Clark v. Little Rock Board of Education Response to Application for Stay Injunction

    IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1970 

No.

DELORES CLARK, e t a l . ,
Petitioners,

◄

v .

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et a l. ,

RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR STAY INJUNCTION

HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY,
ROBERT V. LIGHT,
G. ROSS SMITH

1100 Boyle Building 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Attorneys for Respondents

i



STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 30, 1970, the petitioners herein presented to the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, 

a Motion for Injunction Pendente Lite, in connection with the litigation then 

in progress concerning the desegregation plan which would be implemented 

by the Little Rock School District in the 1970-1971 and subsequent school years, 

requesting that the district court enjoin certain construction projects of the 

Little Rock School District. Among the projects specifically mentioned in 

the petitioners' motion was the addition to the Henderson Junior High School 

which petitioners now ask this Court to enjoin. In its August 17, 19 70 opinion, 

which principally dealt with the substance of the integration plan to be imple­

mented, the district court referred to the motion seeking to restrain construction, 

but did not grant the requested relie f.

In a subsequent opinion on Septerrber 24, 1970, again dealing 

principally with the substance of the desegregation plan of the district, the 

district court discussed the construction issue in more detail. At page 9 of 

its opinion, the district court responded to the expressed fear of counsel for 

petitioners that the Henderson project would hamper integration,'*’ as follows:

" The Court is not persuaded that the fear of counsel 
is so well grounded as to move the Court to enjoin the 
construction of the improvements at Henderson at this 
time, assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to do so 
in the present posture of the case, or in terms to dis­
approve the construction in the course of evaluating the 
junior high school plan. The Court thinks, though, that 
the Board would be well advised not to commence work 
without the prior approval of this Court or of the Court of 
Appeals." C larkv. Board of Education, 316F.-Supp. 1029 
at 1215 (E.D. Ark. 1970).

*It was this concern, and not an expressed fear that construction would be 
initiated during the pendency of the litigation as suggested at page 5 of 
petitioners' statement, to which the district court referred.



Thereafter, while the issue of the adequacy of the district's desegre­

gation plan was pending on appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

petitioners moved for a limited remand for the purpose of enabling the district 

court to decide whether the school district should be prohibited from proceed­

ing with the Henderson construction project. The district joined in the motion.

Following a remand for the limited purpose of considering the 

construction issue, the district court received evidence in the matter and 

on December 1, 1970, denied the request for injunction. A memorandum 

opinion was entered on December 8, 19 70.

Because of the urgent need to complete the Henderson construction 

project before the opening of school for the 1971-72 school year, school 

district officials had, prior to the district court's December ruling, begun 

the preliminary steps involved in letting a contract for the construction work. 

The district advertised for bids; the bids were opened on October 27, 1970 

and the Board approved the substance of a proposed contract to be let to the 

successful bidder. However, the contract was not executed by the school 

district, nor a work order issued, until after the district court had refused to 

enjoin the project. Construction was commenced shortly thereafter (Exhibit A 

to Application, p. 4; Exhibit A hereto).

On December 28, 1970, the court of appeals, in response to a 

motion filed by the petitioners, issued an order authorizing the grant of an 

injunction restraining the Henderson project upon the filing by the petitioners 

of a bond in the amount of $25,000.00 to indemnify the school district in the 

event that the injunction was ultimately determined to have been improvidently 

granted. No time limit was set for the filing of the bond. As of January 8,

1971, the petitioners had not posted the bond but the district had ordered con­

struction halted in an effort to minimize damages in the event that such a

-2-



bond should be posted and an injunction issued. On the latter date, the 

district filed in the court of appeals a motion urging either a reconsideration 

of the authorization for the injunction, the setting of a specific time within 

which the petitioners should post bond or an increase in the amount of the 

bond to be required, the principal purpose of the motion being to alleviate the 

plight of the district which resulted in its being unable to continue the con­

struction project because of the possibility that a bond would be posted at 

any time, and bearing the heavy expense of the construction interruption with­

out the protection of a bond (Memorandum in Support of respondents' January 8, 

1971, Motion). In response to the district's motion, the court of appeals 

entered an order on January 20, 1971, specifying that unless the petitioners 

filed a sufficient bond on or before February 1, 1971, its previous order 

authorizing the issuance of an injunction would be vacated. No such bond 

was presented and on or about February 1, the district resumed construction 

at the Henderson site. Because of the delay involved in the stoppage of con­

struction, the district was required to execute a contract change order which 

required an additional expenditure by the district of the sum of $8,735.93, 

which amount directly resulted from the delay (Exhibit B hereto).



STATEMENT OF FACTS

The construction project sought to be enjoined was conceived in 

1961 as the second phase of a two-phase plan to construct the Henderson 

Junior High School in the Little Rock, Arkansas school district as a facility 

which would ultimately accommodate approximately 1,250 students. The 

initial phase of construction was completed in 1965 with the result that 

the classroom capacity at the school was adequate to house 750 students, 

while the auditorium, laboratories, bandroom, library, e tc ., would serve 

an additional 500 students, the classroom space for which would be provided by 

the second phase of construction. The present enrollment at the facility is 

approximately 1,100 students and 52 faculty members, resulting in a serious 

overcrowding condition to both students and faculty. Four portable classrooms 

are in use to provide additional classroom space and teaching stations. How­

ever, these facilities are inadequate to provide teaching stations for all of the 

faculty members at the site with the result that eight teachers have no assigned 

teaching station. The proposed construction project w ill eliminate the need 

for these portable facilities and w ill increase the overall capacity of the facility 

in accordance with the initial conception of its size (See generally Exhibit A 

to Application).

The district's desegregation plan now before the Eighth Circuit 

Court of Appeals provides that Henderson Junior High School w ill in 1971-72 

serve seventh and eighth .grade students and is projected to be a "racially 

balanced" school with an enrollment of approximately 900 white students and 

300 black students (Id p. 6; See Table III of Ex. 1 to September 1 Revised 

Desegregation Plan, filed in the district-court September 1 , 19 70, a copy of 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit C ).

4-



After hearing the evidence on this construction issue, the district 

court found, as fact, that " (T)he contemplated improvements at Henderson 

w ill not affect the integration of that facility one way or another provided 

that racial balance within the school is maintained. " (Exhibit A to Applica­

tion, p. 10.) As has been noted, the district has committed to achieve racial 

balance at Henderson for the 19 71-72 school year.

