Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education Appendix Vol. III pp. 891-1320

    APPENDIX
Volume III— pp. 89Ia-I320a

Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1970

No. 2 8 1

JAMES E. SWANN, ET AL., PETITIONERS,

vs.

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, ET AL.

ON WRIT OP CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OE APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CERTIORARI GRANTED JUNE 29, 1970 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 18, 1970



I N D E X

Volume I

PAGE

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

Motion for Further Relief, filed September 6, 1968.— 2a

Answer to Motion for Further Relief ......................  9a

Transcript of March 10, 1969, hearing, pages 18-39, 
line 20 ; page 41, line 15 through page 85, line 23; 
page 352, line 10 through page 487, line 17; and 
page 544, line 3 through page 678, line 25 ...............  11a

Opinion and Order Dated April 23, 1969, Regarding 
Desegregation of Schools of Charlotte and Meck­
lenburg County, North Carolina..............................  285a

Appendix .................................................................  317a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
dated May 15, 1969 ..................... ................................ 324a

Defendants’ Plan for Desegregation, filed May 28,
1969 .............................................................................  330a

Defendants’ Report in Connection with Plan of De­
segregation filed May 28, 1969 ............    341a

Appendix .................................................................  346a

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Temporary Re­
straining Order, filed May 29, 1969 ......................... 365a

Order Dated June 3, 1969 ..............................................  370a



11

Order Adding Additional Parties, dated June 5, 1969 372a

Motion to Set Aside Order Joining Additional Par­
ties Defendant, filed June 12, 1969 ....... ...................  376a

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike 
Additional Parties Defendant, filed June 16, 1969 379a

Transcript of June 16, 1969, Proceedings, page 487, 
line 22 through page 544, line 8 ...............................  383a

Tentative Plan for the Integration of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Schools (for discussion purposes), 
dated May 8, 1969 ...................................................... 431a

Opinion and Order dated June 20,1969 ____________  448a

Supplemental Findings of Fact in Connection with 
the Order of June 20, 1969 (dated June 24, 1969 ) 459a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, 
filed July 22, 1969 ............... ..... ................................. 460a

Order Allowing Filing of Supplemental Complaint, 
filed July 22, 1969 .... ...... ............ .......................... . 464a

Volume II

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Complaint, filed July 22,
1969 .................................   465a

Exhibit A Attached to Foregoing Supplemental
Complaint ....................      477a

Defendants’ Amendment to Plan for Further Deseg­
regation, filed July 29, 1969 ..................................... 480a

PAGE



I l l

Defendants’ Report in Connection with Amendment 
to Plan for Further Desegregation, filed August 4,
1969 ............................................................................... 491a

Exhibits attached to foregoing R eport............... 498a

Transcript of August 5, 1969, Proceedings: page 4, 
line 22 through page 41, line 17; and page 57, line 
5 through page 84, line 25 ......................................... 525a

Answer of the Defendants, the North Carolina State 
Board of Education and the Superintendent of 
Public Instruction for the State of North Caro­
lina, to the Supplemental Complaint, filed August 
11, 1969 .....     575a

Order dated August 15, 1969 ......................................  579a

Order dated August 29, 1969 ....... ............................... 593a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Relief, filed Septem­
ber 2, 1969 ...................................................................  596a

Order dated October 10, 1969 ....................................... 601a

Defendants’ Response to Motion for Further Relief, 
filed October 11, 1969 ................................................  606a

Summation of Integration 1965 (March) and 1968-69 
(Oct. 1, ’68) and 1969-70 (Oct. 2, ’69) (App. 1, pp.
63-70) ...............   608a

Defendants’ Report to the Court Pursuant to Order 
of October 10, 1969, and filed October 30, 1969 .....  616a

Exhibits annexed to foregoing Report ............... 626a

PAGE



IV

Order dated November 7, 1969 ....................................  655a

Memorandum Opinion dated November 7, 1969 ____ 657a

Amendment to Plan for Further Desegregation of
Schools, tiled November 17, 1969 ..........................  670a

Beport submitted in Connection with the November 
13 (17), 1969, Amendment to Plan for Further 
Desegregation ..................................................    680a

Exhibits annexed to foregoing Beport ...............  691a

Plaintiffs’ Besponse to Defendants’ Amendment to 
Plan for Further Desegregation of Schools, filed 
November 21, 1969 ...................   692a

Opinion .............................................................................. 698a

Order dated December 1, 1969 ....................   714a

Order dated December 2, 1969 ..........................    717a

Motion for Immediate Desegregation, filed January 
20, 1970 ...................................  718a

Plan for Desegregation of Schools Submitted Feb­
ruary 2, 1970 .............................................................. 726a

Exhibits annexed to Foregoing P la n ................... 744a

Transcript of February 2 and February 5, 1970, 
Proceedings: page 43, line 5 through page 11, line 
15; and page 137, line 1 through page 150, line 
1 .....................................................................................  749a

PAGE



V

Order dated February 5, 1970 ...................................... 819a

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and for 
Further Relief, filed February 13, 1970 ................. 840a

Notification and Request for a Three-Judge Court, 
filed February 20, 1970 .......................................   845a

Defendants’ Tender of Evidence Nunc Pro Tunc and
Objections filed February 24, 1970 ............................  848a

Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Forego­
ing Tender of Evidence..............................................  850a

Affidavit of J. D. Morgan Referred to in Foregoing
Tender of Evidence ....................................................  853a

Board of Education Plan Referred to in Tender of
Evidence .......................................................................  867a

Volume III

Affidavit of Louis W. Alexander Referred to in Ten­
der of Evidence .......................................................... 891a

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Tender 
of Evidence .................................................................  894a

Affidavit of Robert L. Deaton Referred to in Tender 
of Evidence .................................................................  898a

PAGE

Motion for Hearing on Plans for Desegregation of
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, filed Feb­
ruary 6, 1970 ...........................................................  817a



VI

Notice of Appeal, filed February 25, 1970 .................  904a

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Additional Parties Defen­
dant and for Further Relief, filed February 27,
1970 ........ ..................................................................... . 906a

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
and for Contempt, filed February 27, 1970 ............. 914a

Plaintiffs’ Request for Admission of Facts, filed Feb­
ruary 27, 1970 .............    918a

Amendment, Correction or Clarification of Orders of 
February 5, 1970, dated March 3, 1970 .... ............. . 921a

Court of Appeals Order Granting Stay Order of 
March 5, 1970 ..............................................................  922a

Order Suspending Superior Court Temporary Re­
straining Order, entered by Judge Snepp, filed 
March 6, 1970 ..............................................................  925a

Order of March 6, Directing Parties to Prepare and 
File Additional Evidence by March 13, 1970, dated 
March 6, 1970 .............................................................. 928a

Order Directing Parties to Submit Information with 
Respect to Specific Inquiries of the Court, filed 
March 6, 1970 ................................................................  930a

PAGE

Order Adding Additional Parties Defendant, filed
February 25, 1970   ..............................................  901a

Deposition of John A. Finger, dated March 11, 1970 932a



Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Request for Ad­
missions dated March 13, 1970 ................................  1011a

Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to 
March 6, 1970, Order and Motion for Extension of 
Time, filed March 13, 1970 ........................................  1014a

Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Submissions .... 1015a

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose Referred to in Porego­
ing Submissions .......................................................... 1038a

Defendants’ Submissions to Court in Response to 
March 6, 1970;, Order, filed March 17, 1970 ...........  1041a

Affidavit of William C. Self Referred to in Foregoing 
Submissions ................................................................ 1042a

Affidavits of J. D. Morgan, Ralph Neill and W. H. 
Harrison Referred to in Foregoing Submissions .. 1045a

Exhibits Annexed to Foregoing Affidavits......... 1047a

Deposition of J. D. Morgan dated March 19, 1970 .... 1069a

Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit............. 1188a

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental 
Exhibit of March 20, 1970, submitted March 21,
1970 ...............................................................................  1192a

Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of 
March 20, 1970 ............................................................ 1193a

V ll

PAGE

Tabulation 1196a



V ll l

Supplementary Findings of Fact dated March 21,
1970 ...............................................................................  1198a

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970.... 1221a

Defendants’ Objections and Exceptions to Supple­
mentary Findings of Fact of March 21, 1970, and 
Motion for Modification and Clarification Thereof 
dated March 25, 1970 ..................................................  1239a

Order dated March 25, 1970 ..........................................  1255a

Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised by the 
March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants dated 
April 3, 1970 ................................................................ 1259a

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970 .... 1262a

Judgment of Court of Appeals ..................................  1304a

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29,
1970 ...............................................................................  1305a

Order Granting Certiorari dated June 29, 1970 ....... 1320a

PAGE



891a

(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)

Louis W . A lexander, being du ly  sw orn, deposes and says 
th a t:

1. I am Assistant Director of the Division of Transpor­
tation of the North Carolina State Board of Education, a 
position which I have held for the past three years. For 
the preceeding fifteen years, I was School Bus Route Super­
visor for the Western Area of North Carolina (which in­
cluded Mecklenburg County) and as such was responsible 
to the Division of Transportation of the North Carolina 
State Board of Education.

2. In the performance of the duties and responsibilities 
of my present position, I am familiar with school bus trans­
portation systems throughout the state, with the procure­
ment and operation of school buses and other facilities, 
with bus routes and schedules, with state laws concerning 
transportation of school children, safety requirements and 
standards, and with the various other things that relate to 
the transportation of school children in North Carolina.

3. I have carefully analyzed the affidavit of J. D. Mor­
gan, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services of 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools (dated February 
13, 1970) and the facts and information set forth therein. 
I have personally conferred with Mr. Morgan and members 
of his staff regarding the Pupil Assignment Plans referred 
to in his affidavit—particularly as they affect the trans­
portation of school children, bus routes and schedules, 
transportation costs, availability of facilities and the many

Affidavit of Louis W . Alexander, Assistant Director of
Division of Transportation of State Board of Education



892a

other facets involved in the movement of a great number 
of children in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System. I 
have examined the maps showing the assignment proposals 
under the Board Plan and the Finger Plan and all locations 
of the schools with particular attention to the transporta­
tion that would be required to implement either of these 
plans.

4. Based upon my experience with school transportation 
systems in this state (particularly Mecklenburg County) 
in my judgment, the statements made by Mr. Morgan in 
his affidavit are sound and well considered. In making my 
evaluation of these facts and statements, I have, of course, 
relied upon the data and information furnished me regard­
ing the number of additional children to be transported 
and the school bus routes to implement either of the two 
plans. However, I received from Mr. Morgan and his staff, 
a detailed explanation of the basis upon which the data and 
information set forth in his affidavit were computed and 
the many factors which were taken into account. Mr. Mor­
gan’s statements regarding the number of buses and other 
facilities that are required, the length and time of bus 
routes, the capital and operating expenses, the utilization 
of equipment, safety factors and other related matters are 
well in line with what I would expect.

5. In my opinion, the addition of any significant number 
of buses (irrespective of which plan is used) would create 
an intolerable situation not only for the Charlotte-Mecklen­
burg Schools but the public as well. In the operation of 
any school bus program, the safety and well-being of the 
children are our primary concerns. Even if the buses and

Affidavit of Louis W. Alexander, Assistant Director of
Division of Transportation of State Board of Education



893a

drivers were available, the busing of children into and out 
of the center of the city along streets and highways already 
jammed with heavily congested traffic is unwise and unsafe. 
This is true whether student or adult drivers are used. I 
would particularly emphasize the difficulties and hazards 
involved where there are insufficient or inadequate bus 
parking and other loading and unloading facilities.

Louis W. A lexander

6. The above observations were made upon the request 
of Mr. J. D. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent and Mr. 
Benjamin S. Horack, Board Attorney.

Louis W. Alexander

Affidavit of Louis W. Alexander, Assistant Director of
Division of Transportation of State Board of Education

(Sworn to February 17, 1970)



894a

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic 
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina

(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)

H erm an  J . H oose, b e in g  du ly  sw orn, deposes and says 
that:

1. I am now, and have been for the past 22 years, Di­
rector of Traffic Engineering for the City of Charlotte. I 
am charged with primary responsibility for all matters re­
lating to traffic on city streets and thoroughfares. By 
reason of my position, I also thoroughly familiar with 
matters relating to traffic in the portions of Mecklenburg 
County located outside the city limits. The direction and 
control of inner city traffic must be and is carefully co­
ordinated with that of the outlying areas.

2. I have carefully reviewed with Mr. J. D. Morgan, 
Assistant Superintendent for Business Services of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, his affidavit (dated 
February 13, 1970) relating to the transportation require­
ments of the Board Plan and the Court approved Finger 
Plan referred to in that affidavit—particularly as they 
would affect traffic patterns, facilities and safety within 
the City of Charlotte.

3. The peak traffic rush hours in Charlotte are from 7 :30 
to 9 :30 in the morning and from 4 :30 to 6 :30 in the evening. 
As is true with most other cities, the control and movement 
of vehicular traffic along our already over burdened streets 
and thoroughfares constitutes one of our most critical 
problems.

4. The main traffic arteries in the city (as well as those 
in the perimeter) are already jammed almost to the break-



895a

mg point. Consistent with vehicular and pedestrian safety 
(which, of course, must be our primary concern), it is the 
objective of my Department to devise traffic patterns and 
controls that will expedite the orderly movement and flow 
of traffic within the city. The addition of a large number 
of school buses to the congested inner city thoroughfares 
would occasion serious problems—both from the standpoint 
of traffic movement and safety.

5. By State law a loaded school bus cannot be operated 
on a public street or road at a speed in excess of 35 miles 
per hour. Many of our inner city traffic arteries prescribe 
a 40 or 45 mile maximum in order to speed up the movement 
of traffic. The cross-bussing and satellite bussing required 
of the Court’s Finger Plan will necessarily require the 
school buses to use these thoroughfares. This would make 
a shambles out of our city traffic—particularly during the 
morning rush hours and, if staggered school schedules in­
volve bussing after 4:30 pun., during the evening rush hour 
as well. We have some expressways in the city that pre­
scribe maximum speeds of 55 or 60 miles per hour. In my 
judgment it would be completely impractical to expect to 
allow school buses to use these expressways. Under State 
law traffic must stop while a school bus is loading or un­
loading children. To the extent that pickup and discharge 
points are located on public streets and roads, the move­
ment of traffic would come to a complete standstill. This 
will create an intolerable situation. Stop-and-go traffic of 
slow moving school buses in congested traffic would con­
stitute a real danger for both the school buses and other 
traffic. From a safety standpoint, children will be particu­
larly vulnerable at the points where they are picked up and

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina



896a

dropped off by school buses. This hazard can be minimized 
to the extent that school buses load and unload children on 
school grounds or other off street locations. However, it is 
anticipated that many of the pickup and dropoff points 
would be on streets which children reach only by crossing 
busy streets and intersections and where children will con­
gregate to board or get off the school buses.

6. Of special concern to my Department would be the 
problems caused by the entry of loaded school buses into 
the main traffic arteries from secondary and residential 
streets—particularly during rush hour traffic. Police or 
traffic controls (which frequently would not otherwise be 
needed) would be required at these intersections to reduce 
the hazards occasioned by the entry of the buses into the 
mainstream of traffic. This in turn will further slow down 
traffic and clog the already over burdened thoroughfares 
of the city. Similar problems will exist where loaded school 
buses enter and leave bus parking areas.

7. It is anticipated that the difficulties involved in the 
movement of large numbers of children within the city by 
bus will be further compounded by the increased conges­
tion that will result on bad weather days when parents will 
forego the use of school buses and will drive their children 
to school in the morning and pick them up at school in the 
afternoon.

8. Traffic safety and control will be seriously impaired 
by any program of mass bussing of school children within 
the City of Charlotte. Substantially similar problems would 
be encountered outside the city—although perhaps not as

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina



897a

acute where the buses are able to use secondary roads that 
run through the less densely populated areas of the county. 
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools already operate 
a large bus fleet to provide the transportation that the State 
law requires. This existing bussing occasions many prob­
lems—which should not be unnecessarily aggravated by ad­
ditional movement of a large number of children as will 
be required to implement the plans referred to in Mr. Mor­
gan’s affidavit.

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina

/ s /  H erm an  J. H oose 
Herman J. Hoose

(Sworn to February 24, 1970)



898a

Affidavit of Robert L. Deaton, Assistant General 
Manager of Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.

(Referred to in Foregoing Tender of Evidence)

R obekt L. D eaton , b e in g  first duly sw orn, says th at:

1. I am the Assistant General Manager and an officer 
of Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc., which operates the 
public transit system in the City of Charlotte. We operate 
under an exclusive franchise granted by the City of 
Charlotte which permits us to furnish our regular service 
within the City and the two mile perimeter beyond the 
city limits. We also hold a Certificate issued by the North 
Carolina Utilities Commission which permits us to operate 
a charter or contract service anywhere in Mecklenburg 
County.

2. At present Charlotte City Coach Lines has a fleet 
of 128 busses. 114 of the busses are required to furnish 
the normal transportation needs of the public. Of the 
remaining 14 busses, 2 are already under contract com­
mitments and 7 more must be kept in reserve as replace­
ment spares when busses used for our regular service 
break down or are in need of repairs. We should keep 
at least 10% of our fleet available for replacement spares. 
Therefore, a replacement reserve of only 7 busses is sub­
stantially less than what we normally consider to be our 
minimum needs in this respect. With our present fleet, 
5 busses are the maximum that we could make available 
on a contract basis to provide transportation for school 
children. The largest bus in our fleet has a seating capacity 
for 53 adults. By utilizing standing room in the aisles, we 
anticipate that each of the busses could transport 65 school 
children or a total of 325 for the 5 busses that would be



899a

Affidavit of Robert L. Deaton, Assistant General 
Manager of Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.

available. Some additional children could be transported 
by the use of these busses if the opening and closing hours 
of the various schools are staggered so that we can make 
greater use of our equipment by permitting one bus to 
serve more than one school.

3. The busses we have in our fleet cost approximately 
$38,000 to $39,000 each. It is not economically feasible 
for us to expand our fleet by the addition of more busses 
for the sole purpose of providing transportation for school 
children in the mornings and afternoons of school days. 
Further, it takes some 8 to 10 months to obtain delivery 
of a new bus. Nor is it economically feasible for us to 
supplement our fleet by the acquisition of used busses, since 
our experience indicates that the maintenance cost of such 
busses is prohibitive.

4. We would be willing to negotiate with the Chari otte- 
Mecklenburg Schools on a contract basis for the use of 
these 5 available busses to transport school children. As 
fixed by the North Carolina Utilities Commission, our 
normal contract rate per bus is $18.00 per hour (or 
fraction) for the first hour and $10.00 for each additional 
hour (or fraction). Our hourly rates are charged from the 
time a bus leaves its garage until it returns. Although 
we do not now know the specifics of the proposed school 
routes which might be served by our busses on a contract 
basis, we anticipate that the time of a morning or after­
noon run would be about 30 minutes for the short urban 
routes and 1 hour and 15 minutes or more for the longer 
routes out in the County. We might be able to negotiate 
some reductions in our normal contract rates. However,



900a

Affidavit of Robert L. Deaton, Assistant General 
Manager of Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.

we will be unable to do so until we know what the routes 
and schedules will be and anticipate that (after we are 
advised of the children to be transported) we will need 
about 3 weeks to analyze the routes before coming up with 
a rate proposal. Any contract rates which may be nego­
tiated with the Schools must be approved by the North 
Carolina Utilities Commission.

/&/ R obert L. D eaton 
Robert L. Deaton

(Sworn to February 10, 1970.)



901a

Order

(Filed February 25, 1970)

Upon motion duly  made, I t  is H ereby Ordered that the 
following persons and organizations described in the peti­
tion of the plaintiffs as additional parties-defendant be, 
and they are hereby made parties herein:

H onorable R obert W . S cott, Governor of the State 
of North Carolina

H onorable A . C. D avis, Controller of the State De­
partment of Public Instruction

H onorable W illiam  K. M cL ean , Judge of the Su­
perior Court of North Carolina

T om B . H arris, Charlotte, North Carolina
G. D on R oberson, Charlotte, North Carolina 
A. B reece B reland , Charlotte, North Carolina 
J ames M. P ostell, Charlotte, North Carolina 
W illiam  E . R orie, J r ., Charlotte, North Carolina 
C halm ers R . Carr, Charlotte, North Carolina 
R obert T . W ilson , Charlotte, North Carolina 
C oncerned P arents A ssociation, an unincorporated 

association in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 
J ames H . C arson, J r ., Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina
W illiam  H. B ooe, Attorney, Charlotte, North Caro­

lina

It is directed that service of the following documents be 
made immediately by certified mail, return receipt re­
quested, upon the additional parties hereby made:

1. M otion to add A dditional P arties D efendant and 
for F u rther  R elief , with attached P oints of A u ­
th o rity , served by plaintiffs on February 13, 1970.



Order

2. N otification  and R equest foe D esignation  of T hree- 
J udge C ouet, dated February 19, 1970, including ex­
hibits referred to therein, as follows:

Exhibit A— Opin io n  and O rder filed December 1, 
1969.

Exhibit B— O rder filed February 5, 1970.

Exhibit C— Order filed December 2, 1969.

Exhibit D— Complaint, amended complaint and two 
orders entered by Judge William K. McLean on 
February 12, 1970, in suit pending in the General 
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Meck­
lenburg County, North Carolina, bearing No. 70- 
CVS-1097.

Exhibit E— Statement made by Governor Robert 
W. Scott on February 11, 1970.

Exhibit F—Letter dated February 12, 1970, written 
by Governor Robert W. Scott to Dr. W. L. Turner, 
Director of the North Carolina Department of 
Administration.

Exhibit G— Statement made by Dr. A. Craig Phil­
lips on February 11, 1970.

3. D esignation  of T hree-J udge C ourt, filed February 
24, 1970.

The plaintiffs are directed to prepare and file on or before 
Monday, March 2, 1970, proposed findings of fact and con­
clusions of law and a proposed order, and a brief in support 
of their position.



903a

Order

The other parties are directed to prepare and file on or 
before Friday, March 6,1970, proposed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law and a proposed order, and a brief in 
support of their position.

I f  there is any additional evidence which any party de­
sires to introduce by deposition or affidavit, the court will 
receive such evidence, in written form, up to and including 
Friday, March 6, 1970. It is not contemplated that any 
more oral testimony in a court hearing will be necessary.

The hearing before the three-judge court will not he an 
evidentiary hearing, but will be a hearing based upon the 
record which has been developed by the time of the hearing.

This the 25th day of February, 1970.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan  
James B. McMillan 
United States District Judge

A  True Copy

T este :

T hos . E. R hodes, Clerk

By: Mildred L. Loozer 
Deputy Clerk



904a

Notice of Appeal

(Filed February 25, 1970)

Notice is hereby given that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education, a public body corporate; William E. 
Poe, Henderson Belk, Dan Hood, Ben F. Huntley, Betsy 
Kelly, Sam McNinch, III and Carlton G. Watkins, defen­
dants above named hereby appeal to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from tjje follow­
ing orders entered in this action on the dates indicated:

Opinion and Order dated April 23, 1969,

Two Orders dated June 4, 1969,

Opinion and Order dated June 20, 1969,

Order dated August 15, 1969,

Order dated August 29, 1969,

Order dated October 10, 1969,

Order dated November 7, 1969,

Opinion and Order dated December 1, 1969,

Order dated December 2, 1969, and

Order dated February 5, 1970,

together with the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
relied upon by the Court in support of the foregoing orders.



905a

Notice of Appeal

This 25th day of February, 1970.

W illiam  J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner 
Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges, Odom 

and Bigger
1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

B e n j . S. H orack  
Benj. S. Horack 
Ervin, Horack and McCartha 
806 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendants



906a

(Filed February 27, 1970)

On February 5, 1970, this Court directed that the Char- 
lotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and other defend­
ants proceed immediately with a plan for complete de­
segregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. On 
February 26,1970, this Court entered an order adding addi­
tional parties and directing that they show cause why they 
should not be enjoined from interfering with or otherwise 
preventing the implementation of the February 5 order. 
The additional parties defendant had taken steps and con­
spired to thwart, inhibit and in any way frustrate the 
orders of this Court. Some of the additional parties de­
fendant had secured patently illegal orders from the State 
Superior Court purportedly enjoining implementation of 
the orders of this Court.

On Sunday night, February 22, at approximately 10:16 
p.m., a time when plaintiffs understand the courts of this 
State are normally closed for business purposes, approxi­
mately 50 people, some of whom have now been added as 
parties defendant, filed in the Superior Court of Mecklen­
burg County another complaint seeking to enjoin imple­
mentation of the orders of this Court. They secured from 
the Honorable Frank Snepp, Resident Judge of the Su­
perior Court of Mecklenburg County, an order purportedly 
enjoining the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board from 
instituting or implementing or putting into effect the order 
of this Court. The order of the Superior Court of Mecklen­
burg County was dated Sunday, February 22, 1970 and 
was filed in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County 
on the same date at 10:16 p.m. This is the third order of 
the Mecklenburg County Superior Court seeking to frus­

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



907a

trate and to prevent implementation of the orders of 
this Court. With full knowledge of the lack of jurisdiction 
of the Superior Court to enjoin orders of the Federal Court 
declaring constitutional rights, Superior Courts of the 
State have repeatedly entered such orders and, plaintiffs 
are advised and so allege, will continue to do so unless 
and until enjoined by this Court.

It is clear that the plaintiffs involved in the proceeding 
in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg Couty and the Su­
perior Court well knew the lack of jurisdiction of the 
Superior Court to restrain or enjoin orders entered by 
this Court. The timing of the order, the continued efforts 
of the plaintiffs in that proceeding clearly show the in­
genuous efforts of the parties in those proceedings to at­
tempt to frustrate, inhibit and prevent the implementation 
of the orders of this Court.

At great expense, plaintiffs have sought to secure the 
enjoyment of their rights as protected and secured by the 
Constitution of the United States. At great expense, plain­
tiffs have been harassed, intimidated and threatened be­
cause of their efforts to enjoy their rights. The efforts 
of the parties in the proceedings in the Superior Court of 
Mecklenburg County and of the parties added as defendants 
by this Court having inhibited nd frustrated the efforts 
not only of the black students in this System to enjoy con­
stitutionally protected rights but have similarly frustrated 
the efforts of black teachers and school personnel. Black 
teachers and school personnel have been threatened and 
intimidated by said parties solely as an effort to prevent 
implementation of the orders of this Court. Only unless 
this Court proceed immediately to deal with these patently 
illegal acts and practices of these parties will Negro chil­

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



908a

dren, Negro teachers and Negro parents in the community 
he able to enjoy their rights as secured by the Constitution.

The parties involved in the latest proceeding filed in 
Superior Court of Mecklenburg County are as follows: 
Mrs. Robert Lee Moore, for herself and for her minor 
children, Oscar Moore, Lois Moore, Grace Moore and Jerry 
Moore; J. D. Little, Jr. and Bettie C. Little, for themselves 
and for their minor child, Alec Little; John T. Vernon and 
Nancy H. Vernon, for themselves and for their minor chil­
dren, David Vernon and Patty Vernon; Floyd T. Boyce 
and Louise D. Boyce, for themselves and for their minor 
children, Lou Ann Boyce and Lisa C. Boyce; V. Don Perrin 
and Nancy G. Perrin, for themselves and for their minor 
child, Vic Perrin; Jack V. Scott and Jane B. Scott, for 
themselves and for their minor children, Kenny Scott and 
Craig Scott; Mrs. Martha M. Glenn, for herself and for 
her minor child, Connie Glenn; William M. Hood, Jr. and 
Mary D. Hood, for themselves and for their minor children, 
Roby Hood, Wrenn Hood, William M. Hood, III and Mary 
Lib Hood; John D. Hasty, for himself and for his minor 
children, John D. Hasty, Jr. and Renee Hasty; Aubrey E. 
Easterlin, Jr., for himself and for his minor children, Billy 
Easterlin, Vickie Easterlin and Kim Easterlin; James E. 
King, for himself and for his minor children, Leigh King, 
Cynthia King, Susan King and Jan King; Melvin D. 
Childers, Jr., for himself and for his minor child, Cynthia 
Childers; Thomas S. Weaver and Margaret S. Weaver, for 
themselves and for their minor children, Libby Weaver 
and Terry Weaver; Ted E. Manning and Jackie Manning, 
for themselves and for their minor child, Steven Man­
ning; Horace Davis, Jr. and Evelyn A. Davis, for them­
selves and for their minor children, Horace Davis, III,

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



909a

Evelyn Davis and Susan Davis; Orrie B. Oats, for herself 
and for her minor child, Leroy Oats, J r .; Thomas B. Harris, 
for himself and for his minor children, Steve Harris and 
Kelly Harris; Lorene H. Dresser, for herself and for her 
minor child, Michell Dresser; John H. Horner, for himself 
and for his minor children, Laura Horner, John Horner 
and Brian Horner; Shirley C. Nail, for herself and for her 
minor children, Kim Nail and Deana Nail; G. Donald Rob­
erson, for himself and for his minor child, Charles Rober­
son; Raymond Kenneth Young and Edna R. Young, for 
themselves and for their minor child, Kathy Young; Wil­
liam K. Summerville, for himself and for his minor chil­
dren, Michael Summerville and Craig Summerville; James
L. Kiser, for himself and for his minor child, Kimberly 
K iser; Charles N. Briley, for himself and for his minor chil­
dren, Allison Briley and Nathaniel Briley; William R. Dow- 
tin and Marion W. Dowtin; J. Frank Newton and Frances
M. Newton; W. Baine Martin and Elizabeth M. Martin; Ed­
ward S. Fisher and Emily S. Fisher; Thomas E. McCabe 
and Ann R. McCabe; Lloyd Ellis Zedaker, Jr. and Mary 
Frances Zedaker; Brenda A. Hill; Baxter L. Dixon; and 
Horace N. Williamson. Attorneys William H. Booe and 
Whiteford S. Blakeney brought suit on behalf of said par­
ties. The Honorable Frank Snepp issued the restraining 
order on behalf of the parties. The temporary restraining 
order issued by Judge Snepp is returnable before him on 
the 3rd day of March, 1970 at 9 :30 a.m.

Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court issue an order 
joining the following as additional parties defendants: 
Mrs. Robert Lee Moore, for herself and for her minor 
children, Oscar Moore, Lois Moore, Grace Moore and

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



910a

Jerry Moore; J. D. Little, Jr. and Bettie C. Little, for 
themselves and for the minor child, Alec Little; John 
T. Vernon and Nancy H. Vernon, for themselves and for 
their minor children, David Vernon and Patty Vernon; 
Floyd T. Boyce and Louise D. Boyce, for themselves and 
for their minor children, Lou Ann Boyce and Lisa C. 
Boyce; V. Don Perrin and Nancy G. Perrin, for themselves 
and for their minor child, Vic Perrin; Jack V. Scott and 
Jane B. Scott, for themselves and for their minor children, 
Kenny Scott and Craig Scott; Mrs. Martha M. Glenn, for 
herself and for her minor child, Connie Glenn; William 
M. Hood, Jr. and Mary D. Hood, for themselves and for 
their minor children, Roby Hood, Wrenn Hood, William 
M. Hood, III and Mary Lib Hood; John D. Hasty, for 
himself and for his minor children, John D. Hasty, Jr. 
and Renee Hasty; Aubrey E. Easterlin, Jr., for himself 
and for his minor children, Billy Easterlin, Vickie Easter­
lin and Kim Easterlin; James E. King, for himself and 
for his minor children, Leigh King, Cynthia King, Susan 
King and Jan King; Melvin D. Childers, Jr. for himself 
and for his minor child, Cynthia Childers; Thomas S. 
Weaver and Margaret S. Weaver, for themselves and for 
their minor children, Libby Weaver and Terry Weaver; 
Ted E. Manning and Jackie Manning, for themselves and 
for their minor child, Steven Manning; Horace Davis, Jr. 
and Evelyn A. Davis, for themselves and for their minor 
children, Horace Davis, III, Evelyn Davis and Susan 
Davis; Orrie B. Oats, for herself and for her minor child, 
Leroy Oats, Jr.; Thomas B. Harris, for himself and for 
his minor children, Steve Harris and Kelly Harris; Lorene
H. Dresser, for herself and for her minor child, Michell

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



911a

Dresser; John H. Horner, for himself and for his minor 
children, Laura Horner, John Horner and Brian Horner; 
Shirley C. Nail, for herself and for her minor children, 
Kim Nail and Deana Nail; G. Donald Roberson, for himself 
and for his minor child, Charles Roberson; Raymond 
Kenneth Young and Edna R. Young, for themselves and 
for their minor child, Kathy Young; William K. Summer­
ville, for himself and for his minor children, Michael 
Summerville, and Craig Summerville; James L. Kiser, 
for himself and for his minor child, Kimberly Kiser; 
Charles N. Briley, for himself and for his minor children, 
Allison Briley and Nathaniel Briley; William R. Dowtin 
and Marion W. Dowtin; J. Frank Newton and Frances
M. Newton; W. Baine Martin and Elizabeth B. Martin; 
Edward S. Fisher and Emily S. Fisher; Thomas E. McCabe 
and Ann R. McCabe; Lloyd Ellis Zedaker, Jr. and Mary 
Frances Zedaker; Brenda A. H ill; Baxter L. Dixon; Horace
N. Williamson; William H. Booc; Whiteford S. Blackeney; 
and the Honorable Frank Snepp.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court issue a temporary 
restraining order dissolving the injunctive order entered 
in the proceeding by the Honorable Frank Snepp entitled: 
Mrs. Robert Lee Moore, et al. v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Roard of Education, et al., 70 CVS 2045, and temporarily 
and permanently restraining any further proceedings in 
the action.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court specifically enjoin 
Honorable Frank Snepp and all other State Court judges 
from issuing temporary injunctive orders or entering fur­
ther proceedings designed to or which have the effect of 
restraining, preventing, prohibiting or in any way inhibit­
ing the order of this Court.

