and 1531. Plaintiffs will thereby sustain immediate
and irreparable injury and damage for which they have
no adequate remedy at law. This motion will be made and
based upon the pleadings, records and proceeding herein.

Barnes & Jensen
By /s/ Craig S. Barnes

Craig S. Barnes
Denver, Colorado 80210
2430 South University Blvd.,
Tel.: 744-6455
/s/ Gordon G. Greiner

Gordon G. Greiner
500 Equitable Building,
Denver, Colorado 80202
Tel: 292-9200
Attorneys For Plaintiffs

73a

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Vooriiees, Jr.

(Filed July 16, 1969)

Come N ow defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr., individually and as members,
Board of Education, School District Number One, Denver,
Colorado, and for answer to plaintiff’s Complaint admit,
deny and state:

I
Admit the allegations of Article I. Jurisdiction.

II
Admit the allegations of Article II. Parties.

III
For answer to the First Cause of Action:
1. Admit the General Factual allegations of the First

Cause of Action.

2. Admit the allegations of the First Count.

3. As to the Second Count:
A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A.
B. Answering paragraph B, deny that these answering

defendant Board members participated in the reeission of
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 and state that their
acts in voting ag*ainst reeission were motivated by the edu
cational needs of the children of Denver. Further answer
ing, these answering defendants are not advised as to the
motivation of those defendant Board members voting to

74a

rescind Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 in so acting
but that said Board members have stated repeatedly to
these defendants that they so acted because of a mandate
from the people of the City of Denver requiring said de
fendants so to act, and in order to restore the confidence
of the people of Denver in the Board of Education so that
a bond issue may be passed.

C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C.

4, As to the Third Count:
A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A and

the allegations of paragraphs B and C, except that these
answering defendants allege that the pupil populations of
East High School, Phillips Elementary School and Park
Hill Elementary School were not, prior to the passage of
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, substantially segre
gated on the basis of race and ethnicity, but that the pupil
populations of said schools, without the passage and im
plementation of said resolutions, would inevitably and pre
dictably have become segregated on the basis of race and
ethnicity.

B. Answering paragraph D of the Third Count, these
answering defendants are not advised as to the motivation
of those defendant Board members voting in favor of re-
cission except as reflected in their statements quoted herein
in answer to paragraph B of the Second Count. Further
answering, admit that racial and ethnic separation existing
in the schools affected prior to the passage of Resolutions
No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 would have been significantly al
leviated by the implementation of such resolutions.

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

75a

5. Admit the allegations of the Fourth Count, except that
these answering defendants deny that they acted as alleged
in paragraph B.

6. As to the Fifth Count:
A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A and

the allegations of paragraphs C and D.
B. Answering paragraph B, admit that the pupil popula

tion of the schools affected by Resolutions No. 1520, 1524
and 1531 were, or were inevitably becoming, segregated on
the basis of race and. ethnicity and admit the remaining
allegations of paragraph B, except that these answering
defendants deny that assignment of large numbers of
Negro or Hispano faculty is in and of itself a necessary
cause of unequal educational opportunity where such teach
ers are qualified and experienced, unless the presence of
concentrations of such teachers is viewed by the students
as a confirmation and reinforcement of the separate and
segregated racial or ethnic character of such schools.

7. As to the Sixth Count, admit the allegations thereof,
except that these answering defendants deny that they
acted as alleged in paragraph D and allege that the pupil
populations of East High School, Phillips Elementary
School and Park Hill Elementary School were not, prior
to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531,
substantially segregated on the basis of race or ethnicity
but that the pupil populations of such schools without the
passage and implementation of said resolutions would in
evitably and predictably have become segregated on the
basis of race and ethnicity.

Answer of Defendants John E. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James- D. Voorhees, Jr.

76a

8. For further affirmative answer to the First Cause of
Action, these answering defendants state:

(A) The increasing urbanization of American society has
produced educational problems for big city public school
systems (including Denver) unique to this time and place
and not subject to solution by traditional educational pat
terns of staffing, of attendance, of curriculum, and of facil
ity needs. These inadequacies in urban public education are
generally not recognized, or if recognized, are not accepted
by the majority population.

(B) Unmet, these new urban educational problems result
in inevitable and substantially irreversible educational in
equality for a large and increasing number of American
urban children, a high proportion of whom are from racial
or ethnic minorities and/or are the products of the sub-
culture of urban poverty. In Denver the fact of such in
equality is demonstrated by differences between and among
schools in standard achievement scores, the incidence of
dropouts, differences as to individual course offerings, the
quality of teaching and numbers of faculty transfers, school
discipline, the degree of motivation and achievement in
students, and other observable factors.

(C) The presence of large numbers of children affected
by educational and learning disabilities caused by race,
ethnicity and/or poverty in any school reduces, and may
substantially eliminate, the effect in such school of any
known remedial or compensatory programs which are eco
nomically feasible.

(D) Against this background and upon the professional
recommendation of its Superintendent of Schools as being

Answer of Defendants JohnH. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

77a

educationally valid, defendant Board of Education enacted
Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531. Its intent, in so act
ing, was to begin to meet and to overcome the conditions
stated herein which had resulted and are now resulting in
grossly unequal educational opportunity for many children.

(E) Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 were adopted
after citywide publicity, public hearings (including tele
vision presentations), neighborhood meetings and wide
spread opportunity for interested and concerned citizens
to comment. Comments communicated to defendant Board
of Education in public meetings and to these defendants
both publicly, and privately, were in general favorable to
the educational purpose and intent of said resolutions, but
were critical of them for non-educational reasons, among
which were:

(a) On one hand, that the resolutions represented only
a token approach to the problems of the School
District, and on the other, that some alleged con
stitutionally protected right of parents to select
the school their children should attend was threat
ened.

(b) That in individual cases the resolutions might re
sult in inconvenience to individual citizens.

(c) That the resolutions did not reflect the will of the
majority of the people of the School District and
were being imposed upon the majority by a vocal
and dangerous minority as a sociological experi
ment.

(d) That the resolutions represented an interference
on the part of the School District with the right of

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James. D. Voorhees, Jr.

78a

citizens to purchase and reside in residences of
their choosing.

(e) That the resolutions would require Anglo children
to attend school with minority children and would
subject such Anglo children to an inadequate edu
cational opportunity and/or the possibility of
physical harm. Certain parents of minority chil
dren affected by the resolutions also expressed
fears for their children in primarily Anglo schools.

(f) That the resolutions and their implementation
would require expenditure of School District funds
for transportation, which expenditure was stated
to be unnecessary and uncalled for.

(F) Few, if any, objections asserted that the educational
purpose of the resolutions was improper.

(Gr) The decision of defendant Board of Education to
adopt and thereafter to implement Besolutions No. 1520,
1524 and 1531 was made after the most careful balancing
of the objections presented, against the known existence of
the conditions requiring change, in order to begin to equal
ize the educational opportunities of those many children
not now receiving equal opportunity. The programs estab
lished by said resolutions were and are deemed education
ally sound, economically feasible and conceptually valid for
the alleviation of educational inequalities in this School
District, and were recommended for such purpose by the
Superintendent of Schools and his staff. They represent
a beginning, at various levels and with various approaches,
of the development of programs designed to meet the pe
culiar learning problems of children disabled from achieve

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James. D. Voorhees, Jr.

79a

ment by the fact of minority racial or ethnic isolation and/
or isolation by the culture of poverty.

(H) No viable alternative to said resolutions has been
proposed by those defendant members of the Board of
Education who voted to rescind said resolutions, except to
propose certain minimal voluntary programs. Such a pro
posal appears to constitute on the one hand recognition by
the present majority of this Board that educational in
equality exists in the public schools of this District, and at
the same time limits solutions designed to establish equal
ity of opportunity to those approved by a majority of the
electors of this District, such majority comprising, in gen
eral, persons not affected by the problems which require
solution.

(I) The apparent assumption on the part of many citi
zens and of the majority Board members voting to rescind
said resolutions that the resolutions represent the first step
toward a program of total racial and ethnic balance
throughout the School District is not justified by any
past Board action; said resolutions represent an attempt
to ascertain on a broad pilot basis whether and to what
extent integregation of pupil populations does result in
equalization of educational opportunity and are designed
to develop and prove the validity (or invalidity) of various
programs and approaches to the unmet needs of modern
urban education.

(J) These answering defendants submit that failure to
implement Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 in Septem
ber of 1969 will, in addition to the consequences alleged in
plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, effectively terminate any
possibility of material improvement in the unequal educa

Answer of Defendants John E. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James- D. Voorhees, Jr.

80a

tional opportunity now offered to a large number of mi
nority racial and ethnic children in the Denver public
schools and will, therefore, in a real sense, condemn very
many children of this School District to continuing inequal
ity in the education available to them.

W h e r e f o r e , these answering defendants, having fully
answered plaintiffs’ First Cause of Action, pray that the
Court grant the relief prayed for in plaintiffs’ Prayer for
First Cause of Action, except that no recovery of costs
be adjudicated against these defendants.

For answer to the Second Cause of Action:
1. As to the First Count:

A. Incorporate herein by reference their answer to the
First Cause of Action.

B. Answering paragraph B, admit that the acts described
in paragraph B have resulted in and have maintained racial
and ethnic segregation within the School District but deny
that said acts were taken deliberately and purposely by
these answering defendants to create, foster or maintain
racial and ethnic segregation.

Further answering the allegations of paragraph B of the
First Count, these answering defendants:

1. Admit that the use of a so-called “neighborhood
school” attendance policy results, and has resulted,
in significant racial and ethnic segregation in the
School District, reflective of segregated residential
patterns but deny that they acted with respect to
any “neighborhood school” policy with the intent
and purpose to create, foster and maintain racially
and ethnically segregated schools.

Answer of Defendants JohnU. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

81a

2. Admit that school attendance area boundaries have
been created, altered and enforced with the effect
of establishing and maintaining racial and ethnic
segregation within the School District but deny that
they acted with respect to said boundaries with the
purpose and intent of creating, fostering and main
taining racial and ethnic segregation within the
School District.

3. Admit that historically from time to time optional
attendance areas have been established for various
schools within the School District but deny that
said optional attendance areas are or at any time
were in contravention of the defendant Board of
Education’s existing published policies and resolu
tions ; deny that these answering defendants par
ticipated in the establishment of any optional at
tendance area; and deny that any optional attend
ance areas were applicable only to Anglo children,

4. Admit that historically a disproportionate number
of Negro and Hispano faculty and staff have on
occasion been assigned to those schools having pre
dominantly Negro and Hispano pupil populations;
admit that such assignments may have further con
firmed and solidified the racially and ethnically seg
regated character of such schools; but deny that
these answering defendants acted with respect to
such assignment of Negro and Hispano faculty and
staff with the purpose and intent to create, foster
and maintain racial and ethnic segregation in the
School District.

5. Admit that historically optional attendance areas
have from time to time been created for certain

Answer of Defendants JohnH. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

schools undergoing transition to gradually increas
ing proportions of Negro and/or Hispano pupil
population; deny that these answering defendants
participated in the establishment of any optional
area; and admit that optional areas may have had
the result alleged, that is, the retention and confine
ment of Negro and/or Hispano pupils to schools of
predominantly Negro and/or Hispano pupil popu
lations.

C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C of the First
Count.

2. As to the Second Count:

A. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First
Cause of Action and their answer to paragraph C of the
First Count of the Second Cause of Action.

B. Answering paragraph B :

1. Admit that certain schools in predominantly Negro
and Hispano attendance areas may have physical
plants, equipment and curricula inferior to some
schools with predominantly Anglo student pupil
populations but deny that all predominantly Negro
and Hispano schools have physical plants and
equipment inferior to that provided to schools with
predominantly Anglo student pupil populations
and deny that to their knowledge inferior mate
rials and supplies have been furnished to predomi
nantly Negro and Hispano schools.

2. Admit that in certain schools with predominantly
Negro or Hispano pupil populations there has been

Answer of Defendants JohnH. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James- D. Voorhees, Jr.

83a

a disproportionately large number of less experi
enced faculty assigned and at the same time, as to
certain schools with predominantly Anglo pupil
populations, that there has been a disproportion
ately large number of more experienced faculty
assigned.

C. Answering paragraph C, admit that schools provided
with resources inferior to other schools do provide for the
students assigned to such schools an educational oppor
tunity unequal and inferior to that provided by other
schools in the School District.

3. As to the Third Count:
A. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First

Cause of Action.
B. Incorporate by reference their answer to paragraph

C of the First Count of this Second Cause of Action.
C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C.
D. Admit the allegations of paragraph I).
4. As to the Fourth Count:
A. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First

Cause of Action,
B. Answering paragraph B, admit the existence in cer

tain schools of the School District of various systems of
pupil ability grouping.

C. Answering paragraph C, admit that among other cri
teria used in ability grouping is the ability to learn, and
admit that classification as alleged may result in assign
ment to regular or accelerated educational programs in
individual courses.

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

84a

D. Answering paragraph D, admit that under certain
circumstances the application and administration of sys
tems of ability grouping may result in the denial to stu
dents subject thereto of an educational opportunity equal
to that offered to other students but deny that such ability
grouping will always afford an unequal educational oppor
tunity as between the minor Negro and Plispano plaintiffs
and Anglo students of comparable ability and qualification.
W herefore, having fully answered the Second Cause of

Action these defendants pray that the relief prayed for in
plaintiffs’ Prayer for Second Cause of Action be granted,
except that should the Court order that any comprehensive
plan be submitted as prayed in paragraph A l.(b) and/or
paragraph A 3.(b) thereof, these defendants suggest that
any such plan should be educationally sound and should be
implemented within a time schedule fixed by the Court,
and except that no recovery of'costs be adjudicated against
these answering defendants.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ R achel B. N oel

Rachel B. Noel
/s/ John H. A messe

John H. Amesse
/s/ James D. V oorhees, Jr.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.
(Addresses of the Answering Defendants omitted)

* * * * *
(Certificate of Service omitted)

Answer of Defendants John It. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel
and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

85a

Hearing on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969

[253 * * *
R a c h e l B. Noel, a witness called by and on behalf of

Plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn was examined and
testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:

The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.

The Witness: Rachel B. Noel, 2601 Adams.

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mrs. Noel, you are one of the Defendants in this case?

A. Yes.
Q. You’re a member of the Board of Education of

School District Number 1? A. Yes.
Q, And how long have you been a member of the Board

[26] of Education? A. I was elected to the Board in
May 1965.

Q. What was your current address? A. 2601 Adams.
Q. How long have you lived at that address, Mrs. Noel?

A. About ten years.
Q. So you moved there in approximately 1958? A.

Right.
Q. In 1958, Mrs. Noel, did you have any children going

to the elementary schools of the Denver School District?
A. Yes, I did. I had two children attending Park Hill
School.

Q. Now during the course of your residence or during
the course of their progress through elementary school
was there any change made in the school of their at
tendance? A. My daughter was in second grade when

86a

she went to Park Hill and she attended second, third and
fourth grades, but when she went to fifth grade Barrett
School had been built and she completed her elementary
education at Barrett.

Q. Barrett opened in 1960! A. 1960.
Q. Do you recall approximately what the racial com

position of Park Hill Elementary School was back in 1958
and 1959? A. Predominantly white.

[27] Q. And when Barrett opened, do you recall whether
or not it was predominantly Anglo or predominantly Black?
A. Predominantly Black.

Q. So then your child was sent from an integrated school
to a segregated school? A. That’s right.

Q. How if at all, Mrs. Noel, did that event affect your
awareness of school board policy? A. "Well, it was very
clear that when she started to Park Hill School in the
second grade and she was being transported to Park Hill
School by a bus, at that time the bus was just taking—
was taking at least half and half if not more ’white kids to
Park Hill School, and in the course of the time she was
attending, and I would say as I can recollect, a year or
year and a half, more Black kids were riding that bus to
Park Hill School, and it seemed very clear to me and to
many other parents that Barrett School was built—Dis
cussions began about it being needed because so many
Black kids were coming into Park Hill School, the bus
was practically carrying Black kids to Park Hill School
and Barrett School was built at that time. It just seemed
so clear to us that this was the reason.

Q. Now, Mrs. Noel, with respect to your daughter’s
change in school, from Park Hill School, which was inte
grated to the Barrett School, which was segregated, did
that event [28] lead you to any sort of an appraisal or

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

87a

an awareness of differences in the educational programs
at those two schools? A. Well, my daughter told me—-
she was in the fifth grade at Barret School when she
entered, when Barrett opened; that she was having the
same thing in the fifth grade that she had had in the
fourth grade at Park Hill during several conversations
with her about not having much homework or not seem
ingly having much interest. And I went to school and
I talked to the teachers—to her teacher and I talked to
the principal and—as a parent, trying to find out what it
was. I sat in on the classes. And I wanted to see what
it was. And to the best of my judgment and certainly
my great concern based on her statements to me—it seemed
that she was not getting what she should have gotten and
-what she would have gotten at Park Hill since she was
having the same thing over in the fifth grade as she had
had in the fourth.

Q. Now7 that event occurred sometime in 1960 with the
opening of Barrett School? A. Right.

Q. Within the next two years, Mrs. Noel, did any other
event occur that again raised the issue of whether addi
tional new schools be built in northeast Denver? A. Pm
sorry. I didn’t get the first part of your question.

[293 Q. Between 1960 and 1962 was there any proposal
of the School Board which again, as had Barrett, brought
into focus the question of whether new schools should be
constructed in northeast Denver? A. It was at that time
—the then superintendent of schools recommended the
building of a junior high school at 32nd and Colorado which
is the Barrett side, actually.

Q. Was there any community concern over that propo
sal? A. There was great community concern, not only in

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

88a

the Black community but throughout the city that the day
that school opened it would be a segregated school.

Q. Mrs. Noel, did that concern lead to any affirmative
action by the Board in 1962? A. The Board of Education
appointed a special committee on equality of educational
opportunity in November I believe of 1962.

Q. Is it not a fact, Mrs. Noel, that you served on that
committee ? A. I was a member of that committee ?

Q. Now how long approximately did the committee de
liberate? A. Let’s see, the report was presented in 1964.
So, it’s about 18 months.

Q. What sort of responsibilities were given to this special
committee? [30] A. The committee was asked to look
throughout the school system concerning equality of edu
cational opportunity with special reference to racial and
ethnic factors.

Q. During the course of its deliberation, Mrs. Noel, while
the committee was deliberating, did the Board of Educa
tion formulate any new policy with respect to the racial
characteristics of the schools? A. This policy 5100 was
formulated by the Board after the recommendations to the
Board of Education from our committee had been made.

Q. Does policy 5100 set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1
which you now have in front of you— A. Yes.

Q. Was policy 5100 passed by the Board at the request
of this special committee? A. Yes.

Q. Was that one of the recommendations of the com
mittee? A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would move the
introduction of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.

The Court: Do you have any objection?

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

89a

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have already stipu
lated to the admission of that exhibit.

The Court. Very well. It’s received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 received in

evidence.)
[31] The Court: I t hasn’t been before. Those

stipulated exhibits I think the order should provide
they are all received and you can draw up a list
when you have an opportunity for both sides, Mr.
Kerr.

The Clerk: Yes, Your Honor.

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mrs. Noel, the next exhibit is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20G

which is also, Your Honor, one of the stipulated exhibits.
Calling your attention, Mrs. Noel, to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

20, during the course of its deliberations did the com
mittee come to any kind of conclusion as to whether or
not it made any difference whether the segregated schools
were segregated by force of law or simply by intent1?

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, I ’m going to object to
that question. I think the exhibit speaks for itself
and the result of a deliberation of that committee.

The Court: True. Sustained.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I might point out—
The Court: I ’ll read the report.
Mr. Greiner: Well, it’s a hundred some pages

long and I was trying to point out the particular
aspects of the report upon which we will rely, Your
Honor.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—-Direct

90a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: Well, that’s different. You go ahead.
Are you going to have her sum it up?

Mr. Greiner: Yes, Your Honor.
[323 The Court: Do you object to this?
Mr. Craig: I do object, Your Honor. I object to

the witness just reading back what the report says.
The Court: May I take a look at it?
Mr. Craig: Your Honor, I think counsel can point

to the sections in which he relies in his summary of
this case.

The Court: That’s better, I think. Why don’t you
just call her attention to the recommendations and
the conclusions that you wish to bring forward?

Mr. Greiner: That was my intention, Your Honor.

Q. Mrs. Noel, directing your attention to Page 6 of the
report did the committee reach any conclusion whether
there was a possibility of unequal educational opportu
nity existing due to the fact of segregation in the schools?
A. Yes, it did.

Q. In summary, Mrs. Noel, what was the committee’s
conclusion? A. That there was in Denver real possibility
of unequal educational opportunity because of the exis
tence of clusters of minorities, racial and ethnic groups
within the city.

Q. Now during the course of its deliberations, Mrs.
Noel, did the committee consider the Board’s—-the School
Board’s boundary policies? [333 A. Yes, it did.

Q. Mere those policies then in writing? A. They were
not in writing at the time the committee was investigated.

Q. Did the committee make any recommendation to the
Board as to whether or not those policies should be re
duced to writing? A. Yes, it did.

91a

Q. Was that recommendation followed? A. This rec
ommendation was followed.

Q. Again, Mrs. Noel, calling your attention to Page A-5
of the exhibit, did the committee reach any conclusions as
to whether because of segregation, whether the cause of
segregation had any effect upon the detrimental effect of
that segregation?

Mr. Craig: I ’m going to make the same objec
tion. I think Page A-5 speaks for itself.

The Court: True, but he is just calling attention
to the fact that it did make a recommendation. I
don’t think we’re in any trouble yet. Overruled.

Mr. Craig: My point is, if the testimony para
phrases what the report says then we could have
some conflict, and I think we ought to stick to what
the report does say.

The Court: Well, we will see what it’s leading to.

Q. Do you have the question in mind, Mrs. Noel? E34]
A. I think as I look at this that the statement in 1954, the
United States Supreme Court stated that segregated edu
cation is inherently unequal education. And that there
was ample authority for such a statement. While the Court
in that instance was concerned with segregation estab
lished by law—

The Court: Is she reading from the report now?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.

A. —the committee is persuaded that the statement can
correctly be made where de facto segregation and minor
ity races occur because the factors which—the most obvi
ous of which is a pattern of housing restriction.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

92a

Q. So then the commission’s conclusion was that the
cause of the segregation didn’t make any difference? A.
That’s right.

Q. Calling your attention to Page D-12 of this report,
Mrs. Noel, in the course of its duties, did the commission
have occasion to examine the Board’s policy regarding the
assignment of minority teachers? A. Yes, it did.

Q. What conclusions did the committee reach regarding
these policies of the Board? A. The committee felt be
cause of the great and high proportion of minority teach
ers and in minority schools that there was a policy of
assigning them to schools that had high [35] percentages
of minority population. And there is a table—or there
should be—that shows this very definite—

Q. That’s at Page 36 in the appendix of the exhibit?
A. Yes, I think it is.

Q. And that shows the concentration of minority teach
ers in minority schools? A. Right.

Q. Mrs. Noel, in view of that conclusion of the com
mittee, did it make any recommendations to the Board?
A. Yes, it did. The committee recommended that the
Board of Education should establish—this is the first
recommendation in this group—and enforce a policy that
requested teachers of minority background, that they will
be assigned throughout the system.

Q. Was that recommendation accepted by the Board?
A. I don’t believe that that is a part of the policy in
regard to teachers—teacher assignments today. However,
this was a recommendation.

Q. Mrs. Noel, I ’d like to call your attention to Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 26. This I don’t believe has been stipulated
to, Your Honor. And, I would ask you if you can identify

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

93a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26? A. This is Denver School policy
employees’ change of assignment, 1617(a).

Q. That’s a policy 1617(a). Now, can you tell from
E36J the exhibit, Mrs. Noel, when that policy was adopted
by the Board?

Mr. Craig: Yonr Honor, at this point I just want
to interrupt to state that this is a policy—this policy
is incorporated in Exhibit 20 which we believe we
have agreed to the admission of.

Mr. Greiner: Fine.

A. The date is April 1st, 1963.
Q. So then this was the policy on teacher assignment

that was in existence when your committee made this con
clusion about the assignment of minority teachers? A.
Yes, because this report was issued in 1964.

Q. And there has been no change in policy 1617(a) since
the issuance of your report? A. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Greiner: I take it then, Your Honor, that
Exhibit 26 will be received?

The Court: Well, it’s part of Exhibit 20 he says
and stipulated to.

Mr. Craig: Yes, Your Honor, we didn’t think it
necessary to stipulate to these individually if
they’re part of another exhibit.

The Court: We will receive 26 anyway.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26 was re

ceived in evidence.)

[373 Q. Mrs. Noel, can you tell us then after the report
of this special committee, what actions the Board took

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

94a

which again brought up for the community’s consideration
the issue of whether schools in northeast Denver-—whether
there should be built new school? A. Well, to the next
concern of the Board of Education in regard to building
new schools, as I remember, was the building of the addi
tion to Hallett School.

Q. That’s an elementary school? A. That’s an elemen
tary school. And discussions concerning this began soon
after I became a member of the Board.

Q. And that was in— A. In 1965.
Q. In May? A. I think it began in June.
Q. Now again, what was the concern about building an

addition to Hallett School? A. The Superintendent had
recommended that eight classrooms should be added to
Hallett because of its overcrowdedness and I felt that this
would be adding more classrooms—would be really mak
ing more space for segregation and opposed it on those
grounds.

Q. Now at that time in 1965 was Hallett a predomi
nantly a Negro school? [38] A. Hallett was becoming-
growing more predominantly Negro every day.

Q. Now did that community concern, Mrs. Noel, about
those additions to Hallett—and by the way those addi
tions were built were they not? A. Yes.

Q. Did that concern lead to the formation of another
study committee? A. The concern about Hallett—there
was also a request for additions to Stedman. There was
a realization of overcrowdedness at both Hallett and Sted
man, and in addition, Smith Schools. And the fact that
they were predominantly segregated and all of this I
think in the discussions about what to do led to the
appointment by the Board of another committee called
the Advisory Council.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

95a

Q, Do you recall approximately when that committee
was appointed? A. Let’s see. In 1966, I think.

Q. Handing you what’s been received into evidence as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21, Mrs. Noel, that is the report of this
committee which you have been describing? A. Yes.

Q. The Advisory Council? A. The Advisory Council
on equality of educational opportunities.

[39] Q. Now was any particular charge given or any
set of responsibilities defined by the Board of Education
with respect to the responsibilities of this Advisory Coun
cil? A. In the charge the Advisory Council was asked
to advise the Board-—recommend to the Board about loca
tion of new schools and additions in northeast Denver.
And about changes in policies the Board had in this re
gard.

Q. Mrs. Noel, through that report, Exhibit 21, how did
the Council answer those questions which were put to them
by the Board?

Mrs. Craig: Your Honor, I’m going to object to
that question again. It isn’t clear that Mrs. Noel
was a member of that Council, and again the report
speaks for itself.

The Court: True. But, am I going to have to
read all these? Eventually I suppose I am, but as
I understand it she’s just going to call attention to
the recommendations of the Council, is that correct?

The Witness: That’s correct, as I understand it.
The Court: On the opening of new schools? I ’ll

permit her to do that.
The Witness: In the answer to the charge on Page

84, the Committee came to the conclusion that no
schools should be built in northeast Denver until
plans are developed to implement Paragraph 1(b)

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

96a

of Policy 21-C and Policy 4, 5100, and this calls
attention to consideration of £40] the ethnic and
racial characteristics of the school population mak
ing it to the extent of a heterogenous school com
munity in the consideration of the building of new
schools and the fact that the continuation of the
neighborhood schools has resulted in the concentra
tion and reduction of this concentration, should be
considered in the location of new schools.

Q. Now, Mrs. Noel, during the period of 19—

The Court: Well, what happened? What hap
pened to Hallett?

The Witness: The additions were built to Hallett.
And, I voted against it.

The Court: Go ahead.

Q. During the period 1960, Mrs. Noel, through today,
what in general has been the trend of racial composition
in northeast Denver? A. The schools are becoming more
segregated.

Q. Can you think of some example, and Pm referring
you now to Page 7 of the report where there is detailed
some of the rather dramatic changes that occurred at such
schools as Stedman, Hallett and Barrett? A. This refers
to the rapid change in the student population, rapid racial
change composition of the student population at Stedman
and at Stedman, in 1960, there were four percent Negroes
in the total student population.

[41] Q. At Stedman? A. Yes. In 1966 the pupil pop
ulation was then 89 percent Black.

Q. What is it today, Mrs. Noel? A. My guess is 99

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

97a

percent Black and 44/100. And there is another state
ment also I ’d like to call attention to, in October in 1960
at Hallett there was less than one percent and in October,
1966 the pupil population at Hallett was about 75 percent
Black. Today I would judge that that is in the 90 percent
category.

Q. So then this trend has continued over this whole
period and still continues today? A. Yes.

Q. Now the 1967 report, did it make any recommenda
tions as to possible method by which the Board could al
leviate the segregated—the segregation which it found to
exist ? A. It made a recommendation of a study of an
educational park as I recall and there was some other rec
ommendations in regard to cultural and arts programs.

Q. Now about this time was the Board considering pro
posing a bond issue to the electorate in Denver? A. Yes.

Q. With respect to that bond issue was there a proposal
for a program which might have served to relieve some
of the segregation in the schools? [423 A. Yes as a part
of the bond proposal there was presented to the electorate
in 1967—in the fall of 1967, in the middle of the school
concept as envisioned in the proposal would have allevi
ated some of the segregation in the schools in northeast
Denver.

Q. Those middle schools would have drawn their stu
dents from a wider geographic area? A. Yes, from a
wider area and transportation was to be involved.

Q. What happened to that bond issue proposal? A.
Well, the bond proposal was defeated.

Q. Was it close? A. No, not really.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time I would
like to call the Court’s attention to Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 24 which has already been received.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

98a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: Very well.

Q. Now from the time that the bond issue was defeated,
Mrs. Noel, was that in the fall of 1967? A. Yes, 1967.

Q. Was there any other affirmative step between the
fall of 1967 and the spring of 1968 taken by the Board to
relieve this problem of segregation? A. There was con
tinued pressure from parents in northeast Denver par
ticularly Smiley about the need for [43] relief for that
school and the growing segregation at that school and
there was a proposal in the consideration of Hamilton
Junior High that students from Smiley could be bused
for an addition at Hamilton, as I recall.

Q. That was busing out from Smiley to Hamilton? A.
Right.

Q. And was that going to do anything to help integrate
Smiley? A. No, this was one-way busing into the new
junior high school. It would have relieved the overcrowd
ing at Smiley but the school would have remained segre
gated.

Q. So as late as 1967 and 1968 the Board had still not
built a new junior high school to serve northeast Denver?
A. No.

Q. During the course of that period did the Board re
ceive proposals from the Division of Planning and Engi
neering Services with respect to the location of such new
schools? A. Yes.

Q. Are Exhibits 22 and 23 examples of such proposals?
A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, these exhibits have also
been stipulated into evidence.

The Court: Very well.

99a

Q. Mrs. Noel, was there any one event that occurred in
April of 1968 which had an impact upon the future actions
£44] of the Board with respect to this problem! A. I
would have to say there were two events: one was the
death of Martin Luther King and the second wras the in
troduction of the resolution in regard to a plan for inte
grating the schools of Denver, and the reason I say two
events is because the death of Martin Luther King and
the meaning of that event to me as a member of the School
Board, I think is of great importance because I felt that
as a Black person in a policy making position, as well as
Black people throughout this country, needed to see that
equality of opportunities was available in this country.
My role as a School Board member—I felt affected or
should affect those Black children in these schools and I
felt integration was important and because of that I in
troduced the resolution.

Q. Mrs. Noel, the resolution you refer to was Number
14901 A. Yes.

Q. And that’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2. Well, Mrs. Noel,
what did 1490 do with respect to School Board policy!
A. I felt that it would implement a policy really that we
already had, 5100, that had to do with equality of educa
tional opportunity and that it really would make it real,
would make it meaningful. And this direction to the Su
perintendent to draw up a plan for integrating the schools
was then directed in order to bring about this. There are
[453 two parts to this resolution. Part two is clarified in
regard to certain points. That had to do with the plan.

Q. With regard to those points, Mrs. Noel, did 1490
recognize the effect of the continuance of the neighborhood
school policy! A. Yes.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

100a

Q. What would that effect have been? A. It would
have been more concentration, more segregation.

Q. Now also with respect to Policy 1490, Mrs. Noel,
was there any indication in that policy regarding the
desirability of integration? A. You mean 5100? Yes.

Q. Now with respect to 1490, your own resolution, was
there an equation of integration with equality of educa
tional opportunity? A. This was a part of the under
standing of what it meant.

Q. So 1490 was introduced. Was it later passed by the
Board? A. It was passed by the Board in May of 1968.

Q. And were there public hearings or meetings with
respect to 1490? A. There was.

Q. Prior to its passage? [463 A. Yes, and great public
interest and comment.

Q. So then under that it became the Board’s official
policy that the integration of the schools was one of the
objectives of the Board? A. In the acceptance of the res
olution in this regard, by a vote of five to twro. Then the
Board did in my view set then on a course toward inte
gration.

Q. That was in May of 1968? A. Right,
Q. Now between May 1968 and the fall of 1968 that was

the period during which Dr. Gilberts was developing the
plan which he had been directed to propose? A. Right,
the resolution stipulated that the plan was to be presented
to the Board—submitted to the Board no later than Sep
tember 30.

Q. Now calling your attention, Mrs. Noel, to November
of 1968, going back in time for a moment, in October of
1968, the Superintendent presented his report? A. Yes,
October 10, 1968.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

101a

Q. Now that was merely a report of an overall pro
posal for the integration of Denver schools? A. It was
his plan in response to the direction of 1490.

Q. Now by the simple presentation of that report were
there any affirmative steps taken to integrate any particular
[47] school? A. There was a beginning implementation
of the proposals from the Superintendent based on his
plan.

Q. So that then in November of 1968 the Superintendent
was directed by the Board to come up with a more specific
proposal? A. I was not present at that November meet
ing, but as I recall the minutes, the Superintendent was
asked—and it was in regard to what was going to happen
in February that would need to be approved by the Board.
As part of his plan only some parts of it were to take
effect in the second semester and it was in this regard
that he was asked to bring in these more specifics.

Q. Mrs. Noel, with respect to the minutes of the meet
ing of the Board of Education, are minutes taken at
those meetings? A. Yes.

Q. And are they then prepared and in written form?
A. Yes.

Q. I’m handing you what has been marked for identifi
cation as Exhibits 28, 29 and 32 and ask you if you can
identify these.

The Court: Are those minutes?
Mr. Greiner: These are the official minutes. I

really don’t understand why the Defendants can’t
authenticate [48] their own minutes, Your Honor,
but—

Mr. Creighton: Well those were the ones we got
at 9:30 last night. We haven’t looked at them but

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

102a

certainly they may go in as authentic. We consider
it admissible here.

The Court: Very well. Exhibits 28, 29 and 30
are received.

Mr. Greiner: The other one I believe was 32,
Your Honor.

The Court: And 32.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 28, 29, 30 and

32 were received in evidence.)

Q. Mrs. Noel, was the policy of the school board with
respect to school attendance area boundaries reduced to
writing? A. Yes.

Q. And is that policy reflected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 23?
A. Yes, in 33.

Q. 33. Pardon me.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, again we would in
troduce Exhibit 33 which is in effect the neighbor
hood school policy of the district.

Mr. Creighton: That, Your Honor, is part of
Exhibit 23 previously agreed to. That may go in.

The Court: We will receive it.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 33 was received

in evidence.)

[49J Q. Then finally, Mrs. Noel, with the giving of those
instructions to the Superintendent is that the event then
which began the process which ultimately led to resolu
tions 1520, 1524 and 1531? A. That’s correct.

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Mrs. Noel. Your witness.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

* # * #

103a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Cross

[493 * * *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Craig:

Q. Mrs. Noel, during your direct examination you
testified as to your daughter’s educational experience in
both. Park Hill and Barrett Elementary Schools. A.
Right.

Q. Where did she later go to junior high school? A.
To Smiley.

Q. Where did she later go? A. To East.
Q. East Senior High School? A. Yes.
Q. And has she graduated from East? A. Yes.
Q. Has she been admitted to college? [50] A. Right.
Q. Which college is she— A. She attends Smith

College.
Q. Has she graduated from Smith? A. No, she was a

freshman last year.
Q. Could you give us your general impression of her

academic achievements there at Smith? A. Well—
Q. Was it good, bad or poor or— A. It was good.

I wished it had been better.
.u. jj.IP Tf w w w

[51] * * *
Q. Mrs. Noel, you testified as to the proposal of the

administration I believe to build a junior high school at
East 32nd and Colorado Boulevard. To your knowledge,
has that school been built? A. No.

Q. Have any other junior high schools been built since
1962 in this city? A. Well, Jesse Hamilton has been
built.

Q. And where is Jesse Hamilton located? [52] A. I
don’t know the exact address; East Dartmouth and
something.

104a

The Court: I beg your pardon1? Where!
The Witness: East Dartmouth. I don’t know

what the crossing street is. It’s way out in south
east Denver.

Q. Has the Board approved plans and is it in the pro
cess of building or planning another new junior high
school in southeast Denver? A. Also in southeast Denver,
yes.

Q. Do you know if the Board has any present plans to
build any new Junior high schools in northeast Denver?
A. Present plans?

Q. Yes. A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know if there are present plans to utilize

escess capacity in these new junior high schools to relieve
some of the junior high schools in northeast Denver?
A. Yes.

# # # # #

[541 * * *

Q. Mrs. Noel, you testified that in your opinion there
was a trend in northeast Denver toward more segrega
tion in the schools and Hallett Elementary School in
particular. Can you tell us whether or not it was true
that at the same time there was a parallel change in the
racial composition of the residential area of that part
of the city? A. Bight.

* # # # #
[ 56] * * *

Redirect Examination toy Mr. Greiner:

Q. Mrs. Noel, you mentioned in answer to the question,
what is a segregated school. Some of the indicia of a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

105a

segregated school. What are some other indicia? Do
segregated schools have for example higher drop out
rates? A. I neglected to mention that. That’s one of
the—

Q. They do? A. That’s one of the measurable—
Q. They tend here in Denver to have less experienced

teachers ?

Mr. Craig: Tour Honor, I’m going to object to
the form of the question that counsel is using. I
believe they’re leading and he has called Mrs. Noel
as his witness.

The Court: Overruled.

Q. You may answer the questions, Mrs. Noel. Do they
£57] have less experienced teachers? A. By and large
this is true.

Q. Do they have fewer teachers with say more than
ten years experience? A. I think this is correct.

Q. Do they have fewer children going on to college,
Mrs. Noel? A. This is correct.

Q. So I take it that your daughter’s example is not
typical of what happens to minority children in this
country? A. I would say the percentages are different.

Q. That’s all reflected in the drop out rate for minority
children, is it not? A. The percentages are higher in the
drop out rate for minority children.

Q. Mrs. Noel, the 1964 report was unanimous, was it
not? A. Yes.

Q. Now in reaching that unanimity was it necessary
to reach any compromises on language? A. Yes, in the
discussions of the committee as a whole, and this is what

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

106a

this report is, a result of these discussions of the com
mittee as a whole. The discussions were free and com
plete and so that all points of view were considered. And
in the acceptance of the wording, in many cases there
was a feeling by some that it should be stronger wording
or [58] weaker and a more acceptable word than was
used.

Q. Now, Mrs. Noel, with regard to the addition of
Hallett, I believe you said that your quarrel with that de
cision was it kept those children in a segregated school.
A. Yes, and it made more space for segregation.

Q. Does the same effect, the same confinement effect
obtain when mobile units are brought into a segregated
school! A. Yes.

Q. Also with respect to new additions that are being
constructing in the Park Hill area, is there not now the
building of a new addition to the new Park Hill Elementary
School! A. Yes.

Q. So that is another case, another instance where there
has been some additional construction? A. Yes.

Q. With respect to the mobile units in northeast Denver
school, is it fair to say, Mrs. Noel, that there are more
mobile units in that area than in any other area of the
city? A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea approximately how many are
being used there? A. Not really. I think there are twelve
now at Stedman. Not Stedman, I mean Smith.

[59] Q. Smith is predominantly Black? A. About 99
percent Black. I believe there are four still at Stedman.
I ’m not positive.

Q. Are you aware of any mobile units at Anglo schools
in northeast Denver, such as Ashley, for example? A.
I ’m not aware of them.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

107a

Q. Now, counsel inquired about the trend in the racial
composition of the neighborhood. Mrs. Noel, when did the
direction of that trend become apparent? A. At the build
ing of Manual High School.

Q. Approximately when was that! A. That began in
1950; in the 50’s. Now, I’m not certain of that date.

Q. Now, when you came on the school board in 1965,
was the school board aware of this trend? A. Yes.

Q. Did the school board make any changes in its policies
in view of its awareness of this trend? A. Well, the
consideration of racial and ethnic factors was a part of
the policy and this is policy .1222-0, I think is the number.

Q. Mrs. Noel, since you have been on the Board, do
you recall any school attendance area boundary changes
in northeast Denver which have had the effect of improv
ing the racial composition of the school affected? £60] A.
Boundary changes?

Q. Up until the time of the passing of these resolutions.
A. I don’t recall any.

Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
The Court: What is a mobile unit?
The Witness: I t’s a separate unit that holds one

classroom and teacher and I think up to thirty
students can be in there. I t’s located close to the
school building.

The Court: They have some at Gove? Are those
mobile units?

The Witness: Those were I think supposed to be
when they were first put in. You were talking about
the things still there. But, these I ’m talking about
can be really moved.

The Court: I see.

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

108a

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

[61] * * *
A. Edgar Benton, a witness, called by and on behalf of

plaintiffs, having first been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:

The Court: Please state your name and address.
The Witness: My name is A. Edgar Benton, 901

Race Street, Denver, Colorado.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Benton, were you ever a member of the Board of

Education of School District No. 1, a defendant in this ac
tion! A. I was.

Q. Will you give the dates during which you were a
member! A. I was elected in May, 1961 and served until
May, 1969.

Q. You were on the Board then during the period de
scribed by Mrs. Noel in the previous testimony! A. I was.

Q. And you were on the Board in the Fall of 1968 [62]
when Dr. Gilberts, the superintendent, presented his plans
in response to 1490! A. Yes.

Q. The date of that presentation was approximately Oc
tober 10, 1968! A. That’s correct.

Q. What was the response of the Board following that
presentation!

The Court: What do you mean! Did they approve
it or what—

Q. Did they approve and enforce the plan in its en
tirety! A. Dr. Gilberts presented his plan not for en
forcement or for approval at that time, but for considera

109a

tion and study by the Board of Education and by the com
munity so the Board not officially at that time, but I think
informally received Dr. Gilberts’ report for consideration
and for evaluation, and this led to a series of conferences
with the superintendent and other meetings for purposes
of the consideration and evaluation of the report.

Q. Did this lead to action by yon at the meeting of the
Board, November 21st, 1968! A. Oh, the meeting indicated
the question which had been presented to the Board for its
consideration stemming primarily from interested parents
in the Park Hill area and [63] particularly the Smiley
Junior High School area, was what steps could be taken
effective in the Spring semester of 1969 to alleviate not
only the overcrowding but also the intensified segregation
at Smiley Junior High School. In response to that re
quest and concern of the citizenry of that area, I sug
gested not in the form of a motion but in the form of a
suggestion to the superintendent for his consideration that
there might be a possibility of alleviating the problem at
Smiley by removing some of the Black children from
Smiley and putting those children in non-segregated schools
and replacing them with children already riding buses then
being transported to Hill Junior High School, Merrill
Junior High School and perhaps some others. So the ef
fect of my suggestion would have been to reduce the pop
ulation at Smiley and to improve the racial balance at
Smiley. Dr. Gilberts indicated he would consider this sug
gestion and report to the Board.

Q. During that period of time, Mr. Benton, that you were
on the Board, had there been prior discussion of the prob
lems at Smiley! A. The problem at Smiley came forcibly
to the attention of the Board of Education in 1962 when
Dr. Oberholtzer, the then superintendent, made his sugges

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

110a

tion for consideration by the Board that a new Junior
High School be built at 32nd and Colorado and the Smiley
problem, as it were, was a [643 matter of constant concern,
consideration and attention by the Board from that time
through the present period, really.

Q. Have there been expressions—was there evidence of
citizenry concern throughout this period? A. Yes, there
was constant evidence of concern on the part of the citizens
in the community with the need for the Board of Educa
tion to take action to deal with intensifying segregation at
Smiley Junior High School and the overcrowding that was
present there.

Q. You say there was constant concern by the Board
about this problem since 1962? What do you mean by that?
A. By that I mean that the matter was constantly before
the Board for its consideration. It represented a difficult
question for the Board which the Board of Education had
not previously had to consider and the debate which oc
curred I would say was a constant debate. That isn’t to
say it occurred on every occasion when the Board of
Education was either in formal or informal session, but it
continued to be one of the dominant elements of the Board’s
activity during that period to debate. The debate was not
only constant; it was of an interesting characteristic in
that it ranged all the way from fairly mild dialog to very
vigorous confrontation of viewpoints among members of
the Board.

Q. Were the educational disadvantages of segregation
discussed in those meetings? [653 A. The educational dis
advantage of segregated education were always urged by
members—certain members of the Board as a basis for
modifying Board policy with respect to the school and the

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

111a

schools generally, and therefore the debate often involved
a consideration of the disadvantages of segregated schools.

Q. Now, throughout this period, what had been the racial
composition of Smiley Junior High School! A. I can’t
recall of course the precise percentages but it’s my recol
lection that at the outset of this consideration Smiley was
predominantly Anglo in its pupil composition. But it was
changing at a progressive rate by significant percentages
each year to the point where it has now achieved which I
understand to be perhaps 70 percent Black in its composi
tion. So that this was a progressive rate of change from
predominantly Anglo to predominantly minority school.

Q. And throughout this period was there not only con
sideration by the Board of the problem, hut were there
expressions of interest from the citizenry! A. Yes. I
think it would be fair to say that a common presentation at
meetings of the Board of Education would be delegations
of citizens and organizations from the Park Hill area calling
the Board’s attention to the unresolved problems of de
clining educational opportunities in the Park [66] Hill
and particularly Smiley area.

Q. During this period in your judgment, had any ef
fective acts or were there any effective steps taken to
prevent the gradual segregation of Smiley Junior High
School! A. There were steps taken and I suppose if one
tried to look at the seven year period in its totality, one
could see the significance of steps which at the time seemed
perhaps very minor. I would say that one of the first steps
that was important was the creation by the Board of the
special study committee appointed by the Board I believe
in 1962. The deliberations of that committee, the involve
ment of the citizenry, the recommendations made by it was
an important step to sharpen the focus of the understand

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

112a

ing of the school district of the problem. Following upon
that, and certain limited steps taken by the Board in re
sponse to that report, I think the creation of the advisory
council was a continuing effort to improve the quality of
insight which the Board of Education had with respect to
these questions. Now specifically in my view, one of the
most significant steps that the Board took as a result of
this important study that it was engaged in was the policy
which had been previously testified by Mrs. Noel which
precluded additional school construction in northeast
Denver. This was important because it stated as a matter
of public policy of this community that we would not create
additional capacity in that [67] area with the increasing
racial segregation of the neighborhood for increased segre
gated education.

Q. In Smiley Junior High School itself, by November
21st, 1968, state if you recall the approximate racial com
position. A. I would think it would have been approx
imately 70 percent Black and perhaps four or five percent
Hispano. The balance would have been Anglo.

Q. So that in spite of the continuing concern of the Board
and the citizenry over the years described, Smiley had
still become substantially segregated! A. That’s correct.
The Boards had really been as I have indicated in the form
of continuing study, continuing education, continuing infor
mation rather than specific concrete tangible steps that
would lead to an alleviation of the condition.

Q. And your suggestion of November 21st was a specific
tangible step to alleviate that condition! A. That’s correct.

Q. Following the receipt of your suggestion by the super
intendent, what were the next steps taken by the district
and the superintendent concerning Smiley Junior High
School? A. It was my understanding that Dr. Gilberts

A. Edgar Benton—■for Plaintiffs—Direct

113a

and his staff were engaged in a careful evaluation; not just
of the suggestion I had made for his consideration, but of
other £683 alternatives that would achieve substantially the
same result; namely, the reduction of the pupil population
at Smiley and the alleviation of the adverse racial balance
in the school. And that during the period from November
21 through the month of December, Dr. Gilberts and his
staff were engaged in this investigation and this study.

Q. And did this study result in recommendations to the
Board? A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Benton, I hand you what have been marked as
Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3, 4-A, 4, 5, and 5-A and ask you if
you can identify those.

The Court: He doesn’t have to if they’re already
identified and admitted.

Mr. Barnes: They are admitted.
The Court: We don’t have to do it again. That’s

the whole purpose of this preliminary identification;
the agreement as to authenticity. If you want him
to refer to any of them or testify from them, you may
do that.

Do you have a question concerning those?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor. I ’m just formulat

ing my question.

Q. Mr. Benton, what was the first of these resolutions
or—or these recommendations which was offered by the
superintendent? £693 A. I believe resolution 1520, Plain
tiff’s Exhibit 3, would have been the first recommendation
that the superintendent presented to the Board.

Q. And to what did that pertain? A. This pertained
to certain secondary schools, notably East High School and

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

114a

Smiley as a point of focus with, incidental relationships to
other schools.

Q. What was the action of the Board upon receipt of
that recommendation ? A. As was typical of the Board of
Education during my tenure, the Board received these res
olutions for consideration and evaluation and in connection
with that the valuation I believe there were conferences
held among members of the Board and the superintendent
and the administrative staff in which the details of this
resolution were considered and evaluated and my recollec
tion is also that there were at least one—perhaps more—
public meetings where the public had an opportunity to
present its views with respect to these matters.

Q. Following the presentation that is contained in 1520,
were there further presentations made to the Board con
cerning junior high schools and elementary schools? A.
Yes, there were two other resolutions of importance here;
one was resolution 1524 which I believe represented a fur
ther implementation of resolution 1520, and resolution
C70] 1531 which related to certain elementary schools.

Q. Resolution 1524 was with regard to implementation
in the junior high schools? A. That’s correct.

Q. So that a discussion began beginning in January of
1969 concerning the contents of these resolutions presented
by the superintendent. Can you tell the Court whether
there were also public hearings concerning resolutions 1524
and 1531 ? A. There were public hearings relating to both
of those as I recall. And I might add that I believe there
was also consideration of perhaps of a highly general
nature given to these matters during the month of Decem
ber, 1968.

Q. Does 1524 contain a plan pertaining to Smiley Junior
High School? A. It does.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

115a

Q. And does 1531 contain a plan pertaining to Barrett
Elementary School? A. It does.

Q. In your judgment were these two schools the focus
of these resolutions? A. Well, Smiley I think was the
focal point at the secondary level because of the fact that
Smiley had been a school of concern to the district and to
the community for a number of years. The difficulties of
maintaining and even £71] creating equality of educational
opportunity there had not been resolved satisfactorily.
Smiley, because of its profound impact upon the Park Hill
area, which it serves, was important. It was important be
cause it’s one of the major contributing schools to East
High School, which of course is important to the whole com
munity so that Smiley because of its historical importance
and its then importance in terms of its relationship to
the high schools and to the residential areas of Park Hill,
was the matter of principal concern in resolution 1524.
This produces of course the junior high schools’ problems;
whether they are resolved or not, has an impact on the ele
mentary schools. And in order to maintain the beneficial
changes at Smiley Junior High School contemplated by
resolution 1524, it was necessary to make certain adjust
ments at the elementary level so that schools—the ele
mentary schools and Park Hill feeding into Smiley would
bear an appropriate educational relationship to Smiley.

Q. One of these elementary schools was Barrett Ele
mentary School? A. One of the schools was Barrett. And
Barrett I believe was selected for inclusion, I think not
originally recommended by Dr. Gilberts but subsequently
included in his recommendation, the concern being that the
profound impact of segregated schools in Denver was not
only in Park Hill but also in the residential areas to the
west of Park Hill and £72] that as a means within the

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

116a

limits of physical and personal capability of drawing those
schools into the comprehensive solution of segregated
schooling in Denver, Barrett was included because it was
geographically contiguous to the Park Hill area which was
a matter of principal focus and it was a small school which
did not pose the more serious problems of money and per
sonnel that would have been perhaps involved if other
larger schools had been included.

Q. Were Barrett and Smiley the only segregated schools
in the system! A. No.

Q. So that this was not a plan involving all the segre
gated schools in the school district? A. Clearly not.

Q. Was it a drastic step forward in your judgment? A.
It was not a drastic step forward. It was in the discussion
relating to resolution 1531 that I urged that Gilpin School,
which is located substantially further to the west of Barrett,
in near the so-called Five Points Area of Denver—that
that school be included because of its location in the heart
of the ghetto, as it were. I felt that Dr. Gilberts’ recom
mendation was not only not drastic but was not fully ade
quate to cope with the problem as it existed in the com
munity.

Q. Now, were there supporting documents that the [733
superintendent presented which implemented or described
the implementation of resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531 ? A.
My recollection is that there were such documents.

Q. And those are contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4-A and
5-A? A. That’s correct.

Q. And the resolutions themselves are Plaintiff’s Ex
hibits 3, 4 and 5 ? A. Correct.

Q. You have stated that there were public hearings.
Can you give an idea of the scope of the contribution of the
public to the Board’s consideration? A. The public hear

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

117a

ings were held as has been customary in the school district
each time a secondary school boundary is changed. This
I understand to be the traditional practice of the district,
going back many many years. And these hearings were or
dered for that purpose to give the public an opportunity
to respond so that there was an opportunity for any inter
ested citizen to appear before the Board and present his
views with respect to the wisdom or lack of wisdom in
volved in the adoption of the proposed boundary changes.
It had not been customary in the school district as I un
derstand it to have public hearings when elementary schools
are bounds changed. These are ordinarily changed by
[74] the superintendent as an administrative matter and
do not require Board action and therefore the Board cus
tomarily has not had hearings. But, because of the par
ticular public interest in this question and the notoriety
that it had achieved in the community, it was determined
that it would be appropriate to have a public hearing with
respect to 1531 even though traditionally it would not
have been indicated.

Q. Were such things as educational and psychological
and economic factors considered and offered for considera
tion by the public? A. There was a broad variety of
testimony as it were presented to the Board in these pro
ceedings. Individual citizens spoke in their own behalf
about the educational and the other significance of the
Board’s proposed action. There were representatives of
groups including professional groups of doctors, psychi
atrists, psychologists, social workers; the clergy was there
and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and all
these groups were in strong support of the proposed action
of the Board on the three items indicated.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

118a

Q. Were the resolutions eventually passed! A. The res
olutions were eventually passed. I might say I did not
create the impression in my testimony that there was no
opposing testimony at these hearings. There were individ
uals who opposed the resolutions and there were also rep
resentatives for the most part of neighborhood organiza
tions [75] from southeast and southwest Denver. But, the
resolutions were adopted by the Board of Education in all
three cases I believe by a vote of five to two.

Q. And were you voting with the majority! A. I was
a member of the majority!

Q. What general objective was behind these resolutions
with regard to Smiley and Barrett! A. The objective was
the creation and maintenance of equal educational oppor
tunity for the children involved. They were founded upon
the superintendent’s recommendations. They were based
upon his professional judgment that they were reasonable.
They were within the physical and administrative personnel
capabilities of the district and they were designed to reduce
the concentration of minority children in those schools so
that the program could be improved and the quality of ed
ucation could be raised.

Q. Would the racial composition of those schools have
been changed! A. The racial composition of Barrett
School would have been changed from approximately 100
percent Black to approximately 80 percent Anglo effective
September, 1969, and at Smiley—I believe these figures are
approximately correct—the racial balance would have
changed from about 70 to 75 percent minority to approx
imately 70 to 75 percent Anglo, in September, 1969.

£763 Q. What was the general objective behind these
resolutions with regard to East High School and Philips
Elementary School and Park Hill School! A. Let me

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

119a

speak first to Philips and Park Hill. Both of those schools
were integrated schools. However, there were disturbing
trends to the principals, to the faculty, to the citizenry
that unless aggressive and thoughtful action was taken
by the school district that they would become perhaps at
a slower rate but nevertheless they would become segre
gated schools. So the purpose of the resolution with re
spect to those two schools was to insure the maintenance
of the integrated education where it existed, this being
consistent with one of the principal elements of Dr. Hil
berts’ plan to be presented to the Board, that is to say,
the stabilization of neighborhoods through the mainte
nance of integrated education where it existed. Now, .East
High School came to be a critical point of focus for the
Board of Education because of its realization that East
was becoming Black in its pupil composition by signifi
cant percentages each year and that unless some interven
tion was made through Board policy and administrative
practice, East High School reasonably could be predicted
to become another Black high school in Denver. The Board
concluded—the superintendent I believe concurred—that
it was in the best educational interest of the students at
East High School as well £77] as in the best interests
of this community to not permit East High School to
become a Black higii school. Therefore, resolution 1520
as it related to East High School was proposed and adopted.

Q. Was the racial composition of these schools affected
by these resolutions? A. Yes, I don’t have the percen
tages in mind with respect to Park Hill and Philips, but
the effect of the resolution would have been to reduce the
number of Black children in both schools and to increase
the number of Anglo. At East High School, which I be-
live presently is approximately 40 percent Black, there

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

120a

would have been in September, 1969, a reduction of the
Black population by significant amounts and then a pro
gressive reduction of the Black population in succeeding
years.

Q. What was the objective of the Board with regard to
Stedman Elementary School? A. Stedman Elementary
School I believe would have been affected by the resolution
primarily through the elimination of certain mobile units
and the transportation of children from Stedman to cer
tain Anglo schools I believe primarily in southwest Den
ver. So the effect of the resolution I believe that Stedman
would not have been to improve the racial balance par
ticularly but to reduce the population at Stedman and I
might say as I indicated earlier in my testimony £783
the schools directly affected by the resolutions were those
that had been indicated. The incidental effect of this
resolution if it were to be implemented would have been
to have integrated a substantial number of additional
schools in other parts of the city which are presently near
100 percent Anglo. In other words the schools would have
had a significant minority population had the resolutions
been carried out.

Q, What methods were employed by the Board to ob
tain these objectives? A. Primarily the modification of
attendance area boundaries and the use of transportation,
both long established administrative practices of the school
district.

Q. Now, Mr. Benton, I direct your attention to Plain
tiff’s Exhibit C-3 and ask you to state whether the Board
specifies their considerations and the conclusions with re
gard to educational purposes that were to be achieved by
these resolutions? A. Yes, I would say this is reflected
in the resolution. These resolutions were all based as I

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct

121a

understood it upon a careful and extensive professional
evaluation of the educational problem and the educational
solutions represented here and by a policy determination
by the Board of Education that that professional judgment
was competent. I think those considerations are reflected
in the language of the resolution.

[79] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Craig:

* * # # *

C813 Q. I believe you testified that there was a trend
in some of these schools at least toward increasing segre
gation as you used the term? A. Yes.

Q. Was there also a parallel change in the racial com
position of the neighborhoods of these schools at the same
time? A. Yes, there was. There was a change in the neigh
borhood.

Q. So could we say that the result of the—or the [82]
cause of the change in the composition of the schools was
the result of the change in the neighborhood? A. Well it
was a result of more than that. It was a result of rigid
adherence to the so-called neighborhood school policy which
precluded the policy of alleviating in the schools the impact
of increasing segregation in the neighborhood. It wasn’t
just the increase of the neighborhood segregation that pro
duced the results; it was the inability until resolutions 1520,
-24 and -31 of the Board of Education to make a judgment
that it would intervene in that process and cause it not to
be inevitable but cause it to be amenable to education
decisionmaking.

Q. Do you see as one of the purposes of these resolutions
to the role of schools as an instrument in creating social
change in the community? [83] A. I was momentarily dis
tracted, Mr. Craig. Could you repeat the question?

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Cross

122a

Q. Do you see as one of the purposes of the resolution
as it relates to the role of the school, as using the school
as an instrument for social change in the community! A.
Well, this question raises I think a very fundamental issue
and that is what is the purpose of education. I take it that
one of the essential purposes of education, public and pri
vate, is to have an impact upon humanity in the form of
the individual who is involved in the formal process of
education. So that what he learns or does not learn in
school ought to have a significant bearing on what he does
or does not do; what he thinks or does not think; what he
believes or does not believe, as a citizen and as an adult.
So that to create and maintain an effective program of
education in the schools, so that true equality of educa
tional opportunity exists for the development of the poten
tial of all people who are subjected to the process of educa
tion, ought to have—must have a beneficial impact on the
community; on society. If it doesn’t have, then the game
isn’t worth the candle. And that we are engaged in a
massive and irresponsible expenditure of public resources
that perhaps could be better put elsewhere. So there is a
distinct relationship between what you are able to do in
the schools and what ultimately you are able to do with
mankind. Now, I’m not sure that’s responsive to your [84]
question.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Cross

The Court: I’m not either.
The Witness: If not, I apologize.
The Court: Does that answer your question!
Mr. Craig: I’m not sure it is either, Your Honor,

but I think it is—-it has touched on it.
The Court: I gather from your question that you

wanted him to say whether he views using schools
as an instrument or weapon to bring about social
change, generally. Is that what you asked him ?

123a

Mr. Craig: That’s essentially what I asked him.
The Court: In other words, it is just part of an

overall plan to change the system? Is that what you
wanted him to answer?

Mr. Craig: Yes, Your Honor, that’s essentially
what I wanted to ask.

The Court: Did he answer that?
Did you answer that?
The Witness: I believe I did, Your Honor, but if

additional comments are indicated, I’d be glad to—
The Court: I don’t care.
The Witness: I’d be glad to accommodate the

Court or counsel.
The Court: Maybe he wishes to ask another ques

tion.
Mr. Craig: I believe the witness’ philosophy on

that [851 was covered in the answer.
No further questions, Your Honor.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Benton, is there any statement within the resolu
tions that we have been discussing, 1520, 1524 and 1531,
which requires racial balance in the schools in the school
district? A. I don’t recall any such statements.

Q. Mr. Benton, you spoke in response to a question by
Mr. Craig of the deterioration of the schools in northeast
Denver. Was the Board aware of this deterioration? A.
Yes, I think the Board was aware during this entire period
from 1962 on, the fact that academic achievement was de
clining in some schools; was chronically low in others. I
suppose it wasn’t made as dramatically clear to the Board
as perhaps—in the past as it was when Dr. Gilberts, upon
assuming the superintendency, released the standard test
scores on a school by school basis and this enabled not only
the board but I think the community for the first time to

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

124 a

make a very clear judgment as to the deteriorating and
chronically deteriorated quality of education in segregated
schools.

Q. Is the neighborhood school policy the only method of
assignment which can be used by a board of its students?
[86] A. You mean in general terms?

Q. Yes. A. No, there have been many other policies that
have been adopted by the School Board and implemented
by them in other communities.

Q. Keeping in mind the awareness of the Board of the
deterioration of the school we have been considering, what
was the effect of the choice of their policy for the assign
ment of students? A. Well, this policy as I understood from
Dr. Gilberts’ recommendation was among alternatives per
haps that might have been selected.

Q. Let me clarify my question. What was the effect of
the choice of the neighborhood school policy by the Board
on the deterioration that you described? A. I’m sorry. Well,
my view was that—and I think this was the view shared
by the majority of the Board, by the members of the Board
—that the adherence to the neighborhood school policy
without modification and without any attempt to intervene
in this process of changing neighborhood, therefore, impact
upon the schools was to maintain and perpetuate the decline
in education and the absence of true educational oppor
tunity—equality of opportunities.

