Flagler Hospital, Inc. v. Hayling Brief for Appellees
Public Court Documents
February 11, 1965

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Marsh v The County School Board of Roanoke County Appendix to Appellants Brief, 1961. cc306b0e-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f7fbf289-4868-471a-bd71-d44dd357aff5/marsh-v-the-county-school-board-of-roanoke-county-appendix-to-appellants-brief. Accessed July 01, 2025.
Copied!
I n th e S t a t e s (E n u rt u f A p p e a l s F oe t h e F o u rth C ir cu it No. 8535 G w en d o lyn Y vette M arsh , an in fa n t, and R aym ond M . I seley and H elen I seley , h er g ra n d fa th e r and g ra n d m oth er and n ext fr ie n d s ; J udy C arol W est , A lvin W est, J r ., L u la M arie W est and B arbara L y n n W est , in fa n ts , and A l v in W est , th e ir fa th e r and n ext fr ien d , Appellants, T h e C o u n ty S chool B oard of R oanoke C o u n t y , a body corporate; H erm an L. H orn , Division Superintendent, Roanoke County Public Schools, and E . J . O glesby, E dward T. J u stis , and A lfred L. W ingo , individually and constituting the P u p il P lacem en t B oard of th e C o m m o n w e a lth of V irgin ia , Richmond, Virginia, Appellees. APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF R euben E. L aw son 19 Gilmer Avenue Roanoke 17, Virginia J ack G reenberg J am es M. N abrit , III 10 Columbus Circle New York 19, New York Attorneys for Appellants. I N D E X PAGE Relevant Docket Entries ................................. ........... la Complaint ..................................................................... 3a Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants, The County School Board of Roanoke County and Her man L. Horn, Division Superintendent of Schools 15a Answer of the Pupil Placement B oard...................... 21a Excerpts From Transcript of Trial, May 24, 1961 .... 25a Plaintiffs’ Witnesses: Herman L. Horn Direct ...................................................... 28a Cross ........................................................ 58a Recalled— Redirect ...................... 94a Arthur G. Trout Direct ...................................................... 60a B. S. Hilton Direct .................................................... - 64a Ernest J. Oglesby Direct ....................... 81a Cross ........................................................ 89a Redirect.................................................... 91a 11 PAGE Exhibits Introduced at T ria l....................................... 99a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 to Deposition of Dr. Horn .. 99a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 ..................................... 100a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn .. 108a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 ............................................... 111a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5H to Deposition of Dr. Horn 112a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7A ........................................... 113a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7B ........................................... 114a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7C ................................ 115a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 ............................................... 116a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 ............... 117a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 ............................................... 118a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 (Horn) ............................... 120a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 (Horn) ............................... 121a Memorandum Opinion, filed July 10,1961 .................. 122a Judgment, Oct. 4, 1961 ................................................ 129a Notice of Appeal, filed November 1, 1961.................. 131a Relevant Docket Entries 1960 Aug. 31 Sept. 14 Sept. 16 Sept. 20 Sept. 23 1961 May 22 May 24 Filed Complaint, Motion for Interlocutory In junction, and Plaintiff’s Statement of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for an Inter locutory Injunction. JJ. -u.*<V ~7C *Jk* Filed Designation of District Judge for Service in another District within his Circuit, signed by Simon E. Sobeloff, Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit, assigning and designating Oren R. Lewis, United States District Court, Eastern District of Vir ginia, to hold and hear case No. 1095 on such date as he may determine. Filed copy of minutes with exhibits taken in Eastern District at hearing 9-15-60. Filed Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defen dants, The County School Board of Roanoke County and Herman L. Horn, Division Super intendent of Schools, with certificate of service noted thereon. Received Answer of the Pupil Placement Board, and marked same “proffered for filing” . * * # Filed depositions of Herman L. Horn, Arthur G. Trout, and B. S. Hilton, taken on behalf of plaintiffs. Same opened in open court and marked “proffered for filing May 24, 1961, Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., Clerk. Filed Motion of plaintiffs to Amend and Correct Caption of Complaint and Style of Case to read: 2a Relevant Docket Entries “ Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, an infant by Ray mond M. Iseley and Helen Iseley, her grand father and grandmother and next friend.” # * * May 24 Trial by Court—summary order entered thereon. (Plaintiffs’ exhibits filed.) July 10 Filed Memorandum Opinion—copies certified to counsel of record. Oct. 4 Entered and filed order of judgment (civil order book #18, page 45), sustaining defendants’ mo tions to dismiss and dismissing complaint herein at the plaintiffs’ costs—with objection of counsel for plaintiffs noted. Copies certified to counsel of record. Nov. 1 Filed plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from final judg ment entered October 4, 1961. * * * # * # 3a IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F oe th e W estern D istrict of V irgin ia R oanoke D ivision Civil Action No. 1095 Complaint G w endolyn Y vette I seley , an infant b y Raymond M . Iseley and Helen Iseley, her grandfather and grandmother and next friend, J ean M illice n t F erguson and G regory M orris F erguson , infants by Jacqnelin Ferguson, their mother and next friend, J udy C arol W est , A lvin W est , J r ., L u la M arie W est and B arbara L y n n W est, in fan ts b y A lv in W est , th eir fa th er and next fr ien d , — and— R aymond M. I seley , H elen I seley , J acquelin F erguson , A lvin W est, Plaintiffs T h e C o u n ty S chool B oard of R oanoke C o u n ty , a body corporate, Salem, Virginia — and— H erm an L. H orn , Division Superintendent, Roanoke County Public Schools, — and— E. J. O glesby, E dward T . J u stis , and A lfred L . W ingo , in d iv id u a lly and con stitu tin g the P u pil P lacem en t B oard of T h e C o m m o n w ealth of V irgin ia , R ic h m o n d , V irgin ia . 4a 1. (a) Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1331. This action arises under Article 1, Section 8, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and under the Act of Congress, Revised Statutes, Section 1977, derived from the Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, Sec tion 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981), as hereafter more fully appears. The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and cost, exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). (b) Jurisdiction is further invoked under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1343. This action is au thorized by the Act of Congress, Revised Statutes, Sec tion 1979, derived from the Act of April 20, 1871, Chapter 22, Section 1, 17 Stat. 13 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983), to be commenced by any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to redress the deprivation under color of state law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by the Act of Congress, Revised Statutes, Section 1977, derived from the Act of May 31, 1870, Chapter 114, Sec tion 16, 16 Stat. 144 (Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981), providing for the equal rights of citizens and of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States as hereafter more fully appears. 2. Infant plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are residents of and domiciled in the County of Roanoke. They are within the age limits of eligibility to attend the public schools of the said County and possess all qualifica Complaint 5a tions and satisfy all requirements for admission to the public schools of said County. 3. Adult plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and are residents of and domiciled in the County of Roanoke. They are parents or guardians of the infant plaintiffs, and are taxpayers of the United States and of the said Commonwealth and County. All adult plaintiffs having con trol or charge of any unexempted child who has reached his seventh birthday and has not passed his sixteenth birthday are required to send said child to attend school or to receive instruction (Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 12, Article 4, Sections 22-251 to 22-256).’ 4. Plaintiffs bring this action in their own behalf and, there being common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of all other Negro children attending the public schools of the County of Roanoke and their respective parents and guardians, similarly situated and affected with reference to the matters here involved, who are so numerous as to make it impracticable to bring all before the Court, and a common relief being sought, as will here inafter more fully appear, being this action, pursuant to Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as a class action also on behalf of all other Negro children at tending the public schools of the County of Roanoke and their respective parents and guardians similarly situated and affected with reference to the matters here involved. 5. Defendant The County School Board of The County of Roanoke, Virginia, exists pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as an adminis Complaint 6a trative department of the Commonwealth of Virginia, dis charging governmental functions (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Section 133, Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Sections 22-1, 22-2, 22-5 to 22-9.3, Chapter 6, Article 1, Sections 22-45 to 22-50, Chapter 6, Article 2, Sections 22-59 to 22-79, Chapters 7 to 15, Sections 22-101 to 22-330); and is declared by law to be a body corporate (Code of Virginia, 1950, Chapter 6, Article 2, Section 22-63). 6. Defendant Herman L. Horn is Division Superin tendent of Schools for Roanoke County, Virginia. He holds office pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as administrative officer of the public free school system of Virginia (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Section 133; Code of Virginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Sections 22-1, 22-2, 22-5 to 22-9.3, Chapter 4, Sections 22-31 to 22-40, Chapters 6 to 15, Sec. tions 22-45 to 22-330). He is under the authority, super vision and control of, and acts pursuant to, the orders, policies, practices, customs and usages of defendant The County School Board of the County of Roanoke. He is made a defendant herein in his official capacity. 7. The Commonwealth of Virginia has declared public education a state function. The Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Section 129, provides: “ Free schools to be maintained. The General As sembly shall establish and maintain an efficient system of public free schools throughout the State.” Pursuant to this mandate, the General Assembly of Virginia has established a system of public free schools Complaint 7a in the Commonwealth of Virginia according to a plan set out in Title 22, Chapters 1 to 15 inclusive, of the Code of Virginia, 1950. The establishment, the maintenance and administration of the public school system of Virginia is vested in a State Board of Education, a Superintendent of Public Instruction, Division Superintendent of Schools, and County, City and Town School Boards (Constitution of Virginia, Article IX, Sections 130-133; Code of Vir ginia, 1950, Title 22, Chapter 1, Section 22-2). 8. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the principle that State-imposed racial segregation is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Pursuant to said decision, as recognized and applied by this Court, formal applications have heretofore been made to defendants in behalf of infant plaintiffs for admission, enrollment and education in designated public free schools under the juris diction and control of defendants, to which said infant plaintiffs, but for the fact that they are Negroes, in all other respects are qualified for admission and enrollment. However, defendants and each of them, have failed and refused to act, favorably upon these applications and pur posefully, wilfully, and deliberately continue to pursue and enforce the aforesaid policy, practice, custom and usage of racial segregation against infant plaintiffs and all other children similarly situated and affected. 9. Defendants will continue to pursue and enforce against plaintiffs, and all other children similarly situated, the policy, practice, custom and usage specified in Para graph 8, supra, and will continue to deny to infant Negro Plaintiffs admission, enrollment or education in any public Complaint 8a school under defendants’ supervision and control operated for children who are not Negroes, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court from so doing. 10. The public schools of the County of Roanoke, Vir ginia are under the control and supervision of defendants acting as administrative agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Defendant, The County School Board of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, is empowered and required to establish and maintain an efficient system of public free schools in said County (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Sections 22-1, 22-5); to provide suitable and proper school buildings, furniture and equipment, and to maintain, man age and control the same (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-97); to determine the studies to be pursued, the methods of teaching, and the government to be employed in the schools (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Sections 22-97, 22-233 to 22-240.1); to employ teachers (Code, 1950) to provide for the transportation of pupils (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Sections 22-276 to 22-277, 22-282 to 22-294) ; to enforce the school laws (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-97); and to perform numerous other duties, activities and func tions essential to the establishment, maintenance and op eration of the schools of said County (Code of Virginia, as amended, Sections 22-1 to 22-10, 22-30 to 22-44, 22-45 to 22-55, 22-57 to 22-58, 22-89 to 22-100, 22-101 to 22-166, 22-188.3 to 22-210, 22-212 to 22-246, 22-248 to 22-77, 22-279 to 22-330). 11. Defendants E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis and Alfred Wingo, constituting the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia, purportedly are in Complaint 9a vested with all power of enrollment or placement of pupils in, and determination of school attendance districts for, the public schools in Virginia (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-232.1), and to perform the numerous other duties, activities and functions pertaining to the enrollment or placement of pupils in, and the determina tion of school attendance districts for, the public schools of Virginia (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Sections 22-232.3 to 22-232.4). 12. Each school child who has heretofore attended a public school and who has not moved from a county, city or town in which he resided while attending such school is required to attend the same school which he last at tended until graduation therefrom unless enrolled in a different school by the Pupil Placement Board (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-232.6). This pro vision perpetuates the pre-existing requirement, policy, practice, custom and usage of the Commonwealth of Vir ginia of racial segregation in the public schools thereof save as to such children as may be able, for good cause shown, to establish an exception thereto by pursuing the procedure specified in Sections 22-232.8 to 22-232.14. 13. Any child desiring to enter a public school for the first time, and any child who is graduated from one school to another within a school division or who transfers to or within a school division, or any child who desires to enter a public school after the ending of the session, is required to apply to the Pupil Placement Board for en rollment and is required to enroll in such school as the Board deems proper (Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 22-232.8), and if aggrieved thereby is required to Complaint 10a pursue the procedure specified by law (Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, Sections 22-232.8 to 22-232.14). 14. The procedure specified in Sections 22-232.8 to 22-232.14 is expensive prolix and inadequate to secure and protect the rights of plaintiffs, and others similarly situ ated, seeking relief from the imposition of segregation re quirements, policies, practices, customs and usages based on race or color. 15. Defendants endorse, maintain, operate and perpetu ate separate public schools for Negro and white children, respectively and deny infant plaintiffs and all other Negro children because of their race or color, assignment, enroll ment and admission to an education in any public school operated for white children, and compel infant plaintiffs and all other Negro children, because of their race or color, to attend public schools set apart and operated exclusively for Negro children, pursuant to a policy, practice, custom and usage of segregating, on the basis of race or color, all children attending the public schools of said County. 16. Timely application on behalf of each infant plain tiff was made to defendants for admission for the 1960-61 school session to a public school in the County of Roanoke, Virginia heretofore and now maintained for and attended by white persons only, but defendants, acting pursuant to a policy, practice, custom and usage of segregating school children on the basis of race or color, denied the applica tion of each on account of race or color. 16. (a) The defendant, Pupil Placement Board, acting in concert with the defendants has refused to this date, to Complaint 11a take any action on the applications which effectively denies pupils of their Constitutional rights, 17. The aforesaid action of defendants denies infant plaintiffs and each of them, and others similarly situated, their liberty without due process of law and the equal pro tection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1, and the rights secured by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981. 18. Defendants will continue to pursue against plain tiffs, and all other Negro children similarly situated, the policy, practice, custom, and usage hereinbefore specified and will continue to deny them assignment, admission, en rollment or education to and in any public school operated for children residing in said County who are not Negroes unless plaintiffs are afforded the relief sought herein. 19. Plaintiffs and those similarly situated and affected are suffering irreparable injury and are threatened with ir reparable injury in the future by reason of the policy, prac tice, custom and usage and the actions of the defendants herein complained of. W hereof , plaintiffs respectfully pray that, upon the filing of this complaint, as may appear proper and con venient to the Court: (A) This Court enter judgment declaring that: (1) The enforcement, operation or execution of Sec tion 22-232.6, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which by its terms and in its operation perpetuates the pre existing requirement, policy, practice, custom and Complaint 12a usage of the Commonwealth of Virginia of segregating, on the basis of race or color, children attending the public schools of the Commonwealth, deprives infant plaintiffs of their rights to non-segregated education secured by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; (2) The enforcement, operation or execution of Sec tions 22-232.8 to 22-232.14, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which by their terms and in their operation require incoming, graduating and transfering public school children to pursue the procedure thereby specified, deprives infant plaintiffs of their rights to non-segregated education secured by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of S ection 1 of the Four teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; (3) The procedure prescribed by Sections 22-232.8 to 22-232.14, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, is in adequate to secure and protect the rights of infant plaintiffs to non-segregated education and need not be pursued as a condition precedent to judicial relief from the imposition of segregation requirements based on race or color; and (4) The action of defendants E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis, and Alfred L. Wingo, in administering and en forcing the provisions of Sections 22-232.5 to 22-232.14, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, so as to preserve, perpetuate and effectuate the policy, practice, custom and usage of assigning children, including infant plaintiffs, to separate public schools on the basis of their race or color, dejirives infant plaintiffs of their Complaint 13a liberty without due process of law and equal protection of the laws secured by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. (B) This Court enter a temporary and permanent in junction restraining and enjoining the defendant County School Board of the County of Roanoke and defendant Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent of Schools of the County of Roanoke, Virginia and each of them, their successors in office, and their agents and employees and all persons in active concert and participation with them, forthwith, from any and all action that regulates or affects, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enrollment or education of the infant plaintiffs, or any other Negro children similarly situated, to and in any public school operated by the defendants. (C) In the event defendants request any delay in ef fecting full and immediate compliance with Paragraphs (a) and (b), supra, and for bringing about a transi tion to a school system not operated on the basis of race, direct defendants to present to this Court, within ten (10) days a complete and comprehensive plan, adopted by them which is designed to effect compliance with Paragraphs (a) and (b), supra, at the earliest practicable date; and which shall provide for a prompt and reasonable start toward desegregation of the pub lic schools under defendants’ jurisdiction and control and a systematic and effective method for achieving such desegregation with all deliberate speed; and that following the filing of such plan with this Court, a fur ther hearing will be held in this cause, at which time defendants shall have the burden of establishing that Complaint 14a such delay as is requested is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. (D) Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, and reasonable attorney’s fee for their counsel, and grant such fur ther, other, additional, or alternative relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just in the premises. G w en d o lyn Y vette I seley , an infant by Raymond M. Iseley and Helen Iseley, her grandfather and grandmother and next friend, J ean M illice n t F erguson and Gregory M orris F erguson , infants by Jacquelin Ferguson, their mother and next friend, J udy Carol W est , A lv in W est, J r ., L u la M arie W est and B arbara L y n n W est , infants by Alvin West, their father and next friend, R aym ond M. I seley , H elen I seley, J acquelin F erguson , A lvin W est B y / s / R euben E . L aw son Counsel for Plaintiffs Reuben E. Lawson 19 Gilmer Avenue, Northwest Roanoke, Virginia Complaint 15a Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants, The County School Board of Roanoke County and Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent of Schools [ c a pt io n o m it t e d ] N o tice to D ism iss These Defendants, The County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, and Herman L. Horn, Division Superin tendent of Schools for said County, jointly and severally, move the Court to dismiss the Complaint filed in this case on the following grounds: (1) The Complaint fails to state a case upon which re lief may be granted in that there are no allegations of fact in said Complaint supporting the pleader’s conclusion that the denial of the individual plaintiffs’ applications for school assignment, transfer, enrollment and admission was on account of their race or color. (2) The individual plaintiffs have failed to comply with the requirements of law as set forth in Chapter 12, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board of the Com monwealth of Virginia, adopted pursuant to the provisions of said State Statute, relative to school assignment, trans fer, enrollment and admission; especially have said in dividual Plaintiffs failed to make proper, timely and legal application for assignment, transfer, enrollment or admis sion to any school in Roanoke County for the 1960-61 school year, other than Carver School to which each of the infant Plaintiffs has been properly, timely and legally assigned, enrolled and admitted for said school year. 16a (3) If the individual Plaintiffs considered themselves ag grieved by any action taken by said Pupil Placement Board on their applications for assignment, transfer, enrollment and admission from Carver School to Clearbrook School for the 1960-61 school year they should have taken the steps set forth in said State Statute for administrative relief of such action. This they have failed to do. Their right to so do still exists. The procedure and remedies provided by said State Law (Chapter 12, Article 1.