The granting of petitioners' Application would subject the respondents 

to the risk of substantial monetary loss (in excess of the already incurred 

expense of $8,735.93 which is attributable solely to the previous delay in 

construction) and seriously impair their ability to complete the proposed con­

struction in time to minimize the disruption of classes during the first part of 

the 1971-72 school year when the project w ill be needed to adequately house 

students and faculty members at the Henderson campus. The need for addi­

tional capacity w ill exist regardless of the type of desegregation plan which 

the district ultimately implements at the junior high school level in 1971-72 

(Exhibit A to Application p. 7; Exhibit D hereto).

The petitioners' description at page 8 of the Application of the 

present status of construction is not entirely accurate. Although the con­

struction of walls has not yet begun, the entire foundation is complete, the 

underground plumbing, consisting of sewer, water and gas lines, is essentially 

complete, and the construction crew has only recently been able to resume 

operations at the normal pace, after a delay of approximately thirty days

(Exhibit A hereto).



REASONS WHY RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS 
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

Respondents submit that the circumstances involved in the 

construction plans for the addition to Henderson Junior High School by the 

Little Rock School District, when construed in light of applicable decisions, 

are not such as to warrant the intervention, through the grant of injunctive 

re lie f, of the federal judiciary. Certainly, officials of a school district 

involved in the desegregation process are constitutionally obliged to fully 

consider the effects of its construction programs on the desegregation process, 

to refrain from adopting and implementing projects which would frustrate or 

interfere with the district's obligation to achieve a unitary system, and, to 

the extent consistent with the proper operation of the educational system as 

a whole, devise and implement its construction plans for the affirmative 

purpose of furthering the disestablishment of a dual school system. See e .g . , 

United States v. Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida, 395 F.

2d 66 (5th Cir. 1968); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F . Supp. 

458, 481 (M .D . Ala. 1967). Thus, where no consideration has been given by 

district officials to the effect on desegregation of a construction project,

United States v. Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida, supra, 

where the need for the proposed facility  w ill not be known until the adoption 

of a new desegregation plan, Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of 

Mobile County, 414 F. 2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969), where a proposed new school 

is clearly intended by district officials to be identifiable as a Negro facility, 

Bivins v. Board of Public Education, 284 F. Supp. 888 (M .D . Ga. 1967), and 

where construction plans are found to be based on a desire to preserve the 

dual school system, Kelley v . Altheimer, Arkansas Public School District No. 22,

-6-



None of the circumstances involved in the foregoing cases are 

present in the construction project involved in the Application. The 

proposed addition to Henderson w ill, in the opinion of the professional 

educators of the district, be needed for the 1971-72 school year regardless of 

the type of desegregation plan then in effect and such need has been determined 

upon the basis of sound educational and administrative considerations with 

due regard given to the effects of the project upon the desegregation program 

(Exhibit D hereto). The district court found that the proposed projects would 

not impede or frustrate the achievement of a unitary system (Exhibit A to 

Application p.10).

It must be recognized that even school districts involved in the 

desegregation process must at times embark upon construction activities 

which are supported by sound educational and administrative considerations 

but which may have neither a frustrating nor promoting effect upon desegre­

gation activities. In such "neutral" projects, which the district court found 

the Henderson project to be, the federal courts should not interfere with the 

considered determinations of elected school district officials and their 

administrative personnel, particularly where the disruptive effects, both 

educational and financial, of federal intervention are substantial. Moreover, 

to the extent that the additional classrooms w ill enable the district to 

accommodate the 900 white students and 300 black students which are pro­

jected to be attending Henderson in 1971-72, the construction w ill facilitate 

integration.

Petitioners' assertion that the district's present desegregation plan 

for the junior high schools w ill achieve integration at the sole expense of

37 8 F .2 d  483 (8th Cir. 1967), the construction programs are properly enjoined.

- 7 -



black students is simply not accurate. For example, all children in the 

district in grade nine (except those residing in the attendance area for the 

Booker-Mann Complex, an innovative compensatory education center) w ill 

attend either Dunbar or Pulaski Heights School, the former being located in 

the eastern section of the City and surrounded principally by black residential 

areas . Most of the 720 white students who are projected to be attending 

Dunbar next year w ill also have to travel substantial distances from their 

homes to attend this facility  (Exhibit A hereto). Nor is the petitioners' 

discussion of the existence of a proposal for building an additional junior 

high school which would be more centrally located between white and black 

residential areas accurate. The school district presently has no plans for 

construction of such a facility; Superintendent Parsons merely indicated that 

"the ultimate construction of such a school is not beyond the thinking of 

the Board;" that such construction is not imminent and that in any event, 

the possibility of such a school being built does not obviate the necessity 

for continuing with the addition to Henderson Junior High School (Exhibit A 

to Application p . 8-9).

Respondents attach hereto Affidavits of Floyd Parsons, Superintendent 

of Little Rock School District (Exhibit D) , John Stowers, the contractor 

employed to accomplish the Henderson project (Exhibit E), and Lynn W assell, 

the architect retained by the Little Rock School District in connection with 

the Henderson project (Exhibit F ). It is respectfully submitted that these 

Affidavits, which were-presented to the Court of Appeals in connection with 

the district's January 8, 1971 Motion, clearly demonstrate that the Court of 

Appeals correctly conditioned the petitioners' right to injunctive relief upon 

the filing of a bond . _ „—

- 8 -



The purpose of security requirements imposed as a condition to

the issuance of injunctive relief is of course to provide " . . .  for the payment 

of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who 

is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. " See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65 (c ) . Recoverable damages under such bonds are those directly attrib­

utable to the injunction and which are incurred or suffered as a result of the 

wrongful restraint. 7 Moore Federal Practice. 65.10(1)

At the time of the respondents' January 8, 1971 Motion in the court 

of appeals, the types of expenses and damages directly related to an injunction

prohibiting further construction in the Little Rock district at the Henderson
2

School were as follows:

A. Increases in the labor costs of the contractor because of 

the deferral of construction activities until dates on which applicable 

collective bargaining agreements call for wage rate increases. Stowers 

Affidavit p. 1, 2-3.

B. Increases in material costs because of inability to place 

firm purchase orders before dates on which price increases become effective. 

Stowers Affidavit p. 2 and Exhibit 2 thereto.