Q. Is there any statute requiring the Board to adopt the
neighborhood school policy? [873 A. I’m aware of none.

Mr. Barnes: I have no further questions.
Mr. Craig: No further questions.
The Court: You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: We will take our noon recess now and

resume at two o’clock.

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

125a

(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 12:25 p.m. and
resumed at 2:10 p.m.)

The Court: One of the spectators complained that
nobody can hear. I think probably the public does
have some interest in hearing what the witnesses
say. We have never had any trouble with aceoustics
in this courtroom before. It’s built as a soundproof
room and I don’t see why we should have this diffi
culty here today. I think the lawyers ought to speak
up and the witnesses. Now, if you have to get further
back, why, do so. But, encourage them to raise their
voices just a little bit. They don’t have to yell but
they can speak up, you know. Make themselves heard.
Now, somebody filed a special motion to be heard.
I think it ought to be made clear that this is no legis
lative body. It’s not an administrative tribunal. We
don’t allow the citizenry to be lobbyists. We will not
receive any petitions or letters. I would like to make
that absolutely clear right here in the outset. We
are seeking out the truth on the merits of this case
and it’s an [88] ordinary lawsuit in which we do it
by adversary method. We don’t allow the public to
participate, nor the newspapers. We will do our very
best to find the merits and then decide the case upon
those merits. But, we’re not going to hear from the
public and I ’m not going to receive any letters from
anybody. My wife will intercept them at home and
my secretary will intercept them here. They will not
be read. If they contain any threats, of course, to
the interference of the administration of justice, we
will deal with them when the case is over.

Very well. Proceed.
Mr. Greiner: Before proceeding with calling our

next witness which is Dr. Paul Klite, you will recall

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

126a

that at the hearing on June 27 the Court asked coun
sel to submit proposed findings of facts and conclu
sions of law. We have prepared on behalf of Plain
tiffs certain proposed findings of fact and I would
like to submit them to the Court and opposing counsel
at this time.

The Court: Very good.
Mr. Greiner: Our next witness will be Dr. Paul

Klite.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Paul D. K lite, a witness called by and on behalf of
Plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn was examined and
testified as follows:
Direct Examination £89] by Mr. Greiner:

The Court: Give us your name and address,
please.

The Witness: Paul D. Klite. My address is 1434
Birch Street.

The Court: How do you spell your last name!
The Witness: K-l-i-t-e.

By Mr. Greiner:

Q. Dr. Klite in order to assist Plaintiffs’ counsel have
you prepared certain exhibits for presentation in this
case! A. Yes, I have.

Q. I ’d like to first direct your attention to what’s been
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7. This is one of the ex
hibits, the authenticity of which is admitted. And I wonder
if you would just briefly describe for us what Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 7 and the overlays attached thereto illustrate with
respect to the effect of these resolutions upon first of all
the senior high schools. A. May I leave the witness box
to show that!

Q. Yes.

127a

The Court: Are the qualifications of the witness
Klite admitted!

Mr. Greiner: Tour Honor, he is not here as an
expert witness and he is not going to render any
expert testimony. He is simply going to state what
the objective data, the numbers of students to be
moved and the racial [90] compositions, and so
forth.

A. This map which is a 1966 boundary map of the senior
high schools shows three high schools affected by Resolu
tion 1520; East, South and George Washington. The pres
ent boundaries and those which obtained until the time
of the resolutions, are depicted in black on the map. The
overlay, Exhibit 7A, shows the effective resolution 1520
on these three senior high schools. In red are depicted
areas that had been within the East High district. This
area would be moved to South. This area to the east
would be moved to George Washington. In green, are
two areas that had been part of the George Washington
district. This would be moved to East and this to South.
And in yellow is an area from South High School that
would be moved to East High.

Q. Pardon me, Dr. Klite. With respect to the areas
of red which were detached from as I understand it, East
High School, can you tell us anything about the racial
composition of those areas? A. Well, the predominant
racial composition of both these areas is Negro. The pre
dominant racial composition of the remaining three areas,
that is, those detached from George Washington and South,
are Anglo.

Q. So then the Blacks were being bused away from East
and to predominantly Anglo schools? A. That’s correct.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

128a

[91] Q. And certain Anglos at those schools were being
bused back to East High? Is that correct? A. That’s
correct.

Q. Are the numbers of students involved reflected on
the overlay? A. Yes, they are. In this area there are
141 students, and in this area 249. And in effect removing
from East, approximately 390 students. To East, would
come 195 students from George Washington and 172 stu
dents from South, a total of approximately 367 pupils.
And then 100 switched to South from George Washington.

Q. Now while I still have you on your feet, Doctor,
why don’t we consider Exhibit 8 which I believe pertains
to the junior high schools.

Dr. Klite calling your attention first to Exhibit 8, would
you identify what is depicted on that exhibit? A. This
is a 1967 boundary map of the junior high boundaries.
In blue are listed the names of the schools affected by
Resolution 1520 and 1524. Ten of the junior high schools
are so affected. It looks like this is 11 of the junior high
schools so affected. The first overlay shows the main
thrust of Resolutions 1520 and 1524 as they pertain to
junior high schools.

Q. That’s Exhibit 8A? A. Yes, that’s correct. In green
are depicted areas [92] that will be detached from the
Smiley Junior High School boundary and changed to be
part of the boundaries of other junior high schools across
the city. These are color coded on this overlay in green,
indicating the schools to which these children will be
transported. The numbers in each of these areas are in
dicated and a code letter for the receiving school. For
example, in this area 200 children from Smiley will now
be switched to Merrill. The other junior high schools
also affected by this movement with the numbers of stu

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

129a

dents to be transported are listed. In yellow, is listed an
area south of the present boundaries of Smiley Junior
High School which is Colfax Avenue which will not be
come part of the Smiley Junior High School area. In
red are depicted areas from Cole Junior High School that
will be detached to other schools across the city. These
are color coded in red. These students for example would
go to Smiley. Thirty-three students to Byers and 110
students to Ivunsmiller, 46 students to Kepner and 36
students to Rishel. There is one other aspect to the move
ment of students among the junior high schools and this
is shown in the next overlay, Exhibit 8B. This shows
the adjustment of population in two of the southeast Den
ver schools; 100 children presently assigned to Hill will
now be switched to Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Sim
ilarly, 200 students from the Merrill area will be switched
to Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton.

[933 Q. Those are provisions that pertain only to the
sending of Anglo students to Anglo schools? A. That is
correct.

Q. Then is there a similar exhibit prepared with respect
to the effective Resolution 1531 on the elementary schools?
A. Yes. This is Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9 is a 1967 boundary
map of the elementary schools of Denver, Colorado and
coded in yellow are the 17 elementary schools affected by
Resolution 1531. The first overlay, Exhibit 9A, depicts
the changes that were made at Barrett School. The area
in green was in the Barrett boundary, was detached from
the Barrett area and sent to five other predominantly
Anglo schools across the city. This is depicted by the
arrows showing students to Moore, 42; students to Mont
clair, 100; to Whiteman, to Carson, and to Ashley; a total
of slightly more than 300 students than detached from

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

130a

the Barrett area. Brought to the Barrett area was an
area containing 225 students in the Lowry Air Force Base
area who had been going to Montclair and Whiteman.
They would now be assigned to the Barrett area and 42
students from Moore to Barrett, to balance the 42 from
Barrett to Moore.

Q. So then there would have been two Anglos sending
schools and the Anglos sent to Barrett would have been
balanced by Negroes sent from Barrett into those other
receiving schools'? [943 A. Well, two sending areas; one,
the Moore School area and the other, the Lowry Air
Force Base area. Exhibit 9B shows a second aspect of
Resolution 1531. This is the busing of students from Sted-
man Elementary School to three schools in southwest .Den
ver, Force, Denison, and Schenek. They would receive
60, 30 and 30 pupils respectively.

Q. This is strictly one-way busing, is that correct? A.
That’s correct.

Q. No whites are being bused back instead? A. That’s
correct.

Q. Do you recall what the racial composition of Stedman
was prior to these resolutions? A. Stedman is greater
than 95 percent Negro.

Q. And after the resolutions the Negro racial composi
tion changed? A. Not appreciably, no.

Q. So this was to relieve overcrowding? A. This was
what the purpose of removing the four mobile units from
Stedman. There are approximately 235 I believe or some
where in that neighborhood students presently being bused
from Stedman because of overcrowdness. This is an ad
ditional busing of 120 students from Stedman.

The next exhibit overlay 9C, shows additional aspects
of Resolution 1531 pertaining to elementary schools. This

Paul D. Elite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

131a

exhibit depicts the steps that are being taken to [953
stabilize the membership in the Park Hill and Philips
Elementary School district. In Park Hill School for exam
ple, as depicted in yellow, 70 students will be detached
from Park Hill area and put in the Steele attendance area.
Thirty in this small yellow, spots to the Steck area,

Q. Those are Negro students? A. We don’t know the
exact racial or ethnic makeup of the students to be bused.
For assumption purposes, however, these students have
been considered to be Negro. A block by block census is
not available to know the exact racial and ethnic member
ship of these students. In the Philips area depicted in
red is an area to he detached to Palmer containing 50 stu
dents. In red here is an area detached to Ashley contain
ing 30 students. Two other changes are in the Philips
area, an area north of Colfax from Montclair is detached
to Philips and an area in southeast Denver that had had
children transported to Palmer is now moved to the Philips
area to equalize the 50 students detached to Palmer.

Q. Thank you, Doctor. I think you can return to the
witness box.

Dr. Klite, turning your attention first to the effect of
these resolutions upon the senior high school schools which
were depicted in Exhibit C, as I understood your testi
mony the principal high school to be affected was East
High School? [96] A. East High School is the focus of
the resolutions.

Q. Calling your attention to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, does
that exhibit reflect what the racial composition at East
High School would be under Resolution 1520? A. That is
correct. It shows that East High School would have ap
proximately 25 percent Negro population under Resolu
tion 1520.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

132;a

Q. Now turning your attention to what’s been marked
for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 71) does that ex
hibit purport to reflect what the racial composition of
East High will be under the recision of 1520? A. Yes, it
does.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, this was one of the
exhibits I believe which counsel had some question
concerning.

Would you wish to examine on voir dire or I can
establish a foundation for it.

Mr, Creighton: I think if you will let me ask a
couple of questions, you will understand our prob
lem with this.

Mr. Greiner: I know what your problem is.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Mr. Klite, what figures do you—how do you arrive
at your figures on what you call post recision proportion?
A. Since there would be no boundary changes we have as
sumed that the racial and ethnic composition of those three
[973 high schools would be what it was in 1968.

Q. So that when you say post recision or after recision,
you’re using last year’s figures? A. That’s correct.

Q. Are you taking into account the alternative planning
the School District made under Resolution 1533? A. We
have not until a few days ago had the figures of the numbers
of students who had volunteered to be transported. There
fore those figures are not taken into account in these figures.

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, so long as it’s un
derstood by the Court that post recision data here
really represents last year’s racial figures and pro
portions, this may go in.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct—Voir Dire

133a

Mr. Greiner: I think I might also—it might also
save time, Your Honor, to note that this same fac
tual premise is present with regard to Plaintiffs’
exhibit 8D and 9E. And these then would be intro
duced with the same understanding.

Mr. Creighton: With that understanding they may
be introduced, Your Honor.

The Court: Yery well. What’s the number of that
one!

Mr. Greiner: 7D.
And then, there is 7C and then there is 8D and

9E, Your Honor.
[981 The Court: Very well. All of those three

will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7C, 7D, 81),

and 9E were received in evidence.)

Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued):
Q. Calling your attention, Dr. Klite, to Plaintiffs’ Ex

hibit 7D, that exhibit does purport to show what the racial
composition of East High School -will be is Resolution 1520
is rescinded! A. Yes.

Q. What is shown there? A. It shows that East High
School will be 54 percent Anglo and 40 percent Negro with
7 percent Hispano.

Q. Do we have a large graph that depicts this change?
A. Yes, we do. We prepared Exhibit 7E which demon
strates with a two color code the percent Negro and His
pano population of the three subject high schools. In red
under Resolution 1520; in yellow after recision of that res
olution. It shows that the Negro population, Negro and
Hispano population of East High School is above 40 per

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

134a

cent if the resolution is rescinded and it is close to 30 per
cent in 1969 with implementation of the resolution. I
might add that the school district projects that by 1971
the percent of Negro and Hispano of East High School
will be about 25 percent.

[993 Hr. Klite, this then was one of the stabilizing moves
as described by Mr. Benton in his testimony this morn
ing? A. Yes, it was and I think that can best be demon
strated with Table Exhibit 7F which shows the percent
Anglo enrollment at the three subject senior high schools
from 1963 to 1968. In 1963 East High School was 83 per
cent Anglo. It was in 1968 54 percent Anglo, showing a
marked decrease in the number of Anglo students at that
school. The racial and ethnic composition of the other two
subject high schools was more stable.

Q. This then demonstrates that East High School is a
school in transition?

Mr. Creighton: Objection, Your Honor. That’s
leading.

The Court: Sustained. I think we can draw that
inference, anyway, from the facts,

Q. Calling your attention next, Dr. Klite, to the effect
upon the junior high schools, as I recall Mr. Benton’s testi
mony the primary focus here was on Smiley Junior High
School? A. That is correct. Exhibit 8C shows the ten
subject high schools estimated of ethnic and racial com
position under Resolutions 1520 and 1524.

Q. What does it show then for Smiley Junior High
School [1003 under the resolutions? A. It shows Smiley
to be 72 percent Anglo.

The Court: You’re referring to 8C?
The Witness: 8C, yes, sir.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

135a

Q. At 72 percent Anglo and what percent Negro? A.
Twenty-three percent Negro and five percent Hispano.

Q. Have yon also prepared an exhibit Hr. Klite, that
purports to project what the racial composition of Smiley
Junior High School will be should these resolutions be
rescinded ? A. Exhibit 8D shows that without implementa
tion of the Resolution 1520 and 24 as projected from the
1968 attendance, Smiley would be 24 percent Anglo and
72 percent Negro.

Q. So then the effect of the resolution in the recision
would be just to completely reverse the racial composition
that’s at Smiley, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Have you also prepared a bar chart, Doctor, that il
lustrates that change? A. Yes, Exhibit 8E, which again
depicts the percent Negro and Hispano enrollment at the
ten subject junior high schools. In red under implementa
tion of Resolutions 1520 and 24 and in yellow without im
plementation of these resolutions. One can see that the
declining order is the red bars. Cole [101] is affected in
terms—essentially unaffected in terms of its percent Negro
and Hispano by the resolutions. Smiley is the school with
the most dramatic effect decreasing, as has been pointed
out, the Negro population from 72 to approximately 25
percent. The other subject high schools—junior high
schools of the city would increase their Negro and Hispano
population under these resolutions by the busing from
Smiley and Cole.

Q. Doctor, have you also prepared an exhibit that shows
the changes in racial composition of the subject junior
high schools over the years? A. Yes, Exhibit 8H for the
ten subject junior high schools shows the percentage Anglo
enrollment from 1963 to 1968. It shows that Smiley was
46 percent Anglo in 1963. By 1968 it was 24 percent Anglo.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

136a

Cole Junior High was ten percent Anglo in 1963 and four
percent Anglo in 1968. The other junior high schools have
shown quite stable percentage of Anglo over the period of
six years from which data is available.

Q. Doctor, turning your attention next to the impact of
Resolution 1531 upon the subject elementary schools, have
you prepared any exhibits that depict the racial composi
tion of those elementary schools under Resolution 1531?
A. Exhibit 9D lists the number and percent Anglo and
Negro and Hispano enrollment for the 17 subject junior
high [1021 schools. And it shows that under Resolution—

Q. Pardon me. Did you say junior high? A. —subject
elementary schools. Excuse me. Under the Resolution 1531
each of these schools with the exception of Stedman would
have between 70 and 85 percent Anglo enrollment. Sted
man would have five percent Anglo enrollment. Stedman,
you recall, is the school from which Negro schools were
bused from—

Q. That’s one-way busing for overcrowding? A. Yes.
Q, Doctor, as I recall Mr. Benton’s testimony, it was the

primary focus of 1531—that was up on Barrett. Could
you tell us what the racial composition of Barrett would
be under Resolution 1531 ? A. Barrett would be 73 percent
Anglo, 24 percent Negro, and three percent Hispano.

Q. Now Mr. Benton also testified that there was to be
some stabilization at two of the other elementary schools.
Could you identify those for us? A. Park Hill and Sted
man in turn under the resolutions—Park Hill would be 79
percent Anglo and Philips 70 percent Anglo.

Q. Doctor, you also prepared an exhibit which pur
ports to depict the effect of the resolutions upon the
racial composition of the subject elementary schools!
£1033 A. Yes, Exhibit 9E which shows that Barrett would

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

137a

have zero percent Anglo and 97 percent Negro population;
that Philips would have 55 percent Anglo enrollment in
stead of the 70 percent under the resolution; that Park Hill
would have 71 percent Anglo instead of 79 as under the
resolutions, and that the—among the other subject schools,
there would be either ten or 11 that would have greater
than 85 percent Anglo enrollment.

Q. Now, Doctor, have you also similarly prepared an ex
hibit depicting the differences before and after the resolu
tions at the subject schools? A. Yes, Exhibit 9F which
shows the percent Negro and Hispano enrollment at the
subject elementary schools under Resolution 1531 and after
reeision. Stedman not being appreciably affected by these
facts, the major effect being at Barrett School which would
change from a 70 percent Anglo school to a zero percent
Anglo school and Philips which would change from a 30
percent Anglo school—correction—30 percent minority
school to a 45 percent minority school. Park Hill would
change from approximately 20 percent Negro and Hispano
to a little more than 30 percent Negro and Hispano. The
other schools averages are listed in the last column.

Q. Then finally, Doctor, calling your attention to Plain
tiffs’ Exhibits 97 and 98, have you also had occasion [104]
to prepare a composite table showing certain data for all
of the schools of the school district? A. Yes.

Q. Of what was the source of the data? A. Are you
referring to these two exhibits?

Q. Yes. A. These are copies of the estimated ethnic
distribution of pupils for all of the schools in the school
system that has been issued each year by the school sys
tem since 1963.

Q. So these then are tables that have been prepared by
the school district? A. That is correct.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs'—Direct

138a

Mr. Greiner: Do you have any objection?
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: What are the exhibit numbers?
Mr. Greiner: That’s 97 and 98, Your Honor.
The Court: They will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 97 and 98 were
received in evidence.)

Q. And then, finally, Dr. Klite, have you also prepared
a table that shows the change of the ethnic composition of
the subject elementary schools over the years with respect
to their racial composition? A. Exhibit 91 depicts the
racial and ethnic composition [105] of the 17 subject ele
mentary schools from 1963 to 1968. It shows that Barrett
School was two percent Anglo in 1963 and in 1968 it was
zero percent Anglo. Under Resolution 1531 it would be 73
percent Anglo. It also shows that Stedman was a predom
inantly Negro and Hispano school in 1963 and has remained
so. It also shows that the Anglo population of Park Hill
and Philips, which was 98 and 97 percent, respectively, in
1963, has decreased to 71 percent for Park Hill and 55 per
cent for Philips by 1968. The other schools are relatively
stable on this chart.

Mr. Greiner: We have no further questions of the
witness, Your Honor.

And for the record, we do offer each of these ex
hibits, which I understand have been received.

The Court: They are all received.
Mr. Creighton: I wonder, Mr, Greiner, if you

could just list the exhibits you have just offered for
the record and for my notes.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

139a

Mr. Greiner: Yes. The exhibits are the following:
7, 7A, C, D, E, and F ; 8, 8A, B, C, D, E and H;
9, A, B, C, D, E, F and I ; and 97 and 98.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7, 7A, 70, 7D,
7E, 7F, 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8H, 9, 9A, 9B,
90, 9D, 9E, 9F, 91, 97 and 98 were received
in evidence.)

[106] Cross-Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Dr. Klite, when you were testifying as to racial com
position from time to time, were your statements based
exclusively on school district figures f A. That’s correct.

Q. And as of what date were these school district figures
when you were speaking to the racial compositions in the
various schools at the time 1520, 24 and 31 wei*e passed?
A. The source data for the 1520, 24 and 31 comes from
the resolutions themselves and from the review volume,
XLIX, of April 1969 and the review volume which is called
XLX, I think it should be fifty, for May of 1969, and sup
plemented by a special report with Assistant Superinten
dent Armstrong.

[107] Q. Do you know when you received that verbal
report? A. That report was given to Dr. George Bard-
well by Dr. Armstrong sometime within the last month.

Q. And you got it from Dr. Bardwell? A. Correct.
Q. Have you made any inquiry as to the certainty of

these figures, or to put it another way, as to whether these
were estimates and if so within what ranges they were
estimates? A. I have used the school administration’s
figures. I have not inquired at length as to how they
obtained the estimates.

Paul D. Klite-—for Plaintiffs—Cross

140 a

Q. Are there mileage scales on your map, Dr. Clyde?
A. That map has a scale of 2.7 inches equals 1 mile.

Q. You’re looking at 9-C, are you not? A. That’s right.
Q. Do all of the larger maps have that same scale?

A. The three maps that have been introduced as Ex
hibits 7, 8 and 9 do, yes.

Q. Have you measured off—It could be done by anyone
with a little patience, I think—but have you measured off
mileages or distances in terms of miles as between any
of the schools where you’re drawing arrows here? [108]
A. No, I have not.

Q. But it would be possible with a measuring device
and a scale given to determine that from that document,
would it not? A. An estimate of it, yes.

Q. Dr. Clyde, not only in the three specific exhibits we
discussed with reference to the post-rescission ethnic data
in which you said you recall that, that really was synony
mous with last year’s ethnic data, not only with respect
to those three exhibits; but is it fair to say, Doctor, that
whenever you have spoken this afternoon of post-rescis
sion racial and ethnic data you’re speaking of last school
year’s figures? A. That is correct. The changes that
might occur within a given school year from population
changes reflect the 1969 attendance. We have no way of
knowing—I have no way of knowing at the present time.

Q. Did you make any inquiry into the school district’s
methodology in making its projections and determinations
of these ethnic figures? A. Well, we assumed, for ex
ample, if I may give you an example—

Q. All right. What did you assume, Doctor? A. That
every student detached from the Smiley area was Negro
and that every student brought to the Smiley area [109]
was Anglo. By making that assumption we came to the

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross

141a

same percentage figure that the school administration had
figured and published in the review.

Q. And referring to your high school exhibit, and I
won’t unveil it for this colloquy, but you understand, Dr.
Clyde, that it’s only in the case of the high school stu
dents in the Harrington Elementary district area that
busing is provided? A. Well, the review of May 1969
lists 875 pupils will be transported at the Senior high
level. Now, 875 turned out to be the total number moved
among those boundary changes.

Q. East High School boundary changes? A. Yes, sir.
High school boundary changes. And, they’re listed in the
official publication of the Denver Public Schools as being
transported. I believe we have a copy of that.

Mr. Greiner: We do have Exhibits 10 and 11,
which are what he is referring to.

Mr. Creighton: Yes, let’s put them in at this
point, Mr. Greiner.

The Court: All right. They are received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 10 and 11

were recived in evidence.)

Q. I call your attention to the gate-fold, I suppose
[1103 it’s called, in Exhibit 10, under Senior High. It
speaks of 141 pupils from areas which I earlier called the
Harrington area busing to South. Is there any other bus
ing mentioned in that explanation? A. Not in that expla
nation, but in the following months’ explanation all of the
students were listed as being transported.

Q. What is your understanding, Mr. Clyde, of the amount
of busing provided in connection with the East High
School aspect of 1520? A. Well, there are these two fig
ures and I don’t know which one is correct.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Cross

142a

Mr. Creighton: You may examine.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, at this time we would

go ahead and offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 10 and 11
which have been authenticated by the defendant.

The Court: Do you have any objection to 10 and
11?

Mr. Creighton: No, as I indicated before, they
may be admitted.

The Court: They will be received.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Did you state, Doctor, that under a projection by the
School District as to what the expected racial [1113 com
position of Smiley would be? A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that was for what year? A. I t’s published in
the review. I don’t recall whether it was 1969 or ’71 or
both. If I could see a copy of that exhibit I could tell you.

The estimate for 19—for September 1969 is 72 percent
Anglo; 23 percent Negro; and 5 percent Hispano.

Q. Now, you have also I think referred to a projection
by the School District with respect to East High School
that is not reflected in these exhibits. A. Yes.

Q. What was the result of that projection? A. Their
estimate for East in the Exhibit 10 is 68 percent Anglo
in 1969 and 88 percent Anglo in 1971. This later figure
was in error and is corrected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11
which shows the 1971 racial composition at East to be
estimated at 73 percent Anglo.

Q. Now in reference to the question raised on cross-
examination, Doctor, about the post-rescission figures, with
respect to the trend in the racial compositions at these
neighborhoods which have been reflected in the exhibits,
what is the trend in these areas?

Paul D. K lite~for Plaintiffs—Redirect

143a

Mr. Creighton: Objection, Your Honor. There
has been no trend reflected in the exhibits or other
testimony.

[112] Mr. Greiner: I beg to differ. We have got
three exhibits, Your Honor, that show from 1963
to 1968 exactly what that trend was.

The Court: Well, he may testify—
Mr. Creighton: That was in schools. I thought

your question was residential.
Mr. Greiner: I ’ll change my question to schools.

Q. What is the trend in the schools, Doctor? A. The
trend at East High School, Smiley Junior High School,
Philips Elementary, Park Hill Elementary, has been to
wards increasing Negro population. Barrett Elementary
is already a zero percent Anglo and can’t get any lower.

Q. Now taking into consideration that trend, Doctor,
was that trend reflected in the post-rescission figures that
are reflected in these exhibits? A. No, they were not.

Q. And in fact we have gone back to September of 1968?
A. That is correct.

Q. Considering the trend in those schools, Doctor, does
the September 1968 data tend to understate the Negro
compensation in these schools after rescission? A. It very
well might.
[113] * * *

Janies. D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

J ambs D.Yoob.hb.es, J r., a witness called by and on be
half of plaintiffs, having been first duly sworn, was exam
ined and testified as follows:

144a

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:

The Court: Give us your name and address.
The Witness: James D. Voorhees, Jr, 170 Down

ing Street, Denver, Colorado.

By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. Voorhees, are you presently a member of the
Board of Education and a defendant in this case? A. I
am.

Q. When did you first come on the Board of Education?
A. After the election in May of 1965.

Q. Prior to that time did you serve in any capacity for
the Board of Education? A. I was on and for a time was
chairman of a special study committee investigating qual
ity of education opportunity in public schools.

Q. And that’s the report of that special study [114]
Committee—that’s what has been identified as Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 20 in this cause, I think. Is that this report? A.
Yes, it is.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, have you had a change in position with
regard to the question of equal education opportunity in
segregated schools? A. Yes, I believe I have had such a
change.

Q. And has this evolution occurred during the time you
were on the Board? A. Yes, it has.

Q. W’ere you one of the members on the Board who
voted in favor of the integration resolutions which are
the subject of this discussion? A. I was.

Q. And does your position represent where you changed
to in this evolution? Does your vote represent where you
changed to in this evolution? A. Yes, I think that would
be a fair statement.

James D. Voorhees, Jr,—for Plaintiffs—Direct

145a

Q. What is your position with regard to the availability
of equal educational opportunity in segregated schools'?
A. I think that based upon what I have observed and found
out the probabilities of equal opportunity are reduced and
may be entirely eliminated in racially or ethnically segre
gated schools.

£1153 Q. What were the factors that led to your coming
to that conclusion1? A. Well, at some point, and I couldn’t
pinpoint it exactly, it became apparent to me that some
thing was wrong in the manner in which the educational
establishment was treating, and the result that it was
getting from this group of children that we are now talk
ing about, and I would include as well the children who
might be considered as the product of a subculture of
poverty, as you know there is an incidence of, between
poor and minority children.

At some point it became quite apparent to me that the
results that were available in terms of achievement and
pure education, I suppose, to these children were not the
same results that were available to the children of the
Anglo—primarily Anglo and middle class which makes up
the great majority, of course, of the students in the school.

I suppose what crystallized this change more than any
thing was the release by the Superintendent sometime last
fall, I believe, of some test scores—comparative test scores
which indicated to me a direct correlation between con
centration of poor children, minority children, and low
achievement as compared to other schools where these
conditions were not present.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, I hand to you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit [1163
83, which I believe has already been stipulated to as to
its authenticity and admitted, and ask you if that is a
sample of the kind of compilation concerning achievement
test scores to which you refer? A. It is.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

146a

Q. Mr. Voorhees, is the composition of the School Board
the same today as it was at the time the integration resolu
tions were passed? A. No, it is not.

Q. What brought about that change? A. An election
held on May 22nd of this year which resulted in two new
members, Mr. Southworth and Mr. Perrill, being elected
to the Board.

Q. Might that have been May 20? A. May 20. Excuse
me.

Q. In your judgment what were the focal subjects at
issue in the campaign?

The Court: Oh, brother.
Do you object to that question?
Mr. Craig: Yes, I do, Your Honor. I don’t think

this is a proper question to ask of a lay witness.
The Court: Sustained.

Q. Following the election, did the School Board hold
conferences with regard to actions on these resolutions?
A. It held at least one at which I was present and [117]
I think it may have held another one in which I was present.
My calendar shows two such conferences. And then there
was a third conference which—at which I was not present

Q. Was there any in-depth discussion of the educational
benefits of these resolutions at the conferences you at
tended? A. No, there was not.

Q. Was there any in-depth discussion of the educational
benefits that would accrue from the rescission of these
resolutions? A. No, there was not.

Q. Did the Superintendent take a stand with regard to
the rescission of these resolutions? A. It is my recollec
tion that he indicated that he would not be in favor of

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

147a

such rescission; that he did feel they were sound and ed
ucationally—that the resolution were sound and were ed
ucationally viable and were a step forward in solving some
of the needs of this district.

Q. What was the reason that was given for the rescis
sion of these resolution? A. As I remember, the then
majority, the new majority of the Board indicated that
they had received a mandate from the voters of the peo
ple of the City and County of the school district, to re
scind. They also indicated that rescission was necessary
in order to restore [118] the confidence of the people of
Denver in the School Board so that the bond issue could
be passed.

Q. Did the Board then meet on June 9, 1969, and take
action with regard to the integration resolution? A. Yes,
it did.

Q. What did it do? A. It rescinded the three resolu
tions, 1520, 1524 and 1531.

Q. Did it do that by motion or by resolution? A. It
did that by motion and resolution on each separate resolu
tion.

Q. Was a subsequent resolution then offered? A. Yes.
I think there were several that won a substitute resolution
identified as 1533 was offered. And then it seems to me
there were two or three others having to do with volun
tary programs and individual schools.

Q. I hand you what has been marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 6A and ask you if that is the Resolution 1533? A.
It appears to be it.

Mr. Barnes: This has also been stipulated to as
to its authenticity, Your Honor.

The Court: Very well.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

148a

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A was re
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Were you one of the ones who voted against the [1193
passage of Resolution 15331 A. Yes.

Q. What was the vote on that resolution! A. It was
four in favor and three against.

Q. The Court has heard previous testimony concerning
the passage of 1490, Mr. Voorhees, I think, before you
were here. Are you familiar with that resolution? A.
Yes.

Q. How did you vote on that resolution? A. I voted
for that resolution.

Q. Does Resolution 1533 act, in your judgment, to ac
complish the aducational objectives of Resolution 1490!
A. I can’t see how it does, no.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, have you filed an answer to this cause?
A. Well, yes, Mrs. Noel and Dr. Amesse and I filed an
answer today.

Q. For the purpose simply of identifying to the Court
the position taken to that answer, can you state what your
prayer is? A. Our prayer as to the first count is that
the relief requested be granted. Our prayer as to the
second count—

Q. Just as to the first count is all. That will do.

[1203 Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 6 is on the—is the official publication of the
Board and the minutes of the meeting of June 9,
1969, and it has been admitted as to its authenticity.
We would like to offer it at this time.

The Court: Do you have any objection?
Mr. Craig: May I examine that exhibit?

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiff's—Direct

149a

The Court: Surely.
Mr. Craig: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 was received
in evidence.)

Q. Mr. Voorhees, was the content of Resolution 1533 dis
cussed in conferences prior to June 9, 1969? A. Not at
any conference at which I was present.

Q. When was the first occasion that you saw Resolution
1533? A. It was at our places in the form in which it
was enacted when the meeting opened.

Q. Were there subsequently public hearings to discuss
the content of that resolution? A. No, except at Board
meetings. It was a public meeting.

Q. Were there statements at the Board meeting concern
ing the resolution? [121] A. By Board members. I have
a recollection which the minutes would perhaps confirm
that a request was made that persons present be permitted
to discuss it before it was voted on, and it’s my recollec
tion that that was not permitted.

Q. Approximately how many people testified at that time
concerning this resolution? A. From the public? I don’t
believe any public presentation was made before the mo
tion was called for a vote.

Mr. Barnes: No further question of this witness,
Your Honor.

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, may I suggest we have
about ten minutes’ recess at this time to check our
cr os s-examination ?

The Court: Very well. Let me know when you’re
ready, Mr. Craig.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

150a

(Whereupon, the trial recessed at 3 :10 p.m. and
resumed at 3:27 p.m.)

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have no questions of
the witness.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to direct one more ques
tion to the witness, if I may.

The Court: You may.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Mr. Voorhees, I believe you [122] testified earlier

about your opinion as to the effectiveness of Resolution
1533 to achieve the intended results of Resolution 1490.
Would you state, please, why you think Resolution 1533
is inadequate to achieve the goals of 1490? A. Well, ba
sically because it is a voluntary proposal, and it seemed
to me that the possibilities of achieving any kind of sta
bilization, particularly in a school that is as troubled as
Smiley, for example, or maybe East, maybe Barrett, or
maybe any of those resegregated elementary schools of
Park Hill on a voluntary basis was nil. I thought of that
resolution as a sort of a sop to the community and I didn’t
think it would be effective even in that category.

Mr. Barnes: Thank you. I have no further ques
tions of this witness, Your Honor.

The Court: Well, the thrust of it was to seek
voluntary exchanges all the way along the line?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, that’s about what
it says.

The Court: But it said aside all of these boundary
changes that had been adopted.

The Witness: They had already been set aside.
This 1533, as I remember it, was in lieu of the

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

151a

specific provisions of the three resolutions that are
here in question.

The Court: I take it that it would depend upon
[1233 the ability of the administration to persuade
students in these other elementary and junior high
schools to transfer the minority—to the so-called
minority schools?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor. It would depend
on that, which I think is an absolute impossibility,
and I don’t think people are going to volunteer
individually to transfer their children—Anglo par
ents—to a school that is not going to he an integrated
school when their child arrives. It would also, of
course, have required the making of room in those
schools by the transfer of minority children out of
those schools, which is equally different on a volun
tary basis.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Barnes: We have no further questions.

# # # # #
[124] * * *

G eobge E. B abd w eel , a witness called on behalf of plain
tiffs, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testi
fied as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
The Court: Please state your name and address

so the reporter can hear it.
The Witness: George Bardwell, 2201 South Harri

son, Denver, Colorado.
The Court: What is your occupation?
The Witness: I am a mathematician and statisti

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

cian.

152a

The Court: Where do you work?
The Witness: University of Denver, sir.

By Mr. Barnes:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, have you had [125] occasion to make a

study of population movement and property values in the
Park Hill area of Denver? A. Yes, I have.

Q. I show you what has been identified as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 38, and I don’t think that’s one of the ones to which
the stipulation went.

Mr. Creighton: No, it was not. I t was in your
series submitted to us last night, but we have had
a chance to look at this, Your Honor, and we have no
objection to its going in.

The Court: May I see it, please.
This was prepared by the Community Relations

Committee of the City and County of Denver?
The Witness: Yes, that’s right, sir. I served as a

consultant to the Commission on Community Rela
tions.

The Court: You prepared it for that agency?
The Witness: I did.
The Court: And it’s dated April 1966?
The Witness: That’s right, sir.
Mr. Barnes: I am not going to ask him questions

from this, Your Honor, but it indicates a study in
the background—

The Court: You just want me to read it, is that
right ?

Mr. Barnes: It indicates a background knowledge
[126] to which Dr. Bardwell will testify.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct

153a

The Court: Maybe Ms testimony will spare me the
burden of reading the whole thing, or, point up the
highlights.

By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. Bardwell. I hand you what has been identified as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 92 and ask you if you have had occasion
to prepare a table which purports to show the assignment
of probationary teachers and teachers with no previous
Denver Public School experience, and teachers with ten or
more years’ Denver Public School experience as they relate
to the subject elementary schools.

Mr. Creighton: What number was that, please ?
Mr. Barnes: 92.
The Witness: Excuse me. It’s of senior high

schools.
The Court: This is the assignment of teachers

with reference to their previous experience? Is that
what you are talking about?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. What is the source of the information contained in
this table? A. This table was compiled from a set of IBM
printouts that were supplied to us by the Division of Per
sonnel Services of the Denver Public Schools.

Q. What does the table purport to show? [1273 A.
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 92 shows the three senior high schools
subject to Resolution 1520, East, George Washington, and
South. It shows the percentage of the total teachers at
those schools who have probationary status, no previous
Denver Public Schools school experience, and the propor

George E, Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

154a

tion of teachers with ten or more years of Denver Public
School experience.

# % % * #

E130] * * *
By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does Exhibit 92 show with regard
to the percent of probationary teachers at East High
School, George Washington, and South? A. I t shows in
the year 1968 that the percentage of probationary teachers
at East of 34 percent, which was double that at George
Washington and also at South.

Q. Does it show with regard to the percent of those
[131] teachers with no previous Denver Public Schools
experience in those three schools? A. It shows a pattern
very similar to that indicated for probationary teachers by
which 17 percent of the 128 teachers at East had no pre
vious Denver Public School experience, and that percentage
is almost double that at George Washington and more
than double that at South.

Q. Mr. Bardwell, I hand you what’s been identified as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 93 and ask you what that purports to
show. A. This exhibit is similar to the preceding exhibit
showing probationary teachers as a percent of teachers
with no previous Denver Public School experience—as a
percent, and teachers with ten or more years’ Denver
Public School experience for the Junior High Schools
under Resolutions 1520 and 1524.

Q. What is the source of the information of that data?
A. The source for this is identical to that of the previous

exhibit, a series of IBM tables, printouts, entitled, The
Study of Years of Experience in Denver Public Schools,
Contract Teachers, by School, Division of Personnel Ser
vices.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

155a

Mr. Barnes: I would like to offer Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 93 into evidence.

Mr. Creighton: Same objection as to Number 92.
£132] The Court: The same ruling.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what is the percent of probationary
teachers that are at Cole Junior High School shown on your
table? A. The percentage of probationary teachers is 66
percent.

Q. How does that compare with Hill Junior High School?
A. Hill Junior High School has 34 percent probationary
teachers. Therefore, by simple calculation, Cole has double
the percentage of probationary teachers as does Hill.

Q. Nearly double? A. (No answer.)
Q. Turning your attention to Smiley Junior High School,

what is the percent of probationary teachers shown there?
A. Here, the figure is very similar to that at Cole in which
63 percent of the 98 teachers at Smiley are on probationary
status, and that again is nearly double that at Hill.

Q. And are these disproportionate percentages consistent
for those same schools for the columns you have listed for
the previous teachers experience and teachers with ten
years or more experience? £133] A. Yes, they are.

Q. For example, what does the table show with regard to
the teachers of ten or more years experience at Hill and at
Smiley Junior High School? A. Here, the comparison is
even more dramatic. In the case of Smiley we have 7 per
cent of the teachers having 10 or more years of Denver
Public School experience, while at Hill there are 36 percent.
This means that there are about five times the percentage
of experienced teachers at Hill than at Smiley.

Q, Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what has been identified
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94 and ask you what that purports to
show. A. This is a—is similar to the preceding two ex-

George E, Bardwell—-for Plaintiffs—Direct

156a

Mbits, 92 and 93, showing the probationary teachers with no
previous Denver Public School experience and teachers
with ten or more years of Denver Public School experience;
the experience expressed as a percent for those elementary
schools that are affected by Resolution 1531 for 1968.

Q. What is the source of that exhibit? A. The source is
identical to that of the preceding two exhibits, the IBM
printouts which are a study of the years of experience of
Denver Public School teachers.

Mr. Barnes: I offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94, Your
Honor.

[1343 Mr. Creighton: Same objection.
The Court: Overruled.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 92, 93 and 94
were received in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, would you take that through the com
parison by way of example of two schools on that table,
Palmer and Philips, all the way through. A. Turning our
attention first to Palmer, we have a total number of teach
ers of 16. The proportion or percentage of probationary
teachers at Palmer is 13 percent. At Philips, we have 26
teachers. The proportion of probationary teachers at Phil
ips is 58 percent. This means that at Palmer, compared to
Philips, we have roughly four times the percentage of pro
bationary teachers at Philips than we do at Palmer. For
those teachers that have no previous Denver Public School
experience, Palmer has 6 percent. Philips, on the other
hand, has 27 percent, which means again that we have about
4 times the percentage of teachers at Philips that have no
previous DPS experience as compared to that at Palmer.

Similarly, for those teachers who have ten or more years
of experience at Palmer we have 75 percent of those teach

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

157 a

ers in the so-called experienced group. On the other hand,
at Philips we have 15 percent of those teachers of 10 or
more years of Denver Public School experience. [1353
Here, the comparison of the two percentages is 15 for
Philips, and Palmer 75. Six times the percentage—excuse
me, five times the percentage.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what has been identified as
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 96 and ask you what that purports to
show. A. Exhibit 96 is a distribution by race and eth
nicity of classroom teachers expressed as a percent for
the elementary schools, junior high schools and senior high
schools on September 23, 1968.

Q. What is the source of the information contained in
that—what’s the source of that table? A. The source of
that table is a mimeographed handout given by the Division
of Personnel Services of the Denver Public Schools.

* # # « *

[1363 * * *
Q. Dr. Bardwell, turning your attention to the third page

of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 96, what does that show with regard
to the percent of Negro teachers in the school district in
elementary schools? A. It shows that about 8.5 percent
of elementary teachers are Negro.

Q. Turning your attention to Barrett School, what is the
—what does the exhibit show to be the Negro percent of
teachers in that school? A. At Barrett, 52.6 percent of the
teachers are [137] Negro.

Q. As compared to an average distribution of 8.5 per
cent? A. As compared to an average distribution for all
elementary schools in the district of 8.5 percent.

Q. What does the exhibit show with regard to Stedman
School? A. With regard to Stedman, 21.1 percent of the
teachers are Negro compared to 8.5 percent for the district
as a whole.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

158a

Q. Dr. Bardwell, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 26 has already
been offered and received, and I would like to show it to
you, Dr. Bardwell. Will you look at it to refresh your
memory as to what Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26 is. A. I t’s Den
ver Public Schools Policy, 1,617A, dealing with the change
of assignment for employees. And the policies thereof.

Q. What does it show with regard to the control by the
School District of Denver of teacher assignments? A. It
shows here that a request for change of assignment cannot
always be granted because the employee is not qualified
for the existing vacancy nor the transfer from the present
school or department would not serve the best interests
of the program or district.

Q. What does it show with regard to the relevancy of
[138] seniority in the assignment of teachers?

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, if this witness is
going to interpret policy, I will object. If he is go
ing to read certain portions to highlight them, I sup
pose it is all right. Is this what you are doing?

Mr. Barnes: I ’m not even going to ask him to
read that; just state in general what the policy—

The Court: Well, he may answer.
Mr. Creighton: I object.

A. The policy of seniority with regard to this exhibit here
is that seniority is a factor in transfer of a teacher and
that that transfer should be taken—should take cognizance
of the probationary status of a teacher in considering
transfer.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does the policy 1617A show as to
the possibility for changes in teacher assignment on the
enrollment—when the enrollment of a school is changing?
A. It permits a consideration of transfer of teachers, when

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

159 a

the enrollment — when there is a change of enrollment;
where there may be a transition perhaps in the school itself.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I direct your attention again to Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 20 and ask you to look at page D13 and state
what the finding reflected there is of the special [139] com
mittee—what it was about, on the assignment of Negro
teachers. A. The conclusion of the committee was that
a large proportion of Negro teachers were assigned to
schools that had a high proportion of Negro students.

Q. What did the study committee say with regard to
the relevance of race in the assignment of teachers? A.
They recommended to the Board of Education that—

Q. Before getting to the recommendation, Dr. Bardwell,
if we could interrupt and direct your attention to page D13,
next to the last paragraph, what was the finding concern
ing the relevance of race in the assignment of teachers?

Mr. Creighton: I ’ll object unless he reads the
designated part.

The Court: All right.

Q. Would you read that paragraph? A. “As a result of
its interviews the committee is convinced that race has been
relevant in the assignment of teachers. It appears that the
administration has been extremely reluctant to place Negro
and Spanish American teachers in predominantly white
schools because of concern with possible lack of acceptance
on the part of a white neighborhood and a realistic assess
ment of the possible lack of support by some principals
and faculties.”

[140] Q. Dr. Bardwell, directing your attention to page
D14—

The Court: I have received this material upon
the theory that it supports your contention some-

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

160a

what that the alleged segregated schools do not come
up to standards and are inferior. We are not, I take
it, in this suit concerned with the rights of teachers,
are we?

Mr. Barnes: We are concerned with the acts of
the School Board, Your Honor, which tend to—

The Court: We’re not going to review every sin
that they have committed, yon know. I mean, we are
concerned with a limited number of these alleged
wrongs. That’s all. And only as they pertain to your
suit. I just don’t think they should he used as an oc
casion to air every grievance that yon have got. So,
you are going to have to justify this teacher evidence
somewhat, I think.

As I say, this is the question running through my
mind, and—Is there some presumption or inference
that standards of teachers are not up to standards,
do you think? Do you maintain that?

Mr. Barnes: Not at all, Your Honor.
The Court: Why do you make such a point of

that?
Mr. Barnes: It is our contention that the assign

ment of teachers is a conscious act taken by the
School Board which in this case has resulted in con
centration of teachers [141] by race and ethnicity
which could not have been done accidentally and that
this last exhibit that I have on this point—we can
show that this condition existed.

The Court: Does it violate the rights of the
plaintiff, you think?

Mr. Barnes: The intentional confirmation and
solidifying of segregation in the schools, does, Your
Honor.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

161a

The Court: That isn’t what I asked you.
Mr. Barnes: If there is evidence that the School

Board has acted and is acting to confirm the segre
gated character of a school by assigning Negro
teachers to Negro schools, that is evidence of an in
tent which can give rise to an inference concerning
their other action.

The Court: Very well.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what has been identified
as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8G and ask you to state what that
purports to show. A. This is a chart showing the con
centration of Negro and Hispano teachers in the junior
high schools subject to Besolution 1520 and 1524 in 1968.

Q. What is the source of the information contained in
that table? A. The source of the information in this
table is again the ethnic and racial distribution of class
room teachers from a handout by the Division of Personnel
Services of the E142] Denver Public Schools.

Mr. Barnes: I offer the Exhibit 8G into evidence.
The Court: Do you have a copy of it?
Mr. Creighton: Yes, we were supplied copies

last Saturday, and we spot checked these numbers
and they appear to be in conformity with ours. I
will have some comment on the form, but I have no
objection to its admission.

The Court: The exhibit is received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8G was received

in evidence.)

£143] Q. What does this table—what does this bar chart
show with regard to the concentration of teachers at

George E. Bardwell— for Plaintiffs—-Direct

162a

Smiley Junior High. School? A. It shows that in the
case of Smiley and from reading the chart itself, it would
appear that this is a bar of a height of 23 teachers while
in the case of Cole there is 37 teachers. The remaining
schools under the resolutions that are affected, Kepner,
Kunsmiller, Hill, Grant, Merrill, Byers and Rishel, the
corresponding numbers for these schools, Kepner, about 4;
Kunsmiller, about 3; Hill, about 3; Grant, perhaps 2;
Merrill, one; Byers, zero; Rishel, zero.

Q. What is the predominant racial concentration of
Byers, Rishel, Merrill, Grant, Kunsmiller and Kepner?
A. These are predominantly Anglo schools.

Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, I see that counsel for
the defendants has a copy of Exhibit 8-G which was
supplied to him on Saturday and which we found an
error on. So I think he’d better see the original.
I t has a different figure with regard to the number
of students in Smiley than the one we supplied him
on Saturday.

Mr. Creighton: What is that figure ?
Mr. Barnes: Dr. Bardwell testified it was about

23 teachers, I think.
The Witness: Yes, about 23.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what’s been identified as
[144] Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8~F and ask you to state what
that purports to show? A. This is a tabular distribution
comparing the concentration of Negro and Hispano teach
ers in the junior high schools that are subject to Resolu
tions 1520 and 1524. It shows for each of the junior high
schools, Byers, Cole, Grant, Hill and the rest, the percent
age—the percent of Negro and Hispano students and simi

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

163a

larly the number of Negro and Hispano teachers. The per
cent of Negro and Hispano students is shown before and
after the recission of Resolutions 1520 and 1524 and those
figures are similar to the ones that were introduced in
evidence before by Dr. Elite.

Q. What does it show with regard to the number of
Negro and Hispano teachers in Smiley Junior High School?
A. It shows that there are 23 of the total of 80 teachers
for all these junior high schools are at Smiley, and 37—

Q. That’s 80' Negro and Hispano teachers? A. Yes.
Eighty Negro and Hispano teachers in these junior high
schools that are subject to these resolutions. Twenty-three
of these teachers are at Smiley. Thirty-seven at Cole.
Which means that the proportion of Negro and Hispano
teachers at Smiley and at Cole is about three-fourths or
three out of four of the Negro and Hispano teachers in
those ten junior high schools are located in Smith and Cole.

[1453 Excuse me. Smiley and Cole. I ’m sorry.
The Court: This is a total of how many?
The Witness: A total of Negro and Hispanos. A

total of 80 Negro and Hispano teachers, and I might
add to that, if I may, that—

The Court: Sixty of them are at these two
schools? Right?

The Witness: Excuse me, sir?
The Court: Sixty of the 80 are at Smiley and

Cole?
The Witness: That’s right.
Mr. Barnes: I’d like to offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

8-F into evidence.
Mr. Creighton: May I look at it?
The Court: That’s what he has been testifying:

from?

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

164a

Mr. Barnes: Tour Honor, I forgot to offer it.
The Court: It becomes academic at this point.
Mr. Creighton: I want to record an objection to

this exhibit and the explantion of it on the grounds
of relevancy.

The Court: Where did these figures originate!
The Witness: Excuse me, sir!
The Court: Where did these figures originate?
The Witness: These originated from the Denver

Public Schools, sir; from their published material
from the Division of Personnel Services.

[146] The Court: It will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8-F was re

ceived in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94 and
ask you to state what that purports to show!

The Court: Are you familiar with this one?
Mr. Creighton: I ’m asking for it. This is one we

were handed last night, probably.
The Witness: Excuse me, Mr. Barnes. It’s 9-H.
Mr. Barnes: I beg your pardon. 9-H.
Mr. Creighton: We have had this one since Sat

urday. And, Your Honor, I want to make the same
comment which we made as to the parallel one in
the secondary schools—and my comment was that I
recall it may be admitted.

The Court: Very well. I t will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9-H was re

ceived in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does this Exhibit 9-H show with
regard to the concentration of Negro and Hispano teachers

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

165a

in Stedman and Barrett Schools? A. This is a bar chart
showing the concentration of Negro and Hispano teachers
in the elementary schools subject to Resolution 1531 and
for Stedman it shows by height on that particular bar of
about 11 teachers at Stedman who are Negro and Hispano
and about 10 teachers at Barrett who are Negro [147] and
Hispano.

Q. What is the general racial composition of those two
schools? A. These two schools are predominantly Negro.

Q. Dr. Bar dwell, I offer you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9-G and
ask you to state what that purports to show? A. 9-G is a
distribution—a tabular distribution of the number of Negro
and Hispano teachers and students in the elementary
schools that are affected by Resolution 1531. It shows a
comparison of the number of Negro and Hispano teachers
in each of those elementary schools as well as the percentage
of Negro and Hispano students before and after the recision
of Resolution 1531.

Q. What’s the source of that information in that exhibit?
A. Again, the source of the information for teachers is the
estimated ethnic distribution of classroom teachers from
the Division of Personnel Services in 1968.

Mr. Barnes: I offer Exhibit 9-G into evidence.
Mr. 'Creighton: Objection on the grounds of rele

vancy.
The Court: May I see it, please ?
It will be received.
You are free to study it and cross-examine later,

even, if you’re not prepared. If you wish to attack
these figures, I mean.

[148] Mr. Creighton: Thank you, Your Honor. I
understand.

George E. Bar dwell—-for Plaintiffs—Direct

166a

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9G was received
in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Bardwell, what does this exhibit show with regard
to the number of Negro and Hispano teachers in Barrett
Elementary School? A. At Barrett there are 10 Negro
and Hispano teachers.

Q. What does it show in regard to the Negro and Hispano
teachers at Stedman Elementary School? A. In Stedman,
there are 11.

Q. What is the total number of Negro and Hispano
teachers in the subject schools? A. In the 16 subject
schools, Montclair, and Montclair Annex have been com
bined in this table, there are 39 Negro and Hispano teachers.
In Stedman and Barrett, 21 of these are concentrated, or
over half of the Negro and Hispano teachers are located
in the two schools, Stedman and Barrett, out of the total of
16 schools.

Q. What is the racial composition—what would be the
racial composition of Barrett Elementary School if the
recision were implemented? A. Barrett Elementary is
99.7 percent Negro and Hispano.

Q. What would it be under Resolution 1531? A. 'Twenty-
seven percent.

[149] The Court: What kind of a grouping of
elementary schools are you talking about here in
Exhibit 9G-?

The Witness: 9G?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Yes, in the case of Montclair and

Montclair Annex, Montclair is a much larger school
than the annex; around 660. In the case of Mont
clair Annex, it’s about one hundred eighty.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

167a

The Court: But these are schools all of which are
located in the northeast area or—

Mr. Barnes: They are the schools, Your Honor,
which are affected by Resolution 1531.

The Court: They’re all over town; southeast?
Mr. Barnes: That’s correct.
The Court: And south central and north central?
Very well.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, turning your attention now to Barrett
Elementary School, when did that school open? A. Bar
rett Elementary School opened in 1960.

Q. Have you prepared a map which shows Barrett Ele
mentary School? A. May I leave the stand?

Q. Yes. Would you leave the stand and show the Court
the map? That is identified as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40? A.
Yes, this is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40.

[150] Q. What is the source of the map? A. The source
of the map is the 1960 boundary map of the elementary
schools given to us by the Denver Public Schools.

Q. Now, have you drawn any extra lines on the map?
A. Yes, we have. We have identified here two schools, the
importance of which will come out in just a moment; Teller
and Steck. This is City Park here. This is 26th Avenue.
This is Colorado Boulevard in which there is a fairly heavy
black line drawn through here.

Q. All of those lines are superimposed on the map, the
source of which was what? A. The 1960 boundary map of
the Denver Public Schools; elementary boundaries.

* * > # # #
[153] * * *

Q. Dr. Bardwell, where is the location of Barrett School
on that map? A. Barrett School is located on the over

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

168a

lay which—in which this has been pasted to plastic and
this is the location of Barrett School here. It abuts Col
orado Boulevard. At least the playground abuts Colorado
Boulevard, and this is 36th Avenue here.

Q. What is the boundary of Barrett School as shown?
A. The Barrett School District?

The Court: The school was completed and opened
in 1960?

The Witness: In 1960.
Mr. Barnes: The boundaries are shown on this—

on this original map and we will have to offer that
overlay in evidence.

[1543 The Court: We will receive that, too.

Q. All right. You can use the overlay. You can take it
out again.

What is the location of the school itself corresponding to
the boundary drawn around the school as shown on that
exhibit? A. The boundary of the school itself is indicated
in red here. The boundary of the school district is indi
cated as the outline of the yellow portion and one will
note here that the school’s location reaches to the elemen
tary boundaries themselves to the extreme eastern portion
of that particular district. This being Colorado Boulevard
right here.

Q. What is the . underlying residential composition of
that neighborhood as shown by the census tract informa
tion? A. In 1960, the year in which Barrett opened its
doors to the children, the census tract, 36C, was shown to
be 73 percent Negro. In census tract 36B, which contains
the northern portion of Barrett Elementary School, the
racial composition was 51 percent Negro. On the other

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

169a

hand, across Colorado Boulevard, which is the dividing
line here between these two portions, we see that, by tak
ing the census material, the census statistics from the
enumeration district, that the area shown in 'white was 6
percent Negro, just across from Colorado Boulevard. It
might be worthwhile to point out here that Colorado
Boulevard itself also extends E1553 down through Teller
and Steck. However, Colorado Boulevard goes down
through the middle of Teller and it also goes down through

not quite the middle, but at least down through the
middle portion of Steck itself.

Q. But Colorado Boulevard serves as a boundary be
tween Barrett School and what other school located to
the east? A. Stedman School would be located in this
area here.

Q. And those are 1960 census tract figures? A. 1960
census tract figures. That’s right, sir.

Mr. Barnes: This is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40, Your
Honor. If you want to look at it or I ’ll just give
it to Mr. Kerr—

The Court: Very well.

Q. What was the capacity of Barrett School when it
opened, Dr. Bardwrell? A. The capacity of Barrett when
it opened was 480, but this provided for two special ed
ucation rooms of about 301 spaces. So this would make an
effective capacity less special education of about 450.

Q. Is that a comparatively large or small school? A.
I t’s a comparatively small school.

Q. What is the general size of land upon which the
school—the school land upon -which this school is built,
if you know? A. I ’d have to check out the size or the
site for E156J this particular—

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs■—Direct

170a

Q. Let me restate my question.
Does the smallness of site dictate the smallness of the

school in this case? A. I wouldn’t think so here because
this site looks to be reasonably large.

Q. I’m talking about the actual site upon which the
school is built; the playground site? A. Oh, the play
ground itself—I’m not certain whether or not this is com
patible with the site size.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, turning your attention to Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 42 which you have there and which we have another
copy here, will you state what that purports to show? A.
Yes. At the time that Barrett opened its doors in 1960,
the percentage enrollment in Barrett was about 89.6 per
cent black or Negro. Stedman Elementary School, located
on the eastern portion here of Colorado Boulevard in the
white area, had a capacity of around 660 and it was over
capacity by about 18 percent, having about 742 students in
that year.

Q. Is that shown on the bar graph? A. And that in
formation is depicted on the bar graph here in which we
have indicated that Barrett School opened at 100 percent
capacity. Stedman, however, was operating at about 118
—120 percent over capacity.

* * # # *

[158] * * *
Q. Do you have another comment, Dr. Bardwell? A.

Yes, I would. I think it might be pointed out here, Your
Honor, that in the case of Stedman School, which is lo
cated primarily in this area that is predominantly white,
in comparison to the area over here which Barrett served,
that Stedman in 1960 at the time Barrett opened its com
position of enrollment was about 85 percent Anglo and

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

171a

if one keeps in mind here that Barrett itself opened up
at 90 percent or 89.6 percent black.

The Court: You already pointed that out, hadn’t
you?

Hasn’t he already testified to this ?
Mr. Barnes: We won’t ask him to do it again,

Your Honor.
The Court: Good.

By Mr. Barnes:

_ Q- Dr- Bardwell, turning your attention to Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 50,1 ask you to state what that purports to show? A.
Yes, this exhibit has been prepared from the source maps
of the Denver Public Schools representing this part of
the City of Denver. This is the part of the so-called Park
Hill section. This is Park Hill Elementary School boundary
in 1961. This is Stedman Elementary School in 1961.
This is Hallett. This is Smith. This is Ashley, Philips, Mont
clair and Montclair Annex, and Montclair being located
[1593 here. The annex is located over here. The shaded
areas are optional areas as of 1961, and optional between
Stedman and Park Hill. This shaded area here is located
between Hallett and Philips—this was optional between
Hallett and Philips, this shaded area here, which was an
optional area between Montclair and the annex and—

Q. What is the source of that exhibit? A. The source
of the exhibit except for the names which have been put
on over here by ourselves is the 1961 boundary map of the
Denver Public Schools.

# # # * #
[1623 * * #

Q. Mr. Bardwell, I direct your attention to Plaintiffs’

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

172a

Exhibit 51, a bar graph, and ask you to state what that
purports to show? A. This shows that for the schools,
Stedman—and Stedman is located here—Smith, and Smith
is located here, serving these boundaries; Hallett is here
and corresponds to this right here; and Park Hill corre
sponds to this particular area. It shows that in 1961 Sted
man was over capacity—or was over capacity by the follow
ing amount. Its capacity was 630 and the total enrollment
at that time was 742 and computation shows that it was
about 20 percent over capacity. Smith, on the other hand,
in 1961 was under capacity. It had, for example, capacity
of 960 with three special education units, and its enrollment
however, was 909. In Hallett, it is almost at capacity. It
has a capacity of 510 and an enrollment of 495, and this is
about 99 percent capacity. On the other hand, in Park
Hill we have here an enrollment of 709, a capacity of
660. It is in excess capacity of about 10 percent.

Q. What is the source of the information in that exhibit?
A. The source of the information in this exhibit—[163]
I m sure I have it here—is the report, a study of pupil
population, school boundaries, February 1962—excuse me_
also pupil transportation, school buildings, Denver Public
Schools, February, 1962.

Q. Published by— A. Published by the Denver Public
Schools.

Mr. Barnes: I offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51 into evi
dence.

The Court: Do you object?
Mr. Creighton: That standing objection.
The Court: The objection will be overruled. I t will

be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 51 was received
in evidence.)

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

173a

Q. Dr. .Bardwell, were there changes in boundaries pro
posed in 1961? A. Yes, there were. There were a number
of boundary changes proposed in 1961 and this overlay—

Q. That is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 53? A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
53. The boundary changes that were proposed by the Su
perintendent at that time and the source of the informa
tion that we have on this is the study report submitted to
the Board at that time, indicated that the Superintendent
proposed that this area here that is located just east of
Park Hill Golf Course be removed from [164] Stedman and
placed in Smith, that the area that is just west of Hallett
shown here, which is now a part in 1961 of Stedman, be
removed from Stedman and placed in Hallett. The optional
area between Stedman and Park Hill, the Superintendent
proposed that that be placed in Park Hill. The optional
area between Hallett and Philips, it was suggested that
that be placed in Philips.

The optional area here between Whiteman and Mont
clair was proposed—it was proposed that that be placed in
Montclair. Similarly, the area just south of Park Hill
which was in Park Hill at that time, it was proposed to put
that into Palmer and the Albion School, which is a small
school discontinued about 1962, it was proposed—that was
phased out. But that that be attached to Park Hill.

Q. What’s the source of that information? A. The
source of that information comes about in two ways, the
examination of the study report to the Board in 1962—

Q. Is that study report Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 52? A. Yes,
it is.

Mr. Barnes: We would like to recall to the stand
Dr. George Bardwell.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

[1753 * * *

174a

Dr. George Bardwell, called as a witness by the plain
tiffs, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand
and further testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, you are going to need to testify from

the chart. Doctor, have you prepared Exhibits 52, 53, 54,
51 and 56 and 55, 57 and 58? A. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you identify those exhibits and state the source
of the information on each? A. Exhibit 50 is a 1961 bound
ary map of the Denver Public Schools for the areas shown.
Exhibit 53 are the proposed boundary changes, February,
1962. These boundary changes are shown in yellow. Ex
hibit 51 is a capacity utilization bar chart. Exhibit 54 is a
boundary map in 1962.

[176] The Court: What was 51 again? What did
you call 51?

Q. What did you call 51? A. 51 is a bar chart showing
capacity utilization of the four schools, Stedman, Smith,
Hallett and Park Hill.

The Court: Derived from what source, he asked
you?