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended) are fully adequate for deter mination and adjudication of Plaintiffs’ rights, and the Plaintiffs should be required to follow the procedure set forth in said State Law for administrative relief, unless and until it becomes apparent that such procedure and remedies therein provided are adequate to protect Plain tiffs Constitutional rights. A n sw er Without waiving their Motion to Dismiss, these Defen dants, The County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, and Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent of Schools of Roanoke County, jointly and severally, an swer said Complaint with specific reference to the num bered paragraphs thereof as follows: 1. The allegations of Paragraph l.(a ) and l.(b) are denied. 2. These Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 2 and call for proof thereof. Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants County School Board and Herman L. Horn 17a 3. These Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 and call for proof thereof. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. Paragraph 5 containing only constitutional and statu tory citations and legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto. 6. Except that these Defendants admit that Herman L. Horn is Division Superintendent of Schools for Roanoke County, Virginia, the remainder of Paragraph 6 contain ing only constitutional and statutory citations and legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto. 7. Paragraph 7 containing only constitutional and statu tory citations and legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto. 8. Applications for transfer of infant Plaintiffs from Carver School, to which each infant Plaintiff had been legally assigned, to Clearbrook School, for the 1960-61 school year were received by Defendant, Herman L. Horn, Division Superintendent of Schools of Roanoke County, on July 16,1960, and by him presented to the County School Board at its next regular meeting on August 9, 1960, and thence forwarded by said School Board to the Virginia Pupil Placement Board, all as provided by law. At the times alleged in the Complaint and at the present time the Plaintiffs have failed to take those steps before the Virginia Pupil Placement Board required by law for a final deter mination of their applications, and especially have said Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants County School Board and Herman L. Horn 18a Plaintiffs further failed to follow the procedure for ad ministrative relief of any action taken by said Pupil Place ment Board if they are aggrieved thereby, as they are re quired by law to so do. All allegations of Paragraph 8 not herein referred to are denied. 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 are denied. 10. Paragraph 10 containing only statutory citations and legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto. 11. These Defendants admit that E. J. Oglesby, Elwood T. Justis and Alfred L. Wingo are members of the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The remainder of Paragraph 11 containing only statutory cita tions and legal conclusions, no answer is made thereto. 12. The allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 12 are admitted. The allegations of the second sentence of such paragraph are denied. 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 are admitted. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 are denied. 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 are denied. 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 are denied. 16(a). The allegations of Paragraph 16(a) are denied. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 are denied. 18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 are denied. Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants County School Board and Herman L. Horn 19a 19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 are denied. A nd doe F txktheb A n sw eb to th e C o m plain t filed against them, these Defendants, jointly and severally, further an swer and say: A. That for a period of many years prior to the filing of the applications for transfer of infant Plaintiffs from Carver School to Clearbrook School the County School Board of Roanoke County had devoted itself to a concerted policy and effort of maintaining good race relationships in the Public School System of the County, and, pursuant to that policy and effort, had desegregated school teachers meetings and other school functions and activities. Prior to the filing of the applications for transfer of infant plain tiffs from Carver School to Clearbrook School no applica tion had theretofore been submitted to said School Board by any negro pupil requesting admission to any school pre dominantly attended by white children. B. At no time has the County School Board of Roanoke County or the Division Superintendent of Schools of Roanoke County adopted a policy by resolution or other wise requiring the continued segregation of the races in the Public Schools of Roanoke County. C. That The County School Board of Roanoke County is now engaged in a general County wide school improve ment and construction program, which program specifically includes the construction of a new school for Elementary children to be erected in the immediate neighborhood in which the Plaintiffs reside, which new school will be con structed and available for occupancy by pupils at the be ginning of the 1961-62 school year, to which new school Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants County School Board and Herman L. Horn 20a each infant plaintiff will definitely be assigned and trans ferred for said 1961-62 school year. D. That all legal power and authority of assignment, transfer, enrollment and admission of pupils in the public schools of Roanoke County is vested in the Defendant, Virginia Pupil Placement Board, and any relief sought by individual plaintiffs should be directed only against that Defendant and not against these Defendants. Respectfully submitted this 20th day of September, 1960. T h e Co u n ty S chool B oard o r R oanoke Co u n t y , V irgin ia and H erm an L. H orn , Division Superintendent of Schools of Roanoke County, By /s / B e n j . E. Ch a pm a n Benj. E. Chapman, Their Counsel. Motion to Dismiss and Answer of Defendants County School Board and Herman L. Horn Benj. E. Chapman, Counsel for these Defendants, 216% E. Main Street, Salem, Virginia. [ CERTIFICATE OMITTED] 21a [ c a p t io n o m it t e d ] For their joint and several answer to the Complaint in these proceedings, in so far as advised material and proper, the defendants E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis and Alfred L. Wingo say: 1— Strict proof of all of the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Complaint is called for. 2— That Herman L. Horn is Division Superintendent of Schools for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and that these defendants constitute the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia, is admitted. 3— All of the other allegations of the Complaint are denied or constitute a recital of laws and legal conclusions as to which no answer is required. F u rth er A n sw e r in g : 4— These defendants denied the specific request of the plaintiffs for enrollment in or transfer to Clearbrook School and continued their enrollment in Carver School purely in strict accordance with the Rule and Regulation of the Pupil Placement Board requiring the submission of such a request sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of any school session. At the same time the plaintiffs were expressly advised that such action was without prejudice to their right to make new application at least sixty (60) days prior to the opening date of the 1961-1962 school session if they desire to do so. 5— Another Rule and Regulation of the Pupil Placement Board, also generally applicable in all cases and duly Answer of tlie Pupil Placement Board 22a adopted without regard to race, color or creed, is to the effect that no pupil shall be transferred from one school to another in the absence of a favorable recommendation by local school officials, such rule also resting upon the necessity for attaining, as between these defendants and the local school officials, orderly administrative proceedings in the operation of the public schools. There has been no such recommendation in the ease of any of the plaintiffs. 6— These defendants deny that they have enrolled or placed any of the plaintiffs in, or denied requested transfer to, public schools on the sole ground of race or color in contravention of any constitutional rights. These defen dants aver, on the contrary, that they have attempted to enroll each pupil so as to provide for the orderly adminis tration of public schools, the competent instruction of the pupils enrolled and the health, safety and general welfare of such pupils, in strict accordance with law governing and controlling their actions. 7— They further aver that they are under no obligation or compunction to promote or to accelerate the mixing of the races in the public schools; that no court is constitu tionally empowered to direct the mixing of the races in the public schools; that no negro child or white child or child of any other race has the right to attend a specific school merely because he is negro or white of a member of any other race; that in the placing of over 500,000 pupils in the public schools of the Commonwealth of Virginia, an infinitesimal number of complaints has been made to this Board by any person on the ground of racial discrimina tion; that voluntary segregation of the races is lawful and Answer of Pupil Placement Board 23a the normal wish of the parents and children of the over whelming majorities of both the negro and white races is, in general, in accord with the welfare of the children of each race, is not the proper concern of any court, and that until appealed to in a specific case, this Board should not as sume the contrary. 8—F u rth er A n sw erin g , that it is also provided by law that any party aggrieved by a decision of the Pupil Place ment Board may file with it a protest, pursuant to which the Board shall conduct a hearing, consider and decide each case separately on its merits, which decision enrolling such pupil in the school originally designated or in such other school as shall be deemed proper, shall set forth the find ing upon which such decision is based. That the burden of proving discrimination in the placement of pupils on the sole ground of race or color rests upon the one alleg ing discrimination; that the welfare of each child, regard less of race or color, is a factual question to be considered and decided by this Board after complaint is made, hear ing held and full evidence concerning all surrounding cir cumstances is made available; and that until such proce dure is pursued no person should be in a position to chal lenge the action of this Board on the ground that it has discriminated on the sole ground of race or color. That notwithstanding ability, readiness and willingness to af ford a prompt and full hearing in accordance with law as to any specific complaint or grievance, none of the plaintiffs has filed any protest with the Pupil Placement Board or any of these defendants with respect to any action taken by it or them. Answer of Pupil Placement Board 24a W herefore , the p la in tiffs sh ou ld be den ied re lie f on the p en d in g com pla in t and the sam e sh ou ld be d ism issed . Answer of Pupil Placement Board A . B. S cott E . J . O glesby E dward T . J ustis A lfred L . W ingo Constituting the Members of the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia By Counsel A. B. Scott, of Christian, Marks, Scott & Spicer, Counsel for Pupil Placement Board 1309 State-Planters Building Richmond 19, Virginia. ^CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OMITTED] 25a —2— Excerpts From Transcript of Trial, May 24, 1961 * # # * # Mr. Lawson: Yes, sir. May it please the Court, I would like to file the motion to amend the complaint, correcting the name of the first-named Plaintiff from that of Gwen dolyn Yvette Iseley to that of Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh and by Emmy and Henry, her grandfather and grand mother and next friend. The Court: Is there any objection to that! Mr. Chapman: No objection, Your Honor. The Court: Let the motion be granted. —3— Mr. Lawson: May it please the Court, I should also like to move the Court that stipulations in paragraphs 2 and 3 be admitted; namely, that infant Plaintiffs are Ne groes, are citizens of the United States and of the Com monwealth of Virginia and are residents and domiciled in the County of Eoanoke; that they are within the age limit of eligibility to attend the public schools of the said County and possess all qualifications and satisfy all requirements for admission to the public schools of said County. Fur ther, that adult Plaintiffs are Negroes, are citizens of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia and are residents and domiciled in the County of Eoanoke; that they are parents or guardians of the infant Plaintiffs and are taxpayers of the United States and of the said Com monwealth and County. The Court: Now I will ask if they agree to that stipula tion which is, technically, slightly different than what we took up in chambers. The only difference is that you are asking them to stipulate that they possess all of the quali fications and requirements for admission to the schools. I am sure that they will agree to the stipulation that they 26a Motions are residents of the County of Roanoke and that they are members of the Negro race. Mr. Lawson: They are attending the schools in the —4—- County. The Court: And that they are attending the schools in the County. Mr. Lawson: As of now; yes, sir. The Court: Without asking them to stipulate that they have all of the qualifications and requirements; is that correct? Mr. Lawson: That is correct. The Court: Stipulation so granted and made part of the record in this case. Mr. Lawson: Tour Honor, I should also like to move the Court that all exhibits be admitted without formal proof. The Court: Exhibits that we exchanged in chambers between Counsel for all parties will be admitted without formal proof subject, however, to either side, when they are entered individually, objecting on the ground of rele vancy if they are so advised. Mr. Chapman: That is my understanding. Mr. Lawson: If Your Honor please, I should also move the Court to admit the depositions of witnesses B. S. Hilton, Herman L. Horn and Arthur G. Trout under Rule 26. The Court: On what ground? Mr. Lawson: On the ground, sir, that these are the depositions of parties to the cause and, therefore, he an —5— exception under the other rules. The Court: Are these witnesses available and have been subpoenaed? 27a Motions Mr. Lawson: Yes, sir. They are here and we intend to call them. The Court: And the depositions are the depositions taken prior to the hearing of this case under what is commonly referred to as the discovery process in Federal procedure ? Mr. Lawson: Yes, sir. The Court: The purpose is to entitle each side to ex amine witnesses to determine in advance of trial what they do or do not know. And they are generally not taken for the purpose of introducing them in evidence in sub stitution for the testimony of those witnesses in open court. The purpose of the rule is that it is always an ad vantage to the Court and the jury, if a jury is impanelled, to see and hear the witnesses so that they may determine their credibility based upon their actions on the stand and everything instance thereto. The motion is denied. Mr. Lawson: If Your Honor please, we would like to state for the record that the purpose was to supplement live testimony. We thought, under the rule, it was perfectly proper. — 6— The Court: The motion is denied. Mr. Scott: In dealing with the parties to the suit, in order that the record and Your Honor may have it straight, one of those witnesses, B. S. Hilton, while Executive Secre tary of the Pupil Placement Board, is not a former party to the suit and I wrnuld like to straighten that out. The Court: That is all right. It doesn’t make any dif ference to this Court "whether they are former or other parties. The motion is denied as to all depositions, if they are available in court and will testify in court. # # # # # 28a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs Direct —7— * * * * * P l a in t if f s ’ E v id e n c e H e r m a n L. H o r n , called as a witness for the Plaintiffs, having been dnly sworn, testified as follows. Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit: Q. Will you state your full name and your position with the County School Board? A. Herman L. Horn. I am Superintendent of the Roanoke County Schools. Q. How long have you held that position, sir? A. Six years. Q Hid you have a previous position in the County School — 8— system? A. Yes, sir. I was principal of the William Burt High School in 1930 to 1940. I was Director of Instruc tion of Roanoke County Schools from 1940 to ’42, Q. You are one of the parties, defendant, in this case? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, we request permission to examine the witness further as an adverse party. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. I would like to obtain general facts about your school system. Would you tell me, first, how many ele mentary schools you have in the County? A. We have 23 schools that are purely elementary. And then we have— Q. How many high schools? A. Five high schools. One of those is combined—one through twelve. And we have 29a two other high schools that have the seventh grade through the twelfth. Q. How many of the elementary schools serve only Negro pupils and what are their names! A. There are two elementary schools in which, presently, only Negro children attend—Harlond and Gregg* Avenue. Q. There is a high school which serves only Negro pupils! —9— A. Carver High School serves only Negroes and serves elementary and high school. It is combined—grades one through twelve. Q. Are there other schools in the system attended only by white pupils! A. Yes, sir. Q. Is this true with respect to the staffs and teachers and principals at these various schools: in the white schools they are all white teachers and in the Negro, the principals and teachers— A. Yes, sir. Q. Staff and so forth! A. Well, the County Staff has one Negro coordinator. Q. I was speaking of the staff at the schools. A. Yes, sir. Q. Who is this last person you mentioned! A. We have a Negro coordinator of elementary education. Q. He is assigned to a particular school! A. He serves all of the three elementary schools—Carver, Harlond and Cregg Avenue. Q. He coordinates the three Negro elementary schools! A. Yes, sir. Mr. Nabrit: Now, at this time, Your Honor, I would like to introduce or offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 and 2, previously discussed in the stipulation. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 30a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct — 10— The Court: Counsel for the Defendant have any objection? Mr. Chapman: May I see them, Tour Honor? The Court: Yes. Show them to Counsel. Mr. Chapman: No objection, Tour Honor. The Court: They may be admitted as Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, if I may state briefly what they are. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 is a tape listing the names of the schools in the County and the grades they serve and the capacity of the various schools. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 is a map of the County which, unfortunately, is on a rather small scale. Marked on the map by the school authorities are schools’ zone lines. And there may be some other markings on there which I cannot see. The Court: All right. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Doctor Horn, approximately how many pupils do you have in your County School system? A. Total en rollment runs something over 14,000 at the present. Q. And about how many of these pupils are Negroes? A. There are about—total enrollment—950. — 11— Q. 950? A. Out of the 14,000, yes, sir. Q. Out of 1400? A. 14,000. I am sorry; 14,000. Q. So, less than one out of 14 students in the County is Negro—one out of 14 or slightly less? A. Well, three out of 28—would be about one out of every nine. I ’d say 31a one out of about every nine are Negroes. See, we have there three Negroes and 28 schools. Q. No, no. I was not talking about schools. I was talk ing about pupil ratio to Negroes. The Court: Isn’t that a mathematical calculation? I can figure that out. Mr. Nabrit: Very well, sir. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, about how many teachers do you have—white and Negro—and supervisors and so forth? A. We have, 1 believe, 535 teachers and 37 of them, I believe, are in the schools attended by Negroes. Q. Now, will you describe to the Court what the schools’ zoning situation is, what that Exhibit No. 2 indicates? A. Well, in Roanoke County the population is growing rapidly, and we, of course, are constantly building school build ings, and we zone the areas to try to divide the children among the schools where we have space. Q. Do you have a zone for each school? A. Yes. We - 12- set up each year a zone for each school for—well, I ’d say each year. Of course, some of them continue year after year in areas where the population is not growing. But in some of the areas where the population is growing rapidly, we build new schools and we have to change the lines as we build new schools to provide new space, to shift children from one school to the other, to take care of our crowded conditions. Our schools are crowded in our area here. Q. Well, is it generally true that the students are as signed to schools in accordance to the zones that are set Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs-—Direct 32a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct up and that are indicated on that map? A. Those zones represent the areas that were assigned the schools for this present school year—1960-61. Q. And the children are assigned in accordance with those zones? A. Yes. Q. Are there exceptions to that? A. Oh, there may be a few occasions where there may be exceptions because of health conditions of the child. The parents in some instances—the children are transferred from a school to a school that is some distance away. I think probably in the case of one or two where the parents have taken the child from school where the child has been ill. Q. Except for this type of individual exception, the C€>W . . .students are assigned m accordance with these zones? A. Yes, the zones for this present year. Q. Now, is it true that the zones for the three Negro schools in the County are separate zones in the sense that they overlap zones established for white schools? A. Yes. The three Negroes’ serve the entire County. The zones overlap. Q. You have one Negro high school and four white high schools? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, do the four white high schools have separate geographic areas that they serve in the County? A. Yes. Q. And the Negro high school—Carver—serves Negroes living everywhere? A. Yes. Q. And for the elementary schools, the same type of thing would he true; that is, the Negro school zones es tablished on the map overlap the white schools? A. Yes, sir. They do. Q. Do you recall Exhibit 2? Do you recall correctly that it shows the Negro school zones in crayon in one color V 33a and the white schools in another color? A. I believe it does. But I believe they are on different colors. i —14— Q. Now, I believe you indicated that you became Super intendent back in 1956? A. 1955. Q. 1955? A. This is my sixth year. Q. Was this type of zoning system in use when you became Superintendent? A. Yes. Q. The same type of map? A. Yes. The zones have been changed as the community has grown. Q. Same pattern? A. And the school serves a certain area. Q. How far does that go back in your experience in the County—that system? A. I frankly do not recall. I was here in 1930—’42—I believe there were different areas that each school served. But it was not—I don’t know whether they were definite—any rigid regulations or not —concerning the zoning, the school zones at that time. Q. You were away from the County between ’42 and ’55? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you able to tell, when you came here in 1955, that this was the existing system? A. Was I able to tell? I am not sure that I understand your question. —15— Q. When you came here to the County in 1955, did you find this system in use when you got here? A. Yes. Q. Now, are your three Negro schools located in the principal centers of Negro population in the County or are there considerable groups of Negroes living in other areas? A. Well, there are several instances of reason able size groups living in other areas. Q. So, that there are Negro pupils who are in the County Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 34a in some numbers that are not located in the neighborhood where these three schools are? A. Yes, there are. Q. Now, has your School Board or have you or any of your assistants ever made any announcements to the public or to parents or teachers or pupils to indicate to them that racial segregation was no longer required in your County School system? A. Would you repeat your question, please? Q. Yes. My question was whether you have made any announcements— Mr. Chapman: I would like to— Mr. Nabrit: Let me finish the question. The Court: Go ahead and repeat the question. — 16— By Mr. Nabrit: Q. My question is : whether you—when I say you, I mean you and your Board and your Staff—have ever issued any announcements to the public to let the public know that racial segregation was not going to be a require ment in the County in the future there from that time? Had you made any such announcement to the County? Mr. Chapman: We object to that question. Any answer to it would be irrelevant. The School Super intendent and the School Board is not charged with any duty of making any such announcement. The Court: Your point is well taken. I don’t know if they are charged. Will you limit your an swer to any official act on your part, as Superin tendent of the Schools, and any official act that you know of covered by the minutes of the corporate body known as the School Board? Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 35a Mr. Nabrit: I so limit my question, Your Honor. The Court: As stated from what you might or might not know. A. The answer is no. There has been no announcement from me as an official or by the School Board. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. The Board. I take it that yoiir answer includes that —17— there has been no desegregation plan or anything like that announced officially by the Board or by you, by the official office? The Court: I didn’t get the question. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. No plan or plans for desegregation or ending segre gation announced? A. No. Q. By the previous question, I mean plans relating to ending segregation. A. That is the way I understood your question, sir. Q. Would you corroborate the fact that there has been no actual desegregation of schools in the County? By that I mean there has been no case where Negroes and white children attended school together? A. No, they have not attended school together. Q. That is true as far as teachers are concerned; that teachers are also segregated: Negro teachers only for Negro students; white teachers only for white pupils? A. That is true. Q. Now, what normally happens when a first-grade child is to enter school? Do you have a Spring enrollment pro- Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—-Direct 36a gram? What does a parent do to get his child into school when he is entering the first grade? A. We have prelimi- —18— nary enrollment day or days in each school in Roanoke County, usually by the first of April, sometime latter part of March, where announcements are usually made in the newspapers. The parents are requested to bring their children to the school to enroll them for the coming ses sion. Q. Is this a fair summary of what they do when they get there: They show proof of the child’s age. They fill out a State Pupil Placement Form. Is that part of the procedure at that time? A. Yes, sir. Q. What else goes on, anything else? A. Well, they usually explain to the parents the procedure for the first day of school and the children are usually shown the room that they were probably assigned to—generally an orienta tion period for the children and the parents. Q. Now, how does the parent find out if he doesn’t know what school to take his child for this? Is it announced in the neighborhood or in the newspapers or what? A. Well, usually, if the existing lines of the previous year are not changed, why, parents are usually aware of the school to which the children are to go in. If there are any change in the lines of the school, we usually publish those in the newspapers and announce to the children, to those who —1 9 - are in school, and, of course, people move into communi ties who haven’t been there before, why, they probably call the school or my office to inquire where they should go for the preliminary enrollment. Q. And when these people make telephone inquiries, to Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 37a find out where to go, they are advised in terms of the zones to go to school in their zones? A, That is right. Q. Now, what percentage, if you know, of your children go to attend these preliminary enrollments? A. The num ber will vary in the different schools, but it probably runs 90 per cent. Q. 90 per cent. Do you have approximately 10 per cent of the children enrolled or indicate that they wmnt to enroll at a later time? A. Well, they enroll continually from the preliminary day on up. Some people move into the community just a few days before the school but, usually, they— Q. Even after the school starts, people move in and are enrolled? A. Yes. Q. Routinely correct? A. Yes. They move in and they are enrolled. Q. Now, when a parent fills out the State Pupil Place- — 20— ment form—he fills it out at the school, I think you in dicated. Now, what happens to the form then? There is a recommendation made or what? A. The form comes to my office. The principal or teacher will check to see that it is filled out correctly. The form comes to my office and some of my staff will go over all of these forms, verify and check to see if they are correct, and place on the form the school which the child is recommended for admission. And then they are forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board in Richmond. Q. Now, I take it that your recommendations, from what you tell me, are in general accordance with your zones? A. Yes, sir. Q. And, now, I take it also, from the facts, that most of the students are assigned in consistent with the zones; Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiff s—Direct 38a that the Pupil Placement Board approves these recom mendations routinely! A. I assume that they do. Q. How long has your system been functioning under the Pupil Placement Board! A. From the beginning of the Pupil Placement Board, I am not sure of the date. Q. From 1956, ’57, something like that! A. I don’t know the date the Pupil Placement Board was— — 21— Q. Is it your impression that it is three or four years, several years! A. Yes, several years. Q. Now, during that period has the Pupil Placement Board ever rejected one of your recommendations for the assignment of a pupil or have they accepted all of them! A. I don’t know whether they all have been accepted or not. There may have been some rejections. I don’t recall of any instances right now. But, of course, there are thou sands of placement forms. I do not recall at present of any rejections. Q. So, it is your recollection that the Board has uni formly accepted your recommendations. That is your best recollection! Mr. Chapman: I object to that question on the ground to get the witness to say what the Pupil Placement Board policy is. The Court: Objection sustained. The Pupil Placement Board is the best evidence of that. You are not a member of the Board. You were not a member were you! A. No, sir. The Court: Objection sustained. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 39a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Do you have much moving of pupils within the County or any degree of that? A. Yes. There is some moving. — 22— Q. What happens when a child moves from one area, from one zone, shall we say, to another school zone? Is he transferred immediately or later or what happens? A. Well, when the parents move, they have to file an applica tion blank for transfer. But, usually, when a child’s parents move within the County, if it is possible for the child to continue in that school for the remaining part of the year, we prefer that he remain in that school rather than move to another school. I believe that in the great majority of the cases, why, the children remain through the school session and transfer during the summer. Of course, if there is a move, they fill out an application blank for trans fer to another school. Q. And subsequently they are transferred? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you have any specialized high schools or are they all general schools? A. All of the high schools in Boanoke County—what is termed in Virginia—are com prehensive high schools. Q. Would it be true that you have no high schools set aside for any pupils with special qualifications, different from the qualifications of the other high schools? I mean, do you have, for example, a trade school or vocational school, economic school? A. No. —23— Q. None of that. You don’t have any school for smarter students or average students? A. No, sir. Q. Or slower students? You don’t have anything like that? A. No, sir. 40a Q. Do you have any appropriate program of grouping by ability in the school! I don’t mean the grade. I mean the— A. According to ability? Q. Within grades. A. A few of our schools usually have ability grouping, elementary school. But it is not a County wide practice. Q. This is left to the principal? A. The principal and the teachers. Q. Now, will this discussion also apply to elementary schools? There are no specialized schools in the County? A. No specialized schools. Q. They take all of the people living in the zones, who ever that happens to be; is that correct? A. In the zones; yes, sir, if they are in the age limit. Q. So, the basic qualification to get into a school is that you live in a zone and that you be in the proper grade and you have to be promoted to whatever grade you are " —24— trying to get into; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, do you recall that these Plaintiffs applied to enter previously all-white schools or presently all-white schools last summer—the summer of 1960? A. I think I recall; yes, sir. # # # * * Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Before I present this, can you tell the Court what happened when these pupils applied, what form the events took? Did you get a letter of petition? A. Well, the ap plications with seven children were delivered to my office. The Court: How many children? 41a A. Seven; on Saturday, July the 16th, with a letter ad dressed to me and the School Board. I presented the seven applications to the School Board at its next regular session which was the first of August. In accordance with the State law, they were forwarded then to the Pupil Place ment Board in Eichmond. —25— By Mr. Nabrit: Q. What, if anything, occurred when you presented these applications to your local Board! Did they take any ac tion on them! A. The only action the Board took was to send them to the Pupil Placement Board. Of course, they were addressed to the Pupil Placement Board. Q. These are the Pupil Placement forms you mean! A. Yes. Q. This was a letter to you, was it not, from Counsel for these students, Mr. Lawson, enclosing the applications. Do you have that with you! A. I think it was addressed to me and the School Board. Q. Do you have that with you! A. I am not sure whether I have or not. Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, I don’t know whether this is one of the exhibits. The Court: You ask him if he has the letter and he will answer it. Let him look through there. Mr. Chapman: It is one of the exhibits, Your Honor. The Court: I am not sure that wasn’t the letter that was introduced on the preliminary motion. You referred to it. —26— The Witness: I have a copy—a photostatic copy of the letter. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 42a The Court: There were some letters or exhibits used on that preliminary motion. The Witness: Here it is. The Court: He has it there. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Did something else accompany this? What were the enclosures with this letter? A. The seven applications and the— Q. There is a petition. A. And a petition to the Board. The Court: They may have taken them out. My recollection is that they had some of these forms at the preliminary motion. Mr. Scott: That is my recollection. Mr. Chapman: Yes. * * # * * —27— * * * * * Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, all of the documents that we suppose to have introduced seem to be in this group already in. The Court: Let me have them. I assume they are marked. Mr. Nabrit: Should those be remarked or re numbered, as a matter of mechanics? What is your pleasure ? The Court: They are already marked. They are identified sufficiently. The Court will consider these exhibits as part of the record in this case. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 43a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Mr. Horn, did yonr County School Board take any action, formal action, on the petition that came with the applications of these pupils? A. I think that a copy of the minutes of the School Board action is in the record. I think that will speak for itself. Q. Did you make any recommendations on these with respect to these seven pupils when you sent them along to the Pupil Placement Board? A. Yes, sir, I did. —28— Q. Did you recommend that their requests be denied? A. I recommended that they attend Carver School. Q. Carver School being the all-Negro school that six of them were already attending previously? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the seventh child was a beginner; is that cor rect? A. That is correct. Q. Did you state any reasons for your recommendations or communicate them in any way to the Pupil Placement Board when you forwarded— A. No. Q. You did not? A. No. Q. What did the Pupil Placement Board inform you about their action? Did the Pupil Placement Board subse quently tell you that these applications should be denied or were denied? A. I received a letter, the letter saying that —I think a copy of the letter is in the record. Let’s see if I have a copy of it. Q. Well, perhaps we can save time by introducing this in exhibit form, Doctor Horn. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 to the deposition of Doctor Horn. The Court: Show it to Mr. Chapman. 44a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct —29— J{. -Sfe St; -5fc SkW W W w IP The Court: Let it be admitted. Mr. Nabrit: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5 to the depo sition of Doctor Horn. I also offer, Your Honor, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 8 to Doctor Horn’s deposition which was an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the County School Board of Eoanoke County held on August 4, 1960. Mr. Chapman: Let me see it, please. Mr. Nabrit: This is the document that was re ferred to. Mr. Chapman: No objection. —30— The Court: Let it be admitted. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Can you tell the Court the substance of the answer that you got back from the Pupil Placement Board on this application? The Court: Is the answer available ? Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir; one of the documents that I just introduced. The Court: It is already in the record. No need for him to tell the subject of it. I will read it myself. Mr. Nabrit: Very well, sir. The Court: In other words, there is no secret about the fact that the Pupil Placement Board re fused to consider these applications because they contend they were not filed within the period required 45a by the rules of the Pupil Placement Board; isn’t that right ? Mr. Nabrit: That is our understanding, sir. The Court: I don’t think there is any dispute about that fact. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Doctor Horn, with respect to this 60-day rule, if we may call it that, this is a rule adopted by your local Board or the Pupil Placement Board? A. 60-day rule? —31— Q. That is correct. A. It is a Pupil Placement—adopted by the Pupil Placement Board. Q. Does your local Board have any or did it at that time have any similar rule or anything like that, adopted locally as to when the time limit of the pupil is to apply to enter school the next year? The Court: What difference does that make whether they did or not if they are under the Pupil Placement Board? He can answer the question. But what difference does it make whether the local Board had a different rule, if they are bound. And, of course, that is one of the questions before the Court. If they are bound by the Pupil Placement Board and they make all of the rules they want, it wouldn’t have any bearing on it if the Pupil Placement Board is the legal body to assigning pupils. I don’t know whether it is relevant. But to save time, do you have any local rules on that subject? Mr. Chapman: You are asking him? The Court: Does the local Board have any local rules on when pupils should apply for transfer? Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direet 46a The Witness: No, sir. The only rule that the School Board adopted was with regard to the divid ing line and the new North High School and the lines were withdrawn and we wouldn’t consider any requests to transfer from one school to another. But, other than that, I know of none. —32— The Court: He said the School Board doesn’t have any rules. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. As I understood your previous testimony, you recom mended that these transfers be denied when you trans mitted them to the Pupil Placement Board, but you did not indicate any reasons to the Pupil Placement Board for your recommendation; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Hid you at any subsequent time before they were or any subsequent time tell the Pupil Placement Board your reasons? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have any formal or informal conferences with the Board or its staff about these pupils? A. No, sir. Except the applications were presented to the Board. That is in the minutes. Q. Presented to your local School Board? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you or any of your assistants or staff have any conferences with the State Pupil Placement Board or any of its Staff about these pupils or send them any memoran dum or anything like that? A. No, sir. —33— Q. Before they acted? A. No, sir. Q. Did you do anything after they acted? A. No, sir. Q. What was your reason for recommending—did you Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 47a have a reason for recommending that these transfers be denied! A. Yes, sir. # # # # * —37— The Court: What reason did you have? First let me ask you: These recommendations are signed by E. B. Broadwater, Assistant Superintendent. That is not you? The Witness: No, sir. The Court: Bid you make any written recom mendations? The Witness: No. Mr. Broadwater signed them at my request. The Court: As an assistant? The Witness: My responsibility. I made the deci sion. —38— The Court: You told him, in other words, what to put in there ? The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: For what reason did you recommend that these applicants should be assigned to Carver School? That is the question. The Witness: For the reason that we had the space for these children at Carver School and we did not have the space for them at Clearbrook School. And these children, regardless of what race or creed they would have been, I would have made the same recommendation. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, with reference to the space, how did you de termine that? Did you make an investigation? What did Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 48a you do? A. No, I didn’t have to make an investigation. I had the facts that the schools had been organized, the teachers employed back in March or April. And this school, the Clearbrook School at that time and this time were using a storage room for a classroom. The pupil-teacher ratio was greater at Clearbrook than it is at Carver. I had this same problem to face, if I would recommend seven children—in this area where these seven children live there are probably 125 children that go to Carver School-—I would have recommended these seven children to Carver. I certainly would have been consistent if others had ap- —39— plied. Q. Let me see if I understand your statement. You have 125 other Negroes in this same neighborhood where these Plaintiffs live? A. Approximately that number. I couldn’t say exactly. But South Court and Southern Hills—in that area. Q. None of them had made any application to them or indicated—had any of them made any indication to you where they wanted to go to school? A. No. Mr. Chapman: I object to that question. It is irrelevant to this particular— The Court: To save time, let it come in. Objec tion overruled. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, Doctor Horn— A. I try to deal fairly with people in the community. If parents of children in a par ticular area ask to go to a particular school—if I allow a few to go, I would have to allow all of them to go if they asked. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 49a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct Q. Doctor Horn, did I understand you to tell me earlier that when people move into a new neighborhood, no mat ter what time of year they move in, when they enter the system for the first time, they are allowed to go to the school in that zone, right! A. Yes. —40— Q. Now, these Negro pupils, these seven Plaintiffs, they live in the Clearbrook zone—for the white pupils! A. That is right. Q. White pupils moving into the County into that zone after the people applied would be admitted routinely? A. Yes. Q. Yes. A. In moving in there are not going to be more than probably outside a half dozen or so people move in. There wouldn’t be 125 people move into Clear brook area in a couple of months’ time. Q. But, if a half dozen or seven white students moved into the Clearbrook area any time during the school year, they would be assigned to Clearbrook, wouldn’t they, under your normal practice? A. Yes. But, when you are talking about seven children living here in the area with probably 125 or 50 other children living around them, ex actly the same conditions, if I say yes to those seven, then I have no basis whatsoever of saying no to 100 more if they want to come—to be consistent. Q. So, this is what you are telling me: That your view was if you admitted these seven Negroes, you would have to admit all of the rest of the Negroes to Clearbrook? A. If I recommended— —41— Mr. Chapman: Argumentative. The Court: I think that is a little argumentative. Let’s get on with the questioning. He made it very 50a clear because lie is giving you Ms reason. Whether it is sound or not is another question. He said he didn’t recommend this because if he did he would feel duty-bound to recommend 125 others if they applied. Now, that is his reason, whether anybody likes it or not. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, sir, is it true that white students who applied for Clearbrook, to enter Clearbrook, enrolled in Clear- brook after these pupils applied? You had more white pupils in Clearbrook later in the year than you knew about in the summer when you made this decision; didn’t you? A. Yes. Unfortunately, a few people moved in there. People moved away and others moved in. The Court: Do you know, Doctor, how much the enrollment in Clearbrook increased, if any, say within ten days after the opening of the school until the end of it? How much the school population in creased? Do you have those figures? The Witness: We have those figures. Just a minute. I have a copy of the figures here. How much they increased in October—of course, many —42— of these children who came in later were children who just entered. They were in the community. They didn’t enter the first day. The Court: That is the reason I said within ten days after the school opened. The Witness: I think I have those figures here. Mr. Chapman: I believe that information was supplied with the exhibit that we agreed on this morning. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 51a Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, Exhibit 4, which I have in my hand, doesn’t exactly answer your question that you have just asked. The Court: Let Doctor Horn see Exhibit 4 and— The Witness: I have here the copy of the state ment which he has. On September 6, the day school opened, there were 383 at Clearbrook and October first—395. But that increase was probably— The Court: You had 395 on October first. Did the enrollment in that school after October the first up to the present time materially increase or decrease over the 395 figure? The Witness: It stayed practically the same. There were few drop-outs. The Court: You have the figures. Was there any change in that 395 figure up to the present time? The Witness: I don’t have the exact figures pres ent but there is very little change—maybe as many —43— as five either way. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I would offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4, Doctor Horn’s deposition— The Court: It may be admitted. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, did you ever take any action to advertise the Pupil Placement Board’s 60-day cut-off rule in this com munity? A. No, sir. Q. How was that rule made known to you—by memo? A. Yes. Q. Here is the memorandum? A. Yes. Mr. Nabrit: Mr. Chapman, I am offering this memorandum—Memorandum No. 24, July 17, 1959. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct Mr. Chapman: Yes, sir. We want that in. The Conrt: Let it be admitted. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. When you got Memorandum No. 24, that you refer to as to the 60-day rule, what did you do with it here in your local community? A. Well, the memorandums come from the State Placement Board, State Department of Ed ucation, and kept it on file. Q. You didn’t reproduce it locally and distribute it? A. - 4 4 - No. Q. You didn’t send copies around to the principals? A. No. Q. Teachers? A. No. Q. Parents? A. No. Q. Newspapers? A. I did not send it to the newspaper but— Q. I am asking what you did. A. But in Richmond it was but I don’t recall the time. But I didn’t release it to the press, not the practice. Q. You just put it in the file? A. We keep it as basis for our action—all other memorandums that we receive and instructions. Q. Was it read to the School Board? A. No. The min utes would have to be checked to see whether they were read to the School Board. The memorandums come in and kept. I do not think it was read to the School Board. Q. Am I correct in saying that you did not take any action to publicize this or make it known to anybody? You just filed it when you got it, right? You didn’t feel ob ligated? A. It is not my responsibility; no, sir. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 53a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct —45— Q. And you didn’t do anything along that line? A. No, sir. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I don’t know if Your Honor is familiar with this Exhibit 6. The Court: Let me see it. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, that memorandum refers to the 60-day rule on transfers; does it not? A. I think it would be well to read it. The Court: Go ahead. It says: “ Subject: Transfer request.” By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Do you know of any case in Roanoke County where this rule has been applied to people entering school for the first time? A. What do you mean now—60-day rule? Q. That is right. A. I do not recall. But people who enter school unless they-—the application usually goes in long before opening of school. Q. Did you not tell me that people moved in all of the time right after school? A. Yes. Q. And they don’t have to apply 60 days before school opening when they move to the County to enter the first - 4 6 - grade? A. I believe you are asking questions which some one from the Pupil Placement Board is in much better position to answer than I. Q. I am asking you what has happened here in the County. I am not dealing with what the law requires. I am asking what— A. I would have to go back and check 54a the records. I am not sure. We have several thousands of those applications come through. I don’t remember whether first grade or transfers. Our procedure is primarily rou tine. We check the application to make sure that the birth certificate is in and the child enters school in the area in which the child comes from. Other than that, we pay very little attention to them because the authorities in the Pupil Placement Board are not my office. Q. You have a large General Electric plant in your County with a lot of children’s parents working in that plant? A. Yes. Q. You have a substantial degree of mobile population —people moving in and out in that connection—people coming in and moving out of the County all of the time. A. Yes; County of 60,000 people. Q. And when they come in, the children go to school; is that right, in the zones? A. Well, they have to apply for assignment to the school. Everyone that comes in has to apply. —47— Q. Everyone that comes in goes to school in the zone; doesn’t he? A. I would think that is pretty generally true, yes. * # # # # — 48— By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Do you know what the respective distances are be tween their homes and those three schools? A. I would say it is approximately two and one-half miles to Clear- brook, and probably one and one-half miles to Ogden, probably nine or ten miles to Carver. Q. Now, how do these children get to Carver; do you know? A. Transported by school bus. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct 55a Q. There is a main highway that comes through there. What route number is that? A. That is US 220. Q. 220. Now, isn’t it true that there are groups of white children who ride the school bus down Route 220 to Clear brook School who live within the Clearbrook zone but even farther than these people? In other words, they come right through this section where these Plaintiffs live going on the school bus to Clearbrook? A. Yes, sir. Q. Your school buses are segregated by race, too? All Negroes ride all-Negro buses and all white children ride all-white buses? A. When you speak of Negro bus and white bus, they are all the same—interchange. Q. Negro bus drivers and white bus drivers? A. I be- —49— lieve that is true. Q. And Negro drivers drive Negro pupils and white drivers drive white pupils? A. I believe that is true. Q. Drivers are not interchanged? A. No. Q. Now, you mentioned before that you had 125, approxi mately, Negro pupils live in this neighborhood where the Plaintiffs live. That group is all transported to Carver by bus every day? A. Yes. Q. Nine miles each way? A. Approximately. Q. What is the high school zone that serves that part where this group of 125 Negroes live? A. Cave Springs High School. Q. Do you know offhand how far that is? A. Oh, I guess seven—seven or eight miles. * * * * * — 50— * * * * * Mr. Nabrit : Your Honor, at this time I have three Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct —51— additional exhibits. I have exhibited them to Mr. Chapman during the recess and I understand he has no objection. The Court: All right. They will be admitted. Mr. Nabrit: Shall I describe them? They are— two of them were exhibits with the deposition of Doctor Horn and were marked 7A and 7B. These are letters from Doctor Horn to the three families, the Plaintiffs involved here, dated August 29, 1960. And the next exhibit is an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the County School Board, Roanoke County, held on September 13, 1960; portion of the minutes from executive session. The Court: What number is that exhibit! The Clerk: That would be No. 3, Your Honor. Mr. Nabrit: And the last item is Plaintiffs’ Ex hibit from the deposition which was a memorandum from the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Place ment Board to the Local School Board dated Sep tember 1, 1960. Briefly, this memo changed the 60- day rule and we now have in effect a July first rule and also some slightly different wording. ̂ ̂ ̂ ^ —52— # * # # * Q. Now, I think you mentioned earlier that the Carver School is a combination high school and elementary school? A. Yes. Q. Carver serves Negroes? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any white schools that have a combina tion like this? A. I mentioned in the first part of the hear ing that we have elementary children at Cave Springs and at Northside. 57a Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Direct —53— Q. Those schools serve one through twelve also? A. No, seven. Q. Seven through twelve? A. Seven. Well, Northside serves one through seven but Cave Springs—seven through twelve. Q. And Northside will eventually serve seven through twelve ? A. Eight through twelve. Q. So, basically, you don’t have any white school plant that serves one through twelve like this centralized setup for Negroes at Carver? A. No, sir. Q. You must have a number of Negro students in ele mentary school coming from considerable distances, don’t you, all over the County? A. Well, depends upon what you mean by considerable distance. Q. Coming from a lot of different white school zones on the map. A. I would assume probably three-fourths of them ride the school bus. Q. Eide the school bus but they reside in various— A. Parts of the County. Q. Parts of the County? A. Yes. —54— Q. Different zones. They are fairly scattered in dif ferent areas; is that right? A. Yes, they are. Q. As I recall, you have a map on the wall of your of fice where you have pins indicating the concentration of pupils. So, you keep track of where the pupils in the County live, don’t you? A. Of course, the great majority of the children live near Eoanoke City. Our population is constantly around Eoanoke City. Q. But, from this, you have a continuing study of where pupils live in the County going on. You keep track of it— the school or— A. We make the spot map, oh, probably 58a every two or three years. The one in my office was made in the Spring of 1959, as I recall. Q. And by spot map, you find out where every child lives and what grade he is in'? A. Yes. Q. So, you are able to know that the Negroes live all over the County. You have some basis for knowing that1? A. Beg pardon? Q. You have this census—would indicate to you that - 5 5 - Negroes live all over the County? A. Yes, they do. Q. And that Negroes living in a lot of different areas go to Carver? A. Yes. Q. Now, before you submitted these applications of the Plaintiffs to the Pupil Placement Board, did you make or have made any type of investigation of these pupils’ quali fications, family background, academic background, school records, health, anything pertaining to law enforcement, anything like that; did you make any investigation? A. No. Q. No investigations whatsoever? A. No, sir. Q. And you had none made? A. I had none made. Q. The Board didn’t have any, did it? A. Beg pardon? Q. Your School Board didn’t have any made? A. No, sir. Q. Have you made one since? A. No, sir. Q. Any type of investigation? A. No, sir. * * * * * —6 0 - Cross Examination by Mr. Chapman: Q. Doctor Horn, prior to the filing of the subject appli cations in this case, has there ever been any request made by any Negro child or his parents or guardian for trans- Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Cross 59a fer of any Negro child from a school to which he had been assigned to a school in which only white children were in attendance? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Doctor Horn, when does this school year that began last September close? A. Closes June the 8th. Q. 1961? A. 1961. Mr. Chapman: That is all, sir. The Court: Any questions, Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott: Yes, sir. By Mr. Scott: Q. Doctor Horn, it has been introduced in evidence a map of the County of Eoanoke with the placing of the - 6 1 - various and sundry schools in Roanoke. Has that ever been communicated to the principal Board? A. No, sir. That is merely for the use of the County. We do not assign pupils to schools. We merely recommend to the Pupil Placement. Q. Has the Pupil Placement Board ever assigned to you or made up for you any district map for the schools? A. No, sir. Q. Who, so far as Roanoke County is concerned, places the pupils in Roanoke County? A. I am not sure that I understand your question. Q. Who does the actual placing? A. The Pupil Place ment Board. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Cross * * * # # Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs—Direct —62— A r t h u r G. T rout , called as a witness f o r the Plaintiffs, having been duly sworn, testified as f o l lo w s : Direct Examination by Mr. Lawson: Q. Please state for the Court your full name and your official position on the Roanoke County School system. A. Arthur G. Trout. My official position is Chairman of the Board. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Trout? A. Bigley District, Roanoke. Q. How long have you been Chairman of the Board? A. The end of June, I believe it would be seven years. Q. How long have you been a member of the Board? A. Since 1952. * * * * * K —63— By Mr. Lawson: Q. Do you generally preside over the meetings of the Board? A. Generally, yes. Q. Do you keep records of your meetings? A. We have a clerk that keeps records of the meetings called. Q. Are you generally aware of what is going on in the meetings? A. Yes, generally. Q. I would like to ask you, Mr. Trout, whether or not, since the decision of the Supreme Court in 1954, your Board has adopted any recommendation, rule or regula tion with reference to the desegregation of the school sys tem in Roanoke County? A. None. Q. Have you made any announcement of any intention to adopt any? A. None. Q. You are familiar with the applications that are sent 61a to Richmond, are you not? A. I am familiar with them, yes. Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Trout, in building schools for Negroes, you build them where the greatest concentration —64— of Negroes is? A. Since my appearance on the Board, we have only built two Negro schools or in the process of it and they are in concentration of Negro population, yes. Q. Isn’t it further true that in planning the schools in Negro zones, that you plan your school space based on the number of Negroes that you espect to serve? A. Restate that. Q. Isn’t it also true that in planning the schools for Negroes in these Negro zones that you plan your school space—the number of rooms and the facilities—based upon a number of Negroes that you expect to serve? A. Border area, yes. Q. Isn’t that true of the Pinkard Court School that you are building now? A. For the general confines of the geographical area which is bordered by ridges and the high ways. Q. Now, there was some testimony here a moment ago by Doctor Horn that he did not recommend that assign ment of these seven Negroes, the Plaintiffs, because of the over-crowded condition at Clearbrook. Is it true that you still have the over-crowded condition at Clearbrook? A. The administrative staff would have better information than I would, Mr. Lawson. I do not know. Q. You do know what the situation is? A. That is right. —65— Q. Can you tell us then, please, whether or not any plans have been made to integrate this school with the children that have to go by there every day? A. No plans have been made, no. Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs'—Direct 62a Q. When these petitions were received, did the Board take any action on them at all? A. The Board voted to send them to the Pupil Placement Board in Richmond, according to the State law. Q. After they were sent there, has any action been taken with reference thereto? A. By whom? Q. By the Board, the local School Board? A. None. -J5* TT TP —68— Q. Now, among other things, were you present at the meeting of the School Board on September 13, 1960? A. If the minutes say that I was, I imagine I was. Do you have a copy of those? Q. I hand you a copy of the extract, certified by your clerk. A. That is my name. I was there. Q. This is already in evidence. I was going to ask you a couple of questions about it. You also are building a new elementary school in the Cave Springs District, are you not? A. That is correct. Q. What action did the Board take with reference to building a new Negro elementary school at that particular meeting? A. I would have to see the minutes, Mr. Lawson. I would be glad to read it or you can read it. The Court: Don’t the minutes speak for them selves, Mr. Lawson? Mr. Lawson: I think so. The Witness: Have they been admitted, Your Honor? The Court: Yes. Mr. Lawson: I will save time then. We will with draw that question. Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs—Direct 63a Arthur G. Trout—for Plaintiffs'—Direct —69— By Mr. Lawson: Q. Was any action taken with, reference to purchasing property for the site of this school prior to the receipt of these applications from these seven Plaintiffs! A. Ac tion was taken on location of a piece of property in that area for a school as far back, I believe, as 1949 or ’50. Q. What was the nature of that action? A. That we would put a school in the southern end of the County. Q. You said now this action was taken in 1949 or ’50; is that correct? A. After the 1949 annexation—somewhere in that area. Another action was taken in 1956 which I am more familiar. Q. You were not on the Board in 1949, were you? A. No. Q. So you don’t know whether the action was taken? A. I don’t know the action but I know there was talk of it. Q. But not a single piece of property was acquired until after we filed these applications; is that correct? A. Not acquired, but negotiations were started for them. Q. But negotiations were not started until after the September 6, 1961 meeting of your School Board; isn’t that correct? A. I couldn’t tell you. —70— The certified minutes so state that no action was taken. This meeting of the Board authorized the employ ment of Mr. Chapman to purchase these lots at a sum not to exceed $300 a lot. That is what the minutes so— Q. That is the action, but we had been looking consider ably prior to that. The Court: How long had the School Board been actually looking itself or through agents for a site for the school in that general location? 