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



912a

Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and 
permanent injunction against all defendants, including the 
additional parties defendant added and requested herein 
to be added and all parties having notice of the orders 
of this Court from initiating or proceeding with any action 
in any state court which has the purpose or effect of inter­
fering with outstanding order in this cause.

Plaintiffs further pray the Court for a temporary and 
permanent injunction restraining all parties defendant 
from in any way intimidating the plaintiffs, students and 
teachers who seek in this proceeding to enjoy their con­
stitutionally protected rights.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court temporarily and 
permanently enjoin all defendants from in any way taking 
steps to inhibit or frustrate the orders of this Court.

Plaintiffs further pray the Court that they be allowed 
their costs in this proceeding and reasonable counsel fees.

Plaintiffs further pray that the Court direct the United 
States Marshal to personally serve a copy of the Com­
plaint, the Amended Complaint, the Motion for Further

Motion to Add Additional Parties Defendant and
For Further Relief



913a

Relief and all orders, including the injunctive order prayed 
for herein upon all defendants named herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Conrad 0 .  P earson

203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

C hambers, S t e in , F erguson & 
L an n in g

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J ack  Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
N orman C h a ch k in  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



914a

(Filed February 27, 1970)

Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully 
move the Court for a temporary restraining order and an 
order finding all members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education and the Superintendent of the Char­
lotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools in contempt and exacting 
a fine of each of the said defendants in the amount of 
$10,000.00 per day or imprisonment pending compliance by 
said defendants with the orders of this Court. As grounds 
for said motion, plaintiffs respectfully show the following:

1. On Sunday night, February 22, 1970, the Honorable 
Frank Snepp of the Mecklenburg Superior Court entered 
an ex parte temporary restraining order purporting to en­
join the School Board from complying with the orders of 
this Court. The ex parte order of the Mecklenburg Su­
perior Court was patently in violation of the supremacy 
clause of the Constitution of the United States.

2. On February 26, 1970, the defendants, Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education and Superintendent of 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools removed the 
State proceeding to this Court.

3. Knowing the patent invalidity of the State Court 
order, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and 
the Superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public 
Schools have now decided to ignore the orders of this Court 
and to follow the unconstitutional order of the State Su­
perior Court. Said defendants have never intended and 
do not intend now to implement the orders of this Court

Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and for Contempt



915a

and, in the absence of some immediate steps by this Court, 
will continue to frustrate and deny the constitutional rights 
of plaintiffs herein.

4. On four different occasions, plaintiffs have alleged 
the contemptuous practices of these defendants of ignoring 
the clear directives of the Court and the rights of the plain­
tiffs. On each occasion, the Court has reserved decision. 
The patience of the Court now places the plaintiffs in the 
position of having declared constitutional rights which are 
being and will continue to he illegally frustrated and de­
nied by the lawless actions of these public officials who have 
refused to obey every substantive directive of this Court.

5. In order to insure implementation of the Court’s 
orders and the enjoyment by plaintiffs of their constitu­
tional rights immediate and effective steps need be taken 
now by the Court. In the order entered by this Court on 
February 26, 1970, adding additional parties the Court 
directed the added parties-defendant to show cause on 
March 10,1970, why the relief requested by plaintiffs should 
not be granted. Plaintiffs requested, on February 27, 1970, 
that other additional parties be added, parties who initi­
ated and obtained the temporary restraining order issued 
by the Mecklenburg Superior Court. To wait now for the 
March 10, 1970 hearing would clearly frustrate and pre­
vent implementation of the February 5, 1970 order of this 
Court.

W here fobs, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court 
issue immediately a temporary restraining order enjoining 
the enforcement of the State Court orders which infringe

Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and for Contempt



916a

upon outstanding orders of this Court; enjoining any fur­
ther efforts by all defendants from taking steps which would 
prevent and inhibit the implementation of the orders of 
this Court and finding all members of the Charlotte-Meck- 
lenburg Board of Education and the Superintendent of the 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools in contempt of the 
orders of this Court and imposing a fine of not less than 
$10,000.00 or imprisonment for each day that said defen­
dants fail to implement the orders of this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Conrau O. P earson

203 ]/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

C hambers, S te in , F erguson & L an n in g  
216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

J ack  Greenberg

J ames M. N abrit, III
N orman  C h a c h k in

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and for Contempt



917a

Affidavit of J. LeVonne Chambers in Support of Order

J. L eV onne C hambers, being first duly sworn, deposes 
and says:

That be is one of counsel for plaintiffs in the above- 
styled case.

That since the filing of the most recent motion by plain­
tiffs for the addition of parties defendant and for further 
relief, it has been brought to his attention that the School 
Board, on advice of their counsel, has now decided to do 
nothing else to comply with this Court’s order on the basis 
of the most recent restraining order entered by the Superior 
Court of Mecklenburg County on Sunday night, February 
22, 1970 in the case entitled Moore, et al. v. Charlotte-Meck- 
lenburg Board of Education, 70 CVS 2045.

That plaintiffs have taken further discovery with respect 
to steps previously taken by the School Board following 
this Court’s order of February 5, 1970.

That the evidence now of record will establish that the 
Board has not complied and does not intend to comply with 
the mandate of the Court to desegregate.

That in order to insure the full implementation of the 
directives of this Court, it is imperative that the Court 
take action to insure compliance with its orders by immedi­
ately enjoining all proceedings in the State Court, tempo­
rarily and permanently enjoining the additional parties and 
the original parties defendants from in any way attempting 
to prevent or obstruct the carrying out of this Court’s 
orders.

This 27 day of February, 1970.

J. L eV onne C hambers

(Sworn to February 27, 1970)



918a

Request for Admission

(Filed February 27, 1970)

To : William J. Waggoner, Esq.
Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges & Odom 
1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Benjamin 8. Horack, Esq.
806 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Plaintiffs request that the defendants admit the follow­
ing facts pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure:

1. That at least since 1930 until 1961 Mecklenburg County 
Board of Education, which has merged with the former 
Charlotte City Board of Education, operated public school 
buses to transport students to and from school.

2. That said Board operated and routed these buses on 
a racially segregated basis, transporting Negro students to 
Negro schools and white students to white schools.

3. That because of the segregated schools, bus routes 
overlapped and Negro students who may have resided near 
white schools were transported by such schools to all-Negro 
schools and white students who may have lived near Negro 
schools were transported by such schools to all-white 
schools.

4. That at least since 1930 until 1961 the Charlotte City 
Board of Education which has now merged with the former 
Mecklenburg County Board of Education, operated public 
school buses to transport students to and from school.



919a

Request for Admission

5. That said Board operated and routed these buses on 
a racially segregated basis, transporting Negro students to 
Negro schools and white students to white schools.

6. That because of the segregated schools, bus routes 
overlapped and Negro students who may have resided near 
white schools were transported by such schools to all-Negro 
schools and white students who may have lived near Negro 
schools were transported by such schools to all-white 
schools.

7. Since 1961, following the merger of the County and 
City Boards, the school board continued to provide trans­
portation for students in the sytem who resided in the 
county or within the areas of the city annexed subsequent to 
1957 who resided more than 1% miles from the schools to 
which they were assigned.

8. That since 1961 until the closing of the ten all-Negro 
schools in the county in 1966, the merged board continued 
to provide separate bus service for Negro and white stu­
dents.

9. That pursuant to the plan approved by the Court in 
August, 1969, the school board has provided transportation 
for approximately 767 inner-city black students to be trans­
ported to white residential areas of the city and county.

10. That the inner-city black students above referred to 
in many instances passed other schools serving their grade 
level on the way to the schools to which they had been 
assigned.



920a

Request for Admission

P lease T ake  N otice that answers to the foregoing Be­
quest for Admission must be served upon the undersigned 
within ten (10) days.

Respectfully submitted,

Conrad 0 . P earson

2031/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

Cham bers , S tein , F erguson and L an n in g  
216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J ack  Greenberg

J am es M. N abrit, III 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



921a

Amendment, Correction or Clarification of Order of 
February 5, 1970 dated March 3, 1970

Paragraph 7 of the February 5, 1970, order read in part 
as follows:

“ 7. That transportation be offered on a uniform 
non-racial basis to all children whose attendance in any 
school is necessary to bring about the reduction of seg­
regation, and who live farther from the school to 
which they are assigned than the Board determines to 
be walking distance. Estimates of the number of chil­
dren who may have to be transported have run as high 
as 10,000 or more.”

Since February 5, estimates have been made by defen­
dants that paragraph 7 would require transporting more 
than 23,000 pupils rather than 10,000 to 14,000, as estimated 
at the hearing. Upon reviewing the evidence introduced 
since that hearing, it appears that these higher estimates 
may be based on construing the above language of para­
graph 7 so as to require an offer of transportation to all 
children who live more than l 1/̂  miles from their school, 
including city children who are not now entitled to trans­
portation. These, according to the testimony, may number 
as many as 13,000.

The court regrets any lack of clarity in the order which 
may have given rise to this interpretation. Paragraph 7 
was never intended to require transportation beyond that 
now provided by law for city children who are not re­
assigned, nor for those whose reassignments are not re­
quired by the desegregation program.

Accordingly, paragraph 7 of the February 5, 1970 order 
is amended by deleting the words “attendance in any school” 
and inserting the words “reassignment to any school,” in 
the first sentence.

This the 3rd day of March, 1970.
/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan  

James B. McMillan 
United States District Judge



922a

Order

An application for a stay pending appeal of the order 
of the District Court dated February 5, 1970 made to 
Judge Craven was by him referred to the entire Court 
pursuant to Eule 8 of the Federal Eules of Appellate 
Procedure.

Upon consideration by the full Court, it appears that 
disposition of this appeal will depend in part upon a reso­
lution of factual questions as yet undetermined in the 
District Court. Specifically, the parties are in wide dis­
agreement as to the impact of the order upon the School 
Board’s transportation system, the number of pupils for 
whom transportation will be required under the order, the 
number of school buses needed to provide such transporta­
tion, their availability, and the cost of their acquisition and 
operation. The resolution of such factual issues is neces­
sary to an orderly consideration of the issues on appeal 
insofar as they are directed to the order’s requirement that 
transportation be provided for pupils reassigned under 
the order.

To facilitate the hearing and the disposition of this ap­
peal, the District Court is requested, after such evidentiary 
hearings as may he necessary, to make supplemental find­
ings of fact respecting the general issue of busing and the 
effect of its order with respect to the number of pupils 
transported, the number of buses required, their avail­
ability, and the additional capital and operating costs of 
transportation.

The District Court is requested, if possible, to file a sup­
plemental order or memorandum, including such findings 
of fact, by March 20, 1970.

Court of Appeals Order Granting Stay Order of
March 5, 1970



923a

This appeal is accelerated. The hearing of the appeal 
will be scheduled in the Court of Appeals in Richmond, 
Virginia, on April 9, 1970 and the attorneys for all parties 
are directed to file their briefs in the office of the Clerk of 
the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit not later than 
Tuesday, April 7, 1970.

Since it appears that the appeal cannot be heard and 
determined prior to April 1, 1970, the date for implemen­
tation of the first phase of the order of the District Court, 
and since the Court of Appeals is presently unable to ap­
praise, in the absence of the requested additional findings 
of fact, the impact of the busing requirements,

I t I s N ow Oedered that the order of the District Court 
dated February 5, 1970 be, and it hereby is, stayed insofar 
as it requires the reassignment of pupils for whom trans­
portation would be required under the order but who are 
now not transported or who are now being transported at 
substantially less distance and at substantially less ex­
pense, such reassignments being those arising out of the 
pairing and clustering of schools with resulting cross­
busing.

To the extent that the stay granted by this order requires 
other modifications in the District Court’s order, such 
modifications as may appear appropriate to the District 
Court to achieve a cohesive and efficient system of public 
education are authorized.

Except with respect to the busing requirements of the 
order which are hereby stayed and the resulting necessary 
modifications hereby authorized, the application for a stay 
is denied, and implementation of the order of the District 
Court is directed at the times and in the manner specified

Court of Appeals Order Granting Stay Order of
March 5, 1970



924a

therein, subject to the further orders of this Court and the 
ultimate disposition of the appeal. This is in conformity 
with the general direction of the Supreme Court that orders 
of the District Court shall be implemented pending the 
hearing and determination of appeals from such orders. 
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 TT.S.
19; Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, ____
U .S .------- (January 14, 1970).

By direction of the Court.

/ s /  Clem ent  L . H aynsw obth , Jr. 
Chief Judge, Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeals Order Granting Stag Order of
March 5, 1970



925a

Order Suspending Superior Court Order

(Filed March 6, 1970)

I n the  D istrict Court of th e  U nited S tates 
F or the  W estern D istrict of N orth Carolina

Charlotte D ivision

C ivil  A ction No. 2631 

J ames E . S w a n n , et al.,

— v .—

Plaintiffs,

Charlotte-M ecklenburg B oard of E ducation, 
a public body corporate, et al.,

Defendants.
and

C ivil A ction N o. 1974 

M rs. R obert L ee M oore, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

—v.—

Charlotte-M ecklenburg  B oard of E ducation , et al.,

Defendants.

On Sunday, February 22, 1970, Judge Frank W. Snepp, 
in Moore, et al. v. Gharlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educa­
tion, et al., a suit filed in the Superior Court of Mecklen­
burg County, North Carolina, signed a restraining order 
against the defendants. The order is of record. It appears



926a

Order Suspending Superior Court Order

to have been filed at 10 :16 P.M. on Sunday night, February 
22, 1970.

On Friday, February 27, 1970, the defendant Board of 
Education had a meeting. Without any inquiry of this 
court, the Board staff were instructed to comply with the 
state court order and to stop work on compliance with 
the order previously entered by this court.

On February 28, 1970, counsel for all interested parties 
were notified that a hearing would be conducted on March 
2, 1970, on motions to set aside or to restrain the effect 
of the Snepp order. Counsel for plaintiffs in the Moore 
case did not appear, but sent word through secretaries 
by telephone that they were occupied elsewhere.

The School Board attorneys have also filed on March 2, 
1970, in the Swann case, Civil Action No. 1974, a motion 
which, although it does not clearly say so, amounts to a 
request by the Board to this court to relieve the Board 
of the burden of Judge Snepp’s order so that it will not 
interfere with the preparation and implementation of a 
desegregation plan.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has now, on March 
5, 1970, issued an order which postpones pending appeal 
the implementation of the clustering, pairing and cross­
bussing provisions of the February 5, 1970 order, but which 
directs the implementation of the rest of the February 5 
order according to its terms. It would appear that the 
Board should without question follow the order of the 
Court of Appeals, rather than consider itself hampered 
by the Snepp order. Nevertheless, in order that there may 
be no possible question about the effect of the Snepp order 
henceforward, it is now, in the discretion of the court 
and in the furtherance and protection of the jurisdiction 
and orderly processes of this court, and pursuant to ap-



927a

Order Suspending Superior Court Order

plicable statutes, Ordered, A djudged and D ecreed, that the 
order heretofore signed by Judge Snepp in Civil Action 
No. 2631 in the Superior Court of Mecklenburgh County 
be, and it is hereby suspended and held in abeyance and 
of no force and effect pending the final determination by 
a three-judge court or by the Supreme Court of the 
issues which will be presented to the three-judge court 
on March 24, 1970.

It is F urther  Ordered, that the Moore Case, No. 2631, 
be referred to the three-judge court of March 24, 1970, 
for such hearing and determination as that court may find 
proper.

This the 6th day of March, 1970.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan  
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge



928a

Order

(Filed March 6, 1970)

On March 5, 1970, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 
entered an order which included the following:

“Upon consideration by the full court, it appears 
that disposition of this appeal will depend in part upon 
a resolution of factual questions, as yet undetermined 
in the District Court. Specifically, the parties are in 
wide disagreement as to the impact of the order upon 
the school board’s transportation system, the number 
of pupils for whom transportation will be required 
under the order, the number of school buses needed to 
provide such transportation, their availability, and the 
cost of their acquisition and operation.

“ The resolution of such factual issues is necessary 
to an orderly consideration of the issues on appeal 
insofar as they are directed to the order’s requirement 
that transportation he provided for pupils reassigned 
under the order.

“To facilitate the hearing and disposition of this 
appeal, the District Court is requested, after such evi­
dentiary hearings as may he necessary, to make supple­
mental findings of fact respecting the general issues of 
busing and the effect of its order with respect to the 
number of pupils transported, the number of buses 
required, their availability and the additional capital 
and operating costs of transportation.

“ The District Court is requested, if possible, to file 
a supplemental order or memorandum, including such 
findings of fact, by March 20, 1970.”

The court directs the parties to prepare and file with the 
Clerk of this court not later than Friday, March 13, 1970. 
all evidence (evidence should not he interpreted to include



929a

Order

argument of counsel or others nor any extended opinions) 
which they would like for the court to consider hearing 
upon the factual questions referred to in the March 5, 
1970 order of the Court of Appeals.

Counsel for all parties are directed to produce upon 
written request of opposing counsel all documents, records, 
exhibits, reports, evidence or data of any and every kind 
which may be requested by opposing counsel. If there are 
objections upon any basis the evidence shall nevertheless 
he produced and the court will pass upon the objections 
after examining the evidence and hearing from counsel.

Counsel are directed to appear before the court at 2:00 
P.M. on Monday, March 16, 1970, for the purpose of ex­
amining such evidence as may then he available, and de­
termining what matters can then be stipulated and whether 
any further testimony will then he necessary.

The objections filed by the defendants on March 6, 1970, 
to the plaintiffs’ list of additional exhibits in evidence, and 
any other objections that any party makes to any demand 
for evidence or addressed to the production of evidence will 
be heard at the conference among court and counsel on 
March 16, 1970, and counsel will be given adequate oppor­
tunity to record their then objections and exceptions.

All counsel will provide opposing counsel with copies 
of all exhibits or other evidence sought to be introduced or 
which the court is requested to consider.

If a further hearing is necessary after the conference 
among court and counsel scheduled for March 16, 1970, it 
will he conducted on Tuesday, March 17, 1970, at 10:00 A.M.

This the 6th day of March, 1970.

J am es B. M cM illan  
James B. McMillan

United States District Judge



930a

Order

(Filed March 6, 1970)

Among other questions on which findings of fact for the 
court’s report to the Court of Appeals may he necessary 
are the following:

1. Total numbers of children who live (1) in the pre-1957 
city boundaries, (2) in the “ perimeter” area, and (3) in the 
rural areas:

(a) Elementary, black and white;

(b) Junior High, black and white; and

(c) Senior High, black and white.

2. Numbers of children in each school in the entire sys­
tem who live in a different zone from that of the school 
they attended in January, 1970:

(a) Those who are supplied transportation; and

(b) Those who are not supplied transportation.

3. Average daily number of pupils riding school busses 
in each school for the months of October, November and 
December, 1969, and January and February, 1970.

4. With respect to the schools whose students are to be 
desegregated under the court ordered plan by rezoning:

(a) How many pupils, school by school, live within 
a radius of one and one-half miles of each school!

(b) How many pupils, school by school, live within 
a radius of two miles of each school!



931a

Order

5. Statistics from the National Safety Council or any 
other responsible source showing the accident rate among 
school children and the relative safety o f :

(a) Walking;

(b) Riding in private vehicles; and
(c) Riding in school busses.

6. Three maps howing in clear coloring or markings with 
respect to elementary, junior high and senior high schools 
the following data:

(a) The school zone for all schools in which de­
segregation by zoning is to he accomplished under the 
court ordered plan; and

(b) Those schools in which desegregation is to be 
accomplished under the court ordered plan by pairing 
or grouping or clustering with other schools and pro­
viding transportation.

7. A map showing (1) the pre-1957 city limits, (2) the 
perimeter area, and (3) the rural area, with all elementary 
schools clearly located on it.

8. A map showing (1) the pre-1957 city limits, (2) the 
perimeter area, and (3) the rural area, with all junior high 
schools clearly located on it.

The parties are directed to procure and supply the court 
by March 13, 1970, with information as above described.

This the 6th day of March, 1970.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan  
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge



932a

[1] By consent this deposition was taken on March 11, 
1970, at 12:15 P.M., in the offices of Chambers, Stein, Fer­
guson & Lanning, Attorneys at Law, 216 W. 10th Street, 
Charlotte, North Carolina.

By consent all objections except as to the form of the 
question are waived and objections will be made and ruled 
on at the time of trial. With the consent of all counsel, 
signature is waived.

A ppearances :

Plaintiffs—Julius L. Chambers, Esq.
Attorney at Law 
Charlotte, North Carolina 
Adam Stein, Esq.
Attorney at Law 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Defendants—William J. Waggoner, Esq.
Attorney at Law 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Dr. J ohn  A. F inger, having first been duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Your name is Dr. John A. Finger? A. Yes.
Q. What is your address? A. 35 Larch Street, Provi­

dence, Rhode Island.
Q. What is your occupation? [2] A. I am a college pro­

fessor.

Deposition of John A. Finger
March 11, 1970



933a

Q. Were you requested by the Court to assist the Court 
in preparing a plan for desegregation of the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg schools? A. Yes, I was.

Q. When were you so requested? A. On December 2, 
1969.

Q. What instructions did you receive at that time, Dr. 
Finger? A. I was told to read the order of the Court and 
to prepare a desegregation plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
that met the Court order.

Q. Would you state generally for the record what the 
objectives of the Court order were in terms of the kind of 
plan you were to prepare? A. As I understood it, I was to 
draw up a plan that resulted in the elimination of all of 
the all black schools.

Q. What kind of assistance were you to receive in the 
preparation of the plan? A. The Court ordered the School 
Department to provide me with whatever assistance was 
needed to draw up a desegregation plan.

Q. Were you given an office? A. Yes, I was given an 
office.

Q. Where was the office? A. In the School Department 
headquarters.

Q. Was the staff of the School Board directed to provide 
you with [3] all the information that you needed to pre­
pare a plan for desegregation? A. Well, the Court order 
required the School Department to provide me with what­
ever information was needed and when I wanted informa­
tion or when I wanted to meet with someone, I wrote to the 
School Superintendent and asked for the information or 
asked for a meeting with the school staff members.

Q. Did you receive information from the school staff?
A. I received everything I asked for.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



934a

Q. Would you explain for the record some of the things 
that you did receive? A. I received the School Board min­
utes for the past year, I received demographic maps that 
showed the location of pupils by grade and race, I  received 
enrollments in the various schools in Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg, I received school department maps showing the 
School Board desegregation plan.

Q. Did you get information relative to the teachers in 
the schools, the school capacities ? A. Yes. I have informa­
tion concerning the number of teachers in each school by 
race and I have met with the Superintendent, Asst. Super­
intendent Anderson, who is in charge of teacher assign­
ments, to discuss the plans that he had for desegregating 
the faculties of the schools.

Q. Do you feel, Dr. Finger, that you received sufficient 
information in order to prepare a plan for desegregation 
of the [4] schools? A. Yes, I do.

Q. In the demographic map did that show the residences 
of the children, too? A. No. It simply showed the number 
of children residing in each half-mile grided area. The 
demographic maps are a grid that coincides with the larger 
school department maps and the number of children resid­
ing in each half-mile square block was shown.

Q. Did you receive information about the transportation 
presently provided by the school system for students ? A. 
No, I did not. I didn’t ask for it.

Q. Now, have you had occasion to study the transporta­
tion that is provided by the school system? A. I have not 
studied the present transportation system in detail.

Q. Would you tell us when you began work on the plan?
A. That must have been about . . .  it was a Thursday, must 
have been about December 5, I think it was, but it was a 
Thursday, whatever that date is.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



935a

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970 

Q. And when did you submit your plan to the Court?

Mr. Waggoner: We will stipulate February 2.
That’s the date we had that first hearing.

A. February 2. I submitted a portion of the report the 
previous Thursday. The final portion of the report was 
submitted on [5] the day of the hearing.

Q. Would you tell us what you did in terms of a plan 
for the desegregation of this school system! How did you 
go about preparing the plan? A. When I accepted this ap­
pointment by Judge McMillan and he called a meeting on, 
I guess it was December 5, wasn’t it, Mr. Waggoner?

Mr. Waggoner: Yes.

A. In his chambers where Mr. Waggoner and Supt. Self 
and I met, we agreed on the procedure that I would follow 
in working with members of the school department. It was 
agreed that whatever I wanted from Supt. Self would be 
requested in writing and I followed that procedure. I also 
stipulated that I did not feel that I should be a witness in 
this lawsuit after I accepted the position as consultant to 
the Court and I ’d like to state for the record I am here under 
protest, that it was my understanding that I would be 
subpoenaed if I didn’t appear. I do feel it is not appropriate 
to probe into the procedures that I followed in preparing 
the desegregation plan. I have reported the plan to the 
Court and that constitutes my official document.

Q. Would you tell us how you proceeded to desegregate 
the high schools in the system? A. The general procedure 
I followed in preparing the plan that I submitted to the 
Court was to meet with various members of [6] the school



936a

department staff to talk to them about how, to ask them 
about how, to ask them to react to various plans and pro­
cedures that I developed and to evaluate them in terms 
of their feasibility and in the process I obtained as many 
documents as were available to help me understand what 
would be the most effective way to proceed. The plan that 
I submitted to the Court for senior high schools is very 
similar to the plan that the school department prepared 
under the direction of the School Board and the only 
change that I made was to make it conform with the Court 
order that I was operating under so that it provided for 
desegregation of all the schools. I also made the plan so 
that it would provide very nearly equal ratios of black 
and white students in all the senior high schools.

Q. Now, how did your proposal differ from the proposal 
of the School Board with respect to the senior high schools? 
A. Both plans have been presented as evidence in the court. 
I  would think that that question was answered by the 
documents that were submitted to the Court.

Q. Could you just explain for the record what you pro­
pose to desegregate the high schools that added to or modi­
fied what the Board proposed? A. Yes. I made the ratio 
of black and white students approximately equal to the 
ratio of all the students at that grade level.

Q. How did you accomplish that? A. By assigning 
grids to the various high schools. I used the [7] demo­
graphic map and just counted the number of students re­
siding in each grid until I achieved a ratio that was 
approximately equal. In the plan that I submitted to the 
Court all of the schools have a ratio between 22% and 
26 with the exception of Olympic, which was intentionally 
left low because of an anticipated housing development, and 
for North Mecklenburg which I felt ought not to be in­
cluded in the desegregation plan.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



937a

Q. Is North Mecklenburg the only senior high school 
that had no changes in terms of the boundaries? A. There 
might have been a slight change in North Mecklenburg, 
I’m not positive, but otherwise all the senior high schools 
had changes in the boundaries. I ’d have to check the maps 
to make sure because occasionally boundaries were altered 
slightly.

Q. The plan designed by ,the Board made use of com­
puter matching of grids from the map and enlarging or 
altering school boundaries, is that correct ? A. Yes, that’s 
correct.

Q. Does it also create a satellite district for one of the 
schools? A. Yes, it creates a satellite district for Inde­
pendence High [8] School.

Q. Would you explain for the record what a satellite 
district is? A. Well, it’s a district that is—in effect it’s 
two districts that are not connected to each other. One 
district includes the geographic area in which the school is 
located and the other satellite district is a district not at­
tached to the first one.

Q. Did your plan follow basically the plan submitted by 
the School Board with respect to the junior high schools? 
A. There is a good deal of similarity between the plan I 
submitted and the plan submitted by the School Board. 
The major difference is that their plan did not desegregate 
all of the junior high schools and it required that the 
attendance zones all be connected. I established some 
satellite attendance zones.

Q. Do you recall the satellite attendance zones you es­
tablished for the junior high schools ? A. They are shown 
on the map that I submitted to the Court. There is a satel­
lite zone for Cochran, for Eastway, for Alhermarle Road, 
for Alexander Graham, for McClintock, for Wilson, for

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



938a

Project 600 Carmel Road, for Smith, for Wilson and for 
Quail Hollow.

Q. Are these satellite zones that you have proposed for 
the junior high schools basically Negro residential areas? 
A. Yes, they are basically Negro residential areas.

[9 ] Q. And these students are to be assigned to the 
outlying white junior high schools? A. Yes, they are to 
be assigned to the outlying white junior high schools.

Q. Now, did your plan follow basically the plan of the 
School Board with respect to the elementary schools? A. 
Well, yes, and then again, no. The School Board plan 
for elementary schools used grid assignments but it did 
not desegregate all of the elementary schools that my 
plan called for, pairing of schools in the center of the 
city with those in the outlying areas.

Q. Now, the pairing, are those schools shown on the last 
page of the exhibit you attached to your proposal? A. Yes, 
that’s correct. I don’t know that is a page but it’s a docu­
ment labeled Elementary Schools Paired. Is that the one 
you’re referring to?

Q. That’s the one. Did your consideration in desegregat­
ing the schools take account of the transportation of stu­
dents? A. Well, I don’t know just what you mean by 
take account of. I considered the problems of transporta­
tion in developing various desegregation plans and came 
to understand what kind of control one had over the 
amount of transportation involved.

Q. Now, do you know the number of students who would 
be involved in desegregation of the high schools as you 
have proposed? A. Repeat that question, please.

[10] Q. Do you know the number of students who would 
be involved in the reassignment under the proposal you 
submitted to the Court for desegregation of the high 
schools ?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



939a

Mr. Waggoner: Would you read the question back, 
please?

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 1 above.)

A. Well, according to my count there are approximately
17,000 high school students. I guess they’d all be more or 
less involved.

Q. You indicated that the boundary for North Mecklen­
burg might have been altered some. Could you just esti­
mate for us how many students would be reassigned under 
the high school provision of the plan? A. There have been 
some alterations in the students assigned to North Meck­
lenburg. Some students who were not assigned there last 
year will be going there and some students who were as­
signed there will not be. These are students who live close 
to the present city limits of Charlotte. My earlier state­
ment should have simply noted that the children who live 
well north of the city limits were not included in the de­
segregation plan.

Q. Well, in your opinion would approximately 17,000 
students be reassigned under the plan or less than 17,000 
in the senior high schools. A. I never tried to estimate the 
number of children who would be Eli] reassigned. It’s a 
considerable number. It varies with the color of the stu­
dent. There are more black students being reassigned pro­
portionately than white students. Just a rough estimate I 
think there are probably 4000 students being reassigned.

Q. 4000? A. That would be a rough estimate. I need to 
sit down and do a more careful . . .

Mr. Waggoner: Move to strike the rest of it.

Q. Could you give us an estimate of the number that 
would be reassigned under your proposal of the junior high 
schools ?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



940a

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970 

Mr. Waggoner: Objection.

A. Well, Mr. Chambers, I could sit down with a map and 
make those estimates but I have not prepared those esti­
mates and I really don’t know the numbers that are in­
volved. It’s something that is easy enough to obtain. The 
school department could obtain that number if I were to 
ask for it. I didn’t ask for it.

Q. Did you determine how many students would be pro­
vided transportation in the high schools? A. I asked the 
school department to prepare a report for me on the addi­
tional number of students that would be required to be 
transported under the State regulations and they have pre­
pared such a report for me.

Q. How many senior high school students would be pro­
vided [12] transportation under the State regulations? A. 
Under the court consultant plan the additional number of 
students to be transported is 1,815.

Q. What about the junior high school students? A. I 
asked the school department to prepare an estimate of that 
and their estimate of the additional number of students to 
be transported according to State regulations is 2,286.

Q. What about the elementary schools? A. They pre­
pared an estimate for me for the elementary schools and 
that estimate is 10,614.

Q. Dr. Finger, did you consider a different method for 
desegregating the elementary schools besides that you sub­
mitted to the Court?

Mr. Waggoner: Read that to me.

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 11 
above.)

A. Yes, I did.



941a

Do you have a copy of the affidavit there, Bill?

Mr. Waggoner: No. I have a copy of your report 
to . . .

A. All right, I have that.

Mr. Chambers: You have a copy of the report to 
whom ?

Mr. Waggoner: Whatever the one was that the 
Court received there. Have you not seen this?

Mr. Chambers: No.

[13] (Off the record at this point by consent.)

Q. The proposal you initially considered was altered in 
what respect from that fiinally submitted to the Court? 
A. I believe I prepared some . . .  I prepared three, four de­
segregation plans in considerable detail. I prepared more 
than that in partial detail. I have already stated that in an 
affidavit to the School Board attorney and I have already 
testified to the fact that I prepared several plans.

Q. Do you know why the plan that was finally submitted 
to the Court differed from the one that you had initially 
considered? A. I submitted to the Court the one that I 
thought was the best plan.

Q. Did you have any consultation with the staff to deter­
mine the one submitted was more feasible than the others 
you considered? A. I have always felt that the school de­
partment was the best judge of what would be the most ef­
fective plan.