C. Expense involved in the installation and subsequent dis­

mantling upon dissolution of the injunction, of temporary protective measures 

which”must be installed at the job site to insure the safety of students,

Article 14.1.1 of the contract applicable to the Henderson project 
provides as follows:

" I f  the Work is stopped for a period of thirty days under 
an order of any court or other public authority having juris­
diction, through no act or fault of the Contractor or a Sub­
contractor or their agents or employees or any other persons 
performing any of the Work under a contract with the Con­
tractor . . . then the Contractor may, upon seven days' 
written notice to the Owner and the Architect, terminate the 
Contract and recover from the Owner payment for all Work 
executed and for any proven loss sustained upon any materials, 
equipment, tools, construction equipment and machinery, in­
cluding reasonable profit and damages . "

-9-



Stowers Affidavit p.3; W assell Affidavit p .l.

D . Damages and a reasonable profit which may be claimed 

from the district by the contractor upon the latter's termination of the 

contract. (See note 2 supra.)

E. Expense to the district of providing other facilities during 

the 1971-72 school year for those students who were intended to be housed 

in the addition to Henderson. Parsons Affidavit (Exhibit D) p. 1-2.

Petitioners' contention on page 15 of their Application that 

"respondents chose to proceed (with preparations for the Henderson con­

struction) without following the district court's suggestion and entered into 

a contract before petitioners could bring the matter to the court's attention," 

is simply an erroneous distortion of the record. Because of the urgent need 

to complete the proposed addition before the commencement of the 1971-72 

school year, the district did advertise for bids, and after the bids were opened 

on October 27, a contract for the construction work was signed by the success­

ful bidder, John E. Stowers, Inc. of Little Rock (Exhibit A to Application p .4 ). 

However, the school district did not execute the construction contract, did 

not issue a work order and did not commence construction, until after the 

district court had refused to enjoin the project (Ibid; Exhibit A hereto). Before 

taking-any of these steps, notwithstanding the critical need to start construction, 

the school district filed a Motion in the district court seeking approval of the 

project and joined petitioners in a Motion for limited remand in the court of

teachers  and other individuals in the vicinity  of the construction s i t e .

appeals in order to vest the district court with jurisdiction to pass on the matter.



CONCLUSION

As was noted in Freeman v. Gould, 405 F.2d 1153 (8 Cir. , 1969)

cert, denied 396 U.S. 843 by a panel of the court o f which the Circuit Justice 

to whom this Application is addressed was a member:

" School boards are representatives of the people, and 
should have wide latitude and discretion in the operation 
of the school district, including employment and rehiring 
practices. Local autonomy must be maintained to allow 
continued denocratic control of education as a primary 
state function, subject only to clearly enunciated legal 
and constitutional restrictions."

Intervention by the federal judiciary into the operations and

administrative decisions of the public schools has been with us for over a 

decade and a half. However, as noted by the court in Freeman, unless some 

limitations are observed the risk is great of destroying the institution of 

public education in this nation.

It is submitted that the district court correctly recognized these

limitations when it declined to enter an injunction. While we think the Court 

of Appeals erred when it ordered an injunction entered on the facts reflected 

by the record in this case, it clearly was a sound exercise of its discretion 

to mitigate the damage occasioned by its order to require a bond that would at 

least partially protect against the certain monetary loss the school district 

would sustain.

Respondents respectfully urge that the Application be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 
ROBERT V. LIGHT 
G. ROSS SMITH '
1100 Boyle Building

-11-



A F F I D A V I T

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) s s .

COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I ,  FLOYD W , PARSONS, having first been duly sworn state on 

oath as follows:

I am Superintendent of the Little Rock School District and have 

personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit. Although 

district officials advertised for bids from contractors for the proposed 

construction at the Henderson Junior High School, opened such bids and 

secured the commitment of the successful bidder on a construction contract, 

a ll prior to the district court's December 1, 1970 denial of the petitioners' 

request for injunctive relief against the project, the construction contract 

was not executed by the district, nor was a work order issued or construction 

commenced, until after such denial.

After the Court of Appeals entered an order authorizing the issuance 

of an injunction against construction at the Henderson site, conditioned upon 

the filing of a bond by the petitioners, the district ordered construction at 

the site halted, in an attempt to minimize its damages. When the petitioners 

failed to post the bond within the time allotted, the district resumed con­

struction, but was first required by the contractor to execute a change order 

requiring the district to pay an additional sum of $8,735.93, that amount 

being the damages directly resulting from the delay.

OxA

nr . . . . .  .. :.u -v ;.^ ^ n y r  r»-



Construction activities are in full progress at the Henderson 

site at this time, and the construction crews are only now conducting 

operations at a normal pace, after the delay of approximately thirty (30) 

days caused by the order of the Court of Appeals . Construction of the 

entire foundation for the addition is complete and the underground plumbing 

consisting of sewer, water and gas lines is essentially complete.

In the event that construction at the site is again halted, the 

district could again expect to experience monetary damage similar in 

character and amount to the damages which I have previously described in 

an Affidavit executed on January 6, 1971.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of March, 1971.

■/t
Lo L C

Notary Public J
J ( C

My Commission Expires:

(SEAL)



I 4

ROBINSON AND WAS SELL, ARCHITECTS 
300 MART BUILDING 
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 
PHONE: 663-4123

CHANGE ORDER NO.

John E. Stowers, Inc., University Tower Bldg., Little Rock, Ark. 
CONTRACTOR AUDKli55

Dear Sir (s):
Under your contract, dated November 30___ , 197 0 , with The Little _

Rock School District___________, Owner for Alterations ft Additions to
»c • i o
Henderson Jr. High School, we are authorized by the Owner, only when 
he 'has'“af fixed his signature to this instrument, to hereby direct you 
to return to work, subsequent to the temporary suspension required bv

court injunction. Increased material, labor, equipment, and the

administrative expenses are to be added to the contract cost in the.

amounts indicated on the attached letter and tabulation from John E_.