64a The Witness: I believe, Your Honor, since 1956. The Court: Did the School Board as a body offi cially or unofficially inspect more than one site physically ? The Witness: Committees. The Court: Did they go out and look at the site? The Witness: The committees, yes. The Court: Approximately how many sites did they look at before they decided on this site in that general area? The Witness: Your Honor, I don’t have that in formation exact, but I think it was in the neighbor hood of three sites. The Court: Go ahead. # # # # * —73— B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct B. S. H il t o n , called as a witness for the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn, and testified as follows: Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit: Q. Mr. Hilton, state your name and official position. A. B. S. Hilton; Executive Secretary, Virginia Placement Board. Q. Where is your office? A. 9 North Third Street, Rich mond, Virginia. Q. Are you the principal administrative officer of the Board. Are you the top salaried employe? A. I think so. Q. How long have you had that position? A. I took that position in July the first, 1959. Q. Did you have a previous job working for the Pupil Placement Board? A. I did. 65a Q. What was that job? A. I was administi'ator of the Arlington office previous to that. —74— ^ Q. Now, when I refer to Pupil Placement Board Memo randum No. 24, 60-day rule, do you know what I am speak ing about? Are you familiar with that? A. Yes. Q. When this rule was adopted, do you know what action was taken in terms of publicizing it? First, who was it distributed to first? Do you know? A. You mean the mimeograph memorandum? Q. That is right. A. All superintendents of schools in Virginia. —75— Q. One copy to each one? A. One or more if they re quested it. Q. Initially, you just sent one? A. Sent the one and if there was a request, we sent more. Q. Did you or your Board send along with that memo randum any request that local authorities publicize what it contained? A. I don’t think so. Q. Now, was there any publication of this rule—memo randum—in the form of a paid notice or anything like that in the newspaper—paid notice, official, verbatim? A. Not in the form of a paid notice. Q. Is it true that such releases were available to the newspapers in Richmond when you made it available? A. Yes. The release was made available to both Richmond and United Press and to the Associated Press. Q. Are you speaking of this particular release? Do you know if they got it or just general— A. I think this ap plied to this particular release. Q. This is based on your general practice: when you adopt a rule, you make it available? A. That is right. B. 8. Ililton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 66a Q. Now, I understand this 60-day rule is no longer in —7 6 - effect and you have a new rule on that subject—Memo randum 30. Are you familiar with that! It is now in evidence. A. Yes. There is a ruling which makes specifi cally July 30th instead of stating 60 days. Q. The 60-day rule—60 days from the beginning of school in various communities, so that made it a different cut-off date in different communities around the State? A. There would have been a slight variation. Q. Now, by its terms, the 60-day rule refers to transfer requests and does not mention initial enrollments or initial assignments. Were there any announcements by the Board to superintendents, to the public, to anybody, what instruc tions would be given to the word “transfer” ? A. I don’t know if there was any specific published announcement. I do know that there have been interpretations given to superintendents of schools. Q. Individual superintendents who inquired? A. Yes. Those who might have inquired and I believe there were a number who did inquire further. Q. Do you know if there was any inquiry from Roanoke? A. I don’t recall. Q. Roanoke County, I mean. A. I don’t recall about Roanoke County. Q. Now, what explanation would you give when people —77— inquired what “ transfer” meant, whether it applied to initial enrollments? A. The original Board, which insti tuted this regulation, gave, I believe, the interpretation that it applied to original applications as well as to those who applied to transfer from a particular school to an other particular school. B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 67a Q. This was interpretation communicated to people who asked? A. Not the particular members of this Board, the other members. —78— * * * * # Q. Mr. Hilton, do you know it to be a practice in a number of communities, including Roanoke County, that people who come to initially enroll in school after the 60- day deadline had gone by were still accepted? A. I think I know what you mean. Q. That happened to one of the Plaintiffs in this case, didn’t it? A. Now, here, I believe this is what you mean: Where a parent moves his residence, this 60-day ruling had never any intention of being applied. It was never applied. But it was necessary for the parent to move his residence into a different school area in order for it not to apply. Q. Now, these things you are telling me, these two in terpretations are spelled out clearly in Memorandum 30, aren’t they? A. And it has been the general practice— all school divisions understood the application of the Pupil Placement Board. Q. Now, just tell me this: One of these Plaintiffs who applied to you was a first-grader, isn’t that right? A. I believe so. —79— Q. Now, she applied to you after the 60-day deadline had gone by, correct? A. Well, the office after the 60-day. Q. You wrote the various letters to the local authorities here informing them that this child applied after the 60- day deadline? A. That is right. B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 68a Q. Now, this child was, nevertheless, admitted to a school, wasn’t she! A. That is correct. Q. She was assigned to Carver School? A. That is right. Q. So, the fact that she applied after the 60-day cut-off date didn’t keep her out? Mr. Scott: If Tour Honor please, if Mr. Nabrit is asking this witness what he did as Executive Sec retary and as administrative officer, pursuant to the action of the Board, he is perfectly qualified to answer. If he is asking Mr. Hilton about the action taken by the Board and why they did thus and so, the members of the Pupil Placement Board are here and they are the ones to testify and not Mr. Hilton. I object to Mr. Hilton saying what action or what was in the minds of the Pupil Placement Board other than what he did as administrative officer pur suant to that action. — 80— The Court: Your objection is sustained as far as official action of the Board is concerned. However, he may testify as to what he did personally pursuant to what he understood the official action would be. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, may I address myself to that, sir? The Court: Yes. Mr. Nabrit: My question to Mr. Hilton was asked as to his knowledge of what was going on. Mr. Hilton has been in his office at the Pupil Placement Board since 1959. Subsequent evidence will show that the present members of the Pupil Placement Board took office at a later date. I was trying to B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 69a find out how this 60-day rule was administered by asking the witness questions about what happened. The Court: He may testify to anything he did as Secretary or administrative officer of the Board, which he did pursuant to either what the official action of the Board happen to be or pursuant to what he thought they pertained to. You can ask what he did pursuant to any action of the Board but not what the Board itself did. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I confess confusion. I am trying to ask him what happened in terms of— The Court: Specific cases, proceed to ask him what —81— happened, if he knows. Don’t ask him to express an opinion. A fact is a fact. If you want to show, and I believe it is already in the record, that one of these applicants was in fact assigned to the Carver School subsequent to the date of the filing of these petitions, that is a fact. One of them was assigned—this first-grade student. The Witness: This child had never had any place ment at all. The Court: I understand that. But, regardless of the reason, was she assigned to a school and, if so, when and what school? You don’t need to give me any reason why it was done. Just tell me what happened. The Witness: The assignment of this child— The Court: I can’t hear. The Witness: The assignment of the particular child in question, I believe, was to the Carver School. The Court: When was the assignment made and what is the child’s name? B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 70a The Witness: That took place on August 29, 1960. The Court: What is her name so we will know who we are talking about? The Witness: As I have it recorded, it is Barbara Lynn West. — 82— The Court: And what grade was she assigned to on August 29th? The Witness: She would have been last year in the first grade, having never gone to school. The Court: First grade in Carver School? The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: Now, that is a fact. # * # * # —83— ■ik -Ur -«• -Ifc■A' "A* w w "A~ By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, approximately how many of these Pupil Place ment forms come before you every year for assignment? A. Approximately 200,000. ̂ ̂ ̂ 4N —90— Q. Now, this category of application forms that you pre sent to the Board in large bundles, would I be correct in stating that those are applications accompanied by recom mendations, local recommendations ? A. Most of them are. Q. And recommendations in accordance with the pupil’s wishes rather than opposing his wishes, right? A. I don’t know whether I understand what you mean. Q. These are cases where the local authorities assign the pupil to the school he wants to go to. A. They make—the B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 71a local people usually make a recommendation as to the school they should go to. Q. And these are the applications you were talking about that you submit in large groups to the Board, right? A. That is right. * * * * * —92— ̂ ̂ ^ Q. When did the old Board go out of office, do you know? A. June 1,1960. Q. Do you know when the new members had their first meeting? A. Approximately July the 25th. That may be within a few days. # # # # # —93— * * # # # Q. What happened to the Pupil Placement forms that came into your office between the time the old Board went out of office and the time the new Board had the first meet ing they held there? A. They were held there and being processed but not approved. Q. Now, do you know when 60 days before the opening of the school in Roanoke last year was? A. Well, it seems to me that school was to open on September 6th. Q. 60 days before that would have been early— A. Ap proximately July 6th or 7th. —94— Q. Now, when the applications of these Plaintiffs, these seven Plaintiffs, came before your Board, were they ac companied by any other documents? Were there some letters attached? A. There was a letter from Doctor Horn. Q. Was it also accompanied by a letter—a copy from Mr. Harrison to Doctor Horn? A. No, sir. B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 72a Q. There was not! A. Not that I recall. Yes. I beg your pardon. I have—no, that is not it either; nothing there. This was a later document that I had. Q. Now, do you have there the letter from Mr. Horn to you of August 16, 1960, transmitting these applications to you! A. I have a letter dated August 15, 1960. Q. 15th! A. Yes. Q. I believe this was a letter that you read to me during the deposition; wasn’t it! A. I believe I read this to you at that time. Mr. Nabrit: Mr. Chapman, we would like to offer this letter. Mr. Chapman: I think it is already in the evidence as an exhibit. * * * # # —96— The Clerk: This will be Exhibit 4. The Court: Let it be admitted. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Mr. Hilton, the Board had this letter of transmittal when it considered these seven applications, did it not! A. Yes. Q. And this letter from Doctor Horn to you identifies these children as Negroes, does it! A. I believe the word is used there. Q. And it also indicates that they indicated who their attorney was and so forth! A. I believe that is right. Q. There wasn’t any problem when the Board considered these seven children as Negroes that they were Negroes; they had this information! B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 73a The Court: I don’t want to get the record mixed up. I understood that the Board did not consider these applications other than the fact that they were turned down on the ground of being filed too late. Now, is that correct or otherwise! Mr. Scott: That is correct, sir. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, perhaps it is my phrase ology that is causing difficulty. The Court: I just didn’t want to get the record— By Mr. Nabrit: —97— Q. Did your Pupil Placement Board have a meeting on or about August 29 when these applications were discussed by it! A. They didn’t come up for discussion. Q. There was no discussion of these! A. No discussion except the dateline was there and they didn’t comply with the dateline for making application. The Court: So the Court will have correct infor mation, did you turn these applications down from the administrative standpoint because you concluded that they did not comply with the rules or did you convey that information to the Board and the Board then acted upon it! The Witness: I conveyed that information to the Board and the Board then acted upon it. The Court: Do you have the minutes of the Board acting on these! Mr. Scott: I do not have the minutes. The Witness: No, I don’t. I have a copy of the minutes. The Court: Well, let’s have it. That is the best B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 74a evidence the Board acted on this officially. Let’s get it in the record. * * * * * —98— The Court: Don’t read it. Just let Counsel read it. I hate to interrupt. Let’s not get into a conversa tion with the witness. I want to know if that is the official minutes, re gardless of what it says. Let’s introduce it. Because the minutes speak officially for the Board, regardless of what this or any other witness says. Mr. Nabrit: That will be Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 5. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, Mr. Hilton, to make sure we are clear, at this meeting on August 29, did the Board have before it the Pupil Placement form of these seven children and that letter of enclosure? A. Yes. Q. The letter from Doctor Horn, that was introduced; at that August 29th meeting, those documents were there? A. They were there. —99— Q. And they were physically before the members of the Board, right on the table? A. They were on the table. I don’t think the Board made any examination of the appli cations. Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, the copies of this Pupil Placement form that were introduced in evidence before Your Honor on the temporary motion hearing contain no information at all on the line where it says “ action by State Board.” Perhaps B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 75a I should, ask the witness whether your file copy has any action indicated—the Pupil Placement form. Do you have your signature at the bottom? The Witness: Yes, we have that. The Court: You have the original Board minutes? The Witness: Yes; the original copy. The Court: Let’s introduce that. Mr. Nabrit: Do they show your signature? The Witness: They show my stamped signature and the school to which they are to attend. The Court: Let that be introduced into the record and made an official record. The Witness: May I interject a point of explana tion here on this ? The Court: You may interject anything you want — 100— to, but it is always dangerous. I suggest that you allow your Counsel to ask you anything you want to ask. But you may make any statement you want to. Just a minute. Don’t confer with him at the pres ent time. Mr. Hilton, don’t confer with him at the present time because Mr. Scott is not testifying. Mr. Scott: Go ahead and explain. The Witness: In processing—what I wmnted to mention here so it will be understood by the attor neys. In processing the forms, when we turn down a request and place where it says “ action by the State Board the above-named pupil is hereby as signed to” we write in the name of the school that they have been attending. That is done on all of those where their applications are turned down for a specific school. B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 76a The Court: I am not so much interested in the —I want to know what was done. Let the exhibit be introduced. Make them all one exhibit. No use to be separate. Just put the number there. Mr. Nabrit: Exhibit 6. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Mr. Hilton, that Exhibit 6, those seven forms contain your stamped signature at the bottom. Is that placed on there with your authorization? A. Yes, sir. — 101— Q. And, all of these Pupil Placement forms, do you ever sign any Pupil Placement forms in your own handwriting? A. No, sir. Q. They are all stamped? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you hit the stamp yourself or does your secretary do it? A. We have a group of people who do that. The Court: Did you do it in this case? The Witness: I did not. The Court: You authorized it? The Witness: I authorized it. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, is this the practice with all 200,000 a year, to have your rubber-stamp signature? A. Physically impos sible for me to sign all of those. Q. You don’t sign any of them? A. I don’t sign any of them. Q. Now, who writes in the handwritten part there under the heading “ action by State Board” on the Pupil Place ment form? A. One of the processors. Q. The processors write that in? A. Yes, sir. B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 77a Q. Mr. Hilton, do you have in your office a map of the school district of Roanoke—the school zones? A. Roanoke - 1 0 2 - County? Q. Yes, that is right. A. No. Q. Have you ever had a copy since you have been in of fice? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Ever asked for one? A. Never asked for one. Q. Did you know that they use zones? A. Well, I might have learned a little about it when the depositions were being taken. Q. Is that the first time that you knew that Roanoke had school zones? A. I assume that. Mr. Chapman: Objection. The Court: Objection sustained. The Witness: I don’t know. The Court: You either knew it or don’t know it; not what you assume. He says he doesn’t know and didn’t then know. Mr. Nabrit: That is correct. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. You didn’t know that Roanoke had school zones. Did you know that school zones were used in any system in the State? A. Yes. —103— Q. You knew that. And you had seen school zone maps in other communities ? A. Yes. Q. Has your Pupil Placement Board at any time since you have been working there ever issued any instructions or memo or anything in that nature to local school officials telling them anything with respect to overlapping or sepa- B. S. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 78a rate school zones for Negro and white pupils? Have you ever had a memo on that subject? A. No memo. The Court: What was the answer? The Witness: No. # * # # # — 104— # * # # * Q. Mr. Hilton, do you know whether your Board has uniformly filled out the local recommendation for assign ment in Boanoke County since you have been associated with them? A. I didn’t understand. Q. Have you uniformly assigned pupils in Boanoke County in accordance with the local recommendations? Mr. Scott: He doesn’t do the assigning, sir. He is asking this witness if assignments— The Court: The Court understands that the Board does the assigning. He intended to ask him: does — 105— he have knowledge of the Board ever having done anything in the case of Boanoke County other than follow the recommendation of the local school of ficials. Do you understand the question? The Witness: Yes. I don’t remember. The Court: He doesn’t remember. The Witness: There are too many forms for me to recall. Mr. Nabrit: You don’t recall there has been any such case? The Court: He said he doesn’t remember. There are too many applications. They always followed the recommendations. Is that your answer? B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 79a The Witness: He is asking— Mr. Scott: Roanoke County he is talking about? The Court: That is right. Mr. Nabrit: Do you have any idea? Would yon think they followed what percentage of the cases? Mr. Scott: Objection. The Court: Objection is sustained. You want to get the record, you can show it, Mr. Nabrit, if you want, and deem it material, by sub poenaing all of the records that the Pupil Place ment Board had had from everybody in Roanoke County, and you may examine them and that is the answer. They either have or they haven’t. —106— Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, the testi mony indicates that some 15,000 students are in the County. To show that evidence in the way you suggest would require to bring in thousands of Pupil Placement forms. The Court: I am not suggesting you do that. If he knows, I will make him tell you. But he says he doesn’t know. It is too many for him to remember. Do you know whether they have always followed the recommendations or not? The Witness: In Roanoke County? The Court: In Roanoke County. The Witness: Pretty generally, I say they do. There may be instances— The Court: He says generally, generally they have, but he cannot recall every instance. B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 80a B. 8. Hilton—for Plaintiffs—Direct By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Do you recall testifying on depositions in the office of Superintendent Horn on March 22, 1961; depositions in this case? A. Beg pardon? Q. Do you recall testifying on depositions on March 22, 1961, in this case? A. Yes. Mr. Chapman: What page? —107— Mr. Nabrit: Page 75, the top of the page. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Do you recall the following questions being asked you and the following—your giving the following answers? Two questions and two answers I am going to read: “ Question: Would it be true that almost all, if not all, and tell me which Pupil Placement forms from Roanoke County come to you with some type of recommendation by local authorities? Answer: I think they do. Question: Do you recall any instance in which your Board had not followed that local recommendation? Answer: Not as to Roanoke County.” The Court: That is the testimony you gave before the depositions? The Witness: Yes, that is my testimony. # # # # # 81a Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct —108— 4b 4b 4bw w w w w E rnest J. O glesby, called as a witness for the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit: Q. Would you state your name, sir. A. Ernest Jackson Oglesby. Q. Mr. Oglesby, what is your connection with the State Commission? A. I am Chairman of the State Pupil Place ment Board. Q. What is your occupation, sir? A. I am a teacher of —1 0 9 - mathematics at the School of Engineering at the University of Virginia. Q. Now, Professor Oglesby, when did you take office on the Pupil Placement Board? A. I don’t know the exact day. Q. The month. A. It was about the middle of July, 1960. But I think it is the 17th. But there was testimony today—but it is a little later than that. But it is perfectly possible. I don’t remember. Q. Now, do you recall a meeting around the end of August, August 29, I believe it is, 1960, when applications of the seven pupils involved in this law suit came before you? A. I remember that those applications came before us late in August. I would not know the day. I know exactly what happened at the time these applications came before us. We examined carefully as to when they had been made. We found that they were well after the 60-day period. And we turned them down without any question, with the—were any recommendations made by the Roanoke County School? I don’t know if they made any recommenda tions, but they were turned down by us on the 60-day rule. 82a Q. Had you taken any action? I take it this 60-day rule you mentioned is the 60-day rule adopted by your predeces sors on the Board, right? Had you ever applied it before— - 1 1 0 - refuse to consider a transfer before these seven students? A. I am sure that we had. Though I don’t know the esact date. I know that we used it to turn down a good many applications—both white and Negro—during the summer. How many we turned down before the date of the Eoanoke County, I am not sure, but I know we used it before that. Q. When you say you turned down applications, you mean you turned down transfer requests; is that what you mean? A. Or requests for original placement which were out of order of the program as it was ordinarily used by the local school board. In other words, we considered the two things were the same. Q. In other words, if someone came in late, he was still allowed to go to school, right, but not go to a school not recommended by local authorities; is that how it operates? A. We did not consider applications for transfer from the ordinary area in which that student in the school, in which that student would have gone if it came after the 60-day period. Q. So that in the case of students who came before you initially entering school, they were allowed to initially en ter school in accordance with the local authorities’ recom mendation, right? A. May I make a statement? It may clear up between us. Q. Well, if it is responsive to this question or on this - I l l - subject. A. I think it answers your question. Q. Go ahead, sir. A. The applications acted on by the Pupil Placement Board are those in which the wishes of Ernest J. Oglesby— for Plaintiffs— Direct 83a the parents differ from the ordinary assignment which is recommended by the school board. All those were acted on carefully. Some of those are Negro and some of them are white. Q. So that these are the only applications that your Board actually studies and considers and the others are handled by your administrative staff; is that right? A. We, of course* approve of the work