The Witness: Yes, this capacity utilization chart
has been derived from the source indicated here,
“Report—-A Study of Pupil Population, School
Boundaries, Pupil Transportation, School Buildings,
Denver Public Schools, February, 1962.”

The Court: Go ahead.
The Witness: All right, you have 53, sir?
The Court: Yes.

George E..Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

175a

Q. Exhibit 54 is a boundary map? A. Exhibit 54 is a
boundary map of the 1962 boundaries of the same schools
shown in the preceding exhibit, showing the effect of the
boundary changes in 1962. Exhibit 56 is a capacity utiliza
tion bar chart showing the effect of the boundary changes
in 1962, and Exhibit 58 is a graph showing the estimated
Anglo enrollment.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—-Direct

The Court: Hold up, just a minute. I have to
identify these in my notes or they don’t mean a thing
to me, so just slow down a little bit.

The Witness: Right, sir.
£1773 The Court: 56 is a capacity utilization

chart, showing the effect of 1962 boundary changes,
right ?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Is that correct?
The Witness: That’s right, sir.
The Court: All right, let’s go to the next one.
The Witness: And the source on 56 is again the

report and recommendations to the Board of Educa
tion, School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, by a
special study committee on equal educational oppor
tunity, and this is dated—this is an appendix to that
report. Exhibit 58 is the estimated Anglo enrollment,
1962. It is a graph.

Q. The source for that? A. Yes.
Q. What is the source? A. And the source of this is re

ports of racial and ethnic distribution of students for the
years 1963, 64, 65, and division of personnel services, Den
ver Public Schools, information for 1960 derived from U.S.
Bureau of Census.

176a

Q. Do you have 551 Have you identified that? A. There
is no 55. Excuse me, 55 shows an overlay of the boundaries
not changed in September, 1962. Exhibit 57 shows the
Negro population in the Stedman school district by enumer
ation district in 1960.

Q. And enumeration district is a category of the U.S.
£1783 Census information? A. Yes, enumeration district
is a small geographical area that the Bureau of the Census
uses to control the census enumeration.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to offer Exhibits 53, 54,
51, 56, 55 and 57 and 58 into evidence.

Mr. Creighton: I think the Court knows our objec
tion. The basis is remoteness and irrelevancy to all
of these.

The Court: I take it your purpose in offering these
is to show that in 1962 there was presented to the
Board of Education a plan which would have to some
degree reversed the trends which have been going
on and that this plan was rejected? Is this what you
are saying?

Mr. Barnes: That is it in part, Your Honor. We
intend to show that the only portions of that plan
which Avere not accepted were those which would
have transferred black children into predominantly
white schools, and those with regard to the Stedman
school district, which was at that time the black
school in that area.

The Court: What’s your overall object? That’s
what I asked you. I think I understand what the
graphs were seeking to illustrate. In relationship
to the issues that we are trying, just so the record
will be clear, what’s your goal in offering these?

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

177a

£1793 Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, we are inter
ested in showing a pattern of historic acts which
lends meaning and substance to the rescission itself
which are consistent with it and which will go cir
cumstantially to show two things: One, intent on
the part of the Board in rescission, and second, a
net effect over the years intensifying and isolating
segregation of schools in this part of town.

The Court: Well, Exhibits 50 through 58, noting
the objection, will nevertheless be received, and this
may prolong the trial, and if you have to respond
to this material, why, if you hadn’t anticipated it,
why, this is a risk we will have to take, I guess.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 50 through 58
were received in evidence.)

Q. Doctor, would you comment on what those exhibits
show, beginning chronologically? A. Yes, Exhibit 50,
showing the original boundaries of the school district in
1961, the hatched area showing the optional areas between
Stedman and Park Hill, between Hallett and Philips,
between Montclair Annex and Whiteman. In 1962, Super
intendent Oberholtzer made certain proposals before the
School Board, which I indicated in yellow. It is interest
to note that in each case of the proposed boundary change,
these areas tended to be detached and indicated the direc
tion in which they would become detached, all of these
changes going [180] south and west in this direction.

Q. East, I think. A. What?
Q. South and east? A. South and east. At the time,

in 1961, Stedman was overcrowded to the extent of 18
percent. Smith was undercrowded. It was below capacity.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

178a

Hallett was slightly below capacity and Park Hill was
slightly over capacity. The Board adopted each of those
changes except two in number—three in number. Those
three that were not adopted bounded the elementary school
district of Stedman, which at the time we had estimated
on the basis of Exhibit 58 was between 35 and 50 Anglo.
The effect of the Board’s actions in making those boundary
changes with respect to capacity are shown in Plaintiffs’
Exhibit 56, in which we note that Stedman was still at
the same—to the same extent over capacity before and
after the boundary changes. Smith declined somewhat in
actual utilization of its capacity, considerably below capa
city at that point. Hallett was brought up to capacity
and Park Hill enrollment then exceeded the capacity of
the school.

To illustrate the distribution of the Negro population
in Stedman, which is the school on which attention is
focused, we see that by enumeration district, this being
Stedman Elementary School District here, that there was
a tendency by these boundary changes, or the lack of
making [181] these boundary changes to aggravate and
intensify the containment of the Negro population in
Stedman at that time.

Here, by enumeration district, we find that the Black
area is between 16 and 20 percent Negro. The surrounding
areas that are hatched are between four and five percent
Negro. The remaining part of this exhibit, the remaining
school districts being clear, were less than three percent
Negro in 1960.

Q. And the boundary changes which were effected per
tain to those areas which were less than three percent.
A. Yes, they do, sir.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

179 a

Q. I believe you related yesterday the number of Negro
students in Stedman in 1961. A. There is an estimate
here in Stedman in 1961, an estimate here of between, oh,
around 60 percent Anglo, which would make it about 40
percent Negro.

Q, Doctor, I hand you—I guess we will point out on
the board—we need another board. Doctor, have you pre
pared Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 75 and—well, stopping
at 75. A. Yes, I have.

Q. Would you identify those exhibits and the sources
from which they are taken? A. Yes, Exhibit 70 is a map
of the Park Hill schools being considered in 1963. This
is an official boundary map [182] of the Denver Public
Schools.

The Court: The year 1963, you say?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Very well.

A. (Continued) Exhibit 71 is an overlay showing the
boundary changes for those schools in 1964. Exhibit 72—
the source on that, sir, is the 1964 boundary map of the
Denver Public Schools. Exhibit 72 is an official boundary
map of the schools in 1964 of the Denver Public Schools.

The Court: Hold up. Any members of the press
have to sit outside of the rail. We reserve this
space in here for the lawyers and for the principal
witnesses. I don’t know whether there is anybody
here or not, but if there is, why, I will have to ask
you to retire. Go ahead.

A. (Continued) Exhibit 72 is a portion of the official
boundary map of the Denver Public Schools in 1964.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

180a

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Exhibit 73 is an overlay which portrays by school year
date the location of mobile units in the elementary schools.
Exhibit 75 is a graph showing the Anglo enrollment in
1963 and 1964 on a percentage basis for the seven schools
being considered. Exhibit 76 is an illustration of the 1964
changes and the corresponding estimates of the percentage
Negro in those boundary changes, as well as the percentage
Negro population in the elementary school district.

Q. What is the source of the census information on
[183] Exhibit 76? A. The source of the census informa
tion on 76 is the 1966 census study that I prepared and
by subtracting from the 1966 census figure information
on length of residency, between two years and under, the
figures were derived in each of the yellow areas as so
indicated.

Q. Is there any other information on any of these ex
hibits which was not issued by the Denver Public Schools?
A. All of the remaining information are official records
of the Denver Public Schools.

Q. Doctor, I hand you Exhibit 101 and ask you to
identify that. A. Yes, this is a tabulation entitled “Mobile
Classrooms Costs , which indicates the date of purchase
and location of the mobile units located in the Denver
Public School district.

Q. Where did you obtain that document? A. This
document was obtained from Dr. Armstrong’s files several
days ago. I personally took this out of his files and had
it duplicated.

Mr. Barnes: We would like to offer Plaintiffs’
Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 and 101.

Mr. Creighton: We make the objections to all of
these on the grounds of relevancy, Your Honor, and

181a

in addition, as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 76, we object
on the grounds £184] there has been no foundation
laid to show the admissibility of the estimates and
figures shown thereon.

The Court: Well, what do yon propose to illus
trate with this!

Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, this evidence is offered
to show the concentration of Negro students as they
increased in 1964 and 65 in mobile units in Stedman
and Smith, Hallett, and to a lesser degree in Park
Hill and Philips, and offer to show that the
boundary changes intensified the segregation in
Hallett and schools which became segregated in that
year.

I t also tends to show the general movement of
boundaries continuous from the last series to the
south and east in advance of the inward movement
of the Negro population.

The Court: Well, there are no boundary changes
depicted here, are there, in these exhibits?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor, these are a series
of boundary changes which occurred in 1964.

The Court: Oh, 71 show that!
Mr. Barnes: That’s correct.
The Court: When did you see these?
Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor?
The Court: When did you see them?
Mr. Creighton: When did I see these exhibits?

We finally got them the night before this hearing
commenced, [185] about 9:30.

Mr. Barnes: I think these were supplied to
counsel Saturday, Your Honor,

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Direct

182a

Mr. Creighton: I beg your pardon. These were
supplied last Saturday, and these were part of the
series it had been suggested might not be used, but
the fact is we have had them during that time and we
object to them as to whether they fairly relate to the
figures the school district possesses, and on that
ground these are properly based on our figures, ex
cept for 76.

The Court: Are they going to prejudice you in the
defense of your case?

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, it simply expands the
scope of this hearing back to actions taken by other
boards in 1964 and 65 in this instance. I think IVe
explained we feel the narrow issue is what this
School Board did this spring. No, I don’t think it is
going to prejudice us. It just means we have got
perhaps more to deal with in this hearing.

The Court: Very well, they will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 70, 71, 72, 73,

75, 76 and 101 were received in evidence.)
The Court: I think, though, we ought to make an

inquiry about where we are going here. Have you
changed your plans? Have you now decided to throw
everything but the [1861 kitchen sink into this hear
ing, or including the sink?

Mr. Barnes: No, Your Honor, there are 116 schools
in the district and this evidence relates only to those
schools which were involved in these resolutions and
in the rescission and which the resegregation of
which will be accomplished if the rescission is imple
mented.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

183 a

There are examples of optional transfers and
boundary changes and examples also of schools
which are far more segregated than these, which we
intend, to offer in the main hearing. There is a great
deal more, but in a hearing of this kind, when we need
to prove intent circumstantially, it seems to us to be
relevant to offer all that relates to these schools.

The Court: Then, you will complete your presenta
tion as to the Park Hill School in this hearing,
really!

Mr. Barnes: That’s correct, Your Honor. We do
not anticipate any substantial more degree of evi
dence about Park Hill. We have investigated that as
well as we can with the possible exception of optional
transfers, discriminatory transfers, from the Park
Hill area, the evidence of which we haven’t got com
plete at this time.

The Court: Very well.
Mr. Barnes: There may also be, I am reminded

by counsel, some curriculum differences, but we don’t
know of those at this time.

[1873 Q. Doctor, will you explain what the exhibits that
you have on the board show! A. Yes, a number of obser
vations flow from these exhibits. Beginning with the 1963
boundaries as they exist, we notice—

Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor, the wit
ness was asked what they show and not to make
observations, and I believe he ought to understand
that.

The Court: Well, I don’t know whether he is re
sponding or not so far. I can’t tell. We will just have
to test him out. Go ahead.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

184 a

A. (Continued) These exhibits show, beginning- with Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 70, the original 1963 boundaries of the school
district. In 1964, these boundary changes were proposed.
I t is noted here that in each instance each boundary change
have a general direction of being detached in a school in a
more northern part, the more westerly part, so that the
general direction of the detachment is in a southeasterly
direction.

If one compares the percentage Negro in Stedman, Hal-
lett, Philips and Park Hill, it is noted that in each of the
instances of the detachment that the percentage Negro is
smaller than the actual area to which the boundary change
was originally states in 1963. This is true for Stedman, in
which Stedman is 43 percent. The area detached to Hallett
is five [188] percent. And Hallett, the area is 25 per
cent as an entire area. I t is 20 percent in population, the
area that is detached. Similarly, for the optional area of
Stedman, four percent to two percent and the same pattern
reveals itself when we examine the collection of the bound
ary changes that were suggested in 1964. This was in re
sponse to the very massive movement of the Negro popula
tion into the Park Hill area from the period 1960-1966. The
net consequence of this was that in each instance, Stedman,
Smith, Hallett, Philips, Park Hill actually, and Montclair,
the percentage Anglo enrollment declined from 1963 to 1964,
and in fact in the case of Hallett dropped from 65 percent
Anglo enrollment to around 40 percent by 1964.

The response then for this movement into the Park Hill
area was the building of a substantial number—in fact, 28
of the mobile units out of the 29 in the school district at
that time, were located in the Park Hill area, as shown in
Exhibit 73. Here, we find that twelve units were placed in
Smith, four units in Hallett, four in Park Hill, in 1965. In

George E. Bardivell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

185 a

the preceding year, four units were placed in Philips and
four units were placed in Stedman, suggesting that the
response here was—the response to this Negro movement
in population was the concentration of the school popula
tion, further concentrated by the use of mobile units.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what have been identified
[ 1 8 9 ] as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7-Gr, 9 - J and 8-1, and ask you
to identify those. A. 7-Gr is the graph of a segregation
index for the senior high schools from 19 6 3 to 1968 , showing
the effect of the rescission of Resolution 1520 on those
senior high schools. Attached to that exhibit is an explana
tion of a mathematical foundation for the construction of
this index. Exhibit 8-1 is a similar graph for the junior high
schools subjected to Resolutions 1520 and 1524 , and 9-J is
a similar photograph applicable to the elementary schools
subject to Resolution 1531 .

Q. What is the source of the figures or the information
that went into the making of those graphs? A. The basic
statistical information has been derived from the distri
bution of students by race and ethnicity, from the division
of personnel services, in 1963 to 1968.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to offer Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 7-Gr, 8-1 and 9-J.

Mr. Creighton: If I may voir dire, it is just pos
sible we will want these admitted ourselves, Your
Honor.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton:
Q. Dr. Bardwell, your explanation of your methodology

is a two-page explanation, is it not, in mathematical termi
nology? [190] A. It is.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire

186a

Q. As a non-mathematician I’m trying to understand this.
Do I understand, Dr. Bardwell, what you have done here is
show in a graphic form the extent to which a school popu
lation departs in its ethnic proportions from an ideal
school, or I should say a hypothetical school, which repre
sents the ethnic proportions of the school district as a
whole! Is that what it does? A. That’s right, sir.

Q. What are those ethnic proportions of the school dis
trict as a whole which you used ? A. Abstractly, and these
are at each end of the spectrum in which a totally segregated
school then would have an index of 100, a totally desegre
gated school would have an index of zero.

Q. Yes, but my question was, what was the hypothetical
sub-district that this compared? A. In the case of a sub
group of schools that would have a segregation index of
100, let’s say, this would mean that all of the students that
were Anglo would be confined to a certain set of schools
and all of the students that were minority, namely Negro
and Hispano, would be confined to another set of schools.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, do I understand that you—you have
£191] got to know your methodology and decide about this
—did you start off with a hypothetical city-wide sub-district
which—I’m using figures from my recollection—which
would be something on the order of eight or ten percent
Negro, ten or twelve percent Hispano, and the balance
Anglo? Is that what you started with? A. Well, no, if
we start here then with a segregation index of zero—

Q. What would that kind of school have? A. Then, this
would constitute that abstract situation in which in each of
the schools in a sub-district there would be the same pro
portion in those schools as would be reflected in the district
as a whole. I might add that this is much like a cost of liv
ing index, in which one establishes the base, let’s say, 1957

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire

187a

to 1959 prices. This is equal to 100, and one would like to
know what departure from that particular index—whether
or not prices decreased or increased. You have an objective
way of comparing a very large mass of data, bringing it
down into a single index, which provides a very convenience
and very meaningful way of analyzing a very complicated
concept like segregation.

Q. This may prove to be that kind of approach, but it is
just not clear to me, Doctor. You speak of sub-schools, and
I will take Exhibit 7-G, the one first mentioned. By sub
schools, you mean which? Senior high schools? [192] A.
We mean in this case East, George Washington and South.

Q. Now, you have lumped them all together. A. As a
group.

Q. And compared it with the School District No. 1 as a
whole. A. That’s right, sir.

Q. Do I understand you to say that these three schools
lumped together depart from what you called the abstract
sub-district on the order of 40 to 50 during the period in
volved? A. I will trust your reading of the graph on that.
I assume, yes, that’s right.

Q. And if the three school districts, sub-districts, lumped
together, had exactly mirrored the ethnic ratios of the city
as a whole, it would have been zero? A. That’s right.

The Court: I don’t think you ought to go into the
merits of these on a voir dire examination. You are
ascertaining method or testing, I suppose, the ac
curacy of the exhibit.

Mr. Creighton: Well, if we understand—
The Court: I mean, I do not think it is proper to

cross-examine him on them on whether they are—

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire

188a

Mr. Creighton: Well, these have been offered,
Your Honor, and—-

[193] The Court: —at this time. Eventually, I
suppose you will have a full opportunity to cross-
examine every aspect of them, but this is preliminary
examination to determine whether they are authentic,
sufficiently so to justify their being received.

Mr. Creighton: Well, I’m going to object to the
office of the exhibit on the grounds that it is not
relevant to the issues in this hearing.

The Court: You think that further questioning
will have brought about the results that you more or
less held out to us that you agreed to their being
received if you have some opportunity to question1?

Mr. Creighton: Well, Your Honor—
The Court: WTere you disappointed in his answers ?

It seems to me you agreed with everything he said.
Mr. Creighton: Well, if I may go a little bit

further?
The Court: I just don’t know what you had in

mind.
Mr. Creighton: Well, I hope I can discover that

the methodology here is such that we can agree that it
shows fairly what is in issue in this hearing, and I
am still inquiring about his methodology in produc
ing this exhibit.

The Court: Well, go ahead then.

Q. Now, this relates only to school populations? [194] A.
That’s right. Populations, that’s right.

Q. And the terminal here on each of these exhibits is
1968? A. That’s right.

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire

189 a

Q. What school year do you mean by that? A. That
would be the school year 1968-69.

Q. This past year? A. That’s right, sir.
Q. And 67 would be the year before that? A. That’s right.
Q. And the data— A. Now these are the only data, of

course, that are available on the school district, as you
know, that gives a breakdown by race and ethnicity. In fact,
the only figures available from the school district extend
from 1963 to 1968, in which the year .shown at the bottom
refers to the school year beginning in September of that
year. Presumably, it begins in September.

Q. I think I have only one more question. You have
shown one part of your diagram here, rescission of resolu
tion—I think it refers to 1520 in the case of Exhibit 7-G
for 1968, which you tell us is last school year—Have you
again assumed that next fall is going to have last year’s
racial composition under rescission of the resolution? A.
I’m making the assumption here from the School [195]
Board figures and the review of the composition and our
own calculations from that.

Q. Well, you understand, Dr. Bardwell, that the school
district has not projected the effects of the new plans? A.
And the racial composition of each of these schools, the
assumption being made had that plan been in effect in
1968-69 school year, this could be the effect on the segrega
tion index for those sub-schools.

Q. Oh, you— A. Otherwise, it wouldn’t—
Q. If 1520 had been in effect during the last school year,

it would have produced the Black line, is that what you
are saying? A. That’s right.

Q. But, that’s not what the school district’s figures say.
A. These are derived from directly those—

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire

190a

Q. Don’t the school district’s figures say that implementa
tion of 1520 would result next year in certain estimated
ethnic patterns? A. That’s right.

Q. And I am just trying to establish what rescission of
resolution is based upon, what assumptions? A. The rescis
sion of the resolution is based upon the [196] ethnic and
racial distribution of those students of each of the sub
schools under the resolution and the Black line which de
parts and shows the index of around 25 would be based on
the assumption that in order to have a means of comparison
the year 1968 was shown, what the effect of that resolution
would be upon pupil membership.

Q. For last year or next year? A. For 1968-69. In other
words, had the resolution itself been in effect.

Q. Last year? A. That’s right.
Q. It would have produced the Black line? A. That’s

right. In other words, if we are to have a meaningful com
parison on a time basis, instead of projecting the racial
composition under the rescission of the resolution, the in
formation is much more accurately reflected if we use the
racial composition had those racial compositions been in
effect during 1968-69, and what we are attempting to show
here by this graph is a depiction of the magnitude of the
effect of the rescission on comparable periods of school
populations at a single point in time.

Q. What I’m trying to get you to admit, I think, Dr.
Bardwell, is that you have applied 1520 to last year’s school
year rather than next year. A. Absolutely.

[197] Q. And when you say rescission of resolution,
that’s your way of showing last year’s figures. A. That’s
right, last year’s figures.

Mr. Creighton: All right. We have no objection.

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Voir Dire

191a

The Court: Well, they will he received, 7-G, 8-1
and 9-J.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7-G, 8-1 and
9-J were received in evidence.)

Direct Examination by Mr. Barnes (Continued):
Q. Would you explain what graph 7-G shows! A. What

graph 7-G shows is a segregation index for the senior high
schools which is fairly flat over the period 1963 to 1967,
lying between about 45 and 50 percent, and in 1967 where
we make the comparison for the resolution before and
after rescission, that we show that we—on the basis of
1968 enrollment figures that the segregation index would
be about 50, that the effect of the resolution on the
segregation index is to decrease that index to a value
of around 28.

Q. What does the exhibit show with regard to the
changes which occurred in the segregation index in the
years 1963 and following! A. Would you repeat the
question!

[1983 Q. What changes occurred, if any, in the years
1963 and following in the segregation index up to the point
of implementation of the integration resolution! A. I
think it is clear from the graph, Mr. Barnes, that this
index shows that the degree of segregation for these
particular schools remains fairly constant for the period
1963 to 1967, between a value of about 45 to 50.

Q. Handing you Exhibit 8-1, what does that show! A.
This is a corresponding graph of the segregation index
for the junior high schools that are affected by these two
resolutions, and again in 1963 an approximate value for
this index is around 63, and again it remains between the

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

192a

value of around 63 to 70 over the period 1963 to 1967.
Based upon the 1968 school enrollment figures and the
distribution by race and ethnicity, we would have then a
segregation index on that basis of around 63 to 64. The
effect of the resolution is to decrease that index on the
basis of that same year comparison to a value of around
35, so the degree of segregation compared to what we
would have under the rescission of the resolutions around
65 would be decreased to about 35 under the resolution.

Q. Handing you Exhibit 9-J, what does that show!
A. 9-J is a similar graph for the elementary schools, in
which there have been, starting in 1963, a gradual trend
from about 82 down to about 65 in 1967 of the segregation
£1993 index. In 1968, comparing the two values for the
elementary schools under the resolutions, we would find
that the 1968 enrollment would show an index of around
60. The effect of the resolutions would decrease this index
to a value of about 43, so there have been a decline in that
sense of about 17 percentage points in the segregation
index under the resolutions, and this would give an ap
proximate effect of desegregating, the desegregating effect
of the resolutions for the elementary schools.

Q. Referring back to Exhibit 7-G-, 8-1 and 9-J together,
do they reflect any other substantial desegregation of the
impact equivalent to that achieved under the resolutions!
A. No, they do not.

Q. Do these Exhibits 7-G, 8-1 and 9-J pertain simply
to the sub-schools under the resolutions! A. They do.

# # # # #

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Direct

193a

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

[ 200] * * *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I plan to go through several exhibits
that you introduced more or less in the order that you
introduced them. I would like first to discuss Exhibit 8-F
with you. I hand you the exhibit. This shows, does it not,
and I might cite for the Court’s benefit this exhibit is
labeled as showing relationship between ethnic compositions
of certain junior high schools and the number of Negro and
Hispano teachers in those schools—Dr. Bardwell, the first
column after the school name shows what the school district
projects as the percentage of Negro and Hispano students
in those schools next fall if 1520 and 1524 have been imple
mented. A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the next column which you call “After Rescission”
is in fact what those schools have in the way of ethnic
proportions last school year, according to the school dis
trict’s figures? A. That is correct.

Q. And, finally, in the third column, you have put not a
percentage but the absolute number of teachers, have [201]
you not! A. That is right.

Q. Taking Smiley, for example, you have noted that there
are 23 Negro and Hispano teachers there, according to
school district figures last year. A. That’s right.

Q. Do you know what that would be as the percentage
of total number of teachers there? A. I have that in another
exhibit. This amounts to—I will have to—

Q. Do you know at the moment? A. No, I do not.
Q. If I suggested to you that the same information you

have been using shows that last year there were 96 teachers
at Smiley, would you accept that as probably the figure?
A. If I am not held to it.

194a

Q. And as a mathematician, it would be about what per
cent? A. It would look to be about 25 percent.

Q. As a matter of fact, isn’t it at best a misnomer to
label this “concentration of Negro and Hispano teachers” ?
Wouldn’t a percentage have shown that better? A. Well,
not necessarily, sir, because what we are talking about
here, and I think this is a fair depiction of the information,
we are talking about the number of Negro [202] and His
pano teachers located in those subject schools. Now, since
there are 80 of these teachers altogether, then it seems to
be a fair representation of the information to show in which
schools those particular teachers are in fact concentrated,
and I can’t think of a better word for it. This would mean
that 37—

Q. By concentration, then you are not talking about
concentration at a particular school, but these particular
schools? A. Yes, that’s all we are comparing in this exhibit
are the subject schools under the two resolutions.

Q. All right, I’m going to hand you next Exhibit 8-G,
which again shows as you have labeled it “concentration”
and here again you have used and these are in the same
junior high schools, are they not? In fact, Dr. Bardwell,
isn’t what you have done in 8-G is simply make a bar graph
out of those absolute numbers on the right hand column?
A. That’s exactly what was done, that’s right.

Q. You are calling it there again concentration of teach
ers? A. That’s right.

Q. Do you happen to know the total number of teachers,
say, at Kunsmiller or Hill? A. I have those in my records
and I—if you would like me to—

[203] Q. Well, from your present knowledge of all of
these figures, Dr. Bardwell, would it be fair to say if this
bar graph were shown as percentages rather than absolute

George E. Bar dwell—for Plaintiffs—Gross

195a

numbers, the percentage of Negro and Hispano teachers at,
say, Kunsmiller and Hill would be higher relatively to
Smiley and Cole than here shown? A. If we take the num
ber of teachers, and they tend to be fairly uniform among
the subject junior high schools, then whether one uses num
bers or percentages it’s really immaterial, but it is true, as
I recall the figures generally, that Cole and Smiley do have
more teachers generally than some of the other junior high
schools shown here, so the percentages would decrease these
bars somewhat. The extent to which this decrease occurs,
I am not willing or able to testify.

* * * • #
[204] * * *

Q. Let’s start with 40, the base exhibit, where you have
shown percentages which you say are taken from census
tract data for 1960. A. I might say here—

Q. No, let me frame a question, please. Did you further
refine the two census tracts to the west of Colorado Boule
vard by enumeration districts ? A. This information here—

Q. Did you or did you not, please. [205] A. No, I do not
believe we did.

Q. How many enumeration districts are in those areas
marked 51 percent and 73 percent? A. In this case, if my
recollection is correct, there are two enumeration districts
from the census tract 36-C and there are—

Q. Let me interrupt. 36-C is the one shown as 73 percent?
A. As 73 percent.

Q. And the one marked 51-C is census tract number what?
A. And census tract 36-B is 51 percent.

Q. Now, those census tracts are broken down into enu
meration tracts, aren’t they? A. That’s right.

Q. And you are telling me there are how many in each
of those ? A. It is my recollection, so I can’t be held to that.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

196a

Q. Yes. A. It is my recollection that there are two here.
Q. Yon are indicating 36-C? A. 36-C. I think there are

two here, and there are two here, but I can’t-—
Q. You are indicating for that answer 36-B, are you not?

[206] A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Do you recall what the enumeration tract showed as

far as percentage? A. I will have to go back to my notes.
I don’t know that I have them here. They are in large
bound books that are just simply too bulky to carry around,
but I would be more, than happy to furnish the information.

Q. Were these two enumeration tracts studied intensively
in the preparation of your report on Park Hill? A. No.
Well, yes, the information that was extracted from the
census reports of the 1960 census tract of Park Hill is the
36-C and 36-B. This is the so-called Clayton Park area of
the city, in which there was a large area of movement of
Negroes toward Colorado Boulevard.

Q. You considered these two in your Park Hill survey?
A. No, I considered more than that.

Q. But you did consider these? A. That’s right.
Q. Isn’t it possible, Dr. Bardwell, that if you had broken

these two census tracts down by enumeration district you
would have found differing percentages in the several enu
meration districts? A. Oh, this is quite true.

Q. And isn’t it possible basing this question really on
your report that the westward, the westerly enumeration
[207] tracts, in each of these, would have higher Negro
percentages than the easterly? [208] A. I think this is
generally true, but I caution you when you deal with a
smaller area, smaller subjects, on enumeration districts,
like this, that one can be fooled in the sense that certain
of these enumeration districts will show, for instance, a
higher percentage of Negro than census tract as a whole

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

197a

and not necessarily in the path of the migration of the
Negro families during that period.

This is particularly true in the northern part of this
area.

Q. But, there would be differences? A. Oh, yes, there
would be differences.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I don’t mean to keep you on your feet
any longer than necessary, but I must move to your next
series which involves some displays. May we have the 50
series ?

Let me call your attention, Dr. Dardwell, to Exhibit 57,
which is an overlay, is it not? Here, you did use enumera
tion districts, did you not? Here, you did use enumeration
districts, did you not? A. Yes, we—

Q. That’s all, that was my question. Do I understand
that the green portion of the Stedman—the two green por
tions, the dog leg and the rectangle, in the Stedman district
— A. These three here, this one and this one and this one?

[209] Q. Well, they are—the one on the south is con
tiguous, is it not? A. Yes.

Q. Those two green portions, overly, do they not, largely
areas in which there is generally speaking a low percentage
of Negro population by enumeration district in 1960?
A. That’s true, only part of the—

Q. Then, Dr. Bardwell—

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, might the witness be
allowed to finish his answer?

The Court: Yes.

A. I might point out, Mr. Creighton, that unfortunately
enumeration district population in 1960 is the smallest
subunit of population we could possibly get and, there

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

198 a

fore, to apply that population directly to the green areas
we have used those enumeration districts which were
our most appropriate, most applicable, because those are
the enumeration districts that are coextensive, as best
we can, with the green areas that we have; that’s right.

Q. But if I heard the first part of your response, you
agreed that the green areas overlie largely white areas.
A. That’s right.

Q. And, therefore, to have moved them to Smith and
Hallett would have been to take substantial largely white
[2103 pupils according to your methodology out of Hallett
or out of Stedman and into Smith and Hallett? A. I am
not certain I can say that. At least, it would be part of
this area here. You see, I do not know exactly what blocks
are assigned to this particular green area. What this is
is a general depiction showing that the entire Park Hill
area, the area that was coextensive with Stedman, was
by far more or higher percentage Negro than any other
part of Park Hill. What would have happened in par
ticular with these particular green areas going out into
Smith or from Stedman to Hallett from here to Park
Hill is largely an unknown factor. One would have to
estimate this in some way. It could well be, and in fact
from my census I can assert that the area in which many
of the Negro families moved first into Park Hill in the
early stages or early parts of 1960 was precisely in this
area here with respect to the green area right here.

Q. You are indicating the northerly green area in the
Stedman district? A. Yes, but, nevertheless, in terms of
time this area here was essentially the first area in which
Negro concentration became higher than other parts of
Park Hill.

Q. Dr. Bardwell, I am not sure I understand to what

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

199a

extent yon are willing to interpret this, but I will ask this
question once more. Isn’t it true from that exhibit that
[2113 if the green areas had in fact been moved from
Smith and Hallett it would have subtracted largely white
circles from the Stedman school? A. I cannot say that.
I cannot say that, no.

Q. Would you admit that is a possibility, one of the
possibilities? A. Obviously, yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Bardwell, let me direct your attention to
your Exhibit 58. I believe you told us that the point on
the upward axis—what’s that called? A. This is called
the ordinate, “Y” axis.

Q. “Y” axis? The points on the “Y” axis for 1960
are taken from the census ? A. Yes.

Q. And the points on that axis for 1963, ’64 and ’65 are
taken from school district data? A. That’s right.

Q. What you are trying to show here, as I understand,
is what might have been the case in 1962, for which you
don’t have that kind of data. A. Yes.

Q. And you put some rectangles there opposite the “Y”
axis for the several schools? How did you determine
those rectangles? A. From a mathematician’s point of
view, a [212] mathematician would simply draw one single
line through the points.

Q. That would be called interpolation? A. Yes. Here,
we wanted to give our analysis the widest latitude that we
possibly could, and, here, for example, in the case of
Stedman, even though Stedman at that particular time in
1962, according to our estimates, was between 30 and 45
percent Anglo, that the analysis still stands. In other
words, the analysis itself is firm enough, even allowing
a wide latitude of error in the estimates of the Anglo
population for each of those schools.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

200a

Q. You have determined for yourself the latitude of
error that you want to admit to by the rectangular bars?
A. Well, some common good sense goes into this, from
my knowledge of population movements.

Q. And this in turn is based on your study of Park
Hill? A. Well, a number of other studies, as well, that
there is something inherent in the fundamental nature of
sociological populations that one does not have when you
have evidence as compelling as this to have the inter
mediate years between ’63 and ’60 to go all over the chart.
Things just don’t happen that way. They don’t happen
in natural sciences or sociology, either.

Q. Even assuming the lower limits of your margin
£2133 of error, is it fair to say that the decline in Anglo
enrollment peaked out in 1962, and that thereafter the
decline rate modified consistently? A. Well, I am not
quite sure I know what you mean by peaked out.

Q. Bottomed out, I should have said. A. Well, it is
still, of course, declining.

Q. Yes, but at a lesser degree. A. It would have to, sir,
because you can’t have less than zero percent Anglo.

Q. I suppose not. A. No. In other words, you would
be going off the graph here, of course, if you were to
have a continuing series of—if the interpolation were
extended in a straight-line manner as you are perhaps
implying, then you would go below zero percent Anglo,
and that, of course, is impossible.

Q. Now, you do not have to extrapolate after ’63 because
you have data. A. That’s right.

Q. May we have your 70 series? And where is 76, Dr.
Bardwell? A. Bight here.

Q. In the lower left of that display? A. Lower left.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs-—Cross

201a

Q. Now, the arrows, will you tell us again, the [2141
arrows represent what? A. Want me to illustrate? The
arrow here, for example?

Q. You are referring to Hallett and Phillips. A. Refer
ring to Hallett school district and the boundary change
in the southeast part of Hallett, in which the figure on. it
is 20 percent.

Q. Yes, what does that mean? A. This 20 percent
means that our estimate here of the proportion of the
Negroes in that particular area—-

Q. That’s your professional estimate? A. That’s right.
Q. Excuse me, go ahead. A. That the proportion of

Negroes that were transferred out of Hallett because of
that boundary change into Philips was 20 percent.

Q. 20 of the previous Hallett percentage? A. No. No,
sir. 20 percent Negro.

Q. You mean of those moves, 20 percent was Negro?
A. That’s right, sir.

Q. What is the largest figure in the Hallett subdistrict,
25 percent? A. 25 percent refers again to estimates as
best we can determine.

Q. Prom what, Dr. Bardwell? [2153 A. Well—
Q. Prom what dates? A. Well, this 25 percent again

is from the 1966 census, or, I mean census of Park Hill.
Q. That is your census? A. That’s right.
Q. Your census indicates to you that Hallett subdistrict

had 25 percent Negro in 1964? A. That’s right.
Q. After the move or before? A. No, this was before

the change. In other words, the entire district, subdistrict
of Hallett, before this boundary change was actually made,
is 25 percent.

Q, All right. A. Similarly, for the other subdistricts
as well.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

2 0 2 a

Q. All right, then, taking yonr example, the Hallett to
Philips arrow, yon figure that 20 percent of those moved
were Negro? A. That’s right, sir.

Q. Doesn’t your ’66 report show that there are higher
concentrations of Negro residential patterns in the north
ern part of the Hallett district at that time than in the
southern part? A. In this part up in here, yes, that’s
true, as far as the area is concerned, that’s right. It may
not [216] extend over to this area here. It is only in this
part in here that we are talking about, but in general
the northern tier of the areas that were in that 1966 study
do show a higher proportion of the Negro residents.

Q. So, if something oft the southern tier of Hallett
would be moved to Philips, it would I suppose on that
data involve a lesser percentage of black children than
the district as a whole? A. Well, we are depicting in
this information as accurately as is conceivable from the
only possible source I know, and that is from my 1966
census, and those data indicate with the smallest sub
district that I have in that information that this is the
20 percent out and this is 25 percent corresponding to the
entire district.

Now, in terms of the precise location, we could go back
to the individual blocks and determine that precisely,
but this is an enormous task.

Q. Doesn’t your 1966 data indicate, for example, the
south and east part of Philips district was almost totally
white at that time residentially? A. That’s right.

Q. Therefore, movements to the contiguous areas of
Montclair and Ashley would necessarily on that metho
dology move only white children? A. You mean actually
here?

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

203a

12111 Q. From Philips to Ashley. A. Yes, that’s right.
Q. Moving from that part of the Philips district? A.

That’s right.
Q. And no other part of the Philips district was con

tiguous to Ashley, was it? A. Well, yes, this part in here,
northerly, the northern part of the boundary changes.

* * # * *

[218] # *
By Mr. Creighton:

Q. Dr. Bardwell, still with reference to the 70 series and
particularly to Exhibit 71, that shows changes in the school
district in fact made in the elementary schools for the
school year 1964 and 1965, does it not? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was after the receipt by that Board of the
March 1st, 1964, special study committee report, was it
not? A. That’s right.

[219] Q. Are you familiar with that report? A. I am.
Q. Would it be fair to say that that report says, with

respect to mobile units—

The Court: By the way, what’s the exhibit num
ber?

Mr. Creighton: This is Exhibit 20, Your Honor.

Q. —that the committee approves the use of mobile units
temporarily to relieve overcrowding. However, care should
be taken that these facilities should not become permanent.
Is that your recollection of the recommendation? A. Some
thing to that effect. I don’t know the exact wording and
perhaps I ought to see it.

Q. Certainly. I ’m showing the witness Page BIO of
Exhibit 20.

George E. Bardwell—̂for Plaintiffs—Cross

204a

Is that a satisfactory statement of the study committee’s
recommendation? A. Yes.'

Q. And in your 1966 study, Dr. Bardwell, and that for
the Court’s reference is Exhibit 38, wasn’t one of your
observations from your data that there had been, during
the period you substituted up to 1966, and particularly in
the years immediately preceding 1966, in the area we’re
talking about, there had been a rapid immigration particu
larly to the northern part of this area of Negro families;
that these Negro families had on the average more school
children per [2203 family than the white families they
apparently replaced? A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. And this happened very rapidly? A. Yes, this
points up the variation in the percentages here shown
in population statements here of 43 percent while, for ex
ample, 43 percent of the population in 1964 was Negro at
Stedman, yet, on the other hand, the proportion of Negro
students at Stedman was 85 percent and the difference in
that percentage reflects that.

Q. That rapid change? A. The difference between per
centage of Negro families and the percentage of students.

Q. There was a rapid change not only of racial composi
tion but of family size? A. There was.

Q. Do you think the use of mobile units—

The Court: Was this a trend that was apparently
at some earlier times?

A. A trend?

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: The trend had been manifested

starting in 1960, in which one finds—and we’re talk
ing about Park Hill as a whole—that the popula
tion may remain stable for that entire period of time,

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Gross

205a

the same number of people in Park Hill over the
six-year period, but the number of Negro [2213
persons increased from 520 to 12,200 in the span of
six years.

Q. Do you have any knowledge as to the deployment of
mobile units in the elementary schools involved in this 70
series today? A. Yes.

Q. Are there mobile units at Ashley, for example? A.
Yes. I have forgotten how many units at Ashley, and if my
recollection is correct there are two. But at Smith we still
have and even after this long period of time, after 1964,
which is a period of over five years, we still have mobile
units at Smith, four at Stedman, and four at Hallett. Park
Hill only within the past few months—only in the past few
months have the mobile units been removed from Park Hill.
Still, the same four mobile units at Philips and so, since
the 1964 report indicated the mobile units ought to be
temporary in nature, here we have the same mobile units
extending still today.

Q. Have there been any permanent facilities built in
this area during this period; this time? A. The most recent
one is the—yes, there have been some additions at Park
Hill. This is as Mr. Armstrong informs me in the past
year, the Park Hill addition has been made of around 300.

Q. Three hundred what? [2223 A. Three hundred spaces;
so, increased capacity.

Q. Do you know whether those are classrooms? A. Yes,
classrooms.

Q. Finally, Dr. Bardwell, referring to your segregation
indices, which are Exhibits 7G, 91 and 81, I believe you can
resume the witness stand—let me take the one that pertains
to the most schools first, and that is Exhibit 9J.

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

206a

Would you like to have it in front of you? A. Yes, please.

Mr. Creighton: Perhaps, Your Honor, those three
exhibits I just mentioned, if I could have them.

Q. I hand you, Dr. Bardwell, Exhibit 9J. On voir dire I
didn’t discuss this with you, Dr. Bardwell, so I must ask
you what pool of schools, what group of schools did you
use to construct this exhibit? That is to say, what segre
gation index as shown for what schools? A. These are the
17 elementary schools that we have used as coming under
the effect of the Resolution 1531. They include such schools,
for example, as Stedman, Ashley, and the numbers of
schools we have indicated in previous exhibits. I could list
you—give you a precise list of those, if you like.

Q. Well, it’s 17 elementary schools? A. That’s right.
Q. And I suppose, if you narrowed your focus to one

[2233 school at a time, an all-white school would have a
segregation index of 100, would it not? A. That’s right.

Q. And an all-black school would have a segregation
index of 100? A. That’s right.

Q. So that when you start lumping schools together, all-
white schools tend to raise the average, and all-black schools
tend to raise your index? A. That’s right. If the index is
applied, for example, to a school like Stedman, then it’s a
segregation index.

Q. Just to Stedman. Let’s apply the index to Stedman.
A. If the resolution itself were rescinded, then the segre
gation index for Stedman would climb to 100. That means
from the current status of Stedman, assuming the resolu
tions are in effect, would be a segregation index applied to
Stedman very close to zero. Yet, if the resolutions were
rescinded, then this segregation index for Stedman would
he. I think, fairly close to 100.

George E. Bar dwell— for Plaintiffs—Cross

207a

Q. It would remain 100. When you . say rescinded, you
mean remain the same as last year? A. If you want to put
it that way, sir.

Q. But with respect to 17 schools as a whole, is it fair to
say that this shows a steady—that 9J shows a steady £2243
decline in the segregation index during the years you have
shown, even— A. That’s right, except for the period 1966
to 1967.

Q. That would be the school years of what ? A. This
would be the school year 1966 to 1967; 1967 to 1968; and
1968 to 1969; the school year beginning in September
indicated by the year at the bottom of the chart.

Q. I see. A. But—

The Court: Did you finish your answer?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Go right ahead.

A. I was about to indicate that while there was a sub
stantial decline in the segregation index from 1963 to
1965, that that segregation index is leveled out appreciably
so that for the period 1966 to ’68, it has remained almost
constant.

Q. A little bit down, is it not? A. Well, that is random
variation.

Q. Tour exhibit shows a little bit down. A. I t’s random
variations for the most part.

Mr. Creighton: I believe that’s all I have, Dr.
Bardwell. Thank you.

# # # # #

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiffs—Cross

208a

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

[2283 * * *
Gilbert Cruter, a witness called by and on behalf of

defendants, having first been duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:

[2293 Direct Examination by Mr. Quinn-.

The Court: Give us your name and address
and occupation.

The Witness: My name is Gilbert Cruter. I ’m a
teacher—I mean, an administrator with the Denver
Public Schools, and my address is 2875 Monaco
Parkway.

Q. Mr. Cruter, can you give your job title with the
Denver Public Schools currently? A. Executive Director
for School Community Relations.

Q. Could you explain to the Court briefly the function
of that office? A. Basically, my particular responsibility
is directly to the Superintendent and I advise the Super
intendent on human relations and integration issues and
help to design and implement programs to meet school
system requirements.

Q. How long have you held your present position, Mr.
Cruter? A. Since 1964.

Q. When was that particular office created? A. The
office was created in 1964 as a result of a recommendation
from the study committee that was set up in 1962 and
did a two-year study on recommendations of the Board
which was the creation of this advisory committee and
the office was set up as a result of their recommendations.

[2303 Q. Do other school districts in Colorado currently
have similar offices within their administrative structure?

209a

A. To my knowledge, there is only one and that is the
Littleton School District, which has an office or a person
who serves in a capacity similar to mine but doesn’t neces
sarily function the same way.

Q. Could you briefly relate to the Court your personal
background, particularly your professional background,
Mr. Cruter? A. Well, academically, I have a Master’s
degree in education. I have been associated with the
Department of State as a cultural affairs officer from
1961 to 1963. I have taught at Southern University in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as directer of health and educa
tion, and I have served as congressional liaison officer
for the agency for international development in Wash
ington, D.C. And I have worked with the public schools
since 1946 with a brief two-year leave of absence—well,
actually, I have had three leaves of absence from the
Denver Public Schools, to work in foreign service.

Q. Is one of your formal duties—does it have to do
with teacher recruitment? A. Yes.

Q. Would you explain that to the Court? A. Well, as
I indicated before, it’s my responsibility to advise the
Superintendent on these particular matters [2313 because
we were trying to secure some Negro teachers and I took
it upon myself, with the advisement of the Personnel
Director at that time, who was Howard Johnson, who is
now the Deputy Superintendent, to visit Negro colleges
which I had had some familiarity with in view of the fact
that I had taught at Southern University and so, starting
two or three years ago, this is the third year, I recruited
at approximately 17 schools which were primarily Negro
colleges throughout the South.

This is the reason—the reason we did this is because
this was a fertile field for educators that had been un

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

210a

tapped by the Denver schools. Now, we do recruit from
white institutions and we pick up what Negro recruits in
education we can from those particular areas, as well.

Q. How do you conduct this recruitment, just briefly?
What is your method of recruiting? A. Well, many of
the people who have eui'rently been working in the depart
ments I either knew or have known previously. And so
many of my contacts have been made directly with them.
I also work primarily through the placement department,
but also have side contacts, too. And then they tend to
provide me with the names of individuals whom they
think would fit into the Denver school system.

As you know, there is a great deal of recruitment of
Negro graduates at the present time because of—well,
£2323 recruitment, I should say, by industry, business
and government and so on, and so, consequently, the
students you get is rather small because, consequently,
you can’t compete on the salary level that—with that of
business and industry.

Q. Have your efforts, however, been successful to some
degree? A. Yes, they have been. The first year was a
primary—primarily a year of contact in which we were
trying to lay the groundwork, so I think we probably got—
I would estimate around 15 teachers that particular year.
The second year I went down—and I was more or less
more knowledgeable about the recruiting thing—the first
year, incidentally, we didn’t take any contracts with us;
merely a letter of commitment. The second year I took
the contracts with me. I issued 50 contracts and we wound
up with, I think, around 39 or 40 teachers. This last year
we again took out contracts with us as well as letters
of intent for those who couldn’t make up their mind, and

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—-Direct

211a

I had them sign the contracts that particular time, and
I think we have, according to the latest information I have
from Personnel Department, roughly 36 teachers out of
some 40 that I had given contracts to.

Q. Those would be teachers who would be beginning
employment in the fall of this year? A. That’s right.

Q- Do other school districts carry on this type of
[233] recruitment? A. This I couldn’t say except that
we have worked closely with Jefferson County and we
have had one person who accompanied me this year to
recruit teachers for the Jefferson County school system.

Q. Mr. Cruter, are you familiar with the plan which
has been referred to as the Hallett Plan or sometimes
the Hallett Demonstration Integrated School Plan! A.
Yes.

Q. Could you explain to the Court what that is and
what its origin was? A. Basically, the origin of the
Hallett Plan was that a group of people from University
Park School wanted to give their children an integrated
experience and they selected Hallett as a school that had
comparable socioeconomic levels with their particular
school. So, as a result, there were some 45—50 youngsters
who volunteered to go into Hallett and some 45 youngsters
left Hallett in order to go into University Park and other
schools.

Q. Is that a continuing program? A. Yes. It has top
priority right now in view of the recent action of the
Board and we are concentrating all our efforts in this
area in order to try to—

The Court: Would you keep your voice up a little
bit more.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

212a

[234] A. We’re concentrating all onr efforts in this area
at the present time to provide an integrated experience
for the people who work to avail themselves of the Hallett
program, both from the Hallett area and also from—some
35 schools that are located within the south, southeast and
southwest area of the city.

Q. Could you explain some of the means that have been
utilized to implement this plan? A. Yes. We have met
with the principals of the 35 schools involved. They, in
turn, have sent out letters to parents, indicating that the
volunteer open enrollment was available for the Hallett
School. They have, for the purpose of efficiency, I guess—
well, I won’t say I guess—but I will say for the purpose
of efficiency we have divided the 35 schools into clusters
based upon geographic proximity to one another and have
set up recruitment committees within those particular
clusters. We have done the same thing in the Hallett area
in which we have divided the area into blocks with the
map indicating the number of youngsters in each block
and have set up block committees made up primarily of
people or parents whose children were bused out the first
part of January at the time that the University Park and
Hallett projects were started.

Q. Have there been any other means of publicizing this
plan? [235] A. Yes, we are putting out another publica
tion which will be out the 21st which is called the
Volunteer Open Enrollment Dialogue, which is a summary
or summation of all of the things that have taken place
since the closing of school. We also had some radio
announcements about the volunteer education. Mr. Lyons’
office in Public Education is designing some advertisements
to go into newspapers at a later date to try and see if we

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

213a

can’t get more people interested in volunteer enrollment.
Q. Can you identify Mr. Lyons? A. Mr. Lyons is the

director of the office of public information for the schools.
Q. Mr. Cruter, I hand you a document which has been

marked Defendants’ Exhibit C and plaintiffs’ counsel has
been furnished a copy of that. Can you identify that
document? A. Yes, this is a copy of the material which
will go into the first publication sheet which is at the
printers at the present t i m e,

Q. When will that be sent? A. It will be mailed out
Monday.

Q. And to whom will that be sent? A. This will go to
the parents involved and currently involved in open
enrollment programs as well as interested [236] parents
within the seven clusters that we have set up.

Mr. Quinn: I ’d like to offer Defendants’ Exhibit C
in evidence.

Mr. Greiner: May we have a brief voir dire ex
amination, Your Honor?

The Court: Yes.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Mr. Cruter, did you personally prepare Defendants’
Exhibit C? A. The staff and myself, yes.

Q. What about the statistics that are reflected in
Defendants’ Exhibit C? Where did this come from?
A. These are the latest publications on at least—our
latest insofar as up to date, July 15, of the request to
Hallett by the people in the seven clusters, that is, by
the parents in the seven clusters that we have set up
and also, the request to leave Hallett and it gives you

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

214a

those who were involved prior to the close of schools,
that is, those who were involved in January to June pro
ject, and the additional ones that we have acquired since
that time.

Q. Approximately when was Defendants’ Exhibit C
prepared, Mr. Cruter! A. That has been in preparation
for the last week.

Mr. Greiner: We have no objections, Your Honor.
[2373 The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit C was re
ceived in evidence.)

The Witness: May I finish?

This has been in preparation since the last week hut
it has been an accumulation of information that we have
prepared ever since the close of school.

Direct Examination by Mr. Quinn (Continued):
Q. Mr. Cruter, I now—

The Court: When did you start planning to send
out such a document?

The Witness: Beg pardon, sir?
The Court: When did you start your planning

to send out such a document? When did you decide
that such a document would he—

The Witness: At the time that the Superin
tendent directed us as a result of Board action
since Hallett was given top priority then we started
our planning in this particular respect to see about
trying to enlist as many volunteers as possible to

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

215a

make this a pilot demonstration of an integrated
school.

The Court: When did yon first decide to send out
a communication?

The Witness: This was done just before the close
[238] of school. This is part of the planning
process.

The Court: But the preparation was not com
pleted or not started until a week ago?

The Witness: No, the final documentation was
not done until a week ago.

The Court: Very well. Go ahead.

By Mr. Quinn:

Q. Mr. Cruter, I hand you another document which has
been marked Defendants’ Exhibit B and ask you if you
can identify that document? A. This is a letter that was
sent by Mr. Berge, President of the Board, to the Ellis
parents to request—to solicit their participation involved
in open enrollment plan.

Q. Do you know to whom that letter was sent? A. This
went to all the parents in the Ellis School District—sub-
district.

Q. Can you give the location of the Ellis School, ap
proximately? A. This is a—-I can’t give you the exact
address but is a school in the southeast area of the city.

Q. And was this letter a part of the Hallett Plan which
is being implemented through your office? A. Yes, be
cause the Ellis parents, as well as the other parents in the
cluster, wanted a statement from the Board President
indicating what their particular response [2393 would be

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Direct

216a

for this particular plan. So this was the reason for the
letter.

Mr. Greiner: I don’t mean to interrupt hut we
have no objection to the introduction of that exhibit.

The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit B was re
ceived in evidence.)

Mr. Quinn: I have no further questions of this
witness, Your Honor.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Since 1964, Mr. Cruter, you have served in the
capacity of Director of Community Relations for the
school district? A. No.

Q. Since what date? A. 1966.
Q. This position was created in 1964, is that correct?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now, is it fair to say, Mr. Cruter, that certainly one

of the functions of your job is to communicate with the
Negro community? A. No, my job is to represent the
entire school district and this just happens to be one ele
ment of it.

Q. Let me put it another way. In the course of your
[240] job, do you in fact communicate with the Negro
community? A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, does that communication include listening as
well as talking? A. That’s right.

Q. Well, since you have been Director since 1966, can
you tell me whether or not there has been a growing con
cern in the Negro community over the continuance of
segregated schools for Negroes? A. Yes, there has been.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

217a

Q. Now, as I understand your efforts with respect to
the Hallett program, it is to—what is the ultimate objec
tive at Hallett? It is to change a black school into a white
school, is it not, predominantly? A. No, it’s not to change
a black school into a white school. I t’s to provide an in
tegrated school setting in which you would have approxi
mately a fifty-fifty ratio.

Q. Are you familiar with Eesolution 1533, Mr. Cruter?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. 1533 has some figures in it, does it not, as to what
the hope is at Hallett? A. Yes.

The Court: What’s the exhibit number, please?
Mr. Greiner: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Cruter, doesn’t Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A indicate
[2413 that the ultimate objective at Hallett is an exchange
of some 500 students? A. Yes.

Q. Now, as I understand the statistics on Defendants’
Exhibit B, to date you have received 158 essentially Anglo
requests to go into Hallett and 100 Negro requests to leave
Hallett, is that correct? A. That’s right.

Q. So you are a little short on the objectives set out
in 1533? A. That’s right.

Q. I notice that—do you, by the way, have Defendants’
Exhibit B in front of you, Mr. Cruter? A. No.

Mr. Greiner: I meant C. Pardon me.

Q. At the bottom of Page 2 of Exhibit C, it states that
there are 33 Anglos who were going to continue in the
program at Hallett. Did you speak personally with each
of those Anglos, Mr. Cruter? A. No, I haven’t.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

218a

Q. How did you arrive at this conclusion? A. Well,
they had indicated—there were cards that were sent out
prior to the close of school for those who wanted to—
requesting those who had been attending Hallett whether
they wanted to continue.

[2423 Q. Mr. Cruter, exactly when were those cards
sent out? A. Well, I couldn’t give you the exact date
on it.

Q. When did school close, Mr. Cruter? A. The 6th
of June.

Q. 6th of June? A. Yes.
Q. So that those cards then were sent out before the

Board rescinded these resolutions, is that correct? A.
Well, I can’t say that because I had nothing to do with
the sending out of the cards.

Q. But you do know that the cards were sent out before
school closed? A. Yes.

Q. Now, what is the fact with respect to your statistics
showing the Negroes who are to continue in a program at
Hallett? A. This was the same process.

Q. So, in other words, based on data that took place
before the Board rescinded these resolutions you are con
tinuing to assume a continuing 46 participation at Hallett?
A. So far as we know, this will be the status of those
who want to continue to go.

Q. Now, Mr. Cruter, are you generally familiar with
what I will describe as the two basic purposes of the
resolutions which were rescinded? Would you agree that
the [2433 first purpose was the stabilization of schools
in transition such as Phillips, Park Hill, and East High
School?

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Gross

Mr. Quinn: Your Honor, I think we’re getting

219a

outside the scope of direct examination.
The Court: True.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think what Mr. Cruter’s

testimony relates to, Your Honor, is essentially the
issue of whether the substitution—of the eff ect of the
substitution of 1533, and I don’t think we can
properly judge the effectiveness of 1533 unless we
consider what was going to he done under the
rescinded resolutions.

The Court: To my mind he was called only to
testify concerning this one program, as their wit
ness. But when you get beyond that, I think you’re
calling him as your witness.

Do you wish to do that?
Mr. Greiner: I have no objection to doing it;

Your Honor. I might say, though, that Hallett was
just one of the voluntary programs under 1533 and
I would like to inquire to see whether Hallett is
not in fact the one that has so far demonstrated
the most, in quotes, “success.”

The Court: All right. Go ahead.

Q. Now, there is also a voluntary aspect under 1533,
is there not, Mr. Cruter, with respect to voluntary open
enrollment at some of these other Park Hill elementary
schools? [2441 Yes, there is.

Q. Such as Stedman, Smith, Park Hill, Hill, Phillips and
so forth? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What’s been the response for voluntary open enroll
ment from the Anglo community, Mr. Cruter, in a school
such as Phillips, for example? A. This I couldn’t answer
because the person who has that information is Dave
McWilliams who has that particular responsibility. So

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

220a

I couldn’t give you any information as to what the re
sponse has been from those particular schools.

Q. You have been working solely on the Hallett pro
gram? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, you mentioned a recruitment, Mr. Cruter, of
Negro teachers, did you not? A. Yes.

Q. And I understand that at least your involvement
in that program of recruitment began some three years
ago? A. That’s correct.

Q. So that the figures for Negro teachers in the school
district for 1968-1969—that would reflect how many of the
three years of that recruitment? A. Would you restate
that question? When you say reflect, are you talking
about the number of people I have interviewed or are you
talking about the number of people who [245] were em
ployed.

Q. Who were employed. A. I would say roughly about
18 percent of the total number employed at both secondary
and elementary level. In other words, this averages out
about 39—36 to 39 per year.

Q. I think I can ask the question more directly Mr.
Cruter. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 95 shows, for example, a total
of 191% Negro teachers in the elementary schools in
Denver, does it not? A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. And that’s for the school year 1968? A. That’s
right,

Q. Now, that’s 191-% out of 2,260* total for the ele
mentary schools? A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. Now, out of that 191%, Mr. Cruter, how many of
those were some of your new recruits you described? A. I
don’t have that breakdown. I couldn’t give you that. The
only thing I can say is that I know how many were em
ployed each year that I went out to on the recruiting. The

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

221a

year of 1968-1969, there were 39 employed, according to the
information I received from the personnel office. And of
the 1969-1970, there were 36 employed.

Q. I am sorry. I misspoke. When I said Exhibit 95—-
[246] it is in fact Plaintiff’ Exhibit 97. If you will just
examine that. Is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 97—does that indicate
that there are still some Anglo schools that have no
Negro teachers? A. That’s right.

Q. Now, how many Negro teachers are you trying to
recruit, Mr. Cruter? A. Well, I think you put me in a
situation where I can’t answer because I’m really not
directly associated with personnel. We’re just trying to
recruit teachers.

Q. Well, I take it from your description that your func
tion is to recruit Negro teachers, is it not? A. No, I took
it upon my—I felt that one of the functions of my parti
cular office was to at least try and bring back some in
tegration so this is how I happened to get involved in
recruiting teachers. Pm not a person who works in per
sonnel.

Q. Now I believe you indicated that part of your job
was to talk with and listen to Negroes in the community,
is that correct? A. That’s right.

Q. Can you report to us on the basis of your recruit
ment experience in the Hallett program, Mr. Cruter, how
the Negro community reacted to the rescission of these
resolutions ? A. I ’d like to put it on a much broader basis
than that if I may.

[247] Q. That’s fine. A. Because I think that the
impact in the communities that we have had to deal with
or have been dealing with has been one of defeat, rejec
tion, insofar as the volunteer open enrollment plan is

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

222a

concerned. We liave just started our process of trying
to go block by block to recruit people out of the Hallett
area and we have mixed reactions on this.

Q. Now, that intense recruiting as I understand it—
have you been participating in that! A. Part of it, yes.

Q. I take it since you’re going to Africa next week that
you will not be participating any further? A. We have
a staff that will still continue that.

Q. When is that recruitment program going to end?
A. We hope to have a pretty good report on it by the
15th of August.

Q. Now, last year in Hallett, under the exchange pro
gram there which was voluntary, there was a mutual ex
change of approximately 50 students? A. Yes.

Q. Now, did the Black students in your opinion, Mr.
Cruter, who remained at Hallett—did they receive the
benefits of an integrated education there at Hallett? A.
That is something I can’t answer because I haven’t been
that closely connected with the school. I would say that
[248] there were those who feel—I think we have in the
community those who feel that a predominantly integrated
school is beneficial and those who still feel a segregated
school is beneficial. I think you’ve got two factions you
have to consider.

Q. Now, Mr. Cruter, let me ask the question another
way. Under the voluntary program last year, did Hallett
become an integrated school? A. It depends on how you
define integration.

Q. Let me ask you—before the program began, Mr.
Cruter, approximately what was the percentage of Negro
composition at Hallett? A. I would say it was about 85
percent.

Gilbert Cruter—for DefendcmtsnrCross

223a

Q. And at the height of the voluntary open enrollment
program last year, Mr. Crater, approximately what was
the Negro percentage at Hallett? A. Well, it was re
duced. The reduction was very small. So, if you’re going
to base it on a 50/50 or a racial balance, I would say it
was not an integrated school.

Q. Well, would you say it went from about 85 percent
Negro to say 80 percent Negro? A. Something like that,
yes.

Q. In your communications with Anglo parents, Mr.
Crater, with regard to the Hallett program, have any
Anglo parents indicated to you that they might be willing
to send their children to Hallett if it was going to be a
predominantly Anglo [249] school, but that they would
not be willing to send their children to Hallett if it re
mained under this program a predominantly Negro school?
A. No, I haven’t heard that.

Q. Have you in fact talked with some Anglo parents?
A. Yes.

Q. And you have not run into that kind of a condition?
A. No.

Q. Do you recall whether or not that kind of a condition
existed with respect to the voluntary open enrollment
program in the second semester of 1969? A. I t’s hard
for me to even answer that because at this particular
time I was not as deeply involved in that process as I am
at the present time.

Q. Mr. Crater, I hand you what’s been marked for
identification Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 37-A through G and ask
you if you can identify those. A. Yes, I have seen these
before.

* * * # #

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

224a

Gilbert Gruter—for Defendants-—Cross

[250] * * *
Q. With respect to 37-B, which is the second page, Mr.

Crater, of that series of exhibits, is that not a request for
voluntary open enrollment at Hallett school? A. Bight.

Q. Is there not a condition stated there with respect
to that participation? A. That’s right.

Q. What is the condition, Mr, Crater? A. Provided
that Hallett becomes 60 to 65 percent Anglo as of 1/27/69,
and that insofar as possible minority race children re
place charges of University Park. We further do not be
lieve volunteer open enrollment to be a realistic solution.
Open enrollment is merely a farce. I might add this in
formation does not come to my office.

