Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition
Public Court Documents
June 26, 1972

23 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition, 1972. 04899531-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5ed0dedb-3c24-4064-a8cb-0be9b201c693/petition-for-writ-of-mandamus-andor-prohibition. Accessed April 29, 2025.
Copied!
D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N f t C U D L IP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BLOOMFIELD HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner vs. No. STEPHEN J. ROTH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent. _____________________________ / PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS _____ AND/OR PROHIBITION____ DICKINSON, WRIGHT, McKEAN & 1700 North Woodward Avenue P. 0. Box 509 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan (313) 646-4300 CUDLIP 48013 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L iP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BLOOMFIELD HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner vs. No. STEPHEN J. ROTH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent. _____ / PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS _____ AND/OR PROHIBITION_____ NOW COMES Bloomfield Hills School District, a Michigan body corporate, Petitioner, and petitions this Court, pursuant to the All Writs Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1651), to issue a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition directing Respondent Stephen J. Roth, Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to: (i) Delete the geographical area encompassed by Petitioner's boundaries from the "desegregation area" described in Paragraph II A of Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling on Desegregation Area and Order For Develop- jyment of Plan of Desegregation ("June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order") in Bradley, et al. v. Milliken, et al., Civil Action No. 35257, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division: and (ii) Refrain from enforcing each provision of Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order which re strains Petitioner from exercising the powers conferred See copy attached as Exhibit A.1/ D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L IP and discharging the duties imposed upon it by the 1963 Constitution and statutes of the State of Michigan. FACTS SUPPORTING THIS PETITION 1. Petitioner is a Michigan school district classified by the Michigan School Code of 1955 (MCLA §§ 340.1, et seq.) as a fourth class district. Based upon data collected for the 1971-72 school year, Petitioner has a pupil enrollment of 9,353 students. Approximately 45.25% of these students are enrolled in K-6 ele mentary schools. In 1970-71, Petitioner ranked 45th in pupil enrollment among the 527 K-12 local school districts in Michigan. Approximately 86% of the taxable property in the school district is residential and 80.5% of Petitioner's school operating budget is derived from local sources of revenue. Petitioner's staff consists of: (i) 42 instructional and non-instructional admin istrative personnel; (ii) 474 teachers and teacher aides who are represented by Bloomfield Hills Education Association and are employed under a contract covering wages, hours and conditions of employment which will expire on August 28, 1973; (iii) 236 support service employees who are represented by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Locals 1384A and 1883A) and are employed under contracts covering wages, hours and conditions of employment which will expire on August 31, 1973 and December 31, 1973. Petitioner owns 16 classroom school buildings located within the district and has a bonded indebted ness at the date hereof of $22,930,000, having maturities from July, 1972 through 1996. D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N f t C U D L II * 2. Bradley v. Milliken was commenced on August 18, 1970, by the filing of a complaint which alleged the unconsti tutionality of a Michigan statute which was applicable only to the City of Detroit school district and further claimed that plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated because of the segregated pattern of pupil assignments and racial identifiability of schools within the City of Detroit school system. The com plaint has never been amended and at no time have the pleadings alleged that any school system other than the Detroit system has failed to maintain a unitary system of schools. A trial on the question of de jure segregation in the Detroit schools was held in Respondent's court and concluded on July 22, 1971. On September 27, 1971, Respondent entered his Ruling on Issue of Segregation which was limited to the finding that illegal segregation exists in the public schools of the City of Detroit. Plans of desegregation involving only the Detroit schools as well as plans involving the metropolitan area school districts were subsequently filed with Respondent. Respondent received evi dence from the original parties and intervenors relating to such plans. New intervenors (certain school districts, not including Petitioner) participated in the proceedings on the restricted basis outlined in Respondent's March 15, 1972 Order. On March 24, 1972, Respondent ruled that he could properly order a metropolitan plan to accomplish desegregation of the Detroit schools. On June 14, 1972, Respondent entered his Ruling and Order. That Order includes Petitioner within the geographic area that Respondent deemed necessary to achieve the racial 3 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L IP mix required to correct the segregated conditions he found to exist in the Detroit schools. 