Jenkins v. Missouri Individual Brief of Appellees Grandview Consolidated School District C-4

    IN THE
DNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No, 85-1765WM 
No. 85-1949WM 
No. 85-I974WM

KALIMA JENKINS, ET AL., 
Appellants,

vs.
STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL., 

Appellees.

Appeal From the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Missouri, Western Division 

Honorable Russell G. Clark

Individual Brief of Appellees Grandview 
Consolidated School District C-4 and Its 

Superintendent ("Grandview")

Df Counsel:
Donald C. Earnshaw, Esq.
23 East 3rd Street
'ee's Summit, Missouri 64063
;816) 524-3428

George E. Feldmiller, Esq. 
Charles W. German, Esq.
Kirk T. May, Esq.
Daniel D. Crabtree, Esq. 
Stinson, Mag & Fizzell 
920 Main Street 
Post Office Box 19251 
Kansas City, Missouri 64141 
(816) 842-8600
Attorneys for Grandview
Appellees



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 85-1765WM 
No. 85-1949WM 
No. 85-197 4WM

KALIMA JENKINS, ET AL., 
Appellants,

vs.

STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL., 
Appellees.

Appeal From the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Missouri, Western Division 

Honorable Russell G. Clark

Individual Brief of Appellees Grandview 
Consolidated School District C-4 and Its 

Superintendent ("Grandview")

Of Counsel:

Donald C. Earnshaw, Esq.
23 East 3rd Street
Lee's Summit, Missouri 64063
(816) 524-3428

George E. Feldmiller, Esq. 
Charles W. German, Esq.
Kirk T. May, Esq.
Daniel D. Crabtree, Esq. 
Stinson, Mag & Fizzell 
920 Main Street 
Post Office Box 19251 
Kansas City, Missouri 64141 
(816) 842-8600
Attorneys for Grandview
Appellees



SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Grandview had no prior dual system or black transfers to 

KCMSD or elsewhere. It is not contiguous to KCMSD, being a 

"second tier" district whose more than 10% black enrollment met 

plaintiffs' predicted black proportion. Grandview is a near 

perfect school district in which local citizens have great pride. 

It is a single high school unitary district in full compliance 
with Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1954) and the 

intradistrict standards of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of 
Education, 402 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1971). It did not commit a single 

act violating Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) or 
Washington v. Davis, 429 U.S. 229 (1976) and no significant 

current interdistrict effect from any violation by any entity 

exists. Grandview personifies the underlying rationale for 

Milliken's support for local control of public schools. Judge 

Clark's June 5, 1984 findings are correct. No one appealed those 

findings which refute plaintiffs' and KCMSD's proffered facts. 

Further factual support for Grandview is set forth in defendant's 

March 21, 1984 proposed findings, particularly pages 281-309.

Under any fair legal standard, Grandview's dismissal must be 

affirmed.
Given the lack of appeal from Judge Clark's findings, no 

unresolved issues sanction Grandview's destruction or 

consolidation. Grandview's dismissal should be affirmed 
summarily. As a practical matter, if oral argument occurs, 
appellants should be given no more than a combined total of 30 to 
40 minutes. Grandview should be given normal argument time.

-l-



TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF CASE AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT........... (i)
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................... (ii)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................... .. (iii)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........... (iv)
ARGUMENT

I. Grandview is a Unitary Locally Autonomous
District ......................................... 1

II. Grandview Had No Pre-1954 Dual System...........  2

III. Plaintiffs' Miscellaneous Arguments Do Not 
Justify Grandview's Destruction; No 
Significant, Current Interdistrict Effect 
Exists ........................................... 3

CONCLUSION.................................................  5



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Bell v. Board of Education of Akron Public Schools,
683 F . 2d 963 (6th Cir. 1982).......................  v,4
Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 462 F.2d 1058
(4th Cir. 1972) aff 'd 412 U.S. 92 (1973)........... iv, 5
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1954)... i

Goldsboro City Board of Education v. Wayne County
Board of Education, 795 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1984)... iv,3

Milliken y. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).......... i,iv,2
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberq Board of Education,
402 U.S. 1 (1974)...................................  i, 2

Washington y. Davis, 429 U.S. 229 (1976)........... i

-iii-



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Grandview was dismissed on April 2, 1984, yet the 

opposition briefs repeatedly cite record matters adduced after that 

date, without any opportunity for refutation by Grandview. The 

proof against Grandview failed, as noted by the District Court's 

Order of June 5, 1984, particularly at pp. 51-54. If ever 

necessary, Grandview will present a vigorous and sustained defense. 