Stowers, Inc., dated February 2, 1971. ____________ ______________

and to (add to) (deduct from) the contract, in accordance with the 
Contract, the sum of Eight thousand seven hundred thirty-five dollars $ 95/ 
Dollars ($8,735.93 ).

j m m r m r —
CONTRACT
AMOUNT

TOTAL
(ADDITIONS)

------------ TOTXT
(ADDITIONS) 
(DEDUCTIONS) 
PREVIOUS CHANGE 

ORDERS

-----------CONTRACTOR
REVISED
TO
DATETHIS CHANGE 

ORDER
$349.218.013 1 ( >0 $2,060.67 $351,2/8.6/

$8,735.93 -------m $360,014.60
— ---£— i— — ------- -------m ______

----------------- !-------4 ( j ____________ ___ _____ J—
_________________ !_______iI_J-------------- 1



JO H N  E . S T O W E R S , IN C .
G E N E R A L  C O N T R A C T O R

U N I V E R S I T Y  T O W E R  B U I L D I N G  

1111 C O U T H  U N I V E R S I T Y  

L I T T L E  R O C K .  A R K A N S A S  7 2 2 0 4

February 2, 1971

COO-6157

©00-0147

Robinson -7 ’’assell, Architects 
Mart Building
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202

Re: Henderson Junior High School
Little Rock, Arkansas

Attn: Mr. Lynn ’Hassell, Jr.

Dear Mr. ’Hassell:

With reference to our previous correspondence ar.d telephone 
conversations regarding extra costs incurred by the work 
stoppage, we wish to advise you that since receiving your 
letter ’of January 27, 1971, 1 have contacted each subcontrac­
tor and major material vendor regarding their extra costs for 
the thirty-day delay.

In most cases they have agreed to go along with their original 
cost figures. As. a result of this survey, I have nreparod 
a revised tabulation showing the additions that should he 
made to our contract due to increased labor and material 
cost.

Very truly yours,

JOHN E. STOWERS, INC

. ' U

Stowers

S •(*■*-% i f  t  v- • V-

JESrmi
Snc. V"'



v.;madditional r.xrri;TKciJP:i’r:
DUE TO V'CRK STOPFACE

HENDERSON JUNIOR H10H SCHOOL 
LITTLE ROCK, ARKAESAS

February 2, 1971

John E. Stowers, Inc. -  Doner'’1 Contractor 
Er*p. Sec. on Employees Terminated 
Increase in Labor Cost 
Office Expanse 
Attorney's Fee

Lashlee Steel Company

Harvi 11-Byrd Electric Company
Increase in Material A Labor Cost

Miracle Equipment Co. (Basbetbr.il Eq.)

Monarch M ill ALur.ber Co.

Bush-Caldviell Co. - Hollow Metal Frames

C. R. Hubbard Co. - Floor T ile , Carpet,
Acoustical Ceilings - increase in naucrial oos.

Pfe4f  ®r Plumbing and Heating Co.
‘ increasa in ‘Material 0 Equipment Cast

Knox D il l  Company - Roofing & Sheet Metal 
Increase in Material ^ost

Lyman Lamb Co. -  Roof Dec?\

Morton Masonry, Inc.

. Martin Borchert Co. -  Finish Hardware

Mitchell-Bowie School Equipment uo.
(Chalk, Tackboards, etc .)

Reimer Plastering Co. - Lath, Plaster, stucco

Medart Division - Lockers 

TOTAL INCREASE IN CONTRACT AH Ob NT

$ 250.00 
1*12.80 
<^0.00 
135.00

- o -

1,638.75

-o-
-o-
-o-

118.00

7<.00

i,63U-00

- 0 -

- 0 -

275.50

- 0 -

2,61*1.90

30h.98

$8,735.93

- ' '̂ r "’• ■ " j J i y ! . ■ j nw

r-

i■



TABLE III - ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS - 1971-72
SCHOOLS FOR 7th and 8th GRADE STUDENTS

Center Grade 7 Grade 8 Total

Negro White Total Negro White Total Negro White Total

Forest
Heights 141 376 517 132 380 512 273 756 1029

Henderson 159 443 602 145 460 605 304 903 1207

Southwest 156 368 524 136 370 506 292 738 1030

TOTALS 456 1187 1643 413

1

1210 1673

•

869 2397 3266

t TABLE

i.

IV - ENROLLMENT

.1• t

PROJECTIONS - 1971-72
-

9th GRADE CENTERS

SCHOOL NEGRO WHITE TOTAL •

Dunbar
ii
ili 262 . ! 720 982

Pulaski Heights 247
! \. \

679
»1

! ’ 926
. - .

TOTAL 509 j 1399 1908
\ ' • ' *.

> •
! , • "

• . ... * • 1
i : • -

1 ' • A ~ •—

£ > <  C



A F F I D A V I T

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss

COUNTY OF PULASKI )

1, FLOYD W . PARSONS, having first been duly sworn state on 

oath as follows:

I am Superintendent of the Little Rock School District and have 

personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Affidavit. The 

alterations and additions to Henderson Junior High School were designed 

to provide capacity for an additional 500 students at that site in time for 

use during the 1971-72 school year. I f  the junior high school phase of 

the school district's desegregation plan presently before the Court is 

approved, the antiquated facilities at West Side Junior High School w ill 

be closed and Henderson w ill be operated as a school for grades 7 and 8 

during 1971-72. Projected attendance at Henderson in this event would be 

1,207 students and if the addition upon which construction has commenced 

is not available it w ill be necessary to add a minimum of nine additional 

portable classrooms to those already on that site in order to operate a 

program comparable to the other junior high schools in the district in terms

-of space.

In the alternative, if Henderson is operated during 1971-72 as a tra­

ditional junior high school for grades 7, 8 and 9 and West Side Junior High

Q k  D -



School is closed, then the projected enrollment at Henderson is 1,341 

students and there would be a need to add thirteen portable classrooms to 

those already in use on that campus .

The school district presently owns seventeen portable classrooms 

which are all in use and a ll are already projected for use during 1971-72 .

The most recent purchase of a portable classroom by the district was in 

May, 1968 and the purchase price was $6,864.00. There is an additional 

cost of approximately $800.00 to connect utilities to such a structure.

In view of rising costs since we last purchased a portable class­

room two and one-half years ago, I would conservatively estimate that the 

purchase and installation of nine portable classrooms for use at Henderson 

would cost in excess of $70,000.00 and that the purchase and installation 

of thirteen additional portable classrooms for use at Henderson would cost 

in excess o f $100,000.00.

In my opinion it would be extremely unwise and undesirable from an 

educational standpoint to expend the funds of this school district to acquire 

additional portable buildings . We much prefer to house students in the 

better educational atmosphere provided by permanent facilities . Portable 

buildings are temporary expedients and we presently own all of such tem­

porary expedients we need considering the size and growth rate of the district.
The 4 photographs attached as Exhibit 1 hereto reflect the condition of the

Henderson Junior High School campus at the time work was suspended on Dec­

ember 23, 1970. This partially completed and abandoned construction presents 

a hazardous condition for the students which w ill have to be corrected if work 

is not resumed soon. Photograph 3 also shows some of the portable classrooms

in use at the school.