3. Petitioner is not and never has been a party to the proceedings in which the holding of de jure segregation relating to Detroit was made or which considered the appro priateness of a tri-county remedy, nor has any claim ever been made that Petitioner has committed any act of de jure segregation. 4. A motion to join Petitioner, together with other school districts in the tri-county area, as a party defendant, was filed by intervening defendants Denise Magdowski, et al., on July 12, 1971, but Respondent has refused to act upon their motion. 5. The first paragraph of Respondent's June 14, 1972 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lav/ in Support of Ruling on Desegregation Area and Development of Plan spe cifically states that Respondent "has taken no proofs with respect to...the issue of whether, with the exclusion of the city of Detroit school district, such school districts [all 86 school districts, including Petitioner, located within Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties] have committed acts of de jure segregation." 6. Among the powers conferred and duties imposed upon Petitioner by the Michigan School Code of 1955 are the 4 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N S t C U D L IP II following: (i) To sue and be sued in its name, (ii) to pur chase personal and real property for educational purposes, (iii) to employ a superintendent, administrative personnel and teachers for the education of its pupils, (iv) to estab lish courses of studies and select text books to be utilized therein, and (v) otherwise to establish policies for the _2/education of the pupils residing within its corporate limits. 7. Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order restrains Petitioner in the enforcement, operation or execution of the powers conferred and the duties imposed upon it by the 1963 Constitution and statutes of the State of Michigan in the following respects: (a) The allocation of Petitioner's staff or other services and the expenditures therefor. (11 I C) (b) The enrollment in and attendance at Petitioner's schools only of children who are residents. (1f II B, C, D, E) (c) The employment of qualified teachers to educate resident pupils upon terms satis factory to Petitioner. (II II F, G) (d) The use of Petitioner's school facil ities. (11 II H) (e) The construction or expansion of school facilities. (11 II I) (f) The curriculum, activities and stan dards of conduct; the dignity and safety of ~27 See MCLA §§ 340.353; 340.77; 340.66; 340.569; 340.583; 340.882; 340.575; 340.578; 340.613; 340.614 as illustrative of the powers and duties set forth. 5 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L IP Petitioner's students, faculty, staff and parents. (1f II K) Like restraints are imposed upon the other 53 school districts included within Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order. 8. Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order restrains the Michigan State Board of Education and the Super intendent of Public Instruction in the enforcement, operation or execution of the powers conferred and the duties imposed upon each of them by the 1963 Constitution and statutes of the State of Michigan in the following respects: (a) The construction of new school facilities and the expansion of existing facilities. (1[ II I) (b) The training and use of faculty and staff and the conduct of extra-curricular activities. (1| II L) 6 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L IP ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Did Respondent deprive Petitioner of due process of law and thereby usurp the jurisdiction vested in him as a United States District Judge by subjecting Petitioner to his June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order in disregard of the facts that Petitioner was not a party to the action and was not found to have committed any act of de jure segregation? 2. Did Respondent usurp the jurisdiction exclusively vested by Title 28, USC § 2281 in a United States District Court of three judges by entering the June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order which restrains the enforcement, operation and execution of various Michigan statutes? REASONS WHY WRIT SHOULD ISSUE I. As a non-party Petitioner cannot appeal Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order. That order has immense impact upon the 9,300 children being educated by Petitioner and upon the 770,000 other children being educated within the 54 districts the order affects. The totally unknown effects which massive tri county busing may have upon the education and safety of these children as well as the undeterminable cost in time and dollars of the order's implementation make this a matter of "public importance" and a "case appropriate for the extraordinary writs." Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728 (C.A. D.C. 1969) at 736, 737. 