Grandview has ceded no testimony or expert analysis to the State or 

any other party as plaintiffs' brief erroneously represents. If 

Grandview must present a defense, it will seek to add the "safe 
haven" contiguous school districts in Kansas who have been avoided 

by plaintiffs and KCMSD in their massive plan to consolidate 

arbitrarily selected districts only in Missouri. For a statement of 

Grandview's understanding of the actual overall issues, the Court is 

referred to the consolidated brief. Basically, the issue is whether 
this Court wants to retry this rehash of Milliken, disregarding the 

Supreme Court's decision in that case.
Specifically for Grandview the issue is whether an

innocent, racially balanced school district, whose boundaries were

never racially gerrymandered and in which no current significant

effect of an interdistrict violation exists, must be placed at risk
of destruction or consolidation with some, but not all, school

districts from that part of a two-state metropolitan area lying only

in Missouri so as to try to satisfy demands for racial balance when

it already exists in Grandview.

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Goldsboro City Board of Education v. Wayne County Board 
of Education. 795 F.2d 234 (4th Cir. 1984)
Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 462 F.2d 1058 (4th 
Cir. 1972) aff'd 412 U.S. 92 (1973)

-IV-



Bell v. Board of Education of Akron Public Schools, 683 
F .2d 963 (7th Cir. 1982)

-v-



ARGUMENT

I. Grandview is A Unitary Locally Autonomous District
Grandview was formed as a consolidated school district 

in the 1930's, wholly within Jackson County, and never sharing a 

common boundary with KCMSD. It contains the City of Grandview and 

portions of the cities of Kansas City and Lee's Summit (Strode D. 

21, Harrison D. 17-18, PX 37, 150, 3226). No evidence suggested 

Grandview's boundaries were formed, altered or maintained for 

illegal racial reasons (PX 27, 150, 252, 258, 446, Harrison D. 

14-15, Strode D. 8-9, 62-63, 74, Staires D. 7, 12, 16-18 and GVX 
13 to Harrison). The arbitrariness of Grandview's selection as a 

candidate for consolidation is reflected by the nonparty status of 

several neighboring districts in Kansas and Missouri including two 

districts dismissed by plaintiffs. Significantly, nonparty 

Johnson County, Kansas, school districts border Grandview but are 

granted favored "safe haven" status by plaintiffs and KCMSD.
In 1984, Grandview's enrollment was over 10% black (PX 

37, 190 and 3,226) and over 12% minority, which virtually equaled 

plaintiffs' own predicted black proportion for Grandview (PX 
1265P, T. 8066).V  No Grandview erected barriers prevent blacks 

from moving into the district and blacks have moved there freely. 

Several black witnesses acknowledged black movement to Grandview 

(See e.g. T. 702-3).

- /  Black enrollment increased from virtually none a few years ago 
to 487 out of 4,818 in 1984 with 97 "other" minorities out of some 
4,850 total students. Overall enrollment decreased from a 1976 
Peak of some 7,300 (GV X. 17A and PX 2967 and 987). Grandview 
represents to the Court that black enrollment increased to 524 out 
of 4,773 students (10.97%) in 1985 with 104 "other" minorities.



Through its popularly elected local board, Grandview

hires teachers, establishes attendance areas, purchases property 

and levies taxes. Importantly, Grandview performs every function 

noted in Milliken at 742 n.20. Though it is not a rich suburban 

area, not having KCMSD's wealth, a great deal of local interest 

and pride exists and patrons fully support the district (Strode D. 
p. 75). Grandview complies fully with Swann's intradistrict 

unitary standards. Black students attend Grandview's single high 

school and blacks attend all other district schools (T. 15,723-26 

and GVX 18A). Blacks participate fully in all activities (Staires 

D. 68 and GVX 28 to Strode D).
II • Grandview Had No Pre-1954 System

The pre-Brown era is factually and legally irrelevant to 

Grandview. It never operated a dual school system. No black 

person resided in Grandview prior to 1954 (PX. 37A and T. 5959). 
There were no transfers by Grandview of blacks to KCMSD or 
elsewhere. Nor have there been any white transfers from KCMSD. 

Grandview caused no black family or student to leave the district 

and no evidence showed blacks failing to move to Grandview for 

school reasons. Certainly, no such imagined person was 
identified. There was never a rural to rural black migration and 

Grandview was plainly rural pre-1954.
HI. Plaintiffs' Miscellaneous Arguments Do Not Justify 

Grandview's Destruction; No Significant, Current 
Interdistrict Effect E x i s t s ____________________

Grandview participates in the Herndon/Raytown AVTS. 

Practical administrative and logistical factors make this 
reasonable. Herndon AVTS is located close to Grandview, being 
located in the bordering Raytown district. Grandview did not

-2-



consider participating in Fort Osage's AVTS or KCMSD's, and, in 

fact, was never invited by KCMSD to participate.

Plaintiffs produced no witness claiming employment 

discrimination by Grandview. Indeed, far from discriminating 

against or discouraging minority applicants, Grandview, though 

under no legal duty, voluntarily adopted an affirmative action 

plan in 1975 (Exhibits "B," "C" and "D" to PX 2967). Grandview 

recruits at various public institutions (Staires D. 32-38) and has 

offered teaching positions to black candidates who declined offers 

(PX 2967). Grandview's increasing black enrollment proves its 

hiring practices have not constrained black moves. It should be 

noted that plaintiffs referred erroneously to three instead of 

five black teacher hires (Harrison D. 76, PX 988, 2967).
Grandview recognized Kansas City, Missouri's sales tax 

as an opportunity to help KCMSD so support was given. Grandview 

was not motivated by illegal racial concerns (PX 1745-46) . U

Grandview endorsed some "Spainhower" recommendations on 

equalization of school financing. Grandview opposed, however, 

forced realignment of every Missouri school district by a single 

legislative act because of its broad brush approach of "bigger is 

better" without regard either to viability or educational quality. 