-dU, -: rf‘-

-1 -



The foregoing reflects the monetary damages the school district will 

incur if the injunction is not vacated in the near future in addition to damages 

that w ill be claimed against the district by the contractor.

______, . £
. FLOYD W . PARSONS

/ 1/
.Subscribed and sworn to before me this !'■ day of January, 1971.

My Commission Expires:

J  Notary Public

(SEAL)



3 . Exhibit 1 to Parsons4.



A F F I D A V I T

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss

COUNTY OF PULASKI )

%

I, J. E. STOWERS, being first duly sworn, state on oath as 

follows:

I am President of John E. Stowers, Inc. which is engaged in the 

construction business as a general contractor with headquarters in Little 

Rock. In a bid opening on October 27, 1970 my firm was the successful 

low bidder on a project for alterations and additions to Henderson Junior 

High School for the Little Rock School D istrict. The contract was awarded 

upon our bid in the amount of $349,218.00. We based our bid upon the 

expectation that if  we were the successful bidder we would be authorized 

promptly to commence the work. We therefore calculated labor costs on 

those then prevailing and those which would prevail during the anticipated 

construction period under existing collective bargaining agreements. 

Material costs were calculated by us and our sub-contractors on the basis 

of prevailing prices for which firm purchase orders could be made promptly 

after the bid opening.

. __ After we undertook the performance of this contract we were required

to suspend operations on December 23, 1970 by reason of being advised that 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was about to enter

£* B

~t- ■' i



an injunction restraining the school district from proceeding with this 

construction. To determine the cumulative damages that w ill accrue if 

we are not permitted to resume construction*in the very near future I 

wrote our sub-contractors and material vendors requesting that they 

calculate the additional costs they were incurring as a result of the work 

stoppage. A copy of my letter to them of December 28, 1970-is attached 

as Exhibit 1. Based on the quotations furnished me in response to that 

letter we prepared a tabulation projecting the costs that w ill be incurred 

on this job as a result of the work stoppage and a copy is attached as 

Exhibit 2. As reflected by my letter of January 5, 1971 to the school 

district attorneys attached as Exhibit 3, this is simply the best projection 

of additional costs we can make on presently available information and 

does not amount to a commitment that the work can be resumed and com­

pleted within these prices.

The cost of labor on the work to be performed by our own employees 

is governed by co llective bargaining agreements and a schedule of those 

wage rates is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of O. L. Holland filed 

today in Graves v . Board of Education of the North Little Rock, Arkansas
(_Codfcta-tAv-sek ^

School D istrict, No. 20486. It provides for substantial pay increases 

e ffective March 1, 1971 and further such increases effective September 1, 

1971. We based our bid on the expectation that a great deal of the work 

would be completed before the March 1, 1971 increase and that the job would

/

j■



be completed, or substantially completed, before the September 1, 

1971 increase.
If the work suspension continues past the next few days 

considerable work should be done to make the site safe in view 
of the presence of school children and the absence of construction 
employees. This includes removal of temporary utilities, the 
construction shack and grade beam forms. Grading should be done 
to eliminate standing water. A temporary four foot walkway 
should be constructed parallel to the existing building with steps 
down to the existing sidewalk. All protruding.reinforcing steel 
and anchor bolts should be boxed in. The construction materials 
on the site should be removed and stored. V7e have proposed to 
the architect to do this work for $2,494.00. If these protective 
measures are taken and the job then resumed, it will then be 
necessary to incur the expense of restoring the site to its 
present condition in order to resume construction.

If suspension of this work under court order continues for 
as long as thirty-seven days then the contract authorizes us to 
terminate the contract and to recover from the school district all 
•of our losses including a reasonable profit.

-  3 -



Subscribed and svjorn to before me this seventh day of

January, 1 9 7 1 .

Notary Public
/ /-/A' yc'

My Commission Expires:



JO H N  H. S T O V /E R S , IN C .
G E N E R A L  C O N 1 R A C T O R  

U N I  V K R 8 I T Y  T O W I ' J I  D U I L D I N O  

111!  C O U T H  U N I V I  n c i T Y

L I T T L E  R O C K .  A R K A N S A S  7 2 2 0 4

CO 0 0 \ 07

ccioei ̂ 7

December 20, 1970

Memo to: All Subcontractors and Material Vendors

Subject: Alterations and Additions to
Henderson Junior High School 
Littlo Rock, Arkansas

We have been advised by the Architect for the above project and by 
Office of the Little-Rock School District that the United Statos 
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will temporarily enjoin -further 
construction of alterations and additions to Henderson Junior High 
School. On December 22, 1970, the Architect told us to cease con­
struction in an orderly manner. We shut the job down at U:00 P.M., 
Decemoer 23, 1970.

Officials of the Little Rock School District do not know how long 
the injunction will be in effect, or whether the Court will ever 
permit construction to be resinned.

This work stoppage will no doubt penalize and cause inforeseen damages 
and additional cost to all involved. We therefore request that you 
refrain from placing any orders for materials or equipment; and for 
the time being, place hold orders on any and all materials and equip­
ment now on order with your suppliers.

We request that you furnish us within seven days of the date of this 
letter a summary showing the status of what your company has done with 
regard to this project, listing expenses that you have incurred up to 
this date. We also request that you furnish us a statement showing 
your anticipated additional extra cost or damages which you expect to 
incur if the work stoppage lasts for 3D days, 60 days, 90 days, or 
180 days. Please bear in mind that you may be called on to substantiate 
these figures in Court if we are directed to appear in this case.

There is a possibility that this firm may terminate our contract with 
the Little Rock School District, in accordance with the terms of the 
Contract Documents. In the event that we elect to do this, please fur­
nish us a statement showing the amount that, your firm will be damaged.