7 II. Petitioner seeks the writ traditionally used to con fine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Association, 319 U.S. 21 (1943) at 26. Petitioner is not and never has been a party to Bradley v. Milliken. Only parties who have been properly sub jected to a federal court's in personam jurisdiction, and those who have been shown to have acted in concert with such parties, can be legally subjected to the provisions of its injunctive orders. FRCP, Rule 65(d), specifically states: i!Every order granting an injunction... is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons that act in concert or par ticipation with them...." The evils prohibited by this provision of Rule 65 were articulated by Judge Learned Hand in Alemite Manufacturing Corporation v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 833 (2d Cir. 1930), as follows: "...no court can make a decree which will bind anyone but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree. If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen, and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. It is not vested with sovereign powers to declare con duct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over whom it gets personal service, and who therefore can have their day in court. * * * "This is far from being a formal distinction; it goes deep into powers of a court of equity....It is by ignoring such proce dural limitations that the injunction of a court of equity may by slow steps be made to realize the worst fears of those who are jealous of its prerogative." 8 D IC K IN S O N . W R IG H T , M C K E A N a C U D L II » In addition, Respondent has acknowledged that he has taken no proofs as to whether Petitioner or the other affected school districts (with the exception of the Detroit school district) have committed acts of de jure segregation. Absent such a finding, Respondent's remedial powers cannot extend to Petitioner. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971); Spencer v. Kugler, 326 F. Supp. 1235 (1971), aff'd. 92 Sup. Ct. 707 (1972). III. The aim of Congress in creating United States district courts of three judges was to erect "procedural pro tection against an improvident state-wide doom by a federal court of a state's legislative policy." Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246, 251 (1940). The legislative history of Title 28 USC § 2281 indicates that the section was "enacted to prevent a single federal judge from being able to paralyze totally the operation of an entire [state] regulatory scheme by issuance of a broad injunctive order." Kennedy v. Mendoza- Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 154 (1962). Other decisions of the United States Supreme Court represent "unmistakable recog nition of the congressional policy to provide for a three- judge court whenever a state statute is sought to be enjoined on grounds of federal unconstitutionality...." Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73, 81 (1959). Where such circumstances are present, the case is one "that is 'required by...Act of Congress to be determined by a district court of three judges.' 28 USC § 1253. (Emphasis added.)" Florida Lime Growers, supra, at 85. 9 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L IP It is manifest that Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order enjoins Petitioner (and 53 other tri-county school districts) from exercising and discharging a veritable host of powers and duties conferred upon each of them by the Michigan School Code of 1955. See paragraphs 7 and 8 of Facts, supra. Beyond all this, Respondent baldly orders the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to ignore state law in his recommendations to Respondent, if such law 'conflicts with what is necessary to achieve the objectives of" Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order. If ever an order of an individual United States District Judge 'paralyzes" or "dooms" a state's legislative policy, the order in question is it. One can scarcely imagine a clearer case for appli cation of the principle enunciated in Phillips, supra. The 780,000 school children residing in the affected geographic area, together with their parents, teachers and school admin istrators, are without doubt entitled to the procedural protection afforded, in Congress' wisdom and through its mandate, by a court of three judges. The convictions, and indeed prejudices, of an individual judge, no matter how learned, must be tempered when an injunction having the dis ruptive and dismantling effects of Respondent's June 14, 1972 Ruling and Order is at issue. 10 D IC K IN S O N , W R IG H T , M C K E A N & C U D L IF INTERIM RELIEF REQUESTED To implement the Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition sought herein by Petitioner, Petitioner prays this Court to stay or suspend forthwith the proceedings, at least to the extent they affect Petitioner, contemplated by Respondent's June 14, 1972 Order and Ruling until such time as the ruling relative to this Petition has occurred. ULTIMATE RELIEF REQUESTED Issuance of the writ herein requested. DICKINSON, WRIGHT, McKEAN & CUDLIP By: _______________________________ Fred W. Freeman Charles F. Clippert Robert V. Peterson Attorneys for Petitioner Bloomfield Hills School District 1700 North Woodward Avenue P. 0. Box 509 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48013 (313) 646-4300 Dated: June 26, 1972 11 EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RONALD BRADLEY, et al., V. Plaintiffs WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., and Defendants DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, Defendant- Intervenorand DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., Defendants- Intervenoret al. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) A T R U E C O P Y CIVIL ACTION NO: 35257 KUIjXNG on desegregation area AND ORDER FOR DEVELOPMENT no PLAN OF nFSEGREGATTnv On September 27. 1971 the court made its Ruling on issue of Segregation, holding that illegal segregation exists in the public schools of the city of Detroit as a result of a course of conduct on the part of the state of Michigan and th, Detroit Board of Education ,^n. Having found a constitutional violation as established ^ -u „ .oxisned, on October 4, 1971 the court directed the school board defendants, city and state, to develop and submit plans of desegregation, designed to achieve the greatest •, _Possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the ̂.one practicalities of the situation. The directive called for the ,. submission of both a "Detroit-only" and a "Metropolitan" plan. Clerk Plans for the desegregation of the Detroit schools were submitted by the Detroit Board of Education and by the plaintiffs. Following five days of hearings the court found that whale plaintiffs' plan would accomplish more desegregation than now obtains in the -system, or which would be achieved under either Plan A or C of the Detroit Board of Education submissions, none of the plans would result in the desegregation of the public schools of the Detroit school district. The court, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluded that . "relief of segregation in the Detroit public schools cannot be accomplished within the corporate geographical limits of . the city," and that it had the authority and the duty to look beyond such limits for a solution to the illegal segre gation in the Detroit public schools. Accordingly, the court ruled,it had to consider a metropolitan remedy for segregation. The parties submitted a number of plans for metropolitan desegregation. The State Board of Education submitted six — without recommendation, and without indicating any preference. With the exception of one of these, none could be considered as designed to accomplish desegregation. On the other hand the proposals of intervening defendant Magdowski, et al., the Detroit Board of Education and' the plaintiffs were all good faith efforts to accomplish desegregation in the Detroit metropolitan area. The three plans submitted by these parties have many similarities, and all of them propose to incorporate, geographically,.most— and in one instance, all— of the three- county area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. The hearing on the proposals have set the framework, and have articulated the criteria and considerations, for developing and evaluating an effective plan of metropolitan desegregation. None of the submissions represent a complete plan for the ^Eeetive and equitable desegregation of the metropolitan area, capable of implementation in its present form. The court will therefore draw upon the resources of the parties to devise, pursuant to its direction, a constitutional plan of desegregation of the Detroit public • #schools. Based on the entire record herein, the previous oral and written rulings and orders of this court, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed herewith, IT IS ORDERED: ’ I. ■ A. As a panel charged with the responsibility of preparing and submitting an effective desegregation plan in accordance with the provisions of this order, the court appoints the following: 1. A designee of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction; 2. Harold Wagner, Supervisor of the Transportation Unit in the Safety and Traffic Education Program of the State Department of Education; 3. Merle Henrickson, Detroit Board of Education; 4. Aubrey McCutcheon, Detroit Board of Education; 5. Freeman Flynn, Detroit Board of Education; 6. Gordon Foster, expert for plaintiffs; 7. Richard Morshead, representing defendant Magdowski, et al.; ,8. A designee of the newly intervening defendants; 9. Rita Scott, of the Michigan Civil Rights . Commission. * The designees of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and newly intervening defendants shall be communicated to the court within seven days of the entry of this order. In the event the newly intervening defendants cannot agree upon a designee, they may each submit a nominee within seven days from the entry of this order, and the court shall select one of the nominees as representative of said defendants. Should any designated member of this panel be unable to serve, the other members of the panel shall elect any necessary replacements, upon notice to the court and the parties. In the absence of objections within five days of the notice, and pending a final ruling, such designated replacement shall act as a member of the panel. B. As soon as possible, but in no event later than 45 days after the issuance of this order, the panel is to develop a plan for 'the assignment of pupils as set forth below in order to provide the maximum actual desegregation, and shall develop as well a plan for the transportation of pupils, for implementation for all grades, schools and clusters in the desegregation area. Insofar as required by the circumstances, which are to be detailed