The Court: What document is this?
[251] Mr. Greiner: 37-B.
The Witness: This goes to Mr. MeWilliam’s office

and therefore I would not be aware of or be ap
prized of that particular statement.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer that
series of exhibits at this time.

Mr. Quinn: We would object to the offer insofar
as it relates to comments that are based on these—
without some indication of who put them there
or what the purpose was. This is purely hearsay.
If there’s to be any question of those comments
themselves—-

The Court: I don’t believe Mr. Crater has testi
fied to the source of these documents.

Q. Mr. Crater, do you know whether or not these ex
hibits come from the files of the school district? A. Yes,
they come from the files of the school district.

225a

The Court: And these are responses to this
effort!

The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Greiner: This was the earlier efforts.
The Witness: This is prior to the close of school.
The Court: Are you offering them on some kind

of a testimonial basis; that is, for the truth of the
statements that are contained in them!

Mr. Greiner: No, Your Honor, I ’m offering them
only to show that certain parents did place certain
conditions of [252] racial composition upon their
willingness to participate in voluntary open enroll
ment. I ’m not offering for example 37-B for the
truth of the proposition that open enrollment is
merely a farce.

Mr. Quinn: Your Honor, I don’t see the mate
riality of them on that basis; somebody’s personal
opinion.

The Court: I suppose we can receive them cir
cumstantially to show that there has been reaction
to this effort.

Mr. Quinn: In a very indirect way.
The Court: But I don’t believe that we can accept

these statements on any testimonial basis; but that
they are purely hearsay. Is that all right?

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Cruter, with respect to the Hallett school do
you have any information or opinion how the Negro com
munity views such a segregated school? A. The Hallett
area as well—and I think we need to say that this is about
the Black area in general, the Negro area in general; they
wanted integrated education and they wanted quality
education.

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

226a

Q. Pardon me, Mr. Cruter, but do they tend to equate
those two things? A. I think they do. And the idea is
that they don’t want to be placed in a situation in which
they’re not going to be received by the particular com
munity in which their child [253] will be or in other words
there is a feeling of comfortableness and security that any
parent feels for his school, just as a white parent feels
about his child going into a Black community, the Black
community feels the same thing about his child going into
a white community. There are those who feel that there
are certain benefits that will occur because of the oppor
tunities to be associated with other children; to be able
to live in a multi-racial society. I have had remarks made
on both the black side as well as the white side indicating
the necessity for a racial mixing. And because they
recognize the fact that with the world getting smaller
and with our recent exploits with the moon, that our
youngsters are going to have to learn to live in a multi
racial society. There are also those who I think we have
to look at it on the other side too—there are those who
feel also that probably their child is getting a good educa
tion in a segregated school simply because their previous
experience has been one of a segregated school so there
fore they feel that they got something out of it and that
he wants to continue it.

Q. You’re talking about the parent’s education? A. I ’m
talking about the parent’s education. So I think this has
some bearing on it too. But, by and large, children I think
tend to profit from the experiences that they gain from
their peers, and if they are in a racially mixed situation
I think they materially profit from it both academically
[254] as well as socially.

* * # # #

Gilbert Cruter—for Defendants—Cross

227a

[263] R obebt I). G il b e b t s , c a lle d a s a w itn e s s b y th e
p la in t i f f s , b e in g f i r s t d u ly s w o rn , o n Ms o a th te s t i f ie d a s
f o l lo w s :

The Court: For the record, give us your name
and address and occupation.

The Witness: My name is Robert D. Gilberts.
I live at 6495 Happy Canyon Road.

Direct Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, you are one of the defendants in this

action! A. Yes.
Q. And you are the Superintendent of Schools of School

District Number 1? A. Yes.
Q. You have been such, serving as Superintendent in

this district, since approximately August 1, 1967! A.
Yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, I would like to take you back in time
to the passage of the Noel resolution. Do you recall when
this was passed! A. This is Resolution 1490!

Q. That’s correct. A. May 1968.
Q. So you were here then when that was passed!

[264] A. Yes.
Q. Upon the passage of the Noel resolution, were you

directed by the Board to prepare a comprehensive plan
for the integration of the Denver schools! A. Yes.

Q. And you did prepare such a plan, did you not!
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Does that plan have a title that we might use con
veniently for reference! A. We have a copy of it here,
“Planning Quality Education, Proposal for Integrating
the Denver Public Schools.”

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

228a

Q. How many months was that plan under development ?
A. We had approximately sixty days, working days.

Q. And you, as I understand it, obtained the services
of outside consultants to help you? A. Yes, we did.

Q. And that was Jack Dempsey and Associates? A.
Together with a firm from California, that’s Davis,
McConnell and Ross on, who worked with him.

Q. I understand that during this development period
you and your administration made a determined effort or
definite effort to get inputs of ideas from various sources
throughout the community, did you not? A. Yes, in that
limitation of time we did the best £2653 we could.

Q. And are some of those inputs reflected in the final
product? A. Yes, they are.

Q. Now, that plan, “Planning Quality Education,” that
was introduced to the electorate here in Denver approxi
mately when, Dr. Gilberts? A. First part of May—or,
excuse me—first part of October of last fall.

Q. Was that the televised presentation that you have
reference to? A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now, shortly after your televised presentation, you
received a further direction from the School Board -with
respect to implementation.

Q. Well, the plan which we presented in October was
a conceptural approach to dealing with the problem. It
outlined in fairly broad terms various approaches we
thought could be used to approach these problems here
in Denver. It was not the kind of plan that would give
the finite details of solutions in each of these areas. There
fore, it was necessary for us to begin planning in terms
of specific elements of this book. The element that we
began planning on initially was the one which related
to the stabilization of schools in Northeast Denver.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

229a

[266] Now, that was a normal part of the planning
process. I don’t recall that there was any specific direc
tion or that there may have been an identification on the
Board’s part that this was the first area they wanted to
work in.

Q. Did that identification then take place sometime in
November of 1968, to your recollection? A. Yes, I would
estimate that would he about the time.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, so there is no confusion, as I under-
stant it, you used the general term “stabilization” to in
clude both the program of improving the percentage
composition of such schools as Philips, Park Hill, and
East, you include that act as well as the complete reversal
of the racial compositions at Barrett and Smiley Junior
High Schools? A. Yes, in this peripheral area around
the Park Hill area, those two were included.

Q. Now, then, did you then during the course of the
development of this plan for stabilization receive more
inputs, so to speak? A. Yes.

Q. And you met with the School Board on this point?
A. We began having a series of conferences working out
the elements of this plan shortly after this presentation.
I can’t say exactly when, but within a week or two,
[267] I believe. In addition to that, we had some public
hearings where people had a chance to comment. We also
set up some idea centers around the city where people
had a chance to visit with us about the proposals and make
additional suggestions.

Q. As I recall a statement in your deposition, it was
that you considered some fourteen different alternatives
during this process. A. Actually, there were 14 plans
sufficiently finite so that they could be presented as options.
I am sure there were many more ideas.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

230a

Q. All right, then, as I understand it, the first finite
recommendation to the School Board which you and your
staff presented was reflected in Resolution 1520, is that
correct? A. Yes.

Q. And that pertained primarily, did it not, to a senior
high school and a junior high school, namely East and
Smiley? A. Yes.

Q. Now, there is a feeder relationship, is there not,
from Smiley into East? A. Yes.

Q. Was this why those two schools were selected?
A. Yes.

£2683 Q. They were all—at least, with respect to East
High School, this had been identified as a school in transi
tion? A. Yes.

Q. And by that you meant that there had been over the
years a gradual decline in its Anglo population, is that cor
rect? A. That’s true.

Q. Now, Smiley, as I understand it, at this point in time
was already approximately 75 percent Negro, is that cor
rect? A. I recall that as being approximately true.

Q. So you felt that you had to do something about the
racial composition at Smiley if the improvement of the
racial composition at East was going to have any longevity,
is that correct? A. This was one of the factors, yes, sir.

Q. So that the first proposal then was 1520. Do you recall
approximately when 1520 was formally presented to the
Board of Education? A. January, I believe, 1969. I am
sorry, I can’t recall the precise date on it.

Q. Well, the Board didn’t pass 1520 at the meeting at
which it was first presented; is that correct? A. That’s
right.

[269J Q. What happened then, Doctor? A. There was a

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

231a

public hearing on the presentation and it was acted upon
at the subsequent board meeting.

Q. And approximately how long did that take? A. I can’t
be absolutely certain, but it seems to me it was in the
vicinity of a two-week period.

Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3, Dr. Gilberts, would indicate that
1520 was passed on January 30; is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. All right, now, after the passage of 1520, Dr. Gilberts,
was some further detail necessary in order to implement
the general proposal reflected in 1520? A. Yes, it was.

Q. And did that then lead to the development of Reso
lution No. 1524? A. Yes.

Q. And that’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4? A. Right.
Q. Now, how long was it then between the passage of

1520 and the presentation to the Board of 1524, do you
recall? A. Again, I can’t be absolutely certain, but I would
estimate within about a two-week period, the presentation
of this, because this, too, is presented at one meeting and
acted upon at another, I believe.

£270] Q. And there was also a public hearing which was
with respect to 1524, was there not? A. Yes, I believe there
was.

Q. Now, in general, 1520 and 1524 treated the secondary
schools which have been focused upon, is that correct? A.
That’s correct.

Q. Now, was it also necessary because of the feeder rela
tionship between these schools to do something about the
elementary schools, in your judgment? A. That was our
judgment.

Q. Now, in order to effect that objective, did that lead
then to the development of Resolution 1531? A. Yes.

Q. And that’s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5? A. Yes.
Q. Now, how long—-just a moment. I take it that in the

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

232a

development of your overall plan, “Planning Quality Edu
cation”, that you considered the elementary schools as well
as the junior high schools and senior high schools, did you
not? A. In terms of this element of that plan?

Q. Yes. A. Well, in the basic document we merely indi
cated that certain steps would be necessary in order to
attempt to £2711 stabilize those schools in Northeast Den
ver. It was not spelled out in detail. We did not have the
time to qualify what kind of steps we thought would be
necessary at the time the plan was presented.

Q. But I take it your plan did look at one of the alternate
types of action which might be taken, and one of the items
was the stabilization of schools, was it not? A. Yes.

Q. Now, Doctor, was 1531 passed by the Board when it
was on the day of its first formal presentation to the Board?
A. No, it was not.

Q. Again, was there a special public meeting with respect
to 1531? A. Yes, there was.

Q. Now, with respect to these public meetings, I take it
that one of the purposes of those meetings, Doctor, was to
accept, to receive, rather, the comments of the community
with respect to these proposals, was it not? A. Yes, the
hearings were primarily to receive from members of the
community their feeling about the plan as it had been
presented before.

Q. And you attended each one of those hearings or meet
ings? A. Yes, I did.

£2723 Q. I take it there must have been some people
that spoke out against each of these resolutions in the meet
ings? A. There were.

Q. And were also proponents of these resolutions? A
Yes.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

233a

Q. Did yon make any judgment in your mind as to what
the balance of the “fors” and “againsts” were!

Mr. Jackson: Objection, it calls for a conclusion
in an area I don’t think is truly relevant in this par
ticular area, Your Honor.

The Court: I am inclined to agree with it. I don’t
see where that makes any difference.

Mr. Greiner: Well, let me approach it another
way.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, with respect to the statements by mem
bers of the community that took place—I am focusing now
only on these three public meetings—did you feel from
participating in those meetings that the community was
against these resolutions?

Mr. Jackson: I make the same objection, Your
Honor.

The Court: What’s the purpose of this?
Mr. Greiner: I think I can show it in another way,

Your Honor.

[273] Q. Did they level out—

The Court: Well, if I knew what you were trying
to establish, I would be in a better position to rule.

Mr. Greiner: I am just trying to find out from
the witness, Your Honor, what he felt the level of
community acceptance was for these plans.

The Court: For what purpose?
Mr. Geiner: My next inquiry is going to be—
The Court: Where is it germane to anything we

Robert D. Gilberts■—for Plaintiffs—Direct

234a

are hearing here? Let’s suppose he formed an opin
ion one way or the other.

Mr. Greiner: My next question, Your Honor,
would be whether it made any difference to him as
to whether or not there was a level of community ac
ceptance for these plans.

The Court: Are you seeking to show something
in the nature of bias of the witness?

Mr. Greiner: Not a bit; not at all.
The Court: Well, then, I don’t see where it would

affect us at all.
Mr. Greiner: Well, I think, Your Honor, that the

witness will agree with us that the matter of com
munity acceptance—

The Court: Are you trying to show that his view
point was wholly unbiased and even so, why is that
[274] important, unless it would affect his credibility
as a witness?

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, what I am trying to
show from this witness is that community acceptance
was one of the facts which he felt was relevant and
material in the development of these plans. That’s
all.

The Court: Well, you can ask him that.

Q. Is that right, Dr. Gilberts? A. Certainly, general
community acceptance was a major factor in our consider
ing what we would recommend. I would hesitate to say
that we drew those conclusions completely from any one
source of communications, hearings being only one of those.

Q. I recall that one of the resolutions has a statement,
does it not, something about the level of community ac
ceptance? Perhaps I am wrong. I guess I am wrong. I am
sorry.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

235a

Then, Dr. Gilberts, I take it that after these public meet
ings that the Board went ahead and passed each of these
three resolutions; is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. The passage of those resolutions was not unanimous
by the Board? A. That’s correct.

Q. Keeping in mind the various inputs that went into
£2753 the development of these plans, Dr. Gilberts, is it
fair to say that you supported each one of these resolutions?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. As a matter of professional judgment, you felt that
they would achieve their intended purposes? A. We had
hoped so. They were our best judgment as to how we
might approach the solution to attempting to stabilize the
enrollment in these schools.

Q. I take it that there were the—that you must have con
cluded as a matter of professional judgment that the
stabilization of these schools was important? A. Yes, we
did.

Q. Now, that was from an educational viewpoint? A. I
think it was very heavily from the point of view of the
communities themselves and the kind of composition of
population within those communities. We had hoped as a
side benefit to this kind of stabilization we would provide
ourselves with a broader base upon vdiich we could test
some of the hypotheses that are related to the question of
whether or not an integrated education in effect does pro
vide a better level of education for children.

Q. Now, I take it, Dr. Gilberts, that you recognized that
there may be some relationship between the fact that a
school which is segregated predominantly minority, some
relationship between that fact and the quality of education
[276] at that school, in terms of, for example, achievement?
A. I would be a great deal more sure about the relationship

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

236a

of socioeconomic cloth and academic level at a school
rather than the racial relationship to that factor.

Q. Of course, in Denver, there is a closer relationship
between race and socioeconomic levels ? A. I don’t believe
I have data that would allow me to accept that.

Q. You don’t accept that as a proposition? A. I don’t
believe I could state that with absolute knowledge it is true
or to what degree it is true.

Q. After these resolutions were passed, did you and your
staff take further measures looking toward the implementa
tion of the steps? A. Yes, immediately.

Q. Could you relate some of the things that were done?
A. Well, at the senior high school level it became necessary
for us to identify youngsters who were going to be affected
by changes in boundary and by transportation to provide
preparing for them in the new schools they would be at
tending. This involved a registration of these youngsters
for classes next year and the building of a program to ac
commodate those elections. That, of course, related to the
need of differing numbers of staff members with different
£2/7] kinds of academic qualifications or specialties in these
schools, so it was necessary to reassign teachers, because we
did affect numbers of pupils in these schools as well as just
changing pupils.

It was also necessary for us to begin planning in the
general area of a program the kind of changes in educa
tional programs that we might implement in the schools to
hopefully increase the quality of education within all of
them.

Transportation began to be examined, although the de
tails in this obviously could not be done until later in the
summer, because this would be a part of the overall pro
gram which included voluntary open enrollment, with trans

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

237a

portation provided as well, and there is a possibility of
interrelating these transportation systems, and until that
was done we could not get into that in great detail.

We began talking about what we could do in terms of
school-community relations, perhaps as a result of this to
improve the climate in the communities of receiving schools,
preparation of pupils and so forth. At the elementary level,
the problem was not as complex because of the self-con
tained nature of the classroom. There it was pretty much
a matter of identifying the number of pupils to be moved,
notifying them of the movement, the school to [278] which
they would be moved, and looldng at the teacher require
ments.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18, I believe it is, is
here before you. It is in evidence. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 18
reflects some of the teacher assignments in the secondary
schools, does it not? A. It appears to.

Q. Now, was there not also in connection with 1520 and
1524—for implementation, was it not also necessary to
purchase some additional school buses for the district?
A. I t was.

Q. And Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12 is a reflection of that bus
purchase contract? A. Yes.

Q. Now, I take it that after the recision of these three
resolutions that the administration then began taking steps
for the implementation of 1533, is that correct? A. Well,
a good portion of Resolution 1533 was embodied in the
other resolutions, and, therefore, some of the planning
which was related to those elements just continued. We
didn’t change Hallett School, as an example of the one you
discussed this morning. It was a plan which began under
the original resolution and was a continuing part of this
one, so they continued. There was a need, obviously, to

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

238a

reschedule the youngsters in the schools to [279] which
they would be assigned in the fall and to reexamine the
teacher staffing in these schools.

Q. Now, for example, around Barrett School, the atten
dance area for Barrett School had been redrawn, had it not,
under 1531? A. We had identified some elements in the
Barrett School area which would be reassigned to other
schools in the district.

Q. So that was a matter of geographic carving up of the
attendance area? A. It was a geographical identification
by block.

Q. What happened upon the recision of 1531? A. Those
youngsters that had been scheduled for assignment to other
schools were reassigned to the Barrett School.

Q. And the place of their residence once more became a
part of the Barrett attendance area, is that correct? A.
Correct.

Q. Now, I understand, Dr. Gilberts, that there is a rela
tionship between transportation of the pupils affected and
the ability of some of these receiving schools to receive the
students, is that correct, who were detached from these
other schools? A. Will you state that question again?
I ’m not sure I understand it.

Q. I take it, for example, that in order to get a [280]
child that had been in the Barrett area down to Steele, as
is indicated here—this happens to be Stedman—from Sted-
man to Steele, that’s quite a distance, is it not? Some sort
of transportation had to be provided? A. Yes.

Q. Now, did that corollary between transportation and
the implementation of 1531 exist in every instance? A.
1531?

Q. That’s the elementary school. A. No, there were

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

239a

some boundary changes that affected the school of residence
as well. They were fairly minor.

Q. Now, can you give us an example of what you have
reference to? A. Well, as I recall, in the Park Hill area,
there were several little pieces reassigned there. I again
will have to look at—I guess I have a map here.

Q. You have reference to Exhibit 11? A. I’m looking at
Exhibit 11, yes. This indicates some boundary changes
around the Philips School, Hallett School and the Park Hill
School.

Q. Was there then through those boundary changes an
exchange or reassignment of the children in those schools
between those schools? A. Well, they were assigned from,
say, the Park Hill District to another district, yes.

[281J Q. Now, in order to implement that reassignment,
was it necessary to bus the child? A. No, it was not.

Q. And yet, even that aspect of 1531 got rescinded, is
that correct? A. The entire resolution was rescinded; in
the sense that those were changed, yes.

Q. Now, you will recall, I am sure, Dr. Gilberts, that there
was a School Board election in May of this year. A. Yes.

Q. Did the question of these resolutions—was it one of
the issues in this School Board election?

Mr. Jackson: I am going to object to that, Your
Honor. I don’t think this witness has been qualified
to testify as to issues in the election and I fail to see
how it has any relevancy to the hearing on the pre
liminary injunction.

The Court: Well, if it does, we can take judicial
notice of it.

Q. My only point was, Dr. Gilberts, that shortly after
the results of that election were known, did you then learn

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

240a

that the Board was going to consider the recision of 1520,
1524 and 1531? A. After the new board had been installed
there were several sessions during which time we discussed
these E282J resolutions and looked at several alternatives
that might be used.

Q. I take it the answer to my question is yes? A. Yes,
after the new Board was installed.

Q. And was the educational value of the then existing
resolutions discussed during those sessions? A. Yes, I be
lieve it was.

Q. Was the educational value of what might happen if
there was a recision discussed? A. Yes, I believe that was
discussed.

Q. During the course of these discussions, Dr. Gilberts,
was the actual language of 1533 before the group ? A. No,
it was not.

The elements that eventually appeared in this resolution
I believe were discussed from time to time within these
conferences.

Q. To the best of your recollection, Dr. Gilberts, when
was the first time that there was a document which we can
say was 1533? A. At the first regular meeting of the new
Board of Education.

Q. That would be on June 9, 1969? A. The date of the
passage of that resolution. I am sorry, I can’t recall the
date just exactly.

Q. I think that I can assure you that it was June 9th,
[283] 1969. Now, so that was the first time that the Board
had before it the actual language of 1533, is that correct?
A. In that form, yes.

Q. Now, the school election took place on approximately
May 20th? A. Yes.

Q. And the Board meeting at which recision took place

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

241a

was on June 9, is that correct? A. You indicated the date.
I accept this, if you have the date there.

Q. So, there was about a three-week period, is that cor
rect? A. Approximately, yes.

Q. How many meetings were held at which you attended
during this three-week period? A. I believe that we had
three Board conferences.

Q. Do you recall the duration of each of those con
ferences ? A. I would say they ranged from an hour and a
half to two and a half hours.

Q. Do you recall whether each of those conferences was
attended by all seven members of the Board? A. No, there
were some members missing at these meetings.

Q. Now, is it a fair characterization of our position
[284] in these conferences, Dr. Gilberts, that you were
opposed to the recision of these resolutions? A. I felt the
recommendations that had been made were ones that I could
recommend, and, therefore, I maintained my position.
Q. Dr. Gilberts, are you familiar with the concept of the

common school? A. The which?
Q. The common school? A. Well, I can think of several

characterizations of a common school.
Q. Is it fair to say that when public education was being

formulated in this country that the common school was
the basic concept of our public education? A. Yes, that was
at least the theoretical concept of what the school was or
was supposed to have been.

Q. School was a mixing pot ? A. This is what the litera
ture describes as being the philosophical objective of it.
I ’m not sure the evidence will sustain that particular
position.

Q. Now, as the concept of the common school was applied
to growing metropolitan areas, it no longer became possible,
did it, to have just one school for a community? A. Well,

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

242,a

that was a problem initially in many of the urban centers,
such as New York, and some of the larger eastern [285]
cities. There was never one school in those cities.

Q. But perhaps there might have been one high school,
for example—in not New York City? A. Yes, this, of
course, was a highly selected educational institution at
that time which very few people attended.

Q. Do you see any relationship, Dr. Gilberts, between
what I believe the school district refers to as the neighbor
hood school policy and the concept of the common school?
A. Well, 1 think that there is similarity between many
of the schools at that point in history which was—were
at that time classified as common schools and some of
the same problems we have presently in the large cities
of the nation. There have always been socioeconomic
stratifications within the large cities and schools that were
established within those cities did not reflect the total
spectrum of socioeconomic class. Therefore, I suppose
from their point of view schools in large cities today are
probably more similar than dissimilar.

Q. I take it, Dr, Gilberts, if I understand your testimony
correctly, that you felt that the stabilizing measures in
herent in these three resolutions were important in order
to improve communications between the various racial
and ethnic groups of this city? A. That certainly was
one of the aspects that I felt [286] was important and
is important.

Q. And I take it that you felt that you had to begin
somewhere in improving these communications, is that
correct? A. Well, the reason for selecting the northeast
area of the city was because it was quite apparent that it
was an area in transition and that there was possibility
that by taking these steps that we recommended that we

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

243a

may have been able to contribute in some way to the
continuing resegregation in that area. Now, there is a
body of research available that indicates that once a school
reaches a certain point in composition—one figure that’s
used is 30 percent—there tends to be a rapidly increasing
curve of segregation. There is a question of whether or
not that is cause or effect, of course, whether it merely
reflects the occurrence of change within the communities
or whether or not it causes or interrelates, both causing
and reflecting.

Q. You were in court this morning when we were dis
cussing the racial composition of Stedman School, were
you not, in connection with the 1964 boundary changes!
A. Yes.

Q. You will recall that the neighborhood of the Stedman
District was represented to be some 45 percent Negro,
is that right! A. At that point in time, I believe this
is the figure E287] they used.

Q. And yet the school population of Stedman School
was about 85 percent Negro, is that right! A. These
were the figures I believe presented, but I have no personal
knowledge of them.

Mr. Jackson: I am going to object, if the Court
please, to this line of questioning. The witness testi
fied he came to this city in 1967. Counsel is attempt
ing to inquire as to matters in 1964. If he is
attempting to go through the testimony of the
previous witness, I believe the exhibits are in and
we can look at those.

The Court: Overruled.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, that’s merely an example of statistics
I just cited to you. That’s merely an example of how the

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

244a

neighborhood changes when it is within transition. Let
me— A. Be specific, will yon, please!

Q. Let me be more specific. As Negroes move into the
neighborhood, is it not true, Dr. Gilberts, that the first
Anglos to leave generally are those with school-age
children?

Mr. Jackson: Objection. I t calls for a conclusion.
The Court: If he knows, he can answer. Over

ruled.

A. I ’m not sure I do know. I don’t believe I know as
a matter of fact that this is true.

Q. You would also know then that the last Anglos to
leave are the older whites with no children in school?
[288] A. This would follow if the first assumption is
correct.

Q. Might that not explain why the racial composition
of the school would run ahead of the racial composition
of the neighborhood? A. Could very well.

Q. You will recall, Dr. Gilberts, a discussion we had
during your deposition concerning certain characteristics
of these segregated schools, certain objective indicia which
they seem to share in common? A. I recall in general.

Q. Did we discuss such things as a higher dropout rate
generally in a segregated school? A. Yes, and I believe
I kept inserting into that testimony this is true of lower
socioeconomic areas and whether we do identify it as
strictly a racial characteristic or socioeconomic character
istic is questionable.

Q. There also tended to be lower teacher experience at
the segregated school? A. I indicated I thought there
might be exceptions to that but that generally that
true.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

was

245a

Q. That there generally tended to be more new teachers
at the segregated schools?

The Conrt: Are yon asking him what he said
before? Or what his testimony is now?

[2893 Mr. Greiner: What his testimony is now.
The Court: If you know.

A. I thought he was making a statement. I am sorry.
Q. The question is, does there tend to be more new

teachers, Dr. Gilberts, at these segregated schools?

The Court: You mean in Denver?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, sir, these segregated schools,

Stedman, Smith, Hallett, Barrett.
The Court: Well, you heard the testimony.

A. There are. However, I have some question about those
data. They include the years of experience in Denver
and we do hire a good many teachers with experience
outside of the school system and they are placed, many
of them, in those areas. I ’m not sure just to what degree,
counting total experience, there are more beginning teach
ers in that area with lesser experience than other parts
of the city.

Q. I take it from your earlier comments, Dr. Gilberts,
that you do not feel that there is a direct relationship
between the integration of the school population and
improvement of the achievement of the minority group in
that integrated environment, is that correct? A. What
kind of improvement in the minority group? Academic
improvement, is that what you are talking about?

Q. Yes, sir. A. I have seen no evidence that would lead

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

246a

me to believe [2903 there is an absolute relationship be
tween the two.

The Court: You are familiar with it? Are you
thinking of standards, achievement standards are
equal in the segregated schools?

The Witness: No, what I am saying, Your Honor,
is that in the research that I have read where they
have tried to control on one hand for socioeconomic
class and then to make comparisons for achievement
and do the same thing based on race, there is no
correlation that is of any substantial nature where
race is related to achievement. There is some sub
stantial determination in terms of the socioeconomic
class in terms of achievement.

Q. Have you read a publication—

The Court: You don’t think then that segregation
per se produces a lower level or standard?

The Witness: Well, sir, I believe that there are—
The Court: Or that integration makes a contribu

tion to—
The Witness: I believe integration is important,

but I believe it is important from the point of view
of opening and breaking down some of the barriers
of communication we have in our society. I think
that can be reasonably well established. When one
begins talking about the relationships between that
process and the academic achievement, we have an
extremely difficult area in which to research and
the [2913 materials that I have read over the years
and recently reviewed show clear indication that

Robert D, Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

247a

there is such a relationship. I would hope that there
is and one of the reasons why we have increased
the base of integration through plans that we have
proposed would be to give us a broader base upon
which to continue to test that hypothesis.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, does part of the literature which you
have read in this area include a report of the United
States Commission on Civil Rights issued in 1967? A.
Yes.

Q. Entitled “Racial Isolation in the Public Schools”?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, isn’t there rather conclusive proof
that segregation in fact retards the learning processes
of the minority child?

Mr. Jackson: Your Honor, I don’t know if they
have intended to call this witness as an expert wit
ness, but, certainly, we are getting into a field that
appears to call for expert testimony and I don’t
see that it is particularly relevant in this fashion
at this particular hearing from this witness.

The Court: Overruled. As I understand it, he
is seeking to refresh his recollection or discredit
him, I ’m not sure which, but he is referring to some
official report, I take it, and asking him if he is
familiar with it [2923 and if it states a particular
thing.

Are you able to answer the question?
The Witness: Only in a general way, Your

Honor. I would have to look at the document to
be sure, but my recollection is—I don’t think I can
look at 300 pages or whatever it is in a short period

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

248a

of time here—that in this document there was an
assertion that there was—

The Court: Mr. Greiner is always giving some
body a hook to read during the course of the trial.

Mr. Greiner: Part of the educational process,
Your Honor.

The Witness: I am afraid it is not possible for
me—would you identify the place for me in there?

The Court: You want him to search it out, too?
The Witness: I believe that the document in

dicates that, or, asserts that there is definitely a
relationship between the segregation and lower
achievement or lower achievement in the schools,
but I don’t recall that it specifically sorted out all
of the other independent variables that could have
a part of this and then establish racial isolation
in and of itself as an absolute factor in the lack
of achievement.

Q. One of the other items referred to in this report was
the psychological damage imposed on the minority child
in the segregated school.

[293] Is your opinion of that conclusion of the report
similar? A. I don’t consider myself a sufficient expert to
judge that absolutely. I do have a feeling that certainly
this may he an extremely important factor in terms of the
youngster’s own concept of himself and his feelings of
importance and his ability to be motivated and to succeed.
I think it is a factor, yes.

Q. Now, yon are aware, I know, Dr. Gilberts, that in
Browne against Board of Education, the United States
Supreme Court recognized that psychological damage, did
it not?

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

249a

Mr. Jackson: I ’m going to object to the counsel
asking the witness what the Supreme Court has
said on a case.

The Court: There is no assurance that it is
gospel. Overruled, that particular facet. In other
words, supposing he has read that! Are you aware
of it?

The Witness: Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Greiner : What I am getting at—
The Court: Well, we take judicial notice, though,

of what the Supreme Court has said.
Mr. Greiner: What I am trying to get, Your

Honor, is superintendent notice of it.

Q. Now, that finding of the Supreme Court was in a
[2943 so-called de jurie case, is that correct? A. That’s
correct.

Q. That’s where the state had by law maintained a
dual school system, one for whites and one for blacks?
A. Yes.

Q. Is there something that you read, Dr. Gilberts, that
indicates to you that the psychological damage is different
in the two situations, de jurie on the one hand, de facto
on the other ? A. I can’t say there is anything that I have
read that might lead me to believe that, but I might add
to that the court has refused to draw the same conclusion
in the case of de facto.

Q. I won’t take you into the area of the law, Dr. Gilberts.
I will leave you there. I take it from your comments that
you have no particular training in sociology or psychology,
is that correct? A. I have a minor in social psychology
for my Ph.D.

Q. When did you receive that? A. ’61.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

250a

Q. Now, under 1533, Dr. Gilberts, I believe there is,
as you mentioned, to be a continuation of certain of the
programs that were included in, for example, Resolution
1531, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

£295J Q. Isn’t the essential difference between the res
cinded resolutions and 1533—can’t you state those to fall
into about three areas? The rescinded resolutions made
the transportation aspect mandatory, isn’t that correct? A.
In 1533?

Q. In 1531. A. Yes.
Q. Now, there were also some voluntary programs under

1531, for example, as I recall, Hallett School? A. This was
one of them, together with voluntary open enrollment and
the idea of grouping some of the schools in North Central
Denver and iNortheast Denver with schools in Southeast
and Southwest and so on.

Q. But that’s a point in common between the two ? A. Yes.
Q. And what we are focusing on now are the differences.

A. I’m sorry.
Q. So mandatory transportation is one of the differences,

is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And another difference is in the actual attendance

areas for particular schools, is that not also correct? A.
Yes.

Q. Are there any other major differences in your opinion?
[2963 A. I believe those cover the major differences.

Q. What about the difference of the effectiveness, Dr. Gil
berts, with respect to the objective of stabilization here in
Northeast Denver? Is 1533 in your opinion going to be as
effective as 1520, 1524 and 1531? A. Well, I suppose that’s
a matter that might be debated. One can look at short term
and long term—

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Direct

251a

Q. Well— A. — accomplishment.
Q. Let’s start looking at, first, short term. September 2,

1969, Dr. Gilberts— A. I don’t believe that we will be able
to accomplish everything that we have indicated in that
short a term under the new resolution.

Q. The school district has had a program, has it not, of
voluntary open enrollment ? A. Yes, as a matter of totally
free choice on the part of the parents.

Q. Has voluntary open enrollment in Denver ever inte
grated a school? A. I don’t believe it has ever had a good
chance and, since it has been promoted and designed, had
programs that would attract people into it. It has only
been in operation actually since last January, and, there
fore, I don’t believe the test is adequate yet.

[2971 Q. Our objective at Hallett, as I recall, is to get
500 children involved in the exchange program. A. This
was in the original resolution, I believe. Five hundred—
yes, you had that document out this morning. I think you
verified that.

Q. Yes, it was Exhibit 5A. It was your report to the
Board on implementation of 1531. A. Yes.

Q. Now, has the target at Hallett changed? Is it no
longer a mutual exchange of 500 children? Is that what
you indicated? A. We would certainly like to achieve that,
if possible.

Q. Mr. Cruter indicated that you had between 100 and
150 at this point, is that right? A. Yes, after one week of
the campaign that we have just initiated.

Q. Didn’t the initiation of that program start on July 7,
Dr. Gilberts? A. Yes, it did.

Mr. Greiner: No further questions.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs<—Direct

252a

Cross-Examination by Mr. Jackson:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, the goal of 500 in the exchange on the
Hallett program is composed, is it not, of 250 Negroes
[2983 moving out of the school and 250 whites coming
into the school1? A. Yes, I believe that’s true.

Q. So, we are not talking about a wholesale shift of
500 students out of the school and 500 back into the
school? A. I don’t believe so.

Q. And under the present status report as Mr. Cruter
advised us this morning, we are somewhere over the 200
figure then? A. In both directions, yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, much mention was made of the public
hearings which were held following the introduction of
Resolution 1520, Resolution 1524 and Resolution 1531, and
the question was asked as to whether they were discussed
at these public meetings.

Were they the only matters that were discussed at these
meetings in terms of their specifics? A. Well, the dis
cussion was not controlled absolutely. There were a
number of other items that were brought into it, but these
were the primary items.

Q. The programming and the steps taken by the school
district to implement the Resolutions 1520, 24 and 31, you
testified as to certain of the wrork that had been done in
that area. Is there any carryover value to other programs
[2993 of the work which has already been done in this
area? A. Yes, in those areas that were consistent be
tween the two resolutions, certainly, there is a lot of carry
over value.

Q. And there were—oh, excuse me. A. And there are

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Cross

253a

some other programs which will be implementing it. I
think there will be some carryover, too.

Q. And there was a great deal in. common between the
1520, 24 and 31 programs and the program under 1533?
A. Yes, other than those items we mentioned were
eliminated.

Q. Yon were asked on direct examination whether or
not the boundary changes had been approved by the Board
m the Northeast Denver area, the ones which did not
involve any great distance of travel on the part of students
that involved going into Phillips and from Phillips out
to—or from the Stedman area into Ashley and around
in that area. That boundary change had been agreed upon,
is that correct, by the Board in their resolutions? A
Yes.

Q. Had these children actually changed their schools?
Had they actually gone to the new schools ? A. No, sir.

Q. There had been no movement at all? £300] A. No,
sir.

Q. There was just a planning move which had taken
place at that time? A. Yes.

Q. Now, referring to the teachers that might on occasion
be found in schools where there is some concentration
of minority children and the fact that on occasion there
are teachers present who have less experience than others
and are classified as beginning teachers, I didn’t under
stand your testimony to be that the beginning teachers
were any less qualified than other teachers?

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, could we establish
which of us can lead this witness? I object.

The Court: He may.

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Cross

254a

Mr. Greiner: Pardon?
The Court: The rules are clear.
Mr. Jackson: The rules are clear—excuse me?
The Court: Yes, just keep your remarks this

way. I think he can ask him any questions, cross-
examination, really, even though it may be a friendly
witness.

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Your Honor.
The Court: Go ahead.

A. There is no total relationship, I do not believe between
the experience and ability of the teachers, although cer
tainly, experience is a factor.

[301] Q. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that a begin
ning teacher would have to be then less qualified? A. Not
necessarily, no.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, I believe you testified that Resolution
1533 in its present form first appeared at the Board meet
ing on June 9, 1969, is that correct? Assuming that’s the
date the resolution was passed? A. Yes, assuming that,
yes.

Q. But the programs contained in 1533 have in fact
been before the Board on a number of other previous
occasions had they not? A. Yes, they were a part of the
other resolutions.

Mr. Jackson: I have no further questions, Your
Honor.

The Court: Do you have anything further?
* * ' # # #

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Cross

255a

Robert D. Gilberts—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

[301] * * *
Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, I am handing you what is in evidence as
Defendants’ Exhibit (I The second page thereof depicts
the total number of students who have volunteered for the
Hallett program. A. Yes.

Q. What’s the total! A. 258.
Q. And that’s how many are going to Hallett! [302] A.

158 are indicated here.
Q. How many are coming from Hallett? A. 100 are indi

cated here.
Q. Well, is that possible, Dr. Gilberts? A. Well, this is

not the point at which this will be applied and this is merely
a progress report and there is no indication of whether or
not these are the figures that will be used finally.

Q. But I think you would agree, would you not, that until
50 more children transfer out of Hallett there is only going
to be 100 Anglo children going in, would you not? A. I ’m
not sure that I could agree to that. There may be some
additional space at Hallett that could provide for a few
additional whites. I am not sure.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, would you agree with the general concept
that I have just stated? A. In general, yes.

Q. Now, so that there is no confusion, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit
5A, that was prepared by you or your staff? A. This is one
of those that we had at the deposition?

Q. Yes. A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. On Page 10 of Exhibit 5A, there is described the Hal

lett program on 1531, is that correct? A. Yes.
[303] Q. And does it not provide for 500 Anglos going in

and 500 Negroes going out? A. You are right.
Q. Now, has that goal changed? A. As I indicated before,

we hope to attain that.
* # # # #

256a

[360] * * *
H oward L. Johnson, a witness called by and on behalf

of defendants, having first been duly sworn, wTas examined
and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Creighton:

The Court: Give us your full name and address
and occupation, please.

The Witness: Howard L. Johnson, 1130 South
Franklin Street, Denver, Colorado. Deputy Super
intendent of Schools.

* # * * #

[361] * * *
Q. (By Mr. Creighton) Mr. Johnson, what is your

present employment! A. I am Deputy Superintendent of
the Denver Public Schools.

Q. How long have you been employed by Denver Public
Schools ? A. I have been employed for the Denver Public
Schools since September 1930.

Q. And is that a common name for School District
Number 1, the City and County of Denver! A. Yes, sir.

* * # # #

[365] * * *
Q. And under these noninstructional, nonbusiness ad

ministrative duties, what are some of the duties you had
there! A. They are pretty largely in the form of certain
directives having to do with the schools, maybe in regard
to certain bulletins, approval of certain noninstructional
activities within the schools, the general interpretation of
policies established by the Board of Education and the
administrative staff.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

257a

Q. Did these noninstructional administrative duties in
clude matters relating to the transfer of pupils! A. Yes,
this part came under the pupil personnel services.

Q. And did those noninstructional administrative [3663
duties include matters pertaining to school subdistrict
boundaries? A. Yes, until such time as the planning and
engineering services were establishes, and roughly it was
included in my responsibility until approximately two
and a half to three years ago, at which time there was
a cooperative effort as this duty became more of planning
and engineering.

However, I had the responsibility during the period
from approximately 1960 until, I would say, 1965, 1966.

Q. And during your ocupancy of that office from 1965
or ’66, as you have testified, until you left that particular
office last year in ’68, school subdistrict boundary matters
were handled largely by whom again? A. Largely by
me, and even during that period of time until our recent
reorganization of a year ago I worked very closely with
that office in regard to certain aspects.

Q. With what office? A. With the office of the assistant
superintendent for planning and engineering.

# # # # #

[3673 * * #
Q. Has there been, then, a difference in the function

of the deputy superintendent under the new organization
as compared with the organization that obtained between
1960 and ’68? A. Yes. The difference is pretty largely
th is: the deputy superintendent position prior to 1968 was
identified as one of the assistant superintendents who
assumed the authority of the Superintendent during his
E368] absence and then assumed certain top level adminis

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

258a

trative authority as delegated by the Superintendent;
whereas, under this arrangement there is a specific job
description in regard to the responsibilities of the deputy
in coordinating the activities day to day in these six de
partments or divisions.

Q. And when in this time span we have been covering
did the present superintendent, Dr. Gilberts, take up his
duties? A. Dr. Gilberts assumed his duties on August 1,
1967.

Q. Mr. Johnson, you indicated that prior to last year
when you were superintendent of personnel services,
among your duties were those relating to the recruitment
of teachers, is that right? A. That is correct.

Q. In this connection, are you familiar with the policies,
if any, of the school district relating to teachers ? A. Yes,
I am acquainted with it.
[368A] Q. Mr. Johnson, there is in evidence in this case
an exhibit, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26, which is Policy 1617A.
Would you tell us the effective date of that policy? A.
This policy became effective in April 1, 1963.

Q. Now, since the effective date of that policy, has
there been any change in the policy or its equivalent as it
affects teachers? A. Yes, there has been this change, in
this respect; that this policy on the basis of classified
personnel—

Q. Now, you might explain to the Court what you mean
by classified personnel. A. Classified personnel would be
the so-called non-teaching or non-certificated personnel.
It would include such as bus drivers, custodians, lunch
room workers, clerical help, those individuals who are not
licensed by the school as certificated teachers.

Now, as a result of an agreement that was signed be
tween the School District No. 1 or through its Board of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

259a

Education and the Denver Classroom Teachers Associa
tion who had gained recognition of the city as the official
representative of teachers, on April 8th, 1967, this agree
ment was put into effect and adopted by the Board of
Education and it includes this policy.

Q. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson. I have handed you Ex
hibit—an exhibit marked Defendants’ Exhibit E. Is that
the [3693 agreement you are referring to, that you’re
speaking off A. That is the agreement.

# * * # *

[3703 * * *
Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Tour Honor.
The Court: It will be received. What’s the

number of that!
Mr. Creighton: Defendants’ Exhibit E.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit E was re
ceived in evidence.)

Direct Examination 'by Mr. Creighton (Continued):
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, you said that nonclassified teach

ers were not affected by Exhibit E. A. Non-certificated,
or as we call them, classified employees. They are termed
non-certificated. We use the classified, and the other group
of certificated people being called certificated personnel.

Q. But the teachers’ agreement, did it affect the pre
viously existing policy, 1617A? A. Yes, it had this effect,
that there were some items in this agreement which, of
course, supersede Policy 1617A that probably are a little
bit—probably clarified to a greater degree in teachers’
rights in cases of transfer, assignments and so forth, and
consequently I would say it is £3713 defined more clearly
as it relates to employee relationships.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

260a

Q. Are you familiar with this agreement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you direct our attention to the section of it

having to do with teacher transfers? A. Yes, on Page 25
of the agreement, Article 14, and under the heading of
“Transfer,” would include the matters as it relates to
teachers—to transfers of teachers in this case, not all
certificated personnel, only classroom teachers; those in
dividuals of this—that this group would represent in nego
tiations with the Board of Education.

Q. Are there any portion of Policy 1617A which now
control the teacher transfer arrangement? A. No, on the
basis of the signed agreement between the Board of
Education and Denver Classroom Teachers Association,
any articles in this agreement supersede those of policies
stated elsewhere.

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, do transfers apply to teachers
presently hired—presently employed by the district? A.
Yes, it is.

Q. Now, do they apply—does this transfer policy then
apply to teachers who have not yet commenced employ
ment with this district? A. No, the agreement such as it
relates to transfer—this relates only to the teachers
presently hired—presently employed by the district? A.
Yes, it is.

Q. Now, do they apply—does this transfer policy then
apply to teachers who have not yet commenced employ
ment with this district? A. No, the agreement such as it
relates to transfer—this relates only to the teachers
presently employed. As of [3723 September 1, 1969, at
the beginning of the work for teachers, a contract year,
this agreement will apply to them immediately as of that
date.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

261a

Q. Could you outline for the Court the way in which
the present transfer policy under the Exhibit E operates?
A. Yes, if you are referring to Article 14 on the basis
of transfer, I think there are about four or five items that
need particular attention and one is the principal criterion
for consideration of a request for transfer—is whether
or not the request will result in the best educational
program for the school district. A request for transfer
will not be granted if a teacher does not qualify for the
existing vacancy. That is one section.

Another section is 14-2-2, that the best educational pro
gram results from the selection of a school faculty which
is well balanced in terms of teachers’ experience, general
background, and competency, and careful consideration
will be given to each of the above when filling vacancies.

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, are those general principles incor
porated in the previous policy, 1617A? A. That is correct,
and this would be the general criteria on principle we work
under on this particular basis with the understanding that
we would discuss with personnel regarding that important
part.

Q. And what is the next important factor that you
[373] have identified under transfer policy? A. There are
about three important factors as we think of transfer: a
request by a teacher for transfer, and it is outlined here,
but rather than reading from here I can define it a little
bit more clearly.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would object to
the witness interpreting the exhibit. I think the ex
hibit states what the policy is.

The Court: Very well, Let him read it.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

262a

A. And in reading from Article 14, “That not later than
April 20 of each school year . . Now, these are trans
fers requested by the teacher. “Not later than April 20
of each school year, the superintendent shall have posted
in the office of each school a list of the known vacancies
which will occur during- the following school year.

“14-3-2, Teachers who desire a transfer to another build
ing shall file a request on the appropriate form, with the
superintendent not later than May 1 of each year. Requests
on file prior to the posting of vacancies will also be con
sidered. If a transfer is to be made the teacher and the
administrators concerned will be notified in writing of the
new assignment. Except in unusual cases teachers who are
to be transferred will be notified before May 20.

“14-3-3, Not later than May 20 of each school year the
superintendent shall have posted in the office of each [3741
school a supplemental list of known vacancies which will
occur during the following school year.

“14-3-4, Not later than June 1 of each school year teach
ers may file applications for transfers to positions listed
on the supplemental list of vacancies. Requests on file pre
vious to the posting of vacancies will also be considered.
If transfer is to be made the teacher and the administrators
concerned will be notified in writing of the new assignment.
Except in unusual cases, teachers who are to be transferred
will be notified in writing before the close of the school
year.

“14-3-5, No assignments of new teachers in the school
system shall be made until all pending requests for trans
fers have been processed. If a teacher does not wish to be
considered for vacancies which occur in the summer, the
teacher must cancel his request for transfer in writing.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

263a

“14-3-6, In considering a request for transfer the con
venience and wishes of the individual teacher will be hon
ored to the extent they do not conflict with the instruc
tional requirements and best interests of the school district.

“14-3-7, If more than one teacher has applied for the
same position, the teacher best qualified for that position
shall be appointed. Qualifications being substantially equal,
seniority in the school district shall control.
£375] A. (Continued) “14-3-8. All requests for transfer
on call in the Superintendent’s office shall be destroyed on
October 31 of each year. All renewals or new requests for
transfer must be filed on or after November 1 of each
school year.

“14-3-9. Nothing in this article shall prevent a teacher
from requesting a transfer at any time.

“14-3-10. On or about June 15, the Superintendent shall
make available to the Association a system-wide schedule
showing names of all persons who have been transferred
and the nature of such transfers. A supplemental listing
of transfers and their nature shall be made available to
the Association by the end of August.”

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, you have covered the part of this
agreement relating to transfers requested by teachers, have
you not? A. That is correct,.

Q. Now', then, isn’t there a section covering transfers
that the administration wishes to effect? A. Yes, sir, and
this refers to Article 14, Section 4, following immediately
after that, my previous statement, and this is, “Transfer
Requested by Administration.”

The Court: I think I will let him summarize this.
[3763 Mr. Greiner: I don’t think I wmuld even

object to that, Your Honor.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

264a

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

Q. If yon would, then, please summarize how adminis
tration-initiated transfers work. A. Yes, we have some
situations where the administration may request a trans
fer. A good example of this would be that the enrollment
or the membership in a school should be less than our
anticipated membership for that school and it is necessary
to transfer from a school to another school because we
have overstaffed a particular school. There may be other
reasons, but this is the one that is most common, and in
this respect, if this is to be for the following school vear,
then this should be done prior to June 1st. However, a
provision is given that if we find the emergency situation
in September we still reserve the right to request transfer
of the teacher. Then the transfer will be made only after
a meeting between the teacher involved and the Superin
tendent’s designee, and at this time the teacher must be
notified regarding the reason that we requested his transfer.

In the event that the teacher objects to the transfer,
then he can immediately notify the Association, and then
the Superintendent or his designee will then meet with
the teacher and the Association’s representative to discuss
this matter, and, of course, this discussion is [377] neces
sary or it could become a grievance filed by the teacher
and the Association.

Now, at the time then, after it is discussed with the
teacher, if it is agreeable, then a list of all open positions
at that time must be available to the teacher, and then
the teacher may indicate in the order of his preference
the school that he wishes to be transferred to. So, really,
it provides that this teacher cannot be taken from one
school and said that the teacher is now in School A. He is
convinced that there is a legitimate reason for his trans-

265a

fer. So, lie acknowledges that. But we cannot take him
from School A and move him directely to School B with
out giving him the other possible schools where we have
vacancies for which he is qualified.

If there are three schools requesting the same qualifica
tions, there are three vacancies, we must give him the
opportunity to go to School B, C or D, as the case may be,
and he then is entitled to make his choice.

Q. Turning back to the transfers initiated by the teacher
himself or herself, does that impose any limitations or
qualifications on the administration’s ability to make a
determination of where the teacher goes! A. You will
note in the wording that it indicates the qualifications of
a teacher. You will also recall that [3781 earlier I stated
for the best interests of the school district. To the extent
that we do give a feasible answer to that teacher regarding
the transferring of one teacher over another and explain
that we think it is for the best interests of the program,
we do have or are empowered to do this, but not without
answering to the teacher or if necessary to the Associa
tion, if they object that we are dealing with the teacher
unfairly, but it does give us the privilege of transferring
—of indicating to the teacher to go to a certain school.

Now, of course, if the request is made by the teacher,
then, of course, that first section does not apply, because
this is only where the teacher requests.

Then, of course, he requests for a specific position.
Q. Then, are teacher preferences a factor in deter

mining who gets transferred where? A. I t is a very im
portant factor.

Q. Is teacher seniority a factor ? A. Yes, that is written
in the agreement, that seniority shall prevail, assuming
that all other qualifications are similar.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

266a

Q. Was that seniority feature in the previous policy,
1617-A? A. It referred to it, but it is not as direct in
[3793 the statement. It is referred to that seniority shall
prevail, and that has been the practice and procedure for
years.

Q. Notv, Mr. Johnson, when you finish up this transfer
process, the dates you have indicated it happens, is there
a time during the school year when there are unfilled open
ings that need to be filled with teacher personnel? A. Yes,
if you will note that we attempt to fill these vacancies
upon request of teachers prior to June 1st, so there is a
period, really, that extends from June 1st to about Sep
tember 1st, and in unfortunate years may even extend to
the first day of school. But we have been fortunate in
this respect, and during this period of time we had these
vacancies that are a result of retirement and resignations
and some unusual situations where we may have vacancies
during the summer, and, then, of course, these are the
vacancies that have not been requested for filling by the
staff who were there during the previous year.

Q. Are projected enrollment changes a factor? A. It
is not only overall projected enrollment changes, it could
be projected enrollment changes in each of our 116 schools,
because very often the mobility of population can affect
a school as much as 50 to 60 pupils [380] just through the
movement and the transiency even within the city.

Q. Now, how do you go about filling these vacancies?
A. These vacancies must be filled by new applicants and
teachers who are hired. Some of them are hired in the
spring of the year because we anticipate from year to
year so many vacancies. Some of them must be hired
during the summer months, if we have failed to fill these
positions or the estimated positions.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

267a

Q. During the last several years, Mr, Johnson, what
has been the size of this new teacher assignment matter?
How many teachers? A. It is necessary for us to hire
from 500 to 700 new teachers each year. We have roughly
a turnover in our staff for an average of from 12 to 14
percent a year, which is quite consistent with other large
cities in the United States.

Q. Do you know anything about the extent of experi
ence of these new teachers you must bring into the system
each year? A. Yes.

Q. All right. A. As far as experience is concerned, and
I will have to give the approximate number, although I am
within [381] one or two percent, on the basis of our
elementary teachers. Approximately 42 percent of those
teachers have had previous teaching experience, one or
more years. In the secondary schools, we find that the
experience—we do have a higher percentage that runs
approximately 39 percent of our new teachers have had
previous teaching experience.

Q. Would these be classified in some of your classifica
tions as teachers without previous Denver Public School
experience? A. That is correct. As far as listing these
teachers on the basis of experience, we usually list them
as having previous Denver Public School experience. The
experience gained outside, we do not count this in our
normal format of indicating experienced or inexperienced
teachers, and these individuals are given benefit on the
salary schedule for a portion of their outside experience,
but they are not listed as experienced Denver Public School
teachers.

Q. Do you know anything about the extent of the non-
Denver experience of these 39 to 43 percent that come to
you having had experience? A. I personally do not have,

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

268a

but in the personnel services staff there is a very close
examination of this previous experience in regard to rec
ommendations made by [382] previous administrators as
well as the subject matter area, extracurricular activities,
sponsorship, and all of this type of evidence does come
to members of the personnel services staff.

Q. In regard to these new teachers, what is the School
District looking for in the way of new teachers today?
A. We are looking primarily for individuals who are
sympathetic with children, understanding of children’s
problems, their ability to be able to discipline with reason,
have the necessary control over the individual, be able to
work within the community and to work—and their ability
to work with parents. And, then, of course, in addition
to this, and we have to recognize the necessity of the most
modern teaching methods and also their knowledge of sub
ject matter in a particular area.

At this particular time, however, we have come to the
conclusion that probably the knowledge of subject matter
and this type of skill is important, but it is not as impor
tant as the sensitivity of a teacher in working with children.

Q. How do you seek out teachers with sensitivity or
training in sensitivity? A. Well, of course, we have quite
an extensive recruiting program, starting about the first
of December of [383] the previous year, in hiring teachers
for September, and this continues with a great deal of
vigor and force until about the first of May, and very often
we are able to hire the bulk of these people by April or
May, and, of course, in attempting to gain these, these are
all personal interviews.

Contrary to what is done in some areas of employment,
we do not consider a teacher an applicant until such time
as he has been personally interviewed by a member of our

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

269a

staff, has submitted even prior to that interview his tran
script of record, his recommendations from his previous
employer, and all of the data submitted to our office.

Then the personal interview takes place and at that
time he is considered an applicant, and then it is pretty
largely a comparative matter of determining upon the
basis of the personal interview as well as the materials—
it is a comparative matter of selecting these roughly five
to six hundred teachers—it may vary from year to year_
out of somewhere in the neighborhood of about 3,000 of
these formal applicants.

[3843 Q. Has the school district done anything through
the source of these newly-trained teachers, the teaching
colleges, to improve what you’re seeking? A. Yes. In
fact, this, I think—I think this is brought pretty definitely
to our attention on the basis that there are certain things
we are looking for in teachers today that were not re
quirements for an education degree.

Many of us who have been in education over a period of
years, we receive quite a heavy dose of methodology, should
we say, and subject matter. And I think the institutions of
higher learning went on for years overlooking some of
the important things, sociology and many of these things.
And we made it a point a few years ago to contact 55
institutions of higher learning with whom we had had our
greatest contact requesting certain types of courses to be
put into colleges. We also requested that we needed to do
more from the standpoint of practice teaching or student
teaching in having these individuals work with a lower
socioeconomic group, the culturally deprived. And I am
happy to say that—and we haven’t gotten 100 percent on
this—but we have found very close cooperation. For in
stance, the student assigned by the Denver Public School

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

270a

System by institutions of higher learning in this state—
the majority of them are now doing their student teaching-
in so-called target area schools.

* # # # #

[3913 Q. Specifically in the area that we have just been
discussing of teachers Mr. Johnson, I refer you to Page
D8 of this Exhibit 20, at the top of the page. Would you
read that—or let me ask you, is the recommendation there,
No. 2, one that fell within your responsibility! A. That’s
D8, No. 2. “A minority background should be considered
as an asset in the recruitment of teachers in the Denver
Public School System in that larger number of well-
qualified teachers of Negro, Spanish-American and Asian
backgrounds; standards of training, personalities, and
abilities shall never be lowered or raised because of a
minority background.”

Now, Mr. Johnson, has the school district and specifically
your office responded to that recommendation! A. Yes.
We have responded to this recommendation. I think it is
evident in this respect. The increase in the number of
minority teachers that we now have in the Denver Public
Schools. Number two, the emphasis that is placed upon
recruitment of teachers in minority background and this
particularly is making certain that we have a very close
coverage of those institutions in the United States which
have a large Hispano group in the college or university.

Number three, we moved further than just making con
tacts with the institutions of higher learning where we
knew there were a large percentage of Negro and Hispano
[3923 students. But we moved deliberately into about 12
of the large Negro universities and colleges in the South.
And then, also, utilized members of our own staff—our staff
who were Negro or Hispano to make these contacts.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

271a

Q. Was Mr. Crater involved in this? A. Yes, Mr. Cra
ter was primarily involved in recruiting with the southern
universities and colleges.

Q. When did this response commence with respect to the
1964 recommendation? A. It really commenced in 1965 for
the September recruiting because, as wre went through these
155 recommendations, we put—we began implementing im
mediately those that we felt could be handled in this respect
and we substituted in our recruiting plans, we substituted
other people to make these recruiting trips. We also sub
stituted other—certain other schools and eliminated some
that we had not been quite as well successful with in our
recruitment in order to achieve all of these 155 recommenda
tions.

Q. Since 1965, do you have any evidence or measure of
results in that regard? A. Yes. We have evidence in this
respect, that at the present time we have in the Denver
Public Schools approximately 400 certificated employees,
that is, teachers who are of the Negro group. We have ap
proximately 100 who are of the Hispano group. Roughly
50 to 75 orientals, and [3933 so this would total altogether
somewhere in the neighborhood of 575 to 600 individuals
of these ethnic groups.

Q. That’s as of now? A. As of this last September.
Q. How does that compare historically since 1965? A.

In 1965 we had approximately 275 to 300 Negroes. The
Hispano group was approximately 50, and oriental group
was about the same. So I would say there has been an ap
preciable increase in those numbers.

Q. Mr. Johnson, would you read the next recommendation
on Page D8? It’s No. 3. [394] A. Accredited colleges and
universities throughout the country, not merely those close
to Colorado, should be objects of a more aggressive re
cruitment effort.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Direct

272a

Q. Is your previous testimony a fair description of what
you did to respond to that? A. Let us say in this respect
it was fair, that we did try to move in the areas, thinking
of the recruitment of the minority group. We did extend
our boundaries for recruitments slightly, but not exten
sively. We extended slightly in the East going into Indiana,
Ohio, Illinois, and then we did move in the direction of
making more contacts with eastern universities and col
leges, and this was tied in with professional meetings of our
group.

Then as far as the South is concerned, I have explained
that. We have previously recruited in the Midwest to a
great degree, and we did go into New Mexico, Arizona and
Utah and recruited there. We have studied very closely the
matter of recruitment in California, Oregon, Washington,
and also the far East. This matter—

Q. By that, you mean the eastern states? A. Eastern
states, yes, sir. Now, in this particular business, this school
business is very similar to private industry. It is a law of
supply and demand, and I think we must be careful that we
are not wasting a great deal of recruiting money going into
places where we know we may be [395] outbid already on
the basis of a thousand to two thousand dollars on the
beginning salary. However, as the reports will show, we
do hire many teachers, quite a number of teachers, from
California. We do hire some from New York State, and so
on, but we have been concentrating upon more in the Mid
west, the Rocky Mountain area, and the South and our
Central states.

Q. Do you have any other data or indication that this
recruitment has produced a more geographical diversity
in your input? A. Yes, it has that, and I think part of it
is due to the recruitment. However, I think a great deal

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

273a

is due to the fact that we send out a great amount of litera
ture. Every institution in the United States gets our litera
ture, even though our recruiters aren’t there. Last year, as
I recall, in the teachers we recruited last year they gave
us their home addresses, that is their place of residence,
and we recognized some of this may have been the parents
and they moved on to teach for the year, but 46 states were
represented and Canada was represented; so we have teach
ers who indicate that their homes are in 46 out of the 50
states.

Q. Mr. Johnson, would you read the next recommendation
of the study committees, number 4! A. Yes. “The ad
ministration group in charge of recruiting teachers should
include representatives of minority [396] groups in Den
ver,” and this—

Q. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Johnson. You have
mentioned, of course, Mr. Cruter alluded to his activities.
In addition to that, has the administration taken steps in
’65 to respond to that? A. Yes. we have, by using both
Negro and Hispano recruiters.

Q. And in terms of comparative numbers between now
and ’65, has there been a change in the numbers of minority
persons involved? A. In recruiting?

Q. What? A. You mean in recruiting?
Q. In recruiting, yes. A. Well, it has increased defi

nitely on the basis of total number. Unfortunately, we have
not used—we have not used the minority group prior to
that particular time. There were one or two reasons for it,
and pretty largely that we didn’t have the manpower and
we hesitated a great deal in using individuals who were
assigned to the other jobs. We were using specifically the
personnel people.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

274a

Q. Have minority recruiting personnel proved effective!
A. Yes, I think they are effective. I don’t think [397] that
we need to look at it particularly from the standpoint of
numerical value on the basis of numbers as much as it is the
fact that I think the image is going out that we are inter
ested in top-flight minority group teachers, and I think
that this is paying dividends. I think that as Mr. O uter
told me he found that his trips into the South are more
valuable—

Q. That would be hearsay. A. That would be hearsay.

The Court: Well, he told us that.
The Witness: That’s right.

Q. Would you turn to page D-10 of Exhibit 20 and read
the recommendation that appears at the bottom of that
page. A. “The Board of Education and administration
should work actively in concert with other school systems
throughout the country to impress upon teacher training
colleges the importance of preparing teachers to teach all
children, including children of different ethnic and racial
background, and the type of child we are characterizing
here as disadvantaged culturally. It should be made clear
that such training should be a plus factor in selection in
the Denver system.”

Q. Was this recommendation part of your responsibili
ties? A. Part of it. A dual responsibility along with [398]
the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services,
Dr. Hinderman,

Q. Do you know what response the administration of
the district made to this? A. Yes, in this respect, that Dr.
Hinderman and his associates contacted these institutions
of higher learning and discussed the background in regard

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

275a

to the offerings of colleges and universities for prospective
teachers. We likewise, as we sent our people on recruiting
trips, met with deans of colleges as well as the placement
directors to discuss this matter of the necessary training
of teachers to be better fitted to work with the culturally
deprived.