Q. Did you have consultations with the staff as to the 
feasibility of the plan you submitted to the Court? A. 
You see, Mr. Chambers, I am not sure that I can answer

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



942a

your question because I have been in a unique position and 
the school department was ordered by the Court to co­
operate with me and I think that all I can say is that they 
did cooperate with me. I consulted them extensively about 
the development of desegregation plans; they provided me 
with the information [14] I needed. I asked the Superin­
tendent to provide me with staff members who would ex­
amine my plans and make judgments about them. I asked 
the Superintendent to make these judgments himself and 
when I finally submitted a plan it was the one I thought 
was the most feasible.

Q. Since the Court order have you had occasion to study 
approximately how many children would be provided trans­
portation under your plan? A. Well, we read off the num­
bers that were prepared for me by the school department 
and these seem to me to be reasonable estimates of the 
amount of transportation that would be required. I have 
checked the transportation estimates for all of the elemen­
tary schools and I came up with approximately the same 
number as the original estimates made by the Board of 
Education . . .  by the school department, excuse me. They 
show 10,614 and my estimates are approximately that same 
number, approximately 10,000.

(Off the record by consent at this time.)
Q. How many students did you estimate would be pro­

vided transportation for the junior high schools? A. Well, 
the School Board estimate was 2,286, but that estimate did 
not include any students to be transported to Alexander 
Graham Junior High School and the students who reside 
in the satellite district live approximately about four miles 
from the Alexander Graham Junior High School and it 
seems to me [15] to be unreasonable not to provide trans­
portation for them. I would have increased my transporta­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



943a

tion estimate for Alexander Graham by about 360 stu­
dents.

Q. So your estimate would be approximately. . . .! A. 
I’m not finished yet. There is a satellite district for McClin- 
tock Junior High School and I estimate that there are ap­
proximately 325 students who would need transportation 
to McClintock. There are a small number of students, I 
estimate 100, who would need transportation to Sedgefield. 
And I estimate that there are about 500 students who would 
need transportation to Williams. According to my esti­
mates, the school department report overestimated the num­
ber of children needing transportation in Smith Junior High 
School. They reported 432 and I think that 300 is a more 
accurate estimate. That would make 3,439 students.

Q. You estimate 3,439 for the junior high schools! A. 
Yes.

Q. What is your estimate for the senior high schools! 
A. I think the estimate that the school department prepared 
for me is essentially the same as my estimate.

Q. 1,815! A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you consider the number of buses that might be 

necessary to provide transportation! A. Excuse me a min­
ute. I need to have Mr. Morgan’s affidavit.

[16] (Paper writing is handed to the witness.)
Q. Did you estimate the number of buses! A. Give me a 

few minutes to check my last statement.

R ecess fob L u n ch

Q. Did you estimate the number of buses that would be 
required for implementation of the plan! A. I have made 
a number of estimates of the number of buses required. I 
based my estimates on 45-passenger buses. I also made 
estimates on 60-passenger buses. If there were no round

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



944a

trips at all, my estimates for busing are the elementary 
school level 217 45-passenger buses; 51 45-passenger buses 
at the junior high school; and 40 at the senior high school.

Q. Let me get those figures again. For the elementary? 
A. 45-passenger buses, 217.

Q. And for the junior high! A. 51, and for the senior 
high 40.

Q. And you say you also made an estimate with 60- 
passenger buses! A. Yes. That would take 163 buses at 
the elementary level; 38 at the junior high school level; and 
30 at the senior high school.

Mr. Waggoner: What size bus is that?
A. 60.

Q. Your estimates are made on the basis of one trip? A. 
Yes, that’s correct. It seems to me there are two ways that 
[17] one could utilize a bus for two trips. One way would 
be to have the elementary school buses used to transport the 
junior high and senior high school students. There are 
217 elementary buses required. Half of these, approxi­
mately a hundred, would be coming into the city and a 
hundred would be going out from the city. Those hundred 
coming into the city could be utilized to provide the trans­
portation for the junior high school students since most 
of those are bused out and also a large number of senior 
high school students are bused out and those buses could 
be used in that way. That would require staggering the 
starting hours of the elementary schools and junior and 
senior high schools. If one were to follow that pattern, it 
would require approximately the number of elementary 
school buses needed which would be 217. There is another 
alternate way of providing the transportation. One could

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



945a

provide staggered hours for the elementary schools. One 
could start a bus in the center of the city leaving for the, 
shall we call it the suburbs, and would be going against 
the traffic. Traffic would be coming into the city at that 
time of day, and it might leave at whatever time is desirable, 
let’s say 8 :00. It would arrive at its destination at approxi­
mately 8 :30—take an average run time of half an hour. I 
haven’t driven one of these routes and I don’t know what 
the actual run time would be. Of course, the bus would be 
going non-stop, it would not be stopping to pick up any 
children, [183 it will not be stopping to leave off children. 
It will have a full bus that it’s running on a straight run 
to its destination. In any event, when it arrives at that 
destination, it picks up children at the school. If it’s a 
school in an area where children are transported in, those 
children have already been transported into the school 
under existing transportation and they are at that school. 
They board this bus which turns around and presumably 
not is behind the rush hour traffic and goes back into the 
center of the city. That bus, in following this plan, would 
then have to return to its starting point because the busing 
pattern would be the opposite way when school is closed. 
That is just one posible plan that one might use if the ob­
jective was to minimize the number of buses required. Un­
der that plan instead of needing 217 45-passenger buses for 
elementary, I estimate one would need 109.

Q. Dr. Finger, let’s look at the plan that the Court has 
directed itself and see how it operates. You have some 
maps here and these maps have been introduced as exhibits 
in court. The map for the senior high school has established 
boundaries. A. This is the Board plan map and that is the 
Finger plan map.

Q. I see. Now, on the Finger plan map, so-called, the one 
that has been directed by the Court, you have a satellite

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



946a

district in the midst of the city for Independence High 
School. [19] A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. You provide for approximately 300 high school stu­
dents being assigned out of that satellite district! A. The 
School Board estimate of number of students to be trans­
ported to Independence was 300 and so I presume that that’s 
the number of students residing in the Independence satel­
lite zone. We could check that by getting the demographic 
map.

Q. Now, other than that satellite district, your plan is 
basically the same as that of the School Board? A. If one 
looks, for example, at the attendance zone for West Char­
lotte, one finds that the zones are almost identical. There 
is a difference way over here on the northeast section where 
the zone for the Board’s plan follows this old attendance 
line here and on the Finger plan it goes just straight 
across, going across on the top of grids number 236, 237, 
238, etc. Not very many children reside in that area and 
for practical purposes it’s almost identical zones. You can 
see there is a little difference down in here where that zone 
is straight out.

Q. Now, the School Board proposed under its plan to 
provide transportation only for students who live outside 
the city limits or are assigned to schools outside the city 
limits as it existed in 1957. There is an affidavit by Mr. 
Morgan about the number of students who would be pro­
vided transportation under the Board plan for the senior 
high schools. [20] A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. How many students does the Board estimate it would 
be providing transportation for under its plan for the 
senior high schools ? A. According to the Morgan affidavit, 
53.

Q. 53 additional students? A. 53 additional students.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



947a

Q. In looking at this map would there be several students 
living more than two miles from the school who would not 
be provided transportation under the Board plan? A. 
Well, I believe that all of these children who live out in 
the Hidden Valley area who would reside about four and 
a half, five miles from the school would not be provided 
transportation. That’s pre-’57? I don’t know how many 
children are going to be transported. The Board says under 
their plan that 53 students would be transported and then 
they say under the Finger plan 810 students would be trans­
ported.

Q. You’re talking about for West Charlotte? A. For 
West Charlotte. Those essentially are the same attendance 
zones so that it’s obvious that the number of students trans­
ported is not a function of the attendance zone nor a func­
tion of the size of the zone. If the same rules were to be 
followed under the Finger plan as followed under the Board 
plan, the Finger plan, I suppose, would require transport­
ing about 53 students.

[21] Q. For West Charlotte High School? A. For West 
Charlotte High School.

Q. Looking at the junior high schools, what does the 
Finger plan propose? Students would be assigned there to 
junior high schools according to geographic zones? A. 
Students are assigned to junior high schools by geographic 
zones and there are satellite zones for ten of the junior 
high schools.

Mr. Waggoner: Could I interrupt? I have to 
make a phone call—I picked up the wrong file.

S hort R ecess

Q. Going back to the senior high school, did you recom­
pute the number of students who would be provided trans­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



948a

portation? A. In the Morgan affidavit it shows that the 
number of students to he transported under the Board at 
the high school level would be 1,202. The major difference 
between the Board plan and the court consultant plan is in 
the satellite zone for Independence High School which has 
approximately 300 students in it. Thus one would expect 
the estimate of the number of students to be transported 
for senior high schools under the court consultant plan to 
be approximately 1,500, 1,200 plus 300. When the school 
department prepared their estimate they estimated 1,800 
and I presume that the difference between those two figures 
has to do with the slight differences in racial balance in the 
attendance zones and that the minor [22] differences in 
these attendance zones result in 300 more pupils being 
transported under the court consultant plan than under the 
Board plan and I can’t make any more accurate estimate 
than that 1500 to 1800 students would seem to me to be the 
appropriate estimate for senior high school students to 
be transported if one were to follow the Board rules for 
transporting students. The Morgan affidavit shows the 
court consultant plan to be transporting 4,106 senior high 
school students and that’s at least 2300 more than my esti­
mate. They are counting students in different ways in the 
Morgan affidavit.

Q. Now, for the junior high schools did you compute the 
approximate numbers of students that would be trans­
ported under the Court ordered plan? A. Well, the school 
department prepared estimates for me and they estimated 
2,286. That’s the estimate that I would make if I were 
counting students in the same way that the students are 
counted under the Board plan in the Morgan affidavit.

Q. How many does Mr. Morgan indicate would be trans­
ported in his affidavit? A. He shows that under the Board

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



949a

plan a total of 1388 students would be transported. My 
estimates of the number transported under the court con­
sultant plan would be somewhat more than that. I already 
gave you the estimate that the school department prepared 
for me. In the Morgan affidavit he reports that [23] the 
court consultant plan would require 6,129 junior high 
school students to be transported. That is nearly 4,000 
more than my estimate.

Q. Would you state the criteria that you’re using for your 
estimates? A. Well, the criterion I am using for my esti­
mates are the number of students to be transported accord­
ing to State regulations. That’s the rule that was followed 
when the school department prepared this transportation 
estimate for me. When one compares the attendance zones 
for the court consultant plan and the Board plan, one will 
find there are many instances where the attendance zones 
are identical or nearly identical. For example, we might 
look at the Williams Junior High School attendance zones 
and observe that those attendance zones are nearly identical 
and according to the Morgan estimate for transportation 
under the Finger plan there would be 630 students trans­
ported, but under the Board plan there would be no stu­
dents transported. Now, obviously if one follows the same 
rules one transports the same number of students in the 
same attendance zone. We could go through many of these 
attendance zones and discover that the court consultant 
plan, in fact, requires less transportation.

Q. Than the proposal of the school . . . ? A. Than the 
proposal of the School Board, or it puts more students in 
close proximity of the school.

[24] Q. Looking at the Court ordered plan for elemen­
tary schools, would you explain basically what this plan 
does? A. What the Board plan does?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



950a

Q. No, what the Court plan does. A. The Court plan 
has some schools that have redrawn attendance zones which 
are essentially walk-in schools. These schools with redrawn 
attendance zones are the schools that are largely on the 
perimeter of the center of the city or in the area where the 
Barringer and Marie Davis schools are. There are then 
some remaining schools that are all black in the center of 
the city and one all black school, the Marie Davis School 
near the center of the city, and a large number of white 
or predominantly white schools in the outlying area of the 
city. The attendance zones for the center city schools and 
for these outlying schools are essentially the same atten­
dance zones as now exist and these schools are paired or 
grouped with schools in the center of the city so that black 
students from the center of the city at grades 1 through 4 
leave their schools and are transported to a school that 
has been all white and the white students in turn in grades 
5 and 6 go into the center of the city school.

Q. The number of paired schools is 34, 10 black and 24 
white schools! A. It’s a matter of record here. Is that the 
correct number! Yes.

[253 Q. The Court ordered plan differs in that respect 
from the plan submitted by the School Board? A. Yes, 
that’s right.

Q. With respect to elementary schools? A. Yes, that’s 
right.

Q. Have you made an estimate of the number of students 
who would be provided transportation under the Court or­
dered plan? A. Yes, I have. The court ordered plan re­
quires transporting the students from the center of the 
city out to the white schools and the transporting of white 
students into the center of the city and there are approx­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



951a

imately 10,000 students to be transported, 5,000 white stu­
dents and 5,000 black students.

Q. Now, could you tell us whether the methods that are 
followed in desegregating the elementary schools are in­
dependent? You have some schools that have zones and 
some schools that are paired. Could the Board implement 
the plan for the paired schools immediately? A. Yes, they 
could.

Q. Could they implement the plan for the zoned schools 
immediately? A. Well, interestingly enough, it’s harder to 
do that than it is the pairing because there is a lot more 
schools with change involved and they all have to change 
at the same time. But I believe the answer to that ques­
tion is yes, they could.

Q. First of all, let’s establish whether some schools in the 
[263 county have retained their previous geographic at­
tendance zones. A. Yes, that’s correct.

Q. The schools that are affected by the plan principally 
are those that are in the inner city and adjacent to the 
inner city, is that correct? A. The inner city schools have 
the same attendance zones under the court consultant plan 
as they had before. Those have not been changed.

Q. And is the same true of those schools that are paired 
with the inner city schools? A. Those schools that are 
paired with the inner city schools have, for the most part, 
not been changed. We could look at some specific illustra­
tions if you wanted to.

Q. Would you do that? A. We could note the Bruns 
Avenue School that is located at grid 317B and it has, I 
believe, the same attendance zone under this plan that it 
has had previously and under the court consultant plan 
it is to be paired with Huntingtown Farms, which is lo­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



952a

cated at grid 534B, and with Sharon at 570B, and with 
Starmount at 508C. All three of those schools have the 
same attendance zones under the court consultant plan that 
they have at the present time. Thus it would be possible 
to just carry out the pairing or clustering since there are 
four schools involved here for those four schools and it 
wouldn’t [273 involve any other schools or any other dis­
location of pupils at all.

Q. The pairing or clustering, then, could be done inde­
pendently of each other, you could do one set of pairing 
without doing the others? A. Yes, you could. It was the 
major reason that this plan was proposed to the Court. It 
can be done step by step.

Q. Would you explain that? A. Well, if there are ques­
tions as to the exact amount of transportation required, one 
way to find out the exact amount of transportation required 
is to carry out or begin to carry out the desegregation plan 
and you could pair group by group as long as you’ve got 
school buses to do it with. When you run out of school 
buses, you may have to stop implementing the plan at that 
point.

Q. What makes it easier to carry out the clustering of 
schools than to make the assignments under the new at­
tendance zones? A. Well, the attendance zones for the 
paired schools have not been changed and, therefore, the 
children already going to that school can get to the school 
using the present transportation routes that are already 
established. When they arrive at that school, there is a 
bus to take them to their new school assignment and so 
that the only change that takes place is the cross city bus 
run, a straight run.

Q. And with the rezoning, if it becomes necessary for the 
Board [283 to determine who the students are in the new

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



953a

zone? A. The school department can do that because they 
know the names of the students that live in each one of the 
grids but you have to do it all at the same time. Many of 
the children, a large proportion of the children will be 
going to the same school they were going to in the past. 
When you change one school, some children who have been 
in that school have to leave in order to make room for the 
new children coming in. So you have to schedule a day in 
which a large number of children change schools. Since 
most of these children are going to be able to walk in, it 
will he feasible to do this. I suppose the Superintendent 
can write a letter. The computer system has the names of 
all the children in those grids and it’s a matter of prepar­
ing a letter and addressing it by computer advising the 
parents what school to go to.

Q. We talked earlier this morning about the other plans 
that you had considered. Would you tell us now the reason 
why the plan that was submitted to the Court was substi­
tuted in lieu of the plan that you had initially worked up ? 
A. I developed one plan that had some features that were 
improvements on the one that the Court has ordered. It 
used hand-drawn attendance zones, zones that followed nat­
ural boundaries for the schools that were contiguous to the 
center city. By doing it that way you can reduce the num­
ber of children to be transported, but not a great deal. It 
also changed a large [29] number of attendance zones and 
it was apparent when the plan was thoroughly studied by 
the school staff that it was extremely difficult to implement 
that plan and I became aware of the fact that while the 
plan had some features that were improvement, it was very 
hard to carry out.

Q. Was the difficulty of implementing the plan that you 
initially prepared a matter of time, that it would take more

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



954a

time to implement the one that you had than the one you 
submitted? A. Well, there were other features that were 
different and it seems obvious when one studies this plan 
that was submitted to the Court that one of its major fea­
tures is that it’s a feasible plan one can carry out and I 
think that it was in consultation with the school staff that 
I became aware of the fact that this was a plan that could 
be carried out.

Q. You have a statement in your report to the Court 
which reads as follows: the last page of the report . . .
“I have prepared several different desegregation plans. No 
matter which is pursued the end result is that approx­
imately 5,000 children must be bused out from the center 
of the city and 5,000 bused in. The problem becomes one 
of deciding which children should be bused and how far. 
Should the distance traveled be given priority? Should a 
child residing five miles from a school be exempt but not 
a child who would be bused four miles ?” And skipping the 
next two paragraphs, you then say: “ It is my understand­
ing that the School Board had considered and [30] rejected 
a plan that would bus children to provide for complete 
desegregation. That plan is attached to this report. You 
will find that there are various tables showing projected 
enrollment and a map detailing the schools to be paired.” 
What plan was that that was rejected by the Board? A. 
The court consultant plan.

Q. The one that was submitted to the Court? A. That’s 
my understanding, yes.

Q. Dr. Finger, had the staff considered the plan you have 
submitted to the Court and that has been directed to be 
implemented by the Court and found that plan to be fea­
sible ?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



955a

Mr. Waggoner: Objection unless he knows.

A. I wouldn’t have submitted the plan to the Court if I 
didn’t think it was a feasible plan and if it was not my 
impression the school department felt it could be carried 
out.

Mr. Waggoner: Motion to strike his answer.

Q. Have you studied Mr. Morgan’s affidavit? A. I only 
received it this morning but I have studied it and I have 
a page missing on the elementary schools. I read it through 
and, yes, I have studied it briefly.

Q. Mr. Morgan has stated in his affidavit that he es­
timates that he needs approximately 526 buses to implement 
the court ordered plan. Did you have a chance to consider 
that estimate? A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you find that estimate to be accurate ? [31] A. I
found it to be utilizing different rules for counting students 
under the court consultant plan than under the Board plan 
and I don’t know how Mr. Morgan arrived at these num­
bers that he lists under his transportation estimates for 
the court consultant plan. We’ve already testified to the 
effect that at the junior high school and high school levels 
he makes estimates that are grossly different from my esti­
mates and it’s quite clear that when he says that the Board 
plan is requiring one number of buses and the court con­
sultant plan is requiring a different number of buses he is 
using different methods of estimating the number. As far 
as I can tell, the number of junior high school students and 
the number of high school students . . . strike that, please, 
I want to start over again. I’ve already testified to the 
number of high school and junior high school students that 
would be transported under the court consultant plan. Un­

De-position of John A. Finger March 11,1970



956a

der the elementary school plan I estimate that the number 
of children to be bused would be approximately 10,000, the
5,000 children bused into the center of the city and the 5,000 
bused out in addition to those already bused.

Q. Did you find any other discrepancies in the estimates 
of Mr. Morgan? A. Well, yes. We could detail all of the 
discrepancies at the junior high school level if you wanted 
to do that.

Q. Let’s do that. [32] A. I can also note some discrep­
ancies at the elementary school level but because I am 
missing a page of his affidavit, I can only note discrepan­
cies in a few of the elementary schools.

Mr. Waggoner: What page is missing?

A. It’s the first page that begins Albemarle School, and so 
on, for elementary schools. I note that he shows under the 
court consultant plan for elementary schools for Hunting- 
town Farms he shows 220 students; for Sharon he shows 
230; for Starmount he shows 256. Those add up to 706 stu­
dents. Those schools are all clustered with Bruns Avenue. 
But the number of white students to be transported are only 
540. Therefore, there’s a difference of 166 students. I don’t 
know how he got those estimates. I would think that the 
number of additional students to he transported from those 
three schools, Huntingtown Farms, Sharon and Starmount, 
would he 540 since that is the number of 5th and 6th grade 
white students shown in Bruns Avenue.

Q. Would you give us some other examples of the ele­
mentary schools? A. Yes. His Park Road and Pinewood 
add to 691 hut only 532 white students are to go to Marie 
Davis, the school paired with those two schools. He shows 
342 from Hidden Valley. That school is paired with Druid

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



957a

Hills but 303 white students are assigned to Druid Hills. 
His estimates for Montclaire, Rama Road are 529. Those 
schools are grouped with University Park [33] and the 
number of white students there is 461. For Selwyn, 
Windsor Park and Winterfield the total number of students 
is 1053 but their satellite school is Villa Heights which has 
668 white students in it. I might add that all of those schools 
have the same attendance zones under the court ordered 
plan as they do now.

Q. No additional students would be involved? A. No 
additional students would be involved. The only addition 
would be the transportation for pairing or clustering.

Q. Would you look at the junior high school estimates 
and tell us whether you have noted any discrepancies there 
in Mr. Morgan’s affidavit? A. I believe we have already 
mentioned the Williams discrepancy. Those attendance 
zones are essentially the same zones but under the court 
consultant plan there are 630 students to be transported 
and none under the Board plan. For Alexander Graham 
Bell there are 732 to be transported under the court con­
sultant plan and none under the Board plan. If one com­
pares those two districts one finds that the distances in­
volved in getting to school are approximately the same even 
though the court consultant plan has a satellite zone. Those 
same children residing in that satellite zone are assigned 
to the Alexander Graham School under the Board plan so 
that the same students are involved. The difference is that 
a group of students in an interim area are assigned to a 
different [34] school. They are assigned to Piedmont under 
the court consultant plan and they are assigned to the Alex­
ander Graham School under the Court ordered plan.

Q. Court ordered or Board plan? A. Under the Board 
plan, whichever it should be. I’m mixed up. Eastway shows

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



958a

603 students to be transported under the court consultant 
plan and none under the Board plan but again if one com­
pares the attendance zones for Eastway, one finds that this 
grid #296A, C and D constitute the satellite zone for East­
way and under the Board plan two of those same grids, 
296C and D are assigned to that school. The difference is 
that the Board plan has this long, strung-out attendance 
zone but the attendance zone for the court consultant plan 
is essentially a more compact one. Therefore, it ought not 
to require more transportation but less, if one were to count 
the transportation in the same way. The court consultant 
plan, according to the Morgan affidavit, York Road trans­
ports 365 students and the Board plan none; Hawthorne 
468 under the court consultant plan and under the Board 
plan none; Spaugh under the court consultant plan 290 and 
under the Board plan none; Randolph under the court 
consultant plan 90 and under the Board plan 59; Piedmont 
under the court consultant plan 424 and under the Board 
plan none. If one examines those attendance zones one 
would find they are for the most part very similar in geo­
graphic area except for Piedmont. Piedmont has [35] a 
different configuration under the court consultant plan be­
cause it is a desegregated school and under the Board plan 
it was an all black school or predominantly black school. 
If one examines the compactness of the two districts under 
the two plans, one finds one is as compact as the other. The 
other two schools to be mentioned are Sedgefield, 252 under 
the court consultant plan and in the Morgan affidavit 
none; and Coulwood 126 and the Board plan has more, 220.

Q. Again, as I understood your testimony with respect 
to the number of buses, you estimate is that if the method 
of staggering school terms is used that the Court ordered

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



959a

plan could be implemented with 109 buses. A. At the ele­
mentary school level.

Q. Would additional buses be needed for the junior high 
and senior high schools? A. Yes. The 109 for elementary 
schools assumes staggered hours, with each bus making a 
run in and a run out, or a run out and a run in.

Q. One of the questions directed by the Court of Appeals 
was how many buses would be needed to implement the 
plan. Now, would you give us a figure of what you would 
consider the minimum number that would be needed to im­
plement the plan as directed by the Court? A. If one were 
to start with, let’s say the Marie Davis, Park Eoad, Pine- 
wood cluster, and use staggered hours, it would take [36] 
11 buses to do that one clustering, 11 45-passenger buses. 
As I have already testified, one can begin to implement the 
plan because one can do it cluster by cluster. You asked me 
the total number of buses required to implement the plan 
and I ’ll try to make an estimate of that. I have already 
testified that one estimate would be the number of elemen­
tary school buses making a single run because these buses 
could be used for junior and senior high schools transporta­
tion. That estimate would result in 217 being required. An­
other procedure would be to use elementary buses on stag­
gered hours and one way bus runs for junior and senior 
high school students. That would give me an estimate of 
200 45-passenger buses.

Q. Would that 200 be for the elementary, junior and se­
nior high schools? A. That would be for all levels, that’s 
correct. I believe that it would be possible to use less 
transportation than this because I believe that it would be 
possible to utilize public transportation for some of these 
junior and senior high school students and that might be 
by far the more feasible procedure to follow. I am unable

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



960a

to work out the complete details or the details on what such 
a plan would be but I have made a rough estimate that 
the number of buses required might be under 150 if public 
transportation were used to supplement the senior and 
junior high school transportation. This would not [373 
mean using their buses for just school purposes but provid­
ing funds for junior and senior high school students to ride 
on the buses on their existing routes.

Q. The estimates you have just given us were based on 
a 45-passenger bus! A. That’s correct.

Q. Would the estimate be less if you were talking about 
a 60-passenger bus! A. Yes. If you’re talking about a 
60-passenger bus the elementary might require only 83 buses 
and the junior and senior high schools 20 buses. I want to 
make it clear that I have made these estimates without a 
very detailed analysis of exactly where these bus runs are 
but in contrast to the affidavit here that shows some 500-odd 
buses are required, I think that my estimates are far more 
accurate than those.

Q. There is an affidavit submitted by the Board to the 
effect that by adding buses on the streets that it would, Mr. 
Hoose says. . . .

Mr. Waggoner: You’re starting to bedraggle this 
thing. Can you hit the nails and get going because 
I ’ve got a lot of questions I have to ask and I ’m 
going to stay here as long as I have to and I’m not 
going to burden Mrs. Berger with a deposition that 
she can’t complete by Friday.

Mr. Chambers: The thing I want to do here is to 
[38] check. You filed some affidavits in here.

Mr. Waggoner: I have no objection, I ’m just mak­
ing a statement.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



961a

Q. It’s talking about stop and go traffic of the buses on 
the streets. Would you state the method that is proposed! 
Are these buses going to be stopping on the streets! A. 
Not to load and unload passengers. The pickups in the cen­
ter of the city would be, I suppose, at the schools and I would 
suppose the pickup would be at the white schools that are 
paired because many of those children would be bused into 
their schools on existing bus routes and so there would be 
no pickups at all. The paired school transportation would 
be from school to school with no stops.

Q. In picking the pairs for the schools did you take into 
account the roads and streets over which the students 
would be transported! A. I believe that the staff that 
prepared those plans for me took two things into con­
sideration. One was the capacity of the school and the other 
was the available transportation.

Q. Did you have some pairs that you considered that 
were eliminated because the ones that were finally adopted 
were more feasible! A. Well, by the time we came to the 
drawing up of this final plan, the staff and I had worked 
together on a great many different arrangements of cluster­
ing and pairing and we had [39] come to know what schools 
would pair with what and some of the earlier plans, we 
had corridor-like clustering, and some of the members of 
the school department staff were well familiar with where 
the clustering would effectively take place, given where the 
roads existed where clustering would be most effective.

Q. I might have asked you this but I ’ll ask you again. 
In your opinion can the plan as directed by the Court fea­
sibly be implemented by the School Board within the time 
directed by the Court! A. I have already testified to the 
effect and I believe it is in the report that I submitted to 
the Court that it was possible to make a step by step im­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



962a

plementation of this plan. I ’ve said a number of times this 
afternoon that the plan for elementary schools could be 
started at once. When the School Board will find that it 
does not have sufficient school buses to continue implement­
ing the plan, I ’m not positive, I presume at that point . . . 
I presumed originally that at that point they would come 
to the Court and say we’ve carried out half of the cluster­
ing that you ordered and now we are out of buses. It’s my 
understanding that there are enough buses available to 
begin the implementation of the plan. It’s not my opinion 
they could do it all tomorrow.

Q. Is your answer to my question whether they could 
implement the plan within the time directed by the Court 
yes or not?

[401 Mr. Waggoner: I object. I don’t think this 
witness could possibly know the answer.

A. It seems to me I already testified to that on several 
occasions. I have said the redrawn attendance zones in 
the area contiguous to the center of the city could be imple­
mented, children could be reassigned in that area, and I 
have already testified to the effect that some of the pairings 
could be done at once. I ’m not positive that the school de­
partment has sufficient buses to do all of it. However, they 
say that there are 75 buses available from the State. I don’t 
know what availability those are. My estimates would indi­
cate that would come close to fulfilling the requirements.

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



963a

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970 

By Mr. Waggoner:

Q. Dr. Finger, yonr first participation in this case was 
as witness for the plaintiff, was it not? A. Yes, that’s 
right.

Q. And you came in at that time with a plan for desegre­
gation. A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. And yon had two of your colleagues from Rhode 
Island College who also testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. 
A. Yes, that’s right.

Q. You later came back with a plan for desegregation 
which involved substantial pairing of schools, did it not? 
A. Yes.

[413 Q. This pairing arrangement left a large number of 
black and white schools, did it not? Do you recall that you 
left some all black and all white schools as a result of that 
pairing arrangement? A. I believe that’s correct.

Q. And the only possibility you saw for breaking up the 
all black and all white schools was fairly long-distance 
busing, is this correct? A. I believe that’s correct.

Q. You were appointed by the Court and first came to 
Charlotte around December 5, is this correct? A. Yes.

Q. How much time did you actually spend in Charlotte 
during the period that you actually worked on devising the 
court consultant plan? A. Didn’t bring my vouchers with 
me but I would estimate that I was in Charlotte approxi­
mately fifteen to twenty days.

Q. And most of your time was in reviewing statistics and 
reviewing maps and records of the school sytem, is this 
correct? A. No, that is not correct. I spent a great deal 
of time meeting with the members of the school adminis­
trative staff, consulting with them as to what would be the 
best strategy to follow in developing a desegregation plan



964a

and in providing them with procedures to follow to draw 
up a desegregation plan. When I first arrived in the school 
department, the school department [42] was unable to 
work on a desegregation plan because they had no authori­
zation from the Board of Education and so when I arrived 
they were under Court order at that point to work with 
me and so we began together to explore the various ways in 
which the Court order could be met.

Q. All right. Now, with reference to your understanding 
of what was required of you, what criteria did you impose 
in seeking to achieve a desegregated school system in Char­
lotte ? A. I believe I have defined that in my report to the 
Court. I have given a definition and it’s my understanding 
that that definition is more or less implied by the Court 
order.

Q. Would you state the definition, please, sir? A. A 
desegregated school will be defined herein as one whose 
minority group enrollment does not exceed by more than 
5% the proportions in all of the schools at that school level.

Q. So what this would mean is that at the elementary 
level a school should not have more than 35% black. A. 
That’s correct.

Q. And on the junior high approximately 33% black. 
A. That’s correct.

Q. And 31% on the senior high. A. That’s correct.
Q. It makes no difference to you if it’s 1% or 2% as long 

as you do not exceed the 5% ratio, is this correct? A. I ’m 
not quite sure what you mean by it makes no difference.

[43] Q. Would you regard a school as desegregated if it 
had 1% black provided no other elementary school had 
more than 35% black? A. As I understand the order of 
the Court, it did not require the elimination of all of the 
all white schools. It only required the elimination of the

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



965a

all black schools and this definition provided a working 
procedure to follow in arriving at a desegregation plan. It 
was a working procedure that I felt would prevent resegre­
gation from taking place and I assume that that’s what the 
Court had ordered me to do.

Q. And this is what your statistics show, is this correct? 
A. There are one or two schools that are slightly off.

Q. I mean generally. A. Yes.
Q. I believe you also assume that the neighborhood school 

was no longer a predominant pattern that would be followed 
in the desegregated system, is this correct? A. Yes. I 
believe the Court had something to say about that in their 
original Court order. It might be appropriate to quote from 
it.

Mr. Chambers: Is that the April 23 order you’re 
referring to?

Mr. Waggoner: I have a package you sent me in 
the mail, let me get it. Which order are you reading 
from?

Mr. Chambers: April 23.

[44] A. The Court said in its April 23 order: “ If this 
court were writing the philosophy of education, he would 
suggest that educators should concentrate on planning 
schools as educational institutions rather than as neighbor­
hood proprietorships. The neighborhood school concept 
may well be invalid for school administrative purposes even 
without regard for racial problems.” He had many other 
things to say on the neighborhood school but I was follow­
ing the Court order and so I assumed I was not required 
to follow the neighborhood school concept.

Q. All right. So you have abandoned this concept to the 
extent that it doesn’t produce desegregation, is that basi­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



966a

cally what you have done ? A. I have carried out the Court 
order.

Q. You also make a recommendation that the school 
authorities stay on top of this and revise and constantly 
look over the boundaries and ratios of students in schools 
so as to, in effect, police it, is this correct? A. So as to 
maintain desegregated schools, yes, sir. I suppose that if an 
all black school is unconstitutional, it is required that the 
school board take corrective action and I so recommend to 
the Court.

Q. This is a question that hasn’t been fully answered by 
the courts yet, has it, to your knowledge? A. I ’m an edu­
cator, not a lawyer.