in- particular, the panel may recommend immediate implementation of an interim desegregation plan for grades K-6, K-8 or K-S in all or in as many clusters as practicable, with complete and final desegregation to proceed in no event later than the fall 1973 term. in its transportation plan the panel shall, to meet the needs of the proposed pupil assignment plan, make recommendations, including the shortest possible time table, for acquiring sufficient additional transportation facilities for any interim or final plan of desegregation. Such recommendations shall be filed forthwith and in no event later than 45 days after the entry of this order. Should it develop that some additional transportation equipment is needed for an interim plan, the panel shall make recommendations for such acquisition within 20 days of this order. C. The parties, their agents, employees, successors/ and all others having actual notice of this order shall cooperate fully with the panel in their assigned mission, • including, but not limited to, the provision of data and reasonable full and part-time staff assistance as requested by the panel. The State defendants shall provide support, accreditation, funds, and otherwise take all actions necessary to insure that local officials and employees cooperate fully with the panel. All reasonable costs incurred by the panel shall be borne by the State defendants; provided, however, that staff assistance or other services provided by any school district, its employees or agents, shall be without charge, and the cost thereof shall be borne by such school district. II. A. Pupil reassignment to accomplish desegregation of the Detroit public schools is required within the geographical area which may be des school districts (see referred to as the "d Lakeshore Lakeview Roseville South Lake East Detroit Grosse Pointe Centerline Fitzgerald Van Dyke Fraser , Harper Woods , Warren Warren Woods Clawson Hamtramck Lamphere • Madison Heights Troy. cribed as encompassing Exhibit P.M. 12), and esegregation area": Birmingham Hazel P.ark Highland Park Royal Oak Berkley Ferndale Southfield Bloomfield Hills Oak Park Redford Union West Bloomfield Clarenceville Farmington . Livonia South Redford Crestwood Dearborn Dearborn Heights the following hereinafter Fairlane Garden City North Dearborn Height Cherry Hill Inkster Wayne Westwood Ecorse Romulus Taylor River Rouge Riverview Wyandotte Allen Park Lincoln park Melvindale Southgate Detroit Provided, ho^^ver, that if in the actua^^assignment of pupils it appears necessary and feasible to achieve effective and complete racial desegregation to reassign pupils of another district or other districts, the desegregation panel may, -upon notice to the parties, apply to the Court for an appropriate modification of this order. B. Within the limitations of reasonable travel time and distance factors, pupil reassignments shall be effected within the'clusters described in Exhibit P.M. 12 so as to achieve the greatest degree of actual desegregation to the end that, upon implementation, no school, grade or class room be substantially disproportionate to the overall pupil racial composition. The panel may, upon notice to the parties, recommend reorganization of clusters within the desegregation area in order to minimize administrative inconvenience, or time and/or numbers of pupils requiring transportation. C. Appropriate and safe transportation arrangements » . shall be made available without cost to all pupils assigned to schools deemed by the panel to be other than "walk-in" schools. ' D. Consistent with the requirements of maximum actual desegregation, every effort should be made to minimize the numbers of pupils to be reassigned and requiring trans- • t portation, the time pupils spend in transit, and the number and cost of new transportation facilities to be acquired by utilizing such techniques as clustering, the "skip"- technique, island zoning, reasonable staggering of school hours, and maximization of use of existing transportation facilities, -6- including buses owned or leased by school districts and buses operated by public transit authorities and private charter companies. The panel shall develop appropriate recommendations for limiting transfers which affect the desegregation of particular schools. E. Transportation and pupil assignment shall, to the extent consistent with maximum feasible desegregation, be a two-way process with both black and white pupils sharing the responsibility for transportation requirements at all. J* grade levels. In the determination of the utilization of existing, and the construction of new, facilities, care ■ohall be taken to randomize the location of particular grade levels. F . Faculty and staff shall be reassigned, in keeping with pupil desegregation, so as to prevent the or continuation of the identification of schools by reference to past racial composition, or the continuation of substantially disproportionate racial composition of the faculty and staffs, of the schools in the desegregation area. The faculty and staffs assigned to the schools within the desegregation area shall be substantially desegregated, bearing in mind, however, that the desideratum is the balance of faculty and staff by qualifications for subject and grade level, and then by race, experience and sex. In the context of the evidence in this case, it is appropriate to require assignment of no