Q. Do you see any evidence of results of this program?
A. Yes, I see evidence. Again, you may indicate this as
hearsay, because this is difficult to measure from the stand
point of any valid tests or measurements, except this, that
we do get the report from our principals and we also are
receiving from the community generally, parents and
others, the quality and understanding of many of newT
teachers—

Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor, I think I
will object to this question on the basis of hearsay,
what reports he has received from other people.

[3993 The Court: Overruled.

Q. You may proceed. A. I think I have advanced my
point, and that is on that basis.

The Court: Reports have been good. Go ahead.

Q. Mr. Johnson, you indicated that your—or, let me ask
you this, have your duties involved any responsibilities with
respect to the use of mobile units in the school district?
A. In this respect, that is, the department of personnel
services has the responsibility of working with budgetary
services on increasing enrollment and so forth. To that
degree, why, we did have the responsibility of recommend
ing to the Superintendent the need for some means of al

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

276a

leviating the crowded conditions in certain schools and
there to that extent. However, the bulk of the responsibil
ity of purchasing and so on is in the division of planning
and engineering, and in these cases the result of a recom
mendation of the Superintendent and the other staff mem
bers regarding the needs.

Q. Do you know when the district first started using
mobile units? A. I would say about 1962, as 1 recall, the
first year of the mobile unit. ’62 or right about that time. I
am inclined to believe—I would say ’64, because I think
[400J that Dr. Armstrong had a part in the purchase of
those, so I think it was later, and he took office in ’62.

Q. Mr. Johnson, I will hand you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 101,
which has been received in evidence. A. That’s right.

Q. Do you happen to be familiar with that display? A.
Yes, I am, and I note that my date was correct, 1962. Yes,
I am acquainted with this.

Q. Are you familiar with the study committee’s recom
mendation with respect to mobile units, which came two
years later, obviously? A. Yes.

Q. What was the recommendation? A. Their recom
mendation largely was that they indicated that mobile units
were a possibility and that we should—we should move in
the direction of utilizing any means to relieve what they
considered to be crowded situations in certain schools.

Q. Now, this Exhibit 101 indicates that mobile units were
in the first year of employment sent where? A. The first
year they were sent to the following elementary schools:
Doull, Wyatt, Wyman, and Greenlee.

Q. That was 1962? A. That was in 1962.
Q. What was the next year they were installed? [401]

A. Then in 1964 then there was a movement of some of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

277a

these because they were not necsscary, and there was also
a purchase of some additional units, and sent to Philips,
’64, and in 1965 to Smith School, and then also in late ’65
to Park Hill School, and also Hallett School.

Then, we found that the decrease in enrollment in certain
areas made it possible to move some of these. For instance,
Doull School that had received the first mobile unit, we were
able to move that to Eagleton to offset an increase there,
and also in 1967 it was possible because of a lower member
ship at Hallett Elementary School to move two of those
units to Ashley Elementary School.

Q. Has the use of mobile units given you any additional
flexibility? A. Well, yes, it does. I think probably taking
the first school on the page, Doull School was a very good
example, and we had a heavy membership at Doull School.
It was predicted that Doull School membership would be
reduced, and our predictions proved to be correct, and so
consequently on this particular basis we did not go to the
expense of an extra classroom and so on, and we were able
to utilize that mobile unit in other schools, and so there is
this flexibility, and it may not only be on the basis of mem
bership. It could be on a special program flexibility.

The Court: These units are single classrooms?
[402] The Witness: Pardon, sir?
The Court: Are these units single classrooms?
The Witness: Yes, they are single classrooms.
The Court: What are they, prefabricated?
The Witness: Yes, prefabricated.
The Court: They can be disassembled and moved

somewhere else?
The Witness: Yes. It is not quite as simple as

that because there is the matter of electricity, the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

278ai

various utilities, and so on. So it is not quite as
mobile as we normally think of a house trailer.

* # # # #

£4033 * * *
By Mr. Creighton:

Q. Mr. Johnson, as a matter of fact, I was about to ask
you about these mobile units and to describe them. Are
these classroom facilities? A. They are classroom facili
ties built purposely for this particular use.

Q. Do you know how satisfactory they are for this pur
pose of classroom units? A. We are in the impression
that they serve very satisfactorily; at least, the reports that
we get from, teachers that use them, that generally they are
well satisfied with them.

The Court: I take it that they are an interim
facility that you utilize until your plans materialize
to build new schools; is that right? Until the popu
lation becomes set in an area so that you know
what your needs are going to be?

The Witness: That’s correct, Tour Honor. They
are a temporary facility and for flexibility purposes.

Q. Do in fact these units have any advantages over other
types of classrooms? A. I think probably teachers and
pupils that wish to be isolated from the run of the regu
lar school, the hallways and so on, that this would be an
advantage.

[404] Q. Do they impose any limitation in class size?
A. Only to this extent: that they are set for the normal
class size, and normally the pupils—the number of pupils
in these particular facilities usually number 25 to 30 pupils

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Direct

279a

and they handle that particular number very well. They
do have air conditioning. They have the necessary public
utilities that are necessary in close proximity.

# # # # *

[4083 * * *
Q. Please refer to Exhibit 20 at page D-14, Dog-14.

Please read Recommendation 1 that appears on that page.
A. “The Board of Education should establish and enforce
a policy that qualified teachers of minority backgrounds
will be assigned throughout the system.”

Q. Now, was that recommendation assigned to you! A.
That would have been assigned to me as Assistant Super
intendent for Personnel Services.

Q. Do you know what the School District has done
[4093 since ’64 to respond to that recommendation! A.
The Superintendent, the previous Superintendent as well
as the present Superintendent, has indicated that we should
move in this particular direction, and we have to the best
of our ability, assigning teachers of minority backgrounds
throughout the system, and as of last fall we had a minor
ity teacher in every secondary school and minority teacher
in 77 out of the 91 elementary schools.

Q. So the interaction of your policy and the teachers’
agreement impose any limitations on what you would oth
erwise do here! A. It would impose this limitation on an
individual basis, but I don’t think that it would impose
it from the standpoint of the overall mass movement of
any type. It can be realized that the agreement does indi
cate that if the administration requests the transfer of a
teacher, the teacher is in position to question the transfer,
so it places that limitation on it.

Q. Since 1964, has there been measurable—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

280a

The Court: Well, other than this, you just assign
them without regard to whether they are minority
people or not in the various parts of the town?

The Witness: Yes, we do. However, in the case
of transfers it is necessary that the teacher request
the transfer. That is, unless we go to the teacher
and—

E410J The Court: Well, I think we ought to focus
on the evidence. We have evidence here that these
people are unduly concentrated in some of the North
east Denver elementary schools particularly.

The Witness: Your Honor—
The Court: I mean, we had a good deal of evi

dence here the other day. I don’t know if you were
here or not. Is there a tendency of this kind?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, this is correct
in this respect, that there are many of these North
east Denver schools that have a greater number of
Negro teachers in these schools than we do else
where in the city, and then as far as the distribu
tion of these teachers, as I spoke, in 77 of 91, this
is a matter of one or two teachers being in those
situations.

Now, the point I am making is that we are stress
ing a greater distribution of these teachers through
out the city, but it is necessary that any teacher
who wishes to be transferred to any other part of
the city, of course, must do this pretty largely on
the basis of this agreement and request such trans
fers. We had not had a large number of requests
in this direction.

The Court: Well, my question is, why, if you
pay no attention to whether these teachers are mi

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

281a

nority, they end up concentrated in Barrett and
Stedman and these £4113 other Northeast Denver
schools ?

The Witness: I think part of this is due to we
have a greater turnover of teachers in those par
ticular areas, and then as far as the reassignment
of teachers are concerned we do discuss with teach
ers regarding assignments and we find that some
times there is a reluctance on the part of the Negro
teachers to want to go into other schools. However,
we are having a better success in this respect than
formerly.

# # # # #

Q. Please read Recommendation No. 4 on page 214.
[4133 * * #

Q. Please read the next recommendation, No. 5 on that
page. A. “After a transitional period, during which the
other recommendations of this committee are implemented,
particularly with respect to training in human relations,
no teacher, probationary or permanent, should be assigned
to teach in a school containing substantial numbers of
culturally-disadvantaged children unless his preparation,
experience and/or personal qualifications demonstrate the
probability that he will be successful in teaching culturally-
disadvantaged children.”

Q. Do you know what the district has done in response
[414] to that since 1964? A. I would say that the district
has attempted to meet this. Although, again, I think it’s—
the statement is so worded that no teacher should be
assigned to teach in a school containing substantial num
bers of culturally-disadvantaged children, I think it would
stand to reason that I would have to indicate that on the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

282a

basis of assignment, there may have been some misassign-
ments or—remember, that we have so many new teachers,
and consequently it may be that when we make a state
ment that the individual, his preparation, experience and
personal qualifications—now, it’s entirely possible that his
personal qualifications would thus demonstrate this but on
the basis of preparation, experience and so on that this
teacher may have had—

Q. When you speak of assignment, you’re speaking of
this input each year! A. That’s correct. So, as I say, I
don’t think you could say that all teachers assigned here
have all three of these qualities anymore than they would
have in assignment in other parts of the city. I would say
that it’s the attempt to look very closely at these pepole
who are assigned in a culturally-disadvantaged area or
in any other area of the city.

Q. Do you make this same effort of screening, I suppose
in the case of transfers—in negotiating and discussing
[415] transfers! A. I would say a. greater effort is made
at the time of the placement of the teacher when he is new
than on the basis of transfer. But an attempt is made in
both cases.

Q. Would you please read No. 6 on D15! A. “A sys
tematic program should be established by the administra
tion to encourage teachers in schools attended by cultur
ally-disadvantaged children and to emphasize affirmatively
the personal rewards and satisfactions gained by teachers
who work in such schools.”

Do you know if any response has been made by the
district to that recommendation! A. I would say that a
response has been made but a great deal more needs to
be made. I think the greatest response in answer to that

Howard L. Joh,nson~for Defendants—Direct

283a

recommendation lias been, made through our workshops
and school community relation programs of various types
and where contacts have been made with some four or
five hundred teachers during the year through our school
community—our Department of School Community Rela
tions. I frankly think this must be a concerted job of all
teachers as well as administrators. We did meet with
teachers in this particular area, the city, a matter of two
years ago, working with Mr. Cruter in school community
relations to see what we could do to build up the advan
tages in working with these children.

[416] Q. Please read the next one. A. No. 7, “In policy
statements adopted by the Board and by the administra
tion, it would be made clear that teacher preference as to
assignment is subordinate to other criteria and that each
qualified teacher in the system is expected to be able to
teach and to be prepared to teach in any school where
the administration thinks he can be most effective.”

Now, Mr. Johnson, that speaks of the word assignment,
which I believe in your context means the new teacher
to the district. A. That is right.

Q. Where you don’t have a transfer situation and teacher
preference involved. A. Uh-huh.

Q. Were new teachers who are strictly speaking assigned
—has the district responded to this suggestion? A.
Responded in this manner. That probably the assignment
of teachers is probably more a personal matter working
with the individual teachers and discussing their assign
ment as they move than it is to just bluntly assign them in
a particular area. For instance, at the time that we recruit
teachers we do not give the teacher any indication of a
specific assignment. We are assuming that we are recruit
ing teachers—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

284a

[417] The Court: I think what was asked is
whether the Board has abided by this recommenda
tion, that is, in respect to laying down policy. Isn’t
that all the question is?

Mr. Creighton: Yes.

Q. Has this been made a part of a policy—a formal pol
icy? A. There is no formal policy in this respect, as we
speak of a formal policy. But it is a practice, and the Board
of course is very interested in this type of assignment as
is the administration.

Q. Please read No. 8. A. “Teachers should be assigned
or transferred to the elementary or secondary schools with
major consideration given to their qualifications for teach
ing at a certain level.”

Q. Now, did this require any change in practice? A. I
think that it required a change in this respect; that there
was a closer examination—probably on major and minor
subjects. It is very interesting—we have some cross-overs
between elementary schools and particularly on the basis of
homemaking teachers who have had a major particularly in
childhood education and so on. And I think it has made the
Personnel Services watch more closely the qualifications
and credentials of these people. When [418] teachers
apply, they do this very often—they realize that there is a
greater turnover in elementary education. The teacher may
be primarily qualified in a subject area in secondary schools
but may make known, where we ask the question in what
particular level do you wish to teach, they make the state
ment, elementary. Then I think there was a tendency, that
as we looked at the credentials, we found out they were
qualified for elementary, that greater care should have been
given in this respect, and I think the fact that this was

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

285a

brought to our attention, I think this—I think there has
been a closer scrutiny from the standpoint of those creden
tials of individuals who may have had some background
who were qualified in elementary but had not necessarily
taken their undergraduate work in this respect.

Q. Please read No. 9. A. “So that it will not be used
as an excuse for careless placement or perpetuation of
assignment, contrary to these recommendations, the resi
dence of a teacher should have nothing to do with assign
ment except in unusual cases.”

Q. Plas there been any response to that recommendation?
A. I think, so far as assignment of teachers are concerned
in the Denver Public Schools, that is, the original assign
ment of teachers, I don’t think there was too much viola
tion of this and probably when teachers had indicated a
preference, and where they seemed well qualified, I think
[419] the teacher was given a little bit the benefit of the
doubt. However, there have been very few instances. How
ever, there have been some unusual cases where a teacher
may be assigned close to a home situation. But this is not
our practice. In fact, if this comes up as a reason for a
request for transfer, it is usually not granted.

Q. The next recommendation deals with teacher aids.
Had you been using teacher aids prior to the recommenda
tion? A. Very few teacher aids were used prior to this
recommendation. This is partly due to two things, one
was—it was pretty largely a matter of finance, and I don’t
think at that particular time that we were sophisticated
enough to use teacher aids. However, I do think that as a
result of the inroads that were made by the use of federal
funds, in which we were able to get certain types of aids
in working with the teachers themselves in community
work, we did set up certain criteria for the use of teacher

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

286a

aids. So, whereas, about 1964, we had practically no teacher
aids, we have right in the neighborhood of 400 now. These
are used in direct aids to the individual teachers, are used
in the playgrounds, lunchrooms, hall duties various types
of assignments; audiovisual aids. So in this respect this
is being implemented and we believe that it needs greater
study because not only— We are utilizing teacher aids to
the best of our ability through no fault of the [4203 teach
ers or the principals—but I do think it does need additional
work. But the administration and the Board both concur
that this is a direction we should move. But it is compara
tively new, not only in Denver but in many school districts
in the cities—or, the United States. Excuse me.

Q. Please turn to Page D18. Please read the first rec
ommendation there. A. These are your recommendations
to principals?

Q. Yes. A. “Principals should become familiar with the
community resources, cultural background and socioeco
nomic conditions of the community in which their schools
are located.”

Q. Has the district taken any steps to respond to that
recommendation? A. Yes, they have taken steps and I
think this has been the move in the right direction. It was
formerly assumed that principals of course would become
familiar, but I think now the basis of again much of the
work that has been done in our workshops for principals
and others, that we are making strides forward in this
respect, particularly in community visitation and so on.
But there was one that not only appears here but appears
elsewhere in this report, but this is one that—that we are
striving very [4213 diligently to make the principal recog
nize that this is an important responsibility for him.

Howard L. Jolnnson—for Defendants—Direct

287a

Q. Please read the next recommendation. A. “In addi
tion to human relations training, principals as a prerequi
site to assignment should have demonstrated a capacity
to respect, to understand and to communicate with chil
dren and parents in more than one type of neighborhood.”

Q. Now, what did that mean and what, if anything, did
the district do? A. I think that probably what is meant
on this,—as you know of the committee report, it was
pretty largely this, that very often principals were as
signed to a greater degree on the seniority basis, and I
don’t think they were as concerned about the children and
the parents in any more than one type of community. I
think there was a tendency prior to the assignment of
principals of various ethnic groups, that is, a greater num
ber of them that here were principals who had served
primarily in a white community, with administrators, but
were assigned to communities where other ethnic groups
were the major groups, and they didn’t prove to be success
ful. And this is an emphasis upon that very thing; that
they should have this background and that we should take
particular care in respect to these assignments, and we
have attempted to do that, and it’s been done in a number
of ways. We have a greater number of minority group
[422] principals, administrators and so on, who do under
stand these problems much better and likewise I think, as
a result of the answer to the previous statement in the
service training workshops and so on, I think we are
developing a greater supply of people. But, this was a
very emphatic thing on the part of the study committee
and we are certainly looking at this.

Q. Please read recommendation No. 3 at the bottom of
that page. A. “The job responsibility of principals in
elementary schools particularly in schools where substan

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

288a

tial numbers of culturally-disadvantaged children attend,
should be analyzed and assistant principals with qualifica
tions similar to those recommended for principals should
be assigned in order to permit the principals to give ample
supervision and assistance to teachers.”

Q. Did the district implement that recommendation?
A. Implemented it in this respect; that the job descrip
tions for all administrative personnel was received after
this particular report and it is not only a matter of re
view and job descriptions at that time, but upon the ad
vent of a new superintendent a matter of two years ago,
it has been reemphasized that this entire matter of job
descriptions, the entire responsibility of staffing the indi
vidual school now is being looked at again.

[423] Q. Please turn to D21 and read Recommendation
2 and then please tell us briefly, because I think you have
touched on it before, what the district is doing there. A.
“As rapidly as possible all administrative personnel should
participate in training in human relations. Such training
should be an important consideration in all future appoint
ments to administrative positions.”

And, as you indicated, I did touch upon this before. And
it has really been given very serious consideration as we
appoint new administrators in the Denver Public Schools.

Q. What techniques or devices do you use for this? A.
You are speaking now of the evaluation or are you speak
ing of the training ?

Q. Of the training. A. The training is handled pretty
largely through the Department of School Community Re
lations, working with a committee of teachers who are
very interested in this area and we are requiring that
principals and administrators attend such types of pro
grams. In fact—and this is not only at the administrative

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

289a

level of the principal; this is from the superintendent on
down. The superintendent and his immediate staff par
ticipated in such type of workshops last—this last school
year.

Q. What was that workshop called? [424] A. Mr. Cruter
now prefers to call it more in the field of human relations,
although it originally had the name of Sensitivity Training.

Q. Would you turn to Page E12 and note Recommenda
tion No. 3. Was that under your responsibility? A.
“Teacher should be encouraged to make more home visits
with time allowed in order to work more effectively with
parents and in motivating pupil learning.”

So far as this specific recommendation is concerned, this
really came through the Division of the Instructional Ser
vices because it pertained to the involvement of programs
right within the school. But I do know that at least this
was investigated a great deal.

[425] Q. And has it been stressed since 1964? A. It
is constantly being stressed. In fact, this is a very im
portant factor.

Q. This discussion of community involvement reminds
me, Mr. Johnson, I neglected to ask you in connection
with the mobile units, in determining whether to use mobile
units did the administration consult with the parents in
the area affected? A. In most instances, in fact, let us
say this, the mobile unit was usually the means that was
used to relieve overcrowding in a particular school and it
usually resulted after a series of meetings wuth the school
administrators, teachers and parents within a community,
because the mobile unit became very closely related to the
change in boundary lines, transportation or mobile unit
or double sessions.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

290a

That is, it usually originated on that particular basis
with the result that the mobile unit began to gain favor.

Q. Among whom? A. Among parents, administrators
and others, in order to eliminate the double sessions par
ticularly. That is, they did not wish the double sessions.
And, of course, we were in position from the standpoint of
the financing—this appeared to take care of some unusual
situations. Some parents were aware of this and in nearly
all instances [4263 the mobile unit was then decided to
be the most feasible, but usually with this one provision,
we don’t want them forever and be sure they are mobile
and not permanent.

Q. Do you recall the limitation in the guideline that
you read from the board motion guideline you mentioned?
Do you recall a suggestion there about transportation?
Was the use of mobile units considered as an alternative
to transportation? A. Yes, normally these were lumped
together. Very often it was transportation or double ses
sions, recognizing the mobile units are—that is, they are
costly, and so, consequently, this extra class in this respect
in the early days of the mobile unit, it finally came into the
picture where it became another matter, and with the result
that we found that the mobile unit in most instances ap
peared to be a better solution, that is at least in the eyes
of the parents, than transferring the pupils from the school
or going on the double sessions, so the mobile units I think
became the lesser of what they considered to be certain
evils.

Q. In your office, do you have occasion to know about
individual school or building capacities and the ratings
thereof ? A. Let me say that in my office, in my office as
assistant superintendent, I was acquainted with them, and
as [4273 deputy superintendent I also am acquainted.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

291a

This normally is handled through the planning and engi
neering, but I am generally acquainted with some features
of this. But we must recognize that when we speak of
building capacities we are going into detail other than
just to say that a building is “X”—will handle “X” number
of students.

Q. Well, do you know whether the district had rating
capacities for its buildings? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how these are arrived at? A. Yes.
Q. How? A. The rating capacities—and this is char

acteristic over the country in trying to establish a formula
that is used, and that is on the basis of 30 pupils per class
room, and this is a formula that is used as a beginning to
determine this, and as we use the so-called rated capacities,
a building is listed on this particular basis, and normally
arrived at on the 30-pupils-per-classroom basis.

Q. You mean that a building’s capacity is as simple as
this, that you count:—its rated capacity— A. That’s right.

Q. And you count the number of classrooms and multiply
by 30? [428] A. Yes. We want to recognize here we are
talking about two things. You are talking about normal
capacity, in which you arrive at 30 pupils per classroom,
and when I made the statement I was acquainted with it,
this is the case. I am acquainted with it.

Now, whenever you determine the capacity of any build
ing in this city, there are many other things to be taken
into consideration, and, consequently, these are taken into
consideration knowing that no school building will prob
ably ever have the exact normal capacity; however, it is
something to start with on the basis of indicating this is
the normal capacity when we speak of a building generally.

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Johnson. The data that is
available about our buildings as to capacity, is that the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

292a

rated capacity? A. That’s what we call the normal ca
pacity or rated capacity.

Q. That’s the multiple— A. This is the figure 30 times
the number of classrooms.

Q. It is nothing more than that? A. It is nothing more
than that, because from that particular point it means that
planning and engineering, the division of education, and
others have to look very £4293 closely at this building. It
stands to reason that a building that was built in 1912 has
certain peculiarities to that particular age than the build
ing built in 1968. There are many things to be taken into
consideration, and these are taken into consideration, and,
consequently, we have the normal stated capacity which is
very important for all of us to know, the formula type;
but we must look very closely at this and it is possible
that a building may have a stated normal capacity and,
frankly, because of certain conditions and not only the
conditions of the facility but the conditions of the educa
tional program, that building cannot handle its normal
capacity.

Q. Its rated capacity? A. That’s right, and there are
other buildings because of the type of programs and be
cause of the structure of the building it is entirely possible
that that building can handle quite favorably 8 to 10 per
cent more than that.

* * # $ #

£4303 * * *
Q. Mr. Johnson, I am going to get before you again

Exhibits 33 and 34, which are subdistrict boundaries poli
cies and pupil assignment policies, respectively, that have
been introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs, and which
bear on the general matter of subdistrict boundaries, and
then I would like to have you pick up that ’64 committee
report, Exhibit 20.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

293a

Let me ask yon preliminarily, to clarify this, did your
office as assistant superintendent of personnel matters
from 1960 until the revamping last year include matters
relating to those two resolutions which I just handed you
and the general matters of subdistrict boundaries! A.
Generally, this Policy 1222-C relating to school district
boundaries, we have looked at the various things we men
tioned in the type, size and facility of this school, the
pupil capacity of the school, school-age groups, [4313 and
so on. This policy emphasizes to a greater extent and
brought in there at this particular time the ethnic and
racial characteristics of the school population, making to
the extent possible a heterogeneous school community. Anri
then there is more stress upon the mobility and levels of
educational attainment.

Q. More in respect to when? A. That is, this policy
emphasizes this to a much greater degree.

Q. Why I asked— A. Than just the working guidelines
we had formerly before this policy was adopted. However,
the type and size of facilities at the building, the pupil
population, natural features and the urban features and
so on, were taken into consideration when we designed
boundary lines in order to establish the membership within
a given school to as great a degree as possible. However,
it wasn’t always possible to follow exactly on this and as a
result sometimes we would have to forego some of the
criteria in this respect.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, you have mentioned 1222-C. A.
Yes.

Q. Now, as to 1226-B, when did that become effective?
A. Policy 1226-B was effective on February 3, 1966, and
this also came—these two policies—

Q. Is that A or B? [432] A. This is A.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

294a

Q. 1226-A? A. A.
Q. That became effective when? A. That became effec

tive on February 3, 1966.
Q. And that related to what? A. These were out

growths—
Q. No, the resolution or the policy relates to what mat

ter? A. The assignment and transfer of pupils.
Q. Now, that policy and the other one were policies that

your particular assignment as a superintendent required
you to follow; is that right? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, please get out Exhibit 20 and turn to page A-6.
* * * * *

[4333 * * *
Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, please read that Number 1 recom

mendation on page A-6 of Exhibit 20. A. “The Board of
Education should formally adopt the statement of policies
which shall govern the establishment of school boundaries
and the location of newly constructed schools and additions
to existing schools. Two, the Board of Education should
establish school boundaries in accordance with the neigh
borhood principle as herein described (subject to the ex
ceptions stated in the committee’s recommendation as to
pupil transfer hereafter set forth.)”

[434] Q. Please, let’s take these separately. Recom
mendation No. 1, was that in your bailiwick? A. That was
in my bailiwick along with Recommendations to the Super
intendent and other administrative staff members. They
were done largely as the result of Superintendent’s coun
sel working together.

Q. What did you do about Recommendation No. 1? A.
There was a presentation to the Board on the basis of the
policy that that’s before us here, the establishment of
school boundaries.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

295a

Q. And you read Recommendation No. 2. Did the Board
respond with a policy statement! A. That is correct, that
the Board responded that this policy statement as such
establishes school boundaries in accordance with neighbor
hood principles as herein described and then with the ex
ceptions that come a little bit later.

Q. Now, then, I am going to No. 3. Will you read that?
A. “In addition to the unwritten rules which have hereto
fore controlled the establishment of boundaries and the
location of schools, the adopted policy of the Board of
Education in these matters should include acceptance of
responsibility to minimize the effects of de facto segrega
tion and the recognition that wherever possible and as a
[4353 matter to be considered of equal weight with guide
lines presently used, boundaries shall be set so that the
neighborhoods thereby established will represent to the
extent possible a heterogeneous school policy.”

[436J Q. Now, then, taking those three recommenda
tions as a group, can you tell us what the school district
has done to respond to those? A. In this respect the school
district has established this policy and took it—as it refers
here to the unwritten rules, which I have indicated were in
existence before and established the ethnic and racial char
acteristics of school population, making to the extent
possible—

Q. You’re reading from what? A. I ’m reading now
from 1222-C, so the Board of Education in taking these
unwritten rules that we had formerly operated under had
moved in fulfilling the request of the committee, and insert
ing this particular statement upon the ethnic and racial
characteristics.

Q. Now. then, Recommendation 4 on page A-7 of Ex
hibit 20, I think I can fairly say recommends that the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

296a

Board having- adopted officially the written policy should
review the validity of existing school area boundaries in
terms of that policy. Was that done? A. You must re
member that this policy now became effective on Feb
ruary 3. It was done on the basis of the last boundary
changes that were made at that time—at that particular
time. These particularly included George Washington
boundary changes and so on. So far as a formal review
of this policy, and being brought before the Board, [437]
it has not been changed since that particular time. How
ever, on the basis of changes in boundaries, likewise we
have had no boundary changes as such.

Q. You tell us the boundary policy was adopted Feb
ruary 3, 1966? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, was there any interim policy statement to guide
you in relation to boundaries between the receipt of Ex
hibit 20, this report, and the formal adoption of Policy
1226? A. You’re speaking now of the 1226, Assignment
of and Transfer of Pupils? Or, 1222?

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, to refresh your memory, please
look at what we have said is Exhibit 102, the policy state
ment.

Appearing at page 104 of Exhibit 21. What is that?
A. This was the progress report to the Board of Education
by the Superintendent, and on May 6, 1964, and this was
a statement relating to the progress of recommendations
of the committee, and in here various items were brought
to the attention of the Board of Education for things
that had to be done in this respect. Among those—

Q. What we’re calling Exhibit 102, and what you have
described as a progress report, does that contain a [438]
general policy statement? A. No, in this particular exhibit
it’s a statement in regard to a summary of what’s been

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

297a

done about the recommendations relating to the adminis
tration and organization in which the optional areas were
discontined.

Q. But on the first page of that, Mr. Johnson, it starts
out, “General Policy Statement.” I ’m referring to Exhibit
102. It refers essentially to the first page of that exhibit.
Are you familiar with that? A. Yes, I am familiar with
this. This is a statement made by the then superintendent
of schools, Dr. Oberholtzer, to the Board of Education as
it conformed—

Q. What date? A. This was prepared on May 6, 1964.
And the Board had accepted this statement.

Q. What does it relate to? A. This relates pretty
largely to the attitude of the Board of Education and the
Superintendent of Schools and his staff as it relates to the
equality of educational opportunities and so on.

Q. Do you relate it to boundary lines? A. It relates to
boundary lines in this respect; that it refers to the con
tinuation of the neighborhood schools, has resulted in con
centration of some minority, racial and ethnic groups in
some schools; reduction of some [4393 concentrations, and
establishment of a heterogeneous and diverse group in
schools desirable to achieve equality of educational oppor
tunity. This does not mean the abandonment of the neigh
borhood school principle but rather the incorporation of
changes or adaptations which result in a more diverse or
heterogeneous racial and ethnic school population, both for
pupils and for school employees.

Q. Now were you guided by this in your activities relat
ing to the boundary changes in the adoption of Policy
1226-A? A. Yes. In fact, the superintendent and his staff
brought this to the staff’s attention constantly, that these
were some of the things that we must consider in changing

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

298a

boundary lines as it related to the neighborhood school
principle. But, also, the necessity of a more heterogeneous
population within these various schools.

The Court : Well, what tangible steps were taken
to implement this number 3, this recommendation
that there should be minimization to the effect of
segregation! Did this just pass resolutions! Did
they do anything about it! I mean, what have you
got! What tangible thing can you point to!

The Witness: Your Honor, in this respect, to
the boundary line changes—that came up after that,
and relating to both the neighborhood school prin
ciple and in an [440] attempt to get more hetero
geneous school population I think probably a good
example of this would be the extension of the George
Washington High School boundary lines further
north. This happens to be one that came in, and
whenever boundary line changes were essential,
consideration was given to the two ideas, the one
of more heterogeneous school population, and the
second one on the basis of the neighborhood school
principle which would appear to be in conflict, but it
is one that had to be judged both ways. So it was
utilized in the change of boundary lines.

The Court: Well, did you achieve any reduction
in the segregation!

The Witness: Yes, using as a good example the
George Washington change. This did bring more
Negro students into George Washington. I t did not
bring a tremendous change in numbers but there
were some slight changes made, Your Honor. But,
not a tremendous change.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

299a

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

By Mr. Creighton:

Q. Referring to Exhibit 20 and the recommendations
on A-7, Recommendation No. 4, I think I can paraphase
that it urged you to consider—I beg your pardon—speak
ing now of 5, which is on page A-10. This one suggest-—
well, I’ll let you read it because it is a little detailed. A.
You’re speaking at the botton of the page, now?

Q. Yes. [441] A. “The Board of Education should sup
plement its present transfer policy by the adoption of a
plan of limited open enrollment generally in accordance
with the procedures discussed above. The plan adopted
by the school system in Detroit is suggested as a model.”

Q. Did the district in fact create an open enrollment
policy? A. Yes, such policy was created and adopted by
the Board of Education.

Q. Is that particular policy still being implemented?
A. Let’s say that this is a carryover of the result of the
limited open enrollment—this is still being implemented.
For instance, individuals who had taken advantage of the
limited open enrollment policy will continue in the schools
in which they are registered if they so desire. So, to that
extent. But, there are no new pupils in the limited open
enrollment policy.

Q. Has this policy been supplanted by another? A.
This policy would more or less be supplanted in this re
spect, that the new policy provides transportation for these
pupils in certain schools.

[4423 Q. What is the new policy called? A. The new
policy is the open enrollment, rather than limited; whereas,
the other was a limited open enrollment. This is an open
enrollment with a transportation policy.

The Court: WRat does it mean?

300a

The Witness: It means this; that wherever there
is a space in any school in the city a pupil may re
quest enrollment in that school with transportation
provided by the school district if the ethnic—if the
ethnic or integrated factor in that school is improved
through the transfer; meaning that a child attend
ing a predominantly white school may be trans
ported to available space in a school that is pre
dominantly Negro.

Q. Provided that school child is what race! A. Is of the
white race; into the Negro school, or vice versa. So,
whereas the limited open enrollment policy did not have
the limitation of improving integration, the purpose has
two new features in that it improves and must improve
integration and secondly there is transportation.

Q. Now, is the mechanics of that—either of those enroll
ment policies—is that in your specific department? A. No,
this would be in the Division of Education and under Pupil
Services.

Q. Please turn to A13.

The Court: Well, as a practical matter, there
[443] would be no openings unless students in these
other schools desire to go to minority schools, is
that correct? I mean, in the present crowded condi
tions of the facilities, as a realistic matter?

The Witness: Your Honor, in most instances, now
with the overcrowding in the minority schools, it
would be necessary for this transfer to be from the
minority schools to the primarily Anglo schools
unless we get sufficient number out of those schools

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Direct

301a

to provide vacancies for the white students to move
in.

The Court: How about the Anglo schools? Are
there openings in those schools, should minority-
people wish to go there?

The Witness: Yes, there are some available spaces
in there. I ’m not in a position to give you the exact
number at the moment, because, as I say, this is in
pupil services. But they have issued to the prin
cipals the number of spaces that are available in
these schools and consequently the parents of those
pupils may bid for those spaces and be transported
and enter the schools. But, as you stated, the great
est problem we have now is a large pupil population
in Northeast Denver where we do have predomi
nantly Negro students. And this is one of the points
that we have been working on. I think that Mr.
Crater did indicate the Hallett situation which is
the only one we were able to work on until [444]
such time as we have a settlement.

The Court: You’re not going to finish with him,
anyway, today, are you?

Mr. Creighton: I may be nearer the end than I
think.

The Court: With that assurance, we will bear
with you; that guarantee.

Q. I was about to ask you about that recommendation
on Page A13. Would you just read that and tell us_A.
“Optional areas should be fully eliminated at the earliest
possible date.”

And that was accomplished by resolution of the Board
of Education shortly after this report.

TIoivard L. Johnson■—for Defendants—Direct

302a

Q. On Page BIO, Recommendation No. 1. Please read it.
A. “The principal policy of providing classroom facilities
where they are needed because of increased population
should be continued.”

Q. Has that been followed as a matter of policy1? A.
Well, to this extent, to the extent that we have been able
to provide the classroom space in those areas. Then, of
course, we must refer back to a resolution which did affect
the building of any new facilities in Northeast Denver.
And so, consequently, that would have effect on this, al
though in some other instances, this policy has been [445]
followed on the basis of population.

# # # # #

[450] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:

Q. Mr. Johnson, as I understand it, on July 1, 1950, you
became the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Ser
vices. A. That is correct.

Q. At that time, who was your immediate superior? A.
Dr. Kenneth C. Oberholtzer, Superintendent of [451]
Schools.

Q. And there was a direct communication between you
and Dr. Oberholtzer then? A. That is true.

Q. Now, what departments or divisions were under your
supervision as the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel
Services? A. Only the Department of Personnel Services
as such.

Q. Now, as I understand it, that included employee per
sonnel? A. Correct.

Q. And that includes teachers, does it not? A. Yes.
Q. Pupil personnel? A. Yes.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

303a

Q. And as I understand it, your responsibilities included
the assignment of pupils and teachers to various schools!
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it also included the transfer of pupils and teach
ers from one school to another? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it also included the establishment of school at
tendance area boundaries ? A. Let me amplify that in this
respect, that this [452] particular assignment was given
to me in my office. However, the recommendation of school
boundaries is made by the Superintendent and all staff
members participated in recommendations to the Superin
tendent.

Q. Now, would that same comment hold true with re
spect to the establishment of optional zones of attendance?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So, you would work on that, in that area, along with
Hr. Oberholtzer, is that correct? A. Well, Dr. Oberholtzer
and any other members of the staff that he would assign
to this, and it included other assistant superintendents as
well as other staff members.

Q. Now, did your duties as superintendent with respect
to personnel also include keeping track of school popu
lation? A. Only in this respect, that the Department of
Budgetary Services made the necessary surveys and also
kept the data concerning attendance and those were then
referred to the Division of Personnel Services.

[453] Q. I take it then that when a school became over
crowded or became underutilized, that you acquired knowl
edge of that fact, is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, did your duties include the working of new
schools into the existing system, the assignment of pupils
to these schools? A. Yes, sir, this would be true.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

304a

Q. Did it also include the utilization of vacancies created
when a new school was built and opened? A. That is
correct. In consultation with other members of the staff.

Q. And it also included the placing of these mobile units,
is that correct? A. This would be correct.

Q. And as I understand it, you also supervised the
limited open enrollment program that was instituted in—-
When was that instituted? A. That was instituted in 1964.

Q. In September? A. In September of 1964.
Q. And that program also came under your department?

A. Correct.
Q. Now, did you also administer the voluntary open

enrollment program that was instituted in January of this
year? [454] A. I assisted in this respect, as Deputy
Superintendent at calls of meetings. However, this par
ticular program now is under the Department of Pupil
Services; that is, it’s in the Department of Education.
However, again, matters of this type are usually con
sidered to be staff matters and there are many of us who
were included. However, it is specifically in that depart
ment now.

Q. Now, you will recall Policy 1222C regarding school
subdistrict boundaries ? A. Yes.

Q. I take it the administration or the implementation of
that policy was also under your jurisdiction? A. Only to
the extent that the assignment of preliminary reports to
the superintendent’s office after consultation with other as
sistant superintendents would be submitted to the super
intendent’s office and he, in turn, would submit it to the
Board of Education.

Q. Now, you also recall Exhibit 34 of Policy 1226A re
lating to the assignment and transfer of pupils? A. Yes,
sir.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross

305a

Q. I take it that that policy was also under your juris
diction, is that correct? A. In the same manner as I
stated for the other policy.

Q. Now, as to such matters,—well, take for example
when a new school opened. How were the details of what
students £455] were to go to that new school—how were
those details developed ? A. A new school being opened—
there would be consultation with other assistant superin
tendents regarding the usability of that school. Immedi
ately we would assume two things: one, the school is be
ing opened in that area probably because it’s a newly an
nexed area and has no schools. So, consequently, we would
investigate the pupil population in that area.

If the school built in the city, beyond the annexations,
then it undoubtedly was built because of overcrowTding of
other schools and then a survey would be made of the stu
dents living in the immediate area:—geographic area who
were attending other schools.

Q. Then I take it your staff would create a certain pro
posal for the filling of the new school, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.

Q. And that proposal then would be sent upwnrd to
Dr. Oberholtzer? A. That is correct.

Q. And except for boundary changes, was this same
development of programs and proposals—ŵ as it always
under your supervision by your staff? A. Yes, mine was
more or less of a coordinating arrangement and I was held
responsible to see that the materials £4563 were pulled to
gether and submitted to the superintendent.

Q. Now, as I understand it, you became the Deputy
Superintendent of Schools wdten? A. In June, 1968.

Q. So then you were in your present capacity when the
preparation of 1520, 1524 and 1531 was under way? A. I
was Deputy Superintendent of Schools.

Howard L, Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

306a

Q. And did you participate in the development of those
resolutions? A. To the extent that the superintendent re
quested this. But most of these—the general work of the
superintendent’s preliminary report of a year ago of quality
education fell pretty largely in the area of two other de
partments : one was the division of planning and engi
neering, and the department of research. And the director
and assistant superintendent—or the assistant superin
tendent and director, respectively, of those two divisions
and departments were held responsible for the coordina
tion, and I participated as a staff member.

Q. I take it then you wouldn’t characterize your par
ticipation in the development of these resolutions as being
extensive? A. Only to the extent that other staff members
who were called upon for assistance.

Q. Now, I also understand that until you became the
Deputy Superintendent of Schools you were in charge of
the [4573 transfer of pupils and teachers from school to
school, is that correct? A. Members of my staff were.
I was the administrative head of the department. I per
sonally did not make those transfers, but members of my
staff did, and administratively, I was responsible.

Q. Did your duties include keeping track of the quality
level at various schools; quality of the educational pro-
gram? A. No, this prior to this September, or really
this September general reorganization, this came under
the Division of Instructional Services, the quality of educa
tion ; anything to do with the actual instructional programs
in the school. Mine "was pretty largely of an administrative
nature and personnel.

Q. Do you ever consult with that division, oh, for ex
ample, relating to the question of teacher transfers as it
might affect the quality of a particular school? A. Yes.

Howard L, Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

307a

Q. I noted in the 1964 committee report which is Ex
hibit 20— Perhaps you would like to have that handy.
There was a finding in that report, was there not, Mr.
£458] Q. (Continued) There was a finding in that report,
was there not, Mr. Johnson, concerning the assignment
of teachers? A. Yes. sir.

Q. And did not that report also conclude that perhaps
one of the reasons why there apparently were predom
inantly minority teachers in minority schools is the fact
that some principals were hesitant in accepting minority
teachers in their schools? A. I do not recall that state
ment being in the report.

The Court: What is that? Exhibit 20?
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. I call your attention to Page D-13 in Exhibit 20, the
last full paragraph at the bottom of that page— A. You
are speaking of the next to last paragraph?

Q. Yes. A. It reads, “As a result of its interviews, the
committee is convinced that race has been relevant in the
assignment of teachers.” Then it goes on to say, “It ap
pears that the administration has been extremely reluctant
to put Negro and Spanish-American teachers in predom
inantly white schools because of concern with the possible
lack of acceptance on the part of a white neighborhood.
In a realistic assessment of a possible lack of support by
some principals and faculties—” and my point was that it
[4591 indicates that “it appears that the administration—”
I thought that you had indicated this was the specific state
ment or recommendation.

Q. Well, now, I take it you are familiar with some of
the problems that cropped up during this time period of
assigning Negro teachers in Anglo schools, are you not?

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

308a

A. That’s correct, and I have recognized that problem ever
since I became—since the period of time I became Assistant
Superintendent for Personnel Services until leaving that
assignment a little over a year ago.

Q. Do I mean to infer from your answer, Mr. Johnson,
that you in the course of those assignments never ran
across a lack of support by some principals! A. I never
had a direct statement from a principal that he would re
fuse a teacher of a minority group. I do think that there
have been—that it has been necessary for us to push to
the extent that we could to get minority teachers or at
tempt to have at least one minority teacher in each school.
We have also run into situations where the question of
the number of minority teachers in a school was brought
to our attention.

Q. In what respect! Too many or too few! A. In both
instances. There are principals who have asked for minority
teachers and because of transfer policies, availability and
so on, we have not been able to place [460 J minority teach
ers in those schools. There have been some problems
existing that principals were aware that probably there
were too many minority teachers in a school and attempts
have been made to solve that, and we are still moving in
the implementation of that.

Q. Well, let’s look at the teacher transfer policies then,
Mr. Johnson. As I understand it, from your testimony on
Friday, Exhibit E, which is the Denver Teachers Associa
tion Contract, primarily now controls the question of
teacher transfers. A. Yes, this is the policy adopted by
the Board of Education in agreement with the Denver
Classroom Teachers Association regarding transfers, so
that, therefore, it is Board of Education policy relating to
teacher transfers.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross

309a

Q. Now, as I understood your testimony, Exhibit E
expired some time in April of this year! A. Let us say
this, that the agreement was signed on April 6, as I recall,
1967, with the provision that there would be an election
to determine whether that association would continue as
the recognized representatives of the teachers and in an
election they were elected. However, now, as refers to
the agreement, that there is a matter of negotiations that
went on, and as a result of those negotiations this agree
ment wa,s drawn up and ratified by the Board of Education,
and upon that ratification it became [461] policy and that
still continues for the time being until such time as the
Board of Education makes any changes, and as a result of
this summer’s negotiations there probably will go before
the Board of Education sometime in September or October
for ratification, because the salary schedule is an important
feature of the agreement.

Q. Am I correct in assuming that the teacher transfer
portions of that contract are not being renegotiated? A.
At the present time I cannot say whether there is any
negotiation for a change in this policy or not. I am not
in the negotiating session and, consequently, we have not
come up with any specific tentative agreements, so in the
meantime this policy prevails.

Q. Referring, if you will, to Exhibit E, Page 25, 14-2-1,
on that page it talks about transfers which will result
in the best educational program for the school district,
is that correct? A. Yes, you are referring now to 14-2-1,
did I understand you?

Q. That’s correct. A. Yes.
Q. Now, I take it you have been administering the

transfer of teachers under this contract, which is Exhibit
E? A. The administration—however, this authority has

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants-—Cross

310a

£4621 been delegated to directors in division of personnel
services and to the Executive Director of personnel services
as of last September.

Q. Well, now, that would be a year approximately after
this contract went into existence! A. That is correct.

Q. So, yon have administered it for at least one year!
A. Yes, at least one year, that is correct.

Q, Now, in your administration of this policy, have you
considered it consistent with the best educational program
for the District to transfer Black teachers from. Black
schools to Anglo schools! A. As it refers to this first
statement, 14-2-1, remember this refers specifically to re
quests for transfers, and in this particular case it is a
question of whether or not these requests will be granted.

Q. Pardon me, I believe you are in error, Mr. Johnson.
These are general principals. A. Yes.

Q. That control transfer, are they not! A. They control
transfers, that’s correct.

Q. And transfers requested by a teacher are covered
by subsection (3). A. That is correct.

Q. So these are general principals, is that correct?
[463] A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, what about the transferring of Black teachers
from Anglo to Black schools? Do you have any policy
about that ? A. Black teachers from Anglo to Black
schools? I don’t think that the matter of the ethnic group
enters in except in our desire to get a greater distribution
of Negro teachers into the white schools. However, I think
it would be consistent and certainly not fair to a Black
teacher who happened to be in an Anglo school if he had
sufficient reasons and so on that he should not be hurt.
However, we would discourage this if at all possible and
we have—I can think of only one instance at the present

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

,311a

time where a Black teacher was transferred from a Anglo
school to a Black school. There may be others, but I am
aware of one.

Q. And I assume that certainly one of the reasons for
that policy is that there are in fact so few Black teachers
in the Anglo schools, is that correct? A. Proportionately,
this is true, and we are constantly endeavoring to get more
Black teachers into Anglo schools.

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, what about the transfer of Anglo
schools to black schools? A. The same would prevail, but
unfortunately we do not have many requests in this
respect.

[464] Q. We are still talking about general principals,
are we not, Mr. Johnson? A. We are.

Q. Now, then, if you would refer to Subsection (2)
14-2-2,1 take it that—and, again, this is a general principal,
is it not? A. That is correct.

Q. One of your general principals is to achieve a faculty
which is well balanced, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And the criteria are in terms of experience, general
background and competence, is that correct? A. That is
correct, and we are—

Q. Now, is a balanced racial composition in a school’s
faculty—is that an objective of your administration? A.
It is one of the objectives, along with all the other criteria.

Q. It just didn’t happen to be mentioned in 14-2? A.
That is correct.

Q. Is distribution of minority teachers throughout the
District also an objective? A. A distribution to the extent
that it does assist in a better educational program. I could
amplify it in this respect, that we recognize the fact that
in schools that are predominantly Black we believe that we
need a greater number [465] of Black teachers because

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

31?a

I think there’s a better understanding in this respect.
Now, the exact proportion is very difficult to arrive at and
again I think this is very important. Likewise, in the
Anglo schools I think it is exceedingly important that there
be a minority teacher, not as much from the standpoint
of direct contact with the students as the assistance that
such teacher would give to other members of the faculty
and better understanding of the philosophy of the Denver
Public Schools as it works toward a better ethnic relation
ship.

E4663 Q. Now, it also says the fact that it should be
well balanced in terms of expense, does it not, Mr. John
son! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then why are there so many inexperienced or less
experienced teachers in such black schools as Smiley and
Cole, Barrett and Stedman! A, I think you are taking this
on the basis of these general principles, and we agree on
these general principles, but I think it is necessary to go
into the entire Article 14 as it relates to transfer, and one
of the reasons it is pretty largely this—

Q. Pardon me, Mr. Johnson, but my time is somewhat
limited. You’ll have an opportunity to be reexamined by
your counsel. I believe you have answered my question.

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, I think the witness
should be permitted to fully answer.

The Court: Yery well. Do you have something
you wish to add?

The Witness: Yes, I would, Your Honor. I would
like to add this: that we must recognize this agree
ment as a total agreement and consequnetly when
vacancies occur in the Denver Public Schools
through resignation or through retirement, all of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

313a

those known vacancies must be posted twice, in the
spring of the year, in May and June. And any
teacher in the Denver Public Schools has a privilege
of making a [4673 request to fill that, vacancy and
this is in accordance with the agreement, and it also
states in this agreement, referring to Article 14-3-5,
no assignment of new teachers in the school system
shall be made until all pending requests for transfer
have been processed. So consequently these teachers
are not requesting transfer to certain schools in the
district.

Q. The black schools, is that correct? A. That’s right.
I wouldn’t say necessarily the black schools. I think prob
ably there is a greater number in lower socioeconomic
areas so I would not specify black schools as such. But I
think they get established in a particular community and
when these schools are listed, there is not a request for
transfer. Now, consequently, after this first go-around of
vacancies occurs, then we have additional vacancies and
we have vacancies that are set up on the basis of the
previous request for transfer. Now, again, the experienced
teachers in the school system have an opportunity to re
quest those vacancies which leaves us then with the only
vacancies in the school system at the time we go into the
summer months, which are many of these vacancies that
have not been bid for by teachers. Now it is necessary to
have manpower in those schools so, consequently, we do
proceed then in filling those vacancies to the best of our
ability.

Very often during this period of time we counsel with
some teachers and ask them to fill certain spots so that we
can [4683 get this well-balanced staff. And sometimes we

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

314a

are successful. Now, with these vacancies in the summer
time it is necessary that we fill them with new teachers of
the Denver Public Schools and in our attempt to equalize
educational opportunities we do attempt to assign older
teachers who have had experience in the outside—outside
the city in the schools, but again, we are not as successful
as we would like to be because we suffer the same in Den
ver as other large cities where roughly—under this there
is turnover of teaching staff each year and this means we
are handicapped in this respect.

So I thank you for being able to add this, but I think it
is very important, that we assume that this article is taken
in total rather than a portion.

Q. Now, I take it you did have my question in mind,
didn’t you, Mr. Johnson, and that was why such schools
in particular, Smiley and Cole, Barrett and Stedman, have
such a high proportion of black teachers. Now, I thought
that the gist of your answer was that there were two points
to it, the first, that there is a greater transfer out from
those schools, is that correct? A. I would say there is a
greater request for transfer from those schools and we
attempt to control it to the best of our ability, but with
this agreement it stands to reason unless we counsel the
teachers—unless the teachers are counseled to remain—
we do have an agreement with the [469] Teachers Asso
ciation.

Q. You’re not telling me you counsel the black teachers
and ask them to remain? A. That we counsel with the black
teachers to ask them to remain?

Q. Right. A. I wouldn’t say we never do. I think there
are some black teachers in certain of these schools that
are almost indispensable to those schools because of their
knowledge of the situation and the community and so on.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

315a

But we do counsel with some of them to transfer to Anglo
schools where we are of the opinion they can be of assis
tance there.

Q. You also counsel them, as I understand it, with the
experienced teachers in those schools and ask them to stay,
is that correct? A. It may be the experienced teacher—-
let us say that we take all things into consideration—ex
perience is very important in the teaching profession, but
not always a most important factor for a specific teaching
position.

Q. Well, for example, Mr. Johnson, isn’t an experienced
teacher better able to handle disciplinary problems that
might arise in these schools? A. I wish that I could say
yes to that. I don’t think it’s always true. I think we have
some experienced teachers who do not do as well as first-
year teachers in this respect. £4703 I think it is generally
known that experience would assist the teacher in this re
spect, having had certain situations before. But I would
not make a blanket statement that experienced teachers
are better disciplinarians than first-year teachers.

Q. Mr. Johnson, as I understand it, then, you try to get
the experienced teachers in the black schools to stay, but
you are not always successful? A. That is correct.

Q. And that is one of the reasons why we have lower
teacher experience in the black schools, is that correct?
A. I think this would be correct.

Q. And the other reason, as I understand it, is you do
have these transfers out and you don’t have as many
transfer-in requests? A. That is correct.

Q. So you end up with vacancies in those black schools?
A. (Nods affirmatively.)

Q. And the only personnel left to fill those vacancies
just happens to be the brand-new teachers, is that right?

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

316 a

A. That is correct. Excuse me, if I may, but not only the
transfer-outs, it’s also the resignations from the teaching
staff that I mentioned before, that adds to this particular
problem.

Q. Now, I seem to recall your mentioning a statistic that
[4713 in the elementary schools the teachers with no pre
vious DPS experience may be a misleading characterization,
is that correct? A. I didn’t say that it was misleading. I
merely indicated that a first-year teacher in the Denver
Public Schools is not necessarily an inexperienced teacher
in the profession because, as we speak of probationary
teachers, this refers strictly to Denver Public School experi
ence. It would not include experience in other districts.

Q. Now, this experience could have been gained in any
place, couldn’t it; urban or rural, in other school districts?
A. That is correct.

Q. And is there any reason to believe that the experi
enced portion of no previous DPS experience teachers in
the black schools is any higher than it is in the white
schools? A. I’m sorry. Will you repeat that, please?

Q. Well, as I understand it, some of these new school
teachers are experienced. A. Yes.

Q. Is there any effort made to place these experienced
new teachers in the black schools ? A. Yes. There is the ef
fort on the part of my position as an individual indicating
to the executive director of Personnel Services that we
should take a look at this background and experience and
also the age element where it has [4723 an opportunity to
offset other qualifications. Also, in these schools, our Per
sonnel Services people consult very closely with principals
in those particular areas in there and assist to build a better
staff in those areas, and I would say they are given greater
opportunities probably in the selection of teachers than

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

317a

other principals in the city. However, we are trying1 to
strengthen even this. I think the principal should have more
voice in the assignment of teachers in his school.

Q. Now, I take it you would have records which "would
reflect the fact that some of these new teachers coming into
these black schools are in fact experienced? A. Yes, there
would be evidence in their application blank and the recom
mendations and the certification of previous experience.
We would have that.

Q. And you would have that for each of these individual
schools we’re talking about, wouldn’t you; Barrett, Smiley—
A. So far as teacher background, yes, we would have that.

Q. Now, as I understand it, teachers with seniority get
preference as to transfer, is that correct, under Exhibit E?
A. Let us say again, in accordance with this, teachers with
seniority are given the preference. However, there are
these other items in Article 14 that are taken into considera
tion. However, a teacher who has seniority has a perfect
right to ask our Director of Personnel Services why they
are not [473] given a transfer because of seniority and it
is essential in accordance with that agreement that the
teacher be given an explanation, and it may be for any num
ber of reasons that the teacher is not transferred even
though he may have seniority.

Q. Now, the seniority aspect—could that be another fac
tor which leads to the result of less experienced teachers in
black schools? A. Yes, I think the seniority factor would
lead to this.

Q. Calling your attention then to Page 26 of Exhibit E,
Mr. Johnson, Section 14-3-6, it speaks there in terms of
considering the conveniences and wishes of the individual
teacher, does it not? A. Yes.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

318a

Q. I take it that that doesn’t reflect what might he called
a neighborhood teacher policy, does it? A. Let us say this,
that the statement here indicates that they will be honored
to the extent they do not conflict with the instructional re
quirements and best interests of the school program. Let
us say this, that a teacher who requests such transfer indi
cates to our Personnel Services that there may be some
reason that they want to be in a specific school, then what
we are really saying here, that certainly on the basis of
good personnel relationship with [474] employees—Cer
tainly, a contented employee and a happy employee is very,
very important. So, consequently, if this can be done on the
basis of not being in conflict with the instructional program
of the Denver Public Schools, I think it has been done.

In other words, good personnel policy indicates that it is
the responsibility of those people in charge of personnel or
the administration of schools to have a happy staff to the
greatest degree, and if an individual is forced absolutely
contrary to some legitimate reason and it’s not in conflict,
certainly, I think this is consistent with good relationships.

Q. Well, now, this convenience of teacher aspect, that
would apply to even a brand-new teacher once he was hired,
would it not? A. It doesn’t apply in accordance with this
agreement from the standpoint of the agreement. The
agreement does not cover the new teacher. However, it
does not alter good personnel relationships.

Q. Well, now, is my understanding- right then that Ex
hibit E doesn’t cover probationary teachers ? A. This Ex
hibit E covers the matters pertaining to teachers of the
Denver Public Schools unless otherwise stated from the
standpoint of recruitment and so on, and there are no points
in here that refer to a teacher before he [475] is employed
in the Denver Public Schools.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

319a

Q. Well, isn’t a probationary teacher an employee of the
school district? A. A probationary teacher is, after he
has begun his service with the Denver Public Schools.

Q. That’s what I ’m talking about. A. I thought you
were talking about newly-recruited teachers.

Q. I ’m talking about those in the course of his three-year
probationary period? A. He is represented by this agree
ment, yes.

Q. Now, this convenience factor, would it be something
that would be taken into consideration in considering the re
quest of an Anglo teacher to transfer out of a black school?
A. Normally we would not transfer these individuals out
of a black school if we refer to the principles of this par
ticular case, depending, of course, upon other matters of
competency.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, I’m talking now about a situation
where that is the fact; where you’re considering the trans
fer application of an Anglo teacher out of a black school.

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, I want to make note
of an objection to this form of questioning. We don’t
know what counsel means by black school or white
school. I think this has got to be with somewhat more
precision.

[4763 Q. Mr. Johnson, do you know what I mean by black
school, sir? A. I think you’re referring to a school that has
a large number of Negro students. However, I don’t know
whether you’re basing this upon percentages or not. We
normally speak of these schools, where we have a large
number of culturally-deprived pupils or target area schools,
because the points you’re referring to do not necessarily
refer to schools that are entirely or largely populated by

Hoivard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

320a

Negro pupils. It could be Spanish-American pupils or it
could be Anglo pupils. And I ’m assuming that you’re refer
ring pretty largely to schools where we have culturally-
deprived pupils.

Q. I ’m talking about black schools, Mr. Johnson, because
it’s the black schools that we’re focusing on in this particu
lar hearing.

Now, I believe I have a question pending and the question
is, when you are considering a transfer request from an
Anglo teacher in a black school who wants to transfer out
of that black school, is 14-3-6 one of the criteria that are
employed in judging that Anglo teacher’s transfer? A. It
would be employed there, and also your previous—

[477] Q. The answer to my question is yes? A. The
answer is that they be given the same consideration as
any other teacher with seniority prevailing.

Q. If you would refer then to Exhibit 26, over on Page 2,
Paragraph 8, Exhibit 26 is Policy 1617-A, is it not, Mr.
Johnson? A. That is correct,

Q. And 1617-A is supposedly the School Board’s policy
on teacher transfer, is it not? A. No, the School Board
policy on teacher transfer is this agreement which super
sedes all policies regarding teacher transfer.

Q. All right, now, look at Page 2, Paragraph 8, Exhibit
26, if you would. That Policy 1617-A provided, did it not,
that certificated teachers were to wTait three years before
applying for a transfer? A. That is correct.

Q. Well, is it still the policy of the district, Mr. Johnson?
A. It is not the policy of the district. They may apply in
accordance with this agreement. HowTever, again, seniority
would normally prevail in this respect.

Q. Three years is the period of probation, is it not,
Mr. Johnson? A. Tes.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

321a

£4783 Q. Now, is there anything in Exhibit E, the
teacher’s contract, about how long a certificated teacher
is to remain in a particular school before he transfers
or requests a transfer? A. It indicates in here that
seniority shall prevail and the interpretation of that, of
course, is that on the basis of the transfer we do feel that
a teacher probably should continue serving in the same
school for a period of at least two to three years and that
was the intent of the previous policy of the Board of
Education.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, I ’m a little confused. Take a
teacher who has been at a school for one year, who is certif
icated. Is the fact that he has only been at that school for
one year still one of the factors that you consider in passing
upon his application for transfer? A. Yes, I think it
would be considered, and I think in the ease of that teacher
of one year I think the recommendation of our personnel
services would be that this teacher should not be trans
ferred at that particular time unless there be some other
circumstances for the best interests of the educational
program.

Q. But 1 take it under 1617-A when that was in full
bloom, that it would take a rather exceptional circum
stance, would it not, for a certificated teacher to be able to
transfer out of a school in less than three years ? [479] A.
Yes, it would, and I think this is also the case under the
present—the existing agreement with DCTA.

Q. Do you think the teachers agree with you on that,
Mr. Johnson? A. Well, let us again refer to the fact that
it is—that we do have some other things in here, and even
if this teacher—whether this teacher had one year ex
perience or nine years experience, this agreement is so
written that we can bring to the attention of the teacher

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

322a

the fact that this policy was written for the best interests
of the educational program as it related to all teacher
transfers, and I am certain that the—that this point could
be brought up through the Denver Classroom Teachers
Association by the teacher if they objected, but I am like
wise certain that in our anxiety to attempt to hold a staff
in a particular school then probably they would recognize
this.

Q. All right, let’s then turn to 14-4 on Page 27 of Ex
hibit E. These then are the general criteria for transfer
requests initiated by the administration, are they not?
A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. As I understand your testimony on Friday, such
administration initiated requests under Exhibit E have
impressed in them certain options to the subject teacher,
is that correct? A. That is correct.

[480] Q. For example, when you ask a teacher to
transfer out of a school into another school, you also have
to give him an available—a list of available other options,
is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. And then what happens if he opts for one of those
other options, rather than the one you had selected him
for? A. I think we would again have to give him a definite
reason why we wanted him in a specific situation and he
would certainly have the recourse of a grievance if he did
not feel that we had been fair.

Q. So, I take it this then is one of the—one of the factors
that sort of ties your hands, for example, in transferring-
out some of these concentrations of Black teachers in the
Black schools, is that correct? A. I don’t think this would
necessarily tie our hands in this respect, because if these
teachers had seniority and requested transfers—

Howard L. Johnson—-for Defendants—Cross

323a

Q. Pardon me, we are talking about administration
initiated requests, Mr. Johnson. A. Oh, in this particular
—in this particular request, if we were to transfer a teacher
out of these schools, any of these schools that you are
mentioning, then it would be necessary for us to give them
a list of the vacancies throughout the city.

£4813 Q. And you expect that they would ask—well,
what do you expect to happen in such circumstances? A.
Well, I think you are asking me a question here—we would
have to know the individual. Who is the individual? If
you could specify the background of the individual that
requested this, what his ideas may be, I could give you
the answer probably on a guess as to the type of school
that he would want and so on, but to just ask me point
blank on any individual I couldn’t begin to realize what
he may request.

Q. Mr. Johnson, has your administration ever used 14-4
to even attempt to transfer a Black teacher out of a
Black school? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How often? A. I’m not in a position to tell you
that number for this reason, as I related earlier these are
handled by the Director of Personnel Services, but I do
know of at least two cases of this type.

Q. When did that take place, Mr. Johnson? A. We had
one within the period of the last year, year and a half.
We had another one a matter of about four or five years
ago before this agreement came into being-.

Q. Well, that one four or five years ago isn’t even
relevant to my question. A. That is correct. It would
be relevant to the old [482J policy.

Q. So, you have had one attempt by this administration?
A. I stated that I know of one. However, we must re
member that the Directors of Personnel Services, ele

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

324a

mentary and secondary, handle these transfers, and they
do not report to the Deputy Superintendent or to the
Superintendent regarding these. These are handled at that
level.