done by the admin istrative staff. We keep general oversight. But the only ones that we spend time on are those where there is a conflict between the desire of the parent and the recom mendation of the local schoolboard. Now, that local school board may be information recommendation or it may be —if they simply send it in to us without any recommenda tion of any sort whatsoever, but if they don’t recommend, wre look into it. Q. When they don’t recommend and you look into it and find there is no dispute, then your administrative staff handles it? A. Right. Q. And you look into it and find there is a dispute be tween the parents and the local authorities, then it is handled by the placement board? A. Then it is handled — 112— by the Placement Board. # # # # # —114— # # # * # Q. Now, Mr. Chairman, are you aware of any announce ments by your Board relating to announcement or com munication to local school authorities relating to school zones, separate zones for Negro and white children? A. No, we haven’t had any announcement of that kind. We had been asked to approve, in the case of Waynesboro, Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct 84a Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct —115— certain changes in lines over there for a certain school, having nothing to do with race, actually. But in general we had not had oversight in the matter of zoning in various areas although I am sure we are all aware around the State of Virginia there is a lot of school zones. And I am aware of the fact that we have certain school zones in my county. Q. Well, my question really relating not to just school zones generally but to the existence of separate zones for Negroes and white that overlap, and has your Board ever taken any action or done anything with respect to that situation? A. None whatsoever that I know anything about. Q. Ever discuss it since you have been on the Board? A. I don’t remember any discussion of that kind. I cer tainly wouldn’t swear that they didn’t take place. But I don’t remember. It made no impression on me. Q. Has your Board, your State Pupil Placement Board, ever since you have been in office, ever participated in the formulation of any plans for desegregation of any school district in the State? A. No, certainly not. Our idea— our understanding of the law and the decision of the Court was that when somebody applied for a school, we were suppose to give him what he wanted, regardless of race, creed and color. But there was nothing in the decision, the Brown case, that said we have to proceed to try to —116— bring about the desegregation of the State of Virginia, and certainly nothing of that kind has ever come up. Q. You don’t contemplate doing anything of that nature? A. Certainly not. I don’t think the decision of the Supreme Court in 1954 called for anything of that sort. It called for us to give a Negro applying for a white school to give 85a Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct him a square deal and that is what we were trying to do. —118— * * ̂ # # Q. Now, I want to go hack just a bit to make sure I understood you. Did you indicate to me before that this July first rule also is going to apply just to students that where the parents disagree with the local school author- —119— ities? A. In general, if the local school authorities and the parents don’t disagree, there is nothing for the Pupil Placement Board to do. Q. So, your answer would be that— A. If I understand your question, I say, I think the answer is yes. I am not too sure I know exactly what you mean. Q. What about my question don’t you understand? The Court: Ask him the question over again. Don’t ask him whether he understands it again. Any clarification, you ask him the question again. Just repeat your question and let him answer. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Do you remember indicating to me that your Board gave individual attention to cases where pupils were in conflict with the local recommendations, where the parents conflicted with the local recommendations? A. Yes. Q. Now, is this July first rule primarily designed for that category of pupils? A. Yes. But that doesn’t mean racial because the biggest case we had last year was the case of 39 whites that appealed the decision where there was a conflict of interest between what their parents wanted and what the school board had assigned. 86a Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct —120— Q. What community was that, sir? A. That was Waynes boro case. Q. This was white parents seeking to transfer their children from one school to another? A. Yes. Q. Your Board would not transfer them for the reason that they were late? A. We turned them down. They ap pealed. We had a hearing. Q. That would be in this category? A. Bight. Q. That the parents were in dispute with the school board. A. If they had not lived up to the 15-day and 60-day rule, they would have been thrown out. I might add still further that after a long, all-day hearing on that we granted the request. Then, a week or two later, one of the parents wanted to change and wanted to be put back and we did not require that because that came after the 60 days and the 60-day rule prohibited it. I don’t know whether I made myself— Q. Asked for a transfer and tried to withdraw and you wouldn’t consider the withdraw. A. Let me go over in detail. The Court: I understand it. You do not grant —121— any requests for transfer knowingly that are not made within the 60-day or statutory period? The Witness: That is what we try to do. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. I thought you were going to indicate to me that you might grant such if there was no conflict between the school board and the parents as to where the child should go? A. I think we would in that case. That would—might be 87a an administrative procedure. You got to do that in any school. In the school system you have a certain amount of that. When the school burns down, yon have to move the children over to another school. When the school gets overcrowded, you have to move the children to another school. The Court: In other words, you are saying for good cause shown? The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: The Board in its discretion, has in the past and may in the future, consider group ap plications within the 60-day period? The Witness: I am not too sure, Your Honor, that I know of any case where we have done it. We would certainly consider it. The Court: I say, you have indicated that you do not. If a school burned down, I think you were certainly correct—just because the 60-day period — 122— had lapsed you wouldn’t leave those students out of school all year. You would assign them to the new school. The Witness: Yes. The Court: And that is the exception. And any other exceptions that the Board thought were proper, you reserve the right to assign them within any period you want to even though the 60 days had expired? The Witness: Yes, sir. Mr. Nabrit: Wouldn’t this be an additional ex ception within that category: the ease of a parent enrolling a child in the system for the first time, Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct 88a the first-grader parents, the parents of a first-grade child? The Court: Ask him specifically. Mr. Nabrit: Who didn’t apply before July first. The Court: Let me ask him specifically the ques tion so we can get it. He has been alluding to this question a long time. What happens if I failed for any reason to enroll my child in a Virginia school and I am living in Virginia and I don’t get around to doing it because, call it neglect if you want, for making application the day before school opens— I am talking about the new student, the first grade —what happens to that child—colored or white? The Witness: I would say, sir, that we take the —1 2 3 - recommendation of the local school board on that. Place them where they want to. The Court: Now let me ask you the same ques tion. If I moved into Virginia in the middle of the school year from another State, and I am a new citizen and I have two children of school age, am I entitled to enroll them in the school—either col ored or white children? The Witness: I think so, sir. And there would be no attempt to apply any 60-day rule. The Court: In other words, if they moved on July the second, they would be entitled to go to school the next year and the Pupil Placement Board would assign those students? The Witness: Yes. It is my intention— * * =* * * Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Direct 89a Ernest J. Oglesby-—for Plaintiffs—Cross Cross Examination by Mr. Scott: « a- Jfe -It;W TP TP T —124— * # # # # Q. Do you consider that you are controlled by recom mendations of the local school board? A. I don’t think we are controlled by anybody on earth. —125— The Court: That is a good answer in one respect, but you evaded his question. Does the school board specifically control or influence your decisions lo cally? The Witness: No, sir, they don’t control us. I would like to add that, naturally, we are going to pay a good deal of attention to what they tell us. The Court: You give consideration? The Witness: Yes, we make the decisions and it is our responsibility. By Mr. Scott: Q. Now, in connection with these group transfers that may come after July the first, what do I understand you to mean by that so-called administrative transfers; what are they? A. My impression there is that invariably that is the case where you got to move some grade from one building to another, usually an emergency situation. Q. In other words, it involves a substantial number of pupils ? A. Right. Mr. Scott: That is all. The Court: Let me ask one question, so that the record will be complete. What standard or criteria 90a does the Board use in determining where a child shall be assigned in a case where the applicant wants to go to a place other than where the local —1 2 6 - school board had recommended that he or she should go? The Witness: So far, sir, I can only remember two: the question of distance and the question of standardized tests which would indicate that the student who is asking to go to a certain school is so far below the average in that school that we feel that it would be very bad for us to put him in—wre feel it would probably assure his failure. So, actually, the quality of the student and the ques tion of distance is all we consider. The Court: In other words, basically, and if I have this wrong, certainly correct me. Basically, if a student applies in proper time and in the proper form for a transfer from school A to school B, and if he lives closer to school A than he does to school B, is it the general policy of the Pupil Placement Board to assign him to the school that he lives nearest to, assuming his general educational qualifications are at least up to average. The Witness: I think the answer is yes. But to that I ought to say that there have been exceptions. There was an exception. The Court: I know there are exceptions. The Witness: In which we put a Negro in a school in a white school further—the school would transfer him because there were certain work he —127— could get in that white school that he couldn’t get in the colored. Ernest J. Oglesby■—for Plaintiffs—Cross 91a The Court: I understand that you take into con sideration the abilities of the child—colored or white—to maintain the standards then in existence in that school? The Witness: That is correct. The Court: But, assuming he or she—colored or white—is at least up to the average in the school sought, generally speaking, then residence, that is physical location in relation to school, is the basic criteria? The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: All right. Mr. Nabrit: Just a few questions. Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit: Q. You say academic standard and residence are the factors you consider when there is a dispute between the Board and the parent. Now, were you just talking about those two cases where you had protests in hearings or are you talking about all of the cases in this category? A. I wasn’t talking about those cases. I was talking generally. The Court: I understood that the question ap plied—my question applied to any student any where in the State who filed an application for transfer. —128— The Witness: That is correct, sir. Ry Mr. Nabrit: Q. Now, does your Board have any written regulations or statement aside from the statute under which you op- Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 92a erate relating to criteria for the assignment of pupils in this situation? A. Those things are open records and I cannot answer that question and be sure that my answer would be correct. We have, so far as I know, no regula tions of any sort that hadn’t been published and our prin cipal regulations are the two that we have been talking about; that is, the 60-day rule and the 15-day—the July first and the 15-day rule—and we certainly have no other procedure setup that has any more than general guidance and I wouldn’t know what that is. The only two things I know that we use are distance and academic ability. Q. Now, sir— A. There has been a lot of talk one time or other by the other Pupil Placement Board about vari ous standards, but we are not using them. Q. Now, when you were explaining the academic ability standard that you use, you mentioned that you accept only people who are above the average in the school they are trying to get in. A. I did not put it that way. What I —129— said is if a student applied to us for a transfer whose work was so bad that it was a pretty sure bet that that child would fail in the environment he was asking to go into, we would turn him down. Now, if that child were turned down and appealed to us within 15 days for a hear ing and we examined further, we might, of course, find out we were wrong. We might put him in that school. But our first impression would be that we think his work is such, that his ability is such that he cannot carry the work and we are not going to do him a favor and put him in there. Q. So, he would have to be above average? A. He would have to be good enough for us to believe that he would do the work in the environment in which he wants to go. Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 93a Above average, the correct description of that I don’t know. # * # * * —131— # # * # Q. Now, I think the Court’s question about residence and your application of criteria relating to place of residence, was framed in terms of nearness of home and the school. Is that what you use or do you use this and school zones or both or what? A. If a student asked to transfer from school A to school B and we have to decide that transfer was based on distance, it would depend upon entirely which school is closer. School zones that might or might exist would not have anything to do with it. Q. So, while the school system routinely organize its pupils on the basis of zones, when they come before you - 1 3 2 - in a dispute, you just use distance? A. That is correct. And I can give you the actual case where we did that. Q. Just one case where you did this? A. I can give you one case where we did it. There have been a number of others. I can quote a case in which I can tell you within four hundred feet of what the distance was. The Court: Let’s not go into specific cases. His testimony, as Chairman of the Board, is that he uses distance plus this achievement and intelligence test, distance being the primary criteria between the child’s home and the school sought to be entered. That is very clear. The Witness: That is correct, sir. Mr. Nabrit: I wanted to know if he still used this Ernest J. Oglesby—for Plaintiffs—Redirect nearness. 94a The Court: He said it would still be distance, regardless of whether a local board did or did not have a school zone; isn’t that correct! The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: In other words, I understood his an swer to be it doesn’t make any difference if Roanoke County has overlapping zones. They are going to pass on Roanoke County students who do apply based —133— upon the formula he just described; isn’t that correct? The Witness: That is correct, sir. # # # * # —134— * * * * * H e r m a n L. H o r n , having been previously sworn, was re called and testified further as follows: Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit: Q. Mr. Horn, am I correct in understanding that there is a new school to be constructed called the Pinkard Court School in the neighborhood where these Plaintiffs live? A. The school is under construction. Q. When is it planned for completion, do you know? A. Beg pardon? —135— Q. When do you hope to occupy it? A. Beginning the school term in September. Q. Now, have you appointed a staff at that school? A. Yes. Q. Principal? A. Yes, sir. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiff s—Recalled—Redirect 95a Q. Teachers? A. Yes. Q. All Negroes, are they? A. Yes. Q. There is no question but that this is planned to be an all-Negro school next year? A. Well, it will be pre dominantly Negro. Q. Have you determined what students are going to be assigned there? v The Court: What is tha|? Mr. Nabrit: Determined an area—to be drawn. The Court: What difference does it make whether he has or not drawn an area, geographical area for the school. The Pupil Placement Board, through its Chairman, says that they don’t pay any attention to those boundaries, on applications. Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I contend that that the continued administration of overlapping school zones by local authorities, make a substantial difference. —136— The Court: Go ahead and ask him the question. By Mr. Nabrit: Q. Have you got a zoning for this school prepared? A. Yes, there is an area which would be in attendance there for this school. We will have a list of children in that area which we will send to the Pupil Placement Board for their approval. Q. Have you already done this or something you are planning to do? A. We have a list prepared. Q. You have a list prepared? A. Yes. Q. Are all of those students Negro. A. All of them on the list are Negroes. Q. Imagine none of these students have indicated their Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs—Recalled—Redirect 96a wishes, these students there on this list. A. This will be an administrative transfer. Q. Now, the capacity of this school is what, this pro posed school? A. Well, we have a potential of eight class rooms and usually we assign about 29 to 30 children to a classroom, which would mean—well, it could accommodate 240. Q. Now, you have 150 people on this list for the school, right! A. It is between 125 and 150. —137— Q. Now, would that provide for using all of the class rooms there? A. No. Q. Empty rooms? A. Will be empty rooms; yes, sir. Q. Is your Clearbrook school going to be overcrowded like it was ? A. It will be full; yes, sir. Q. Overcrowded right at the maximum? A. Well, there will be transfers. We are building a new school in the Cave Springs High School, Cave Springs elementary school. We will transfer some children from various schools to relieve or request transfer from various schools to other schools. We have five elementary schools under construction. By administrative transfers, we will move students out of schools that are crowded and try to bring them down to reasonable limits in each of our schools. Q. And these 125 or 150 Negroes in this area are now students who go to Carver? A. Yes. Q. Except those below school age now? A. Yes. Q. Those at school go to Carver? A. Yes. —138— Q. Now, how did you determine how big a school to build in that neighborhood? Are all your schools about that size or what? A. No. Q. Is this a small school as your schools go or large? A. Well, it is, I assume, probably below the average size. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs— Recalled—Redirect 97a Q. Do you have anything smaller than this? A. Yes. Q. Do you know which ones those are? A. Yes; Brook- mount, Carwood; Hollins, Gregg Avenue. Q. Any of those recently built? A. Ogden. Q. Any of those schools recently constructed? A. Yes. Q. Did you determine the size on the basis of the popu lation of the neighborhood? A. Population in the area, neighborhood area. Q. Now, Pinkard Court, of that size, was determined on the basis of the population in its neighborhood? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that would be the Negro population in that neigh borhood, right? A. Well, there are some white families in that area. I wouldn’t say it was entirely Negro. —139— Q. You counted the white families when you— A. Beg pardon? Q. Are you telling me that you determined this school with reference to the whole population of this neighbor hood, including whites and Negroes? A. The population of this neighborhood is predominantly Negro, a few whites that live there who have very little influence upon the size of the school. Q. When we speak of this neighborhood, what are we talking about, what size area are we talking about? A. Oh, it is an area—it is extremely difficult for me. I say several square miles. Probably five square miles includ ing—that is a rough guess. I have no idea. Southern Hills thing is highly built up area. Pinkard Court and Slate Hill are all relatively compact ; many homes and they are right close together. Q. And there are white and Negroes in this area? A. Some white families in that area. Herman L. Horn—for Plaintiffs— Recalled—Redirect 98a Colloquy Q. Are those white children who are presently bussed, those who are presently bussed to Clearbrook! A. Yes. We went over that in the original testimony. * * * * * —140— * * * * * Mr. Lawson: Your Honor, I should like to move the Court that the evidence which was taken at the preliminary hearing last Fall before Your Honor be considered along with the evidence produced here today. The Court: It isn’t necessary to move. It is al ready part of the record and will be considered. * * * * * —141— * * * * * The Court: All right. Let the record show that the Counsel for the Roanoke County School Board and school officials have rested and doesn’t desire to put on any evidence. Let the record show that the Counsel for the Pupil Placement Board doesn’t de sire to put on any evidence and is resting his case. And the Attorney General’s Office, who is associated with these gentlemen, likewise have no evidence that they wish to present and they are resting. # # # # # 99a EXHIBITS INTRODUCED AT TRIAL Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 to Deposition of Dr. Horn COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA P u pil P lacem en t B oard July 17,1959 Memo # 2 4 To: Local School Boards and Division Superintendents of Schools F r o m : B. S. Hilton, Executive Secretary S u bject : T ransfer R equests At its last meeting, the following action was unanimously adopted by the Pupil Placement Board: » “ It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement Board will not consider any transfer request submitted to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of any school semester.” / / B. S. H. 100a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 (See opposite) SESr’ 101a School'Division (S s^ o r County): t P k t o r s C o m m o n w e a l t h o f V i r g i n i a P u p i l P l a c e m e n t B o a r d A P P L IC A T IO N F O R P L A C E M E N T O F PUPIL M (N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application of each pupil who has moved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for the first tim e.). I, the undersigned p a re n t /o r legal gu ard ian , o r other person hav in g cu stody o f the ch ild n am ed b e low , request that this JLLEAJL& ZJLoJL.child be p la ced in the P u b lic S ch oo l System in the C o u n ty / • and in support thereof, subm it the fo llo w in g in form a tion : (PRINT OR TYPE) FU LL N A M E O F C H I L D : . B A i c S A j e A l y / v r j A D D R E S S : f ? D H 7 g , ___ S ~ ~ < Q 0 A ( T p i </ ---------------------------- — ----------- PO ST O F F I C E : P 0 A ) 1 t / C < t - ( ____(I... -4 _________________________________ _________________ ________________- j . -------------- S C H O O L Y E A R F O R W H I C H E N R O L L M E N T 1$ R E Q U E S T E D : u t u r A r en tir es -.. T i c t a 'T»i'T?xrr\T?T'i. —P —■' f W H E N :N AM E O F S C H O O L L A S T A T T E N D E D A D D RES S O F S C H O O L : _________________________ YEARS IN S C H O O L : ___________________ G R A D E X C O U N T Y /O R C I T Y : ST A TE O R C O U N T R Y O F B I R T H : V. t Y £ L i t ' & ----------- P H Y S IC A L O R M E N T A L H A N D IC A P S O R D IS A B IL IT I E S : S R V -.B J U H - i l £ - B I R T H D A T E : ___________ C O N D I T I O N O F H E A L T H : „Q.. A /ot/e_________________ P A R T IC U L A R A P T I T U D E S : ______________________________— _ ---------------- ---------------------- --------- ------------- --------------------------------------------- N AM E A N D L O C A T I O N O F S C H O O L O R S C H O O L S I N V I R G I N I A IN W H I C H A N Y O T H E R C H I L D R E N O F Y O U R S A R E E N R O L L E D : ^ f I / .