[45] Q. Now, with reference to transportation you made 
certain recommendations, one of which was staggering the 
opening and closing of schools. Are you familiar with the 
method of employment of the drivers of the school buses? 
A. Yes, I am.

Q. Would you describe it for me? A. Well, it’s put out 
in one of these affidavits here. It’s not my intent to have 
recommended that student drivers be assigned to this trans­
portation for cross busing. I would use adult drivers.

Q. You would use adult drivers. A. As I testified ear­
lier, those buses will have to return to their starting point 
for their return trip.

Q. What utilization would you make of these employees 
as an educator while they are not driving the buses?

Mr. Chambers: W el l . . .  .
Mr. Waggoner: I’m asking. This is part of the 

overall expense.
Mr. Chambers: What use do you make of the adult 

bus drivers now?
Mr. Waggoner: I ’m asking him.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



967a

A. You ask me as an educator and I don’t see why that’s 
relevant to an educational problem. I didn’t intend to make 
any use but there might he some use for them in the schools 
where they. . . .

[46] Q. Would it be fair to say that you haven’t con­
sidered that? A. Yes, indeed, it would be fair.

Q. I believe you also recommended that students residing 
more than one and one-half miles from their school should 
not be penalized by having to walk, nor be penalized by 
having to pay for public transportation. A. I so recom­
mended that to the Court. It’s a matter of record.

Q. Do you still adhere to this recommendation? A. 
Well, I think it’s important that we differentiate between 
that transportation that makes the walking distance one 
and a half miles and that transportation that is involved 
in simply carrying out the desegregation plan. Those are 
two separate and distinct problems. If the School Board 
proposes to have these children in grid #296C walk over 
to Eastway, a distance of four miles, they’d go that dis­
tance under either plan. It would seem to me that since 
the children who are doing most of the walking would be 
black children that it wasn’t fair to them.

Q. I ask you to addres yourself to Northwest Junior 
High. A. Yes, sir.

Q. What students would be walking to that school? A. 
Well, it would be a lot of black children walking to that 
school. Some children live outside the district line that I 
assume will be riding to the school.

Q. There are many of those students who are white who 
will be [47] walking, are there not? A. There will be some 
students—and I don’t know just where this line is—that 
will be walking in because the earliest city district line is 
not shown on these maps. On can’t look at this map and

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



968a

see. I understand the Court has asked for the documenta­
tion so that one can determine the numbers of students. 
I couldn’t answer that question.

Q. I ask you to address yourself to the J. T. Williams line 
and ask you what race of students will be walking there. 
A. I said that I though the Hidden Valley students would 
he walking into the Williams School and I said that I 
thought that was too far for them to walk. Someone cor­
rected me and said that they lived outside the old city limit 
and so they would be entitled to transportation. The only 
thing that it seems clear to me is that the students who will 
be attending the Williams Junior High School are the same 
students under either plan, or essentially the same students, 
so that the question is whether or not students are to he 
required to walk long distances or not.

Q. The walking will involve both black and white, will it 
not? A. I believe I testified earlier that it looked to me as 
if there would be far more black students who would be 
doing the walking but I haven’t actually made a count of 
the number of black and white students.

Q. This is at best a guess on your part? [48] A. I 
wouldn’t exactly call it a guess. I have studied these maps 
carefully over a long period of time.

(At this point in the proceedings Mr. Horack and Mr. 
Morgan arrived in the hearing room.)

Q. Dr. Finger, with reference to your recommendations 
on implementation of a desegregation plan, you recom­
mended to the Court as an educator that the assignment of 
high school students be made as soon as possible and also 
junior high, but by reason of curriculum and faculty changes 
and things of this nature it would be unwise to do it prior 
to the end of the year, is this correct, from an educational

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



969a

standpoint? A. I believe I differentiated between the 
senior high schools and junior high schools in that the 
requirements at the senior high school level, the programs 
were much more tailored to individual students. Therefore, 
in my opinion these students should be allowed to continue 
their education in their present schools and I suggested to 
the Court that if the schools were planning the programs 
and were assigning the courses to the students during this 
spring semester that might constitute a phasing in of the 
desegregation plan.

Q. But the actual attendance of the students at the schools 
would be deferred until next year according to your recom­
mendation. A. Do you have the page?

Q. Not numbered. [49] A. I numbered mine.
Q. It looks like about page 10 or 11. A. My recommenda­

tion was that the assignment of high school students be 
made as soon as possible so that detailed plans for curricu­
lum and faculty changes can be completed. The students 
in the present 10th and 11th grades should be required to 
report to their new school assignments during the spring 
semester. And I left that intentionally vague.

Q. Was there any reason why you were more specific 
with reference to junior high schools wherein you stated: 
“The school department should be required at least to have 
the junior high school students report to their new school 
assignments during the last week of school.” ? Is there any 
reason for differentiating between junior and senior highs? 
A. It was my understanding that the Court was uncertain 
as to what the law required it to do.

Q. I’m asking you as an educator. A. Repeat the ques­
tion.

Q. As an educator do you feel it desirable to uproot 
junior and senior high school students on May 4 and phys­
ically put them in another school?

Deposition of John iA . Finger March 11, 1970



970a

Mr. Chambers: We object to the question.

A. I would say that the question was . . . strike that, that 
was off the record.

Q. We don’t have off the record. You can’t answer the 
question? [503 A. Of course, I can answer the question. 
My recommendations are stated in the document and as an 
educator I would feel that the junior and senior high 
school students should be allowed to stay in their present 
school assignments during the current year but that they 
should report to their new school assignments during the 
last few weeks of school so that the school programs can 
be adequately planned for the fall semester.

Q. And this is primarily by reason of curriculum and 
faculty and things of this nature, is that correct? A. And 
it’s also so that the whole implementation of the plan can 
be restructured during the summer, the transportation 
reexamined and approved, and so on.

Q. You’re firmly satisfied that there is no way to desegre­
gate the inner city schools other than the long-distance 
busing of the nature that has been employed in your plan, 
is this correct? A. Long-distance is a relative term.

Mr. Chambers: I object to the form of the ques­
tion, too. Mr. Waggoner is inserting a lot of adjec­
tives that are opinionated by Mr. Waggoner and not 
justified by the facts in the case.

Q. Would you read the question back, please?
(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 14 

above.)
[51] A. I prepared some plans that had shorter distances 
in them and I believe I say in my report that one can con­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



971a

trol the distance that a child is to be bused and which chil­
dren are to be bused when there is little control over the 
number to be bused.

Q. All right. You have a statement in your recommenda­
tion: Should a child residing five miles from a school be 
exempt but not a child who would be bused four miles. 
Is this in the area that you think is a reasonable distance to 
be bused for desegregation, between four and five miles? 
A. Most of the transportation in the proposed plan, the 
court consultant plan, exceeds that distance. It was simply 
a manner of speaking.

Q. Then there is no significance you would attach to the 
use of four miles or five miles in your report to the Court? 
A. The importance of distance depends upon the roads and 
the traffic conditions. Five miles isn’t long on an express­
way, ten miles isn’t long on an expressway; ten miles isn’t 
long on a main highway where the bus can move.

Q. Do you know the maximum speed a school bus can 
travel in the State ? A. I believe it’s in one of the affidavits. 
Is it 35 miles an hour ?

Q. That’s correct. Do you know the minimum speed 
limits on the interstate highways? Is it 45 miles? [52] A. 
I just mentioned interstate highways. I don’t think anyone 
was proposing transporting these children on interstate 
highways.

Q. You would object to it yourself, wouldn’t you? A. I 
think it might be done but it was my understanding that 
the school department felt it was unwise to do that.

Q. Is there a great difference of opinion among edu­
cators as to whether or not an elementary child should 
be bused to achieve desegregation? A. There’s an awful 
lot of difference of opinion these days on busing. It seems 
to be a major issue, doesn’t it? Professor Coleman who

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



972a

wrote the Coleman Report spoke to that matter recently. 
There was a story in the New York Times about it. He 
was the one that wrote the Coleman Report that produced 
a lot of evidence as to the desirability of desegregating 
schools. He certainly felt busing was worth it.

Q. As far as elementary children were concerned? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Are there any educators who feel busing of elementary 
children is unwise! A. I suppose there are some. One 
can find people on most sides of most things.

Q. You conducted a major survey of this system with 
Dr. Passey, did you not? A. That isn’t the language I ’d 
use to describe my work with [53] Professor Passey. He 
was involved originally in the Charlotte case and he drew 
up a desegregation plan and he testified to the Court. I 
really wasn’t very much involved with Professor Passey.

Q. He is a colleague at Rhode Island College, is he not? 
A. Yes, he is on the faculty of Rhode Island College.

Q. You were present in the courtroom when he testified 
he did not favor busing elementary children, particularly 
grades 1 through 4, out of their neighborhoods for safety 
and other reasons that are attributed to the neighborhood 
benefits. Were you present then? A. I don’t think I was.

Q. Is this an unsound educational position? A. I believe 
that some 18 to 23,000 children in the Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg County get transported now and a large portion of 
those are elementary school children.

Q. Would you answer the question? A. What’s your 
question, which way did you put it? Is it unsound to bus 
children? No, it’s not unsound to bus them.

Q. Is it unsound to unnecessarily bus them?

Mr. Chambers: Objection to the form of the ques-

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



973a

tion. Will you define what you mean by unneces­
sarily f

Mr. Waggoner: I’ll let the question stand.

A. I don’t know what you mean by unnecessarily. If the 
only way [54] to desegregate schools is to bus elementary 
school children, I don’t think that’s unnecessary, for edu­
cational reasons.

Q. Let me ask you this question. I asked you this earlier 
and haven’t had an answer yet. Is there wide dispute 
among educators as to the relative benefits of busing ele­
mentary children to achieve desegregation substantial dis­
tances from their homes? A. I don’t know what you mean 
by substantial distances.

Q. All right, ten miles. A. I don’t believe all educators 
feel that one ought to bus children. Apparently a great 
many educators do because they have abandoned the one- 
room school house in favor of central consolidated schools. 
So I guess they think there are educational advantages to 
busing children.

Q. Are there a substantial number of educators who feel 
there are disadvantages to the type busing we are discussing 
of elementary children? A. I don’t think this type of 
busing is any different from any other type of busing. The 
question is whether the child will benefit educationally.

Q. Would you answer the question, please, Dr. Finger? 
A. Give me the question.

Q. Would you read it back to him, please.
(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 15 

above.)

A. I don’t know what you mean by a substantial number, 
whether [55] you mean 10 or 30%.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



974a

Q. Tell me how many or percentage, either one. A. I 
never made a survey, I don’t know. I don’t know of any 
survey that’s been made as to the number.

Q. You’re saying you don’t know how many are in favor 
of it or how many are against it, the only thing you know 
is your own opinion, is this correct! A. I didn’t say it 
was my opinion, Mr. Waggoner. I just quoted one of the 
nation’s most outstanding authorities on this matter.

Q. Is he the only one that you know of, then? A. Of 
course not.

Q. Who are the other ones? A. (No answer given.)
Q. Since there has been no answer, I ’ll go on to something 

else. A. I was wondering how to respond to that. I think 
there are a large number of educators who are. It’s obvious 
that many cities are carrying out desegregation plans be­
cause they think it’s sound educationally. It’s clear that 
a number of people have done analyses of the Coleman 
Report and have reported on the adequacy of that study and 
of the expectancies that one can have from desegregated 
schools. I think there is a substantial body of knowledge 
concerning the expected outcomes from desegregation.

Q. All right. You have told me of those who support 
your [563 position. Are there any that don’t support your 
position? A. I don’t know of any research studies that 
show that children do not benefit from attending desegre­
gated schools.

Q. That’s not the question I asked you. A. I know that 
there are some high school principals and school principals 
here in Charlotte who oppose it. Is that what you want me 
to say?

Q. I’m asking you to say whatever you have knowledge 
of.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



975a

Mr. Chambers: What’s the question about?
Mr. Waggoner: We spent 15 minutes asking Dr. 

Finger if he knows the degree of dispute among edu­
cators as to the relative advantages and disadvan­
tages of transporting elementary children ten miles 
to achieve a desegregated education. The question 
relates to whether or not the advantages of trans­
portation outweigh the advantages of desegrega­
tion, the type of transportation we have in the 
Charlotte system.

Mr. Chambers: Your question is whether the ad­
vantages of transportation outweigh the advantages 
of desegregation?

Mr. Waggoner: Whether the disadvantages of 
transportation outweigh the advantages of desegre­
gation.

A. I don’t think that’s an equation. I think that it’s demon­
strated that there are educational advantages to be ob­
tained [57] from desegregation and there is a body of 
research that supports that.

Q. Well, I won’t pursue that line of questioning any more. 
Now, you have had great quarrel with Mr. Morgan’s trans­
portation figures. Let me see if I can ask this question to 
bring some light on the matter. The Board plan, utilizing 
the requirements of State law, will bus approximately 4900 
students. Is this reasonably correct, additional students? 
A. That’s reasonably correct, yes. This is according to the 
Morgan affidavit.

Q. And your plan proposed adding to that the cross bus­
ing of approximately 10,000 black and white students, is 
that correct? A. Yes, that’s correct.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



976a

Q. So you’re somewhere in the neighborhood of 14,000 
students, is that correct! A. That’s correct.

Q. In addition your plan would furnish transportation to 
all students who reside within a mile and a half, whether 
or not they are eligible for transportation, is this cor­
rect! . . . under State law. A. No, that’s not correct.

Q. Well, let’s take a look at your report. A. I have 
already testified that one should differentiate between the 
recommendation to the Court about walking and the equal 
[58] treatment of children. That recommendation would 
apply under either plan, whether it was the Board plan 
or the court consultant plan.

Q. But the Board didn’t choose to adopt that, did it? A. 
The Board doesn’t choose to . . . the Board didn’t choose to 
adopt that.

Q. So the Board figures 4900 to the best of your knowl­
edge. A. If we count children in the same way, the Board 
plan calls for the transportation of approximately 4500 
children and the court consultant plan calls for that same 
number plus 10,000 children to be bused under pairing. 
Under either plan, if transportation is provided to children 
who must walk more than a mile and a half, there will be 
additional transportation and in my opinion that addi­
tional amount will be about the same under either plan.

Q. That’s correct. Now, you’re familiar with the fact 
that Judge McMillan’s order of February 5th provided that 
the School Board would determine a walking distance and 
furnish transportation to every student whose attendance 
at school is required for desegregation, is that correct? I 
direct you to Page 3, Paragraph 7. A. The Court ordered: 
That transportation be offered on a uniform non-racial 

basis to all children whose attendance in any school is 
necessary to bring about the reduction of segregation, and

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



977a

who live farther from the school to which they [59] are 
assigned than the Board determines to be walking distance.”

Q. Now, under your balancing arrangement the atten­
dance of any child at a school affects the degree of desegre­
gation that school has, does it not? I’m sorry, I ’ll pick it 
up again. You have imposed and so has the Court imposed 
a balancing of races within the schools, is this correct? 
A. I don’t know.

Q. I mean, this was your goal, to achieve as much bal­
ance as reasonably possible, is this correct? A. In my 
report to the Court I defined a desegregated school and 
then I attempted to have all schools meet that definition.

Q. This definition was an attempt to meet as much of a 
racial balance as possible, is this correct? A. I already 
answered that question.

Q. Will you answer it again? A. Yes. I defined a de­
segregated school in my report to the Court and I tried to 
have all the schools fall within that definition of a desegre­
gated school.

Q. And this involves racial balance, does it not? A. 
Those are your words, not mine.

Q. I ’m asking you. A. I ’ll answer that question the 
same way I answered it before. I defined a desegregated 
school and I attempted to have all the schools fall within 
that definition.

Q. We don’t have the privilege of a Court present. Will 
you [60] answer my question?

Mr. Chambers: I object to that. I think the witness 
has already answered the question.

Mr. Waggoner: He can answer it yes or no and 
he can explain it.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



978a

Mr. Chambers: He’s given you an answer, he’s 
told you what he did. You just want him to say some­
thing he hasn’t said.

Mr. Waggoner: He can say it’s a racial balance 
or it’s not a racial balance.

A. I don’t know what a racial balance is. That’s why I used 
the language I used here.

Q. You don’t know what a racial balance is. All right.

Mr. Chambers: How are you defining racial bal­
ance!

Mr. Waggoner: Racial balance is similar to wrhat 
the judge indicated in his prior order, it should be 
approximately the same number of students of each 
race in each school.

Mr. Chambers: I want to call the Court’s attention 
at this time to the Court decision of February 5th. 
The language of that opinion appears on Page 2, 
bottom of the page, and continuing on Page 3.

(The Court Reporter at this point in the proceed­
ings reminded [61] counsel it was 5:00 and that it 
had been ordered that the deposition of Mr. Morgan 
begin precisely at 5:00 o’clock.)

Mr. Waggoner: Pd like to continue.
Are you talking about the statement of the Judge!
Mr. Chambers: Yes.
Mr. W aggoner: I ’m asking this gentleman what 

his definition is.
Mr. Chambers: Definition of a racial balance?
Mr. Waggoner: Yes.
Mr. Chambers: Are you asking him a racial bal­

ance and asking him to define what you mean by 
racial balance?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



979a

Mr. Waggoner: If he can define the term racial 
balance.

Q. Can you do this! A. Mr. Waggoner, I already testi­
fied to the fact that I was required to carry out an order of 
the Court which required me to draw up a plan which 
ended up with no all black schools. In order for me to 
carry out that order, I needed to have some kind of defini­
tion to follow as to what constituted a desegregated school. 
So I defined it and I made it very clear that my definition 
was so that I could refer to the words desegregated schools 
in order to explain what procedures I was following. Now, 
if you wish to say that my definition of a desegregated 
school is racial balance, that is for you [62] to say. The 
Court has said that that was not his order and it is not 
the language that I used in my report to the Court.

Q. I’m asking you, then, did the results of your plan 
following the Court’s instructions achieve a racial balance 
in the schools. A. I sometimes indicated that I thought it 
was unwise to allow the proportion of black students to be 
too disparent with those in all the rest of the schools in the 
county but I might have been following a rule similar to 
the one the Board of Education followed in drawing up 
its computer assigned attendance zones in which it set 
a limit of some kind of the proportion of black students in 
a school, I believe 40%.

Mr. Chambers: Can we go off the record one 
minute? Judge Warlick ordered us to depose Mr. 
Morgan at 5 :00 o’clock. Dr. Finger has a 6 :59 plane.

Mr. Waggoner: Julius, I ’m extremely sorry but 
you have gone into a great deal of detail on trans­
portation.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



980a

Mr. Chambers: The only thing I mean is would 
you go ahead with Dr. Finger and then let us pick 
up Mr. Morgan?

Mr. Waggoner: We will waive Mr. Morgan until 
we get through here.

(The Court Reporter informed counsel that the 
above would [63] appear in the record in view of 
Judge Warlick’s order to the Court Reporter to 
proceed with the examination of Mr. Morgan at 
5:00 o’clock.)

Q. Do you interpret the language that students of all 
grades he assigned in such a way that as nearly as practi­
cable the various schools at various grade levels have the 
same proportion of black and white students, would you 
interpret that as being an attempt to reach a racial balance ?

Mr. Chambers: Where are you reading from?
Mr. Waggoner: I ’m reading from the December 

1 order.
Mr. Chambers: You’re asking the witness to in­

terpret the Court order?
Mr. Waggoner: No, this is the February 5th order, 

third page. I’m asking him if that is the balance he 
tried to achieve. I’m asking whatever my question 
was.

A. Where are you reading from?
Q. Page 3, February 5 order, paragraph 6. A. Well, 

the Court makes that statement on Page 3 and on the 
bottom of Page 2 he says that the order which follows 
is not based upon any requirement of racial balance.

Q. I understand that, but did you achieve racial balance 
in your results? A. May we take a . . . .

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



981a

[64] Q. Let’s talk, let’s stay on the record. I want to 
get out of here. A. I find that language of the Court 
a little puzzling. The Court did not use the language racial 
balance and neither did I. For some reason the Court 
avoided it and so do I.

Q. You’re avoiding it because the Court did? A. Ap­
parently there is some reason that you don’t want to avoid 
it.

Q. That’s correct. A. I can only answer the question 
as I did before. I defined desegregated schools and I tried 
to carry out, in effect, the statement here that pupils of 
all grades be assigned in such a way that as nearly as 
practicable the various schools at various grade levels 
have about the same proportion of black and white stu­
dents, and that plan that I submitted to the Court in effect 
does that.

Q. Now, with reference to transportation, you’re familiar 
with the fact that the Court originally ordered the furnish­
ing of transportation to all students who live more than 
a walking distance whose presence at a school was neces­
sary for desegregation, is this correct? A. Where do we 
find that again?

Q. Page 3.

Mr. Chambers: Objection to the question unless 
you’re also going to read . . . .

[65] Mr. Waggoner: I will, give me time.
Mr. Chambers: You asked him what the Court 

directed. Why don’t you put down what the Court 
said it directed?

Mr. Waggoner: Let me handle my examination.
Mr. Chambers: I don’t think you ought to mis­

lead the witness.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



982a

Mr. Waggoner: I ’m not misleading the witness. 
I’m just asking this.

A. You just read that statement a minute ago. You want 
to read it again?

Q. If you like, paragraph 7. A. “That transportation 
he offered on a uniform non-racial basis to all children 
whose attendance in any school is necessary to bring about 
the reduction of segregation, and who live farther from 
the school to which they are assigned than the Board 
determines to be walking distance.” Now, I would have 
thought if the Board determined walking distance for one 
plan, they would determine it for another plan in the 
same way.

Q. All right. Now, with reference to this the Board 
established one and a half miles as a walking distance 
and it was on this basis that computations were made 
reflecting that 23,000 students would be transported under 
your plan. Do you dispute these figures? A. I have no 
way of judging.

[66] Q. Now, on March 3 the Court entered a supple­
mental order—and continue to refer to that paragraph— 
and he indicates there has been some misunderstanding 
concerning what he meant and he therefore amends the 
order by deleting the words “attendance in any school” 
and inserting the words “reassignment to any school” 
Do you understand this to mean that any student who 
lives in his old attendance district and is in a school and 
resides more than a mile and a half will not be furnished 
transportation?

Mr. Chambers: Are you asking him to interpret 
the Court’s decision?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



983a

Mr. Waggoner: I’m asking him to interpret this 
to see that he understands my next question.

A. As I read the entire Court order it seems to me that 
the Court is saying that his new revision is such that 
approximately 4500 plus the 10,000 we have been talking 
about would be the number of children he is ordering the 
Board to transport.

Q. Do you understand that the Board plan would not 
transport students in the AG district and your plan would 
and the Court ordered plan would! A. Will you explain 
to me why? . . . I ’m the one to testify. What’s your ques­
tion, Mr. Waggoner? Do I understand . . . .  no, I don’t 
understand it that way. No, I don’t.

Q. The Board plan will not furnish transportation to 
any student [67] who resides in the city limits and attends 
the city school. Do you understand that, the city limits 
of ’57? A. Yes.

Q. Your plan would and so would the Judge’s for those 
who have been reassigned. A. Yes, that’s correct, Mr. 
Waggoner.

Q. Now, the computations you made didn’t take into 
consideration the original Court order requirement for 
transportation of all students within a walking distance.

Mr. Chambers: Objection to that because that is 
not the original Court order.

Mr. Waggoner: There was enough misunder­
standing about it for the Judge to write another 
order.

Mr. Chambers: The interpretation given the
order by the School Board and nobody else. I think 
the question is unfair and misleading to this witness 
and I object to the form of the question.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



984a

A. What’s the question?
Q. Would you read it back!

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 7 
above.)

Q. Whose presence is required for desegregation. A. I 
didn’t calculate students the same way Mr. Morgan did.

Q. Would you answer the question and then explain 
if you wish? A. I thought I did answer the question, 
didn’t I? Apparently Mr. Morgan was certainly counting 
a different kind of student [68] than I was.

Q. Tell me what students you counted, Dr. Finger. 
A. Well, let’s see if we can reach some agreement what 
we’re talking about so we have some clarity on this matter. 
It seems to me that when we talk about the students who 
are in schools that are involved in pairing that the amount 
of transportation required that I ’m talking about is the 
same transportation that is now provided by the School 
Board because those are the same attendance zones that 
are now currently being used and that will be used in the 
future and that in addition to those students, for those 
students there is an additional amount of transportation 
required of 10,000 elementary students. Now, when I 
read Mr. Morgan’s figures I find that his estimates for 
elementary transportation exceed that amount and I would 
think for clarity what I ’ve been talking about for those 
schools that are to be paired that there is the present 
amount of transportation now provided by the Board of 
Education, plus the 10,000 students who would be bused 
to accomplish the pairing.

Q. Do I understand that you’re saying that you would 
furnish transportation to those students who are entitled

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



985a

to transportation under State law plus the 10,000 students 
who are involved in cross busing? A. I don’t see how I 
could make my statement more precise than I made it 
before and would prefer not to reword it.

[693 Q. I didn’t understand it. It doesn’t agree with 
what I said. A. Well, we can go to any school district you 
want to at the elementary level like Huntingtown Farms 
and under the court consultant plan the school attendance 
zone for Huntingtown Farms is identical to the current 
attendance zone for Huntingtown Farms and all those stu­
dents currently transported in that attendance zone would 
continue to be transported and that in addition some of 
those students would be transported to accomplish the pair­
ing. Therefore, the amount of transportation under the 
elementary pairing plan would be the amount now being 
provided plus 10,000.

Q. In those 34 schools? A. Yes, sir, that’s what we’ve been 
talking about.

Q. What other transportation would yoii provide? What 
other transportation did you provide in the figures that 
you gave me? A. None.

Q. You would only provide the 10,000 elementary stu­
dents with transportation? A. We were talking just about 
elementary schools.

Q. All right. You would provide none for any other ele­
mentary students. A. OK.

Q. What other transportation would you provide for 
junior high schools? [70] A. Let’s make sure that question 
is clear because there are some students who are currently 
being transported who would continue to be transported. 
They might be assigned to a different school and I do not 
know whether the amount of transportation would increase

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



986a

or not. For example, I look at the Amay James District 
and I see that there are some children that are going to he 
transported, I presume they are going to be transported 
to Amay James School. They’re entitled to it. Those stu­
dents are being transported to some school now. So that 
it’s my opinion that the total amount of transportation 
involved in this system would be that amount currently 
being provided plus that amount which is involved in the 
pairing arrangement, the 10,000. Now, I talked about the 
34 schools only to he very precise and point out that those 
attendance zones are identical to the attendance zones now 
being used. There are some other attendance zones that 
have been changed and as a result there might be some 
children transported to a different school, but presumably 
those children who are entitled to transportation would 
still he entitled to transportation. There might be some 
small changes and there might he some small increases hut 
I assume that the number is approximately the same.

Q. All right. Let me ask you if this is a fair statement; 
that in the elementary schools that to get the students to 
Barringer School you would transport an additional 197 to 
the [70A] school so they could be picked up . . . wait a 
minute, that’s not a cross busing school. Wbuld you trans­
port 19̂  students to Barringer School! A. I don’t know 
what the question is, would I. What do you mean by that?

Q. Under your plan or under your computations. A. The 
consultant plan and the Board plan for Barringer are iden­
tical, are they not?

Q. That s correct. You said you wouldn’t furnish any 
additional transportation on the elementary level to any 
other school. A. All those youngsters reside within a mile 
and a half of the school.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



987a

Q. Is that the linear distance or is that the road distance! 
A. Well, do you want to come look at the boundary? None 
of those boundaries are more than, I don’t believe by any 
way you want to figure it, more than a mile and a half for 
those children.

Q. I ask you to closely look at the boundary and not 
mistake the old boundary. A. Is that the boundary there?

Q. It sure is. A. That’s just about a mile and a half. 
There may be a few children residing in there that exceed 
that distance.

Q. Would 197 be approximately correct? A. Might he.
E71] Q. Would you like to look at the Berryhill School 

while you’re up and see if 274 would be transported? You 
understand that State law provides transportation by the 
nearest route and not a radius. A. I understand that. 
There are some children residing here, in this district here, 
which I presume are well beyond a mile and a half. Is 
that 190?

Q. 274. What about Billingsville ? Would you transport 
259 students to that school under your plan? A. Under 
the Board plan?

Q. Either plan. A. OK. If you say that’s the number 
that live more than a mile and a half from the school.

Q. Then you would have transportation furnished to addi­
tional elementary students. A. I testified there might he 
some additional students that would be transported but 
that’s a small number of students.

Q. This is without regard to whether or not they are re­
assigned to that school or not, is that correct?

Mr. Chambers: Objection to the form of the ques­
tion.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



988a

A. I don’t understand your question, Mr. Waggoner. These 
are elementary school children who, under the Board de­
veloped plan utilizing these computer assignment system, 
end up residing more than a mile and a half and are there­
fore [72] entitled to transportation as elementary school 
students. Is that correct?

Q. That’s correct. And they are eligible under State law 
for transportation. When did you make your computations 
with respect to transportation? . . . the requirements as far 
as numbers of buses and numbers of students. A. Within 
the last few days.

Q. Within the last few days. When did you first see Mr. 
Morgan’s affidavit? A. This morning.

Q. At what time? A. 10:12.
Q. Did you spend the entire time prior to 12:00 o’clock 

studying that affidavit? A. Yes, I did.
Q. You made comparisons during that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So in an hour and forty minutes you’re in a position 

to question the extensive transportation contained in Mr. 
Morgan’s affidavit? A. It’s quite clear, as I have testified 
over and over again, that Mr. Morgan is following a dif­
ferent set of rules and that we’re talking about the same 
school attendance zones and under one set of rules you 
transport a lot of children and under a different set of rules 
you transport a different [73] number of children. I think 
it’s important to understand that the attendance zones are 
the same or nearly the same.

Q. The point I ’m trying to get across, Dr. Finger, is that 
the Board, as you say, uses one set of rules in which they 
will furnish transportation to students who are eligible 
under State law for transportation and in your report to 
the Court you indicated that transportation should be fur­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



989a

nished to all students residing more than a mile and a half 
from the school irrespective of State law.

Mr. Chambers: Are we talking about Dr. Finger’s 
recommendations or what the Court directed?

Mr. Waggoner: I ’m talking about his recommen­
dation just now.

A. What page is that on?
Q. 10 or 12. A. Right of student to be transported. Stu­

dents residing more than one and a half miles from the 
school should not be penalized by having to walk to school, 
or penalized financially by having to pay for public trans­
portation. Students residing more than one and one-half 
miles from the school to which they are assigned should re­
ceive free transportation. The School Board should either 
provide for free public transportation or provide school 
buses. I recommended that to the Court.

Q. Have you made any computation with reference to 
the number of [74] students who would be transported 
under that definition? A. No, I have not.

Q. You cannot, then, dispute the 23,00 figure that Mr. 
Morgan has developed, is that correct ?

Mr. Chambers: Are you suggesting that Mr 
Morgan used the recommendations of the Court 
order?

Mr. Waggoner: I’m talking with reference to the 
recommendation.

A. I would have thought Mr. Morgan followed the Court 
order.

Q. Will you answer my question? A. What is the ques­
tion?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



990a

Q. You have no reason to dispute Mr. Morgan’s figure of
23,000 students. A. I answered that question once. I said 
the answer to that was no, I have no reason to dispute it. 
I have no basis for judging it.

Q. When did you first see the amendment to the Judge’s 
order with reference to his order of February 5? A. It 
was on my mantel at home special delivery, airmail, at 
7 :00 o’clock last night when I got home from school.

Q. Have you made a computation with reference to the 
number of students who would have to be transported under 
the Judge’s amended order! A. I believe that we have 
completed talking about the number of children to be trans­
ported under the Judge’s amended order [75] for ele­
mentary schools, that we have completed that. I believe 
the numbers we have been talking about for elementary 
schools are essentially those that complied with the Judge’s 
amended order.

Q. On the elementary level! A. On the elementary level.
Q. And what total did you come up with ? A. I thought 

we had said that a half-dozen times.
Q. You haven’t told me. A. We just pointed out a few 

instances, did we not, that involved several hundred chil­
dren that I did not count. So that we have talked about, 
in addition to the 10,000, apparently there are a small num­
ber of additional children who must be transported to their 
elementary schools. I do not know the exact number of 
these but I assume that we have substantially covered most 
of these in the recent testimony.

Q. Well, would it surprise you if I told you that the 
figures I was reading related to the transportation require­
ments under the Board plan! I will withdraw the question. 
Dr. Finger, you haven’t made a careful study of the trans­
portation requirements as required by the amended Court

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



991a

order of February 5th and March 3, have you? A. I made 
some estimates.

Q. All right, will you give them to me ? A. I need a little 
advice. I don’t know which attorney to turn 176] to for 
advice, you know. I ’m off the record there.

Q. Leave it on the record. A. May I have a five minute 
recess?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970

Mr. Chambers: Yes.
Mr. Waggoner: I would prefer to go ahead and 

finish. If you want to take time and think, that’s all 
right. I don’t want to interrupt now.

Mr. Chambers: Do you have a question, Dr. 
Finger?

A. I just need to be sure I understand the Court order so 
that I understand this question so that I know exactly what 
I ’m testifying to. Let me see now. I think those are all the 
estimates I have been talking about. Excuse me, where is 
this revised order?

Mr. Chambers: We can take a recess if Dr. Finger 
has a question he wants to ask.