Q. Well, a year and a half ago you weren’t the Deputy
Superintendent, were you, Mr. Johnson? A. That is cor
rect and at that time they were not referred to the Assistant
Superintendent unless there was some conflict.

Q. Well, let’s turn then, Mr. Johnson, to the hiring of
new teachers. As I understand Mr. Cruter’s testimony, in
1968 there were approximately 686 new teachers hired by
the District. Does that sound about correct to you? A.
Yes, it would be approximately that number.

Q. And about 39 of these were Negroes, is that right?
A. I don’t know the exact number at the moment, but
I would imagine on the basis of new teachers hired this
would not be too far from being correct.

Q. You don’t mean you have some sort of quota, do you,
Mr. Johnson? A. No, sir, but I know what experience has
brought us over a period of years.

[483] Q. You could tell us from your records, could
you not, Mr. Johnson, just how many of these new Negro
teachers just happened to end up in Black schools? A.
Yes, our personnel services would have such records in
the assignment of all new teachers.

Q. As I understand your testimony, each new teacher
applicant is given an in-depth interview, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.

Q. How long does this interview last? A. This inter
view—I think when we speak of in-depth, I think there
are two parts of it. One is a close examination of the
application of the teacher, the references, the gathering
of references, the transci’ipts and other pertinent informa

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

325a

tion. The interview vary in length of time—I am speaking
now of the actual face to face contact—and probably wmuld
run 15 minutes to a half an hour.

Q. Would you say that most of your applicants—well,
you tell me, out of your applications received, approxi
mately what percentage of applicants get to the point
where they have a personal interview? A. Well, as far
as the applicants are concerned, any individual who has
submitted his complete folder—that’s the application blank,
transcript of credits, names of references—and our gather
ing of those references and this data must be on hand first.
On this basis, all individuals [484] who have submitted
that information are entitled to an interview.

Q. Now, you mentioned on Friday some of the char
acteristics of the teachers which you are looking for with
respect to the teaching of the urban culturally deprived
child. Do you recall that testimony, Mr. Johnson? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Now, is this personal interview—is this one of the
devices that you used for making this determination? A.
It is one of them, along with the others.

Q. Well, what others do you use in this particular re
gard? A. The general background, previous experience,
recommendations of other people and statements by the
teacher at the time that-—-written statements that he may
include in his folder or with his folder.

Q. Now, I believe you also stated on Friday, Mr. John
son, that last year the School District had some 3,000 ap
plications from new teachers. A. Approximately that num
ber.

Q. About how many of those received one of these in-
depth interviews? A. I would say that all of those that
answered the schedule for interviewing. When we speak of

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

326a

this 3,000, these are individuals who have been interviewed.
They have [485] all their complete files and have been
interviewed, because we do not consider an individual an
applicant until such time as he submits such file and has
been interviewed, so I would say 100—approximately 100
of these.

Q. All right. Three thousand of them. How many of
those interviews took place on college campuses, for ex
ample? A. I would imagine that on college campuses that
there were probably 35 to 40 of the colleges that were
visited.

Q. And your recruiting year runs from what month to
what month? A. Usually starts about the middle of No
vember and—November, December, usually in the Colorado
colleges, and then during the months of January, February
and March and April.

Q. So, November through April? A. I t’s really about
the middle of November or first of December. It varies,
depending upon the schedules being arranged through the
colleges and universities.

Q. Now, how many people are employed in the personnel
department who participate in this interviewing process?
A. In the personnel department, we have about five—five
individuals in Personnel Services per se who participate
in this. In addition to this, principals, directors and others
are called upon to assist in interviewing, and I would [4863
imagine last year as I recall Personnel Services submitted
a list of about 20 principals and directors who were in
cluded some way or other in recruiting.

Q. Is my understanding correct, Mr. Johnson, that
presently the personnel department employs no Negroes?
A. That is not entirely correct. As of this last spring,
we made a transfer of a Negro to that department in re-

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

gard to certain activities of Personnel Services, However,
he is not listed at the present time under personnel, budget-
wise, but the transfer is to be made the new budget year,
and in the meantime the Division of Education is carrying
this individual, but he is now under the direction of the
Director of Personnel Services,

Q. How many Negro recruiters are there? A. The
Negro recruiters that are listed for last year, as I recall
there were three, four, that were listed.

Q. Is Mr. Cruter one? A. Mr. Cruter is one.
Q. Mr. Ward another? A. Mr. Ward is another.
Q. Who are the other two? A. Mr. Oliver, as I recall,

is on the list, and I was under the impression that Mr.
Small was called upon. I would not vouch for that, so let
us say these three.

Q. All right, now, you mentioned the fact that you
[487] recruited in 12 southern teacher colleges, is that
correct? A. I did not mention that, but I think that is
correct. I said we did recruit in southern colleges and
universities. I don’t recall the exact number. I may have,
but I am not certain—

The Court: I think Mr. Cruter stated that.
Mr. Greiner: I am sorry.

Q. But that is a fact, Mr. Johnson? A. That’s approxi
mately the number, yes.

Q. Do you know what the background of teacher grad
uates from those schools is, Mr. Johnson? Let me be more
specific. For example, do they come from an urban or a
rural environment? A. I think probably the composition
of such colleges and universities would be very similar to
other private colleges in the United States, a combination

Hoivard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

328a

of both. I would presume that probably in the southern
universities, as is true of—or, the southern colleges, as
well as is true of the northern, I imagine there are quite
a large number of rural students. This seems to be the
case in most colleges of this nature.

Q. Now, when we are talking about these southern teach
ers colleges, Mr. Johnson, am I right in assuming that
we’re talking about Negro teacher colleges? A. That is
correct.

Q. Now, how many of the graduates from those col
leges, [488] Mr. Johnson, come from an integrated educa
tional background? A. I don’t know. I am speaking, of
course, in the case of secondary school experience. I pre
sume this is what you are referring to.

Q. Their prior public school experience. A. That I
would not know.

Q. And these teacher colleges are primarily all Black,
are they not? A. Yes, that is the ones that you are re
ferring to, although we have many institutions where they
are both.

Q. Now, I believe that you stated that in 19—well, as of
September, 1968, you had increased the number of Negro
teachers to approximately 400 in the school system, is that
correct? A. That would be certificated people in the school
system. As I recall, the latest figure I have is just short
of that, about 394, the figure that I recollect, roughly 400.

Q. The figure that I have is 322. A. Have you included
the administrators in this particular group, because we
are referring to certificated employees?

Q. Oh, I see, I believe your testimony concerned only
teachers? A. Yes, I was speaking of certificated people.

Q. So you have got 322 Black teachers, is that correct?
[489] A. I don’t know the exact number. I only know the
total number of certificated employees.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

329a

Q. In September of ’67 you bad about 311 Black teachers?
A. That sounds to be approximately right.

Q. And in 1965 you had 273 and a half Black teachers?
A. That would be correct. Let me explain the half. One
half, maybe it would be a half teacher in a school but
may have one half other assignment.

Q. He works half days, is that right? A. Would work
half days or half in another division.

Q. Now, in 1965 do you know approximately what per
cent of all teachers were Negro in Denver? A. I would
imagine approximately 7, 8 percent,

Q. And as of September, 1968, do you know whether
that percentage has gone up or gone down? A. I would
say it is approximately the same because of the increase
in the number of teachers.

Q. Now, there has been an increase in the number of
Black teachers, is that right? A. That’s correct.

Q. From 273 and a half to 322, and there has also been
a similar increase, has there not, overall in the number of
teachers hired by the schools? A. That is true.

E4903 Q. So, today you don’t have percentage-wise more
Black teachers than you had back in ’65? A. I would
imagine it is approximately the same.

Q. Now, again, I believe you have Exhibit 20 in front
of you. Would you turn please to Page D-13. Now, this
committee was formed in 1962, is that correct, the com
mittee that issued this report? A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, during the course of their studies and delibera
tions, did that committee or members thereof meet with
you, Mr. Johnson? A. Members of the committee met with
me. I did not meet with the committee as a whole.

Q. Now, this committee says here that it is convinced

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—-Cross

330a

that race has been relevant in the assignment of teachers,
is that correct1? A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Now, did that—and this was yonr department? A.
That’s correct.

Q. Now, who was actually doing the assignment of new
teachers, say, back in 1963 and ’64? A. The direct assign
ments of those new teachers would have been made by the
directors of elementary personnel, director of secondary
school personnel services, in consultation with other staff
members, principals, as well as [491] instructional staff.

Q. When did they leave? A. When did they leave?
Q. Yes, are they still assigning teachers? A. They are

still assigning teachers, that is correct.
Q. Now, there has been an improvement, has there not,

Mr. Johnson, in the distribution of Black teachers through
out the school district? A. Yes, there is apparent improve
ment on the basis of Black teachers being assigned to
other schools and we are moving in the direction of at
tempting improvement in certain schools.

[492] Q. From the standpoint of the administrator of
this system, and of this redistribution, if you will, what is
your objective in that redistribution? What are you do
ing? A. We see the necessity for teachers of various ethnic
groups working very closely together and the fact that a
school is the closest unit that we have, we believe that a
majority group teacher, being in the midst of that par
ticular faculty, can assist a great deal as the faculty is
working on projects relating to minority. And we think
it is also well worthwhile for pupils in the school to have
an opportunity to associate with the teacher minority
group if they happen to be of the Anglo ethnic group.

Howard L. Johnson^—for Defendants-—-Cross

331a

Q. So there are two purposes, one is to give, say, the
Anglo teachers a little more knowledge about the Black
teacher and the other is to give the Anglo students a little
more knowledge about the Black teacher? A. To the extent
we can. We must recognize, however, that unless they are
in a special assignment that probably it would he pretty
difficult for a teacher to have contact with very many
Anglo students because of class size and so on.

The Court: Nevertheless, I assume you feel it’s
important. That was the question.

The Witness: Yes, we feel that it is important.
We’re working in that direction.

£4933 Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, do you feel, having say
one Negro teacher in an Anglo school satisfies that objec
tive? A. No, sir. I do not feel that it satisfies it. And
we’re working as diligently as we can in the direction of
getting more minority group teachers, and we have worked
very diligently in this respect. But, unfortunately, we do
need qualified applicants and we’re trying desperately to
get them.

Q. Now, Exhibit 20 was issued on March 1, 1964? A. Yes.
Q. That was some five years ago ? A. Yes.
Q. And there is still 27 elementary schools with no black

teachers, is that correct? A. Yes, that’s approximately
correct. You’re speaking now of black teachers and not
minority teachers ?

Q. That’s right. A. Yes.
Q. If you use all minority rather than just black, then

it goes down to what? About 22 with all minority teach
ers? A. It would be less than that. I think the most
recent counts we have would be roughly about 15.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Gross

332a

Q. Would you please turn then to Page D15 in Exhibit
20 and I have particular reference to Paragraph 7 on that
page.

Have you found that?
[494] A. Yes, sir.
Q. That’s one of the recommendations of the committee,

is it not! A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it says that in policy statements adopted by the

board and the administration it should be made clear that
teacher preference as to assignment is subordinate to other
criteria? It says that? A. That is correct.

Q. And it also says that each qualified teacher in the
system is expected to be able to teach and to be prepared
to teach in any school where the administration thinks he
can be most effective, is that correct? A. That’s the state
ment.

Q. Now, is there somewhere in the written policies of
the district where this recommendation has been adopted?
A. Not exactly as stated here, no. This is not correct.
However, when we say expected to be able to teach and to
to be prepared to teach in any other school, I would say
the criteria used in recruiting would bear this out; that
an individual— For instance, when teachers are hired by
the Denver Public Schools they are hired to teach in the
Denver Public Schools and not for a specific school. And,
consequently, in the interviewing, in the background of
those individuals, we assume that the individual is able to
teach [495] and prepared to teach in any school.

Q. So I take it you have—you feel you have adopted
this policy, this recommendation? A. I would say that to
the extent that this is one of the criteria for the selection
of teachers from the standpoint of his willingness to do
this, this is correct.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

333a

Q. And I then can assume that, for example, when you’re
having one of these interviews with a prospective Negro
teacher, that you discuss with him whether or not he
would be willing to teach in an Anglo school? A. That is
correct.

Q. And the same would hold true with respect to a pros
pective Anglo teacher as to his willingness to teach in a
black school? A. Yes. However, let me amplify it in this
respect. This is the thought of the question. However, it’s
easy to answer yes or no. I think that a good interviewer
must look deeper into this rather than ask the question
pointblank because you will get the answer definitely in
the direction you want.

Q. You will get the right answer? A. You’ll get the right
answer, that’s right. So, consequently, let me say this is
one of the purposes of the interviews, to find this out. But
it is not asked the direct question, whether he would be
willing to teach in an £496] Anglo school or whether they
would be willing to teach in the other. I think it’s im
portant that this information be gained because, frankly,
we do not want teachers in the Denver Public Schools,
whether it’s an Anglo teacher teaching in an Anglo school
or whether it be a black teacher in a black school, who
does not have the sincere objective in the direction of good
relationship—good racial relationship. I think this is detri
mental—just as detrimental to have an Anglo teacher in
an Anglo school who has a dislike for other ethnic groups.
I think he could do as much harm there as he would do
even if he were assigned in a minority school.

Q. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with you,
Mr. Johnson. But I thought you told me you actually
asked these questions in the course of your interviews and
I take it you do not? A. That’s the reason I amplified this.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

334a

I said this is information that we want. I purposely ampli
fied it to say that you wouldn’t get the answer you want
by just asking the question directly.

Q. How do you go about obliquely getting this infor
mation if you don’t get it directly? A. Pretty largely on
the basis of asking about the background experience that
they have had; finding out their relationships with various
organizations within the community, their college activi
ties, whether or not these are groups [4973 in which we
consider the human relations is of the highest order and
so on. There are many leading questions that would vary
with the particular applicant and the leads he gave you.

Q. Yhat kind of background would, for example, lead
your interviewer to conclude that the Anglo—that an
Anglo would be willing to teach in a black school, for
example? A. Well, we have many requests of many Anglos
for teaching in black schools.

Q. But not quite enough? A. Not quite enough. But
we have these. I think probably, on the basis of the back
ground as recorded from a college or university regarding
the sociology courses they may have, the type of student
activities they participated in, whether they are graduates
of a school that may have a reputation as being a well-
oriented school from the standpoint of racial relations,
and particularly an integrated college or university, and
these are some of the things. Although we can find the
quality teacher we want probably in strictly the Negro
school or strictly the Anglo school, but we must do it with
care.

Q. Sociology is generally a required course, isn’t it,
Mr. Johnson? A. We are thankful that recently this is
getting to be [498] required. However, this was not neces

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

335a

sarily a requirement of education graduates a few years
back. We find that the colleges and universities are mov
ing in this direction and it’s one of the reasons I think that
the academic background of our newer teachers in the
school system or any school system is of a better nature.

Q. I believe you indicated earlier that these black
schools, Smith, Stedman, Barrett, Hallett—

Mr. Creighton: I object to that characterization,
Your Honor.

The Court: Well—
Mr. Creighton: He can call them by name.
The Court: I don’t think it’s practical. I think

he ought to have some way to refer to these schools
in a group. Do you have any suggestions?

Mr. Creighton: Yes, majority black; majority
white.

The Court: Well, if that would make you feel
better. Be assured that we are not going to be in
fluenced by any characterizations here. We’re seek
ing out the true facts.

Mr. Creighton: I am mindful we are making a
record, too, Your Honor.

The Court: Beg pardon?
Mr. Creighton: I’m mindful that we’re making a

record, too.
£4993 The Court: Well, I will leave it to you, Mr.

Greiner, to work this out.
Mr. Greiner: I’ll do my best, Your Honor.

Q. Mr. Johnson, these majority black schools, they have
a greater turnover of teachers, I believe you indicated, is
that right? A. Yes. I would say that the schools that you

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

336a

mentioned probably have a greater turnover of teachers, but
not necessarily so. I can think of two of those schools that
probably does not have a greater turnover.

Q. Which ones! A. I think that you included Hallett
there, for instance, and I think Hallett—I think Hallett
probably has less turnover than the average in the city,
although I would want to check my records on that par
ticular point.

The Court: You told us earlier that there were
more vacancies on the faculty in those schools than
in other schools.

The Witness: Your Honor—
The Court: That you have a problem of filling

vacancies all the time in these schools.
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, but I brought out

the point that vacancies exist in the summer, filling
them with these new teachers. We have vacancies
throughout the city, but they are filled during the
months of May and June— [5003 or April and May
by our experienced teachers who have requested
transfers. That’s the reason we have a greater num
ber of vacancies in this particular area. That is
correct.

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. Now, the 1964 report focused on a concentration of

black teachers in the black schools, is that correct, Mr.
Johnson! Or, pardon me. In the majority black schools!
A. Well, in some instances, it so happens there are schools
that show a majority of black teachers but I believe, if my
recollection is correct, I think Phillips is a school—and I

Howard L. Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross

337a

don’t believe this is one we have attempted to get a Negro
or Spanisii-American teacher in—I believe that’s a good
example.

Q. Phillips is an integrated school, is it not! A. Well, I
think on the basis of percentagewise, it depends on what you
call an integrated school.

Q. It’s predominantly Anglo! A. Well, then, we might
move to Hallett. Hallett, I think, has—I think that out of
that faculty they have, I think, three teachers. So I would
say that it doesn’t hold true. Although I would concur with
you generally, I would concur with you generally that we do
have a concentration in a number of those schools. That’s
correct.

Q. I think you would be working to reducing the concen
trations of black teachers in these majority black or [501]
predominantly black schools. A. I would say that we are
attempting to do this. That is correct.

Q. Now, you mentioned Hallett. I see that in 1965 Hallett
had one black teacher and that in 1968 it had three. A.
That is correct. And I think probably on the basis of pro
portion, and I ’m not certain of the proportion that we
should have for the best interests of the school—but we do
know that this has helped the faculty.

Q. Barrett in 1965 had eight black teachers and today it
has 10, is that correct? A. And the proportion would be
about the same. I think they are roughly—I think about
fifty percent.

Q. Well, according to my figures in 1965 Barrett had 20
teachers and today it has 19, Mr. Johnson. A. That is
right.

Q. And Smiley is another example, isn’t it? Ten black
teachers in 1965, 23 today, is that right? A. That is cor
rect.

Howard L. Johnson—-for Defendants—Cross

Q. Cole is another one. Twenty-seven in 1965 and 31
today. A. I would say all the figures that you are stating
I think generally are correct. I do not have the figures be
fore me and I am assuming that you have those from a re
liable source.

[5023 Q. Then I take it your efforts to reduce the con
centration of Negro teachers in predominantly black schools
hasn’t been very effective, has it, Mr. Johnson? A. Not as
effective as we would like to have it. But we have been ef
fective in incorporating a greater number of black teachers
in the Anglo schools.

Q. We touched briefly on—It was discussed briefly in
your testimony on Friday concerning building capacity.
Do you recall that testimony? A. I think the question was
asked of me regarding the formula of the 30 pupils per
classroom.

Q. And that is what’s known as rated capacity, is that
right? A. Yes, sir, it could be called a rated capacity or
normal capacity.

Q. And it is the rated capacities which are published bv
the school district, is that right? A. They are published
in this lespect; that this is the figure that is used by Plan
ning and Engineering for the reports that go to the Board
of Education.

Q. Well, it goes to the public, too, doesn’t it? A. The
public-—it has access to these records. But it is of a con
sistent manner in setting the normal capacity of a school.

Q. Well, now, then, I take it that there is also another
[5033 kind of capacity and this is arrived at by more sub
jective criteria, is that correct? A. This is not necessarily
numerical or published capacity. There are many things
taken into consideration at the time that a building_when
this building is used. For instance, we do know that there

338a

Howard L. Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross

339a

are some older buildings that probably have 30 or maybe to
a greater capacity. We know there are many situations
where 30 is probably a lower figure than we have. But in
addition to this particular thing the physical structure, the
special programs in the building, the types of things that
our division of education wishes to utilize the building for,
would be all taken into consideration.

Q. But now I take it that wasn’t the gist of your testi
mony on Friday, that a school, for example, such as, oh,
Barrett School or Smith School, with 12 mobile units or
Stedman School with 4 mobile units—I take it you agree
those schools are currently overcrowded, is that right?
Over capacity? A. No, I don’t think that I wmuld concur
entirely with this, for this reason: that we have made
attempts to relieve those schools through various means
such as transportation out of those communities. You have
already indicated the mobile units. And I think we are
maintaining educational programs in many of those schools
probably that would have [504] fewer pupils per class
room than the others; double sessions are sometimes used,
and the extended school day.

Q. Would you agree, Mr. Johnson, that when you are
dealing with these predominantly minority schools that
rated capacity generally overstates their actual capacity?
A. I think that could be a generalization, yes.

Q. And a good example of that is Smiley, isn’t it? Smiley
has a rated capacity of 1,635 students. Last year it had 1,553
students. Is that correct? A. That is correct.

[505] Q. Yet, it was on double sessions? A. It was on
double sessions upon the request for certain special pro
grams, additional personnel and so on, so this is correct.
Smiley is one good example.

Q. I believe you mentioned limited open enrollment.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross

340a

This was a program that began in September of 1964? A.
That is correct.

Q. And this was begun, was it not, at about the same
time that the optional attendance zones were expanded?
A. Yes, at the same time, as I recall.

Q. Now, it is true, isn’t it, that limited open enrollment
had no racial balancing conditions attached to it? A. That
is correct.

Q. And under limited open enrollment the student had
to supply his own transportation? A. That is correct.

Q. And this was the policy then of the district until
what? November of 1968, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. So that was the policy for some four years ? A. That
is correct.

Q. Would you agree, Mr. Johnson, that limited open en
rollment with no transportation provided by the school
district made it somewhat easier for Angles to participate
in the program than it did Blacks? [506] A. No, I would
not agree on that. Largely for this reason, that there is
no stipulation regarding the ethnic factor. There is no
transportation, but for reasons stated there was an op
portunity for the Black students to request the open en
rollment to schools not too far away and many of them
did. It also enabled those white students who wished to
go to the schools in the northeast Denver area an oppor
tunity for them to take advantage of it, so I don’t think
that it would indicate one way or the other from the stand
point of their ability to take advantage of this. In fact,
this was the purpose of the limited open enrollment in
1962, because we had many requests for parents to trans
fer their children to certain schools.

Q. Well, now, you would agree, would you not, Mr.
Johnson, that limited open enrollment really didn’t serve

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—-Gross

341a

to integrate any particular schools, did it? A. Yes, I think
it served to integrate. I don’t have the exact figures before
me, but I do know that it did serve to integrate certain
schools. I think probably a good example of this, because
I had referred it to George Washington extention of
boundary line, George Washington, at the same time that
the boundary line was changed, there was an integration,
and I believe at the present time there is somewhere be
tween 85 and 100 Negro students in George Washington
as compared with roughly ten pupils at the time [507]
prior to this open enrollment. I use this only as one ex
ample and—but, there are others, so I think that the point
is that it serves the purpose both ways, but I think it
would be a mistake to say that it had no effect.

Q. Mr. Johnson, limited open enrollment could be used,
could it not, by an Anglo student in a transitional school,
one that was going from Anglo to majority Blacks, could
be used by that student to get out of that school and go to
a predominantly Anglo school, could it not? A. Yes, the
limited open enrollment would provide this. There is no
stipulation regarding the ethnic factor.

Q. And, in fact, some Anglos used the limited open en
rollment for just that purpose, did they not? A. There
was evidence that many of them used it to go from a pre
dominantly Anglo school to another predominantly Anglo
school. Likewise, we found there was a great deal of
transfer in the northeast Denver area on schools that had
similar proportions of Blacks by Black students, merely
requesting transfer from school to school there, so it was
working both ways. There seemed to be no exact pattern
in this respect.

Q. Do you have any question in mind, Mr. Johnson?
A. Do I have your question in mind? As it refers to the

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

342a

opportunity for an Anglo to move to another Anglo and
a Black to another Black?

[508] Q. That’s the one. Now, what’s the answer to
that question? A. Anglo to Anglo?

Q. An Anglo in a predominantly Black school trans
ferring to a predominantly Anglo school. A. It would he
possible under that arrangement.

Q. I asked you if it was not in fact done, Mr. Johnson.
A. I don’t know that-—not to any great degree that I can
recall, because I think that in an limited open enrollment
we found that more people usually stayed pretty well
within the confines. The numbers involved citywide would
indicate that there was no great number, and as I recall
a proportionate number of Negro pupils who requested
it was almost as many as Anglos, although they consti
tuted only about 15 percent of the population of the city,
so I—

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, I am handing you what has been
marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 99, and on Page 4 that ex
hibit reflects, does it not, the number of transfers received
by Montclair School. A. That is correct.

Q. Yes, sir. How many came from Stedman, Mr. John
son? A. Five from Stedman.

Q. How many came from Montclair Annex?

Mr. Creighton: I object, Your Honor, until this
exhibit is offered and admitted.

[509] The Court: Hasn’t it been received yet?
Mr. Greiner: It hasn’t been received?
Mr. Creighton: No.
The Court: What number is it ?
Mr. Greiner: Number 99, Your Honor.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

343a

The Court: I have no record of it having been
received.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

Q. Can you identify Exhibit 99 for us from the front
page? Exhibit 99 was prepared by the Division of Per
sonnel Services, is that correct, Mr. Johnson? A. Yes,
this evidently—September 16, 1966—

Q. So this was prepared by your Department, is that
correct? A. Evidently was.

The Court: Do you consider it authentic?
Mr. Creighton: This is one we—
The Court: He says his department prepared it.
Mr. Creighton: Yes, if I may, let me look at it.

It is authentic, I am sure,
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer 99.
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 99 was re
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, where were we? We were with five transfers
£510] from Stedman and one from Montclair Annex, is
that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, handing you what has been marked for iden
tification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 100, I ask you if you can
identify that? A. Yes, I imagine this would be released
at the same time.

Q. Exhibit 100 was also prepared by your department?
A. Yes, I would think so.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex
hibit 100.

344a

Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 100 was re
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, I believe that Exhibit 100 shows the racial and
ethnic characteristics of students participating in the
limited open enrollment program, does it not, Mr. John
son? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, if you will refer to the Montclair I believe it
is, how many of those six students transferring into to
Montclair were Anglos, Mr. Johnson? A. To Montclair
would be four.

Q. Four out of six, right? [5113 A. Four out of six.
Q. Now, did you have anything to do with the volun

tary enrollment program that began in the second semester
of this past school year? A. In consultation with other
members of the staff, yes, sir.

Q. That was passed by the Board in November of 1968?
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, when the Board passed that, was it your under
standing that the administration was to encourage par
ticipation in voluntary open enrollment? A. It was to
encourage in the voluntary, that is correct.

Q. Was the administration to offer any assistance in
the establishment of voluntary open enrollment program?
A. That is correct.

Q. Well, what did the administration do, Mr. Johnson,
in those regards? A. The administration members of
the staff moved forward in trying to implement that at
a very late time in the school year, at a school semester,
trying to achieve this for the date I believe of the second

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

345a

semester of January 25th, with the Christmas intermission
included at that particular time.

Q. Were letters sent out to parents telling them [512]
about voluntary open enrollment? A. As I recall, those
were prepared by the school-community relations, and
they were contacted, yes, and the Division of Education
also had contacted principals regarding letters.

Q. Is Plaintiff's’ Exhibit 36 the form letter that was
used by the administration? A. This came out of the
Division of Education, but I have seen this particular
letter, yes.

Mr. Greiner: Is 36 in evidence ?
The Court: No.
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we would offer Ex

hibit.
Mr. Creighton: No objection.
The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 36 was re
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, other than the mailing of Exhibit 36, Mr. John
son, what did the administration do? A. Well, the re
port that I had on this, contacts were made with—to the
administrative directors of elementary education and sec
ondary education with the principals that they move for
ward as fully as they could toward the implementation of
this particular plan.

Q. Did your department, Mr. Johnson, receive any [513]
requests for assistance from parents trying to establish
VOE programs? A. They weren’t directly by my depart
ment but I know one situation where I discussed the mat
ter with a group of parents.

Howard L, Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

346 a

Q. What school was involved? A. As I recall, I am
not certain of the exact school. These parents indicated
they represented a number of schools in southeast Denver
and Hallett School.

Q. These were Anglo parents? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they wanted to get together some Anglo stu

dents and voluntarily open enroll them in Hallett School,
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And what did they ask you to do, Mr. Johnson? A.
They asked us to move forward on the basis of assisting
them to get as I recall about 300 or 400 parents and they
wanted to send a letter out right after the principal had
sent out a letter indicating that they were interested in
gaining these parents, but they had a couple of stipula
tions in the letter and one on the basis that there would
be these transfers if Hallett could be predominantly an
Anglo school. That is, it would be more than 50 percent.

Q. Well, now, Mr. Johnson, this letter that this [5143
group of Anglo parents wanted the administration to
send out, that was going to Black parents, was it not?
A. No, I think there was a letter that went out to Black
parents. I don’t recall that the letter they had—although
I think that they were working with a group from Hallett
School in addition, but the letter they discussed with me
was one to go to white parents encouraging them to sign
up to go to Hallett School.

Q. Now, did you get a similar request from a group
of Hallett parents for administrative assistance? A. I
think that there was a—you are now asking questions
that were directly related to the Division of Education
and the Division of School-Community Relations. I was
not involved in that except as I would be as Deputy Super
intendent and knowing about it. Now, I can tell you gen

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross

347a

erally in this respect, but I did not work directly with
them. The only direct involvement I had was that at the
time that the parents in southeast Denver came into the
administration building to see the Executive Director for
Elementary Education. He asked me if they could meet
with me and I met with them and discussed that letter.
Now, I know that there are many other letters. I know
there was a great deal of involvement, but this did not
come directly through me.

Q. You personally received no communications from
[5153 Black parents at Hallett? A. I ’m not aware of
direct communications you mean. I am aware, however,
that the Black—that the parents in Hallett were working
through the Executive Director of Elementary Education
and School-Community Relations to establish this program.
Now, I do not recall a direct request to me on this, but
I was aware of this situation and, frankly, this was a part
of our attempt to gain integration between the schools
of southeast Denver and Hallett.

Q. Now, what the Hallett parents wanted, was it not,
was to find one Anglo school where under YOE all of those
Black children transfer to? A. I don’t know the particular
details. I understand that the Hallett parents who were
interested in this wanted to Transfer in order to relieve
and make room for the Anglo parents.

Q. Well, it was just the other side of the coin of the
University Park program was it not? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, what help did they receive, Mr. Johnson? A.
They received the help of the principal. They received
the help of the Department of Elementary Education and
also the school-community relations to the extent it was
possible at that late date and would not confuse the entire
issue. The concern that our administrators had at that

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—-Cross

348a

[5163 particular moment was not with the plan. They were
heartily in favor of the plan but it was the confusion that
was existing, particularly when one of the stipulations
was that there be sufficient number of white parents who
accept this and a sufficient number to exchange and this
happening really during the early part of December, in
fact, I am not—the Board of Education at its regular meet
ing on November 21-—I see no date on this communication
from elementary education, but we know that this was
an attempt to get this entire thing done within a—prior
to January 27 opening of school, so, consequently, there
was a time element here that was almost impossible to meet,
particularly with the stipulation that there had to be this
balance and the number involved was almost impossible
and our staff members had some indication and I think
it was stipulated that there should be about 300 Anglo
parents and 300 Negro parents, and as far as an exchange
was concerned, to the extent that it be possible, I think
our staff cooperated, but they couldn’t cooperate on the
basis of saying, “We will go right up until a week or so
before the second semester and if we don’t get them, then
the whole thing is off.” You can’t operate and program
children in a school on that basis, so I think it was a
matter of how far this should go. There was no question
regarding the importance of this. The question was is it
administratively feasible at that late date to do it?

£5173 Q. When did you get this request from the Anglo
parents? A. As I stated to you, I did not have the request.
The request was—

The Court: When did it come in?
I think we will take a recess.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross

349a

(The Court recessed at 3:11 o’clock p, m.)
E518J (Following a recess, the hearing resumed

at 3:31 p.m.)
The Court: I think, if you could just listen to

the thrust of his question and try to respond directly.
I mean, to the essence of the question, it would be
easier for you and easier for us, too, you know.

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Just listen to what he is seeking’ to

obtain. You have to concentrate on that rather than
pick the outer fringes of the question and respond
to that, you know. Go right to the center of it, if
you can.

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Good.

Q. (By Mr. Greiner) You will recall, Mr. Johnson, that
we were discussing a request by white parents to make
Hallett. a sort of a target school for voluntary open enroll
ment, were we not? A. Yes.

Q. And you have in front of you Exhibit 36. And do
you recall when Exhibit 36 was mailed to the parents?
A. No, sir.

Q. It was mailed, I assume, prior to the Christmas vaca
tion, was it not? A. I’m not certain. It did not come
under my direction.

Q. Now, as I recall, you said you had a meeting with
[519] some of these University Park parents, is that
correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And approximately when did that meeting take place?
Was it in early January? A. I don’t recall the date on
that. I’m inclined to believe that it was earlier than that;

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

350a

that it was probably prior to the Christmas or the winter
intermission.

Q. Now, I take it that these white parents were asking
the administration to help them in publicizing the fact
that Hallett was to be a target school, isn’t that correct?
A. That is correct.

Q. Now, was there any discussion during that conver
sation regarding what you believe to be your responsibility
as to whether or not you were to encourage voluntary open
enrollment? A. Yes, there was, and we indicated that we
had this responsibility.

Q. Do you recall that Mr. Barnes was present at that
meeting? A. I’m sorry. I don’t recall who was at the
meeting, but there were two gentlemen and it’s entirely
possible it may have been Mr. Barnes. As I recall, the
group consisted of three or four ladies and two gentlemen,
as I recall. And I don’t think I could give you the names
right at the moment although I ’m inclined to believe—now
that I see Mr. Barnes—[520] that he was at the meeting.

The Witness: Were you?
Mr. Barnes: (Nods affirmatively.)

A. I think I recognize Mr. Barnes as being one of the
gentlemen and there were two of the ladies that I knew, but
I can’t place them by name right at the moment, but I have
had discussions with them on previous occasions.

Q. You didn’t state at that meeting that your only re
sponsibility was simply to announce the program and that
you had no authorization to encourage it? A. I did not
make such statement; that we did not have responsibility.
Because this was definitely a matter that we should push
forward, but I did question the particular communication

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

351a

they wished to send in conflict with other communications
that were going out and the matter of timing.

Q. Now, the general policy of voluntary open enrollment,
Mr. Johnson, was to achieve some sort of racial balance,
was it not? A. Let us say this, that the purpose was to
achieve integration in the Denver Public Schools at that
particular time. That was our intent; to move as far as we
could toward integration and, if racial balance could be
achieved, that was it. But it was our understanding we were
working for integration.

Q. Well, maybe I don’t understand. What do you mean
[521] by integration as you use that term? In Hallett, for
example? A. Well, Hallett—

Q. How would you integrate Hallett? A. As far as in
tegration is concerned, this must be—there must be, of
course, some integration of whilte pupils into Hallett and
likewise some of the Negro pupils out of Hallett. Now, I
think that, in addition, as we speak of integration, I think
there are many factors and that is a complete understanding
as we—of the various ethnic groups and so on. A great deal
of integration can be done in other ways other than actual
contact. And I think that the integration of Hallett would
be the result of having probably that proportion of various
ethnic groups, that particular type of curriculum; that
type of program that would bring about the thing we’re all
striving for.

Q. Hallett was 95 percent black at the time, is that right?
A. I believe that figure is—It is high. I don’t remember the
exact percentage.

Q. In fact, as I recall, there was one Anglo child in Hal
lett at the time, is that right? A. I can’t testify to that,
but I know there were very few.

Q. Well, again, returning to my original question, Mr.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

352a

Johnson, how many Anglos would you have had to put into
£522] Hallett in order, as you use the term, to integrate
Hallett ? A. I think this is pretty largely the matter of the
advisory committee of Hallett parents working with the
principal staff generally to determine what they would con
sider to be a good composite figure to get this particular
job done from the standpoint of teaching through integra
tion.

Q. How many letters did this committee want you to
send out, Mr. Johnson? A. As I recall, it was a single
communication that I remembered; just one communication,
and that being from the parents in the southeast, to the
southeast parents.

Q. To how many parents was that letter to be sent? A.
I think they were under the opinion that—they were hoping
that the principal would send them out and I took it that
they wanted them to all parents in that particular area.
But it would be a number of those schools in that area; four
or five schools involved.

Q. Well, did the principal send them to you to get au
thority for that mailing? A. No, sir.

Q. Did the principal make the mailing? A. I ’m not
aware of it.

Q. In Exhibit 36, in fact, is it not—its’ the only one—the
only written communication sent out to the parents on a
voluntary open enrollment at that time? [5231 A. I cannot
testify to that because, again, this is sent by the Executive
Director and remember, we are now in the field of Division
of Education and it was handled in that particular area and
not through the Deputy Superintendent’s office. I was aware
of it in my position as Deputy Superintendent in generali
ties.

Q. Well, let’s talk about mobile units, shall we, Mr.
Johnson? A. Fine.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

353a

Q. As I understand it, you said that when the mobile
units were placed in Northeast Denver they were placed
there with the concurrence of the parents, is that right? A.
Let us say they were placed there on the basis of having
consulted with the parents,

[524] Q. Well, were the parents in favor of the place
ment of those mobile units? A. I think that the provision
under which the mobile units were placed there were a
number of possibilities and these possibilities would be
such as this: would you prefer double sessions? Would you
prefer extended school day? Would you prefer our at
tempting to go on this basis? Transportation out or mobile
units? So, it was more or less of an alternate plan rather
than specifically asking them about mobile units as such.

Q. How did you describe this alternate of busing out, Mr.
Johnson? That was one of the alternatives discussed? A.
It was, and in these particular meetings that—at that time
I attended as the Assistant Superintendent in charge of in
struction to that meeting, who had discussed this with the
parents. There was two of us in attendance and only at one
school was I in attendance and that was at Smith Elemen
tary School.

Q. Smith, is that the one with 12 mobile units ? A. That
is the one with 12 mobile units.

Q. When did that meeting take place? A. I cannot give
you the exact date. However, it was—let’s see, I was there
approximately three years ago. I would say during 1966.

[525] Q. You have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 101 in front of
you? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When does it show on Page 2 the first mobile unit
going into Smith? A. 1965.

Q. Now, does this mean that you are talking about—
was that before there were any mobile units in Smith?

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

354a

A. As I recall, the meeting that we are talking about I
think was after the first group of mobile units in the
school.

Q. After you had put in six in ’65? A. Yes.
Q. Then you put in six more in ’67 ? A. Yes.
Q. Pardon me, ’66. A. ’66. I am inclined to believe that

the meeting that I am talking about—I’m inclined to be
lieve that they had mobile units at Smith at that particular
time and it has been the result of the principal having
worked with the parents and others in the community. It
was before we put in the large number.

Q. Now, did you tell me that the parents preferred
mobile units over double sessions, is that right? A. In
attending the meeting I attended I would say, number one,
the parents did not appear as though they [526] wished
to be transported out of the area. They preferred the
neighborhood schools.

Q. Mr. Johnson, you heard my question. Do you have
it in mind? A. I do not.

Q. The parents expressed a preference for mobile units
over double sessions? A. As I recall, they did.

Q. And the parents expressed a preference for mobile
units over extending class days, did they not? A. As I
recall, they did.

Q. All right, now, we will get down to the transpor
tation, Mr. Johnson. Now, what did you tell them about
transportation? A. Well, this was presented by the prin
cipal prior to our particular meeting and the meeting was
to have the parents there to discuss this matter of trans
porting out. The statement that was made was that if
they were interested in transportation we -would designate
certain schools in the city where they would be trans

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

355a

ported and those schools—we had a general list, but no
specific schools in mind at that particular time. What we
were interested in finding out was whether or not they
wished to be transported.

Q. Well, now, how many schools were on that list, Mr.
Johnson? 1527] A. There were approximately 12 schools
in—primarily in south and southeast Denver.

Q. And what we were talking about then was the pros
pect of transporting approximately 180 students? A. De
pending on if they wanted to eliminate the—it would have
been more than 180, because in addition to mobile units
they were overcrowded. I don’t think an exact number
was—but, later, as we moved into it, we had asked for
somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 students.

Q. Well, now, as I understand it, Mr. Johnson, this
meeting took place at a time when Smith already had six
mobile units? A. As I recall.

Q. And when the administration was considering put
ting in six more, isn’t that right ? A. That is right.

Q. So, your conversation was, “You want six more
mobile units or do you want transportation out?” That
was the subject, was it? A. This was generally the subject.
That is, which would you prefer, because they were over
crowded.

Q. So we are talking about at least 180 and perhaps
more? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, of the 180 children minimum that were to be
[528] transported, did you offer to transport them to only
one or two or three schools? A. No, they were—the schools
available were listed. We had a certain number. We did
not have that much space in one or two schools. It had to
involve at least eight or ten schools.

Howard L. Johnson-—for Defendants—Cross

356a

Q. So you had to split them upf A. We had to split
them up because of lack of space in any single school.

Q. You had no schools down in here that were being
underutilized? A. Not to that extent that we could take
that many pupils.

Q. Some schools became underutilized in 1967, did they
not? A. Underutilized to this extent, that they could take
possibly 20 to 30 to 40 pupils, but not to the extent that
we had, that number, until such time as the building pro
gram was completed in south and west Denver, and then
there was two schools, namely University Park and Asbury
Schools, where these pupils had been attending, and when
the Frank Traylor Elementary School was opened this
did give us space in those schools but probably more space
in Corey than any one other school.

Q. Now, back in ’66 when you attended this meeting,
E529] Mr. Johnson, were those Negro parents told that
the receiving schools under the transportation which was
being offered, did they ask were there going to be any
reception programs in those receiving schools? A. Yes,
they were told this because our department of school-
community relations had been working on similar pro
grams.

Q. And they were told that there would be some sensi
tivity training at those receiving schools? A. That is
correct.

Q. Were they told, Mr. Johnson, how bad the achieve
ment was at Smith? A. I don’t recall any statement being
made to that effect.

Q. That wasn’t released publicly until October of ’68,
isn’t that correct? A. The test scores were released in
1968.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

357a

Q. Now, even in 1964, and I call your attention to Ex
hibit 20, which I believe you cited for the proposition of
the committee approved use of mobile units, there were
some conditions, weren’t there, attached to the committee’s
approval of mobile units? A. The only conditions that I
can recall that were attached were the conditions that
these were not to become permanent, a permanent part of
the education plans. They [530] were to facilitate it at
the time of emergencies.

Q. Yet, according to Exhibit 101, some of the mobile
units placed in northeast Denver in 1964 are still there,
aren’t they? A. Well, of course, it is then a matter of
what constitutes permanency on this and they are still
continued there because there is a need for two things.
One is the fact that we have an excessive number of pupils
in certain schools there. The other one is that particularly
at Smith School they were left there because—even though
we had relieved the membership as related to the capacity
—that thre are not special programs going on in those
mobile units, and that is the reason, and I think probably
the mobile unit is very worthwhile for a special type of
program.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, didn’t you tell me just a moment
ago that Smith is still overcrowded? A. Not if we were
to take normal capacity and include the mobile units.

Q. Was there any provision under the resolutions which
have now been rescinded for increasing the transportation
out of Smith? A. Only to the extent that we do promote
to a great degree the voluntary open enrollment plan and
make some other provisions.

Q. Excuse me, Mr. Johnson, I am talking about 1531.
£531] Do you know what 1531 is? A. Yes, that’s a previous
resolution that was rescinded, is that—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

358a

Q. That’s correct. A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t 1531 contemplate the elimination of some of

the mobile units at Smith? A. 1531 from the standpoint
of reduction in membership, yes, that is correct.

Q. So, if you reduced the membership further you could
get along without those mobile units? A. Depending upon
the special programs.

Q. Oh, you couldn’t have the special programs? A. The
programs at Smith School are of such a nature at the
present time that they probably need normal capacity of
over the 30 to one room, so it would necessitate a move
ment of a greater number of pupils in this respect.

Q. Now, there are 12 mobile units there today? A.
There are—yes, that is correct, there are 12.

Q. Well, even 1533 talks about removing part of those.
A. That is correct.

Q. And there isn’t going to be any increase in the special
programs, is there, Mr. Johnson? A. We hope that we can
accomplish both and that would be to relieve the member
ship and continue the special programs.

[5323 Q. Now, this conditional acceptance of mobile
units in the committee report—at the time that report is
sued, there were only eight mobile units in all the City and
County of Denver, is that right, Mr. Johnson, referring to
Exhibit 101? A. Well, the mobile units, according to this
report—there were—

Q. Eight? A. A total of eight in this area, yes.
Q. And none of them were in northeast Denver, were

they, Mr. Johnson? Read off the schools. A. Dowell, Wy
att—

Q. Now, Dowell is down here? Wyatt is up here? A.
Wyman.

Howard L. Johnson—-for Defendants—Cross

359a

Q. That’s over in here somewhere. A. That’s right, and,
excuse me, Wyatt had three and Greenlee three.

Q. Where is Greenlee? A. In West Denver.
Q. So, there were none in northeast Denver! A. That is

right.
Q. And then shortly after this report was issued north

east Denver got quite a batch of mobile units didn’t they?
A. That is right.

£533] Q. How many? A. Well, Philips received four,
Smith the original six, Park Hill three, Hallett two, and
then Smith’s additional six, from the period of September,
1964 and on.

Q. So, by the time we got to September, 1968, the total
mobile units in Denver had gone from eight to 28 or 29?
A. Twenty-nine.

Q. How many of those 28 or 29 were then in northeast
Denver? A. Out of the northeast Denver group, there
would have been 21 of these as I count them.

Q. Maybe you’d better count again, Mr. Johnson. A. I
have 21.

Q. All right, so 21 out of 28 wmre in northeast Denver?
A. That is the figure I have.

Q. As of September of ’68? A. Yes.
Q. Now, I believe you mentioned that there were some

units at Hallett? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many? A. Hallett had two of these, two of

these units.
Q. They got two in November of ’65? A. November of

’65.
Q. I believe you mentioned on Friday that the units [534]

were removed at Hallett because Hallett student member
ship had declined? A. Well, then, there was some addi
tions there, that is correct.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants— Cross

360a

£535] Q. There were eight new classrooms built at Hal
le tt, were there not, Mr. Johnson! A. That is right.

Q. And that is when the mobile units got moved? A. As
I recall, that is correct.

Q. Now, would you say that today the attitude of the
residents up in Northeast Denver are a little less favorable
to the use of mobile units?

Mr. Creighton: Objection. No indication he knows
what the attitude might be.

The Court: He may. We will find out.

A. No, sir, my answer would be I don’t know the attitudes,
specifically.

Q. You knew them back in 1965 and 1966? A. At that
time there was contact with the parents and they had indi
cated the desire to use them.

Q. And you have no indication that they are less desir-
ble now than they were then? A. I have no indication.

Q. Now, even as early as 1967, weren’t there requests for
busing out of certain of these Northeast Denver schools to
relieve overcrowding? A. I think the Stedman School—
we had some requests at Stedman School.

Q. That’s the only one? [5361 A. That was the only
one that indicated a specific request for busing at that
time.

Q. How about Phillips? A. Phillips School was a school
that became overcrowded in—I don’t recall the year—two
years ago, and we had taken some pupils out of Hallett
to relieve Hallett and then we did consult with the principal

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

361a

and the parents and those pupils in that area were trans
ported to Southeast Denver.

Q. How about Smith? A. And the same thing happened
at Smith. There was quite a concerted effort on the part
of our school community relations department working
with parents and many of the parents in that particular
area did work and we transported out of Smith.

Q. Now, actually, ever since February 2, 1966, the dis
trict has had a policy, namely, 1223, has it not, concerning
the busing of students out to relieve overcrowding? A.
Yes, that’s been a policy and the practice—we also had
the practice prior to that time.

Q. Now, at Stedman today, as I understand it, there are
about 286 students being bused out? A. That’s approxi
mately the number.

Q. But there is still four mobile units at Stedman? A.
That is correct.

Q. And at Smith there are 214 students being bused out,
[5373 is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. But there are still 12 mobile units at Smith? A.
That’s correct.

Q. And at Phillips, you have some busing out? A. Yes.
Q. Thirty, as I understand it, students to Ashley, and

50 to Palmer? A. I believe that’s the number, although
I don’t remember the exact schools.

Q. Is Phillips School overcrowded, Mr. Johnson? A.
Phillips at the present time is beginning to get back to
capacity that they can handle with mobile units.

Q. You’re busing 100 students out of Park Hill School?
A. That is correct.

Q. Is Park Hill School overcrowded, Mr. Johnson? A.
Park Hill, I think, with the 100 being transported, I think
the program at Park Hill is a very efficient program.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

362a

Q. Now, you mentioned in your testimony the Doull
School was a good example of how mobile units are used.
Do you recall that testimony? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Doull is down here, is it not? A. Yes, in that area.
Q. And I believe you said that Doull—that it was

E538] expected that Doull student enrollment would
decline? A. That is correct.

Q. And that’s why the mobile units were brought in to
cover this temporary situation? A. That was our attempt.

Q. Well, I take it that is not your meaning, Mr. Johnson,
that it is expected that the student population in Northeast
Denver is going to decline? A. We doubt very much that
it will decline.

Q. So there is really not much of a corollary between
what happened at Doull and what’s happening in Northeast
Denver, is there? A. Not from the standpoint of ex
pectation.

Q. Now, do you consider the presence of mobile units
to be an indication of overcrowded schools? A. Mobile
units are a facility to be used in the case of an overcrowded
school.

Q. Are these schools then schools which have an excess
number of students? A. That is correct.

Q. Now, you recall, do you not, that guideline that the
Board of Education passed in June of 1967 regarding the
construction in Northeast Denver? A. Yes.

Q. And you recall that there was another facet of that
[539] guideline, was there not, that concerned transporta
tion? A. The guideline centered around the—no addi
tional building in that particular area. But, on the basis of
getting relief, and, of course, transportation, transporta

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

363a

tion or double sessions would be the only provision that we
could have.

Q. Pm handing you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 29—

Mr. Greiner: Is 29 in evidence ?
The Clerk: Yes, it is.

Q. —which is in evidence, Mr. Johnson. Page 15 thereof
contains the exact language, does it not, of this guideline?
A. Yes. You’re referring to the specific statement that
“follow existing Denver Public Schools Policy 1222C and
1226A with the additional guidelines, no new building or
additions in Northeast Denver, transportation of excess
students to other instructional schools in the district”?
Those voting yes were—-

Q. It passed, is that right? A. Yes.
Q. Now, that was in June of 1967? A. That was June

29 th.
Q. And by that time we had 12 mobile units at Smith?

A. They were there at that time.
Q. And we had 4 mobile units at Stedman? [540] A.

That is correct.
Q. And I think we had some mobile units at Phillips,

too, didn’t we, then? A. At Phillips we had two, as I
recall.

Q. And those schools had excess students? A. That is
correct.

Q. And it was the policy of the Board to bus out those
excess students, is that correct? A. That is right.

Q. Now, you didn’t take it though that that policy guide
line—that that guideline had anything to do with the
removal of those mobile units? A. It was not stated, how
ever, I think it was referred to that we were to transport

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

364a

and try to equalize—to lower the membership in that par
ticular area and transport elsewhere if possible.

Q. That objective wasn’t achieved, was it, Mr. Johnson?
A. No, sir, it was not achieved.

Q. You mentioned the opening of Traylor School. A.
Yes.

Q. That’s a school in Southwest Denver? A. The very
southwest part of the city.

Q. It opened in January of 1968? A. Yes, sir.
Q. With a capacity of approximately 750 students? [541]

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before Traylor was opened—and Traylor is right

here, is that right? (Indicating on Exhibit 7.) A. That is
correct.

Q. Now, before Traylor was opened, where did all of
the students dowm in this area go to school—elementary
school? A. Those pupils were transported to University
Park.

Q. Now, just a minute. Let me find University Park.
A. I think it’s directly below South High School.

Q. All the way from here over to here. All right. How
many of them were at University Park? A. I imagine
University Park had around 350 or 400 of those.

Q. Were they also at Corj'-? A. University Park and
Asbury, those groups particularly, although we had some
from that general area to Cory as well. They were all in
volved in the Southwest Denver transportation. Cory was
involved in Asbury.

Q. So you had Asbury, University Park and Cory? A.
Yes.

Q. And altogether about how many students did those
three schools have, Mr. Johnson? A. I would imagine in
the final—

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

365a

Q. From Southwest Denver? A. From Southwest Den
ver, there were approximately [5423 800—roughly 800
pupils; 750 to 800.

Q. Okay. Now, up here in Smith, you had 12 mobile
units? A. Yes, sir.

Q. About 360 children? A. Yes.
Q. And at Stedman you had 4 mobile units? A. Yes,

sir.
Q. About 120 children? A. About that.
Q. When Traylor opened, all of these students that you

have described at Asbury, Cory and University Park, they
were—they went to Traylor, is that right? A. Yes.

Q. Didn’t that open up a few vacancies, Mr. Johnson,
at a school like University Park? A. Yes, sir, it did.

Q. About 350 vacancies? A. Yes, approximately that,
although those schools, as a result of the Southwest Den
ver, were slightly overcrowded. But I would say roughlv
350. y

Q. You had about 40 vacancies at Cory? A. Forty
about, at Cory.

Q. And about how many at Asbury! A. Probably about
—roughly 100 on the basis of [5433 capacity.

Q. So that is nearly 400—nearly 500 vacancies down
there? A. I would say approximately 500 as a result of
that.

Q. Now, it’s also true, isn’t it, that you had some slight
overcrowding at some predominantly Anglo elementary
schools in this area? A. We had some there.

Q. And you relieved some of this overcrowding in these
predominantly Anglo schools by transferring Anglos—a
few to Asbury, some to University Park and some to Cory,
is that right? A. That is right.

Q. Now, this was also the time when you started busing

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

366a

36 black children from Phillips, isn’t it? A. Yes, 36 would
he the approximate number.

Q. And they were all sent to University Park? A. That
is correct.

Q. Now, even after you adjusted the balancing here,
the over capacity and underutilization of those Southeast
Denver schools, Cory, University Park and Asbury, how
many spaces did you still have left, Mr. Johnson? A. In
addition to this, we had an excess number on the basis of
new annexations in the Southeast—in Southeast Denver
and part of those spaces were utilized in these schools
[544] on transportation again across the city. I think at
the present time we do have available space in University
Park. We hope some in Asbury and some in Cory and
these are some of the schools that we are hoping to use
on the basis of voluntary enrollment.

Q. But you had about 350 predominantly black children
up here in Northeast Denver ? A. That is correct.

Q. In overcrowded schools? A. That is right.
Q. And you had an opening down here of about 500

spaces, is that right? A. I think that’s a little high when
we consider—but let’s say—

Q. About 500? A. About.
Q. And you got 36 of those black children down here

to University Park, is that right? A. That is correct.
Q. And a few more, I think—about 40 more from Phil

lips into another one of these schools? A. Into University
Park, Cory School, Smith School. That is correct.

Q. And all the other black children were left up there,
is that right, Mr. Johnson? [5453 A. That is right, and—

Q. All right. Now, you mentioned in your testimony on
Friday—you will recall that the policy that the Board
passed about improving the ethnic distribution at schools

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

367a

by means of boundary changes. A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is Policy 1222C, isn’t it? A. That is correct.
Q. And that is in evidence as Exhibit 33.
Now, 1222C says the policy of making, to the extent

possible, a heterogeneous school community— A. That’s
one of the items in the policy.

Q. Now, I believe you cited as an example of that a
boundary change between East and George Washington
High School? A. That is correct.

Q. That boundary change involved, did it not, what had
previously been an optional area between East and George
Washington? A. As I recall, a portion of it was, and
then a small portion of it was formerly in East District.

Q. Now, the area that we’re talking about—this is the
area right up here, isn’t it? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Right where? I mean, what’s the
street?

[546] Q. Do you recall what street it is? A. I don’t
have it before me but it went up to 32nd, the official boun
dary line, as I recall.

Q. That is correct. Did it go down as far as Colfax?
Is it from Colfax to 32nd? A. Approximately Colfax.

Q. And this area had been predominantly an optional
transfer area between East and GW?

Mr. Creighton: Excuse me, Your Honor. Would
counsel indicate with a little more precision both
for the record and for me over here when he indi
cates.

Q. This area that you have described between Colfax
Avenue and 32nd, shown here on Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7, that

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

368a

was an optional area between East and George Washington
High Schools? A. Yes, the majority of it was. However,
it also encompassed some area that was formerly East.

Q. All right. Now, the boundary change you’re talking
about was that the northern boundary of George Washing
ton was moved from Colfax up to 32nd? A. Yes.

Q. And you stated that that was a change, as I recall,
that contributed to a heterogeneous school community, is
that correct? A. I indicated this was a move in that
direction. And, £5471 if I may amplify this particular
point-—

Q. Well, I ’ll give you a chance to answer the questions.
A. Yery good.

Q. Now, the elementary schools in this area that got
picked up in the George Washington boundary—what ele
mentary schools served that area, Ashley? A. Ashley
would have been one.

Q. Montclair? A. And Montclair—part of Montclair.
Q. Ashley and Montclair are predominantly Anglo

schools? A. Yes, sir.
Q. They were then, weren’t they ? A. They were at that

time.
Q. This boundary change was effective in September of

1964? A. In 1964 it went into effect.
Q. Now, is it fair to characterize that neighborhood that

got brought into George Washington in 1964 as being a
predominantly Anglo neighborhood, Mr. Johnson? A. At
that time.

Q. Do you recall how many Negroes there were in George
Washington High School before that boundary change?
A. Before that boundary change, as I recollect, we had
about 10' Negroes in George Washington in about 1963.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Cross

369a

[548] Q. Tour recollection is pretty good. Yon liad 9,
Mr. Johnson.

Now, after that boundary change, do yon have any rec
ollection of how many Negroes there were in George Wash
ington? A. I don’t know immediately after the boundary
change.
; [549] Q. 1964? A. 1964, I would imagine probably
around 20 or 25, and now about 85.

Q. Tour recollection is very good. It went from nine to
20 and this was a boundary change that you believe con
tributed to the heterogenous school community, is that
right? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Greiner: No further questions.
# # # # *

[5853 * * *

Recross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Mr. Johnson, with respect to that boundary change

at George Washington and East—- A. Yes, sir.
Q. We covered the fact yesterday, I believe, that that

boundary change added eleven Negroes to George Wash
ington. A. I don’t recall the exact number but it was
somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to twenty.

Q. I think we failed to cover the fact, didn’t we, that it
added 205 Anglos to George Washington? [586] A. There
was an increase. I don’t recall the exact number.

Q. And George Washington today is still about 96 per
cent Anglo, is that correct? A. Yes, approximately 96
percent.

Q. Now, I beileve with respect to the junior high schools,
on redirect examination you testified, Mr. Johnson, that
the purpose of the Cole-'Smiley boundary changes was

Howard L. Johnson■—for Defendants—Recross

3.70a

again to add to the heterogeneity of the populations in
those two schools, is that correct? A. I had included one
other school and that was Gove. That was a combination
of Gove, Smiley and Cole, three schools involved.

Q. Let’s focus on Smiley. It is my understanding in
1963 Smiley was 46 percent Anglo, is that correct? A. I
believe that is correct.

Q. And in 1964 it was 40 percent Anglo? A. About 40
percent.

Q. And in 1963 Cole was 10 percent Anglo? A. Approx
imately.

Q. And after the boundary change it became 9 percent
Anglo? A. I t would have remained about the same.

Q. So those boundary changes made those schools
blacker, did they not? [5873 A. Let’s say there is no
reason they should be blacker because we did take quite
a number of the Negro students into Gove. However, dur
ing this period of time there was certainly an increase
in the populaton in those areas and Negro population. It
was not the result necessarily of boundary change; it was
the result of mobility into those areas that caused it, be
cause we did take—we did take a percentage of those black
students from that particular area and put them in Gove
and increased it, so I would say proportionately that be
cause of the increased population, the black population,
this would be true, and the main effort at that particular
time, as has been since that time, is to relieve the mem
bership of Smiley Junior High School, as well as Cole.

Q. Well, Mr. Johnson, you don’t mean to tell me, do you,
that it was even thought that as a result of the boundary
change there would be more Anglos in Smiley or more
Anglos in Gove? A. As I indicated in my statement that
the real—the primary purpose of the boundary changes

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross

371a

in 1964 was a resolution passed by the Board. At the same
time that the boundary lines were changed, this resolution,
stating that we should eliminate all optional areas, this
was the primary purpose of the boundary change in 1964,
to eliminate the optional areas.

[588] Q. You testified, Mr. Johnson, that when Traylor
opened up, it created some 500 spaces in the Southeast
Denver schools, is that correct? A. I indicated that there
were approximately that number that wrere transferred
from the South Denver schools back to Frank A. Traylor,
yes.

Q. Now, you had some other students in annexed areas
that you had to accommodate, is that correct? A. That is
correct.

Q. So you put them all in the Southeast Denver schools,
is that right? A. In the schools named, South and South
east Denver.

Q. Well, now, I—and those schools are overcrowded to
day? A. You are speaking of the schools generally in that
area or are you specifying these three schools ?

Q. Well, Exhibit R shows that University Park is some
what overcrowded, is that right? A. Yes, on the basis of
normal capacity, slightly.

Q. Even today, is University Park overcrowded to the
degree that Stedman is overcrowded? A. No, sir.

Q. There aren’t any mobile units at University Park,
are there? A. Not at the present time.

[589J Q. How about Cory, Mr. Johnson? A. No mobile
units.

Q. And it’s not nearly half as overcrowded as Stedman,
is it? A. That’s correct.

Q. What about Asbury, Mr. Johnson? A. That is cor
rect.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross

372a

Q. Any mobile units at Asbury? A. No mobile units at
Asbury.

Q. I direct your attention to what’s been marked for
identification as Defendants’ Exhibit 89. Can you identify
that exhibit for us?

Mr. Creighton: 89 ?
Mr. Greiner: 89.
Mr. Creighton: That’s plaintiffs’ exhibit.
Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor. Force of

habit.

A. I can’t identify this as an exhibit as such. It appears as
though this is a plaintiffs’ statement and taken from sources
of three sources. So I don’t recognize the exhibit as such,
but I assume that the data included came from those
sources. This is the first time I have seen this particular
statement.

Q. Do you recognize the sources? A. (No answer.)
[5903 Q. They are all from the public schools system,

aren’t they? A. Yes, I recognize the sources. Evidently
there is a typographical error on one of these, if the source
is stated correctly, and that is that there is no office of the
Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services as of
May 1, 1969.

Q. That’s right. That should probably be 1968. A.
Well, I don’t know whether the date is incorrect or whether
the title is incorrect. That is, it would be the Executive
Director for Personnel Services. So either the date is in
correct or the title of the office is incorrect. I ’m not sure
which.

Q. What does that Exhibit 89 purport to show, Mr. John
son? A. 89 purports to show the L.O.E., which would be
Limited Open Enrollment.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross

373a

Mr. Creighton: Your Honor, now that we know
what this exhibit is about, it seems to me it goes
beyond the scope of redirect. This is limited open
enrollment. This has been covered earlier.

The Court: Well, true, but—
Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’ Ex

hibit 89 for the purpose of showing that in Septem
ber of 1968 according to this exhibit there were 482
extra seats in £591] Anglo schools, even after the
absorption of all of these annexed areas, and we
offer it for that purpose.

The Court: I think it’s relevant in view of the way
the examination has gone. I mean—-

Mr. Creighton: It wasn’t apparent.
The Court: On redirect you introduced some fresh

facts today, I take it, that had not been referred to
at all.

So it will be received.
(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 89 was received

in evidence.)