less than 10% black faculty and staff at each school, and where there is more than one building administrator, every effort should be made to assign a bi-racial administrative team. G. In the hiring, assignment, promotion, demotion, and dismissal of faculty and staff, racially non-discriminatory criteria must be developed and used; provided, however, there shall be no reduction in efforts to increase minority group representation among faculty and staff in the desegregation area. Affirmative action shall be taken to increase minority employment in all levels of teaching and administration. H. The restructuring of school facility utilization necessitated by pupil reassignments should produce schools of substantially like quality, facilities, extra-curricular activities and staffs; and the utilization of existing school capacity through the desegregation area shall be made on the basis of uniform criteria. I. The State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Education shall with respect to all school construction and expansion, "consider the factor of racial balance along with other educational considerations in making decisions about new school sites, expansion of present facilities * * ; and shall, within the desegregation area disapprove all proposals for new construction or expansion of existing facilities when "housing patterns in an area would result in a school largely segregated on racial * * * lines," all in accordance with the 1966 directive issued by the State Board of Education to local school boards and the State Board's “School Plant Planning Handbook" (see Ruling on Issue of segregation, p'. 13.). • J. Pending further orders of the court, existing school district and regional boundaries and school governance arrangements will be maintained and continued, except to the extent necessary to effect pupil and faculty desegregation as set forth herein; provided, however, that existing administra tive, financial, contractual, property and governance arrange ments shall be examined, and recommendations for their temporary and permanent retention or modification shall be made, in light of the need to operate an effectively desegregated system of schools. . K. At each school within the desegregated area provision shall be made to insure that the curriculum, activities, and conduct .standards respect the diversity of students from differing ethnic backgrounds and the dignity and safety of <?ach individual, students, faculty, staff and parents. L'. The defendants shall, to insure the effective desegregation of the schools in the desegregation area, take immediate action including, but not limited to, the establishment or expansion of in-service training of faculty and staff, create bi-racial committees, employ black counselors, and require bi-racial and non-discriminatory extra-curricular activities. II i: The State Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the assistance of the other state defendants, shall examine, and make recommendations, consistent with the principles * t. established above, for appropriate interim and final arrange ments for the (1) financial, (2) administrative and school governance, and (3) contractual arrangements for the operation of the schools within the desegregation area, including steps for unifying, or otherwise making uniform the personnel -9- Jpo2.xci.6S/ procebur e s/ contracts, and property arrangements of the various school districts. Within 15 days of the entry of this order, the Superintendent shall advise the court and the parties of his progress in preparing such recommendations by filing a written report with the court and serving it on the parties. In not later than 45 days after the entry of this order, the Superintendent shall file with the court his recommendations for appropriate interim and final relief in these respects. In his examination and recommendations, the Superintendent, consistent with the rulings and orders of this court, may be guided, but not limited, by existing state law; where state law provides a convenient and adequate framework for interim or ultimate relief, it should be followed, where state law either is silent or conflicts with what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this order, the Superintendent shall independently recommend what he deems necessary. In particular, the Superintendent shall examine and choose one appropriate interim arrangement to oversee the immediate implementation of a plan of desegregation. IV. Ea°h party may file appropriate plans or proposals for inclusion in any final order which may issue in this cause. The intent of this order is to permit all the parties . to proceed apace with the task before us.- fashioning an effective plan for the desegregation of the Detroit public schools. • Fifteen days after the filing of the reports required herein, hearings will begin on any proposal to modify any interim plan prepared by the panel and all n-t-w ^ — which may be incident to the adoption and implementation of any interim plan of desegregation submitted. The parties are placed on notice that they are to be prepared at that time to present their objections, alternatives and modifications. At such hearing the court will not consider objections to •desegregation or proposals offered "instead" of desegregation. Hearings on a final plan of desegregation will be set as circumstances require. DATE: JUNE 14 , 1972.