Mr. Waggoner: Let him ask it in the presence of 
everyone.

Mr. Chambers: If you don’t understand the ques­
tion posed by counsel, tell him you don’t understand 
the question, unless he wants to take a break to find 
out exactly what his question is about.

Mr. Waggoner: He can ask and we can put it on 
the record, there’s no objection to that. He can ask 
me and I’ll respond as best I can.

A. As I understand the language of the Court order, the



992a

Court has [77] said that whether the Court consultant plan 
is adopted or whether the Board plan is adopted that cer­
tain children are entitled to transportation under that plan 
and that children residing in these satellite zones here 
would he required to be provided with transportation. Is 
that your interpretation ?

Q. That’s a part of it. Let me direct your attention to 
Randolph Junior High School. Randolph Junior High is 
located here. There is a neck that goes on past the Billings- 
ville area to pick up black students. These students in this 
neck do not reside in this district. They have been reas­
signed to the school and would be furnished transportation, 
as I understand the Court order. Have you made a compu­
tation as to the number of students who would be required 
to be furnished transportation at Randolph Junior High 
School? A. I think I have and I want to be sure that I 
have and that the testimony that I give is correct and ac­
curate. Yes, I have made such an examination. I counted 
as follows: For Alexander Graham Junior High School 
360 students.

Q. That’s a result of your satellite zone? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is all it includes, is that correct? A. Yes, that’s 

correct. I have based the estimates of the number of buses 
that would be required to transport junior high school stu­
dents on the number of students reported by the school 
department according to State regulations and in [78] 
addition I have made an analysis of the number of stu­
dents in the satellite zones; for Alexander Graham 360; for 
McClintock 325; for Quail Hollow 274; for Carmel Road 
142.

Q. Let me interrupt you for a minute, Dr. Finger. You 
have not taken into consideration any other students who 
may have been reassigned to that school who are not in

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



993a

the satellite zone, is that correct? A. Unless they were 
included in the original report that the school department 
submitted to me.

Q. You’re familiar with the fact that the report sub­
mitted to you by the school department was purely for 
students eligible under State law for transportation? A. 
I have testified to that a number of times, yes, sir.

Q. All right, and that the school department’s report 
doesn’t include reassigned students in the Alexander 
Graham district and you’ve made no allowance for that, 
have you? A. Mr. Waggoner, I looked at the plan pro­
posed by the Board, I examined the transportation esti­
mates prepared by Mr. Morgan and listed under the Board 
plan, and I observed that there were some cihldren who 
lived a long distance from the school. In estimating the 
number of children who might be entitled to transportation, 
I  counted the children who were in the satellite zones.

Q. Then you have not taken into account any other stu­
dents who may have been reassigned to that school other 
than those [79] living in the satellite zones. A. Well, 
that’s not wholly true. I noted this Sedgefield neck up here 
and I made an estimate of the number of students that 
resided there and counted them.

Q. Did you take into account any students who would 
attend Alexander Graham who reside in grids 402B and 
403A? A. No, I did not.

Q. A similar situation would exist for any other stu­
dents who have been reassigned and are not within satel­
lite zones other than Sedgefield or a few other isolated 
areas. A. Well, as I read the Court order, the Court order 
talked about a walking distance and I would have assumed 
that the walking distance that the Board assigned under 
one plan Avould be the same as the walking distance that

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



994a

the Board assigned under some other plan and so I looked 
at the Board plan and the estimates of transportation under 
the Board plan and thought that that must be what the 
Board assigns as walking distance. So I don’t see why the 
Board assigns two different walking distances under two 
different plans. So the reason I didn’t count those students 
was because I assumed that they were within walking 
distance.

Q. Well, it’s readily apparent that the students residing 
in the Alexander Graham attendance district as restruc­
tured under the court ordered plan, or your plan, in 402B 
and 403A reside more than a mile and a half from the 
school, isn’t it! [80] About two miles, uh huh.

Q. Wouldn’t it he closer to three by road! A. Two and 
a half to three miles. It’s a good walk.

Q. You have overlooked similar students in the other 
districts, too, have you not! A. If we have, we better 
detail them so there is no misunderstanding as to what the 
transportation problem is and what the Court order is.

Q. I ask you address yourself to Smith Junior High 
School and tell me how many students there. A. When I 
look at the Board plan I go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 grids. 
That’s five miles as the crow flies. When I look at the 
Court ordered plan I see a much more compact attendance 
zone with a satellite and I have counted the satellite.

Q. You’re familiar with the fact that the kids under the 
Board plan in Smith would be entitled to transportation 
under State law, are you not! A. No, I wasn’t aware of 
that. They would be!

Q. They would be. A. How come!
Q. It’s located in the perimeter area. A. It would be 

helpful if we had a map with the perimeter area around it.
Q. The Judge requested this. A. Let’s not confuse the 

record, then, on these matters-,.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



995a

[81] Q. The point I ’m trying to make is that you 
haven’t considered all the students who would be furnished 
transportation under the Court ordered plan in the figures 
you have given Mr. Chambers, is that correct! A. I 
certainly have made fair estimates of the amount of trans­
portation required and when the School Board is claiming 
that 23,000 students are to be transported, they are making 
claims made on or based on a set of rules which now 
appear to be not in the language of the Court.

S hort R ecess

Q. Dr. Finger, I don’t believe you answered my last 
question. You gave an answer but I don’t think it was 
in direct response to it. Would you read the question 
back!

(The Court Reporter reads the question in Line 1 
above and the answer in Line 5 above.)

Q. That’s wholly unresponsive.

Mr. Chambers: That’s not good enough!
Mr. Waggoner: No.
Mr. Chambers: What do you want him to say!
Mr. Waggoner: I want him to tell me whether or 

not these figures are accurate and whether he’s 
considered every student that would be furnished 
transportation under the court ordered plan. He 
already indicated that he has not.

Mr. Chambers: That’s your interpretation, Mr.
[82] Waggoner.

A. I have made estimates at the junior high school level 
that includes students not reported by the school depart­

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



996a

ment in their report that was prepared for the Court. 
As a matter of fact, I have made a range of estimates 
as to the number of students who might be transported 
at the junior high school level and I estimate this number 
to be between 3500 and 4000. Now, I believe to the best 
of my knowledge and belief that I have counted all of the 
students and when I reported on the number of buses that 
would be required, I believe I counted all of those children. 
To avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, let’s just 
check and make sure. If there are 3500 additional junior 
high school students to be transported, that would require 
78 45-passenger school buses.

Q. Does this assume full capacity use of the buses! 
A. I was counting 45 students in a bus, yes, sir. One might 
assign more students to the bus than the bus would hold.

Q. In making that computation did you consider students 
who are not in the satellite zones who are reassigned to 
those junior high schools?

Mr. Chambers: Haven’t we gone over that, Mr. 
Waggoner?

Mr. Waggoner: He comes back with a positive 
statement this is all that would be required and I ’m 
not going to leave it to conjecture that he has
[83] recomputed the thing and added these students 
back in.

Mr. Chambers: I think the witness testified on 
two or three different occasions to the same ques­
tion you have just posed.

Mr. Maggoner: Well, I want to make certain 
that the record is very clear that this 500 that he 
has estimated does not include those students who 
were reassigned and do not reside in the satellite 
zones.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



997a

Mr. Chambers: He just testified to the contrary.
Mr. Waggoner: He did not. Let him answer the 

question.
Mr. Chambers: You mentioned harassing. I

think the questions that you continually are asking 
now are purely harassment.

Mr. Waggoner: If I could get straightforward 
answer from the witness, we could go on.

Mr. Chambers: I think the witness has given 
straightforward answers.

Mr. Waggoner: We’ll let the record speak for 
itself.

A. Perhaps, Mr. Waggoner, we should go through these 
junior high schools district by district and count the 
amount of transportation that would be required so that 
there is absolutely no misunderstading as to what trans­
portation is [84] or is not needed. It is not easy to esti­
mate the amount of transportation since some of the 
children who will be attending a junior high school under 
the court ordered plan were riding the school bus to a 
different junior high school and so there is always the 
question of when you are talking about a new student 
going to a junior high school and one who is currently 
riding a school bus.

Q. It’s quite satisfactory with me if we go through the 
junior high schools school by school. I hope we don’t have 
to do it. A. If we have to clarify the testimony, then 
I think we should.

Q. I think we should, too. With reference to Albemarle 
Road, I would like for you to estimate the number of stu­
dents who will be furnished transportation or additional 
students who will be furnished transportation under the

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



998a

court ordered plan. Do you have your demographic chart 
with you? A. No.

Q. On what basis can you make such an estimate, then? 
A. With regard to the Albemarle Road School the original 
report of the school department on transportation required 
under State law was 297. Mr. Morgan estimates in his 
affidavit that there are 267 students to be transported. 
Now, I believe that when Mr. Morgan is counting these 
297 students, he is talking about transporting these stu­
dents to a school that is outside the city limits and that 
that’s the number of students that [85] he reported being- 
transferred to that school. Another way. . . .

Q. Let me direct your attention to. . . .

Mr. Chambers: Let the witness finish.

A. Another way that I could get that figure would be to 
read the number of black students assigned to Albemarle 
Road School. There are 292 black students in Albemarle 
Road School. Well, I can get my . . . .  it’s right here. At 
the present time there are 63 black students in Albemarle 
Road School and I don’t have the demographic maps with 
me. I assume those 63 black students live in that atten­
dance zone. So if I were to make an accurate count of the 
number of students required to be transported to the 
Albemarle Road School, it would be essentially those stu­
dents currently attending Albemarle Road School or some 
other students eligible for transportation to that school, 
plus the number of black students residing in that atten­
dance zone. Now, my estimate of the number was 297 
but I see that my estimate is on the high side because 
indeed, 63 black students already go there, so that the 
correct number of students to be transported might be 
somewhere more near 239.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



999a

Q. Now, the estimate that you have of 297 and 267 were 
furnished to you by Mr. Morgan, were they not? A. Yes, 
sir, that’s right.

Q. And you accept them as reliable. A. I don’t know 
that Mr. Morgan submitted the 297. The school [86] de­
partment was requested to supply those to me. I pressume 
that Mr. Morgan did those. I never questioned Mr. 
Morgan’s reliability.

Q. You do not question him? A. I never have, no, sir. 
I question the rules under which he was conducting the 
counting, not his reliability.

Q. Isn’t this the basic difference in the counts we’re 
coming up with, Mr. Morgan was using one set of rules, 
that the Board adopted a policy that they would furnish 
transportation where permitted by State law so the State 
would share part of the expense, is this not correct? A. 
Repeat the question.

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 7 
above.)

A. It’s correct that we were operating under a different 
set of rules. What else do you want me to say?

Q. Well, I’d like to define these rules so the Court can 
understand what rules you were operating under and what 
ones he was operating under, and as I understand your 
junior high attendance areas you were operating under 
the rule that you would furnish transportation from the 
satellite districts only except in a few isolated cases where 
students seemed to be located long distances from the 
school you would furnish transportation under your 
figures. Is that a fair statement? A. Yes.

Q. And that would likewise hold true on the elementary

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



1000a

and senior [871 high schools, too, would it not? A. I was 
trying to make estimates of the actual amount of trans­
portation that would be required to carry out what I con­
ceived of the desegregation plan.

Q. You made your computations several days ago, is 
that correct? A. I believe I testified it was even more 
recently than that.

Q. And you received the Court order last night is that 
correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And you have just begun to understand the Court 
order this afternoon.

Mr. Chambers: Can we define which court order 
you’re talking about?

Mr. Waggoner: March 3, amending the February 
5 order.

A. I would say it’s correct, Mr. Waggoner, that I did not 
understand why there were the reports on the transporta­
tion of 23,000 students that I read in the newspapers.

Q. Read the question back, please.

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 9 
above.)

A. I just saw it last night for the first time.
Q. And you gained an understanding of it this afternoon, 

is that correct?

Mr. Chambers: May I inquire what you mean 
by gaining an understanding of it? From whom? 

Mr. Waggoner: Knew what it meant.
[88] Mr. Chambers: As defined by 'whom?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1001a

Mr. Waggoner: By its own language, satisfac­
tory to himself.

A. Well, it seems to me that the estimates that I have given 
for transportation are pretty much consistent with the 
amended court order.

Q. And you’re saying the estimates you made before re­
ceiving the Court order are still accurate to your satisfac­
tion—as complying with estimates you would make under 
the Court order. A. I just testified a few moments ago 
that if we want to improve upon the accuracy of the testi­
mony that I have given that we had better go through the 
junior high schools one by one and get an accurate esti­
mate of the exact amount of transportation that is required. 
It’s my understanding that the Court has ordered the 
school department to prepare such plans and that when 
these plans are prepared we will have a much more ac­
curate estimate of the actual transportation under the 
Court order than we can get here.

Q. Would you submit that the estimates developed by Mr. 
Morgan and his staff would be much more accurate than 
those you have testified to today with respect to defining 
transportation requirements under the Court order of 
February 5 and March 3?

Mr. Chambers: How can this witness say that?
Mr. Waggoner: Well, I’m just asking him.
Mr. Chambers: Are you asking him if Mr. Morgan

[89] had available the detailed demographic maps 
to make an estimate or are you asking him to testify 
that Mr. Morgan is going to tell the truth? I don’t 
think you want to put this witness in that position. 
It isn’t fair to even ask that question.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1002a

Mr. Waggoner: I would like an answer.
Mr. Chambers: I object to the form of the ques­

tion.

A. I have consistently said from the very outset that the 
school department is the one most capable of drawing the 
accurate estimates, the ones most capable of drawing a 
desegregation plan. The plan that was submitted to the 
Court was submitted because it was a plan that the school 
department felt was a feasible one. So my answer to that 
question would, of course, be yes.

Q. Have you at any time defined for the Court the stu­
dents whom you would recommend that transportation be 
furnished by grid numbers of grid code! A. No, I have 
not.

Q. By any other method? A. No, I have not. The total 
amount of information submitted to the Court on trans­
portation is this prepared by the school department.

Q. Was this prepared by the school department at your 
request? A. Yes, it was.

[903 Q. Was it submitted in this form to the Court? 
A. It was submitted in this form to the Court with the nota­
tion that it should not be part of my report since I could 
not attest to it.

Q. And did you instruct the Court to remove the trans­
portation information contained on this exhibit that is 
attached to his court order of February 5? A. I reported 
to the Court that I had no knowledge about that, that it 
had been prepared by the school department and that, there­
fore, I could only provide the Court with whatever it said 
there and the Court decided that, therefore, it should not 
be incorporated as part of my report.

Q. Hid you have any similar reservations with reference

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1003a

to the numbers of students who would be attending the vari­
ous schools which were also prepared by the school depart­
ment? A. No, because we counted those together.

Q. You counted those together. A. We counted them 
so many times you get to be pretty sure of what things are.

Q. Do you have any information as to the total number 
of students who have been reassigned as a result of the 
Court order of February 5 as amended? A. Well, we can 
quickly count the number of students reassigned in the 
paired schools since those students are in the same at­
tendance zones they were in before. I have not counted 
[91] the actual number of children who will change schools 
because of the redrawing of attendance zones at any of 
the grade levels.

Q. It’s a fairly detailed job. A. It’s a fairly detailed 
job. We could obtain that information. In some cases it’s 
a sizeable number. For example, most of the children at­
tending West Charlotte are reassigned. That’s the school 
that has the most reassignment. Independence High School 
has very few children reassigned.

Q. On what basis did you come to the conclusion that 
the school department had overestimated the number of 
students who would need transportation at Smith? I think 
you testified that 300 would be a more accurate figure than 
the 413. On what basis did you reach this conclusion? A. 
Well, I  reached this conclusion ̂ ased on the fact that there 
are 350 black students assigned to Smith and presumably 
this is the group count of this satellite here and that these 
children in the geographic area surrounding Smith would 
all walk in. I thought that that might be an overestimate 
I also noted that . . . .

Q. Let me ask you on that, did you have a demographic 
chart before you at the time you made this estimate? A.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1004a

No, I did not. I also noted that Mr. Morgan, in his second 
report, noted 360 students in there, so I just questioned 
that. I didn’t make a big thing about it.

[92] Q. Mr. Chambers asked you about showing resi­
dences of the students and that you were only furnished 
with grids showing the populations within racially. This 
is not unusual in a system this size to not get information 
that is broken down by actual location of residences within 
a school district, is it? A. Well, nothing is really very 
usual these days in school demographics. I have suggested 
to the school department that they could probably improve 
their attendance zoning if they would be able to split those 
grids into quarters. I ’m sure they’ll do it if they can find 
time to do it.

Q. Dr. Finger, in connection with describing the differ­
ence in the two plans, I made a note that you testified that 
yon made the ratios of the races equal in all grade levels 
to the extent you could. Do you recall testifying to that? 
A. I believe that that falls within my definition of a de­
segregated school in which I explicitly say by more than 
5% of the proportions in all of the schools at that school 
level.

Q. But yon did try to establish a racial ratio, though, 
yon didn't try to establish a racial balance. Would that be 
a fair statement ? A. I tried to define desegresrated school 
and have all schools fall within my definition.

Q. It s obvious I'm not going to get an answer to that 
t’-e. Dr. Finger, in establishing these ratios or a desegre- 
?2.'- i C ] system, the attendance of any student of either 
race would be necessary to maintain the level of desegre­
gation A the- school, would it not * A. That sounds like 
1 7?- ‘question but F I  ask for it to be repeated.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1005a

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 
25, Page 92.)

A. I guess that would fall under my requirement that the 
school department should be required to assign and re­
assign students to maintain desegregated schools.

Q. Dr. Finger, with reference to priorities from an ed­
ucator’s standpoint, would you furnish transportation to 
the students in districts who need transportation or would 
you furnish transportation on a long-distance basis— 
strike that long-distance—on a distant pairing arrange­
ment—I got lost in my question. A. That’s good, so did I.

Q. With reference to priorities of furnishing transpor­
tation, as an educator would ypu prefer to furnish in-dis- 
trict transportation to students or furnish transportation 
in cross busing?

Mr. Chambers: Objection to the form of the ques­
tion.

A. I don’t think I have any druthers on that matter.
Q. If in-district transportation would permit two bus 

runs per day for shift change, would you prefer in-district 
busing [94] against cross busing where you could only 
utilize a bus one way, one trip each school opening or 
closing? A. I’ve already testified to the fact that these 
buses could be used in two different ways on cross busing 
and there would not be a single run. I have testified to the 
fact that the buses could either be run a double run at the 
elementary school level or that there could be sufficient 
buses for one run on each way with the elementary school 
children but that the time schedule for junior and senior 
high schools be such that junior and senior high school 
students could be transported on the same bus that was 
used for elementary schools.

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1006a

Q. All right. I’ll repeat my question and assume that 
you do not go to staggering of opening of school hours. 
A. Well, your question is very ambiguous because I don’t 
know what is meant by in-district busing.

Q. That’s the transportation of students to a school in 
the district in which they live. A. The district in which a 
student lives is an arbitrary affair. It’s anything the School 
Board makes it.

Q. With reference to the School Board plan or your plan 
or the Court plan. A. Didn’t I already say I didn’t have 
any druthers about that matter?

Q. You didn’t say with reference to where a bus could 
operate two trips per school opening. The other related 
to one. [953 A. I not only don’t understand the question, 
I don’t understand the relevance of the question. I  just 
don’t see what you want me to say.

Q. I think it’s very obvious that if you can get two children 
to school instead of one child to school with the same bus 
is the relevance of the question. A. I was ordered by the 
Court to prepare a plan that met the Court order.

Q. You were employed as an educational consultant and 
you testified as an expert in this case and I think I ’m en­
titled to your opinion. A. I have no opinion on that matter.

Q. Xo opinion. Have your school duties ever involved 
the procuring of transportation equipment? A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the delays that are involved in 
acquiring transportation equipment?

Mr. Chambers: Objection.

A. I read Mr. Morgan’s testimony.
Q. Is that the first time you were aware of it?

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



1007a

Mr. Chambers: I object to that.

A. No. It would be bard to spend twenty-five years in edu­
cation and not be aware of problems like that.

Q. So they do exist. Now, one point. Yon started out 
with 308 buses. How many students would you propose 
transporting! [96] A. I already testified I was making my 
calculations based on 45 students per bus. I can multiply 
this 45 by 308 and I would get 13,800.

Q. This is the number of students that you have calcu­
lated would be transported under your figures, is that cor­
rect! A. Yes, that’s correct. That’s the number of addi­
tional buses.

Q. Have you driven the nearest routes between the paired 
schools at the time that buses would ordinarily be trans­
porting students! A. I don’t know what time the buses 
would ordinarily be transporting students.

Q. You suggested 8 :00 o’clock. A. I used that only as an 
illustration.

Q. You also gave us a figure of thirty minutes one way. 
Do you know if this is accurate! A. No, I don’t know. I 
note that there are some estimates that are made as to the 
length of time that is required and they run to several 
hours and I think somebody ought to go out and find out. 
I think it’s true and I think it’s important to emphasize one 
of the things in the testimony and that is some busing 
transportation include the pickup time. The cross busing 
does not involve any pickup time, it involves no stops. It 
does not tie up traffic because they are not stopping to let 
children on and off the bus.

Q. Well, that depends on whether you pick the students 
up at the [97] school or whether you pick them up on the 
route. A. If you pick them up on the route, you’re picking

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1008a

them up on the route the buses are already picking them up.
Q. Does your thirty-minute estimate cover that time? A. 

No, it does not.
Q. So it could possibly he another thirty-minute pickup 

time. A. I have already testified that my estimate was 
based on the fact that the children would arrive at the 
school on the pickup bus because in some instances all of 
the children in an area would be being picked up, 1st, 2nd, 
3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th graders. They would arrive at the school 
together. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th graders would stay at 
that school and the 5th and 6th graders would be trans­
ported.

Q. Do you find the 5th and 6th graders would be waiting 
for other buses to come so they could fill the express bus? 
A. Well, I ’m sure Mr. Morgan can work it out so that wait­
ing time would be minimized.

Q. Your experience at schools indicates that school buses 
arrive sometimes as much as a half an hour apart, does it 
not? A. Well, in many instances there are going to be more 
than one bus on the express run, all instances.

Q. I’m speaking with reference to getting the students to 
the schools. A. They’ll arrive at different times.

Q. Are you still of the opinion that the desegregation plan 
[98] ordered by the Court can be implemented with 109 
buses ? A. I have testified a number of times that this plan 
can be initiated section by section and that the accurate 
estimate of the exact amount of transportation that will be 
required will best be found out as the plan is implemented 
and we noted that any one of the pairs could be operated 
with only a small number of buses. That’s another way of 
saying I do not know the exact number of buses that would 
be required. We have gone through the various strategies

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11,1970



1009a

that might be followed to reduce the number required and 
the plan is one that can be implemented on a phased-in 
basis.

Q. What written communications have you had with the 
Court in connection with your services as a Court con­
sultant? A. I have written him a couple of personal letters 
and he has written some to me. I submitted the Court plan. 
I wrote him a letter after I received the attachments to the 
Court plan which gave some additional detail on my recom­
mendations relative to that attachment.

Q. Did you make additional recommendations? A. As I 
read over those recommendations, they seem to be the same 
as the recommendations submitted in my original report 
to the Court, but there is another letter that I submitted 
to him.

Q. That was submitted prior to February 5, is that cor­
rect? A. Yes, that’s correct. He might not have gotten it 
by February [99] 5. I read it to him over the telephone. 
I also submitted a preliminary report which I labeled as a 
preliminary report for your personal perusal which indi­
cated to him some of the thoughts that I had about the de­
segregation plans so that he would have some ideas as to 
what he might expect from me.

Q. Dr. Finger, do you regard the after-school activity of 
children as being important in their total educational 
growth? A. Yes.

Q. Do you feel that staggered school hours would inter­
fere with their participation in the after-school activities? 
A. It wouldn’t necessarily. One might be able to devise 
both curricular and extracurricular activity that took ad­
vantage of the staggered hours.

Q. In other words, it would involve more than just dis-

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1010a

rupting the school system, it would disrupt a lot of private 
activities. A. Those are your words, Mr. Waggoner, they 
are not my words at all.

Q. I ’m asking you. A. I did not say that at all. I did not 
say that at all, Mr. Waggoner. I said that the staggered 
school hours could be utilized to develop plans that would 
make use of the staggered school hours.

Q. But it would require changes in other activities, would 
it not? [100] A. It might require some different activities 
and some different plans.

Mr. Waggoner: I have no further questions.

Certificate

I, Evelyn S. Berger, Notary Public/Reporter, do hereby 
certify that Dr. John A. Finger was duly sworn by me 
prior to the taking of the foregoing deposition; that said 
deposition was taken and transcribed by me; and that the 
foregoing 100 pages constitute a true, complete and accu­
rate transcript of the testimony of the said witness. I 
further certify that the persons were present as stated in 
the caption.

I further certify that I am not of counsel for, or in the 
employment of any of the parties to this action, nor am I 
interested in the results of this action.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name 
this 14th day of March, 1970.

/ s /  E velyn S. B erger

Notary Public in and for 
County of Mecklenburg 
State of North Carolina

Deposition of John A. Finger March 11, 1970



1011a

(Filed March 13, 1970)

The Defendants Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Edu­
cation et al., acting through William C. Self, Superin­
tendent of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools, 
respond to the Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions as fol­
lows, in each instance the paragraph numbers in this Re­
sponse corresponding to the paragraph numbers in the 
Plaintiffs’ Request:

1. Charlotte City Board of Education and Mecklenburg 
County Board of Education operated separate school sys­
tems until 1961 when they consolidated as the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg Board of Education. For a number of years 
prior to 1961 the County (hut not the City) Board of 
Education operated public school buses to transport stu­
dents to and from school. In conformity with State law 
as it existed prior to 1961 and prior to consolidation of 
the two systems, the Mecklenburg County Board of Edu­
cation operated and routed school buses in a fashion that 
some transported only negro students to negro schools 
and some transported only white students to white schools. 
By reason thereof, the bus routes of the Mecklenburg 
County system overlapped and some negro students who 
may have resided near white schools were transported 
by such schools to all negro schools and some white stu­
dents who may have lived near negro schools were trans­
ported by such schools to all white schools.

2. See Paragraph 1 hereof for response to Plaintiffs’ 
Paragraph 2.

3. See Paragraph 1 hereof for response to Plaintiffs’ 
Paragraph 3.

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’
Request for Admissions



1012a

4. Prior to 1961 the Charlotte City Board of Education 
did not operate a public school bus system and, therefore, 
did not operate public school buses to transport students 
to and from school, did not transport negro students to 
negro schools and white children to white schools and did 
not have bus routes overlapping or otherwise.

5. See Paragraph 4 hereof for response to Plaintiffs’ 
Paragraph 5.

6. See Paragraph 4 hereof for response to Plaintiffs’ 
Paragraph 6.

7. Following the merger of the County and City School 
Boards in 1961 the consolidated Board provided trans­
portation for students who resided in the portion of Meck­
lenburg County located outside the city limits as they 
existed immediately prior to the 1967 annexation who 
resided more than l 1/  ̂ miles from the schools to which 
they were assigned, such transportation being in conform­
ity with that prescribed by State law.

8. That since 1961 and until the closing or reorganiza­
tion of the 10 all negro schools in the County in 1966, the 
consolidated Board provided separate bus service for some 
negro and white students.

9. Pursuant to the Plan approved by the Court in Au­
gust, 1969, the School Board has provided transportation 
for approximately 767 inner city black students to be trans­
ported to white residential areas of the City and County. 
These 767 inner city black students are a portion of a 
much larger number of such students who were granted

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’
Request for Admissions



1013a

by the Board a freedom of choice arrangement pursuant 
to which they could elect to remain in schools near their 
homes or to attend schools in the predominately white 
residential areas. The approximately 767 inner city black 
students represent those who elected to attend the schools 
in the predominately white residential areas. The trans­
portation referred to above was made available to such 
students in order to encourage their attendance at these 
schools. The approximately 767 inner city black students 
referred to above in many instances passed other schools 
serving their grade levels on the way to the schools to 
which they were assigned pursuant to the above-mentioned 
freedom of choice arrangement.

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’
Request for Admissions

/ s /  W illiam  C. S elf 
William C. Self

S worn to and S ubscribed before me this 
13th day of March, 1970.

/ s /  L ily  R . M cM ahon 
Notary Public 
My commission expires:
August 1, 1970



1014a

Submissions to Court in Response to March 6, 1970, 
Order and Motion for Extension of Time

(Filed March 13, 1970)

In compliance with the March 6, 1970 Order of this 
Court, the information and materials referred to therein 
(with the exception of Item 2) are attached, in each in­
stance the respective items bearing an identifying num­
ber which corresponds to those set forth in that Order.

In addition the following items are submitted: (1) A 
map showing the pre-1957 city limits, the perimeter areas 
and rural areas with all senior high schools clearly located 
on it; and (2) Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of 
Traffic Engineering for the City of Charlotte, setting forth 
the number of vehicles in Mecklenburg County and other 
related data as requested by this Court on March 2, 1970.

Defendants respectfully move the Court that they be 
granted an extension of time until Monday, March 16, 1970, 
for the submission of Item 2 referred to in the March 6, 
1970 Order of the Court and the other information re­
quested by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 
in the March 5, 1970 Order.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  W illiam  J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner

/ s /  B e n j . S. H orack 
Benj. S. Horack
Attorneys for Defendants



1015a

ITEM 1

Summary o f  t o ta l  number o f  chi ldren who l i v e in the Pre-57 ci; ty l im its .

Perimete-  Area, and Rural Area •

Pre-57 Perimeter Rural Tota 1

Senior  High Schools 6073 1)629 6080 16,582

Junior  High Schools 7611 6365 7699 21,275

Elementary Schools 17,228

vOCOO'! 15,790 65,006

GFtAh'D TOTAL 30,712 22,780 29,369 82,861



1016a

Fast f e e ' ;  1 on' v . 

G c rin  c r 

Ha rti i n._,

I ndeper.;'coco 
f iycrs f’-r rk 

Her .h H eck le r 

0 1 yr'.p i c 

South C

V.’c.st Char le t : ;  

West Heckler.’- .. r

TOTALS

.:iT£-r.£CKLEi:3L!;';G SEil I OR HIGH SCHOOLS 

Total Humber Children who l i v e

Pre-57 Perimeter Rural TOTAL

Dlack Wh i te Black V/’n i te B1 ack Wh i t e Block Wh i te

159 !|01 9 836 39 6'(2 207 1879

381 951 ' l l $08 9 lC9 '•31 20L8

583 '•57 10 203 593 6S0

*s5 1 8 2 13 73 10'i9 120 1080

J o CO 1355 358 17 203 1730

1 27 6 '•13 1139 ViO U'iS

80 23 105 30 1 Co Vi7 365 500

76 19 1197 72 701 95 1 S7-’>

—
1337 233 1570

78 35^ 58 1052 136 l ' : C S

~ '

2792 3281 52't 3905 8 'A 5236 M 6 0 12, '1 2 2



1017a

CHARLOTTE-.MECKLENBURG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS 

Total Humber Children who l i v e

(1) (2) (3)
Pre-57 Perimeter Rural TOlAL

Black V/h i t e Black V/h i t e Black V/h i t e B1 cck V/h i te

A1hemsrIe Road 5 63 998 63

1! 
roOO

1

A1exander 365 768 365 768

Cochrans 110 43 456 36 984 1550

2 31 10^ 722 106 753

57 781 4 560 61 1341

Alexander Graham 101 674 12 334 19 -13 1027

Hawthorne 591 365 5 71 596 436

Kennedv 552 291 6 5 848 5

50

_

38 . 607 • 42 650 93 1295

Northwes t 916 145

_ _ _

I0S1

P t “ d'rnn r 445 51 445 51

_Gua.il Hollow 361 .55 1064 155 1425

Randolnh 263 98 26 609 " 289 707

Ranson . . 83 10 177 538 260 548

S edu ef ie ld 167 577 224 167 801

4 8 2 3 1011 4 421 55 1434

Soauqh 127 530 153 300 280 830

' 868 195 - 1053 1

Oi 1 son 7 809 64 _320 , 1129

P-Cnn l r s r o = i l 1 _  _

F-;'.ni f n '>nnl 1 .

1'

TOTALS A ide 3226 970 5 3 9 5” 1 1015 6170 15.105



1018a

CliARLC-m -KtCKLEIKiURS ELEKEIITAAY SCHOOLS

Total t.'uJ'her Children v:ho l ive
(1) (2) (3)

Pre-57 Perimeter Rural TOTAL

Black V7h i t e Black V/h i te Black V/h i te Black | White

Albemarle Rd. 1 * 2 30 1 686 6 | 520

A l 1enbrook 191 61 261, 61 | 635

Ashley Perk 1 565 26 *> 27 | 569

Erin " 33 739 33 739

t or r i noer

COCOv£> 196 16 892 16

B crry h i11 8 10 106 653 m 663

f ever  ly Woods 66 102 2 589 68 631

— B il l !n o ?  v i !1 e 563 1:6 607

Brio r.vocvj 6 676 12 682 12

0 runs Avo. 789 10 789 10

Chant • 11 v 5 678 5 678

Clear Creek 51 252 51 23?-

Col 1 i nsv/md 72 1 1 1 376 12 111 658

Corneli us 195 265 195 265

— Cot? wold 16 6 7 538 23 562

Pav i dson 10-4 183 106 183

— /'nr ie Or v is 663 18 681

163 686 163 686

Orvô shi re 600 678 2*4 902

Oilvorth H 9 366 1 1 9 366

1 no-ji.lt Celts £05 805

1 urn id Mil 1«; | 600 ~ 56 3 1,56 3

1 Eastover | 62 697 55 Zt 2 562

1 ~ i 367 151 367 1 15i

1 fr>J. r lv  Park 1 3 283 so I 3___ 1 3 7 9 ___....