It also ignored Missouri's tradition of local control and

1/ Nor was there anything sinister about Grandview's cooperation 
with another district in regard to a tornado destruction of a 
school. No evidence suggests race was involved in or caused the 
tornado. Nor is there evidence that KCMSD volunteered or sought 
cooperation on resolving a temporary problem. Grandview 
cooperated with KCMSD in education of a few severely handicapped 
children, and race was irrelevant there also. There is no 
affirmative duty to alleviate KCMSD's desire to have fewer blacks. 
Goldsboro City Board of Education v. Wayne County Board of 
Education, 745 F.2d 324 (4th Cir. 1984).

-3-



emasculated community pride in its fine district (PX 3240, Strode 

D. 75, Staires D. 46, Harrison D. 115). No evidence showed 

Grandview opposed Spainhower for racial reasons.V

Grandview did not cause or encourage housing 

discrimination. Studies of residential development were for the 
obvious reason of making enrollment projections (PX 3362). 

Grandview encouraged industrial development and opposed mobile 

home parks (which were assessed as personalty). No evidence shows 

these innocuous positions were intended to, or had the effect of, 

discouraging black residency. There was no opposition to 

subsidized housing (Harrison D. 39, 88, 96, Staires D. 7, 40-42, 
48-49).!/ Grandview was motivated by one concern to advance the 

district's tax base to assist school financing (PX 3231, Harrison 

D. 45-46). Bell v. Board of Education of Akron Public Schools,

683 F.2d 963 (6th Cir. 1982) precludes consolidation or 

destruction in these circumstances.

No evidence showed Grandview caused whites to move from 

KCMSD. Nor did constitutional violations by KCMSD or the State 

caused a "whitening" in Grandview. Since 1968, Grandview went 

from .60% black (PX 53G) to and beyond plaintiffs' ideal predicted

1/ Racial concerns could not exist. Spainhower proposed 
Grandview's combination with Lee's Summit R-7, Hickman Mills C-l 
and, non-party, Lone Jack C-6 school districts not KCMSD (PX 504 
at 94 and Staires D. 47 and PX 53G).

- (  Encouraging industrial development, if anything, made it more 
likely that blacks would move to Grandview. With such 
development, rural Grandview became a better balanced community 
offering more job opportunities for all races. The evidence shows 
blacks moving to Grandview in substantial numbers over the past 
ten years. Certainly, no interdistrict segregative effect was 
established. Plaintiffs' restrictive covenant map located few in 
Grandview (P. X. 22). No effect was shown for the obvious reason 
Grandview's development occurred after covenants were mooted in 
1948.

-4-



figure of 10% black with a total minority enrollment of 13.2% in 

1985. Plaintiffs proved no substantial white flight from KCMSD to 

Grandview under their legally impermissible assumption that 

illegal racial reasons were the sole cause of white flight from 

KCMSD. If such flight occurred, it may have affected, at most, 

only 1.3% of Grandview's enrollment. See PX 1775, B, C, D and E; 

PX 53-G. No substantial effect exists. Bradley v. School Board 
of Richmond, 462 F.2d 1058, 1065 (4th Cir. 1972), aff’d , 412 U.S. 

92 (1973) (holding larger percentages legally insignificant). 

Moreover, plaintiffs made no attempt to separate any of the 

pervasive and clearly nonracial and nonschool reasons why persons 

may have moved from KCMSD. Thus, as Judge Clark found, no 
substantial current effect was demonstrated by any interdistrict 

violation much less one by Grandview.
Conclusion

For the above reasons and those stated in the 

consolidated brief, Grandview's dismissal must be affirmed.

Of Counsel: STINSON, MAG & FIZZELL

Donald C. Earnshaw
23 East 3rd Street
Lee's Summit, Missouri 64063
816-524-3428 Charles W. German

Kirk T. May
Daniel D. Crabtree
Stinson, Mag & Fizzell
920 Main Street
P. 0. Box 19251
Kansas City, Missouri 64141
816-842-8600

Attorneys for Grandview Appellees

-5-



-- •_!

'

• . ■ » *. *« ■ -
ill'- I
Zi •-

■ ■

;%■ 3,"< t > _ ;  ,

Mgaflii:;4 %
„ „ , «-~*v " * w  -

■

tfiSSsiil illiliS ilsS. .. r :..... :: *...._■

•» -3-

.. ...' - i#JF

■ . ■ ■• - - ■ ■ • ■ .  - V ■ . ' ■ .

| H 1 H SSf
r ' ~ j ~ ~ U W
. . ■ ■ : iii

ts