By Mr. Greiner:
Q. With reference then to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 89, Mr.

Johnson, how much under capacity is there stated there
for the listed schools'? A. It is listed here 482.

Q. What is the average percent of Anglo enrollment in
those schools, Mr. Johnson? A. This exhibit shows 93.

Q. And how many Anglos are being bused into those
schools ? A. 1,071.

Q. And how many Negroes are being bused into those
schools? A. 121.

Q. Now, I call your attention, Mr. Johnson, to what’s
been marked for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 90,

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross

374a

[592J purporting to show the limited open enrollment space
in predominantly Negro or Hispano elementary schools in
1968. Can you identify that exhibit for us? A. Not the
exhibit as such, and I have the same comment as I had on
the other—regarding the other one.

Q. And Exhibit 90 shows the spaces in the minority
schools whereas Exhibit 89 showed the spaces in the Anglo
schools, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Exhibit 90.
The Court: Has Mr. Creighton seen this?
Mr. Greiner: Yes.
Mr. Creighton: Well, let me look at it. I don’t

seem to have it.
No objection.
The Court: 90 will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 90 was received
in evidence.)

Q. Now, Mr. Johnson, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 90 shows, does
it not, that in September of 1968 there were 270 spaces
available in the minority schools. A. It shows this, yes,
sir.

Q. How many of the Anglo children from the annexed
areas, Mr. Johnson, were placed in those vacancies? A.
(No answer.)

[593] Q. None. Isn’t that right, Mr. Johnson? A. I do
not recall that wre have any annexations— Normally, annex
ations have been in the Southwest and Southeast Denver
area, as I recall.

Q. Well, isn’t it true, Mr. Johnson, that when you were
trying to accommodate the children from annexed areas,
these are Anglo children, are they not, Mr. Johnson, basi
cally ? A. Basically.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross

375a

Q. Now, when you were trying to accommodate those
children, how far did you bus them? A. We attempted to
bus them to the nearest elementary school that had vacant
spaces.

Q. Some of those bus rides were as long as ten miles,
weren’t they, Mr. Johnson? A. I think the longest one
was from Southwest Denver to the Asbury, University
Park, Steele and Cory.

Q. In response to a question from the Court, Mr. John
son, you indicated, as I understood it, that some of the ele
mentary schools in Southeast Denver were on double ses
sions, is that correct? A. Had extended days.

Q. Pardon me? A. Extended days, and double sessions;
an overcrowding.

Q. What is the difference between an extended day and
a double session? [594] A. An extended day is very often
accomplished by starting the school day slightly earlier in
the day and extending’ longer, as in contrast with actually
two groups of students coming at a particular time.

Q. Now, how many of those Southeast Denver Anglo ele
mentary schools were on extended days in— What is the
appropriate time to look at this? In January, 1968, as op
posed to September of 1968? A. I would say that the ap
propriate time would be to—I imagine that the height of
this would probably be in about 1966-1967, from the stand
point of the greater number.

Q. Well, I thought you told the Court, Mr. Johnson, that
when Traylor opened up and that was in January of 1968,
is that right? A. That’s correct.

Q. That you had Southeast Denver schools on double
sessions. Now, is that or is that not the fact? A. That is
an incorrect statement on my part. They were overcapacity.
There were no double sessions.

Howard L. Johnson—for Defendants—Recross

376a

Q. And there were not even any extended sessions, were
there, in January of 1968? A. There were some in the
kindergarten group.

Q. Where, Mr. Johnson? A. I can’t state right at the
moment.

Q. You said that Steele was overcrowded. [595] A. It
was necessary to relieve Steele of further crowding be
cause we had reached the capacity.

Q. How overcrowded was Steele, Mr. Johnson, in Sep
tember of 1968? A. I don’t have the figures before me but
I know it was necessary to eliminate transportation into
Steele, and we were able to take some of those pupils and
keep them in the Southwest Denver schools.

Q. How many mobile units did you put in at Steele to
relieve that overcrowding? A. There were no mobile units
in that area.

Mr. Greiner: No further question, Your Honor.
Mr. Creighton: No questions.

* # # * #

Mr. Jackson: Call Dr. Robert Gilberts.

R obert Gilberts, [596] recalled as a witness by and on
behalf of defendants, having previously been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Jackson:

The Court: You have already been sworn, Doctor.
Just take the witness stand.

By Mr. Jackson:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, what is your present position with the
Denver Public Schools? A. I’m the Superintendent of
Schools.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

377a

Q. And would you describe briefly for the Court, please,
your responsibility in that position? A. My responsibility
is to administer the Denver Public Schools within the gen
eral guidelines of the Board of Education’s policy and
within that context, to provide the best possible quality of
education to all the students in the school district.

Q. How long have you been superintendent in the Denver
Public Schools? A. From August 1st, 1967,

Q. And what was your employment prior to that? A.
I was Superintendent of Schools in Madison, Wisconsin.

* # # # #

£5973 * * *
By Mr. Jackson:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, as you heard, there is one comment on
this that I placed thereon that reflects current membership
in a national committee, FAASA. Would you explain to
the Court and counsel what that means? A. This is a
national commission from the American Association of
School Administrators to look at the state of preparation
of school superintendents throughout the United States and
to make recommendations for changes in programs.

[598] Q. And you are presently a member of that com
mission? A. Yes.

Q. And what is the number of members on that com
mission? A. I believe there are nine members on that com
mission.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, how do you personally view the position
of the Superintendent of Schools in Denver today? A. Well,
I think that the Superintendent of Schools in any urban
center today is faced with a rather major problem of look
ing at how one might reconstitute the entire processes of
education for children in order to improve its effectiveness

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

378a

and certainly a major element is that—of that is dealing
with the problems of underachievement in those schools
that have been referred to in this trial.

[5991 Q. I think it is important for you to advise the
Court as to how you would define the word “integration”
as we have heard it. A. I would accept Dr, Dodson’s
definition that integration is a psychological willingness
of people to accept people of all races without prejudice.

Q. Does this then form a part of your general overall
view of restructuring the educational process! A. Yes, it
does. I think this is extremely important in dealing with
the problems in our entire society.

Q. Do you identify any particular problems in this area!
A. Yes, there are many problems in this area, the prob
lems of how one best goes about accomplishing this in a
city the size of Denver or any city, for that matter. There
is tremendous diversity of opinion as to how one can
accomplish this end. There are those who believe the only
way it can be done is through racially balancing the schools.
There are others who feel that other kinds of systems and
techniques can be used to provide vehicles for modifying
the values and attitudes of people within the school system.

Q. Would you describe briefly some of these other sys
tems! A. Well, I believe that within the entire process of
[6001 education there are many possibilities for doing
this. We have within our school system, presently several
programs that are under operation as the result of the
advisory committees, one being the cultural arts program,
the cultural understanding being the second one, wherein
youngsters are given the opportunity to look at arts and
various kinds of cultural contributions of people from
different backgrounds and to understand their origins and

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

379a

the meaning of them and to relate one to another in some
physical proximity.

I believe Dr. Dodson indicated that he felt, also, that it
was necessary for a youngster—

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, I do object to this
witness summarizing what Dr. Dodson has said.

Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, I believe the
witness is merely attempting to answer the question
in relation to the facts of this case.

The Court: Overruled. We may proceed.
The Witness: I lost my track. I forgot where I

was going at the time.

Q. You were discussing other systems for achieving this.
A. I talked about the cultural arts program and cultural
understanding programs, which are examples of ways in
which this can be accomplished.

Oh, and I certainly accept the fact that some kind [601]
of physical proximity of youngsters in this process is ex
tremely important as a vehicle for accomplishing these
changes in attitudes and values that are so necessary in
our society.

Q. You mentioned racial balance, Dr. Gilberts. How does
this fit into your view of the problem? A. I do not believe
that racial balance as such is necessarily the only answer
or the only approach to achieving integration as I have
defined it. I think there are many other ways and I think
that certainly the schools are not the only institution in
our society that have responsibility of achieving that end,
though we do have a major role, I believe, to play in that
process.

Q. Is there, in your opinion, any one approach that must

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

380a

of necessity be successful? A. No, I don’t believe that there
is any one approach that can be successful. I think condi
tions are so varied in these United States that there must
be a number of ways in which the solution to this problem
can be undertaken. If one assumes that there is only one
approach, for instance, racial balance as such, then many
of our major cities are already lost. There is no possibility
of changing them. And I personally or professionally am
not willing to accept that as an end.

Q. After your arrival in Denver in 1967, Dr. Gilberts,
[602] Resolution No. 1490 was subsequently passed by the
Board of Education, was it not? A. Yes.

Q. And what was your specific responsibility under that
resolution? A. Well, this resolution called upon me to
present a comprehensive plan for the integration of the
Denver Public Schools by September 30th, I believe it was,
and there were a number of other kinds of considerations
within that resolution, which were added to provide some
kind of guidance in developing that plan.

Q. Subsequent to that resolution, did you prepare such
apian? A. Yes, I did.

Q. You have before you what has been marked for
identification purposes as Defendants’ Exhibit D. Can you
identify that? A. This is the copy of the plan which was
presented to the Board of Education and to the community
in the early part of October.

Q. And this is the plan which you submitted to the Board
in response to the Resolution 1490? A. Yes, it is.

Mr. Jackson: At this time, we would offer Defen
dant’s Exhibit D, Your Honor.

[6033 Mr. Greiner: We have no objection, Your
Honor.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

381a

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

The Court: D is received.

(Defendants’ Exhibit D was received in evi
dence.)

Q. Dr. Gilberts, would you describe generally the con
cept of your plan now received as Defendants’ Exhibit D?
A. Well, in devising this plan, we looked at the overall
problems of an urban center and all the kinds of systems
that we thought we could identify that might contribute
to the improvement of the general quality of education
throughout the school system, and the major portion of
this, as I indicated before, was providing for experiences
that would be integrating in nature and provide for inte
gration in the Denver Public Schools.

Basically, we took a look at the format of education in
an urban center. One of the major problems, I believe,
in the restructuring of education in urban centers is tak
ing a look at the way in which the schools relate to the
publics that they serve. One of the major difficulties in
large school systems, it is my opinion, is the remoteness
with which the school functions in the community, so we
began taking a look at a way in which we could restructure
the organization of our schools to enhance opportunities
for integration, ways of involving the community in the
operation of their schools, and at the same time restructur
ing the [604] physical school organization to provide
better educational kinds of experiences for children. We
had felt that the proximity of the school and the relation
ship of the school as one of the basic institutions in the
community to those people it serves is an extremely im
portant one.

There is a very interesting article that came out after

382a

this plan had been developed, written by Dr. Dioxydis,
who is an internationally-known and renowned city plan
ner, in the mid-December, 1968, issue of the Saturday
Evening Review. The basic thesis of this article was that,
since the beginning of time, man has up until recently
enhanced the opportunities of man to relate to additional
institutions and to additional individuals, but only recently
have we begun removing some of the more immediate
kind of institutional relationships which are important in
an urban setting and life for all of us. Therefore, we looked
at ways in which we could devise an organizational struc
ture, not as the result of this article, but using the same
general concept, which would provide for expanding op
portunities for children to relate in different ways to the
education institution and at the same time, as indicated,
provide for integrating experiences within our school
system.

Within this kind of structure, we provided for the re
organization of schools to press out the decision making
responsibility further from the superintendent’s office, to
[605] allow the teachers, principals and community mem
bers more effectively to influence the kinds of decisions
that were made in determining educational programs, and
hopefully through that to provide a closer sense of rela
tionship between community and staff and students with
the school itself. This restructuring also involved the re
organization of kinds of services that might be provided
through the school.

We felt, for example, that many of the community agen
cies presently operating independently might very well be
coordinated through this kind of an organizational struc
ture and that many of the services that presently are oper
ating quite independently and sometimes causing many

Robert Gilberts—-Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

383a

gaps in services that are necessary to people and sometimes
overlap, that through this organizational structure we
might effect that.

We also provided within that organizational structure,
keeping consistent with what we felt was important in the
reorganization, such as proximity, geography, number of
schools, size, et cetera provided opportunities for planning
new kinds of educational opportunities within these struc
tures which would enhance general education as well as
trying to get at the integrational opportunities that I know
are important.

Q. When you speak of the integrational opportunities,
are you referring now to the opportunities as consistent
with [606] the definition which you have just given this
morning? A. Yes, I am.

Q. So the plan then is really a proposal for quality
education as opposed to any finite, refined plan for spe
cific movement? A. Yes, the entire plan was a conceptual
type of plan and in the period of time in which we had to
produce this, which I believe I indicated was about sixty
working days during the summer months when a good
many staff members were not available to us, and this is
always a difficult time to put something like this together,
we did not spell out all of the details, all of the concepts
that are included within it, and there is a great deal of
work, for instance, in refining the concept of the complex
as a functional unit within the school system, as well as
many other elements within the plan.

Q. Directing your attention, Dr. Gilberts, to Page 32 of
Exhibit D, what general heading is contained on this
particular section? A. “The Elementary Model School
Complex.”

Q. And would you explain, please, generally, what that

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

384a

concept is? A. Well, I think that if one would refer to the
schematic just after Page 35, that it would describe this.
It really is a grouping of schools or a consortium or
[607] whatever you would like to call it within which we
would provide a special supporting educational center for
special educational opportunities. In addition to this, these
schools would become a part of administrative units so
that educational programs could be planned both within
the schools and between the schools and could be coordi
nated at the local level with a complex structure. We had
expected within this complex to develop many kinds of
supporting and exemplary educational programs that we
felt could lend support to all the concepts we were talking
about, integration certainly being one of them, but also
the general improvement of educational experience for the
youngsters within these complexes.

We saw the opportunity here within the organizational
structure to begin involving in an advisory way, more
effectively in an advisory way, I should say, the members
of the community that are affected within these complexes
and to leave the complex director a good deal of latitude
in terms of decision making as it related to programs
within these schools. Obviously, the superintendent’s office
and supporting staff would make a contribution to both
planning and supervision and evaluation. Within this cen
ter we have identified a number of items that we thought
might be relevant. Now, as we get into our specific plan
ning, we may find others more imporant. We may find
that we want [608] to change the configuration of this as
we look at it. I assume there will be some differences
between complexes around the city in terms of needs of
those areas.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

385a

Q. Did you in your planning tentatively divide the
elementary schools of the city into various groupings or
complexes? A. Yes, we did.

Q. Directing your attention to the map which appears
between Pages 107 and 108 of Exhibit D, Dr. Gilberts, can
you identify that portion of the exhibit for us? A. Yes,
these were the tentative identifications of complexes
throughout the city, grouping schools in the best way we
felt we could to accomplish all of the purposes that we
had set forth as being important.

The Court: What exhibit is this?
Mr. Jackson: Exhibit D, Your Honor.
The Court: Still Exhibit D?
Mr. Jackson: Yes.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention to Plain
tiffs’ Exhibit 6, and in particular to Resolution No. 1533,
which appears at the back of that exhibit, would you please
read for the Court, Point 1 of that resolution? A. “Super
intendent is directed to continue the development of plans
in accordance with the concept of the elementary school
complex as outlined in his report entitled [6093 ‘Planning
Quality Education’ heretofore received by this Board of
Education and to initiate voluntary implementation of such
plans commencing with the opening of schools in Septem
ber of 1969 for the following groups of elementary schools
of this district to be known as Complex 1 and 2.”

Under Complex 1 is a list of schools that were included
in it and under Complex 2 the same.

£610] Q. Are those groupings of schools as contained
in Resolution 1533 the same as are shown on the maps
which we have previously alluded to in the Exhibit D
occurring between Pages 107 and 108? A. Yes.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

386a

Q. What is the specific purpose of this particular com
plex arrangement as shown here in Point 1, Dr. Gilberts?
A. Well, the purpose is to begin the more detailed plan
ning of the organization and operation of these complexes.
It is a concept that needs a great deal of development and
we felt that these two complexes would provide us a basis
for organization and planning and testing.

Q. Is the Point 1 in Resolution 1533 consistent with
your overall planning of quality education? A. Yes, it is.

Q. And will this involve the community in any way?
A. Yes, it will.

Q. Generally, in what respect will the community itself
become involved in this—in these complexes? A. We in
tend to involve the community in all the organizational
elements, that being a part of all—first of all, in the plan
ning process. One of the parts of the planning process is
to identify an effective way of involving the community in
a continuing basis in the terms of general operations of
these complexes and the schools within them.

E611] Q. Directing your attention, Dr. Gilberts, to Point
4 of Resolution 1533, would you read that for us, please?
A. “For the purpose of improving education and further
ing the integration of schools included in elementary school
complex 5, as described in the report ‘Planning Quality
Education,’ such schools shall be grouped for cooperative
planning with the elementary schools of other elementary
school complexes as follows, or with such other or differ
ent schools as the superintendent may designate from time
to time, utilizing the criteria of ratio of school and group
memberships, racial composition of memberships, potential
for promoting educational understanding, and utilization
of school facilities; that such cooperative planning shall
be accomplished by the local schools included within such

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

387a

groupings through planning committees composed of school
staff members, P-TA representatives, parents and other
citizens in the school community; that such planning com
mittees shall be selected and shall operate under rules
and regulations prescribed by the superintendent; that
any cooperative plans so developed shall be mutually
agreed upon by such committees prior to the implementa
tion thereof; that implementation of such cooperative
plans may be undertaken by the superintendent within the
limitations of law and the policies of this Board of Educa
tion; and that participation by individual families shall be
optional.”

[612] And then it lists the schools in Complex 5 and
those that they are grouped with.

Q. And the listing of schools in Complex 5—it’s the
same as that shown on our map, again, in Exhibit D? A.
I believe so. I ’m not—yes, I believe it is.

Q. Now, was this matter of pairing specifically proposed
in your overall plan for quality education? A. No, it was
not. This particular proposal came out of the discussions
that were held with the members of the community and
Board of Education. It was something that we could
embark upon immediately. In my plan I had recommended
that the schools in Area 5 be operated at the pre-school,
kindergarten, and primary levels with the students in the
fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth grades trans
ported out to other schools within the city. Manual High
School in that area at the same time being developed as a
special magna type school, which we are proceeding with
at the present moment. But this was not something that
could be accomplished immediately. It would require some
additional facilities rather than waiting until we had

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

388a

money through a bond issue to accomplish it, this was
something that we could do right now.

Q. Is the objective under this pairing concept the same
as under the complex concept as contained in Point I of
this resolution? [613] A. No, not exactly. The planning
here will be done jointly with the schools involved in this.
However, it will be on a school-to-school basis rather than
on an organized intermediate kind of administrative unit.

Q. Is the pairing concept as contained in Item 4 here
consistent with your overall plan? A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, generally speaking, are there any other
educational programs within your plan, Exhibit D, which
provide for enhanced educational opportunities in inter
racial communication? A. Yes, there are quite a number.
We have talked in this plan about the need for changing
curriculum to provide for general application of knowl
edge and information with respect to minorities in our
culture. We have had proposed in this a ballerette outdoor
education center which we hope to have space for approxi
mately a thousand pupils at a time which will be, we hope,
in the very near future; a live-in kind of educational set
ting. We are now in the process of working on that. We
have the land and are working in the development of it,
both program and facilities. We have proposed an expan
sion of cultural arts kind of program within the context of
this plan. At the junior high school level we talked also
about a complex arrangement very much like we have at
the elementary level. The senior high school level [614]
—we have made a recommendation that there be a secon
dary school complex dealing with specialized educational
offerings both general and vocational and technical to
which students from all the senior high schools throughout
the entire city—to which the students from all the senior

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

389a

high schools throughout the city could go. I think there are
probably a number of other minor elements in there, too.
There are many, many ideas.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention once
again to Eesolution 1533, I’d like to direct your attention
to Paragraph No. 5 in that resolution and ask you if you
would read that to the Court, please. A. “The present
practices of transporting pupils from the attendance areas
of schools of this district deemed to be overcrowded in
other schools of this district, whenever necessary to relieve
such overcrowding, be continued.”

Q. Would you explain the purpose of this to the Court,
please? A. Well, the purpose of this is to allow us the
latitude to move youngsters from facilities that are over
crowded to other facilities where we have space. And it is
our intention to pursue this particular policy throughout
the city. I might throw in here an example as Mr. Johnson
was talking about the readjustment of space throughout
the central part of the city. Before this plan was put out,
[615] another reason was to provide spaces in more schools
to be utilized for both voluntary and for the relief of over
crowded schools. However, the Eesolution 1490 intervened
before any such plan could be undertaken.

Q. The determination as to when a school is overcrowded
within the context of this paragraph, is that based on the
strict formula approach that we have heard? A. No, I
believe it’s been discussed also as a matter of looking at
the kind of program that we feel is necessary for that
school and then judging the amount of space, classroom
space that is necessary for pupils to implement that pro
gram.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention for a
moment to Defendants’ Exhibit P, which is before you,

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

390a

can you identify that document? A. Yes, it’s the Board
minutes of April 25, 1968.

Mr. Jackson: At this time, Your Honor, we’d like
to move the admission of Defendants’ Exhibit P.

Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: P will be received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit P was re
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention to Page 5 of
those minutes at the bottom of the page, would you read
what appears there to the Court, please? A. The last
paragraph?

[6161 Q. Yes. A. “Superintendent Gilberts referred to
Resolution No. 1486, adopted on January 18, 1968, by the
Board which authorized funds for the purpose of provid
ing accommodations for the junior high school pupils of
the district and for relieving crowded conditions at Smiley
Junior High School. He read from the resolution as fol
lows :

‘Now, therefore, be it resolved by this Board of Educa
tion that upon the payment of all amounts and obligations
incurred or to be incurred by this school district in con
nection with site acquisition, construction and equipping
of Jessie M. Hamilton Junior High School, not less than
80 percent of the capital reserve fund of this school district
and such amounts as may be recorded therein from time
to time shall next be expended for the provision of neces
sary facilities for the specific purpose of providing relief
from the excessive pupil population of Smiley Junior High
School and for the general purpose of assisting in the
accommodation of junior high school pupils of the school

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

391a

district. Such facilities will be located in a manner so as
not to contribute to the further increase of de facto segre
gation.’ ”

Q. Did you make specific recommendations to the Board
based upon that resolution? A. Yes, I did.

Q. Would you explain to us what those were, please?
[617] A. Well, I recommended that there be an initial
twelve classrooms added to Jessie M. Hamilton immedi
ately to provide relief for Smiley in the second semester;
also to provide some relief for Hill Junior High School.
I also recommended that a new high school be built at
East Florida and South Quebec after which is now named
Place Junior High School, which would provide further
space for the relief of junior high schools in the area and
the opening of spaces for the further relief of Smiley as
a junior high school and also possibly Cole.

Q. Now, were those recommendations acted upon by the
Board? A. Yes, they were.

Q. And what were the results? A. It wras approved.
Q. Now, was any actual busing of students from Smiley

accomplished when Hamilton opened? A. Yes, it was.
Q. And do you recall the number? A. I believe that all

told from the Smiley area there was somewhere between
250 and 300 pupils transported to both Jessie M. Hamilton
and Thomas Jefferson High Schools.

Q. The Place Junior High School, I believe you referred
to as the other high school at Florida and Quebec? A. Yes.

[618] Q. That is in the construction process, is that
right? A. I t’s in the bidding process right now. We hope
to have it opened during the 1970 school year sometime.

Q. Will that provide any additional space for busing
further students from Smiley? A. Yes.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, referring you back once again to Para

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

392a

graph 5 of Resolution 1533, is there any other additional
busing taking place at this time for the purposes of reliev
ing the overcrowded conditions of the schools? A. We’re
moving students from Stedman Elementary School, I be
lieve—that’s been mentioned. We are moving students
from Phillips Elementary School. Students are being
moved on a voluntary basis from the Smiley Elementary
School.

Q. And where are these students being transported to?
Which area of the city? A. To the south, general south.
And south central area.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, directing your attention to Paragraph 6
of Resolution 1533, would you read that for us, please? A.
“The superintendent is directed to proceed with plans to
reduce the pupil population of Stedman Elementary School
to the extent that the four mobile units now located at that
school may be used where needed in other schools of this
district by soliciting approximately 120 voluntary pupil
transfers from Stedman School to other elementary [619]
schools of this district having space available and with
transportation provided by the district.”

Q. Can that same process be utilized to relieve other
schools where there are mobile units? A. Yes, it can.

Q. Is it your intent to proceed in that direction? A.
Certainly, as we can and as space is available and as one
considers the overall space requirement needs for the
entire city. Before a great deal can be done in this area
it is going to be necessary that we have funds for addi
tional facilities.

Q. Referring again to Exhibit D, your plan for planning
quality education, do you have figures within that plan
relating to the capital construction cost to fully implement
that plan? A. We had an estimate. We tried to quantify

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Direct

393a

it as best we could within that particular frame of what
fiscal dollar requirements would be necessary to implement
this plan so that people would have some measurement of
that.

Q. Can you find those figures? A. They’re in the back
here. I believe the total is on Page 99—where we have all
of the phases included and throughout the entire plan we
estimated at that time approximately $126,900—excuse me.
$126,910,000. And this was an estimate.

[6203 Q. Generally speaking, Dr. Gilberts, is Resolution
1533 consistent with your overall plan of achieving quality
education? A. Yes.

Mr. Jackson: No further questions.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, under 1520, 1524 and 1531, did you as

superintendent prepare some statistics as to how many
children would receive an integrated education under those
resolutions? A. Yes, we did.

Q. Do you recall the total number—what the total num
ber was? A. Pm sorry, I don’t without looking at the
record.

Q. These wrere published in the reviews, were they not?
A. I believe so.

Q. I am handing you what’s been marked for identifica
tion as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10 and 11 and ask you, first, with
respect to 10 if you can identify that for the Court, please?
A. Yes, this is a publication of the school system summar
izing the secondary elements of the plan.

Q. And then Exhibit 11, as I understand it, summarizes
the elements of the plan in the elementary schools, is that
correct? [621] A. Yes.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

394a

Q. And these exhibits were prepared by the school dis
trict? A. Yes.

Q. And the review is designated the official publication
of the Denver Public Schools? A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, we offer Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 10 and 11.

Mr. Jackson: Your Honor, according to my rec
ords, they have already been received.

[622] Mr. Greiner: Now, which exhibit—pardon
me, is that correct?

The Court: That is correct.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Greiner: Excuse me.

Q. Which exhibit has the data to which I referred on the
total number of students who would be integrated under
these resolutions? A. I thought that Exhibit 11 had it,
but I don’t—

The Court: Which one was that?

A. (Continuing) Oh, yes, here it is on the front page.
Q. Which exhibit do you have reference to? A. Exhibit

11.

Q. And what is stated there, please? A. It says, “This
plan will provide integration for 10,102 elementary pupils
in 22 schools by the reassignment of 2,001 additional
pupils.”

Q. Now, have you developed a similar statistic, Dr. Gil
berts, for Resolution 1533? A. No, I have not.

Q. Do you have any idea what that statistic would look
like? A. It would be impossible to even estimate that at
this time until we have these programs in operation.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

395a

[623] Q. Is it safe to assume, Dr. Gilberts, that it’s going
to be substantially less in September of ’69? A. Yes, I
think—

Q. Than it would have been under these resolutions? A.
On a short term basis I think it will be less. On the long'
term, it is another question.

Q. You discussed your view of what integration means,
Dr. Gilberts. At what point in your mind does a school
become segregated? A. Well, I don’t believe that I have
any particular figure in which it becomes segregated. I
have defined integration as a social or psychological proc
ess. Integration—or segregation, I suppose, might be the
opposite of that. I am not sure. That is, a psychological
feeling of the opposite of an integrated feeling, but I don’t
have any particular number at which I would attach a
segregated school.

Q. Well, let’s take a look at some of the target schools
under the rescinded resolutions. Is Barrett a segregated
school? A. Barrett has about 90 some percent black
youngsters in it, I believe.

Q. That would just about meet anybody’s definition of a
segregated school, wouldn’t it, Dr. Gilberts? A. I would
think so.

Q. What about Smiley? It is what? Seventy-five percent
[624] black? A. I believe that is correct.

Q. What percent Hispano, do you recall? A. About 12
is my recollection; I could be wrong.

Q. About what percent Anglo is Smiley? A. Seven or
eight percent.

Q. Pardon? A. Seven or eight percent. This is an esti
mate on my part. I am not sure. I would have to see the
figures.

Q. It has over a 90-pereent minority population? A.
True.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

396a

Q. Is that a segregated school? A. I assume it would
be by most people’s definition.

Q. Now, as I understand the complex program as illus
trated in Defendants’ Exhibit D, which is the Gilberts plan,
isn’t it true that one of the defined complexes would have
a predominantly minority composition?

Do you have that in front of you? Please refer to Page
108 of Exhibit D. I have specific reference to Area 5. A.
Would it have a predominantly minority population?

Q. Yes, Dr. Gilberts. A. My recommendation for Area
5 was the transportation of pupils from that area, as I
indicated, in the intermediate and junior high school grades,
the development of a magnet school at Manual, and then I
had also planned to make [625] attractive the pre-school—
primary program, so I would assume that, if I could have
accomplished those ends, it would not have been a segre
gated area. It would have been an integrated area.

Q. Well, look at the two extreme right-hand columns on
Page 108. Doesn’t that purport to show the proposed com
plex population, the percent minority and percent Anglo?
A. As it stands, without having made the modifications I
have talked about, because this would not be the percentage
if we could do those.

Q. Now, without modification, the racial composition of
Area 5 would be 97 percent minority and approximately
two percent Anglo? A. I believe that’s correct.

The Court: Wait a minute, when you speak of
the transportation, you mean that contemplated in
these resolutions, 1520, 24 and 31?

The Witness: No, sir, in the plan. In the plan I
proposed that Area 5 would have all students in the
intermediate and junior high school grades trans

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Gross

397a

ported out of Area 5 into other schools, Southeast
and Southwest Denver primarily.

Mr. Greiner: Further along that regard, Your
Honor, there is an asterisk of some type, isn’t there,
next to the two-percent Anglo for Area 5, Dr. Gil
berts?

[626] The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Yes.

Q. And if you will refer down, what does that asterisk
designate? A. “Transportation will be required to main
tain integration.”

Q. So, you’re going to have some mandatory busing? A.
This is what I proposed, yes.

Q. Not voluntary busing? A. No.

The Court: This comports with 1533?
The Witness: No, sir, it does not. The element

for Area 5 because of necessity here of having addi
tional space to implement this was the pairing of
schools in Area 5 with groups of schools southeast
and southwest, and that’s something we can begin
on next fall, but in the long range, if the Board will
approve this plan that I have, it will provide for the
movement of those youngsters in this area out of
those schools to other schools where we have space.

The Court: Essentially 1531 disapproves the use
of busing to bring about segregation, doesn’t it?

The Witness: To bring about integration?
The Court: Integration.
The Witness: It requires that those programs that

are identified with it be voluntary, yes.
£627] The Court: So, this would require changing

policy ?

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

398a

The Witness: Yes, it would, if this were to he
implemented.

The Court: If you were to carry out this particu
lar plan, I take it?

The Witness: Yes, it would.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, do you have Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A in
front of you? That’s Resolution 1533. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you refer to Paragraph 5 on Page 4 of that
exhibit, please? A. Paragraph 5? Yes.

Q. That paragraph talks about transportation out to re
lieve overcrowding? A. Yes.

Q. And I take it that, under Paragraph 5, the transpor
tation out of Phillips would be continued? A. Yes.

Q. Is that today or in September was that Phillips bus
ing* out voluntary or mandatory? A. It is mandatory.

Q. And is there some busing out at Park Hill? A. I
don’t believe there is. I think that was a misstatement
yesterday.

Q. I am sorry. Is there any busing out at Barrett?
[628] A. Not on a compulsory basis.

Q. There is some busing out at Stedman, is there not?
A. Yes.

Q. And that’s also on a mandatory basis? A. Yes.
Q. There is no busing out at Smith—or, is there? A.

There is, but that’s on a voluntary basis.
Q. Well, now, Paragraph 5 that I drew your attention to,

that talks about mandatory busing out to relieve over
crowding, doesn’t it? A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t that the purpose of that? A. Right.
Q. How does that square with Paragraph 6 on the next

page ? Why is the further busing out to relieve overcrowd
ing at Stedman going to be voluntary rather than manda

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

399a

tory! A. I imagine that it was stated that way as a mat
ter of Board policy and in their wisdom they felt this is
what should be done, and my job is to implement it.

Q. Doesn’t the Board have a policy, 12220, I believe it is
or, pardon me, 1226A—a policy that’s been in existence

since 1966, I believe,— A. In terms of the transportation
to relieve overcrowding?

Q. Yes. E629J A. I believe so.
Q. And that policy calls for mandatory busing, does it

not, Dr. Gilberts, not voluntary? A. I do not believe it is
stated in quite those terms, but it allows for the identifica
tion of youngsters to relieve overcrowding for transporta
tion.

Q. Now, under the complexes proposed in the Gilberts
Plan, Defendants’ Exhibit D, at what point in a child’s
school life does he begin to participate in the complex pro
gram? Isn’t it at grade four? A. Not necessarily. This
has not been identified as yet and will be part of the final
process.

£6303 Q. You’re telling me it’s going to be earlier? A.
It might be.

Q. You don’t know yet? A. No, the planning has not
been done so I don’t know.

Q. Well, weren’t these two complexes the subject of Reso
lution 1531, Dr. Gilbert? A. Yes.

Q. And that was passed in April of this year? A. Yes.
Q. And your planning hasn’t progressed very far since

then? A. No. Educational planning is ra ther complex and
involves a lot of people and a lot of time.

Q. Now this pairing concept that you had reference to
that is contained in 1533, what sort of opportunities for
integration, Dr. Gilbert, are implicit or inherent in that
pairing plan? A. Here again there are many kinds of

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

400a

programs, I believe, that can be developed within these
schools. We are here involved on the—with the type in
volved ; the teachers and principals and parents of various
school areas to identify programs that are educationally
sound and are acceptable within these communities so we
can get maximum participation in them. Again, these are
in the process of [631] being considered by schools; some
of them have already done some planning. I couldn’t enu
merate what all their ideas have been up to this particular
point but I am sure there will be many kinds of approaches
taken.

Q. So, again, the plans under the pairing are today not
very well defined? A. Well, I couldn’t say for sure. They
may be very well defined in some schools but I couldn’t tell
you what they are in each of the schools.

Q. Well, now, does pairing include the concept of, say,
fourth graders from School A going to fourth grade in
School B ? A. It could conceivably.

Q. Does it? A. It could, I say.
Q. Are any plans such as that on the drawing board? A.

As indicated, I don’t know what the specific plans are in
each of these schools; therefore I couldn’t answer that.

Q. Now that would require some transportation? A.
Yes.

Q. And yet participation in the pairing is made optional;
is that right? A. Yes, sir. This is the same way in which
it is handled in the cultural program, yet, we have about a
99.9 [632] percent participation in it.

Q. Pardon? A. In the cultural arts program where it
is left to be optional with parents, here, we have an ex
tremely high percentage of participation in those offered
the opportunity. My figure of 99.9 percent is a personal

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

401a

estimate. I don’t have the exact figures on that but I know
it should be very high.

Q. It is very clear, though, that, for example, if there is
to be a mixing of a particular class, say the fourth grade,
it shall be optional? That’s the same way 1533 reads, isn’t
it? A. That’s right.

Q. Well, now, when you testified earlier in this case, Dr.
Gilbert, you told me what the concept was behind Resolu
tions 1520, 1524 and 1531. As I understood it it was to
achieve some stability in the schools of northeast Denver
begnning in the elementary schools and culminating in
East High School which is now a transitional school. A.
Yes, this was our major objective.

Q. And very clearly I think you recognized, did you not,
that it wouldn’t do much good to change the racial compo
sition at East High if you didn’t also stabilize the composi
tion at Smiley? A. Well, these were all interrelated and
any effect £633-3 in one would have a continuing effect in
the higher grades.

Q. And likewise it wouldn’t do much good to change the
racial composition at Smiley unless you stabilized the racial
composition of the elementary schools that were feeding
into Smiley, is that correct? A. Yes; as I say, they are all
interrelated.

Q. Well, Dr. Gilberts, do you honestly believe that 1533
is going to be—going to accomplish that objective? A. I
think I also indicated in the testimony that it’s a little early
to tell whether or not this kind of an approach will really
attract the kind of participaiton that we feel will be neces
sary to do this. I believe that in the overall context of the
approach that we indicated in this general plan, that the
involvement of people who are going to be a part of these
plans is extremely important and—that is, as a part of

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

402a

changing attitudes of the community, a certain amount here
of involvement and salesmanship in terms of the schools’
part is going to be necessary.

I believe the participation of people who do this willingly
will be a lot more productive in terms of definition of inte
gration than those who are put into situations who feel
personally they are not acceptable to them.

[634] Q. Dr. Gilberts, you are telling me that mandatory
integration is bad? A. No, I ’m not saying that. I am say
ing that the other approach, I think, has some real merits
and something that needs to be tested, and we are in that
process.

Q. That’s the only thing you are testing currently, isn’t
it? As between mandatory and voluntary? A. Well, actu
ally a good number of ideas in this plan are not being
tested currently because we have not proceeded with plan
ning far enough to do that; have not gotten full approval
from the Board for the entire plan.

Q. That you’re not telling me, are you, Dr. Gilberts, that
mandatory integration achieved by boundary changes,
achieved by cross-busing—you’re not telling me that that
doesn’t achieve the purpose that you set out to achieve in
the three rescinded resolutions, are you? A. I did indi
cate in my testimony that we have some indication that
those kinds of changes would stabilize the community. But,
whether they will or not, is something yet to be determined.

The Court: Well, this is a secondary approach to
mandatory busing, anyhow, isn’t it?

The Witness: I don’t understand, Your Honor.
The Court: I suppose that these resolutions, the

ones in suit here, were the primary policy provisions
[6353 with respect to attempted integration of these

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Gross

403a

northeast Denver area schools?
The Witness: In that particular area, yes, sir.
The Court: Now, when those are wiped out, why,

you have a second approach. But, it also involves
mandatory busing.

The Witness: Some of it does, yes.
The Court: And it couldn’t succeed, I don’t sup

pose, without it?
The Witness: Well, sir, I think that still remains

to be seen. I have the feeling that if we can develop
the kind of program that I think we can, develop
the kind of community system of communication
that will be necessary, I believe that we can promote
a good deal of integration.

The Court: There will be no interracial relation
ships, will there?

The Witness: Yes, there will be.
The Court: Where will they come from?
The Witness: Because I think in the programs

we are talking about, the example given by the attor
ney here is one that could occur, where schools,
grades, may exchange within these schools for differ
ing periods of time. There may be other kinds of
educational experiences, [6363 field trips, et cetera,
that may provide that kind of basis as well. It will
take a shorter-term kind of experience.

The Court: But this is all on a voluntary basis.
The Witness: Yes, so far as—
The Court: This would be another variation of

this regional approach of yours; on a voluntary
basis, communication.

The Witness: I suppose in some sense—although,
this is a quite different kind of concept in terms of

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

404a

the operation of the complexes in this pairing of
area 5 in the southeast and southwest schools.

The Court: We will take a short recess.
(Whereupon, the hearing recessed at 10:52 a.m.)
[637] (The court reconvened at 11:10 o’clock

a.m.)
Mr. Greiner: If it please the Court.

By Mr. Greiner:

Q. Dr. Gilberts, as I understand Resolution 1533, does it
provide for the desegregation of any school? A. If the
voluntary enrollment plans work as we hope, it could pro
vide for that. There is more specific provision for the
special demonstration program at the Hallett School,
which we hope to have a major effect upon the members
of minority youngsters in that particular school.

Q. But. the YOE is voluntary, is it not? A. Yes.
Q. And the Hallett program is to be voluntary? A. Yes,

it is.
Q. So, there is no mandatory desegregation under 1533?

A. Except—
Q. You understand what I mean by desegregation? A.

Now, will you define it for me?
Q. Under 1533, is there any mandatory program whereby

any of these schools in northeast Denver which are now
predominantly minority are going to change to predomi
nantly Anglo schools? A. No, there is no such mandatory
requirement.

Q. Well, aside from the busing out aspect for the [6383
purpose of relieving overcrowding, under 1520, 1524 and
1531, approximately how many students were to be man-
datorily bused? You might refer to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits
10 and 11.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

405a

The Court: He said 2,000 more than are presently
being bused at one time.

Mr. Greiner: Yes, I would like to also leave the
busing out for overcrowding from that figure, Your
Honor, is my purpose, if it’s possible.

A. I don’t believe that is possible, but the number, as I
recall, was additionally approximately 2,000 pupils being
bused.

The Court: About 12,000 altogether.
The Witness: Being bused in the total school

system, approximately.

Q. That’s 12,000 out of what 95,000? A. Approximately.
Q. Now, as I understand it, under Resolutions 1520, 1524

and 1531, the new—

The Court: Do you have 1533 before you there,
Dr. Gilberts?

The Witness: Yes. Would you like it?
The Court: If you please.
The Witness: It is in the back of that.
Mr. Greiner: I think we have it as a separate

exhibit.
[639] The Court: I am sure you have. I think it

is one of the earlier numbered exhibits, and I un
doubtedly have it noted.

Mr. Greiner: Yes, it is Exhibit 6A. Did the Court
have a question?

The Court: No, not right now. Thank you.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, as I understand it, under 1520, 1524
and 1531, the object or the subject of this manadtory bus

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

406a

ing program would have been both Anglos and Negroes,
is that not correct? A. That would have been both Anglos
and Negroes transported, yes.

Q. This is what is known colloquially as a cross-busing
program? A. I am sorry, I do not believe I have seen a
good definition of cross-busing. I wouldn’t classify it as
that.

Q. Pardon? A. I wouldn’t classify it necessarily as
cross-busing.

Q. Let’s not get hung up on a term. I take it there were
white students sent into black schools. A. Yes, schools
that were formerly black, predominantly Anglo when the
transition was made.

Q. That’s how they got predominantly Anglo, because
£6403 you were busing Black into them? A. Right.

Q. At the same time busing blacks out of them? A.
True, but not to the same schools.

Q. In other words, it wasn’t a totally mutual exchange
from school to school. A. Right.

Q. Now, on your 1531, as I understand it, Dr. Gilberts,
aside again from busing to relieve overcrowding, there is
no mandatory busing, is there? A. No.

Q. There are no Anglos being bused into white schools.
Anglos being bused into black schools? A. On a manda
tory basis?

Q. Right. A. No.
Q. So, if there is to be any reduction, for example, if

Barrett is to go from a predominantly black school to a
predominantly Anglo school as was contemplated under
1531, that’s all going to be done voluntarily? A. Yes.

Q. And is it also true, Dr. Gilberts, calling your atten
tion now to the busing to relieve overcrowding, the busing
to relieve overcrowding under 1533, is that essentially the

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

407a

same as it was under 1531? [641] A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. And that’s what I would call one-way busing. Just

black out; is that correct? A. We have that kind of bus
ing, of course, in other parts of the city, where we have
to transport youngsters for other requirements, too.

Q. That doesn’t have anything to do with 1533! A. Yes,
it does, because that’s a general provision that we will still
utilize that policy, not just in that area but other areas
of the city, too, I assume.

Q. You mentioned the cultural arts program, Dr. Gil
berts. A. Yes.

Q. Now, as I understand it, would you tell the Court
please how many days a week a student participates in
the cultural arts program? A. I am sorry, I can’t recall
just exactly what the schedule is on that.

Q. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Defen
dants’ Exhibit P. That is the description, is it not, of the
cultural arts program? A. Yes.

Q. Does it say for how many days a week a student is
to participate? A. Yes.

[642] Q. How many days a week is it? A. Two one-
half days a week for one term.

Q. One term? A. One semester.
Q. And is transportation provided by the District?

A. Yes.
Q. Where do they hold these cultural arts programs?

A. We are presently holding them at two locations. The
Gilpin Elementary School is one.

Q. That’s up here in the core area, is it? A. It is on
the west side slightly there.

Q. Right here? A. Yes.
Q. So it is north central in the core area. All right.

One at Gilpin. Where is the other one? A. I am sorry,

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Cross

408a

it has slipped my mind. I can’t recall. I don’t see it on
these.

Q. This program lasts for a semester, is that correct!
A. Yes.

Q. And it involves only students in the sixth grade,
that’s also correct, is it not? A. Yes, so far.

Q. And it is on a voluntary basis? A. Yes.
[643] Q. And you have got a 99 percent participation

in that program, is that right? A. Off the top of my
head, estimate.

Q. Well, approximately? A. Approximately.
Q. And you think that is similar to what I was talking

about in mixing grades under pairing? A. No, I said that
it was a program that can contribute to the definition of
the integration that Dr. Dodson used and I used.

Mr. Greiner: I have no further questions.

[643-A 3 Redirect Examination by Mr. Jackson:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, there was a question as to the racial

composition at Smiley which was raised. I’d like to direct
your attention once again to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 10, the
bottom of Page 2—

The Court: I read that. I think the numbers are
less than indicated. Is that what you’re going to
bring out?

Mr. Jackson: No, Your Honor. As I understood
it there was some question as to whether it was 90
percent Negro or—

The Court: Seventy-five was the testimony. But
it’s seventy-one, I think, or sixty-eight.

Mr. Jackson: Sixty-seven; 27 percent Anglo and—

Robert Gilberts-—Recalled—-for Defendants—Redirect

409a

Well, so long as the Court understands, there is
no need to—

The Court: I think I got that from the document
here.

Mr. Jackson: Yes, I was referring specifically,
Your Honor to Dr. Gilberts’ testimony here.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Jackson: I have nothing further.
The Court: I get the feeling from what you have

said that you’re not convinced that integration is
essential to quality education or alleviating any kind
of a problem?

[6443 The Witness: No, I have not said that,
Your Honor.

The Court: You think there are substitute mea
sures that are just as good.

The Witness: I think there are many ways of
going about what I have defined and what Dr. Dod
son defined as integration. I think, certainly, this
matter of physical presence, as he indicated, and
as I have talked about, too, can be an extremely
important part of that, but I don’t believe there is
any particular form in which that kind of presence
has to exist.

The Court: Now you’re talking about comnranity
integration?

The Witness: No, I’m talking about school inte
gration.

The Court: Well, I thought that you endorsed a
program which would not call for any pupil inte
gration except as it can be accomplished on some
voluntary basis.

The Witness: No, sir. My program that I en

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect

410a

dorsed involved, of course, the subject at hand here
today, together with a number of other kinds of
systems that I wanted to test to see whether or
not we could accomplish those ends.

The Court: I had thought you approved, if nec
essary, a voluntary busing program even in con
nection with this regional matter as a part of it?

The Witness: Yes, sir, we did—

C6453 Q. So you don’t think then pupil integration is
really an important and essential aspect?

The Witness: I’m not sure that it is absolutely an
essential. At least, as one looks at it from the point
of view of racial balance. I indicated in my earlier
testimony that there is no evidence that integration
per se has an effect, let’s say, upon the achievements
of youngsters. I believe that integration is important
in the process of changing the attitudes and values
of these kinds of things which are essential today in
our society, but I do not believe that that particular
change or that objection has to be accomplished,
let’s say, through racial balance, which has been
substituted here extensively. I think there are other
ways of doing it. I think other ways of modifying
attitudes—there has always been this very heated
debate across the entire country. In addition to that,
I think some rather substantive changes are neces
sary in the change of process of education. Dr. Dod
son referred to this as well. I don’t agree with the
factors he wrote out as cliches are unimportant in
the process of education. They are important. I do
tend to agree that we have used them as excuses

Robert- Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect

411a

more than we should. And that we get into the whole
area of modifying the processes of education there
is some extremely important substantive changes
that are necessary that relate both to the children
and the community.

[646] And unfortunately we in education have a
great deal to learn along these lines and I don’t be
lieve we can put all our eggs in one basket for solu
tions. We have got to try as many different ap
proaches to this problem as we can and this is why
we have such a range in this particular proposal
of approaches to this.

The Court: Well, you do not predict that there
will be anything in the nature of racial violence as
a result of voluntary busing?

The Witness: No, sir, not in the definition that
was given in the earlier parts of the trial, the ap
proximation of percentages throughout all the
schools—

The Court: I get the impression also that the
community won’t accept this voluntary busing un
less it is in an atmosphere of a balanced school.

The Witness: I think, sir, that that is definitely a
factor at the present time. I think there are a great
number of attitudes that need to be changed and I
think that the schools in their particular domain have
a great deal of responsibility in formulating ap
proaches that will begin helping modify those.

The Court: So this is an obstacle right at the
outset, I suppose.

The Witness: Yes, sir, I think it is.
The Court: The white community won’t send a

E647] minority of white students into a Negro
school, of which the population is—

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect

412 a

The Witness: I think that’s true. However, I
wonder if, for example in this area of pairing schools
in the north central with southwestern and south
eastern schools, if we can get the involvement of
parents and youngsters in the process of considering
mutual problems; whether or not some of those atti
tudes can’t be changed. I believe that they can be
and I believe that we can develop some kinds of
techniques that will reassure individuals both
through the development of programs that make
sense to parents as well as getting them more ac
quainted with some of the problems. And this is the
question which can only be determined by a trial.

The Court: What is your program for accom
plishing this?

The Witness: Well, as I indicated, I think there
are many kinds of—the basic problem is one of com
munication, understanding of the difficulties. This
is the basic problem, I think, between communities.
We believe that there are ways that we can iden
tify, or means that we can identify where we can
get members of each of these communities together,
to look at these problems, to discuss them, to learn
to understand one another’s viewpoints and, through
this process, to begin to identify elements of pro
grams which £6481 could involve the interchange of
pupils on many different bases. This really is the
foundation it seems to me of that kind of approach.
And it’s an opportunity to begin approaching people
on the basis of understanding problems through
contacts.

Now, maybe this is an overambitious objective.
I think not. If it can be done this way I think the

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect

413a

results in terms of the definition of integration that
I have used and that I)r. Dodson used is probably
going to be more successful than any other kinds.

The Court: I t’s too late to accomplish any sub
stantial integration by changing school boundaries,
I take it? Have you approached it in that manner?

The Witness: Yes, sir. It is very difficult be
cause of the concentration of these youngsters both
Hispano and black in those areas of the city and
the overlapping of these areas. There are not
enough adjacent areas into which these youngsters
can be changed in order to accomplish what we
would like to do. It has to go beyond that and has
to involve a broader population base than those that
are contiguous enough to do what you’re discussing.

The Court: Now this is going to intensify, as
time goes on, if the trend is not reversed?

The Witness: Yes, sir. It is likely to intensify.
And the question is, how does one intervene in that
process. [6493 And so far as I ’m aware, there has
been no system which has been identified at this
point that has intervened effectively. Now, there
are those who feel they have identified things that
could do this but I think they’re all open to question.
We feel that the things that we have identified and
in the process of this plan and I ’m sure there are
other ways, too, will have as much of a chance of
doing that as any approach. But, obviously, there
are people who feel differently about it.

The Court: Do you have anything further?
Mr. Greiner: Yes, just a few more questions,

Your Honor.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Redirect

414a

Recross-Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q. Dr. Gilberts, you mentioned some of these pilot pro

grams that are going on in the minority schools. A. I
don’t recall that I did.

Q. You said that there was special programs being
conducted at certain schools. A. I was talking about cul
tural arts and cultural understanding.

Q. Well, there are compulsory educational programs,
are there not? A. Yes.

Q. Would you identify for us, please, Plaintiffs’ [650]
Exhibit 35? A. This is a report to the Board of Educa
tion, Extension of Pilot Programs in Elementary and Sec
ondary Schools.

Q. By whom was this prepared, Dr. Gilberts? A. It
was prepared in 1963 and 1964, I assume, by the staff of
the school system.

Q. What does it purport to discuss, do you know? A.
Would you like me to go through it item by item and talk
about them?

Q. No, I just want to identify it for the record. A. Well,
it appears here that there are four major categories in
curriculum and instruction, vocational-technical education;
cultural and human relations education; in-service pro
grams for personnel; and extension of pilot programs in
schools.

Then they go on and list documents and talk about some
of those programs in the elementary and secondary
schools. I notice an item in here as being one of those
items you’re talking about.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, Exhibit 35 has been a report on prog
ress and results in one of these pilot compensatory pro
grams, is that correct? A. I ’d have to read it to be sure.
I ’m not personally familiar with this document.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Rec.ross

415a

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross

£6513 Q. Take your time.

Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, I think that at
this point I will interpose an objection. This is a
matter that we did not discuss on direct examination.
The exhibit itself talks in terms of a period of time
prior to Dr. Gilberts’ arrival in the city. He has in
dicated to counsel he is not familiar with the docu
ment and has not had an opportunity to read it, and
I would object to any further questioning along this
line at this time.

The Court: Do you think he should have an oppor
tunity to read it first? We will give him that oppor
tunity.

The Witness: Sir, there is a good deal of technical
material in here in terms of the evaluation and so
on which I don’t believe I can read very quickly.

The Court: Okay. Well, then, we will sustain the
objection for the time being. Maybe at a later time
you would want to call him back. I don’t think that
he should be called upon to spend a lot of time—

Mr. Greiner: I think, Tour Honor, we can ap
proach it in a different Avay.

Q. Dr. Gilberts, you described to the Court some of the
programs I believe that, are contemplated or in the planning
stage, the objective of which, as I understand it, was to
oAmrcome the Ioav levels of achievement that exist in some
of these predominantly minority schools, is that correct?
[652] A. Yes, in several different Avays. I have talked
about this general complex approach with some changes
that are necessary there. I haAm not talked about specific
plans.

416a

Q. Well, I take it that there are so-called compensatory
educational aspects that—are there not, of the Gilberts
Plan. Exhibit D ? A. There certainly will be as it develops.
There are not as yet.

Q. Does 1533 provide for any particular compensatory
educational programs, Dr. Gilberts? A. Well, in the con
text of the complex, I assume that there is an assumption
that these kinds of plans will be developed by the Board,
I’m sure, just as it has been by you.

Q. Now, as I understand 1533, these complexes—there
is going to be no desegregation in the schools, is that right?
A. I don’t believe that you can make that assumption. The
complexes have been designed in such a way as to get the
best kind of composition within these complexes that we
possibly could. And I assume that, within the development
of these programs there will be elements that will provide
for integration.

[653] Q. Weil, is that going to require mandatory trans
portation, Dr. Gilberts? A. Until those programs are de
veloped and designed, I don’t believe I can answer that
question.

Q. We just don’t have the details yet, do we? A. That’s
right.

Q. Now, Dr. Gilberts, with regard to these compensatory
educational programs, you keep referring to Dr. Dodson’s
definition of integration. Didn’t he say that the first step
is first you mix them up and then you start the integration
process? A. That was his statement, yes, I believe.

Q. First, you have got to have the mixing of the bodies?
A. That was his opinion, yes.

Q. Now, there is evidence, is there not, Dr. Gilberts, as
far as the educational benefits that can be derived through

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross

417a

integration? A. Such as what benefits are you referring
to?

Q. Well, I have reference to what I believe has been
marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 27, a report by the United
States Commission on Civil Rights, published in 1967,
“Racial Isolation in the Public Schools.” A. Yes.

Q. Does this report treat the subject of [654] compensa
tory education programs versus integration!

Mr. Jackson: If the Court please, I am going to
object to questions regarding this particular exhibit.
My records do not show this exhibit as in evidence,
and if it were tendered I would object to it.

The Court: He is not seeking to introduce it. He
is cross-examining with respect to it, going to the
credibility on the question of necessity for physical
integration. I think it is proper. It may be that Dr.
Gilberts will say that he is not familiar with the
passage involved or that he hasn’t read the report.
If he does, that’s the end of it.

A. I have read the report and I am generally familiar with
what’s in it, but I would have to look it over to talk about
any specific points.

Q. Well, do you recall four programs that are described
in the report, one at Syracuse, New York, one at Berkeley,
California, one at Seattle, Washington, and one at Phila
delphia, Pennsylvania? A. I am familiar with the Syra
cuse, the Berkeley—I am not absolutely certain about the
Philadelphia or the Seattle one.

Q. Now, those programs generally did what, Dr. Gil
berts? They had a segregated school to begin with, isn’t
that right? [655] A. Well, let’s take them one by one.

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross

418 a

Let’s talk about Syracuse first. Syracuse began develop
ing plans for attacking some of the problems of the core
city back about six or seven years ago. Dr. Barry, with
whom I am personally familiar, in Cincinnati, developed
a plan of satellite complexes of elementary schools in order
to begin replacing some of the older schools in the city.
These complexes were on the periphery of the school sys
tem. This was a proposal.

1 believe that the first one of those complexes is just now
in the process of construction.

Q. I do not believe you are talking about what I have
reference to, Dr. Gilberts. A. Well, refresh my memory.

Q. I am talking about the Madison area project. A.
That was the transportation of black students from core
area schools out to two or three—-

Q. Anglo? A. —Anglo schools on the periphery of the
city.

Q. What did they do? And then the segregated school
from which those students came remained, did it not? They
didn’t close that? A. They didn’t close that school, no.
There were small numbers of youngsters involved, as I
recall.

Q. They tested those youngsters left behind and [6563
they tested the youngsters bused out into white schools,
didn’t they, Dr. Gilbert? A. Yes, they did.

Q. What did they find? Oh, pardon me, and the children
that were left remaining in the black school, they were
made the object of intensive compensatory educational
programs, were they not? A. I am sorry, I just don’t
recall the actual details of that particular case, but if you
say so I will accept that. I just don’t remember.

* * # # #

Robert Gilberts—Recalled—for Defendants—Recross

419a

[658] Richard Koeppe, called as a witness by the defen
dants, being first duly sworn, on his oath testified as fol
lows :

The Court: Give your name and address for the
record.

The Witness: My name is Richard Koeppe. I live
at 8679 East Kenyon Avenue, Denver, Colorado.

The Court: How do you spell your last name!
The Witness: K-o-e-p-p-e.
The Court: You live where!
The Witness: 8679 East Kenyon Avenue.
The Court: All right.

Direct Examination by Mr. Craig:
Q. Please state your occupation, Dr. Koeppe. A. Cur

rently the Assistant Superintendent in Charge of the Divi
sion of Education for the Denver Public Schools.

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have identified as
exhibits Dr. Koeppe’s background information and
vital statistics, which counsel for the plaintiff has
seen.

Mr. Greiner: It has been submitted, Your Honor,
and we have no objection to it.

The Court: All right, have it marked and it will
be received.

[659] Mr. Craig: Defendants’ Exhibit IT.
The Court: All right.

(Defendants’ Exhibit IT was received in evi
dence.)

Q. Dr. Koeppe, have you ever been a teacher in any

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

420a

public school system? A. Yes, I taught in the Milwaukee
Public Schools from 1956 to 1958.

Q. At what level? A. Junior high school, grades 7, 8
and 9.

Q. At any other level? A. I served as a counsellor on
a part-time basis in senior high school, grades 10' through
12, for approximately 12 years.

Q. Would you briefly describe your responsibilities as
Assistant Superintendent for the Division of Education.
A. I am basically responsible for maintaining and en
hancing the instructional program of the Denver Public
Schools and in that capacity have' within the division six
departments, the Department of Elementary Education, the
Department of Secondary Education, the Department of
Adult and Vocational Education, and Department of In
structional Services, Department of Badio and Television,
and Department of Pupil Services.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, were you in the courtroom, at the time
[6603 Dr. Gilberts testified this morning? A. Yes, I was.

Q. Did you hear him allude to certain existing educa
tional programs within the Denver Public Schools which
provided and enhanced opportunity for interracial com
munication and understanding? A. Yes, he alluded to a
number of them.

Q. Would you please describe the programs. A. Well,
one that he alluded to was the early childhood education
program primarily as it relates to a dimension in Planning
for Quality Education and also as it relates to Complex
Area Five. In one way, this is a new program starting
this fall. In another way, it is not new. The preschool
program has primarily been under the Head Start, which
is OEO money under the Denver Opportunity.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

421a

There also were follow-through programs, some of which
are a full-day program through OESA, Title I. This fall
we are going to completely fund by DPS three childhood
education centers. Basically at this time we will work on
either half-day or full-day involvement with four-year-olds.
There shall be an attempt to involve the parents of these
youngsters. We are deliberately selecting children where
parents both don’t work or at least one parent is available
to become involved in the program. We also under this
arrangement will have the teachers in the centers under
[661] objective administrative supervision of the honorary
schools in the area, which means they will attend faculty
meeting's with the other teachers, which is not true under
Head Start.

The Court: Will you keep your voice up?

A. (Continued) We will have the teachers under the Early
Childhood Education Centers under the administration of
the schools in the area, which means they will in turn
attend faculty meetings and be considered part of that
faculty. It will give our teachers or kindergarten teachers
an opportunity to observe the early childhood education
centers in operation.

Q. Do these programs offer any opportunity for inter
racial communication? A. Well, at this time we are start
ing on a small scale because we are really going to work
out our curriculum and procedures especially with the
parents and so forth. We are going to be working pri
marily, and I would say exclusively, with minority young
sters, but our intention is, based on our experience with
the programs, to expand them possibly to the point where
they would be of such a nature as to attract youngsters

Richard Koeppe-—for Defendants—Direct

422a

from the Anglo and possibly Hispano areas of town, but
not for the 1969-70 school year.

Q. Do you know if the Board of Education has placed
[662] any special emphasis on these programs? A. Well,
it was the—as I mentioned, it was in the report, “Planning
Quality Education,” and I believe it is also in one of the
recent resolutions passed by the Board.

The Court: The Head Start programs are tilled
to capacity with minority youngsters, aren’t they?

The Witness: Yes, they are.
The Court: So, there are no openings for even

other minorities?
The Witness: This is right. This is really an

expansion of that.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I hand you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6, which
is admitted in evidence, and direct your attention to Res
olution 1533 contained therein, and ask you whether you
can identify in that resolution any special emphasis on
these programs. A. Yes, Item 3 of the resolution states
that the Superintendent is directed to take steps to estab
lish preliminary educational programs in the schools in
the north central portion of the district in September 1969,
as proposed in the said report, “Planning Quality Educa
tion.”

[653] Q. Dr. Koeppe, we won’t go over the same ground
that Dr. Gilberts has covered, except where we might add
something.

Mr. Craig: Dr. Gilberts has identified Defendants’
Exhibit F, a brochure on the cultural arts program,
and we would offer that in evidence at this time.

Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: F is received.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

423a

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit P was re
ceived in evidence.)

Q. Can you add anything to Dr. Gilberts’ description of
that program? A. I think a point of correction—the office
for the cultural arts program is located at Gilpin School.
The actual arts programs are located at Fairview School.
We have four teachers at Fairview School and four teach
ers at Ebert.

Due to the additional program planning that is going on
for Fairview School, we in all likelihood will have to move
that center to another school for this fall. The staff is
currently looking at that. So we will have the office—the
office will stay at Gilpin. One of the centers will stay at
Ebert and one at Fairview will have to be moved to another
elementary school.

I might mention in terms of expansion, we do have hopes
for expansion of this program even without additional fa
cilities. For example, since its inception the staff [6641
taught youngsters for four days a week. And the fifth day
was used to work with the consultants and the artists that
were brought in to do planning and so forth and the staff
now feels they have been at this sufficiently long that they
can actually run the program five days rather than four,
and whether we can begin this September or not, we don’t
know, but somewhere in the near future we will be running
it five days a week rather than four.

Also, we do have in the 1970' budget four additional
teachers for the cultural arts program. This is based
strictly on the assumption that we’re going to find addi
tional facilities somewhere in the district, but I ’m hopeful
that when a bond proposal is put together for submission
to the Board, one of the components included therein will

Richard Eoeppe—for Defendants—-Direct

424a

be a true, full-blown cultural arts program which will be
a separate facility specifically for this program and that
at that time we can involve, of course, many more young
sters than we do at the present time.