1019a

2

(0 (2) (3)
Pro-57 Perimeter Rural TOTAL

Black V/h i t e Block V/h ? tc 1 Block V/h i te ' Black V/h i te

F ir s t  Ward 805 0 805

Hickory Grove 70 534 70 534

Hidden Valley 1059 32 | 1091

Hi ghland 80 305 | 80 305

Hosk i ns 17 228 1 17 228

Huntersvi1 le 154 534 154 534
i

Hunt. Forms 419 7 168 587

Idlev/f Id 53 ' 92 2„ 501 55 593

1rwi n A vs . 304 o : | 304

Arnay James' 253 235 3 488 3

Lnkeview 270

_
72 100 30 1 370 102

Lansdcwne 72 794 3 - 1 75 795

L i ncoln  Hchts. 308 395 ........1 703 _
Lona Creek 270 468 270 468

Matthews r ~ 86 814 86 814

Merry Oaks 414 47 ' 1 461

Midwood 21 437 1 21 4 6 /

Monte 1 ai re 7 1 2 712

Myers Park Elem. 27 471 ____ 1 27 471

Nations Ford 47 6S5 47 685

Newel 1 74 447 74 447

Ockdole 63 504 69 j 504

Oakhurst " T 593 i n 5 601

Oakl rv/n 620 i 620 _____
Olds Providence 76 4 439 80 489



1020a

3

(t) (2) (3)
Pre-57 Perinjctcr Rural TOTAL

Black \/n i te Black \/h i te Black V/h I te Black V/h i t e

Fork Rood 66 259 236 66 ____s a

27 ... 595 27 595

Row Creek Annex 30 266 ____ 30__ 266

— _LLosjd l  l r 166 3 77 166 377

P i newood 663 663

[ K-7a Pond 6 258 83 10k 89 362

Ron a Rood 1 393 610 1 803

S n d ce f io ld  Elcr.>. 3 S S I — 3 557

So 1wvn 31 37 566 22 31 625

s h r o c . k  G d n s . 366 165 511

S Sp ror> 86 92 3 265 89 337

S t -m o .m f 68 7 25 21 25 708

StnteS '/ i lift P.d . 113 69 220 663 333 512

Str-°le Crook 5 533 5 533

Thorasboro 658 658

T rvon P i l l s 311 1 1 152 12 322 166

T uckaseecee 58 579 58 579

Univnrsitv  Pk. 716 116 1 832 1

Vi 11 n Re i oh i s 368 88 958 68

V'-s te r 1 v H i l ls 66 692 kO 66 532

V/ i 1 noro 260 232 260 232

Windsor Pork 318 1 629 > 767

W ip te r f io ld 68 120 572 68 692

TOTALS $651 7577 1612 1 0 ,3 7 6 2526 12,855 16,187 30,817



1021a

ITEM 3

AVERAGE DULY HUMBER FUPILS RIDll.'G SCHOOL BUSTS

Oct. 2 
Oct. 29

Oct. 30 
Nov. 26

Doc. 1 
Jan. 7

Jan. 8 
Feb. 11

HIGH SCHOOLS k$7k 1293 li26? ia93

JUNIOR KIuH SCHOOLS 081;! 881:7 830S 672?

ELEHEIURI SCHOOLS 10237 iois 'o 10130 1020]-.

TOTALS 23SS2 23290 23203 23126



iv : : i 3 1022a

A VLILG L 1 .M L i L L .  l u L i l S  K lO l i"3 SCLCOL L I 313

CtlAKL0TT£-l-.ECiaEI!3Ui\G SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS

Oct.  2 
Oct. 29

Oct. 
Kov. 26

Uec. 1 
Jen. 7

Jen. 8 
Feb. 11

East Mecklenbur; 621 587 536 585

Garin: or 305 305 290 339

Ka rd i ng 162 176 176 158

1 ndcper.de nee 132 1;55 1:55 14:5

■

fryers Peri: lfc2 l!;5 135

North frecklcnburg 627 633 683 767

Olympic | ,;0!} 1)23 623 606

South Mecklenburg 950 905 905 825

West Charlotte 17 17 17 26

West Mecklenbur:- 633 550 550 505

llevlns 22

1
TOT'.LS 1)571. 1293 6269 6193



1023ar :Z i  3

Avi.v.u:? m o r  ru. >12 D e c 1 1

CKftSLOl11-JliCiaEKBOftS JUNIOR HIC.i! SCHOOLS

"O c - fc .  2 
Oct.. 29

Jet. 30” 
::ov. 26

1
Jr.n. 7

Jc.11. 0 
l'cb . 1-

71h 693 639 723

i ' r 1037 1053 1053 1009

638 632 ES7 672

!r r- • : - i 516 518 503 511

■ 63 67 65 66
? 99 102 102 103

f'.-vfhnrp^ 62 12 12 62

K»V'-v1'v 135 135 135 329

r - r ) ; — ri- C5!i G55 655 635

—r :^-f----- ..... 15

C-.o i 1 pnltrw 1305 1233 5.233 1216

—
1.01 Sill 1.03- 333

562 569 555 560

75
...............

—
70 CO 60

_________ 673 C73 673 879

S r . ' " , ' 1', 215 336 336 276

— \'I } } i 77 76 76 69

' 566 879 679 96.7 —

—
C -  01  _

—

TO? M-S C361 C31;7 c:cs 6729



l i ~ !  3 1024a

/a-- v.cc inrsra ku-ks hidio soxc-x, irsrs

C MAOLOTTE-r.ECKLtljj'jnG ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Ost7' 2 lo c i. 30 [ Dec.' 1 
Oct. 29 |Cov. 26.' Jen. 7

1 Jr.n. 8 
1 Feb. r

1 Sc-rrso i 1 o Rd . 325 276 | 276 21:9

... I S cn'jrook S6 83 C3 so

Ashley Per!; 26 27 27 25

: <-■ i n 621 607 607 609

fe r  r i n«;e r ________
1:77L crrv h i11 1)71: 1)71: 510

verl v Vcods 333 335 335 298

• i H i r. jsvi 1 I o

t r i r rv; ?od lh5 11:5 11:5 137

rv on tillv 12

r f '-r Creek

r - l  1 i ns--,o?d _

■ ‘’ijJl'iJJji’A__

221 215 215 105

82 Cl S5 ss

208 20? 207 205

' otf.-cld to 39 39 38

1 1:6 61 6 l 61

fay j a _ 
Gfrtn* 333 353 353 372

re__ S3 S3 1 V
O

1 v
o

I ■ S5

Otoiuf Oj['s

: -U-!-- _
20 20 20 20

’ ?;:rbeth \ 21) 2lj i 25

Tfi!; J . . . . . .



1025a

2

6 eta 2
O c t .29 I‘o v .2 6

! :'- 
Ora. 7

OClla" U 
?cb» 11 r

F ir s t  Ward ~ .....i
Hickory Grove 385 335 3B5 1.00 i
Hidden V ai ley 61 61 61 61 "  i

Hi qhland ■ i ...

Hosk i ns _ _

H untersv i1le 102- 399 339 1.05 -  i .

Hunt. Farms 63 85 66 70 i
1 dl r.wi1 d 255 2 hi 21:1 253 i

' Irv/in Avc. i ....

i !> •ii l
!

;S
 

| !

165 173 173 107 i
l.akevirv/ 1 i
Lansdcwno 235 227 227 221 ~ ......i
L inco ln  Hohts. 1 i .

Lonq Creek 5SS 593 5?8 553 ..... “  i
Matthews 603 553 550 552 i . . . . .

Merry Cries i

Mi dwcod i
Montel a i re 1 _ i
Myers Park Elen. 16 . i
Nations Ford £57 555 555 552 i

!
Newel 1 301» m 1;0? 503 i ■ . . .  i

Oakdale 301 233 233 250 i
Oakhurst 37 37 37 . 35 . i _ !

Ooklcwn i
O ld e P  roy ? d ' 'nee____ 183 103 J 3 3 _ i



1026a

3

C o> . 2
Od’u.

| i ; : c «  1  
I 'o v . 2-0 J r n .  7

dc--.. r
F eb . 1!

Fp.tk Ro-.rj 101 ICO 100 9 t

..L ?y  r .r c -^ _ 1.82 U:9 t5 5 t t 5

. Ftvi C rocK  Arinnx 1 1 1 123 128 1 3 1

P in n » :il| o I t ? 111? 150 13h

P i r ■? -.cod

t’ ^ d _____________ 20 28 20 23 j

* * .> !. Boad. 11:2 ih i i l t h 136

— _Sftd-.cfjjrs.ld f j c n ,  ___ 6 6 6 5

..S n lw y n ............................ 102 106 ICS 99

. v - .  - rn ck  r ^ .

_S_har«. _  _ 155 155 155 3.1:3

_S_!.?rr-Tjnr _  ... . . . . 30 33 33 23

Slf.ttrsy.iU .la fJ ., ____ £ 6? 609 6S? 770

...S.trrlr^.Arpp!;____ ____ 'U h l 1:52 1:52 t s s

T teB ifea E fs  —  .

- . t o a n  H U .bc. • 71 71 71 71

Iuck --iprs.pt! . . 293 29h 267 276

ll jl iy e .rs j.tv  Pk.

J t -U J rJ te is lL ta _________

-V 'f t i i r r jv  Ki_u<! 62 62 62 67

H ijn o r e 6

— .VM ndsoc_Pftrk

W i n t f> r f  i n 1 d 1:2 1,0 t o t o

_r-K \T s 10737 l o i j o 101 ' o 1020,’ .



1027a

ITf.ll 11

V/ith respect  tci the sch oo ls  whose students  ere  to  be desegregetedd 
under the cou rt  ordered plan by rezoning :

1 -  1 / '/- Miles  RocJ i us 
o f  School

2 Miles Rad i us 
o f  School

High Schools 2 ,0 6  ? 3,583

Junior High Schools 5,321 9,076

EJe-.ontcry Schools 9 ,6 7 1 11,553

TOTALS I7,C59 2 ' i , 222



1028a

IT Ef* ij

CHARI O'l'TE-HECKLEHSl'tlG senior high schools

f HiIcs  j 1
Hi les '

East ■•‘.eckl enburg 25 271

Garin Ge r 1 538 907 “
~
►ierJi no 1 364 | 562

1 ndaper.de nee 1 >3 | 110

Myers Park | 392 1 75S

North Mecklenburg 1 s | 21

01 y;.ip i c 1 >0 1 31

South Meckl enbu rg r  r r  ' 13'.'

Wes t Chariotte l «  | 75'.

Wes t leek 1 enbu r g 1 I J;0 '
i I I "
1 1
1 T  ‘ '

TOTALS | 2067 3589



ITEM 6 1029a

CHARLOTTE-I IECKLEl!BU9G JO!!I Oil H i :1: SCHOOLS

H * --------Miles 1
2

Miles i

Albemarle Road m IbA

A1 exan.de r 10 65

. Cochran." 556 771

CqulLwoq&___________
216 273

—S_a_s tv/a v 632 657

-A  Lp .̂5 n d 0 r a h ayi___ _ ' 386 553

Hav/thorn® 60S ' 61!

Kepoedv, 225
* *  !

I'cC 1 i n t̂ r.Sf 250 368 | . ~

Nor tIves t 2.35 366 ] —
_£-i®r(.TO.ot--. . ............. .. 3 10 " 530 ;

-Qua ? I LolJo^___ 6 163 |

-A^nr'o.l oh . 668 €73

—ttenson CO ! C
'1

“

Sed.i_-.ef i e 1 d 669 637 "  _

SciLt.h. ... . . 666 775 j

Scaunh 667 730

-iLLLLUiis. „ 336 367 i

132 221 j j

_ P.-.6Q0. f C - r ' - n 115
, j

u.;- ;

F-f'.Cl..(Cnnnl 109 u ' 1

• 1 I f

I 1
i
/ 1

TOTALS 5921 |
: u

5076 !
_ l



ITEJS 4
1030a

CHAOLC'TTE-l!=CKLE!JDUr.G ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

■s
Mi 1 cs

2
M i 1 es

Albemarle Rd.

A11enbrook

Ashley Perk 373 521

Be i n

Berri nocr 231 4S 8 i

B e rrvh i !1 137 231

Beverly l.'ccds

B i l l i  n e s v i11e 173 238

Brie, rv:ood

Bruns Ave. ~

Chent i 1 1v 075 475

C lcer  Creek

Col 1 i nsv.’ood 504 616

Corneli  ns

Cotswold 382 462

Oavidsoo

Merle Oevis

QexLL^ __

Oevonsh ire

D i 1 v:o r t h 5S2 617

Double Oaks

Druid H i l l s

Eostover 333 471

El izaberh 311

Endarly Park
3ES A20

_



1031a

2

| Miles E  ’ 1 r 1 1
F irs t  V/ard - 1
Hickory Grove r ~
Hidden Va 11ey

Highland 313 3 ,3

Hoskins j 383”  ‘ 383

H un tersv i l le

Hunt. Farms

Idlev/i'ld

1 rw i n A vo. : ~ ' " ■  ~

_  Am a y James ; » " 128

Lakeview 815 819
"

_ Lansdcv.-ne '
Lincoln  Kqhts.

Lonq C reel;

Matthews

Kerry Ocks '
Midwood 513

.
517

Monte 1ai re . . . .  .

Myers Park Elem, 281

__

Hat ions Ford 25 .;

! 
CO 

1 
~

!

1
. Ilei.-al 1 _________ 1 J

Oakdale 266 378 1 1 1
Oakhurst '  1 " i 1

. . . 1 1_  1
I ! ■ Oido F r o v i f o p i q _ _ J _ . . J 1 _  !



1032a



J,. i  c. i--. ,!,>

1033a

JOE V.\ C- 
commit:

j. r.:. >
a s s t , c o m m iss io n : - i

JOriti »«. i . o c K .\■ :f

March 3.0, 1970

Mr. Floyd Bass 
C itizens Safety  Asso.
301 S t. Bernard S t.
C harlotte, N.C. : v

Dear Kr. Bass:

During 1969 there vrere some 1806 t r a f f i c  deaths in  North Carolina. 
There-were 58610 reported personal in ju r ie s  during that year.

School age ch ild ren  are defined  by roe as those from 7 to  14 years 
o ld , In c lu s iv e .

There were some I 36 o f  these ch ildren  k i l le d ; 56 v.rere pedestrians,
17 v ers  bike r id e r s , 4 were operating motor v eh ic les  and the 
remaining 59 were v eh ic le  passengers.

Approximately 4400 o f  the in jured  were in  the defined  age bracket; 
580 were pedestrians, 475 vrere bike r id e rs , 83 were operating a 
motor v eh ic le  and the remainder were passengers.

During the I 968- I 969 school year there were 330 school bus pupil 
passengers o f  a l l  ages reported in jured . One school bus p uoil 
passenger was k i l le d ; s ix  ad d ition a l students were struck and k il le d  
by sch ool buses; 21 were in jured  in' a l ik e  manner.

Very tru ly  yours,

Accident Records D iv ision

JKR:aj



r u b l  is l io c !  b y  I b c
Df-ffe::/!?. s-uuiv GGunon.
A75 II. /.'iidiicj:m Avenue- 
Chicc.rjo, Illinois £0611 
Prcpc.rcd by the Slolislics Division
Director

J. L. Rcclil 
Editor

Jennie Spao'afora 
Statisticians

Sidney D. Smill!
Denis G. PoIcc'k 

Asst. Statisticians

C0!;50£i!5
ALI. ACCIil'inS..

v/cnx_______
WOT OR-VE1IICLE. 

PU3UC------ --------

1034a

HOME-

FARM.

Stella Duclos 
Art Direction 

Walter Kenneth 
Robert Stmyos

ieMins it this beetle! »»l

SCHOOL- 

INDEX__

.. 3 
33 

_  40 
_  7 2  

_ eo 
_  85
_  89 'S' 
_  94

DEFINITIONS- : BA C K  COVeR

S uV Sie^fijiM l me'eeiae s'bafl be i
I c o p ie s  w a y  b e  securca* c f  
S p r ic e s :

3&K Vt%tVSSSS^&

- m m i ..
Ve&XSS

i . >1 / ■ l: • i - ' I c .• •>• Vrr -A. \ ■ ' X

f O
.! .V.

) ■ \ I' 

« '

’ !

\
\ J -  1

f \* rr._ : .-l;

L  L

1 iD @ S >  E D IT IO N

1.3



(•
/.cci:!vi:!jl r:::! i'c:!!i r; ! js ef c!::!:!rc*n 5-1' y;-:ts
<-Sr.- J..IJ.C M (,.i if.'.A t .. f 111) Highlit J: vv ot. uralli W j K j

A
,AYh' /?

Deaths
TO TA L ...........................................  R ,!00
M oloi -v e li ic lc .................................  -1,200

1‘ crfcstriun .................................  1JJU0
H o m e ................................................  1 ,!0 0
Public nun-uiolor-vehicle . . . .  2,600
W o r k ................................................  200

•Death* p c r 100,000 imputation.

J 0.2 
-1.6 
3.1 
C.3 
0.5

Totals by class of accident as shown above are not available for other age 
groups, but total deaths are shown below (19G7 latest available). See also 

; pages 8, 9 and 51. -

Deaths and Death Dales by Age, 1967

A ge Group 19G7 Change in Date*
Deatlis | Date* 1966-1957 | 1911-1967

5.074
4.010
3.564

11.035
10,609

—  4 Co
—  5 Co 
+  ICo
—  3 Co 
+  7Co

— 57 7
1( to 14 years............................
If- to 19 years..........................
20 to 24 yea i s .......................... ........

19.6 
61.2 
76. S

— 417c

433
•Deaths per 1C9.CC0 population  in each age group.

fligii sshoo! driver cdiiodica
Participation in driver education has been increasing steadily since 19G0, 

ai  shown in the table below. Eligible students are those enrolled in the grade 
level in which the most students are enrolled in driver education; eligible 
schools are the number of high schools that house these grade levels. The par­
ticipation figures cover courses which consist of at least 30 clcck hours of 
classroom instruction and G clock hours of laboratory instruction— in car or 
simulator.

Participation in Driver Education, 1960-1968

Y , "  - '

Student 1’ arf icipathin School 1 'j.rtleipation
E lig ib le

<009>
E nrolled I 

(000) |
7c of 
>:iig. Eligib le O f fe t in g  I 

C ourse 1
7o o f  
E lig.

1960-61 2 0S7 814 1S.3-70 53c;
1961-61 2 2>S 1.011 41 7 18.169 10. Co 7 56Co
1962-63 2.762 69%
1903-61 2.962 1,256 427e 19.158 11.-431 60%
1961-65 2 971 1.332
19o5 60 2 995 1.510 50 Co IS. 1-3 12.7771 7 lCt
1S6S-67 . 3093 1.725 17.954 13.711 74*7
1967-6S 3 079 1.985 65*70 17.219 13.7 -73 81%

S ou rce : Insurance Institute for H ighw ay Safety.

.SCHOOL. - 8 9



1036a' PEDESTRIAN 7vND BICYCLE ACCIDENTS SUM.'iARY 
PRE-SCHOOL AMD SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN

19G9

Pre-School Children (Acjes 0 through 5)

Time Total Fatalities Bicycle Pedestrian

8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 12 0 i ii
4:01 p.m. -12:00 a.m. 20 0 i 19

12:01 a.m. - 7:59 a.m. 0 0 0 0
.TOTAL 32 0 2 30

School 7vge Children (Ages 6 through 19)
Time Total Fatalities Bicycle Pedestrian

8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 70 4 ?3 43
4:01 p.m. -12:00 a.m. 99 3 30 66

12:01 a.m..- 7:59 a.m. 4 0 0 4
TOTAL 173 7 53 113

The records showed City school enrollment increased 1.6% in 
1969. Only one child was injured within the scope of our Safety 
Patrol and Crossing Guard program and only 19 other children were 
injured while in the process of going to or coming from school.
This was 9.5% of the total amount of children injured in the City of 
Charlotte.

Education and supervision in bicycle and pedestrian safety 
rules has certainly been the key element for the decrease in this 
year's report. This yearly report shows that 123 accidents occurred 
after school hours. We realize, in order to eliminate the majority 
of these accidents, action must come from parents or supervisory 
personnel.

PLEASE BE A DEFENSIVE DRIVER WHERE YOU SEE CHILDREN; SLOW 
•• DOWN AND LET THEM LIVE

COMPARISON
1968 1969

52,067
2,462

.Enrollment 
Parochial Enrollment

51,599
2.024



1037t

- 2 -

COWViK.TPQtt ( c o n  i d  . )

■ ' ' 1 9 0 8

Injured 220
Fatciliti.es 0
Summer Accidents 58

PERCENTAGE OF CHANGES OVER PREVIOUS YEAR

Pre-school - decrease 30.2% 
School ages - decrease .05% 
Bicycle - decrease 8.6% 
Fatalities - decrease 12.6%

10 69
2057
49



1038a

(Referred to in Foregoing Submission)

H erman J. H oose, being duly SAVorn, deposes and says 
that:

1. I am now, and have been for the past 22 years, 
Director of Traffic Engineering for the City of Charlotte. 
I am charged with primary responsibility for all matters 
relating to traffic on city streets and thoroughfares. By 
reason of my position, I also thoroughly familiar with 
matters relating to traffic in the portions of Mecklenburg 
County located outside the city limits. Various studies 
have been made under my direction and control regarding 
the vehicular traffic and related matters in both Charlotte 
and the balance of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

2. As of April, 1969, the total number of registered 
motor vehicles in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 
was 183,362, of which 160,862 were passenger vehicles and
22,500 were trucks. Based upon past experience, it is esti­
mated that there has been a 5% increase during the one 
year interval since the foregoing figures Avere tabulated. 
Based upon this increase the total of such registered 
vehicles is now approximately 192,530, of Avhich 168,905 
are passenger vehicles and 23,625 are trucks.

3. In the summer of 1967, a survey was prepared (with 
the assistance of my Department) by the Planning and 
Research Department, North Carolina State Highway 
Department, Raleigh, North Carolina, entitled “ External 
Origin & Destination Survey for Charlotte, N. C.” The 
boundaries of the survey area covered by this study and

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina



1039a

report are roughly (but not quite) the same as those of 
Mecklenburg County. It was the purpose of this survey 
to identify the total number of vehicles that daily enter 
and pass through the survey area (these trips being denom­
inated as Class A trips) and the total number of vehicles 
that daily come from outside the survey area to a termina­
tion destination point within the survey area (these trips 
being denominated as Class B trips). The results of this 
survey (in the summer of 1967) are as follows:

Class A Trips (i.e., through traffic) 13,285

Class B Trips (i.e., to and from points 
of origin outside the survey area) 55,580

Based on past experience, each of these trip categories 
increases about 5% per year—resulting in about a 10% 
increase since the 1967 survey was made. With this in­
crease, the current Class A Trips are about 14,613 and 
Class B Trips about 61,138. The Class B trips are pre­
dominately those by persons wffio live outside Mecklenburg 
County and have jobs in Charlotte and Mecklenburg 
County. Most of these Class B trips are during the morn­
ing (7:30 to 9:30 a.m.) and evening (4:30 to 6:30 p.m.) 
rush hours when local traffic is at its peak. The Class A 
trips are primarily those of the traveling public passing 
through Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. A major 
portion of these Class A trips are also made in the morning 
and evening rush hours, resulting primarily from the fact 
that travelers make a local stopover at local hotels and 
motels in the evening and continue on their way the next 
morning.

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina



1040a

4. With reference to strictly internal traffic (i.e., making 
trips to and from points entirely within Mecklenbnrg 
County) studies made by my Department show that as of 
November 1969 there were approximately 102,000 occupied 
dwelling units in Mecklenburg County, that each dwelling 
units owns 1.55 passenger automobiles and makes 7.4 trips 
per day or 4.7 trips per vehicle per day. This means that 
the locally registered passenger cars (currently estimated 
to be 168,905) makes about 793,853 internal trips per day 
(i.e. 168,905 cars x 4.7 trips per car).

5. A summary of the currently estimated number of 
trips per day in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County is as 
follows:

Class A Trips (see Para. 2 above) 14,613
Class B Trips (see Para. 2 above) 61,138

Internal Trips by Autos (see Para. 4 above) 793,853 
Total (exclusive of internal truck trips) 869,604

Affidavit of Herman J. Hoose, Director of Traffic
Engineering for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina

H erman J. H oose



1041a

Submissions to Court in Response to 
March 6, 1970 Order

(Filed March 6, 1970)

In compliance with the March 6, 1970 Order of this 
Court the Defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Edu­
cation submitted all of the information and maps required 
by that Order with the exception of the data and informa­
tion identified in Paragraph 2 thereof. The data and in­
formation specified in that Paragraph 2 (and related mat­
ters), as interpreted by the Defendants, is now submitted 
herewith together with an affidavit of William C. Self, 
Superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools.

Respectfully submitted this 17 day of March, 1970.

/ s /  W illiam  J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner

/ s /  B e n j . S. H orack 
Benj. S. Horack
Attorneys for Defendants



1042a

Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

(Referred to in Foregoing Submission)

W illiam  C. Self, being duly sworn, deposes and says 
that:

1. I am the Superintendent of the Charlotte-Mecklen­
burg Public Schools.

2. On Monday a. m., March 9, 1970, I received a copy of 
the Order of the District Court dated March 6, 1970, in 
which the School Board was directed to furnish the data, 
information and maps described in the 8 paragraphs of 
that Order. Immedately upon receipt of that Order I, 
together with members of my administrative staff and 
other school personnel, began to assemble the requested 
information and data and to prepare the maps. In an 
effort to meet the prescribed March 13, 1970 deadline, the 
administrative staff and other personnel worked both day 
and night.

3. On March 13, 1970, all of the information, data and 
maps requested by the March 6, 1970, Order were filed 
with the District Court with the exception of the informa­
tion designated as Item 2 in that Order. When the sub­
mission of the other items were made the Court was advised 
that additional time was necessary to assemble the facts 
and figures required by that Paragraph 2.

4. The staff was advised by the School Board attorneys 
that the information requested by that Paragraph 2 related 
to the numbers of children in each school in the entire 
system who under the Court approved Plan will live in a 
different zone from that of the school they attended in



1043a

Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

January 1970. After many hours of preparing the data 
on that phase and checking and double checking its ac­
curacy in conformity with what the staff understood Para­
graph 2 to require, the information has now been com­
pleted and is being submitted to the District Court.

5. During the morning of March 17, 1970, I was advised 
through our attorneys that the Court had stated that 
Paragraph 2 of his March 6, 1970, Order has been misin­
terpreted and that the Court now advises that Paragraph 2 
was not intended to relate to the zones under the Court 
approved Plan, but on the contrary made inquiry of the 
numbers of children in each school who now live in a differ­
ent zone from that of the school they attended in January 
1970—with a designation of those who are supplied trans­
portation and those who are not supplied transportation.

6. Immediately upon receipt of this advice, I made in­
quiry to ascertain whether this information was available, 
from whom it would need to be acquired and what would 
be involved in preparing a tabulation. I am advised that 
this information and data can be supplied only by utilizing 
computer print outs and a manual analysis of them and by 
the principals of the different schools who will first have 
to make an analysis of their school records and a head count 
of those who are and are not afforded transportation.

7. Both the administrative staff gnd the school princi­
pals have been and are now involved in the laborious task 
of conforming grid lines to suitable natural monuments as 
one of the major undertakings required in order to be in 
readiness to implement the Court Plan at the elementary 
level by the prescribed April 1, 1970 deadline.



1044a

Affidavit of William C. Self, Superintendent of 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

8. Because of the heavy involvement of the staff, the 
principals and other school personnel in the efforts to im­
plement the Court Plan, superimposed upon the time con­
suming task of assembling the other information requested 
by the March 6, 1970, Order, I respectfully state that it 
is not humanly or physically possible to assemble and 
furnish the Paragraph 2 information in time to meet the 
Court prescribed deadline. In view of the foregoing, we 
respectfully request the Court’s guidance as to what it 
wants us to do in view of this dilemma.

W illiam  C. Self



1045a

Affidavits of J. D. Morgan, Ralph Neill 
and J. W. Harrison

(Referred to in Foregoing Submission)

Each of the undersigned being duly sworn deposes and 
says that:

1. His position with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School 
System is as indicated below.

2. From March 9, 1970 to March 17, 1970 a total of not 
less than 650 man hours were expended by school per­
sonnel in obtaining and tabulating the information and 
preparing the maps requested in the March 6, 1970 order 
of the District Court. These persons include the following:

J. D. Morgan—Assistant Superintendent-—Business
Services;
Ralph Neill—Adm. Assistant—Auxiliary Services;
John Hansil—Adm. Assistant Physical Plant;
J. W. Harrison—Director of Transportation;
Carroll York—Director of Planning and Sites De­
velopment ;

H. L. Puckett—Director of School Construction;
Julian Carter—Site Engineer;
Ron Reavis—Draftsman;
Wayne Church—Director of Research;
Don Baucom—Assistant Director of Transportation;
Bill Harrison—Transport Spec.



1046a

Affidavits of J. D. Morgan, Ralph Neill 
and J. W. Harrison

3. He is thoroughly familiar with those information and 
maps which have been submitted to the court pursuant to 
the order including item arabic 2 and its attachments and 
states that they correctly portray information which they 
purport to convey. Any estimates and projections being 
based on the actual past experience of the Charlotte-Meck- 
lenburg School System.

North Carolina 
Mecklenburg County

This 17th day of March, 1970 came before me the fol­
lowing and who being duly sworn acknowledged the afore 
as true statements:

/ s /  J. I). M organ 
J. D. Morgan

/ s /  R alph  E. Neill 
Ralph E. Neill

/ s /  J. W . H arrision

J. W. Harrison

W itness m y hand and Notarial Seal.

/ s /  R uth  Y on Canon 
Notary Public

My commission expires: April 24, 1970



1047a

ITEM 2

Summary of total number of children in each school in 

the entire system who will live in a different zone 
under the court approved plan from that they attended 

in January of 1970.
Add • 1 Not

Live in Nov: to to be
Rezoned Trans- Trans- Tra ns-
Area port cd port (]) pOJ ted

Seni or High Schools 5,292 3,008 2, ] 9 7 87

Junior High Schools 6,696 4, S22 1,599 979

Elementary :Schools 6,472 1,4 86 2,223 2,7C3

GRAND 'i’OTAL 18, 460 9,01G(2) 6,019 3,429

NOTE:(1) 

\

Additional transportation provided und:> C<> ■ l 
Plan for each child who live:.- i : > r c than 3-1/2 
miles from his school, and who b:n:i rearsi grv d
(rezoned) to a different school than the cne 
previously attended.

(2) A substantial nui.ber of these children will Ik 
transported a greater distance under the Court 
Plan than is presently the care.



1048a

I te  n 2

IJUP.UEK or  CHILOKEN \'.I0 WILL L I Vc IN A l> IT Ft lie NT 
ZONE FROM Til AT VriLY AITENNLD IN' JAN. I <70

THE CliARLOm-KECKLE. N; I'RG 
s e n i o r  HIGH S C H O O L S

I960 - 1970
L i v e  in  Now A d d i t i o n a l  Not t o  be
R c / o n e d  T r a n s -  t o  T r a n s -  T ra n s -

East Moc!:.lcrnl.»ur<j 669 6 662 0

Gnrin"C-r 836 362 671 0

Ilari’>.!:g 298 188 .. 62 22

Int\;:cnO.: ,it;i 211 211 0 0

; '

! '.y :  r r .  l \ . :  k 'tl 1 96 308 7

Korlli Nee!;Irnotwy 87 A 7 0 0

01y.-:>ic 629 663 16 0

£»oi* t h 1* c c!:1 c n 1 > u r cj 861 169 A12 0

M O f it  Cl 1609 1132 219 55

1 re r. t  i '.c- cl: }.<_ si’.iv rej 631 170 261 0

529? 3008 2197 8?



1049a

I t en  ?

NUMBER OF CHILDREN l.'HO l . ' l l l  LIVE IN A DIFFERENT 
ZONE FROM THAT THEY ATI ENDED IN JAN. IS70

CHA.M0T1 :-::EC.\LENHjr;: junior h i :.1 SCHOOLS

L i v e  in Now____ Adc'i t i on.! 1
Re?on_*cJ
Area

J Trons- 
1 per ted

. O 1 r »•: (1: 
pot t

A1 t c " c  r I c Read 220 ■  r ; r 0

1.9 69 0

Cochran- 199 68 . 5 '

Cr> dwcctj . 212 1 * 0 2

P'PV 158 1 160 0

_ /'ler^pdn_r Or a pa 50 1 ,6 20

C ^ th o r n » 205 1 39 0 5

52° 1 58

76 1 „ 7.6_

_U.ottl-.Wi5t 793 1 6°0 ..97 .

Pip drnr.r 516 1 o ‘i l l  .