Exhibit 1 to Stowers



/ . U I J  f l l ' P J I  v ,  i ’ T T i A  i , .  *

DU); TO WORK STOPPAGE

HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

, , , r Stowers, Inc., Sen. Contr. 
Salary on Stand-by basis

rr-o\‘V Ins- on SuPt *
rliU 5ec. on Er.-ip. Terminated
I n c r e a s e  i n  babor Cost 
Office Expense 
Attorney's 
O v e r b e a d  & Profit

L a s ) * ! e c  Steel Co.
"̂rTYce V Preparation Shop Draw. 
Inc. in Prices-Str.Joist & Deck

}?nrVi 1 1-Pyrd Electric Co.
-— Office A Job expense ..— - -

Inc. Material b Labor Cost 
Overhead and Profit

Miracle Eq. Co.(Baskctbal1 Eq.) 
ir.c rease in Equipment Cost

Monarch Kill & Lbr. Co.'Mlllwor-' 
Office Exp. Prep, of Drawings 
Increase in Material Costs

Pnsh-Ca)dwell Co. (H.M, Frames) 
Materials Ordered a Delivered 
Increase in Material Cost

Extra Add.Cost Add.Cost Add.Cost Add.Cost Cost if
Cost 30 Days 60 Days 90 Days 180 Days Contract

To Date Delay Do lay Delay Delay...... Tormina t--d

600.00 1,200.00 1,800.00 3,600.00
55.00 110.00 165.00 330.00 —

250.00 500.00 750.00 1,500.00 —

- - - U12.80 1,272.80 1,720.00 3,056.bo —

550.00 — — — — —

135.00 - - - - - - --- ~ — 3,500.CO
--- 3,397.00 6,79b.0010,191.00 20,382.00 25,or).CD

- 100.00
1,35b.00 1,35b.00 1,35b.00 1,35b.00 —

81.35
1,638.75 1,927.23 2,b67.30 2,913.55

b, 760.CD

— — 8b. 80 8b. 80 8b.80 —

70.00
136.92 273.8b 273.8b 273.8b —

u93.00 —

16.00 16.00 16.00
—

C, R. Hubbard Co. (Floor Tile, 
Carpet, Ac. Ceilings 

Office Expense & Job Overhead 
Increase in Material Cost 
Profit on Job

67.70
152.58 - 152.58 152.58 271.08

1,22b.75

Pfeifer Plbq. b. Htq. Co. 
office Expense v Overhead 
Increase in Material & Eq. Cost 
Profit

500.00
775.00  775.00  2 ,5 5 1 .0 0  2 , 551.00

5,U89.00

Prox Pill Co (Roofing Sub.) 
Increase in Material Cost 
Increase in Material & Labor Cost 
Overhead U Profit

l , 63b .0C 1 , 6 3 b . 00
2 ,0 3 3 .0 0  2,598.00

2,136.01

Exhibit 2 to Stowers



Extra ADD. Co:, l
Cost. 30 Dnya
1 o Da l.c Delay

ADD.Cost 
60 Daya 
Da lay

ADD. Co:; t. 
90 Daya 
Del ay

AD 1 .Do-.
ID*' Day a
D̂  3 ay

Doiit y ■

L l .at'pj Co. (Hoof Deck Sub' 
increase in LaLoiial Cost ——
Profit

Korton Masonry, Inc.
baâ p]e Drick Panel $0-00
Prof i t
}.;nr 1 in Borchert Co. (Fin. Hdv:e.)
Office Dxp. & Prep. Hdv/e. Schedule 75.00 
Increase in Material Prices --

Kit.chell-Bovic Sch. Eg. Co. 
iChalx» * ocicoocirils)

Office Lxp. it Prep. Shop Drawings __ 55.00

27.55

U16.05 532.10
................................. 550.

2,loo.

27.55 27.55 27.55 III

Prir.er Plastering Co, (Lath, 
Plaster, Stucco)

Increase in Material Cost 
Increase in Labor Cost 
Increase in Material Cost 

“Overhead it Profit

?->dart Division (Lockers) 
entering ^rder it Office Exp. 
Increase in Material Cost, 10«

h,956.3b 1 ,996.3b h ,996.21
3 , 602.61
7,682.00

6,76p.

55.00 - - -  - - -  '
_______ 506.29 5c°. 29 533.20 559.12 —

2,265.05 15,938.23 21,626.43 29,532.16 51,834.05 51,879

page 2 of
Exhibit 2 to Stov/ers

3
A



JO H N  E . S T O W E R S . IN C .
G E N E R A L  C O N T R A C T O R
U N IV E R S ITY  T O W E R  D U I L D I N G  

1111 S O U T H  U N I V E R S I T Y  

L I T T L E  R O C K .  A R K A N S A S  7 2 2 0 4

January 1971

o o c • o i r. 7 
C G G - 6  1 4 7

Hr. Robert V. Light, Attorney 
c/o Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen 
Boyle Building 
Little Rock, Arkansas

Dear Sir:
In accordance with the request of Hr. Lynn Wassell, Architect,
Hr. Horschel Friday, Attorney, and Hr. Floyd Parsons, Superintendent 
of Schools for the*Little Rock School District, at our meeting in 
Hr. Parsons' office on December 23, 1970, v.To have prepared the 
attached tabulation showing the actual and anticipated expense 
and additional cost or damages which will be incurred due to the 
injunction order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for 
the Eighth Circuit.

Prior to the preparation of this tabulation we mailed a letter to 
each of our subcontractors and major material vendors advising the 
of the enjoining order, and requested certain information (copy of 
this letter is attached for your file).

m

After receiving replies to our letters the attached tabulation was 
prepared to the best of our ability. >>& wish to make it perfectly 
clear at this time to all concerned, that the figures reflected 
in this tabulation are approximate only, and we do not in any way 
guarantee that vie can complete the work covered by our contract 
for the amounts indicated.

Very truly yours,

JOHN E. STONERS, ARC.

liS / vT Z / J& sd .____

JES: md
cc: Hr. Philip S. Anderson, Attorney

Robinson R Wassell, Architects 
Mr. Floyd Parsons

Exhibit 3 to Stowers

-  • yT'“ • " * r 
i ■ '



v n ' i i  <;i ;n i : u . \ h  u u v H i . W T u n s  o u  a î k k u : ’ . ri\<:
. w  •,, i\vi i.’.'i L 1 T T J . K  I K K ’K .  A R K A N S A S11"

inifi --»•>*' 72JIK*

Ti:u:rn> im; ki; .. i i.m
Kit f» 1 |;iv

, ,, i V iijiiok
t * ■1 1_/»' .»*■1 • yf A

OiiiO

J ?  8 §
C D  e& 11 e It n

April 30 , 1970

TO : ARKAN SAS BU ILD IN G  CO N TRACTO RS

FROM : A G C  LABOR COM M ITTEE

SU BJECT: N EW LY ESTABLISHED W A G E RATES

Fcr your information and reference the following wage rale schedules have been 
necofiofed with the designated local unions.