Q. What youngsters are eligible to participate A. I
think the superintendent mentioned this program is in
the—is in operation at Grade 6.

There is another correction I would like to make. I be
lieve the 98 percent that he referred to was—the program
is optional. I t’s offered to parents in selected schools and
approximatly 98 percent of those who have the opportunity
[665] sign up for it. I think the percentage of youngsters
actually involved in the program is considerably less. I
think, because of our limited facilities and so on we fully
only involve something like 60 or 70 percent of the current
sixth-graders. But it’s basically at the sixth-grade level.
The groups that are brought together—he was correct—we
brought together two half days a week, I think it’s for a
quarter, however, and not a semester. I think they rotate
four different groups through the centers. And each group
is composed of one-third Negro, one-third Hispano, and
one-third Anglo youngsters. The media of art, drama and
music is used in the presentations and also some of the
artists in the community are brought in as instructors.

Q. I believe Dr. Gilberts mentioned a program of teach
ing about minorities. Can you expand on that a little bit?
A. Well, Denver, like most urban centers a number of
years ago received requests from minority populations that
they be included more accurately in the teaching of the
history of this country. And Denver, like most urban areas,
adopted two basic strategies in trying to reply to this re
quest : one was to develop specialized elective courses that
dealt with the history of the minorities; for example, the
history of the Afro-American or the Negro, for example,

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

425a

in this country. This program, to my knowledge, was de
veloped [6661 during last summer and, I think., started for
the first time the second semester of this year, in the sum
mer high schools and exactly how many it wall he next fall
and where, I don’t know.

The other basic strategy that we followed like other ur
ban centers was to give increased prominence or give some
prominence is probably more accurate, but hopefully sig
nificant appropriate prominence to the contributions in
minorities within the required courses as—such as Ameri
can History, Grade 8, and U.S. History at Grade 9. Of
course, the development of materials has been a slow proc
ess and we’re moving ahead on this, and along with this we
have carried out in-service work with teachers either our
own or in concert with local universities and colleges.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, are you acquainted with the Hallett Ele
mentary School voluntary exchange program? A. Yes,
somewhat.

Q. What is the purpose of that program? A. Well, the
purpose of the program, I think, is somewhat indicated in
the title that is used in the resolution to make Hallett a
demonstration integrated school and the purpose is, of
course, to integrate Hallett, and in the process integrate a
number of other elementary schools in the district.

Q. Are you acquainted with the administrative goals
[667] set up for the beginning of school year in September,
1969? A. Yes, in a general sort of way. My recollection
of this is that when the goal was first proposed to the Board
of Education for their consideration the number 500 was
used and I think it was used in terms of an ultimate goal
that would have to be arrived at to make Hallett an inte
grated school. The number, goalwise, was never included
in either Resolution 1531 or 1533, and the use of the term

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

426a

“administrative goal” is a correct one. The major respon
sibility for carrying out the integration of Hallett Elemen
tary School resides with the office of School Community
Relations, and right at the very outset it was Mr. Cruter’s
feeling that in terms of this fall, 300 might be a more
appropriate number. And now that we have gotten into it
a bit we feel that perhaps 250 or maybe 200 is more real
istic for this fall, but we’re working on it throughout next
year and, based upon our experience this year, we hope to
have the 500 in by the fall of 1970. That’s my understand
ing of the goals.

Q. Are you advised as to the progress in obtaining volun
teers for that program? A. Yes. I consulted with Mr.
Cruter—members of his staff and my staff—that we know
where we stand numberwise because there are implications
for possible staff shifts.

Q. I hand you what’s been marked as Defendants’ Ex
hibit G for identification. [668] A. This is an interde
partmental memorandum dated July 18th from Mrs. Arch-
uletta, who is the supervisor in the office of School Com
munity Relations, to me, which gives me a status report of
the number of volunteers into Hallett and out of Hallett
as of July 18th.

Q. Would you read the total from that exhibit of the
volunteers?

Mr. Greiner: Pardon me, Your Honor. I don’t
believe the exhibit has been offered.

Mr. Craig: We will offer it now.
Mr. Greiner: May I see it?
Mr. Craig: I think I provided you with a copy.
Mr. Greiner: I have no objection.
The Court: Exhibit G is received.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

427a

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit G- was re
ceived in evidence.)

The Witness: Your question again, Mr. Craig?

Q. Would you read the total to Hallett? A. 163.
Q. And the total from Hallett? A. 104.
Q. Would you consider that an encouraging report in

view of your goals? A. I would to the extent that in
terms of the recruiting in the Hallett area, this was just
really begun, to my knowledge, £6693 on Monday, I think,
two weeks ago. And we—I think the intention of the office
of School Community Relations is to run about a five or
six-week block-to-block, door-to-door campaign, and Mrs.
Lewis, who has been very instrumental in getting a num
ber of volunteers out of the Smith Elementary School, has
been employed, again, as of two weeks ago, to head up this
project, and it is her estimate that we can reach the 200
to 250 mark by August sometime.

Q. Now, Dr. Koeppe, when will the persons who have
applied for this program be notified whether or not their
requests will be accepted? A. As I recall, the persons
who were on voluntary open enrollment last fall, those
who have requested a continuation, are to be notified on
or about August 1st and those who are new requests will
be notified on or about August 11.

Q. Are these notifications prepared by persons under
your supervision? A. Yes, they are prepared by the office
of Attendance of Pupil Records, which is part of the Pupil
Services Department.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I hand you what’s been marked as Defen
dants’ Exhibit H and ask you if you can identify it? A.
Yes. This is a request for a continuation of Sara Wenger
at Hallett, Grade 3. She was at Hallett, Grade 2, last year.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

428a

And the second attachment is an approval to £670] con
tinue on voluntary open enrollment to improve integration,
a standard form, again dated August 1st, and this is ready
for mailing.

Q. It has not yet been mailed? A. No, it has not.

Mr. Craig: We offer Defendants’ Exhibit H.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: II is received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit H was re
ceived in evidence.)

By Mr. Craig:

Q. Dr. Koeppe, are you also acquainted with the so-called
voluntary open enrollment program other than the Hallett
program? A. Yes. It’s the application of that to the
Hallett situation, actually.

Q. How does that plan operate? A. Well, it basically
allows individuals who are interested in transferring from
one school to another to do so provided certain conditions
are met; one, that there is room in the school to which the
youngster desires to go, and, secondly, his presence will
both improve the racial balance of the sending and receiv
ing schools, and if these conditions are met, the request is
granted and transportation is provided.

Q. When did this program first go into effect? [6713
A. The Board adopted this at its November meeting this
year and the first time it really went operational was the
second semester of 1968-1969.

Q. Do you know how many pupils took advantage of this
program in the second semester of 1969? A. As I recall,
approximately 850 students were transferred at the semes
ter under this policy.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

429a

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I .hand you Defendants’ Exhibit I and
ask you if you can identify that? A. Yes. This is an
interdepartmental communication from myself to Mr. Mc
Williams, who is director of the office of Attendance and
Pupil Records, also dated July 18th, and it gives me a
status report on voluntary open enrollment—really, two
aspects of it: one, the number of continuing requests and
the number of new requests, and the total of July 18th,
and also a report on the number of spaces that appear
available for this fall for this program.

Mr. Craig: We would offer Defendants’ Exhibit I.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: It’s received.

(Whereupon, Defendants’ Exhibit I was re
ceived in evidence.)

The Court: Are you going to have him testify
from it?

Mr. Craig: Yes, Your Honor.
E672J The Court: What’s he going to say about

it?
Mr. Craig: He’s going to testify as to what it

says in terms of numbers of spaces open for open
enrollment.

The Court: Okay. Proceed.

Q. Calling your attention to the spaces provided for
open enrollment in the senior high schools, how many
available spaces are there in the senior high schools? A.
There are 505 available.

Q. How many are available in the junior high schools?
A. 725.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

430a

Q. And, according to this exhibit, how many are avail
able in elementary schools? A. Actually there are two
parts to that report: one is dated in Mr. McWilliams’
handwriting, May, 1969, which shows 1,081, and in the
cover to the attachments he indicated that the available—
the total spaces available at the elementary level are ap
proximately 1,300.

Q. And does that exhibit give the total number of vol
untary open enrollment applications received as of the
date of the exhibit? A. Yes, it does. I t indicates that,
as of this date there are 836 new applications.

Q. Does it also include those continuing voluntary open
enrollment? A. Yes, 541.

[673] Q. Has the administration actively solicited vol
unteers for this program? A. No. The only exception is
the Hallett program and we have not, pending the decision
in this hearing.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I hand you—

The Court: May I see that, please?

Q. —Defendants’ Exhibit J and ask you if you can
identify that? A. Yes. This is a copy of a form letter
which will go out to students who would have been affected
by 1520, encouraging them to consider taking advantage of
the voluntary open enrollment plan.

Q. Doesn’t this letter also apply to those who were in
volved in Resolutions 1524 and 1531? A. Yes, there are
actually quite a few variations of this letter because it
had to be modified depending upon what school area he
was going to.

[674] Q. Now, were these letters prepared by persons
under your supervision? A. Yes, signed by David R.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

431a

McWilliams. Again, it was under Ms direction and super
vision.

Mr. Craig: We offer Defendant’s ExMbit I.
(Whereupon, Defendants’ ExMbit I was re

ceived in evidence.)

Q. Now, Dr. Koeppe, are these letters ready to be mailed
whenever you are permitted to do so? A. Yes, to my
knowledge there are approximately 4,000 of these ready
to be mailed.

Q. Now directing your attention to Defendants’ Exhibit
I again, I will hand you a copy. Can you tell us how many
of those spaces in the senior high schools are open for or
would improve integration if a Negro were to transfer.
A. Well, the senior high schools listed, you would have
to subtract the spaces at East and at Manual High School,
that’s 50 and 75, is 125'—approximately 475 or 480 spaces
would be available for Negro transfers.

Q. And the same question as to junior high schools.
A. At the junior high school level I believe all 725 would
be available spaces to Negro pupils.

Q. How many spaces would be available at the elemen
tary school level? [675J A. Of the 1300, approximately
900 would be available.

Q. :So, have you kept a total on the total number of
spaces at all levels? A. 900 and 725, 16, 25 and—about
2,000 spaces.

Q. Then, would you have to subtract the number of
spaces for which you already have voluntary open enroll
ment applications? A. Yes, you would only have to sub
tract the new voluntary open enrollment inasmuch as the
continuing in most cases are already counted as staying at

Richard Koeppe~for Defendants—Direct

432a

that school, so you would have to subtract 836 from 2,000,
and that would give you the spaces still available as of
today, or as of Friday.

Q. So, assuming all these spaces were filled by voluntary
transfers from Negro and other minority pupils, would
this free up a similar number of spaces for transfers by
Anglos A. Well, that—not completely, because as I
think has been mentioned on previous occasions, the schools
from which the Negro youngsters would be coming are
ones in which we are intending to either maintain a lower
enrollment or actually reduce it further, so if we were to
get 2,000 Negro youngsters out of these schools it wouldn’t
in turn open 2,000. It would be 1,000 or 1200, I don’t know
what [676] the number would be but it wouldn’t be a
one-for-one exchange.

Q. But, assuming all these spaces were filled by trans
ferring Anglo pupils, would that free up a similar number
for additional minority pupils? A. Right, you would get
a snowballing effect, because you would again have spaces
elsewhere. This is one reason for the late date of notifying
parents of the acceptance of the request because if we
made the decision in June we might have to say no. On
the other hand, if we have a child coming out of that
school we could say yes, so we have to wait until all the
data is in and take a look at it. But, yes, we free the space
and the numbers would continue to snowball.

Q. Carrying this on to a theoretical conclusion, would
this process repeat itself until there would no longer be
any pupils in the Denver School System eligible for trans
fer? A. In theory, yes.

Q. And what would you call this plane? A. Oh, racial
balance, I suppose, in the schools. Integration. Racial
balance.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

433a

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I call your attention to Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit 6, the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Edu
cation of June 9, 1969, and ask you to read the part
[677] starting with “B” on page 10. A. On voluntary
open enrollment, it says, “It was moved by Mr. Southworth
that in addition to the existing voluntary open enrollment
policies with transportation provided that—” Is that the
place ?

Q. Yes. A. “which includes all schools in the district,
superintendent and staff be directed to develop and ini
tiate concentrated and effective plans and programs de
signed to achieve the voluntary exchange of pupils now
residing in the Smiley Junior High School and East High
School attendance areas with pupils now residing in the
attendance areas of South, Thomas Jefferson, and George
Washington High Schools, provided that such exchanges
in school assignment result in improved understanding and
integration both in the sending school and in the receiving
school, that such plans and programs be made effective
as soon as feasible and by the opening of school in Sep
tember of 19691, if possible, and if not by the commence
ment of the second semester of 1969-70 school year, and all
such exchange programs shall be with transportation pro
vided by the District.”

The motion was—then it has a roll call.
Q. Passed? A. Was seconded by Mr. Perrill and then

there was a roll call.
[678] Q. Do you know the purpose of this motion? A.
The purpose, of course, I think is also stated in the motion
itself, and I think it is an attempt to do voluntarily what
1520 and 24 had done, to stabilize the schools at East and
at Smiley and to bring about integration and understand
ing.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

434a

Q. Now, Dr. Koeppe, have you received any information
as to the implementation of this motion? A. Yes, one
communication from the superintendent.

Q. I hand you what has been marked as Defendants’
Exhibit K and ask you if you can identify it. A. All
right, this is the memorandum from the superintendent to
a number of persons in the central office and it is dated
June 12, and the subject is staff meetings on Tuesday,
June 10, regarding modification of plans as a result of
Board of Education meeting on June 9, and it deals with a
number of things.

Mr. Craig: We offer Defendants’ Exhibit K.
Mr. Greiner: No objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Exhibit K is received.

(Whereupon, Exhibit K was received in evi
dence.)

Q. Dr. Koeppe, would you read paragraph 4 on page 2
of that exhibit? A. “Regarding the resolution which calls
upon us to £6793 devise special intensive programs for the
voluntary transfer of pupils in the East and Smiley areas
together with South, George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson junior and senior high school areas, we will
spend the summer in laying out a plan which will involve
such organizations as the student council and P-T.A. that
have volunteered to help. Our objective will be to have
this plan completely laid out so that in the fall of this
year we can involve the principals, teachers and other
people in this program during the first semester with our
target being the implementation of it the second semester.
This in no way implies that we will not encourage or con
sider voluntary enrollment by pupils in these schools un

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

der the existing open enrollment with transportation pro
vided policy. It is felt to be quite important that this pro
gram be well designed and well planned so that we are
successful in its implementation. It was thought that too
great a risk would be run in trying to implement this pro
gram in the first semester, that failure in our efforts here
might have serious effects on our future ability to pro
mote these programs. It was indicated we ought to have
this program sufficiently completed by November 1st so
that we know how many people will be participating.”

Q. Dr. Koeppe, are you now working on the imple
mentation of the planning directed in that communication?
A. We haven’t specifically started on this, but we [6803
intend to early next month. Mr. Liddell Thomas, who is
currently principal at South High School, as of August
1st will become the Assistant Executive Director of Sec
ondary Education, and he has already been notified that
one of his first priorities upon assuming this position will
be to follow up on this directive from the superintendent.

We have also alerted other staff members such as Mr.
Boom, who work with our student councils and others,
that we will be doing this during the month of August, so
that we are ready to put it in operation during September
and October to do our intensive recruiting.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, do you have any opinion as to the pos
sibility of success of such a plan? A. Well it is really
very difficult to say. Out of the 850 that volunteered for
the second semester this past year, I think something like
250 or 300 were at the secondary level. I don’t think we
got really very much requests at the junior and senior
high school level for this fall simply because 1520 has sort
of precluded that. These schools were not eligible then
for voluntary open enrollment. We have some indication

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

436a

that among the student bodies some of the most concerned
and interested in bringing about integration are the senior
high school students and they all seem to have a bit more
influence over their parents than certainly elementary chil
dren. I think with a [6813 properly executed program
with involvement of the students themselves it could be
successful, but I just really don’t know. We have to wait
and see.

Q. Dr. Koeppe, Dr. Gilberts has already mentioned the
Balarat proposal, the Balarat Outdoor Education Center,
and I hand you what has been marked as Plaintiffs’ Ex
hibit L and ask you if you can identify it. A. Yes, this is
a as stated, “a Proposal to the Board of Education, the
Balarat Site, Development of an Outdoor Education Cen
ter for the Denver Public Schools,” and prepared in this
form for September 1968.

Mr. Craig: We will offer Exhibit L.
Mr. Greiner: May I ask just one or two questions?
The Court: That’s Exhibit M?
Mr. Greiner: This is L, Your Honor.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Greiner:
Q* Kr. Koeppe, the Balarat Site, when is that to be put

in effect? A. Of course, in stages. We actually have a
group of 30 youngsters on site there this summer, living
in tents, preparing trails, preparing campsites and so forth.
We have budgeted for 125 day trips to this site and back
during 1969-70 and we are in the process now of working
with the [682] Division of Planning and Engineering to
decide exactly where permanent facilities will be con
structed as Balarat, but I assume it will be several years

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants— Voir dire

437a

before it becomes fully operational, but we are really just
beginning the planning stage.

Mr. Greiner: Well, Your Honor, I object on the
basis of relevancy. I don’t see how the presence of
what is being described in Defendants’ Exhibit L
is going to have any effect on the fact of the rescis
sion of these resolutions and the immediate impact
in September of ’69, so we would object.

The Court: May I see it, please?
Mr. Craig: Your Honor, the purpose of offering

this exhibit is the same as the other programs that
we have mentioned, that one of the purposes of this
program is to offer opportunities for interracial
communication, and I just wanted to bring that
point out.

The Court: The exhibit will be received.
(Defendants’ Exhibit L was received in evi

dence.)
The Court: Do you wish to see it? Do you need

it?
Mr. Craig: No, Your Honor. I believe Dr.

Koeppe has a copy.

[683J Direct Examination by Mr. Craig (Continued):
Q. Dr. Koeppe, directing your attention to page 4, would

you just list by heading the various purposes of this out
door educational center? A, Educational, scientific, cul
tural and socio-economic, recreational.

Q. Then, would you come back to page 5 and read para
graph 1 under “Cultural and Socioeconomic.” A. “To pro
vide a site in which pupils from throughout the metropoli

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Direct

438a

tan area can congregate away from the atmosphere in which
prejudice breeds, one in which children of all races and
economic backgrounds can meet in an atmosphere conducive
to the development of understanding and respect for each
other.”

Q. Has this program been given any top priority in terms
of implementation? A. Yes, it is definitely a very high
priority item, but as I said, our basic characterization of
what we are going to be doing at Balarat during 1969-70 is
planning, with some programs going operational. I men
tioned the group up there this summer, plus the 125 trips
being planned during the year, and that’s what we will be
doing during ’69-’70.

Mr. Craig: I have no further questions of [684]
Dr. Koeppe at this time.

* # * * #

[685] * * *
Cross-Examination by Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. Koeppe, I believe you testified to the early child
hood education centers which are maintained an operated
by the Denver Public Schools. A. That will be.

Q. That will be? A. Right.
Q. Have any of these programs gone into effect as of this

time? A. Not those that are fully funded by DPS, no.
Q. How many children do you expect will be involved

when they do go into effect? A. I would guess in the
neighborhood of 75 to a hundred.

Q. When do you first expect those programs to go into
effect? A. September of this year.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

439a

Q. And as of this date you have no results from any such
program undertaken in the past? A. Not that I ’m aware
of.

Q. Turning your attention to the cultural arts [686]
program which you described, do you recall from what rec
ommendation that proposal arose? A. I believe a program
similar to what finally became the cultural arts was sug
gested in an advisory committee report to the Board.

Q. That would be the report of the advisory council on
the equality of equal educational opportunities in Denver
Public Schools? A. I believe so.

Q. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21? A. (Nods affirmatively.)
Q. Directing your attention to page 53, to the last para

graph, does it state there what the objectives of the cul
tural arts program are? A. Yes, it does.

Q. And the concept of that committee.
Would you read the first sentence. A. I t says, “The

objective would be to develop in each child the fullest po
tential for creativity and appreciation while striving to
stimulate general enthusiasm for education in those who
are not now being fully motivated or receptive to the
present standard curriculum being offered by the Denver
Public Schools. Moreover, it was hoped there would be
enhancement of broader understanding, a greater degree
of cultural integration, and participation in meaningful
activities involving intergroup [6873 relationships among
pupils. . .”

Do you want me to go on?
Q. No, you can stop there.

The Court: What’s he referring to? Exhibit 21?
Mr. Barnes: Yes, this was Exhibit 21.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

440a

Q. The cultural arts program which you describe is at
least in part in response to the recommendation that is
contained in this Exhibit 21? A. Apparently.

Q. What are the offerings of the cultural arts program?
A. As I understand it, they present instructions through
four basic media: the art, drama, music and dance. These
are either presented at the centers at Fairview and Ebert
or youngsters are taken to various places in the com
munity to take part in these programs.

Q. I show you Defendants’ Exhibit F and ask you to
look at the paragraph there which is entitled, “What do we
do?”

Do you see that paragraph? A. Yes, I do.
Q. Does that list among other things that the contents

of the cultural arts program will be to watch a play? [688]
A. Yes.

Q. Dance with Russian scarves? A. Right.
Q. Joust with poles? A. (Nods affirmatively)
Q. Now, is that program—do you think that’s going to

be effective in establishing motivation with regard to the
standard curriculum pursuant to the advisory council rec
ommendation? A. It might actually be too early to de
termine that. I don’t think the cultural arts program—It
went into effect in 1967 and one of our problems with the
program due to limited facilities has been relating the
experience in the cultural arts center to the regular cur
riculum. One of the real problems has been that the regu
lar teachers have not been really aware of what the cultural
arts program has done and they really haven’t been able to
participate in it.

Our intention is, once we get a cultural arts center, the
regular classroom teacher will actually attend the center
with the youngsters and observe what they are doing so

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

Mia

that there can he a greater relationship between the two.
This is one problem we have right now.

[689] Q. Is there any serious thought that the courses
and the offerings that are described there will result in
higher achievement test scores in the predominantly black
schools? A. I think the word that was used in the ad
visory council spoke of motivation and I think went be
yond motivation to assume that this in turn might then
bring about better achievement, yes.

Q. Turning your attention to the Hallett Elementary
School project which you described, as I understand it
their project was to he entirely voluntary, is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. And as originally initiated it was to include a total
of a thousand students, 500 in and 500 out? A. Eight.

Q. You testified that estimate is now down to a hoped-
for 100 or 200. A. Well, you would have to double that,
too.

Q. Eight, 400. A. Eight, possibly 500.
Q. Is there any relationship between the drop in your

expectation of the participation in this program and the
effect of the rescission of the integration resolutions?
[690] A. First of all, let me state that I never made the
expectation of 500. That number was put into the pro
posal when it went to the Board of Education. To my
knowledge that was put in there by the division of plan
ning and engineering as an estimate of what it would take
to racially balance the school. Our division was not con
sulted as to that number nor was the office of school and
community relations, and I think for that reason no num
ber was put in either resolution. And I think the first ex
pectation that either that office or our division had of what

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

442a

we could accomplish by this fall, we would not have said
500 ourselves.

Q. But that was a recommendation of the superinten
dent at that time? A. Yes, it was, and the second part of
your question? I am sorry, I have forgotten.

Q. The second part was whether you saw any relation
ship between the drop in your estimate of the participation
in that program and the effect of the rescission of the
resolutions. A. I don’t think so. I think Mr. Cruter and
members of our staff would have felt if we could have
accomplished 250 to 300 given the time we have and the
time of the year, the fact that the school was not going
to be in session during July and August, I still think we
would have set [691] that goal.

Q. As I understand it, all white parents who participate,
who volunteer, are notified their children will be sent to
Hallett. A. No, no one has been notified, no, because in
order to make this plan operational it is contingent on get
ting a like number out of Hallett to vacate the seats.

Q. The school to which the children will be sent is
identified? A. Yes.

Q. Is the same identification given to the black parent
who is going to send his child out for the other part of the
Hallett program? A. Not to the same extent. We are,
as I recall, trying to recruit through approximately 30
elementary schools in southwest, south central and south
east Denver, and in turn we are trying to vacate significant
numbers of spaces in approximately 8 of these schools, so
we are trying to pick what Mr. Cruter has called focal
schools so that we can tell the parents at Hallett that it is
very likely that they could have the option of going into
one of these eight schools rather than have them con
sider 30.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

443a

Q. But, at the present time they are being told it may be
one of somewhere between eight and thirty schools? A. I
think our strategy is to talk at this time [6923 about the
eight and not thirty, and we are quite hopeful to concen
trate on the eight because we know this is what is of con
cern to the Negro parent sending out his child.

Q. It affects the way it works? A. Yes.
Q. Part of the program depends upon the ability of

parents to conceive the school their child will be going to
attend? A. That is correct.

Q. One of the difficulties at the present time is that the
black parent cannot actually see the school his child might
attend? A. That is correct.

Q. Have you received requests from white parents that
a single white school, predominantly Anglo school, be
identified as a target school to which Hallett children could
go? A. Yes, I can’t recall whether we have g*otten it from
Anglo or Negro, but I know we have gotten them.

Q. One of these suggestions was, was it not, that white
children presently being transported to University Park
be diverted to other southeast Denver schools, that Uni
versity Park be made a target school for Hallett children?
A. You say that was suggested?

[693] Q. Yes. A. Yes, I believe it was.
Q. According to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 89, which I believe

is in evidence, there are 482 spaces in Montclair Annex,
Pitts, Cory, Ellis, Denison, Traylor, Asbury, Slavens, Car-
son and (xoldriek, is that correct? A. I am not familiar
with the document.

(Counsel handed document to witness.)
Of course, now, this is data as of 1968, and the data I

reported on this morning was data as of the present.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

444a

Q. Is there some way in which that data should be
modified? A. Which data?

Q. This data,. A. Well, I think the memorandum that
I got from Mr. McWilliams indeed supersedes this one.
That’s the data which we have to work with now.

Q. How many spaces do your data say you have got in
southeast Denver schools? A. The memorandum that I
have from Mr. McWilliams gave only totals, and it I think
listed the schools hut did not break down spaces by schools.

Q. That would be Defendants’ Exhibit I? A. Yes.
[694] Q. Taking that exhibit, then, Mr. Koeppe, that

exhibit states, does it not, the figures for spaces available
under voluntary open enrollment? A. Right.

Q. In various high school areas? A. Right.
Q. Does that exhibit show that there are 34 elementary

spaces in George Washington High School area? A. No,
it doesn’t. It really has two parts to it. Are you referring
to this 35?

Q. Yes. A. Of course, the totals for this particular
document total to the 1,081, and Mr. McWilliams indicates
that in redoing this we have actually got 1,300 and he
doesn’t—and these are the schools in which the 1,300
exist, but he doesn’t have any numbers attached to them,
so I don’t know for a fact how many exist.

Q. But there is a breakdown by schools, is there not?
A. As of May, and I assume there is now, but it is not
itemized here.

Q, As of May, how many spaces were there available in
George Washington High School area? A. 34.

Q. How many were there in the South High School
[695] area? A. 73.

Q. And how many in the Thomas Jefferson School area?
A. 103.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

445a

Q. By quick arithmetic I get about 210 total for those
spaces. Does that seem about right? A. Right.

Q. So that by the School District’s own figures, there
were at least 210 spaces available in southeast Denver
schools in the elementary schools, were there not? A. In
early May, yes.

Q. Right. Now, according to Defendants’ Exhibit R,
there were or there are 501 students being bused into
University Park, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. And 210 of those students could have been reassigned
to spaces which you show are available under voluntary
open enrollment, could they not? A. That’s possible.

Q. So the parents have suggested to you that these
spaces be made in a single target school made a fairly
reasonable suggestion, did they not? A. Well, a couple
of things have to be taken into account. One is the fact
that spaces, the data that Mr. [6963 McWilliams had, is
broken down by grade and the totals on Exhibit R are
exactly that, so that we might have youngsters who would
come through University Park in theory to the South High
area, yet, for example, if there are many that are third
graders we have only four spaces for third graders and
seven spaces for sixth graders, so it would have to be
broken up in detail.

Another problem is simply the matter of transportation
out, transportation out of the geographic areas. We might
do this in one or two buses going from a given school to a
given area, but if we transport from a given area to a
larger number of schools it compounds the setting up of
the transportation; but the total number of spaces you
alluded to is accurate, but by grade level it may not be.

Q. Do I understand correctly that prior to January
1968 children were transported all the way from south

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

446a

west Denver in the Traylor School all the way across to
University Park? A. Yes, I understand you,

Q. iSo that the distance involved in transportation would
be hard to extend would it not? A. Right.

£6973 Q. And we’re talking about spaces available now
in Southeast Denver to which children from the Southeast
Denver annexed areas might be diverted, are we not? A.
(Nods affirmatively.)

Q. So the transportation is not really the crux of that
redistribution problem, is it? A. I really am not compe
tent to comment on that. That’s in Mr. Olander’s area and
I don’t know what complication this would have caused.

Q. Based on your reflections just now on the requests
of these parents to have these children rediverted and
create this target school at University Park where Hallett
parents could send their children, do you have any more
detailed explanation of why those parents were turned
down? A. No, I don’t.

Q. As I understand it, the Hallett Elementary School
is the only school area—the only area where the intensive
recruiting is being* done for participation in the voluntary
program? A. That’s correct.

Q. I t’s not being done in any other elementary school?
A. Oh, it’s being done in elementary schools of South,
Central and Southeastern. You’re talking about pre
dominantly black elementary?

Q. Yes, but those are children who are being recruited
[698] to go to Hallett? A. Right.

Q. I t’s not being done with regard to any other target
school like Hallett? A. That’s correct.

Q. Is it being done in any junior high school? A. Not
at this time.

Q. Any senior high school? A. Not at this time.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

447a

Q. So that intensive recruiting effort which was de
scribed earlier is an effort confined to a single elementary
school, is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Turning your attention to voluntary open enrollment
programs in general, Dr. Koeppe, I believe that the De
fendants’ Exhibit I shows that there were 1,081 spaces
in the senior high school areas when that exhibit was
prepared? A. That 1,081 is the elementary spaces.

Q. Elementary spaces. You’re right.
And, as I understand it, that cover letter now says that

there are something like 1,300 such spaces? A. That’s
correct.

Q. How many children, Dr. Koeppe, are located in the
mobile units at Smith Stedman and Phillips? Do you re
call how many mobile units there are? [6993 A. No.

Q. Would 22 sound about right? A. Recalling from
yesterday’s testimony, yes, I guess it would.

Q. There would be about 30 children in each mobil unit?
A. Probably not that high. Probably more like 25.

Q. Or something less than 660 children in those mobile
units, then, is that correct? A. That’s close, I ’m sure.

Q. And you have got something like 1,300 voluntary
open enrollment spaces by your own figures in Southeast
Denver? A. Some of these, of course, have been re
quested—we have requests at this time for 397 of those
under the new voluntary open enrollment.

Q. Why don’t you transfer the children who are in the
mobile units and confined in this area of town to those
spaces, Dr. Koeppe? A. To do this would—I really don’t
know. I hadn’t thought of that strategy, first of all, and it
would preclude, of course, any use of voluntary open en
rollment. It would literally take the space. It could knock
out Hallett’s plan.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

448a

Q. Do you regard the mobile units in Northeast Denver
as permanent? A. I personally don’t, no.

Q. You have been made aware, have you not, by parents
[700] in that area of their desire to have the mobile units
closed? A. Some parents, yes.

Q. And it is the policy, is it not, of the Board to trans
port children for the purposes of relieving overcrowding?
That’s stated in 1533, is it not? A. Bight, it is.

Q. Now, turning to the effects of voluntary open en
rollment on the problems in Northeast Denver, one of the
problems to which the integration resolutions addressed
themselves is the problem of stabilization of schools in that
area, isn’t that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. Isn’t it true that the voluntary open enrollment pro
gram has a random effect? A. In that it is voluntary.

Q. Right. A. Yes.
Q. In that each of the parents makes his own decision

about to which school his child will be sent? A. That’s
true to an extent. It depends upon the recruiting proce
dure that is used. For example, if we intensively recruit
door-to-door we might limit that to a given geographical
area of a subdistrict which is in terms to our advantage
in picking up children for busing.

Q. Now, on the policy it is stated children can be [701]
moved to any school where it will improve the racial bal
ance, isn’t that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. So a parent may decide to go to Traylor, as well as
Phillips, might he not? A. That’s right.

Q. So as a result of the random choices of all the parents
involved, there may be no concentrated effect in Northeast
Denver, isn’t that correct? A. That could happen.

Q. What does that do to your expectation to Northeast
Denver to be stabilized? A. I don’t see—

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

449a

Q. Well, under the resolutions there was an attempt to
stabilize the concentration in the Northeast Denver area.
Will this have any predictable effect on that? A. You’re
talking about getting youngsters out of Northeast Denver;
not getting youngsters into Northeast Denver.

Q. That effect is random, too, is it not? A. Eight, but
both have to occur for stabilization to take place.

Q. Eight. Now, as I understand it, the voluntary open
enrollment program has been made know to students
through letters to the parents issued by principals, is that
right? A. That was true at the beginning of the second
[702] of that last year, yes.

Q. And program counselors have told the students about
it? A. It’s possible. I don’t know that they have been.

Q. Have you not made any effort to counsel the students
on the advantages or disadvantages of voluntary open en
rollment? A. We haven’t at the secondary level as I
mentioned in my testimony this morning because of the
existence of 1520. I also testified this morning that we
have every intention of doing that exact thing during
September and October in the secondary schools of North
east Denver and teachers and so forth.

Q. Voluntary open enrollment was in effect, wasn’t it,
in the spring of this year? A. It was.

Q. And it was enacted last November? A. That’s right.
Q. So there was plenty of opportunity to tell the coun

selors that the program was in effect and that children
could take advantage of it. A. Bight, but 1520 was passed
in January, which made that effort unnecessary.

Q. As to those schools? A. That’s right.
[703] Q. Did it make it unnecessary as to the rest of

the school district, Dr. Koeppe? A. No.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

450a

Q. Well, has any thought been given to the problem of
gearing up voluntary open enrollment programs each
year? A. Well, I think there is—in essence, we’re going
to have to take a step at a time in our efforts and our
efforts at this time are geared for doing what we can at
Hallett this fall and doing what we can at the secondary
schools for the second semester of 1969-70 and learning
from these experiences.

Q. Would you not have to do the same each year—the
same thing each year in order to get full participation?
A. I t’s possible but, of course, it’s our hope that as we get
persons involved in these types of programs, if they prove
to be beneficial and successful, that these persons will in
deed join with us and help us sell the program rather than
relying solely on ourselves. And we have gotten consider
able assistance from the few that have volunteered up to
this point. So it’s a matter of selling in many ways.

I can recall a group of students from East, for example,
putting on an assembly program, to another high school
to encourage youngsters to come to East and this sort of
thing. So when you talk about recruiting and selling, this
has to be done in many, many ways and I think perhaps
£704] Mr. Cruter outlined for you on Thursday, I think
it was when he testified, that to use radio, television, and
newspapers, and the youngsters and P-TA, and whatnot,
and we simply haven’t had time and we haven’t had the
right time of year to involve that number of people.

Q. Well, you did have all spring. A. For what?
Q. To recruit people for voluntary open enrollment.

A. Eight.
Q. What’s the purpose, Dr. Koeppe, of voluntary open

enrollment? A. I think it’s indicated in the policy itself;
to bring about integration in Denver Public Schools and
better understanding between the races.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

451a

Q. Is there any educational purpose? A. I think this
would be one of the objects of education, also. I don’t see
that these things are incompatible.

Q. Not necessarily incompatible, but they are consistent
with the purposes of the school district, are they not? A.
Yes, they are.

Q. Does not voluntary open enrollment transfer from
the school district to the parents this educational decision?
A. Perhaps that particular aspect of it does, but there
are other programs that can supplement voluntary open
[7053 enrollment, such as the cultural arts and Balarat
and secondary center.

Q. Is there any educational advantage to integration,
that decision must be made entirely by the parents, is that
correct? A. Under voluntary open enrollment, yes.

Q. So that you have abdicated any authority on that
possibility? A. I have?

Q. The school district. A. It could be interpreted that
way, I guess.

Q. Now, would it be fair to say that one of the problems
in predominantly black schools is the problem of educa
tional motive? A. Yes.

Q. Do those who lack motive to achieve in school have
the motive to participate in voluntary open enrollment?
A. I don’t know. I would tend to think not.

Q. There’s sort of a logical inconsistency there, isn’t
there, Dr. Koeppe? A. I didn’t understand.

Q. Asking those who suffer from the problem to recog
nize it and perceive how to solve it. A. This could be.

Richard Koeppe—for Defendants—Cross

Mr. Barnes: No further questions.

452a

Preliminary Injunction
(Filed July 29, 1969)

This matter having come on for hearing on the motion
of plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction, and the Court
having heard the testimony of the witnesses, having re
viewed and considered the exhibits in evidence herein,
and having heard the statements of counsel:

The Court finds that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter

of this action under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and 1343(4).
This is a civil action authorized by law and arising under
Title 42 TJ.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amend
ment of the Constitution of the United States;

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties herein;

3. Plaintiffs and the classes which they represent have
no adequate remedy at law;

4. Unless this preliminary injunction issues, plaintiffs
and the classes which they represent will suffer irreparable
injury;

5. Plaintiffs and their classes have demonstrated a rea
sonable probability that they will ultimately prevail upon
the merits on a full trial herein.

Based on the Court’s oral findings and conclusions of
July 23, 1969, it is

Ordered, A djudged and Decreed that the motion for a
temporary injunction should be and the same is hereby
granted. The defendants, their agents and servants are

453a

Preliminary Injunction

enjoined and restrained, during the pendency of this ac
tion, from any conduct which would modify the status
quo as it existed prior to June 9, 1969, in respect to ac
quisition of equipment, destruction or relocating of docu
ments, writings and memoranda, and from any action
which would seek to implement Resolution 1533 insofar
as the said Resolution would rescind integration policies
which existed on June 9, 1969, and prior thereto, and
insofar as it would adopt policies which would have the
effect of restoring the segregation which existed prior
to the enactment of Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531.

This temporary injunction shall continue during the
pendency of this suit and until the action is tried on its
merits.

Defendants are granted ten days from and after July 23,
1969, for the purposes of seeking an appeal or review of
this ruling.

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 29th day of July, A.D.
1969.

By the Court:
/s / W illiam E. D oyle

W illiam E. D oyle, Judge
United States District Court

454-a

Memorandum Opinion and Order of District Court
(Dated July 31, 1969)

Reprinted in Appendix to Petition
for Certiorari, pp. la-19a

See 303 F. Supp. 279

455a

Opinion of Court of Appeals
(August 5, 1969)

July Term, A ugust 5t h , 1969

Before the Honorable Alfred P. Murrah, Chief Judge and
Honorable Jean. S. Breitenstein and Honorable John J.
Hickey, Circuit Judges

404-69

School D istrict N umber O n e ,
D enver, Colorado, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado.

This case is before the court on the motion of the ap
pellants for a stay of a preliminary injunction. That in
junction after ordering the Board of Education to refrain
from conduct “in respect to acquisition of equipment,
destruction or relocating of documents, writings and memo
randa” prohibits any action

“which would seek to implement Resolution 1533 insofar
as the said Resolution would rescind integration pol
icies which existed on June 9, 1969, and prior thereto,
and insofar as it would adopt policies which would
have the effect of restoring the segregation which

456a

existed prior to the enactment of Resolutions 1520,
1524 and 1531.”

We doubt that the order is sufficient to satisfy the re
quirements of Rule 65(c), F.R. Civ. P., that every injunc
tive order “shall be specific in terms.” The reference to
“policies” would seem to require definition.

We interpret the intent of the order to be that the Board
of Education must comply with, and operate under, the
policies expressed in Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531. This
interpretation conforms to that of the counsel who have
briefed and argued the matter. If this interpretation is
correct, we are presented with a problem that was neither
presented to nor considered by the district court. If the
interpretation is not correct, the injunctive order lacks the
required specificity.

The problem is that Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531, as
we understand them and as counsel present them, seeks
to achieve racial balance by requiring the transportation
of pupils or students from one school to another. Title IV,
§407(a), 42 U.S.C. §2000c(6)(a), of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, contains the following proviso:

“provided that nothing herein shall empower any offi
cial or court of the United States to issue any order
seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by
requiring the transportation of pupils or students from
one school to another or one school district to another
in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise
enlarge the existing power of the court to insure com
pliance with constitutional standards.”

The quoted language is on its face a limitation on the
power of a federal court to achieve racial balance by trans-

Opinion of Court of Appeals

457a

portation of children from one school to another. Nothing
to which our attention has been called in the record shows
that this statute was either called to the attention of, or
considered by, the trial court.

The question of the applicability and effect of the statute
should be considered, in the first instance, by the trial court.
We express no opinion in regard thereto. We decline to
consider and determine a question of such importance on
this application for a stay and on the basis of the record
presented to us.

The procedural aspects of the case concern us. We credit
all parties with a good faith desire to reach a wise solution
of the problem posed by the desirability of achieving the
requisite racial balance in the schools. A simple grant of
the stay would prolong the litigation because then we
would have to consider the appeal on its merits. The re
mand of the case at this time will enable the trial court to
consider and act on the problem which is presented by the
record before us.

Accordingly, the order granting the preliminary injunc
tion is vacated and held for naught. The ease is remanded
to the district court for further proceedings.

W illiam L. W hittaker, Clerk

By: /s/ A nne M. Cahst
Deputy Clerk

Opinion of Court of Appeals

458a

Supplemental Findings, Conclusions
and Temporary Injunction by District Court

(August 14, 1969)

Reprinted in Appendix to Petition
for Certiorari, pp. 20a-43a

See 303 F. Supp. 289

459a

Opinion of Court of Appeals
(August 27, 1969)

Before Honorable Alfred P. Murrah, Chief Judge and
Honorable Jean S. Breitenstein and Honorable John J.
Hickey, Circuit Judges

School D istrict N umber O n e ,
D enver, Colorado, et al.,

Appellants,
No. 432-69

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Appellees.

This matter is before the court on the motion of the
defendants-appellants for a stay of the preliminary in
junction issued by the district court on August 14, 1969.
The injunction changes the attendance areas of various
Denver schools to alleviate the racial segregation which
the district court found to exist. It will require, indirectly
if not directly, the transportation of students over greatly
varying distances to and from contiguous and non-con-
tiguous attendance districts.

The district court conducted an extensive hearing and
entered carefully prepared findings of fact and conclusions
of law. Although the findings of fact are contested by the
appellants, we accept them for the purpose of our con
sideration of the case at this time. They represent a pains
taking analysis of the evidence presented. They establish
a racial imbalance in certain named schools. From the facts
found, the district court either made a conclusion or drew

460a

an inference, that the jure segregation exists in named
schools. Its grant of the temporary injunction is grounded
on the premise that there is de jure segregation. In the
time permitted, we are unable to make an examination of
the record and the law to determine whether the inference
is reasonable or the conclusion legally justifiable.

The ease presents the questions of (1) whether the
neighborhood school concept shall yield to compulsory in
tegration which will be achieved by the transportation of
students to and from contiguous and non-contiguous at
tendance districts, and (2) whether such transportation
may be ordered by a federal court in the light of the pro
visions of § 407(6) (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
11 TT.S.C. § 2000c-6(a). The same questions are presented
in Nos. 433-69, 434-69, and 435-69. An opinion in those
cases is filed concurrently with this opinion.

The questions are important and difficult of resolution.
This was recognized by the trial court. Its decision may be
correct. We are in doubt. The parties impress upon us
the need for prompt action. The Denver schools are sched
uled to open on September 2. In the time permitted, we
are unable to come to a conclusion whether the plaintiffs-
appellees will prevail on the merits or are likely to prevail
on the merits.

We are oath to disturb a preliminary action taken by an
experienced trial judge. We must decide whether the pub
lic interest is best served by the maintenance of the status
quo or by the acceptance of the injunctive order.

We note that the hearing did not encompass all of the
issues tendered by the complaint; that the defendants-
appellants have not answered but have a motion to dismiss
pending; and that the trial court specifically reserved cer
tain matters “pending consideration of this action at the

Opinion of Court of Appeals

461a

trial on the merits.” We are impressed with the idea that
the important and difficult questions presented should not
be determined on an application for a preliminary injunc
tion or in a manner which affects some but not all of the
Denver schools. We question the piece-meal consideration
of a city-wide problem. See the opinion filed today in
Dowell v. Board of Education.

The United States Supreme Court has forbidden racial
segregation in the schools and has demanded that deseg
regation be accomplished with all convenient speed. This
mandate must be followed. In a metropolitan area like
Denver, the attainment of the objective is closely allied to
sociological and economic problems which do not lend them
selves to judicial solution. Any plan of desegregation or
integregation which is devised either by a court or by an
administrative agency must depend for its success on the
understanding cooperation of the people of the area. Such
understanding and cooperation is perhaps more likely to
result from actions taken after a full trial on the merits
than on action which of necessity is hurried because taken
on an application for a preliminary injunction.

On balance we believe that the public interest is best
served by a maintenance of the conditions existing before
the action was brought until the trial of the case on the
merits and the entry by the district court of such final
judgment as it deems appropriate. In recognition of the
seriousness of the problem and the desirability of prompt
action, we assure the parties that an appeal from a final
judgment herein will be expedited and will be heard by
the full court. See also Dowell v. Board of Education,
supra.

The maintenance of the status quo requires the con
tinuation of that portion of the preliminary injunction

Opinion of Court of Appeals

462a

which restrains the defendants-appellants from actions with
respect to “acquisition of equipment, destruction or reloca
tion of documents, writings and memoranda” related to the
School Board Resolutions mentioned therein. Otherwise,
the preliminary injunction issued by the United States Dis
trict Court in its cause No. C-1499 entitled Wilfred Keyes,
et al., v. School District Number One, Denver, Colorado,
et al., is stayed and shall be of no force and effect until
the further order of this court.

A true copy

Teste

William L. Whittaker
Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit

Opinion of Court of Appeals

By: / s / .......... . ? ?
Deputy Clerk

Dated: August 27, 1969

463a

Order

Supreme Court of the U nited States
No. .......... , October Term, 1969

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,

vs.
Applicants,

School D istrict N umber One,
Denver, Colorado, et al.

U pon Consideration of a motion submitted by the ap
plicants to vacate an order of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued in this case on Au
gust 29, and to reinstate the order of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado issued on Au
gust 14,

It Is H ereby Ordered that the motion is granted, the
order of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the order
of the United States District Court is reinstated.

/s / W illiam J. B rennan
Acting Circuit Justice

Dated this 29th day of August, 1969.

464a

Opinion by Brennan, / . on Application for
Vacation of Stay

Supreme Court oe the U nited States
October Term, 1969

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Applicants„

School D istrict N umber One,
Denver, Colorado, et al.

[August 29, 1969]
M r. Justice Brennan, Acting Circuit Justice.
In this school desegregation case I am asked to vacate

a stay by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of a
preliminary injunction entered by the District Court for
the District of Colorado. The preliminary injunction has
the effect of requiring partial implementation of a school
desegregation plan prepared by School District No. 1,
Denver, Colorado and then rescinded by that Board after
changes in membership followed a school board election.

The Court of Appeals issued the stay pending decision
of an appeal taken by the School Board from the pre
liminary injunction. I have concluded that the stay was
improvidently granted and must be vacated. An order
of a District Court granting or denying a preliminary
injunction should not be disturbed by a reviewing court
unless it appears that the grant of the injunction was an
abuse of discretion. Alabama v. United States, 279 U. S.

465a

229 (1929). Where a preliminary injunction has issued to
vindicate constitutional rights, the presumption in favor
of the District Court’s action applies with particular force.
'The Court of Appeals did not suggest that the District
Court abused its discretion. On the contrary, the Court
of Appeals expressly stated that the District Court’s find
ing of fact “represent a painstaking analysis of the evi
dence presented. They establish a racial imbalance in cer
tain named schools. From the facts found, the District
Court either made a conclusion or drew an inference, that
de jure segregation exists in named schools. Its grant of
the temporary injunction is grounded on the premise that
there is de jure segregation.”

The Court of Appeals nevertheless stated that it “must
decide whether the public interest is best served by the
maintenance of the status quo or by the acceptance of the
injunctive order,” since the time before the Denver schools
open on September 2 was insufficient to permit an examina
tion of the record to determine whether the District Court
correctly held that this was a case of de jure segregation.
It may be that this inquiry was appropriate notwithstand
ing the presumption in favor of continuing the prelimi
nary injunction in force. But the reasons given by the
Court of Appeals for striking the balance in favor of the
stay clearly supplied no support in law for its action. I t
was not correct to justify the stay on the ground that con
stitutional principles demanded only “that desegregation
be accomplished with all convenient speed.” “The time for
mere ‘deliberate speed’ has run out. . . .” Griffin v. County
School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964). “The burden on a
school board today is to come forward with a plan that
promises realistically to work, and promises realistically
to work now.” Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S.

Opinon by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacation of Stay

466a

Opinon by Brennan, J. on Application for Vacation of Stay

430, 439 (1968). The obligations of the District Court was
to assess the effectiveness of the School Board’s plans in
light of that standard. Id., at 439. Since the Court of
Appeals not only was unable to say that the District
Court’s assessment was an abuse of discretion, but agreed
that it “may be correct,” the stay of the preliminary in
junction was improvident.

The Court of Appeals also seems to have based its action
on the premise that public support for the plan might be
developed if any order awaited final hearing; the Court of
Appeals stated that a plan of desegregation “must depend
for its success on the understanding cooperation of the
people of the area.” But the desirability of developing
public support for a plan designed to redress de jure
segregation cannot be justification for delay in the im
plementation of the plan. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1
(1958).

I therefore grant the application, vacate the Order of
the Court of Appeals, and direct the reinstatement of the
Order of the District Court.

467a

(September 15, 1969)
Before Honorable Alfred P. Murrah, Chief Judge, and
Honorable Jean S. Breitenstein and Honorable John J.
Hickey, Circuit Judges

O pin ion o f Court o f A ppeals

School D istrict N umber One,
D enver, Colorado, et al.,

No. 432-69
Appellants,

W ilfred K eyes, et al.,
Appellees.

This matter is before the court on the motion of the
defendants-appellants that the court amend its August 27,
1969, order by specifically holding that the district court
abused its discretion in the grant of its August 14, 1969,
preliminary injunction.

The record before us at the time of our order showed
that Colorado has not, and never has had, any state im
posed school or residential segregation. No discrimination
in school transfers was either shown or claimed. No gerry
mandering was shown or claimed. The district court’s
findings of de jure segregation, or a dual system, were
confined to a small number of schools and were based on
the failure or refusal of the School Board to anticipate
population migration and to adjust school attendance dis
tricts to alleviate the imbalance resulting from such pop-

468a

illation shifts. We believed that in the circumstances
public policy favored a maintenance of the status quo
until the problem could be considered and determined on
a city-wide basis.

The situation has now changed. Our stay was vacated
and the preliminary injunction restored. The schools have
opened in compliance, so far as we know, with the re
quirements of the preliminary injunction. Any change now
ordered would have a disruptive effect on the students,
the teachers, and the general school administration. Again
looking at the problem from the standpoint of public pol
icy, we are convinced that, for the present, we should not
disturb the preliminary injunction.

The resolution of the issues is of great public importance.
All persons in interest are entitled to be heard. We direct
the attention of the district court and of counsel to the
fact that in the litigation concerning the Oklahoma City
schools we permitted the intervention of persons having a
litigible interest. During the argument of the motion under
consideration, we were told that the case in the district
court is going forward expeditiously and that a trial date
in November of this year has been set tentatively. In the
circumstances we believe that further proceedings on this
appeal should await the disposition of the case on its
merits. We hope that the case may be promptly tried on
the merits and decided. We renew the statement that the
court of appeals will expedite any appeal. Nothing con
tained herein, or in the August 27, 1969, order, shall be
taken as an expression of opinion by this court on any
issue that may be presented in the trial and determination
of the merits of the case.

Opinion of Court of Appeals

469a

The motion is denied and further proceedings on the
appeal are held in abeyance until the further order of the
court.

Dated: September 15, 1969

A true copy

Teste

William L. Whittaker
Clerk, II. S. Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit

By: /s/ Joyce R. Stuck
Deputy Clerk

Opinion of Court of Appeals

470a

Answer
(Filed October 6, 1969)

In the U nited States D istrict Court
For the D istrict op Colorado

Civil Action No. C-1499

Now C ome all Defendants herein, except Rachel B. Noel,
John H. Amesse and James D. Voorhees, Jr., by their
attorneys, Henry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton, and Ken
neth Wormwood, and for their answer to the complaint
allege:

First D efense
The complaint fails to state a claim against said Defen

dants upon which relief can be granted.

Second D efense
Defendants expressly deny any allegation of the coim

plaint which charges or implies that they discriminate
against Plaintiffs or any other child within Defendants’
jurisdiction on the basis of race, color or ethnicity; Defen
dants expressly deny any allegation of the complaint which
charges or implies that educational opportunity afforded
to the children within Defendants’ jurisdiction is based
upon race, color or ethnicity; Defendants expressly and
categorically deny that any of their actions referred to in
the complaint have deprived Plaintiffs or any other person
within Defendants’ jurisdiction of equal protection of the
law.

471a

Answer

Third D efense
Defendants deny each and every allegation contained in

the complaint except as follows:

I. Jurisdiction
As to those allegations hereunder which describe what

is sought by Plaintiffs by their complaint, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a be
lief as to the truth thereof; and Defendants expressly
deny that this Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants
and the subject matter of this action.

II. Parties
1. Defendants admit, based upon the records of Defen

dant School District: that the minor Plaintiffs are citizens
of the United States of America and are, except for Plain
tiff Gregory L. Wade, as to whom Defendants have no
current information indicating that said Plaintiff is pres
ently enrolled in school in this school district, citizens of
the State of Colorado and residents within School District
No. 1; that, except for Plaintiffs Gregory L. Wade and
Rhonda 0. Jennings, the places of residence of the minor
Plaintiffs are at the addresses of their respective parents
and aunt stated at the foot of the complaint; and that the
minor Plaintiffs, except Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, are
now (October, 1969) attending schools as follows:

Christi Keyes
Kris M. Colley
Mark A. Williams
Rhonda 0. Jennings
Denise Michelle Starks

Hallett Elementary
Hill Junior High
East High
Kepner Junior High
Palmer Elementarv

472a

Answer

Carlos A. Perez
Sheila R. Perez
Terry J. Perez
Dinah L. Becker
Sarah S. Weiner

Merrill Junior High
Hallett Elementary

West High
Baker Junior High
Greenlee Elementary

Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraphs
2, 3 and 4 of Part B nnder this heading. As to Defendant
School District, its full corporate title is School District
No. 1 in the City and County of Denver and State of
Colorado, it is created pursuant to Articlie XX, §7, of the
Colorado Constitution and operates pursuant thereto and
to the general school laws of the State of Colorado.

2. Defendants allege that they are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
those allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part A under
this heading, except those admitted in the preceding para
graph, and therefore deny the same.

Defendants admit that Defendant Board of Education
passed and enacted Resolutions Nos. 1520, 1524 and 1531
on the dates alleged; that the minor Plaintiffs, on the date
of the commencement of this action, resided within the
attendance areas alleged; that Defendant Board of Edu
cation has, prior to the commencement of this action, initi
ated the purchase of 27 school buses; and Defendants ad
mit the allegations contained in the first two sentences of
Part L and all of Part M under this heading.

III. First Cause of Action

473a

Answer

IV. Second Cause of Action
1. As to the allegations contained in the complaint un

der the Second Cause of Action, to the extent that such
allegations incorporate by reference allegations of the
First Cause of Action, Defendants incorporate herein by
reference their answer to such allegations hereinabove set
forth.

2. As to the other allegations in the complaint under
said Second Cause of Action, Defendants allege that De
fendant School District has established school attendance
area boundaries on the basis of nonracial criteria which
result in the assignment of pupils to schools generally
nearest their places of residence, but expressly deny that
any attendance boundaries have ever been created or al
tered with the intent of segregating pupils because of race
or with that effect.

3. Defendants admit that in some schools in the School
District pupils are grouped, in some courses, according
to ability in those courses and irrespective of race or
ethnicity, but Defendants deny that any such ability group
ing segregates or separates pupils on the basis of race or
ethnicity or denies to any pupil an equal educational op
portunity, and deny that such grouping constitutes a
“track system” as alleged.

W herefore , Defendants pray that the complaint be dis
missed, that the preliminary injunction heretofore entered
herein be dissolved, that judgment be entered herein in
favor of Defendants and against the Plaintiffs, that De~

474a

Answer

fendants recover their costs herein, and for such other
and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

H enry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton
By /s/ V ictor Quinn

1415 Security Life Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: 244-6075

/ s / K e n n e t h M. W ormwood
Kenneth M. Wormwood
810 Symes Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: 244-5475
Attorneys for all Defendants ex
cept John H. Amesse, Rachel B.
Noel and James D. Voorhees, Jr.,
in their individual capacities.

[Certificate of M ailing Omitted]

475a

Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Filed October 17, 1969)

1st th e U nited S tates D istrict C ourt
F or th e D istrict op C olorado

Civil Action No. C-1499

This M atter having1 come on to be heard on Septem
ber 11, 1969, upon the motions of certain of the defendants
herein, and the Court, having considered the briefs filed
herein, and having heard the statements of counsel, hereby
finds and orders as follows:
Nature of the Action

This is a civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
wherein jurisdiction of the subject matter is founded upon
28 U.S.C. <§ 1343(3). Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class
action to redress the alleged deprivation of their rights
under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend
ment, maintaining that defendants have unlawfully segre
gated minority Negro and Hispano children in the public
schools of the Defendant District. The relief sought is
solely equitable in nature, being an injunction against the
continuation of the allegedly segregated schools through
the requirement of a plan for desegregation of said schools.

Moving Defendants
The moving defendants are :
School District No. One, Denver, Colorado;
The Board of Education of School District No. One,
Denver, Colorado;

476a

William C. Berge, Stephen J. Knight, Jr., James C.
Perrill, Frank K. Southworth, John H. Amesse, James
D. Voorhees, Jr., and Rachel B. Noel, in their official
representative capacities as members of The Board of
Education of School District No. One, Denver, Colorado;
William C. Berge, Stephen J. Knight, Jr., James C.
Perrill and Frank K. Southworth, in their individual
capacities; and

Robert D. Gilberts, individually and as Superintendent
of Schools of the District.

Motions Presented

The movants premised their motion upon two major
points: (1) that § 1983 does not create a cause of action
against either (a) the District, because it is a “munic
ipality” and under the holding of Monroe v. Pape, 365
II.S. 167 (1961) not a “person” as that term is used in
§ 1983 j1 (b) the individual defendants in their official rep
resentative capacities, because such a claim would be the
equivalent to a suit against the School District itself,1 2 and
(c) the defendants as individuals, because, as such they
are powerless to grant the relief requested. Secondly, de
fendants asserted that since there was no cause of action
there was no subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

142 U.S.C. § 1983 provides.-
“Every person, who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, sub
jects, or causes to be _ subjected, any citizen of the United
States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or im
munities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.” (Emphasis added).

2 See Markless v. Sweeny, 38 Law Week 2007 (S.D. Tex. 1969)
discussed infra.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

477a

§ 1343(3). However, defendants have abandoned this latter
point, and properly so.1

For the reasons set forth below, this Court concludes
that the contentions are without merit and that the mo
tions should be denied.

School District No. One was created by Article XX, § 7
of the Colorado Constitution, and is governed by the gen
eral school laws of the State as to its operation, the elec
tion of members of its Board of Education, etc. However,
the District has cited no authority for the proposition that
it is a “municipality” ; it is simply a governmental agency
of the State.

In Monroe v. Pape, supra, relied upon by defendants,
the Court had before it a claim for damages under § 1983
against the City of Chicago for the actions of city police
officers which abridged plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The
Court, after carefully reviewing the legislative history of
the Act of 1871 concluded that Congress did not intend
to bring municipal corporations within the ambit of § 1983.

Several factors lead this Court to the conclusion that
the holding of Monroe should not be extended to exclude
the School District or the defendants in their official ca
pacity from § 1983. Since the Monroe decision the Supreme
Court has considered numerous cases under § 1983 which
involved governmental agencies and officers, without ques
tioning whether there was a cause of action: Rinaldi v.
Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966); Baker v. Carr, 369 H.S. 186
(1962); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 H.S. 533 (1964); WMCA v.
Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep.
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969); Lucas v.
44th General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964); Raney v.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

1 Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946).

478a

Board of Education of Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443
(1968).

Secondly the legislative history relied upon by the Court
in Monroe shows that the concern of Congres was about
the imposition of vicarious liability for damages upon a
city, county or parish. There is nothing in that history
which supports the contention that every other type of
state or local governmental agency was also to be ex
cluded. In fact such an exclusion would practically render
§ 1983 meaningless as a means to afford affirmative relief,
particularly equitable relief, for the deprivation of Con
stitutional rights. In Monroe it was recognized that the
creation of such affirmative relief was one of the objectives
of the Act. Id. at 196-98, concurring opinion of Justices
Harlan and Stewart.

Thirdly at least two Courts of Appeals which have con
sidered this question have held that Monroe does not apply
except where damages are being sought against a defen
dant such as a city, county or other municipal corporation.
In Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F. 2d 1084 (7th Cir.
1969) newsmen brought suit under §1983 for injunctive
relief against the City, the superintendent of police and
unidentified police officers to prevent interference with the
plaintiffs’ rights to gather and report news. Belying on
Monroe the trial court dismissed the suit for failure to
state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding
that since the suit only sought equitable relief, Monroe
did not apply. See also Adams v. City of Park Ridge,
293 F. 2d 585 (7th Cir. 1961). The Fifth Circuit reached
the same result in United States v. City of Jackson, Miss.,
318 F. 2d 1 (5th Cir. 1963), as did the District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama in United States v. Clark,
249 F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ala. 1965).

Memorandum Opinion and Order

479a

Harkless v. Sweeny, supra, involved a suit for damages
and reinstatement brought by Negro school teachers under
§ 1983 against the school district, the superintendent of
schools and the members of the school board, both in
dividually and in their official capacities. The trial court
dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim as to the
district and the individual defendants in their official ca
pacities relying primarily upon the Monroe case and several
trial court opinions.1 This Court has considered the Mark-
less case and the cases therein relied upon, and has con
cluded that insofar as it pertained to equitable relief, that
case gave too broad an application to Monroe. We believe
the better authority to be such cases as Adams v. City of
Park Ridge, and United States v. City of Jackson, Miss.,
supra.

Since we have held Monroe inapplicable to an entity such
as the School District, there is similarly no compulsion to
exclude these defendants either in their official or individual
capacities from the meaning of “persons” under §1983.
Accordingly, it is hereby

Ordered, A djudged and D ecreed that the motions to dis
miss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted be and hereby are denied.

Defendants shall have 15 days from September 11, 1969,
to file an answer herein.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

1 Johnson v. Hackett, 284 F. Supp. 933 (B.D. Pa. 1968) ; Baxter
v. Parker, 281 F. Supp. 115 (N.D. Fla. 1968); Glaney v. Parole
Board, 287 F. Supp. 34 (W.D. Mich. 1968).

480a

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Dated this 16 day of October, 1969.

B y the Court

A pproved as to F orm :

N
William E. Doyle

United States District Judge

/* /
Gordon G. Greiner

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

H enry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton
By ............................ ..................

Attorneys for Defendants

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, CO. Appendix Vol. 1

Topic

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in