C-.i--il t 'r l l r - . 201 1 201 0

275 ? 6 L 1?

r.a-ison 395 ' E h . 0

Sod - f ie )d 317 1 ?9 765

—Sj lfth______ 183 1 161 A 2

391 138 753

. Will 879 I 867 0

168 1 169 0

369 1 0 5 0

r -■01 ( '  r: ' 57'i 1 636 0

--------( , t 1

N:>t t o  l u
Troi.:.- 

p o r t t  J

?A
0
0
0

18
h

31

SI
0
6

A3
0

2 0 
0

A3
0
0

1 7 

0 
?33

SO



1050*

Itc.i 2
irjr.cr'. of ci:acr.::i t*.:c will live in a oiffereiit 

zo::e fr.cn lii/.r t.iev attended hi jam. 1570

CMAr.toTu-f.E:-;LE!;ioF.o elefemtaky schools

L iv e  in  ___ Movi ________ A d d it io n a l________ t.'ot to  be
<czorud
Area

T ri ins-  
p o r te e

t o  Trans 
p o r t

- r r a n s -  
p o r t e d

A l h r —o r l r  3d. 0 0 0 0

A 1 1 rnb rook 63 0 33 30

A s h le y  Park 270 0 221 53

f a i n 0 0 0 0

Carr  i nee r 288 35 205 68

f c r  ryf i 1 1 067 193 . 270 0

Re .-cr 1 y \-crvf* 0 0 0 0

L i 1 1 i n o S v i ! 1 c 272 112 128 32

br  i «m  ood 0 0 0 0

f r u n s  A v c . 0 0 0 0

Chan t i l l y 0 0 0 0

C le a r  C rev< 0 0 0 0

Col 1 : r.s-oc*d ?51_ 0 726 29

Corr '-1  >’ ns 0 0 0 0

Cu  ( *-..c *c* 260 . 6 .3__ 0 206

0.-.  i 0 0 ___ 0 _ _Q _

J:>  i i “. j . - . / i i 8 0 0 8

dullt*-, 0 0 0 0

C- : nsh • re 0 0 0 0

0i  K  :.r \h 52 0 0 52

. UotiMe 0. :*.s 0 0 0 0

.'Tv id M il l" . 0 0 0 0

_ r a* t r . - c r___ . _  3 51 _ _ _____ 7__ h?.__ ___ 3 .0 7 _



1051ft



1052a

L iv e  in  A d d it io n a l _____ Hot to be
Kezoned J 

Area  |
l ro r i i -  
p o r t e d

t o  Iran,  
p o r t

T r a n s -1 
p o r t c

f ar<  Road 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

Ff*v. c rr r\  An r e x 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

f : nc .-ood 375 375 0 0

259 0 0 259

Ro-wo Ko*>d 0 0 0 0

Srd c f  ic I rf f  1 n . 259 0 165 95

$ r  1 v/v n 0 0 0 0

302 39 55 218
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

$ r * t - s  . i 1 In iM. 0 0 0 0
?<r, 175 119 0

Tl.'. r s :  o r o ?L3 . 0 9 -i 119

0 0 0 0

1 uc *;nsrr ~t c 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0
? o o 0 150 60
\‘ >9 0 71 78

Wip.d*.'* Park 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

667? H I’.S ?223 2763

...1_ 1
v  D o .s  n'»t i n c l i - i ’o p e r i l s r.r.i t r , ' ' .•ported f r o .  i nn; r - c  i t y c l o s e d s c h o o l s 7- 1- 6 9 .



1053a

Til/.

SCHOOLS

Senior

Junior
Eler;.3ntc*ry

TOTAL

»r-r' o_rL!J jjl ; ; • ' ' Qt.' ST'JL'LL

c h a r l o t t e - i:l c l l:;::.>lko s c h o o l s

HO. STUDHL LS 
PAIRED SCHOOLS

1 0 , 2 0 6

1 0 , 2 0 6

NO. STUDENTS 
SATELLITE SCHOOLS

300

2 , 7 6 0

3 , 0 6 0

ILLS’

stilt ..j’s 
a : : ; 0 -

lUV.M 
STU ;.L.T

2,197 2 , •* 9 7

1,599 t ,, 399

2,223 12,429

6,019 ) 'J,21 3



1054a
7 0 .7 1  7 : S 7 L 0 L \ 7 S I d . .» 1C» /  - -  I I i c : / L 1 HA.'.j r 0«\1/T I 0.‘« IS

c Y TML CU-.T C.\ .-:.>J f i.AM

CmA j.LCI 7 c * •' c CKL Eli: Jr. S SLfi lC .l  HIGH SCHOOLS

S ? U  1 1 - ( C ’On.’ v 
1 tc

7 C » i 1

I Cci st M fL  -s i C o l . „ r I hCS 1 '> t 3

1 G i r i n  c r i* 7 1 ‘ . 7 1

1 Hc-rci r.. 1  « ' 0
1 s t , -CIO

1 I c . - J i r i : : c c - C v  3 1 2  A •CO 1 0 3 0 0

|  t t > t r s  P o r i ; 1 3 0 , 3  C o

1 N o r  I h  / <•: •;! cni .u r . . 0 0

I . . V . U 1 , 6 ICJ  So .r .H  f.v; 1 or,1. r | M 2

J  Wc > ; O i - r l c .  t t c ( ? l y

1 , C , H \

1 1

l '  1

l 1

..

I i c t a l 3C C  I 7 . I J 7 [ > , , ,



1056a
r i. t\ . r - •

f a r 1 7g : c 1 ! 1 '
A1 *• !*—;■ r I c 1 ,3 7  | I

A 1 r y *  n-'l*» r " ~  r  i r
f  o '- hr- *'•? 303 31 3 3 ,  1 1

f^ ilw ood .37 137 j

35 , 35 , r
Alnx^r^of r»r“ 37'i

_
30 i:C*> 1

Mfwt horn': 135 135 1

Krnrvvlv 59 58 1

355 70 331 1

Nnr ; 97 37 1
Pi oH- or ‘ ,73 ,7 3  ! 1

On^L! Mol 1 fw

_
2 7 , 1 2 7, 1

,3.pndol r>h 12 12 1

1

Sod . o f j  oJ ci C5 
j

2'-5 1

S'li Th 1*0? « . . . I

_&ri!Us£._ 253 ?33 1

V.LUUL?. js_ I

Wilson 153 183 1

- f r i 1c.c_tr.nr-.oj.)_ 218 2 1 a 1

r - i m  (r„."r,l 1

1 1 I

i 1 1

2 .750 ! 1 , c-'0 If: J 1



1056a

: 'r : : .  : c .

CK

1

• #•*•«■» r  ! o i r i 1 7 5 "  ” |

/ M r  • r r r < I , * , 53 Ic’ D

/•Vi!c • K r < 221 221 1

5 o i n

: « r r I ' i '  r r 205 205

Lc r r v!> i 1 1 2 7'i 27'*

? o . c r 1 v 250 230

& i 1 1 i f • : * t i M c 12o 123

f  r i ? i wv'Od 22? 222

r r j r s  /• vc . 525 5?6

C h c n t M 1 y

Clc.ir Crock

22*4 ?2'i

f‘ >e Ogo

27c 27c

557

CO

312 312

*42 ii2

r - 30 30
|

| £ n-'r r 1 v for*. 75 73



1057a

—

f i r s t  iterd

F/.If.c.

S'5;

.e. c . 1 i c . . .

..............i 533 r
7J.7ZV .J

Hickory G r o . 2 22h 1 2/ ’» 1 ! I
hidden V f l l e v 3C2 it?
hi chirr,d :  [ :  j . . _ _

Hosk i ns " " 1 ( 1

Hun te r s v i 11e ~ T  1 1
Hunt. Farms 195 1 U 5 f
1 d 1cw i 1d 103 1 ,0 3  1

1 rwi n A vp . _ . _ . L ......... L .

.........“i.............r " i
■ "  i ""'i...............i

Anav Janes

lakcv  i e w

L ensdowne 2s? 1 I i l l
L ' “ CCln Hants. 055 I 055 | i i i
Lonq Creek i i i
Hat thews

Herry Oaks 1 1 r '  it,; i
V. i d wood

Hen t c 1 ai re 2 1 / U 1 1 1. 1 .1
Hvers Park £ l c - . 13? | b ?

Nations Ford ► ; o i  1 / o i  1

Newel 1

Oakda!c

.......T " ~ r n
“i "  i ...;i

0ashurst 105 1 ,03 | ______

Cok1rwn 003 1 003

Cl dp Providence 107 L_._l.-iv „l„..1 _ J _ _ . . | .1



1058a

c . . - C ,

***** ic : u c l

Pr* Z rmm‘4. 2/5 72 =

5£ 56

P i rr . l ! «•

3*>6 j h i

*£'.e riOvC 21|lt 2‘4

U '» Ic 'i

|33 19b

90 '.5 W ^
 

1
117 117

231* 2 3'. :

• ** /! 1 ! *  .M-

119 119

95 i 1' I c 3

Trvr.- H i l l s 375 32c

1,0 1,0

550 550

1,1 757

M.O 1-»C

71 71

23‘< 23'.

195 195

.
J O .j ’C;



1059a

cou.Tf 1 r.-Mi
ciw r lo j  i e -:::- si.dtOLS

1 . c o s t  r-.!tcs *

2. Cost o f  I\:i Areas *

3. Cost Operation <

*1. Personnel
5. Total Cost  F i r s t  Year

$ 2,369,000.00 

200 , 000.00 

506,613.7G 

166,190.00 
$ 3,006,607.60

KOYuS:
t% Hie.sc.* C ap ita l  Outlay i t c . . s  Co not  r e f l e c t  r . r . : . . d e p r e c i a t i o n .

^  H'.ree i t e r s  are cants  vlii.cn i\ v ie  earn y ea r ,  jIrene f ig u r e s  do n o t  talce 
in t o  acec.r.nL a n t i c ip a t e d  an..us! c o s t  in c r e a s e s .



1060a

c o o :i t  t i t .:’

c o s t s  t o t  1S60-70 v;:'.n

c o s t
OTKUATjo:! rr.Rso:;;:.':i- total

Lien.cutcry Schools - ‘19 days $101,230.03 $ 2S,3‘iy.‘l8 $3 20,07 7.00

Junior end Senior llifch Schools 2G Days ___30.001.0';___ 8.000.00 _  3 9 ,.301, nil
TOTALS $131,781.12 $ 37,l'!/.‘IS $168,073.00



1 0 6 1 a

col' ; :?  i :

ci: *.:;»(• j ; : /j s *
sr.'i?r*7. !!>(.•:! rr. ' j ’.-s

1. Capital Cu 1' 1 :y
A. f.9 ] : . ■ 0  $3,307.Cl On. $ 371,7i|7.?.0
B. Kcu 1,700.00
c. Service Vrkxclcs

Service Tucks - 3 7,000.00
G;:r;olinc* Delivery Truck - 1 0,000.00

Cor.t 0

Dnily Anrr.tp.l
Driwrr;* S-Orricr. $3:'.?,. 07 $ 00,033..07
Gc.r.o? ir.c, c' *1 , f.rear.e', r.iiii-frcor-a O').17 11,010..77
Kcclir )? c." CO. to. 15,110..01
Rc-vaii' I\- . : 10.03 2,907.. 33
Tiivr c.r.vl ----“-- ------Z -...

TOT.M.S $010.02 $ 93,910..02

3 ,  P c * ^  i!' c* 1

A .  S u p e r v  i r c . ' y  -  1 
II. C l e r i c a l  -  1

$ 8,190.00
0 ,120.00



1062a

COURT CSEET.!." ~LA!l 
C!L'-HLOiTK- ! ' £ CKI'-1!H'J.1G SCHOOLS 

Jiruok j;ig:i schools

1. Capital Outlay
A. 84 Buses © $5,307.64 ca.
B. Equipment
C. Service Vehicles 

Service Trucks - 4 
Gasoline Trucks - 2

$452,551.76
2,250.00

10.000. 03
1 0 . 000 .  00

2. Cost Operation Daily Annual
Drivcro' Salaries $430.92 
Gasoline, oil, nrscsa, cnti-freezo 78.12 
Meehan:‘r; Salaries 103.36 
Repair Parts 20.16 
Tires and Tubes

$ 77,996.52 
14,139.72 
19,613.16 
3,648.96

TOTALS "$6(15.12
+_____
T u g  .//g o. 7 2

3. Personnel
A. Supervisory - 3
B. Clerical - 1
C. Bus Dispatcher - 1

$ 24,570.00 6,120.00 
7,800.00



lOttta

C(
Ci’

LL!

1.

2.

Croil a). Onl .lay
A. 200 Duses O CO » 307 . C*-l ca. $i,':':o»27s.xo
n. D(,v; •*:-t G,500.00
c. Jict’v'Ic-c* Vehicle

Service Vruchs *• 11 27,500.00
Gasoline Del very Trr.cbr, - 5 25,000.00

C o s t  C’. , r r a . l i  on D a i l y A n n u a l

D r i v e r s ’ S s J r . r / c s $1,379.97 $29 9,77*!. 57
( a g o ! i tvj ,  o i l ,  f /. ’ r  *;2 , rnt i-freeso 250. .17 95,200.77

c S a l a r i e s 397.01 62,600.01
l .Y ; . ; . ? r  1' a i . ln Cl.SC. 1 1 ,GC5.36
V i  TC G C a V u b o s _________ 7___ . -

VOjV.LS $2,005.92 $373,931.52

3. !’cruP!i"l

A. Sroervinory - S $ >10,950,.00
D. Cl (-.vical - 3 10,300 .00
C. Hun Di ;nat clr-i> - 1 7,800..on

Ann if. Cant Hus Dispatcher - 1 5,200,.00
I). Meebanica.l Sunarvinr*rs - 2 1G,G'!0..00
i:. rcTf.onncl f!:n; - ] 8,320..00
I . Driver Trainii: Supervisor - 1 7,800..00
c. Dun Houle S;>ec■if*lint - 1 8,320..00



1064a
COURT ORDER PLAN 

AUDIilORAL iiXNSl'O.l, A1 10.') r.iIQ'.li’J I)

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION 

SUtlO.l UICll SCHOOLS

SCKOCi.
:;o . s ; L")~:;rs to 
b- transported

NO. P'.'Si 5 
n;:oii t \  j

BUS PARKING 
AREA

DUS PARK. 
AREA COS';

East Mecklenburg 465 n s _ . .

c-arir.ger 471 l l — K .  . . . . .2 ,0 .0 0 ...

Harding 45 i .

Independence 300 7 < „

Myers Park 308 .5 ,4 0 0  ...

North Mecklenburg a

Olyepic 16

Second Ward _

South Mecklenburg 412 ..  .JLIL.. „ . 6 ,0 0 0  - -

West Charlotte 219 „ - - C , - C 0 0  - -

V e s tMe cklcnburr 261 . . ____ ____ X L _____ 5 ,0 0 0

Chanqes in  A tte n d .A r e a s ,0

2 .4 9 7 _____ 0 2 .______________ 2 .8 ,6 0 0  ...



1065a

court  o s c l t  i l .v ;

.uo:. i. i

CHARLOT^E-UJXKLFNBUKG BOARD OF EDUCATION 
JAM 03 HIGH SCHOOLS

SCl.o./L
:.o. i j
: :  LVLSi’uMi f )

No. lusts
Rr QLT7.E!)

j BUS PARKING 
! AREA

\ BUS PARKING 
AREA COST

Albc:-.avlc Laa-' 297 6 I s ” ” _

Alex*r.«!or 0 S

Ccchr»:.c 39 4 7 u 5 ,4 0 0

1
CotsvoiJ ! “

I

Caulvcod 137 3 s
Fastvay 3 7 u 5 ,4 0 0

Alexander Grr.L..rj 4 0-1 7 N 5 , 400

Ili.'thorr.o n ; . .  . . 3 N 3 .8 0 0

Irwon Avenue

XcClintcck 381 7 U 5 , 400

!.’ort hvos t 9 7 2 N 3 ,4 0 0

Piedront 473 9 N 6 ,2 0 0

C-.:ci i 1 2 74 5 U 4 ,6 0 0

a; r.?on ° 0

SeuUof ield 2 4 9 5 N 4 ,6 0 0

Sv ith 444 8 S -

5: _ ’.i;.h 25 3 9 N 4 ,6 0 0

LI! Mars 0 0 -

••i 1 son 183 -1 U 4 ,2 0 0

Konupclvcxx>:x:-r>.x
98 1 N 3 ,0 0 0

Ranc'.ol ph 32 1 S

P -60  0 (C a-i.c ’ D  
P -60  ] (Gunn)

2 ia
0

4 s

4 ,3 9 -i 84 5 6 ,0 0 0



1066a

c h a h l o t t e - k h c k i,e :.’ b u h g  u oahw  o r  e w c a t i c c i

i.!.!*.:iENT.\*v; s. isv is . ..

school !
NO.
\'.'Z

Nivbi.NiS iu | 
rt.c. SPORT ED !

Nl‘ . I ..V 3  
Ri.QLA. P'-'-D [BUS PA!vKIICG j 

AJ’.r.A
Mk“. PAIO'.iC
h r:-:;, cost

_____ __________ : _.....- - - ------- —  -• -_r-
Alber.arlo T .oc l

i
-JJ2L6 . ! . . .  4 L-

i
Allenbrcok 189 4 s

Ashley Park
1

221 4 N 1 4200

la in .. j
Barringer • t 205 • 4 N 4200

' i
; le r r y h ill 274 5 s -

3everly Weeds i 250 5 • s -

P.i 3 lin g sv ilc 128 3 ' K 3800

• Brlarvood 222 5 i u 4600

Bnms Avenue* 526 12 ! N 7400  ;

i Chantilly •

Clccr Creek I

C ollin svcoj 224 4 s -

QcxrvCtVxcs M arie D a v is 490 9 N 0200

Cotsvoltl __________

Davidson

Derita ii ___

Devonshi re i, 276
1

C s !
Dilvorth

i
j .

Double Oaks 1 587 12 N 1 7400

Dr aid HJllr. i 312 ' • c N m e n

EasCover
i
j.. 42 i 1 1C% ! 3000

Elizabclb 30_ 1 V 1 3000

E-Jerly Park 79 2 N 1 3 4 0 0

Firs: Were! tii 1 2
i

7 4 r- 0

2 2-1 4 ; o



1067a

• ---- • • c....... ; : - • ~ r -)

CH/.KLOl 1 K-MKG: ’.Z A 'M iy j '.'.'i uc;.!in or ruucATioi:
LI.K!!1.M.SwhCO: s

SCKOCI.
% NO. SI LTi35.* T 5 S TO 

IF. 1 R\\'S:'0:’Tri)
lus p a r k i n g
ARK A

BUS PARKING 
AREA COST____.__

Hidden Veliev 302 6 N 5000

Hi r.lil f.nd
r.rskins----------  ! ,

Hunt Infjt ov:.< Fa: : s 195 4 ! K 4200

ldlCUjld 163 3 0 - 3800

Anav Jer.es ■

Lr.kcvicv

I.cnr dcvnr- 1 292 c N 5000

Heroin ‘height s ! 456 . ........9 . . ' N 6200

Lone Creck 1 *

* iMarie Davis '■ .
! 'Matthews !

Marry Oaks 119 2 H 3400

Ki ciwood ■ '

Mc p.tcl ci i t 217 4 4200

N. tioar. 5 an!

153 3 N ' 3800

201 4 s
.

J«evc! 1
On <dale

.....
J

Ô ki.jrst 105 2 W 3400

CaV.l awn 405 9 N 6200

01 dc Prcvit!;:.e 147 3 u 3800

Poji; Reed 3 f,0 3 N 3800

P'w Cuvl 2 'A cj 4 u 4200

Crci ’; t.nn< :< 56 S1



1068a

ADomuN'AL 'i:v.NSiur.Ai:u;

CH ARLOTTI I~M 2C K!iL X B l IK o  BO ARD  OF E D U C A V IO ::
e l e m u r i'Aii’i s c .::?o : s

SCHOOL
NO. STUDENTS TO ' 
RF TRANSPORTED

NO. b;» : .5 
RriqUlHL:)

BUS PARKING 
ARK A

BUS PARKING 
ARK A COST

Rar.a Hoed • 2.44 5 N 4609

Sedgcfiela Elcn\. 164 3 N 3800

Selwyn 188 4 N 4200

Shan rock Car--. 3 135 3 N 3600

Sharon 117 2 N 3400

St amount 234 5 N 4600

S ta tesv ille  Real ■

Steele Creek 119 2 s

ihon.ssbgro 1 8 ' 4 N 4 200

Tryon R ills 328 6 u 56 0 0

Tuck or..' "-.v-s 190 4 N 4 200

Vniver^. i t Per': 550 12 N 7400

V illa  l.’eir.hts 79 7 15 N 8CC0

Westerly Hills 140 3 N 3699

Inorc 71 2 N 3400

Windsor Park 234 5 N 4 6 00

• W interficld 199 4 N 4209
*
Pinewood .

Change in  A tte n d a n c e  Are a 17

1 2 ,4 2 9 269 2.0 0 ,2  00



1069a

[1] This deposition was taken on March 19, 1970, at 
10:15 A.M., in the Map Room of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Education Building, Charlotte, North Carolina.

By consent all objections except as to the form of the 
question are waived and objections will be made and ruled 
on at the time of trial. With the consent of counsel, signa­
ture is wraived.

Appearances :

Plaintiffs—Julius L. Chambers, Esq.
Attorney at Law 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Adam Stein, Esq.
Attorney at Law 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Defendants—Benjamin S. Horack, Esq.
Attorney at Law 
Charlotte, North Carolina

J. D. Morgan, having first been duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. Mr. Morgan, we have an affidavit that you submitted 
to the Court on yesterday or the day before, listing your 
estimates of the number of students who live in the areas 
affected by the February 5th order and who would be pro­
vided transportation. We’d like to examine these figures. 
Do you have a copy of the figures ?

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1070a

[2] Mr. Horack: That’s which pages?
Mr. Chambers: Beginning with item 2.

A. This is it right here, item 2, summary of total number 
of children in school in the entire system who live in dif­
ferent zones under the Court approved plan.

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. I think according to your figures you have estimated 

you’d have 18,460 who would live in the rezoned area and 
of that 9,016 are now being transported and you estimate 
an additional 6,019 would have to be transported. A. That’s 
correct.

Q. And you say that 3,425 would not need to be trans­
ported. A. That’s correct.

Q. We’d like to see how you arrive at these figures. Do 
you have a map that you used in preparing these figures? 
A. Yes, and I believe, Mr. Chambers, the only way I am 
going to be able to do that will be to take the maps and go 
through it as we have listed here in item #2  school by 
school, grid by grid for all of them to show you.

Q. All right, would you do that for us? A. It will take 
us probably, I’d say, a couple hundred hours to do it. It 
took me over three hundred but now that I am this familiar 
with it we might be able to do it.

Q. Do you have your map? [3] A. Yes.
Q. With your grids and your estimates of students in 

those grids ? A. These are the maps here. This is the senior 
high school map, here is the junior high school map here, 
and this is the elementary schools.

Q. Where is your demographic map showing the number 
of pupils in each grid? A. I submitted all three copies of 
those I had colored in color to the Court. However, these

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1071a

are the three maps that we worked from because they are 
a larger scale.

Q. But those maps don’t show the number of pupils in 
each grid. A. I ’ll have to get my printout where I took 
them, apply my templet that we used that I demonstrated 
to you before and apply that on each school and then take 
the grids that we used and then get the number of children 
off of the computer printout on that.

Q. Would you mind letting me see the computer printout, 
whatever it is you used! A. Yes. If you will excuse me a 
minute. We returned it to Dr. Church. (The witness leaves 
the hearing room.) (He returns.) These are the printouts 
right here. This was done in January of this year. So it 
was from these the elementary, the junior high and senior 
high that I worked from.

Q. Now, what do those printouts show! A. It shows the 
number of children grade by grade, grid by grid.

[4] Q. All right. Now, let’s take East Mecklenburg High 
School. Can you find that on the printout! A. Uh huh. 
Here is East Mecklenburg.

Q. Now, according to the estimates that were made by 
your staff under the Court directed plan, East Mecklenburg 
would have 2147 students. A. All right.

Q. I ’d like to know what your printouts show with respect 
to the number of students who would be assigned to East 
Mecklenburg, the total number. A. The total number pres­
ented to the Court shows 2100.

Q. Well, under this exhibit which was in the Finger plan, 
which is what I understand you operated under, you have 
a total of 2147 students assigned to East Mecklenburg. 
Now, will your printout show the total number of students 
who will be assigned to East Mecklenburg! A. Mr. Cham-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1072a,

bers, what I ’ll have to do to get that will be to take all the 
grids in East Mecklenburg off of my map there, come over 
here with the same number here and add all those grids 
together. I’ll have to go to a map and pull off grid by grid 
all in the East Mecklenburg area and come back to this 
map here, this printout here, and take all the grids or any 
portion of those grids and apply that right back down to 
this right here and that should total, when we add them all 
up—this was taken from there and therefore it should add 
to [5] that number of children.

Q. Let’s look at something smaller. We would like to 
add those printouts as exhibits, but let’s look at a small 
elementary school and see how you got your numbers. 
Would you look at the printout for Villa Heights? A. All 
right. You didn’t pick the easiest one.

Q. While you’re doing that, why is part of the Villa 
Heights zone colored and part not colored? A. This indi­
cated that the Villa Heights school was paired with certain 
other schools. That indicates the pairing. Another example 
would be Lincoln Heights is colored this color here because 
it’s paired with Merry Oaks, with Albemarle, with Idlewild. 
So this map indicates the pairing.

Q. Why isn’t all of the Villa Heights school zone colored 
blue? A. Well, this was the map that we started on orig­
inally to prepare for the Court and the attorneys felt this 
was too big and too cumbersome to be handled and managed 
effectively and could we reduce this down in scale to the 
size of a map that we sent in. So we ran a reprint of this 
map, reducing it in half, and when we started that we just 
stopped the fellows wherever they were in completing this 
map to go to work on the other maps and not spend any 
more time on this. The fellows were instructed and that’s 
the only reason I can explain to you.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1073a

Q. Let me ask you a question. Grids 209C, D and 300B, 
this [6] portion above this line colored blue, are these part 
of the Villa Heights district! A. Yes. This is the Villa 
Heights area. Under the new rezoned plan it would run up 
here like this and I ’ve got a question mark as to why this 
line was run in. I have to go back and check some figures 
to see why that line was placed in here.

Q. You’re saying that grids 298D and C are not part of 
the Highland district! A. Under the . . .

Q. Court order plan. A. No.
Q. All right. A. Because it shows Highland . . .  all right, 

that’s sufficient. You realize you’re asking me to do some­
thing here that was done by someone else that submitted 
this.

Q. That submitted the attachments to the Finger plan? 
A. As far as calculating the total number of children in 
the area that was submitted to the Court previously, I did 
not work on that at all. But you’re asking me to go hack 
and get something that I ’ve got to go back and pull out 
someone else’s work here.

Q. You submitted the affidavit talking about the number 
of pupils who would be . . .  A. I’m talking about the number 
of students in the rezoned area now. You asked me the 
total number of children submitted on [7] that and I only 
worked on the areas that had been rezoned.

Q. You have as an attachment in this affidavit the number 
of pupils who would be provided transportation under the 
Court directed plan, not only dealing with the rezoned areas 
but also with the paired schools. A. In the Villa Heights 
area, rezoning does not apply to Villa Heights. Villa 
Heights is paired and therefore all the children in grades 1 
through 4 at Villa Heights would be transported to the 
schools that they have been paired with.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1074a

Q. How did you determine the number of students who 
are in grades 1 through 4 in the Villa Heights school? A. I 
took the number of children . . .  let me get that, I have 
that figure down in my office. If you’ll excuse me to get 
that. (The witness leaves the hearing room and returns.) 
All right, Mr. Chambers, so you’ll understand Villa Heights, 
if you will look at this document. Total number of students 
for which additional transportation is required by the Court 
ordered plan, and turn to the last sheet on that section. 
It’s the last page of this document starting right here.

Q. I have that. A. All right. Now, if you will look at Villa 
Heights you will see that I have said paired 797, a total 
of 797. All right, that came from information that was sub­
mitted to the Court taken from the computer printout which 
I have right here showing the total.

C8] Q. Wait a minute. Which exhibit are you referring 
to? Is that the attachment to the Finger plan? A. Mr. 
Chambers, I don’t know which. That’s the same you’re 
using there?

Q. That’s right. A. I thought it was, that looked like it.
Q. Yes. A. All right, flip back now to the sheet prior 

to that one.

Mr. Horack: Is there some way that we can 
identify?

Mr. Chambers: We will identify it as Plaintiffs’ 
Morgan March 19th deposition Exhibit A, the Finger 
plan.

A. That is the same figure I worked from there, adding 
those up that is paired and that gives you the 797 that 
will be transported to the schools with whom they are 
paired.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1075a

Q. What you are saying, then, is that you didn’t really 
go and count the grids in Villa Heights. A. No. It was 
done on that submitted to the Court.

Q. You just took the numbers that were shown in the 
Finger plan, which is now identified as Morgan March 19 
Deposition Exhibit A. A. For the paired schools, yes.

Q. For all of the paired schools you just took the number 
of students from Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A. [9] A. That’s 
correct for all paired schools. Mr. Chambers, let me clear 
up one thing. I took all of that but if you will look at 
this sheet here, however, I was told that it was submitted 
in here that this would also take place right here. So that 
your figures—if you want to add up figures and double­
check me on it—you can find that assigned from areas 
to increase desegregation at Oakhurst, Shamrock Gardens 
and Thomasboro. Now, this was assigned from this so 
when I was doing my computation to figure the total 
number, I took the total number of grades 1 through 4 
and came up with 4,984. Of grades 5 and 6 to be cross- 
bused back to those schools, I took a total of 4,932. To 
that figure the ones from Oakhurst, Shamrock Gardens 
and Thomasboro on there that were assigned to increase 
integregation in those schools. That gave the 10,206 which 
I have on my sheet.

Q. The assignments to Oakhurst and Shamrock Gardens 
and Thomasboro would not be cross-busing. As I read 
it, this is just some black students assigned from inner- 
city to these schools. A. Well, you could refer to that 
as a satellite.

Q. This isn’t cross-busing, is it? A. For those three 
schools, no. It would be a satellite. For my purpose of 
figuring I had to put those 209 to get the total number 
of children. I counted the satellite the same as a paired 
school.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1076a

[10] Q. So you came up with a total of 10,206. Is that 
the rezoning and the pairing? A. No, that’s just the 
paired. In the summary you’ll see here I gave the total 
number of elementary as 10,206 in the paired school. And 
in the rezoned schools I could have counted those 209 in 
this area here but I just kept all the elementary together 
there.

Q. You’re talking about you could have put the black 
kids being bused to Shamrock Gardens and the other two 
in the satellite schools? A. Yes, the 209 could be placed 
there. The important thing to me was that it was 10,206 
that would be transported one way or another. Then we 
come to the rezoned area and we broke the rezoned area 
into the 2,223, giving a total number of elementary children 
to be transported 12,429.

Q. All right. So that’s how you say you arrived at the 
figure for the paired schools, by taking the number that 
is attached or shown in the Finger proposal. Show us 
how you arrived at the number of students in the zoned 
schools. Myers Park is an example. Let’s look at Myers 
Park elementary.

(Off the record by consent at this time.)

A. All right. (Drawing on the map.) In these areas right 
here this would all be . . . .  I wish I had a copy of the 
Court order map with the colored areas. It would make 
it so much faster and easier.

[ I l l  Mr. Horack: May I inquire, I don’t want to 
interrupt our proceedings, if we would go borrow 
from the Court one of those maps so that we can . . .

Mr. Chambers: We have no objection to it. We 
didn’t get a copy of the maps.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1077a

Mr. Horack: Obviously we haven’t got one either. 

A. The Court required three copies.

Mr. Horack: I understand the reason why but 
the fact remains we don’t have one.

A. We sent the Court all three copies. We rushed through 
to get them.

Mr. Chambers: We don’t mind going now to the 
court.

A. Let me check. I had the fellows to fix Dr. Self a copy. 
I said while they’re at it make him a copy. May I check 
and see if he has it? I believe he has a copy of that which 
will help and save all this time in trying to go over them 
again.

(The witness leaves the hearing room and re­
turns.)

Q. We are trying to determine the way they determine 
the number of students in Myers Park Elementary School. 
A. All right. Here we created this legend to make it clear 
for everyone to understand.

Mr. Horack: For the record may we identify we’re 
looking at item 6A which is a map of the atten­
dance areas of the elementary schools, which is a 
[12] colored map submitted to the Court.

A. The Myers Park area under the Court approved plan 
is this area here. We used the crossed hatch to indicate 
the original Myers Park area and the corresponding darker 
green color to show that portion that had been rezoned

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1078a

into Myers Park Elementary School. So that shows ns 
the new area and it was only these children as we applied 
our mile and a half from this school under the amended 
order, it was my understanding that we were only to in­
clude those children that were more than a mile and a half 
from the Meyers Park Elementary School. So we counted 
all of the youngsters in these grids.

Q. You’re talking about the dark colored grids! A. The 
corresponding green color. We counted all of those young­
sters in those grids, checking the mile and a half out to 
make sure those would be eligible. As we indicated in 
the columns here, there were a total of 235 children in 
that area.

Q. Would you show us how you figured the 235? A. 
Four of them are now being transported. We know where 
they are being transported. We took, then, the 153 that 
would be more than a mile and a half from the school and 
there would be 78 in these areas that are less than a mile 
and half from the school.