CARPENTERS LO C A L N O . 690 -  (Total Package - $1 .80)

1970 $ 4 .6 0 25c H&W 1C A p .
1970 4 .7 0 25c H&W 1C A p . 15c P
1971 5 .0 0 25c H&W 1C A p . 15c P

1971 5 .3 5 25c  H&W 1C A p . 15c P
1972 5 .7 0 25c H&W lC A p . 15c P

1972 6 .0 5  _ 25c H&W 1C A p . 15c P

;J . /

/'•* . 'L -
/

/ >
r-A <D

(M illw rights and P iledrivers rece ive  25c above Carpenter)

LABORERS LO C A LS N O . 1282 -  L ittle  Rock; 858 - Pine Bluff - (Total Package - $1 .50)

Rotes reflected here cover the General Construction Laborer. The differential between 
sem i-skilled and the basic classification  remains the same.

Morch 1, 1970 $3 .05
Sept. 1, 1970 
Mo~rch 1, 1971

3 .15
3 .35

20c P 
20c P 10c H&W c>\ ^  ~

Sept. 1, 1971 3 .65 20C P 10c H&W
March 1, 1972 3 .9 0 20c P 10c H&W
Sept. 1, 1972 4 .0 5 20c P 10c H&W

—

Exhibit 1 to Holland
C ontinued-----

ARKANSAS PROGRESSES THROUGH CONSTRUCTION



f • /. 
»\ 1 *
• 1 JvJ | / * ' V 1» C ) l j >1 O C A I 5 N O . 770 • I ill h' I5i' 708 - lla l S■pimps; 585 - I'in
; | I mU i MSU *• $1 .80 )

/.'arch 1, 1270 
S e p t . 1, 1770 
//.arch 1, 1771 
S e p t .  1, 1771 
//.arch 1, 1772 
S e p t .  1, 1972

$4.55
4 .8 0
5 .10
5 .45
5 .75
6 .00

15c l-l&W
15c n&w
15c H&W 
15c H&W

e r f B A T IN G  EN G IN EERS LO CAL N O . 382 - ArL:ansas

Effective Dates of 
-Wage Rates & fringes

C Iojs Increase 3-1-70 9-1-70 3-1-71 3-1-72

1 ($2 .00 ) . 5 . 30-f-20c P 5 .5 5 8 20cP 6.05820CP 
20c H&W

6.65+25CP 
25c H&W

II ($1 .80) 4.75+20cP , 5.05+20CP 5.45820CP 
20c H&W

5.95825CP 
25c H&W

III ($1 .70) 4.55+20<;P 4 .8 5 + 20cP 5.25820CP 
20c H&W

5 .65825cP 
25c H&W

IV ($1 .60 ) 3.90+20$P 4.20820CP 4.50820P 
20c H&W

4.90825CP 
25c H&W

V ($1.50) 3.65+20CP 3.90820CP 4.20820CP 
20c H&W

4 .6 0 8 25cP 
25c H&W

VI ($1 .50) 3 .3 0 8 20cP 3.55820CP 3.85820CP 
20c H&W

4.25825CP 
25c H&W

N ole: The total additional fringe benefits of 10$ pension and 25$ heclfh and 
welfare arc part c f the total increases as above ind icated . The above listing is 
o complete compilation of a ll wages and fringes to be paid operators pursuant 
to the negotiated agreement .

IRONW ORKERS LO C A L N O . 32] -  Arkansas

To date there has been no appreciable progress made with the "working" ironworkers. 
Negotiations arc at the stage where management offered $1 .80  for three years and the 
Union countered with $ 3 .0 0 .

f in a l ized Contracts of the above settled crafts w ill be made ava ilab le  upon request in 
obout two w eeks. '

page 2 of
Exhibit 1 to Holland



A F F ID A V IT

STATE OF ARKANSAS )
) ss

COUNTY OF PULASKI )

I ,  H. LYNN WASSELL, JR., first being duly sworn, state on 

oath as follows:

I am a licensed architect with offices at Little Rock and have 

practiced that profession for the past 10 years. I was retained by 

the Little Rock School District in the spring of 1970 to prepare plans 

and specifications for additions and alterations to Henderson Junior 

High School, and after performing that work I supervised the invitation 

to bid and opening of the bids on this project.

The contract was awarded to the low bidder who thereafter 

commenced the work under the supervision of my office. On December 

23, 1970 the work was shut down on instruction of the authorities of 

the school district due to an anticipated injunction.

I have carefully inspected the site and determined what measures 

must be taken with regard to the partially completed construction to 

make the school building and campus safe for the use of students and 

school personnel during the period that the work is suspended. My 

letter of December 23, 197 0 to the contractor, attached as Exhibit 1, sets

F



out in detail my determination in this regard

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of January,

1971.

Notary Public

“-M y  Commission Expires:

(SEAL)

- 2-



i
R o B I N S O N and W A S S f: L L 

A R C' H I T E C T S

.• -A -*< • >
MGMBGRS OF AMERICAN iNSTlTUTG OI- ARCl IdlCTS

KIPIKI l I I II i*. o n  
II IINU WA! Ml', IK.
ASOlc IMF 
IllRft CRUMF'ION

M A R T  B U I L D I N G
1. I T T L T R O  C K , A R T . .  
Ph. ' MOHAWK 3 - I 7 3

D 3 , l' !7d

Y:v. doi.n 11. it ewer's
Jc:.bp b. Stow or?, Inc.
University T..'-nor Vu.il a in
Little Rock, Ark nr. sa s

?.e: Additions and Alter

Dcai- "r. Stuvers:

In response. to our joint

j D ) K p S ! l ¥ E
m i '

28 VJwO • 

'  S U P T .  O F F i C

Hii ’

t  I.

Board this r-orninu, x nave v.uu
uartnor to revj.ev: the items that, a.1', our o;>x..ion,
A' accor.n: lishnd or changed in order to leave- tne r.r.tc 
in a re latively cafe condition in the event . . .scons,-  
ruction schedule in delayed fox' an extcncea pono...