& X -------<3 / .S lJ U ------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- T h e fo re g o in g is certified on oa th or a ffirm ation to b e t r u e a n d com plete , ^ q L y. S ig n e d : _ Date: 6 - £ = = £ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ =_ ^ ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) i n f o r m a t i o n a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s F r o m L o c a l S c h o o l B o a r d If child is entering fo r the first tim e is date o f ch ild ’ s birth on a p p lica tion sam e as on birth c e r t if ica te ? - Comments con cern in g p u p il: -----------— -------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------- --------------------------------- Recom m endation as to school to w h ich pu p il should be assigned : ^ H eadier: - C. xO■ A c t i o n B y S t a t e B o a r d J C A L S C H Q p L B O A R D - • • *7~y V—-iAb~ 7 (tSu) L O C A L By T h e above-nam ed pup il is^heijeby assigned^to— _____( L r J L J ^ s J L 1 the C ou nty of. [ isjaeceby assigned t o _ LC _ {Tale) s ch o o l FOR THK PUPIL PLACKMKNT BOARD OF THR COMMONWEALTH OP VIRGINIA AUG 2 9 196ft 102a S c h o o l ‘Div i s i o n C o u n t y ) : C O M M O N W E A L T H O F V I R G I N I A P U P I L P L A C E M E N T B O A R D A P P L I C A T I O N F O R P L A C E M E N T O F P U P I L (N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application o f each pupil who has m oved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for the first tim e.). I, the undersigned p a r e n t /o r legal guard ian , o r o th er person hav in g cu stody o f the ch ild n a m ed b e low , request that this ch ild be p la c e d ‘ in the P u b lic S ch oo l System in the C o u n ty / A Mo / f t L C /.<Z.Atf QfPiA.— and in support thereof, subm it the fo llo w in g in fo rm a tio n : ( P R IN T O R T Y P E ) F U L L N A M E O F C H I L D : / C _______ / V\ A . / S / ^ FIRST Ml A D D R E S S : ___ A , O M f g - ____ £ ~ ! 3 O Y i > - L V / ________ \A/S' J 7 ~ P O S T O F F IC E o A S C H O O L Y E A R F O R W H I C H E N R O L L M E N T IS R E Q U E S T E D : N A M E O F S C H O O L L A S T A T T E N D E D : L ------------------- __________________W H E N : / _________ <L-A D D R E S S O F S C H O O L :^ - y ' 7 ~ __________ C O U N T Y /O R C I T Y : Y E A R S IN S C H O O L : L G R A D E ____ £ ________ S E B I R T H D A T E : 7 ~ S T A T E O R C O U N T R Y O F B I R T H : V ' V y ' t , / H / A . . . . ..______ C O N D I T I O N O F H E A L T H : ----------- P H Y S IC A L O R M E N T A L H A N D I C A P S O R D I S A B I L I T I E S ; A / D A / g - P A R T I C U L A R A P T I T U D E S : _____________„_____ ________-------------■— ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N A M E A N D L O C A T I O N O F S C H O O L O R S C H O O L S IN V I R G I N I A IN W H I C H A N Y O T H E R C H I L D R E N O F Y O U R S A R E E N R O L L E D : 7 - .- 3.. Y . vLAJZL, . d L i k - M --------V .j iL . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D ate: T h e fo re g o in g is certified on oa th o r a ffirm a tion t o be true and A m p le te . ^ O & fi*ft* O S ig n e d : u L ____t J l g J Jcv i ■ — —r:--------------- ------- eK-f-/- ---------------------------------------------------------------- —— r Address : ... ̂ UBs ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) In f o r m a t i o n a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m L o c a l S c h o o l B o a r d I f ch ild is entering fo r the first tim e is date o f c h ild ’s birth on ap p lica tion sam e as on birth certifica te ?_ C om m ents con cern in g p u p i l : _________________ __ ... .— -------------------*-------- «— -------------------------- ------------------------------------ R ecom m en dation as to school to w h ich pup il should b e assigned P rincipal or H ead T ea ch e r '7Y)a, , c .(Q. L O C A L S C H O O L B O A R D . By A c t i o n B y S t a t e B o a r d T h e above-n am ed pup il is hp*eby assigned to^ in the C ou nty {p i t f ) of_. {Title) ____Ischool FOR THE PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD OP THE COMMONWEALTH OP VIROINSA AUG 2 9 I960 2. 103a S c h o o l Div i s i o n (Ci t y ) : '̂ j\& ( ] «*L C O M M O N W E A L T H O F V I R G I N I A P u p i l P l a c e m e n t b o a r d A P P L I C A T I O N F O R P L A C E M E N T O F P U P I L (N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application of each pupil who has moved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for the first time. ) . I , the undersigned p a r e n t /o r legal guardian , or other person hav in g custody o f the ch ild n am ed b e low , request that this chad be p la ced in the P u b lic S ch oo l System in the C o u n ty /o r Oi»y -----C / t - & / P & ----- and in support thereof, subm it the fo llo w in g in form a tion : < p r i n t O R T Y P E ) F U L L N A M E O F C H I L D : 0 ------------------ C A &h.-------- t\ nV T MIDDLE A D D R E S S : J L D ~ t . ..C ____ S Z & £ "X, ^ "2- V -------------------------------------------- P O S T O F F I C E : ^ 0 3 , i ] J - J Z S - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S C H O O L Y E A R F O R W H I C H E N R O L L M E N T IS R E Q U E S T E D : !L j= - \A/‘ J?S / 9 / s L t i N A M E O F S C H O O L L A S T A T T E N D E D : C ---------------------------------------------------------- W H E N : ^ ‘f A ------------- A D D R E S S O F S O T T O O T ./ - V °k. ■ A T ' S a L / c / > / __________ C O U N T Y / 0 f i - e F ¥ ¥ t <><3. h ° KA * ------------------ Y E A R S I N S C H O O L : ____ f / ___________ G R A D E _____ ___________S E X ■.£.~ A j A A l B I R T H D A T E : S T A T E O R C O U N T R Y O F B I R T H : \ / J J£<m / W 1 & ______________ C O N D I T I O N O F H E A L T H : <A A A D _ ------------ P H Y S IC A L O R M E N T A L H A N D I C A P S O R D I S A B I L I T I E S : ------ A ' ' <7 / l C .----------------------------------------------------------------- P A R T I C U L A R A P T I T U D E S : N A M E A N D L O C A T I O N O F S C H O O L O R S C H O O L S IN V I R G I N I A IN W H I C H A N Y O T H E R C H I L D R E N O F Y O U R S A R E E N R O L L E D : C d Y V _____ £ 3 / G M .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The foregoing is certified on oath or affirmation to be true and com plete^^^ QC* P \ Signed: o < A ~ r o z . Date: ^ ^ ~~ G D ______ Address: _ p T in " ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) In f o r m a t i o n a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m l o c a l S c h o o l b o a r d If chad is entering for the first time is date of chad’s birth on application same as on birth certificate?^ Comments concerning pupd: --------------------- ——-----------------------------— ---------------------------------------------------- Recommendation as to school to which pupil should be assigned: S & s r t l ^ 4). A c t i o n B y s t a t e b o a r d The above-named pupil is hejjjby assigned to. in the County L O C A L S C H O O L B O A R D / p By: / T V * TOR TH * PU PIL PLACRMBMT AUG 2 9 I960 O P TMB COMMONWIALTM O P V IM IM IA fOMB MO. I School 'Division (City or County): C O M M O N W E A L T H O F V I R G I N I A P u p i l P l a c e m e n t B o a r d A P P L IC A T IO N FO R PL A C E M E N T O F PUPIL (Note: A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application of each pupil who has moved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for the first time.). ,04a I, the undersigned parent/or legal guardian, or other person having custody of the child named below, request that this child be placed in the Public School System in the County/ ^ o A / V O k / = - C l ! L 2 ^ J L and in support thereof, submit the following information: (Print o r t y p e ) FULL NAME OF CHILD: /JQ t>A . 2 A / V B / T E _______A / ) JX S / l/___________________ ADDRESS: &________________________ S ' ^ 3 _____________________ _______________________________________ POST OFFICE: / 2 <2. A JoJ L Q J Z J L _________________________________________________________ SCHOOL YEAR FOR W HICH ENROLLMENT IS REQUESTED: NAME OF SCHOOL LAST ATTENDED: (2 A £ i/ E / ? ________________ _________ W HEN: / f . - U i . ADDRESS OF SCHOOL:^ YEARS IN SCHOOL: ____ J L STATE OR COU N TRY OF BIRTH : C O U N T Y /OR- C IT Y . / ? . . Q A . /V 2 T -J ____ 2 ______ SEX: E E / V ) A < /sf^IR T H D ATE: M ~ S ' — E ' O v ; £ 6 s r \ i / a ____CON DITION OF HEALTH : a # D ______ GRADE- PHYSICAL O R MENTAL HANDICAPS O R DISABILITIES: / V ' a A / E " PARTICULAR APTITUDES: A / e T ~ <=* i d ________________________________________________ NAME AND LOCATION OF SCHOOL O R SCHOOLS IN V IRG IN IA IN W H ICH ANY O TH E R CHILDREN OF YOURS ARE ENROLLED: ____A / 0 A / E T _____________________________________________________________________ The foregoing is certified on oath or affirmation to be true and complete. £ / / V £ PJ?£>Y£r*S 7 ’ Siffned: Date: / (* , / * * & * . ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) I N F O R M A T I O N A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F R O M L O C A L S C H O O L B O A R D If «*h*1d is entering for die first time is [date of child's birth on application same as on birth certifica te ? _ Comments concerning p u p il:-------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------— — Recommendation as to school to which pupi| should be assigned: C jQ a a h A S / £ ^ J L h a 4 A LO‘ By: C A L S C H O O L B O A R D * - / ------ . A C T I O N B Y S T A T E B O A R D TE* above-named pupil is herph*; assigned to in the County I fik fT o t------— ~A~ fruit) —school FOB TUB n n i W A OIM11TT B O M B OF TM8 COMMOMWKALTM OF VIBOINIA AUG 2 9 1960 School Division 0Si*y or County) 105a C o m m o n w e a l t h o f V i r g i n i a P u p i l P l a c e m e n t B o a r d A P P L I C A T I O N F O R P L A C E M E N T O F P U P I L (N o t e : A birth certificate or photostatic copy thereof shall be attached to the application o f each pupil who has m oved to Virginia from another state for whom application is made for enrollment in Virginia schools for the first tim e.). I , the undersigned p a r e n t /o r legal gu ard ian , or other person hav in g custody o f the ch ild n am ed b e low , request that this ch ild be p la ced in the P u b lic S ch oo l System in the C o u n t y / C ity o f . Jh S- /C £ Aj and in support thereof, submit the following information: ( prin t OR TYPE) F U L L N A M E O F C H I L D : A D D R E S S : / ' ■ ■' >/•■ a / J - / . c X_-p 1/ P O S T O F F I C E : l ?£2 . / • f f ( I < ? ■ S C H O O L Y E A R F O R W H I C H E N R O L L M E N T IS. R E Q U E S T E D : / — l 4 L * e y - k r N A M E O F S C H O O L L A S T A T T E N D E D : C S y l / Z K ________________________________ ___ W H E N : A D D R E S S O F S C H O O L Y E A R S IN S C H O O L : :4 j Cd/Zs’!> C O U N T Y / e f t e t T ¥ -: _ W H E N : A ?..'A jV ' /C G R A D E .. _sexk££j£ S T A T E O R C O U N T R Y O F B I R T H : V ■ ' V C / / ' / $ __________ P H Y S IC A L O R M E N T A L H A N D I C A P S O R D I S A B I L I T I E S : ______ B I R T H D A T E : / a 1 - ' 4 - j T U i C O N D I T I O N O F H E A L T H : C? J f - C -------------- -Ay Q J \ / <? P A R T I C U L A R A P T I T U D E S : ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ N A M E A N D L O C A T I O N O F S C H O O L O R S C H O O L S IN V I R G I N I A IN W H I C H A N Y O T H E R C H I L D R E N O F Y O U R S A R E E N R O L L E D : J . V r i / c ) ' _______ i / A ______________________________________________________________________________ T h e fo re g o in g is certified on oa th o r a ffirm a tion to be tin e and com plete . /y / y / S ig n e d : A D a te : _»____________________________ -__ A d d re ss : e * . ^ & " £ S T ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) I n f o r m a t i o n a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s F r o m l o c a l S c h o o l B o a r d I f ch ild is en terin g fo r the first tim e is date o f ch ild ’ s birth on ap p lica tion sam e as on birth ce rtifica te?----------- C om m ents con cern in g p u p i l : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- — --------------------- ----------- R ecom m en d a tion as to sch oo l to w h ich pu p il should be assigned: Principal or H ead T ea ch e r A c t i o n B y S t a t e B o a r d T h e ab ove -n a m ed pu p il i: in the C ou n ty of. 1 isjaereby assigned to_ D C A L j S C H O O L B O A R D . a C j B).T / J f iry-ffi—tj-AjL-CAN-pU-Y* /t/V-VQ . -------- [T itle) < 2 . t THE PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AUG 2 9 I960 106a S c h o o l Division (jS*y o r C o u n t y ) C o m m o n w e a l t h o f V i r g i n i a P u p i l P l a c e m e n t B o a r d A P P L I C A T I O N F O R P L A C E M E N T O F P U P I L (N o t e : A birth certifica te or p h otosta tic c o p y th er eo f shall b e a tta ch ed to the a pp lica tion o f each pu p il w h o has m ov ed to V irgin ia from an oth er sta te fo r w h om a pp lica tion is m ade fo r en ro llm en t in V irgin ia sch ools fo r th e first t im e . ) . I, the undersigned p a r e n t /o r legal guard ian , or o ther person hav in g cu stody o f the ch ild n am ed b e low , request that this ch ild be p laced .in the P u b lic S ch o o l System in the C o u n t y /o r Grty o f ^ ^ ------ — — — 1 ~ and in support thereof, submit the following information: (prin t o r TYPE) F U L L N A M E O R . C H I L D : A D D R E S S : K G U L A ? r r / S < * !< - ? & * V .Jr. P O S T O F F I C E : ----------7 7 0 ------------------------- -------- -------------------- / » - _ S C H O O L Y E A R F O R W H I C H E N R O L L M E N T IS R E Q U E S T E D : § & N A M E O F S C H O O L L ^ f t A T T E N D E D : c S X Z ' A O 0 W f M i : 3Z/) <2̂ / ? < /< 5 A D D R E S S O F S C H O O L : v j c f / - e r S f - ________ __________ C O U N T Y /O R C I T Y : S z . / / / / / ? Y E A R S IN S C H O O L : _______ ___________ G R A D E ______ J c L — _ S E X : _ M a . / < 2 B I R T H D A T E e ^ J U J L j i & / r w S T A T E O R C O U N T R Y O F B I R T H : V - f i -C O N D I T I O N O F H E A L T H : ^ O O < g - P H Y S I C A L O R M E N T A L H A N D I C A P S O R D I S A B I L I T I E S : ------------- P f_ 0 _ t 7 € - - - ---------------- A o h •€-P A R T I C U L A R A P T I T U D E S : N A M E A N D L O C A T I O N O F S C H O O L O R S C H O O L S IN V I R G I N I A IN W H I C H A N Y O T H E R C H I L D R E N O F Y O U R S A R E E N R O L L E D : A ^ o e ? -e T h e fo reg o in g is certified on oath or a ffirm ation to be true and com p lete 7 - / /C74 e Signed: D a te : c 7 ' Address ~u/rt>£~£ T / ?£ t ~~£s t ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) I N F O R M A T I O N A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F R O M L O C A L S C H O O L B O A R D I f ch ild is entering fo r the first tim e is date o f c h ild ’ s birth on a p p lica tion sam e as on birth ce rtifica te? . C om m ents con cern in g p u p i l : --------------------- R ecom m en d a tion as to school to w h ich pup il should be assigned: «.a. FORM S ch oo l D iv is ion ( d r y " o r C o u n ty ) : 107a C o m m o n w e a l t h o f V i r g i n i a P u p i l P l a c e m e n t B o a r d A P P L I C A T I O N F O R P L A C E M E N T O F P U P I L (N o t e : A birth ce r ti fica te or p h o to s ta tic c o p y th er eo f shall be a tta ch ed to th e application o f each pup il w h o has m o v ed to V irgin ia fro m a n o th er s ta te fo r w h om app lica tion is m ade fo r en rollm en t in V irginia schools fo r th e first t im e . ) . I, the u n d ersigned p a r e n t /o r legal g u ard ian , o r other person hav in g custody o f the ch ild n am ed b e low , request that this ch ild be p la ced in the P u b lic S ch o o l System in the C o u n t y /o r -0 ity o f C / ■ £ * & * * * & and in support thereof, submit the following information: ( prin t OR t y p e ) ____ _ -------------------------------------- K <S~ <-> S 0 S 7 e -5 ~ 3 / x 7 r.o ffca . S? Q If /_/? ^ 1 y ____________ F U L L N A M E O F C H I L D : _ A D D R E S S : ____ P O S T O F F I C E : S C H O O L Y E A R F O R W H I C H E N R O L L M E N T IS R E Q U E S T E D : J & & $ < $ 2 ^ N A M E O F S C H O O L L A S T A T T E N D E D : f f & ■ r C — $ £>a_ w h e n T “9 & -o> A D D R E S S O F S C H O O L : W c f - f c i ~ S t ______________________ C O U N T Y /O R C I T Y : l , j S ' S ? ------- ^ JZ Y E A R S I N S C H O O L : G R A D E - S E X : B I R T H D A T E : A ! . o f ' . r t u / ? s / S T A T E O R C O U N T R Y O F B I R T H : f i f o Q r Z lQ ) V ______ C O N D I T I O N O F H E A L T H : <P~ O C <Jr P H Y S I C A L O R M E N T A L H A N D I C A P S O R D I S A B I L I T I E S : H iL . 6 - __________ ______________________________ P A R T I C U L A R A P T I T U D E S : . . M a n e _____________________________________________________ . . . . _____________ N A M E A N D L O C A T I O N O F S C H O O L O R S C H O O L S IN V I R G I N I A IN W H I C H A N Y O T H E R C H I L D R E N O F Y O U R S A R E E N R O L L E D : ______ A c 1 t ) ____________________________ T h e fo re g o in g is certified on oa th o r a ffirm a tion to be true and com plete . y y S ign ed : D ate ^ / n & $ A d d ress :tQsU. ( j h/ p fife T V s r | _ o f' ( F O R U S E O F B O A R D S O N L Y ) In f o r m a t i o n a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s F r o m l o c a l S c h o o l B o a r d I f ch ild is en terin g fo r the first tim e is date o f c h ild ’ s birth on a p p lica tion sam e as on birth certifica te? C om m en ts c o n ce rn in g p u p il : ------------------------- ----------------------------- ------ - - ----- — ............................ — ............ - R e co m m e n d a tio n as to s ch oo l to w h ich pup il should be assigned: (2 P rin cip a l or H ead T e a ch e r : TTfiy.C- L O C A L S C H O O L B O A R D , „ ___ By. f I&O/vL A C T I O N B Y S T A T E B O A R D T h e a b o v e -n a m e d p u p il is hefeF^assigned to ^ in th e C ou n ty { J C * o f - P f f ■ d E > . C 7 { T it le ) school HK PUPIL PLACEMENT BOARD OF T j\UG 2 9 ^WEALTH OF \) 108a s« c( ai F A P< S< N A Y S' P] P, N Yi IP If C. R. Pi H A Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS H erm an L. H orn , S u perin ten d en t S alem , V irgin ia A n E xtract F rom t h e M in u tes of t h e M eeting of th e Co u n ty S chool B oard of R oanoke C o u n ty , V ir g in ia , H eld on A ugust 4, 1960 The County School Board of Roanoke County met this day in the Board Room with the following members pres ent: Arthur G. Trout, Chairman, Big Lick Dist.; William J. Lotz, Cave Spring Dist.; W. H. Starkey, Catawba Dist.; Dr. C. R. Woodford, Town of Vinton; and Mrs. Frank B. Thomas, Salem Dist. Absent: L. M. Whitmore, Town of Salem. There were also present Dr. Herman L. Horn, Div. Supt. of Schools, and Mrs. Hazel F. Ballentine, Clerk. Dr. Horn presented applications received on July 16, 1960 from seven Negro children seeking admission to the Clear- brook School. The names of the pupils and their parents or guardians are as follows: Parent or Guardian Jacquelyn L. Ferguson Jacquelyn Ferguson Alvin J. West, Sr. Alvin J. West, Sr. Alvin J. West, Sr. Alvin J. West, Sr. Mrs. R. M. Iseley Pupil J ean Millicent Ferguson Gregory Morris Ferguson Lula Marie West Alvin West, Jr. Barbara Lynn West Judy Carol West Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh 109a On motion of William J. Lotz, seconded by Mrs. Frank B. Thomas, the Board directed that these applications be sent to the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia in Richmond for processing. Dr. Horn stated that in his opinion the assignments of pu pil to the various schools for the session 1960-61 should be frozen as of this date. Whereupon, on motion of Dr. C. R. Woodford seconded by William J. Lotz, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: W hereas , the school facilities of Roanoke County are be ing used to the maximum limits, and W hereas, pup ils have been assign ed on the basis o f u sing fa c ilit ie s to the best advan tage, and W hereas, teachers have been em p loyed and assign ed to sch ools on the basis o f the p resen t p u p il assignm ent, and W hereas, a n y tra n s fe r o f p u p ils fro m one sch oo l to another w ou ld cause ov ercrow d in g and u n sa tis fa c to ry teach ing con d ition s, Now, T herefore, B e I t R esolved that pupils will not be transferred from one school to another for or during the session of 1960-61 except in cases where parents have moved from one school area to another. Dr. Horn proposed that lines be established indicating the areas from which pupils will attend Northside High School, as follows: All pupils in grades 8, 9, and 10 living in the areas cur rently served by Conehurst, Catawba, South View, and Burlington elementary schools will attend Northside High School. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn 110a Pupils in grades 8, 9, and 10 living in the area east of Mason’s Creek (between Mason’s Creek and Roanoke City) which is served by the Broad Street elementary school will go to Northside High School. Pupils in the 8th, 9th, and 10th grades living in the area north of the Shenandoah Division line of the Norfolk & Western Railroad in the Mountain View School area will go to Northside High School. Those living south of the Shenandoah Division line of the Norfolk & Western Railroad will go to William Byrd H. S. Seventh grade pupils in the Conehurst and South View elementary school areas will be housed in the North- side High School for the session 1960-61. On motion of W. H. Starkey seconded by Mrs. Frank B. Thomas, the boundaries as recommended by the Supt. were established. A Copy—Teste: /s / H azel F. B allentdste Cleric Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 to Deposition of Dr. Horn 111a OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS H erm an L. H orn , S u perin ten d en t S alem , V irgin ia August 15, 1960 [Stamp—August 16, 1960] Mr. B. S. Hilton, Executive Secretary Virginia Pupil Placement Board 9 N. 3rd Street, Room 204 Richmond, Virginia Dear Mr. Hilton: I am enclosing herewith the applications of seven Negro children to be admitted to the Clearbrook Elementary School in Roanoke County. These applications were sub mitted to the Roanoke County School Board Office on Saturday, July 14, by Mr. Reuben Lawson, an attorney in Roanoke City. There is one child, Barbara L. West, who will be entering school for the first time. The birth certificate was not sub mitted with the application. Very truly yours, / s / H erm an L. H orn Herman L. Horn Div. Supt. of Schools HLH :db Enclosures 7 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 112a (Letterhead of Commonwealth of Virginia, Pupil Place ment Board, 9 N. 3rd Street, Richmond, Virginia) August 16, 1960 Mr. Herman L. Horn, Div. Supt. Roanoke County Schools Salem, Virginia Dear Mr. Horn: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 15, 1960 enclosing seven applications for transfer to the Clearbrook Elementary School in Roanoke County. Since you state that these applications were received by you on July 14, it would not be in accordance with Pupil Placement Board regulations to consider the applications for transfer of these pupils at the beginning of the fall semester, September 1960. I refer you to Pupil Placement Board Memo #24, issued July 17, 1959./, Will you kindly convey the above information to the parents of the children who are applying for transfer. Yours truly, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5H to Deposition of Dr. Horn BSH :gj B. S. Hilton Executive Secretary 113a August 29, 1960 Mrs. E. M. Iseley Boute 5, Box 823 Eoanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Iseley: The application for your child to be placed in the Clear- brook School was forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since this application was not received in the office of the County School Board of Eoanoke County until July 16, 1960, the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board states that it would not be in accordance with the Pupil Placement Board regulations to consider the application for transfer of this pupil at the beginning of the fall semes ter, September 1960. He refers to the Pupil Placement Board Memo No. 24 issued July 17, 1959, which states: “ It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement Board will not consider any transfer request submitted to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of any school semester.” Until the Pupil Placement Board acts upon the application, your child, Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, will be assigned to the Carver School. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7A Very truly yours, H e r m a n L . H o r n D iv . S u p t. o f S c h o o ls H L H :db 114a August 29, 1960 Mr. Alvin J. West, Sr. Route 5, Box 824 Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. West: The applications for your children to be placed in the Clear- brook School were forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since these applications were not received in the office of the County School Board of Roanoke County until July 16, 1960, the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board states that it would not be in accordance with the Pupil Placement Board regulations to consider the applica tions for transfer of these pupils at the beginning of the fall semester, September 1960. He refers to the Pupil Place ment Board Memo No. 24 issued July 17,1959, which states: “It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement Board will not consider any transfer request submitted to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of any school semester.” Until the Pupil Placement Board acts upon the applica tions, your children, Alvin Jr., Judy Carol, Barbara Lynn, and Lula Marie, will be assigned to the Carver School. Very truly yours, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7B H e r m a n L . H o r n D iv . S u p t. o f S c h o o ls H L H :db 115a August 29, 1960 Mrs. Jacquelyn L. Ferguson Route 5, Box 790 Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Ferguson: The applications for your children to be placed in the Clear- brook School were forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since these applications were not received in the office of the County School Board of Roanoke County until July 16, 1960, the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board states that it would not be in accordance with the Pupil Placement Board regulations to consider the applications for transfer of these pupils at the beginning of the fall semester, September 1960. He refers to the Pupil Place ment Board Memo No. 24 issued July 17,1959, which states: “It was unanimously agreed that the Pupil Placement Board will not consider any transfer request submitted to it after sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of any school semester.” Until the Pupil Placement Board acts upon the applica tions, your children, Jean Millicent and Gregory Morris, will be assigned to the Carver School. Very truly yours, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7C H e rm a n L . H o r n D iv . S u p t. o f S c h o o ls H L H :d b 116a Minutes—Pupil Placement Board August 29,1960 The Board unanimously denies the transfer requests from the parents of the following pupils in Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Pupil Placement Board regula tions requiring the submission of such requests sixty days prior to the commencement of any school session. Barbara Lynn West denied placement in Clearbrook School Lula Marie West denied transfer to Clearbrook School Judy Carol West denied transfer to Clearbrook School Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh denied transfer to Clearbrook School Albin West, Jr. denied transfer to Clearbrook School Gregory Morris Ferguson denied transfer to Clearbrook School Jean Millicent Ferguson denied transfer to Clearbrook School Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5 117a COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA P u pil P lacem en t B oard September 1,1960 Memo #30 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9 T o : Local School Boards and Division Superintendents of Schools F r o m : B. S. Hilton, Executive Secretary S u bject : R egulation of P lacem en t B oard to Clarify and S upersede M emo #24, D ated J u ly 17, 1959. At its meeting on August 29, 1960 the following regulation was unanimously adopted by the Pupil Placement Board: The Pupil Placement Board will not consider applica tions for original placement or transfer filed with it or with the local division superintendent of schools after July 1st for the ensuing school session unless a change of the applicant’s residence subsequent to July 1st necessitates a new placement. The Pupil Placement Board will appreciate it if the Divi sion Superintendent will notify it immediately upon receipt of any applications referred to above. Sincerely, / s / B. S. H ilton B. S. Hilton Executive Secretary 118a E xcerpt F rom t h e M in u tes of t h e R egular M eeting of t h e R oanoke C o u n ty S chool B oard H eld on S eptem ber 13, 1960 School Administration Building, Salem, Virginia September 13,1960 The County School Board of Roanoke County met this day in regular session, with the following members present: Arthur G. Trout, Chairman, Big Lick Dist.; William J. Lotz, Cave Spring Dist.; Dr. C. R. Woodford, Town of Vinton; W. H. Starkey, Catawba Dist.; and Mrs. Frank B. Thomas, Salem Dist. Absent: L. M. Whitmore, Town of Salem. There were also present Dr. Herman L. Horn, Div. Supt. of Schools, and Mrs. Hazel F. Ballentine, Clerk. An executive session was held in a luncheon meeting at Bradford’s Restaurant at 12:30 to discuss several adminis trative matters. Dr. Horn reported that the hearing on the request for an interlocutory injunction of the seven Negroes seeking ad mission to the Clearbrook School would be held in Richmond on September 15, 1960. The Supt. stated that the School Board’s defense would be based on two arguments, to wit: (1) the petition was not submitted to the School Board until July 14, which was too late to comply with the time requirement; (2) a school in Cave Spring District will be completed before the 1961-62 session and these pupils would be enrolled in that school next year. If they transfer this year from Carver to Clearbrook this would mean two trans fers in two years, which is considered detrimental to a pupil. If the injunction is denied, he stated a trial will be held at a date set by the Judge. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 119a Among the items taken up at this time was the site for the proposed elementary school in Cave Spring District. Dr. Horn reported that he and Mr. Welton Stone were nego tiating with the owners of the property located in Pinkard Court off Bt. 220. The Board felt that a sum not to exceed $300.00 per lot should be offered the owners. After further discussion, Mr. Lotz moved that Benj. Chapman be retained as attorney to examine and approve titles, and that the committee be empowered to make the purchase and to use their best judgment if it became necessary to exceed the offer of $300 per lot. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas and unanimously passed. The Board then adjourned to the Superintendent’s Office and convened in regular session at 2 P. M. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 A Copy—Teste: / s / H azel F. Bal l e x tin e Clerk 120a Grades and Capacity of S chools— S eptem ber 1960 R oanoke Co u nty Grades Capacity W il l ia m B yrd H ig h 8-12 900 W il l ia m B yrd Jr. H ig h 5-7 240 R oland E. C ook 1-5 420 M t . P leasant 1-7 540 C ataw ba 1-7 120 M t . V ernon 1-7 240 O gden 1-7 180 Oa k G rove 1-6 570 Clearbrook 1-7 360 L B e n t M o u n tain 1-7 120 Cave S pring 7-12 1,000 B ack Creek 1-7 240 S tark ey 1-4 120 B u rlin gton 1-7 480 M o u n tain V ie w 1-7 420 S ou th V ie w 1-6 510 N orthside 7-10 1,000 S ou th S alem 1-6 300 F ort L ew is 1-7 360 G lenvar 1-7 420 Con eh u rst 1-6 420 W est S alem 1-7 480 A ndrew L ew is H ig h 8-12 1,350 A ndrew L ew is A n n e x 7 240 B road S treet 3-6 720 A cademy S treet 1-3 450 Craig A ven u e 1-7 150 H ollins 1-6 100 Carver 1-12 630 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 (Horn) 121a OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS H erm an L . H orn , S u perin ten d en t Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 (Horn) S alem , V irgin ia Clearbrook School Enrollment—September 6, 1960 383 “ October 1, 1960 395 Carver School Enrollment—September 6, 1960 639 “ October 1, 1960 686 Pupil-Teacher Ratio Clearbrook School 30.3 Carver School 25.4 Pupil-Classroom, Ratio Clearbrook School 32.9 Carver School 32.6 122a [ caption om itted ] Filed: July 10,1961 Under date of July 16, 1960, several Negro children, through their attorney, tiled with the Superintendent of the Roanoke County Public Schools, Pupil Placement Board forms, seeking admission to the schools nearest their homes. The said applications were promptly presented to the Roanoke County School Board and from there forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board for processing. Under date of August 30, 1960, the parents of the said children were notified by the Executive Secretary of the Pupil Placement Board that their applications to enroll their children in the schools requested were denied in ac cordance with Pupil Placement Board rules and regula tions requiring the submission of such requests sixty days prior to the commencement of any school session. This ac tion was taken without prejudice to their right to make new applications at least sixty days prior to the opening date for the 1961-62 school session, if they desired to so do. The parents of the said children did not protest or appeal this ruling. Under date of August 31, 1960, the said infant children instituted this suit against the County School Board of Roanoke County; its Division Superintendent, Herman L. Horn; and E. J. Oglesby, Edward T. Justis and Alfred L. Wingo, individually and constituting the Pupil Placement Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as parties defen dant. The plaintiffs prayed, among other things, that the Court enter a judgment declaring that the enforcement, operation or execution of certain sections of the Code of Virginia, commonly known as the Pupil Placement Act, M e m o r a n d u m Opinion 123a violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu tion of the United States; that the procedure sections of the Pupil Placement Act need not be pursued as a condition precedent to judicial relief from the imposition of segrega tion requirements based on race or color; and that the ac tion of the members of the Pupil Placement Board, in ad ministering and enforcing the provisions of the Pupil Place ment Act, deprives them of their liberty without due process and equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitu tion of the United States. The plaintiffs further prayed that the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction, restraining the de fendant School Board and its Division Superintendent from any and all action that regulates or affects, on the basis of race or color, the admission, enrollment or educa tion of the infant plaintiffs, or any other Negro children similarly situated, to and in any public school operated by the defendants; and that an order be entered directing the defendants to present to this Court, within ten days, a com plete and comprehensive plan, which shall provide for a prompt and reasonable start toward desegregation of the public schools under their jurisdiction and control. The motion for a temporary injunction was heard Sep tember 15, 1960, and denied. Whereupon, the defendants promptly filed their responsive pleadings, including a mo tion to dismiss. The defendants, in their answers, generally denied the allegations of the complaint and asserted that all rights of assignment and enrollment in the public schools of the County of Roanoke were vested in the Pupil Place ment Board. They further alleged that the plaintiffs had not exhausted the administrative procedures provided for in the Pupil Placement Act. Memorandum Opinion 124a The matter was then fully heard on the merits, and the record thus made discloses the following facts: Six of the transfer applications in question were signed by the parents of the infant children on June 6, 1960. The other application was dated June 16, 1960. All of the ap plications were in the possession of the plaintiffs’ attorney from that date until July 16, 1961, at which time he filed them with the Superintendent of the Roanoke County Schools. The rules and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board requires that all such transfer applications, from both white and colored students, be filed at least sixty days prior to the commencement of any school session. The Pupil Placement Board denied these “ requests for transfer”, solely, on the ground of late filing. None of the plaintiffs noted a protest or indicated they were aggrieved by the assignments made by the Pupil Placement Board. All assignments and placement of children in the schools of Roanoke County are made by the Pupil Placement Board. The School Board and its Division Superintendent do not make any assignments or any recommendations in refer ence thereto. All information received from the applicants is forwarded to the Pupil Placement Board for processing. The evidence further indicated the Roanoke County School System operates under what is known as the “ Feeder System” ; that is, certain geographically located elementary schools feed their students on graduation to certain junior high schools, which, in turn, feed their graduates to certain high schools. Except in cases of requested transfers, ap proved by the Pupil Placement Board, this feeder system applies to both white and colored students. All students enrolled in school after December 29, 1956, remained in the schools formerly attended until graduation, except in the Memorandum Opinion 125a case of approved transfer. New students and those who change their residence within the County prior to gradua tion, are assigned to the appropriate school by the Pupil Placement Board. No evidence of any kind was offered indicating that the Pupil Placement Board had discriminated on account of race or color in the assignment of any student, new or trans ferred, to the schools of Roanoke County. The determinate question in this case is, whether or not the Pupil Placement Board, in denying the applications of the infant plaintiffs to attend the schools of their choice, discriminated on the ground of race or color. The answer to that question must be in the negative. There is absolutely no evidence that these transfer ap plications were denied on the ground of color or race. They were denied solely on account of the fact that they were not timely filed. The rule that all transfer requests must be submitted sixty days prior to the commencement of any school session is not unreasonable and must be complied with except in unusual cases. It applies to all students, white and colored alike. Plaintiffs offered no explanation in re the delay in filing their applications except to state they were turned over to their attorney on the dates they were executed, namely, June 6 and June 16, 1960. Plaintiffs’ attorney offered no explanation for his retention of these applications, for ap proximately forty days prior to filing, except to state that he was not fully acquainted with the rules and regulations of the Pupil Placement Board and that the infant plaintiffs should not be deprived of their constitutional rights on ac count of his dereliction. Such unexplained and unjustified delay in complying with the administrative requirements of the Pupil Place- Memorandum Opinion 126a ment Board does not constitute a proper legal ground for dispensing therewith. To the contrary, the Court of Ap peals for the Fourth Circuit has consistently required Negro pupils desirous of being reassigned to schools with out regard to race to pursue established administrative pro cedures before seeking intervention of a federal court. Farley v. Turner, 281 F. 2d 131. The appeals to the state courts which these statutes pro vide are judicial, not administrative remedies; after ad ministrative remedies before the Pupil Placement Board have been exhausted, judicial remedies for denial of con stitutional rights may be pursued at once in the federal courts without pursuing state court remedies. There is no question as to the right of the infant plain tiffs to be admitted to the schools of the County of Roanoke without discrimination on the ground of race. They are admitted, however, as individuals, not as a class or group, and it is as individuals that their rights under the Con stitution are asserted. (Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816.) It is the Pupil Placement Board of Virginia which must pass in the first instance on their right to be admitted to any particular school. They can not enroll themselves and we can think of no one better qualified to undertake the task than the officials having that respon sibility. It is to be presumed that these officials will obey the laws, observe the standards prescribed by the legisla ture and avoid the discrimination on account of race which the Constitution forbids. Not until they have been applied to and have failed to give relief shall the federal courts be asked to interfere in school administration. (With minor changes in order to comply with the factual situation in this case, the above was quoted from Chief Judge Parker’s opinion in Carson v. Warlick, 238 F. 2d 724.) Memorandum Opinion 127a The plaintiffs further pray that this Court enter a de claratory judgment construing certain sections of the Code of Virginia, commonly known as the Pupil Placement Act. As these sections of the Virginia. Code are not facially un constitutional, this Court, deems it improper to pass upon the validity of these statutes under the Doctrine of Federal Abstention. See Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167. Con struction and/or the constitutionality of the Pupil Place ment Act should first be determined by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. The plaintiffs, or other persons similarly situated, should so file if they are thusly advised. The plaintiffs further pray that this Court enter judg ment, declaring the administrative procedures provided for in Title 22, Sections 232.8 to 232.14, inclusive, of the Code of Virginia, are inadequate to secure and protect their rights to non-segregated education and need not be pur sued as. a condition precedent to judicial relief from the imposition of segregation requirements based on race or color. Without passing on the constitutionality of these sections of the Virginia Code, the Court is of the opinion the administrative procedures set forth therein are not unreasonable and must be complied with except in unusual cases. They apply equally to all, regardless of race, color or creed. There is no evidence in this case to justify the prayer of the plaintiffs that the present members of the Pupil Placement Board are administering and enforcing the pro visions of the Pupil Placement Act so as to preserve, per petuate and effectuate the policy, practice, custom and usage of assigning children to separate public schools on the basis of their race or color. To the contrary, the evi dence in this case clearly indicates that the members of the Pupil Placement Board are conscientiously endeavoring to Memorandum Opinion 128a perform their official duties in accordance with the law and without regard to race, color or creed. These prayers are therefore denied. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, in DeFebio v. County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia, 100 S.E. 2d 760, has heretofore held that the enrollment or placement of pupils in the public schools of Virginia, is vested in the State Pupil Placement Board; further, there is no evidence in this case indicating that the School Board of the County of Eoanoke or its Division Superintendent are, in fact, performing these duties; therefore, there is no legal justification for the entry of a permanent injunction, and the motion so requesting is herewith denied. Counsel for the defendants should prepare an appro priate order in accordance with this opinion, dismissing the complaint; submit the same to counsel for plaintiffs for approval as to form, and the same will be accordingly en tered. Costs will be assessed against the plaintiffs. / s / O rest E. L ew is United States District Judge Memorandum Opinion Bichmond, Virginia July 6,1961 129a Judgment [ c a p t io n o m it t e d ] This action having been duly matured came on for hear ing on May 24, 1961, upon the complaint, the answers and motions to dismiss of the defendants, the evidence taken in open court, and was argued by counsel. U pon C onsideration W hereof , the court being of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought in their complaint and that the defendants’ motions to dismiss should be sustained, and having set forth the reasons for such conclusions in a memorandum opinion under date of July 6, 1961, heretofore duly filed and now made a part of the record as its findings of fact and con clusions of law: It is accordingly A djudged, O rdered and D ecreed that the complaint be and is hereby dismissed at the plaintiffs’ costs, and that this action be forthwith stricken from the docket, to all of which the plaintiffs, by counsel, object and except. / s / O ren ft. L ew is United States District Judge Oct. 4/1961 130a Judgment Seen /s / R euben E. L aw so n , Atty. for Plaintiff / s / B e n j . E. Chapman Attorney for the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, and Herman L. Horn, Superintendent of Schools. We ask for this: / s / R ussell A lton W righ t for A. B. Scott and A, B. Scott Special Counsel for Pupil Placement Board / s / F rederick T. Gray Fred T. Gray Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A True Copy, Teste: Leigh B. Hanes, Jr., Clerk By: / s / G race A. H arper Deputy Clerk (Seal) 131a Notice of Appeal Filed November 1,1961 Isr th e UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F or t h e W estern D istrict op V irginia Roanoke Division Civil Action No. 1095 G w endolyn Y vette I seley , an infant, etc., et al., T h e C o u n ty S chool B oard op R oanoke C o u n ty , etc., et al. Notice is hereby given that Gwendolyn Yvette Marsh, an infant, and Raymond M. Iseley and Helen Iseley, her grandfather and grandmother and next friends; Judy Carol West, Alvin West, Jr., Lula Marie West and Barbara Lynn West, infants, and Alvin West, their father and next friend, plaintiffs in this cause, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the final judgment dismissing the action entered in this case on October 4, 1961. Date: October 31,1961 / s / R euben E. L aw son Reuben E. Lawson 19 Gilmer Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia J ames M. N abrit , III 10 Columbus Circle New York 19, New York Attorneys for Plaintiffs / 3a .... .