The following is the l i s t  of items that wo think, should 
be conr.idp.red:

1. Remove forms, tics, shoring, etc. fror.i concrete 
grade beans.
2. Remove a l l  debris, trash, stacked forms ,  ̂la: V>r,
construction shad:, canlean, toi lporary -■■■'■;■.»
sign, and other items of demolition that irecently
rent on the site.
3. Remove the sections of concrete and cast-iron
piping from the cite and store xn an accept an.o 
warehouse or protected storage yard» w
a certificate of insurance rep,arcing v..:e 
location along with a quantity l i s t  a nr, or tee ,-pe
ant ex-* i n i .
4 Either remove from the site to an acceptnn.LC 

- -  stora-'o area, with applicable insurance certificate,  
the ro l ls  of welded-wire fabric that are presen-...y 
stacked on the practice football f ie ld ,  or 1save 
them in their present location, but landed 
in such a wav that the individual ro l ls  are not 
so. unrated and w il l  remain an a stable storage unit. 
This a up lie. s , also, to reinforcing bars already on
the s i t e .

Exhibit 1 to Was sell

-:~W- T 1
rv̂ rr

&*

A / -f.



1 1 V'  .  i . c ' l i '  

i n ' C i ' I ’ l . ' ' ! '
rape 2

•r;i
3.'i7h

’ > 1

t,, Replace c r  rci-iii.r any du: >d;-.ec; m t e  work j h h  
wi H  cent in vie: to  fu nc t ion  suck as u t i l i t y  l i o o s ,  
broker. s id cw a lk , curbs t l5;iveiritsi> »., o t c . «

f;. Hack f i l l  a l l  cart ) ,  excava t ions  and cor. pact to^ 
a*cons la tency  tha t  r i l l  s u p p o r t  normal c o t .  t r a f f i c ,  
Remove anv ex ces s iv e  earth  rounds and urcss O:. 
e x c e s s i v e  ruts and d i t ch es  caused by eoi’ -iio r Cw, 
s t ru c t  ion that  laiy/nt be stu.'ablmy obstac les-- ' .e : ,re-  
c i a l l v  areas ad jacen t  t o  e x i s t i n g  cu r t ; ; ) .

7. Cover with. p i v —wood l o r e s  or  eq u iva len t  pro­
t e c t i v e  d ev ic es  *, an eh. or  b e l t s ,  p i e r  dowels ,  a no any 

1.b _y, q - in i iar  r i ,Tid  p r o j e c t i o n  in such a way as to  
prevent in ju r y  f r e e  f a l l i n g  in t o  or  e v e r  sard pro-

uate

e t c .  from useable: walkways.- 
that  r e s u l t ed  from equipment and excava t ion  on both 
s id es  o f  the b u i ld in p .

o a s y ■ J'c n o v e l r Cut or burn the her ixont cil cjcv.e3
nr o ] or ti.nr from the r.sin colon n pi r rs  Cat \:ii ~

•:,ali •»c e n t io n s ) , f 1us h with th e f  ac.e e l t \\o c c r\

c r e t e . These dov?el c s h a l l  be r o s c t  ;U 3. cl ̂ li
** i c on s t ru c t io n  con sues . _ _ — ---- --------- ----

8. Re rove  nud , dir

0. Construct a fou r  f o o t  wide wall way pure 
and ir .Mediate ly

i i •a -i

I jacen t  to  the ex: stu.f , r o r l ! s
c lassroom wins th a t  would serve in cr. enerr cr.cy

clean access fro each of t
within the const ruction. sit
t £•■» >S r [ T y \f £ b; t the v V . s P
urbel oT'on site at the c a •; c

the e>.:.r;trn*7, si 
and, t o  the: undi

Th is  va lk  should c o n s is t  o f  a v e i l  compacttd 
chat o r  SB-2 m a te r ia l  con f ined  with.in v-ooacs 2 
bv b" minimum cont inu ious s t r in g e r s  se t  on nu(.c and 
nocurc'l*' om'oed o r  staked to  the prouna at c c ■, 
entrn^co • Xi r>v o»i oxcc*3fi3. v o Ci\cJi:, o .»ii
c l  evo * on ) ^rov ic.1 c fi r>3. cit f̂ 03?)?! o f  T. i c Celtic .u-i l c r i n l  j 
exceed: bind i t  w ith  lumber not t o  exceed 2" by i3" 
so t  cn odoe. Th is  platforvr. shouxd be o f  s u f f i c i e n t  
width t o  a l low  sa fe  t r a n s i t i o n  from the f in i s h e d  
f  l o o r , in s id e  the b u i ld in f . , t o  the walkway access 
d e sc r ib ed  above.

I f  r equ ired  at each end, p rov ide  steps to  cccc.n—
— r. r,ew walk wav yrade top i l c h  the t r a n s i t i o n  fro:: 

the  le x e r  e x i s t i n g  s idewalk .  These s te i should

r7W.\ - «■ vr?~ TT- T. “ - v: •
Exhibit 1 to Wasse]l .  nan a ?

}A /1



f 'KMr. J< <hn 

r - r . o . 3

bo tor same width as the walk and coin’d: rue tod «>.. 
a non'-olio surface ( i f  wood, use )>oui;h ^wn^iop 
'surface),, and provide a stable buna ra i l  ^  
height.

I  a you know of any other item that you feel might ccn- 
-t -tute  a potential hasnrd, include then an t.niu u-u... 
Please provide this office with your csttiurrcu ecu. 
to accomplish those items,

Please siuMi% also, at ycur earliest convenience, the 
ad c in b^h  c, ’ r::,,s you f « 1  would b, V  the
project is delayed for 30 days, 00 days, and UC 
ami then continued at each of those periods.

I believe,:vou should, further, attempt to determine
ar. amount’‘’’hat you feel would be reasonable foi^
that -'on may suffer an a. result of the p r o b  .  ̂  ̂ ••-
),C 1 d uT' 0j- abandoned in mad-strear::. a «».: !>lil © --ou >Vj"
viart to consult with council concerning this item.

tin. St o', .'err., I am terrib ly  sorry to have to put you^tc 
a l l  this trouble and I am sure you are as uisuppotnteu 

r rr. to see this fine project face possible cieiay  ̂
after the rood low bids that'were obtained on both the 
construction project as wall as the none c-lc .  ^  -o..k 
you • rrnnir.aticn has accomplished tins far ,  ha* . -C1 
conducted * p. a most efficient and protossiona* manner

t p nc: . u v bore vie do not oxporienco a lend dexay, 
f o r  everyone’ s"sake. I f  you have any questions concern­
ing these instructions, please ca l l  me.

Yours very truly,

ROBIMSOn A;IP UASSELL» ARCHITECTS

Lynn Was s c11, J r .

LV//gs \
cc: Hr. Floyd Parsons

Exhibit 1 to Wassell, pag©