Q. All right. Now show us, if you don’t mind, how you 
determined there were 153 living more than a mile and a 
half from the school. [13] A. As I demonstrated to you 
before on the big map, we put the templet on it that 
demonstrates those children that live within a mile and a 
half of the school and we counted only those youngsters 
outside that area.

Q. Is this scale here one inch equal 4000 feet! A. This 
is the one of 2000 and this is the one 4000.

Q. Would you point out the grids in the Myers Park 
district that are more than a mile and a half from the 
Myers Park Elementary School? A. Let me get my 
templet to put on that. See, this is the same area that 
I was showing there.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1079a

Mr. Horack: May I inquire, Mr. Chambers, do 
you want him to explain the process or do you want 
him to figure it out?

Mr. Chambers: Both.

Q. I understand that this printout here has the number 
of students in the grids and we would like for him to 
identify the grids so we can look at the printout to see 
the number of kids in the grid. A. That’s right. Let 
me get my templet and put on that.

Mr. Stein: Could you also get a ruler that we 
could use?

A. Yes.
(The witness leaves the hearing room and returns.)
Q. You have attached to the map a circular instrument 

which I understand measure one and one-fourth miles.
[14] A. That would indicated 6000 feet, that’s 3 inches.

Q. I ’m talking about your exhibit attached to the map. 
Does that measure one and one-fourth miles or one and 
one-half miles? A. It measures less than one and a fourth 
mile.

Q. Less than one and one-fourth miles? A. Yes.
Q. Would you identify the grids that are in the Myers 

Park district that are more than one and one-fourth miles 
from the school? A. That is a radius. Now, that is a 
radius of less than one and a fourth miles. It’s not the 
distance we measure the way the road runs to the schools. 
In other words, you have to take the nearest way you can 
drive to the school. Therefore, you can’t take the number 
of children straight down and say that’s less than a mile 
and a half. You have to take the way the road runs, 
the nearest way to get to the school.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1080a

Q. You’re talking about applying a state standard now 
to the Court ordered plan. A. That was my understanding 
of the order we were to follow.

Q. Well, would you identify the grids now that are out­
side this one and one-quarter radius! A. All right.

Q. In the Myers Park District. A. 403—I got 9/10 on 
that; 370D.

[15] What was the first one that you got 9/10 on! A. 
I got more than a mile and a half.

Q. What was the first grid you indicated! A. 403B.
Q. That’s entirely within the circle. A. But you have to 

know the distance it takes to get here, how you would drive.
Q. We have a circle that you say is one and one-fourth 

mile that you say you used to account for the roads and 
you don’t use the circle of one and one-half mile. Now 
you’re saying you include within that— A. We use it as a 
basic guide. We couldn’t just apply that flat and say that 
was it entirely. We had to take our knowledge of where 
the roads run and how you get to the schools.

Q. Mr. Morgan, would you first of all tell us the grids 
that are outside this one and one-fourth mile circle in the 
Myers Park district! A. We have all or practically all 
of 370D.

Q. That’s not all, it’s about 75% of 370D. A. But if you 
will measure the distance on this road and run your car 
the nearest way you get to this school from this point 
right here, down Queens Road, right on down and get into 
the Myers Park School and it will be a mile and a half.

Q. Mr. Morgan, the only grid in the Myers Park district 
outside of the one and one-fourth miles would be 370D!
[16] A. And a portion of 430D.

Q. And a small portion of 430D. A. Yes.
Q. That’s not really 430D, that’s really 456B. Would

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1081a

you come here and look at this grid? Now, this is 456B, 
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And you’ve got a very small portion of 456B? A. 
Yes.

Q. And you’ve got about 75% because I understand this 
orange color here is not in the Myers Park district. A. It 
is.

Q. Why is it orange rather than— A. I explained that 
this coloring was before. See, the new lines run here.

Q. Let’s look at your map. A. It runs all the way up 
here like that.

Q. So you’ve got a portion of 370D. Would you look at 
your printout of the exhibits and tell us how many students 
are shown in 370D? A. And 456B. 456B shows a total of 
7 children.

Q. That’s in the whole grid, is that correct? A. That’s 
in the whole grid.

Q. And we have only a very small portion of that in­
cluded in the Myers Park district. [17] A. There are four 
children in the area, in that particular area.

Q. Let’s look at 370D. A. 370D, there are a total of 181.
Q. Well, let’s see, your printout shows 150. A. No, it 

shows the total, see. You have to take all the children in 
the grid.

Q. A total of 181? A. A total of 181.
Q. How did you figure the percentage in that district 

who would be included in the Myers Park district? A. 
Well, Mr. Harrison ran a calculation on it as we worked 
with it. We worked grid by grid and all of that grid would 
be more than a mile and a half from the school. Further­
more, some portion of these grids, although it’s within the 
circle and within as the crow flies within a distance here, 
nevertheless as the car would have to travel or the child

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1082a

would have to travel by the nearest road to get to the school, 
a portion of those would be within a mile and a half.

Q. Well, do you have a map of the present Myers Park 
district? A. I believe the old line of Myers Park ran 
something like this. You can see right here, here’s the old 
line, right here up like this.

Q. How did those students who were living in grid 
370C get to school? Grid 370C is in the present Myers 
Park district, is that correct? [18] A. Yes.

Q. And according to your circle there, they are more 
than a mile and a half from school. A. That’s correct.

Q. How do they get to school now? A. As all the chil­
dren in the inner-city now get to school.

Q. How is that? A. All of them in the city, whether they 
are a mile and a half or five miles, they walk to school.

Q. Would the kids in the new district 370D be any fur­
ther from school than the bids in 370C? A. But our order 
was that transportation shall be provided for all children 
rezoned who are more than a mile and a half. That was my 
understanding of the order.

Q. Well, you say presently the kids in 370C walk to school. 
A. I don’t know, Mr. Chambers, how they get there.

Q. Do you have a bus, do you provide public transporta­
tion? A. No, we do not provide it.

Q. Isn’t there a bus from the City Coach line that runs 
out to Myers Park Elementary School? A. I do not know. 
We’re showing, Mr. Chambers, that of those 181 at Meyers 
Park that I mentioned, we’re showing that 153 of them 
would be eligible for transportation. So we only included 
of the total of 335 in this area—let me make the record 
straight in case there is a misunderstanding about it, [19] 
that we took of the total I called off 181 from the printout.

Q. You said there was a total of 181 in that grid. A. We

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1083a

said 153 of them would live beyond this mile and a half 
limit, so I was mistaken in about—

Q. You said your circle really is a mile and a fourth. 
A. As the crow flies, yes, but our experience has indicated 
that you can lay a ruler down or a straight line down and 
measure out that distance and when it actually comes to it 
those children will be a mile and a half or more as the roads 
run.

Q. Well, look at the Shamrock Gardens district. A. All 
right.

Q. You indicate there that 45 are included in the rezoned 
district and that you would have to transport an additional 
45. A. In other words, there are a total—here’s the Sham­
rock area, the original or that portion that remains in it 
or in the area after the lines were redrawn.

Mr. Horack: Identify that by color on the Court 
map submitted to the Court.

A. At Shamrock Gardens the cross hatch in yellow indi­
cates that portion of the attendance area that will remain 
there. The darker corresponding yellow indicates the area 
that has been rezoned to Shamrock Gardens. And at Sham­
rock Gardens we say there are a total in the new area 
rezoned into it, there are a total of 302 children. There 
are 39 of those that are [20] presently transported and 
there will be 45 of them who will live in the rezoned area 
more than a mile and a half from the school. This would 
he the portion of the children that live the fartherest from 
the school. And there would be 218 in the area that would 
he within walking distance of the school.

Q. All right. Now, let’s use your circle again on the 
larger map for Shamrock Gardens and identify the grid

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1804a

that is outside of the circle. A. All right. Eight here, 
applied on the Shamrock Gardens you can see the new 
rezoned area runs under this point here.

Q. Those are grids 299A— A. 299A.
Q. A portion of B. A. A portion of B and a portion 

of C.
Q. It’s not really all of 299A, is it? A. No, it’s a por­

tion of 299A, B and C. 299—that was A?
Q. Yes. A. A portion of A, a portion of B.
Q. And a portion of C. A. And a portion of C.
Q. How many students are in 299A? A. All right. 28.
Q. How many are in 299B ? A. 33.
[21] Q. 299C. A. 102.
Q. You’ve got about one-half of C that’s outside this 

circle. A. All right. Of those 163 in all areas there are 
approximately one-half of them who will require additional 
transportation or they are now being transported to a 
school.

Q. When you have half a grid, what do you do, divide two 
into the total number of students in the grid? A. Yes, if 
we say that there is one-half of it, then there will be 14.

Q. That’s the way you make your determination? A. 
Yes.

Q. If you’ve got one-third, you divide it by one-third? 
A. One-third is one-third, that’s right.

Q. Well, the point is you don’t actually have a house by 
house count of students in each grid. A. Yes, we do.

Q. You do have? A. Yes.
Q. Then you can tell the Court now the number of stu­

dents who live in a certain zone and attend school in an­
other zone since you have a house by house count? A. Yes.

Q. You can tell the Court that now? A. Yes.
[22] Q. It seems that all of the students in 299A, B and

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1085a

C are outside the 1957 city limits. A. Repeat your ques­
tion.

Q. It seems that all of these students in 299 A, B and C 
are outside the 1957 city limits? A. 299A and B, yes, and 
a portion of 299C.

Q. Well, the portion of the students in 299C who live 
according to your circle more than a mile and a half from 
the school would be outside the ’57 city limits. A. That’s 
correct, but they were assigned to a school, Plaza Road 
here, that was less than a mile and a half from their home. 
Although they lived outside the ’57 city limits, they were 
assigned to a school less than a mile and a half from their 
home.

Q. You’re talking about the students in 299C were previ­
ously assigned to Plaza Road? A. That’s correct.

Q. And where were the students in 299A and B assigned? 
A. 299A and B, all right. They were all assigned, all of 
these were assigned to Plaza Road.

Q. Now, where are the 30 students who are now being 
transported residing? A. In 299—in which?

Q. Well, you indicate in your report that 39 of those 
students are already being transported.

[23] Mr. Horack: What school are we talking 
about?

Mr. Chambers: Shamrock Gardens.

A. Yes.
Q. Where do they reside now? A. They reside in either 

299A or B.
Q. And you say they are assigned to the Plaza Road 

Elementary School? A. That’s correct. According to 
these lines here, if I can make out the lines I ’m looking at 
here, that’s correct.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1086a

Q. Would you tell us from your figures there the num­
ber of students you indicate would need transportation, the 
total number in Shamrock Gardensf

Mr. Horack: You mean additional!
Mr. Chambers: No, the total number.

A. The total number adds up to 84. That’s 84 out of the 
total of 163 that have been rezoned into Shamrock. No, 
more than that. Some are within walking distance of Sham­
rock. There have been 302 rezoned into Shamrock Gardens, 
84 of whom have transportation, 45 of them additional 
transportation and 49 of them now being transported.

Q. Would you look at the Billingsville district. A. All 
right.

Q. You indicate a total of 128 additional students to be 
transported. A. That’s correct.

[24] Q. Now look at the Billingsville district. A. Bill­
ingsville is indicated on the map by the remaining portion 
of the original attendance areas indicated in a cross hatched 
blue line. The rezoned area to it is indicated by a cor­
responding solid blue color.

Q. Now, would you use your circle again and tell us 
the grids that are outside the circle! A. All right. A por­
tion of 432C, 458A, 458D, a portion of 458C, and 485B, a 
portion, the majority, practically all of 485B. It would be 
all of 485B and 458A.

Q. All right. Would you check and tell us the number 
of students living in those grids! A. Did anyone take 
them doAvn as I was writing!

Q. Yes. A. That’s 458A, B and a portion of C.

Mr. Horack: Can we get off the record a minute!

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1087a

Mr. Chambers: Yes.

(Off the record by consent at this time.)

A. I come out with a total in just those grids that I called 
out, 432C, 67 pupils; 458A, 46 pupils; 458B, 57 pupils; 458C, 
45 pupils; 485B, 24 pupils; 485A, 69. I show on my report 
272 so I deducted those portions in that, a total of 38 chil­
dren just in those grids alone that would be excluded for 
a part of 458C. If you want me to, I can go back and 
check. I think I ’m in the ball park but—

[25] Mr. Horack: May I suggest that you double 
check the applicable grids! Not that our list wasn’t 
correct hut I got to meddling with your business.

A. I said a portion of 432C, 458A, 458C—that looks like 
all of C. Now, for the record, let me recap my recount. 
342C, 67 pupils; 458A, 46 pupils; 458C, 45 pupils, 458D, 45 
pupils; 485A, 69 pupils; 485B, 24 pupils; 485C, 17 pupils; 
and 485D, 22 pupils.

Q. Would you total those up! A. I wanted to recheck 
before I gave it for the record.

Q. OK. A. There are a total of 335 pupils in those 
grids. Our record shows that 112 of these are now being 
furnished transportation and there will be 128 additional 
students to be transported, totaling 230 out of the 335.

Q. How did you determine that 112 are now being trans­
ported? A. They are now being transported, the vast ma­
jority of those are being transported out of the Pinehurst 
Apartments to Sharon.

Q. Are they the only ones? A. I said a large portion 
of the 112.

Q. Where are the others?

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1088a

(Off the record by consent at this time.)

Mr. Horack: Explain for the record just exactly 
what you said.

[26] A. In explanation of the 112 who are now being trans­
ported, I made the statement that the majority of those 
were coming out of the Pinehurst Apartments. Here is 
where McMullen Creek crosses Providence Eoad and all 
of those apartments are in this new area that has been 
reassigned to Billingsville Elemental^ School.

Q. Grids 485A and B ! A. Pinehurst Apartments are 
all—a portion of them might he in B, yes.

Q. Are there other students—

Mr. Horack: He didn’t explain where those stu­
dents were previously transported.

A. These students in here are presently in the Sharon at­
tendance area and are being transported to Sharon at the 
present time. This was a former county school and this, 
you see, was outside the ’57 city limits.

Q. Are there other students in the rezoned Billingsville 
district who are also being transported besides those in 
the apartments you mentioned! A. There are a few in 
485B and are now being transported to Cotswold and that 
will account for the 112. The 128 I ’m accounting for for 
additional transportation will be all of these children in 
this area that are now within a mile and a half of Cots­
wold Elementary School and are now walking to Cotswold.

[27] Q. You’re talking about grid 458A . . .! A. 432C, 
458A and 458 C and D.

Q. Now, are all of those grids or the areas that you indi­
cate you will provide transportation for for the Billings­
ville School outside the 1957 city limits! A. Yes.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1089a

Q. You have estimated in a previous affidavit that it 
would take an hour and a quarter for the students in the 
paired schools to get to school. A. In my previous state­
ment I stated that it would require a bus route of approxi­
mately two and a half hours a day averaging throughout 
the entire system. You cannot pick out an isolated situation 
and say that that is it, in an area like we were just looking 
at. You have to average it throughout the entire system 
and that’s what we estimate the travel time it would take 
a bus.

Q. Two and a half hours round trip! A. Round trip, yes, 
sir.

Q. You’re talking about to school and then in the after­
noon hack home. A. To school and hack home.

Q. Are you talking about from the time the bus driver 
leaves home until he stops the bus after he unloads the 
students? A. Yes, I am.

Q. You’re talking about the total time. A. I’m talking 
about the total mileage that a bus will have to [28] travel.

Q. From the home of the driver. A. Because our route 
description describes the route from the point where it 
leaves the driver’s home to the last stop where it discharges 
pupils and parks.

Q. Mr. Morgan, why did you give the total time for the 
travel rather than one way trip as you have been doing for 
buses now operating? I show you, for instance, copy of 
the principal’s monthly reports for the period December 1 
to January 7, which is an exhibit that has been introduced. 
I note on that exhibit that in your reporting now you report 
only one way for time. A. Well, for the purpose of figuring 
the total mileage, I just figured the total mileage and total 
travel time. I was not figuring mileage one way and time 
one way. I was taking the round trip and I was using the

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1090a

round trip and the total mileage for that round trip. Our 
state form simply calls for it in this manner, total mileage 
for the route, and then they ask just time required to travel 
one way.

Q. My question is, you have been reporting time for just 
one way. A. Yes.

Q. But in this instance for the Court ordered plan you 
report time round trip. I was just wondering why you 
would report it for the round trip rather than the way you 
have been doing. A. No particular reason other than to 
show the total mileage and [29] the total travel time.

Q. Now, would you look at your map again, the one show­
ing the paired schools. A. Would you like me to put that up?

Q. Yes, if you don’t mind. A. This is the one we submitted 
to the Court.

Mr. Horack: Mr. Chambers, would you again iden­
tify for the record which map it is we’re looking at!

Mr. Chambers: We’re looking at map #1 . The 
map we are looking at is the map showing the paired 
schools as submitted to the Court for the elementary 
schools.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970

Q. This map shows the schools that have been paired 
under the Court ordered plan. It also has a scale of one 
inch for 4000 feet A. That's correct.

Q. AT right. Now. would you take your ruler and let's 
start with the pairs here. How far is Albemarle Road tram 
lineoin Heights ’ A. That's a total of IQHl inches.

Mr. Horack May the record show that the wit- 
UKse is- -caktTTg ins measurements- ss the gqw  5es»



1091a

Q. All right. Now, how far is Idlewild from Lincoln 
Heights? A. Approximately 10 inches.

[30] Q. And how far is Merry Oaks from Lincoln 
Heights? A. Approximately 5%  inches.

Q. How far is Hickory Grove from Tryon Hills? A. 8% 
inches.

Q. How far is Briarwood from Double Oaks? As the 
crow flies, 5% inches.

Q. And Devonshire? A. 7 inches.
Q. We’re talking about as the crow flies. Approximately 

how far is it by route from Briarwood to Double Oaks? 
A. Well, I  estimated this for the average. I  can only tell 
you what we figured the average throughout the entire sys­
tem and not isolating any one particular situation.

Q. Well, you would have to have some figure for all of 
the situations to get an average, wouldn’t you? A. Yes, 
and that was based on our experience and the experience 
we are having with some of the in-city transportation now 
from the driver’s home to pick up the youngsters to carry 
them back to school.

Q. Have you or have you not determined how far Briar­
wood is from Double Oaks? A. The exact mileage as to 
the way the bus would run, this has not been done and will 
not be until the assignments are made and the principals 
run their routes.

Q. How did you determine your average? [31] A. Based 
on our experience with the in-city transportation and 
knowing the experience from where the drivers live and 
our problems with locating drivers in the proper location.

Q. Well, Mr. Morgan, are we talking about in terms of 
your estimated average the distance from the school to the 
school to which the students are being assigned or the dis-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1092a

tance from the driver’s home around all of the students in 
the particular district and then carrying them over to the 
school! How are you arriving at an estimate? A. There 
are going to he many routes that will he more than the 
thirty miles daily. There will be other routes, of course, 
that will be less than the thirty miles.

Q. How are you determining that? A. Based on our ex­
perience and our operation with our present fleet.

Q. Could you tell us what that experience is so we can 
know what you are using to make that determination? I 
don’t presently see any school there in the clustered schools 
that is more than fifteen miles from the other school or is 
fifteen miles from the other school. A. I have not said from 
school to school that it was fifteen miles. I am saying the 
distance the bus will travel will average thirty miles daily 
or more.

Q. I would like to know how you make that determination. 
A. I didn’t pin it down. When we took the average I didn’t 
pin C32] it down when we just took the elementary schools 
alone. We took into consideration and my testimony was 
for the entire system.

Q. Well, let’s talk about the clustered schools. How did 
you determine an average for the time it would take for 
these buses to make the routes that you would have to go? 
A. Well, I had a principal to check a given situation the 
way his bus would have to go. I also secured information 
from the Transportation Department based on the experi­
ence of routing the buses and where the drivers live that 
it would take that mileage.

Q. Is any of that information written? A. No, sir.
Q. We are trying to find out how you made your deter­

mination and we would like to know, if possible, what you 
are basing your average on.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1093a

Mr. Horack: I believe he already answered that.
Mr. Chambers: He said experience and we’d like 

to know what that experience is.

Q. Is it safe to say, Mr. Morgan, yon really don’t know? 
A. No because I think our experience will prove and when 
the principals actually get the children assigned and work 
out the bus routes and we add them all up, I think you’ll 
find that our figures are fairly accurate.

Q. Well, tell me what the experience is so we’ll know 
what you [33] are making your estimates on. A. Well, 
you’re speaking only of clustered schools and my testimony 
was based on all schools, junior high schools, senior high 
schools and elementary schools.

Q. Well, talk about the senior high and junior high for 
the present purpose. We want to know how you made a 
determination that it would be approximately an hour and 
a quarter for the students to get to school. A. Well, I had 
Mr. Harrison to run several checks on given situations 
and to. . . .

Q. Let’s talk about those checks that Mr. Harrison 
made. Do you have those in writing? A. No, sir, I don’t.

Q. What checks did he make? A. As I say, I had one 
principal to check who is presently having experience at 
Idlewild and the way that it would be necessary for him 
to route his bus from Idlewild school to Lincoln Heights 
school and on the basis of his experience on routing buses, 
I asked him to make a run of that to show what it would 
do. I didn’t pick out necessarily any other school, I just 
took that as one example of a principal who had con­
siderable experience in making and he gave me the way his 
bus would have to run, which would be out Central Avenue 
and up Trade Street, across Trade Street to Beattys Ford 
Road and up Beattys Ford Road and into Lincoln Heights.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1094a

He said that [34] this is the safe way a bus could be routed. 
That was one check I used. Then I asked Mr. Harrison 
to also run a check and to see what several typical situa­
tions would be and to give me an average based on that, 
where drivers lived and where the children lived and the 
best way to get to the school.

Q. What checks did he make? A. He ran some checks 
on schools and I don’t know which schools he ran them 
on. I just asked him to give me what would be a fair 
representation so we would make sure that we were correct 
when we put our figures down.

Q. And you don’t know what he did. A. I don’t know 
the particular schools he used, no.

Q. Is he here? A. No, sir.
Q. Where is Mr. Harrison? A. I suppose he is at the 

Transportation Department or out on some of the routes 
maybe, I don’t know.

Q. What time did the principal from Idlewild tell you 
it would take to get from his school to Lincoln Heights? 
A. Before I answer that, let me say this. In calculating 
the mileage, the speed at which we could go through town, 
we felt that an average of 12 miles an hour was as fast 
as we could travel through town. The principal, when he 
made his check, used his car and did not take a school 
bus and make the run. [35] As I recall, he gave me a 
distance of either 13 or 14 miles one way and that just 
included the distance from his school to the Lincoln Heights 
School. He did not take into consideration where the driver 
would live or how many pupils would have to be picked 
up beyond that point who would live more than a mile 
from Idlewild School who would be going there.

Q. What time did he tell you it would take? A. He said 
he could not judge it by using a car versus a bus.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1095a

Q. He didn’t tell you how long it took him to drive! 
A. No. Just from the school I guess we could multiply 
it out and travel 12 miles an hour. What would 12 miles 
an hour times 13 or 14 miles give you in time!

Q. I thought maybe you had some figures that you were 
using to make your estimates. A. I had on distance but 
not on time because I couldn’t compare a car’s travel time 
with that of a bus.

Q. Now, did Mr. Harrison give you some estimate of 
time! A. His estimate of time was that it would require 
throughout the entire system an hour and a quarter travel 
time on an average for all the routes.

Q. Is that from the bus driver’s home? A. Yes.
Q. Is that picking up students in the neighborhood also? 

A. It’s allowing for picking up some at the farthermost 
point.

Q. Would the time be reduced if you just used the time 
from [36] school to school? . . . .  rather than pickups. 
A. Yes. But by law, if they are more than a mile from 
the bus route we’ve got to route the bus to them. This 
is state law.

Q. If they walk to school as they are doing now? A. 
Well, you’re mixing apples with oranges now. A child 
walks to school if he is less than a mile and a half. How­
ever, the law states that we must route a bus, if he’s trans­
ported to school, it must be routed within one mile of his 
home. So all of those children who are more than a mile 
from the school, the bus must be routed to pick those 
youngsters up.

Q. The only question I’m trying to find out is whether 
you plan to route the buses for the clustered schools from 
school to school or around the area to pick up the students. 
Of course, that will have some bearing, too, on the number

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1096a

of buses you will need. A. Not on the number of buses 
but on the travel time.

Q. Well, would you state whether you have tried to route 
the buses from school to school or some other way! A. 
Depending on what we find to be the safest way to get 
the children to school. If we find that it’s unsafe to congre­
gate 500 children at a school with buses coming in another 
direction in there, it may not be wise to do this and we 
would certainly want to route the buses to provide the 
safest way for the children to get to school.

Q. At present you don’t know how you’re going to route 
the buses. [373 A. Not until the children are assigned 
and the principals can pinpoint where they live and then 
make their runs and set their stops, and so forth.

Q. And you don’t know how much time it would take 
to get the students to school. A. Well, I ’ll state my ori­
ginal estimate. There will be some children that it will 
require an hour and a quarter or more.

Q. Well, now, have you seen the charts that were pre­
pared by the plaintiffs of the time and distance presently 
required for transporting pupils to school! A. No, sir.

Q. Let me show you these charts. This is for the period 
September 5 through October 4, 1967. That was taken 
from your principal’s monthly reports and it shows that 
you have 48 buses now traveling an hour and a half.

Mr. Horack: Does Mr. Morgan understand that 
this chart was prepared by you?

Mr. Chambers: I just said that.

A. Yes, sir. I have not seen it before. But you must 
know the circumstances on the routing of each bus and 
where it runs and how it runs and how many stops it makes.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1097a

what kind of traffic is involved before you can take the 
existing transportation, which the vast majority of it is 
out either in the periphery or the rural area. This is where 
you get averages like this, where they could make better 
time traveling than they can [38] interstate traffic.

Q. We are going to talk about the present inner-city 
transportation hut for the purposes presently we just 
wanted to show from your record what was presently hap­
pening in the city. A. I don’t know.

Q. I see three buses that are traveling four hours a day. 
A. Yes. You have to know the circumstances surrounding 
that before you know what’s taking place on that because 
that is in a section that is isolated. I know of one example 
of a situation that’s isolated around Lake Norman and 
they must travel out into Iredell County and come all the 
way back down in order to get there. That’s hound to be 
an isolated situation.

Q. I understand that one of those buses goes to Garinger 
High School. That is in the city, is it not? A. I would 
have to check the records. Garinger is located on the 
periphery. It’s in the present city but it’s out in the peri­
phery. It’s not in the inner-city.

Q. Is not Eastway Drive that runs by Garinger one of 
the major thoroughfares? A. Yes. But the roads that 
branch off it to run out into the rural area of the county.

Q. Well, I recall some of your testimony in the other 
depositions where you indicated that you have some prob­
lem with student drivers traveling long periods of time 
and your records [39] indicate that the bus going to 
Garinger is driven by a 16-year old student. That’s takes 
three hours and fifty-five minutes to get to school. A. 
How many loads does the bus make?

Q. Three. That students seems to he able to make his

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1098a

route, drive three hours and fifty-five minutes one way 
and get to school. A. I don’t know what his schedule 
is and what his load is. He may miss as many as two 
periods a day.

Q. The average that you have given for transporting 
pupils under the Court ordered plan would be the present 
average the buses are traveling in the system today. 
In fact, it would be les than the present average, would 
it not? A. I have not made that comparison.

Q. Did you not submit an affidavit testifying that your 
present average was an hour and thirty minutes? A. I ’d 
have to check back. I have talked for seven or eight hours. 
I would have to check hack and see.

Q. Is it true that your buses today travel an average 
of an hour and thirty minutes one way? A. I f  that’s what 
I testified, if I testified to that we must have made some 
check to verify it. I don’t recall.

Q. Do they or do they not, if you know? A. I don’t 
know the average other than what you were showing me 
there.

[40] Q. Do you know whether they travel an average of 
47.9 miles a day? A. I’d have to go back, Mr. Chambers, 
and check our records.

Q. Do you have those records available? You’re talking 
about taking your principals’ monthly reports which we 
have already introduced? A. Yes.

Q. Would you take your rule again and let’s complete 
the distance in the paired schools. Would you tell us how 
far your rule shows it is from Huntingtown Farms School 
to Bruns Avenue? A. 9% inches.

Q. How far is Sharon School from Bruns Avenue? A. 
8% inches.

Q. How far is Starmount from Bruns Avenue? A. 9% 
inches.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1099a

Q. How far is Park Boad from Marie Davis?

Mr. Horack: I ’ll object to this, Mr. Chambers. 
The maps are in the record and it’s purely a me­
chanical thing to measure them. All of these schools 
are as the crow flies, the distance indicated by a rule 
extending between any two designated schools. I 
don’t think we need to sit here and have Mr. Morgan 
do all the mechanics of all the ruler measurements.

[41] Mr. Chambers: We’d like to get it in the 
record.

Mr. Horack: It’s already in the record, the maps 
are in the record.

Mr. Chambers: In testimony in the record.

A. Mr. Chambers, in all sincerity let me point out to you 
again and I know you understand that measuring this 
doesn’t tell you anything. It just gives you the distance as 
the crow flies. You have to know the way the roads run and 
actually run the road to get there. It doesn’t tell you any­
thing.

Q. Mr. Morgan, you didn’t really know how far it was 
from one school to another. A. I have not measured the 
distance. I told you that until the routes are established 
and the way the buses run, we will not know that.

Q. Well, we’re trying to get an estimate. A. I can give 
you school by school, of course, as we are doing right here. 
Unless you’re checking my measuring against your meas­
uring to see whether we come out the same. Marie Davis 
to Park Boad 3% inches.

Q. What about Pinewood to Marie Davis? A. 3 2̂ 
inches.

Q. You don’t have an estimate, Mr. Morgan, of how far 
those schools are apart. A. The only estimate I have is

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1100a

what I originally testified as the distance the buses will 
have to run.

[42] Q. You testified that in determining whether to 
provide transportation for students that you used the meas­
urement of one and one-quarter miles. Can’t you do the 
same thing for the schools or would a different rule apply? 
A. Well, as I said, the averaging out of the distances, it 
would average out that, but that scale just tells you that 
point and beyond that point you’d have to actually, as I 
say, measure it on to the end of the attendance area to find 
out the accurate figure.

Q. You mean that a different rule would have to apply 
in determining the distance between the schools than be­
tween the home of the child? A. No. We did this to get 
the number of children who would be transported.

Q. Did you think that was a safe and fairly accurate way 
of determining the number of children, using the measure­
ment of a mile and a quarter? A. Yes.

Q. Why don’t it also determine the distance from school 
to school? A. Repeat that question.

Q. Why wouldn’t your same method for determining the 
distance of the child’s home from the school, namely, the 
mile and a quarter circle that you had, also determine the 
distance from school to school? [43] A. Well, as you move 
out from a relatively small area the roads begin to branch 
out in many directions from that and feed into the main 
roads.

Q. You’re saying that the same rules would not apply, 
is that what you’re saying? A. Pm saying you’d have to 
take each individual bus route into consideration before 
you could.

Q. You have made an estimate of the average on some 
information you say you got from Mr. Harrison and you

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1101a

don’t have any more accurate way of determining the dis­
tance from school to school than what you have given us 
A. No.

Q. Now, moving to your estimated number of buses, I 
take it that you again have estimated the number of stu­
dents who need transportation and divided it by 44. A. 
No, sir.

Q. All right. Would you turn to your estimate of the 
number of buses that would be required!

Mr. Horack: May we get off the record!
Mr. Chambers: Yes.

(Off the record by consent at this time.)

R ecess for L unch

A. Mr. Chambers, for the record I wanted to clarify your 
question so I’ll make clear to you about the ruler. You 
asked me why if I did it with a templet on that why I 
couldn’t do it [44] with the ruler the same way for the 
balance of the area and I stated that as you move into 
the outer area and a bigger circumference the roads run 
out in different directions and spread out further. But 
we use the ruler just as you were using it there to estimate 
mileage but we have found from experience and trying it 
out many, many times in the past that using the distance 
that the ruler will measure as the crow flies—for example, 
we measured one there from Lincoln Heights to Idlewild. 
I believe I stated that that was 10 inches. Now, the method 
which we use to calculate to give us an idea of exactly 
how many we are speaking about—

Q. How many miles? A. Yes. Would be on this map, 
which is a 4000 foot map, a scale of 4000 feet, then that

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1102a

would give you 40,000 feet measuring it that way. We have 
found through experience that by adding 25% to measur­
ing it that way will give you a fairly accurate mileage dis­
tance as the road runs to the school. This comes about 
only through the vast experience we have used in trying 
this method out time and again. I didn’t make that clear 
to you. I wanted to make sure when you asked me could I, 
yes, we can hut you must add 25% to that.

Q. What does that give you? A. That would give you, of 
course, 10,000 more on to that which would give you
50,000 feet.

Q. So all of these schools, then, you could estimate. 
[45] A. From school to school, we can, but beyond that 
point, now, we cannot. There are some other factors that 
have bearing on it.

Q. What other factors! A. If I might use this example 
here when yon measure out to this school here.

Mr. Ho rack: What is that school!

A  I t' s Idle wile, from Lincoln Heights to Idle wild which 
is tie  one we used where we had ten inches for easy ignr- 
rtg purposes. W ien you ngure than you can Lnre tie 

if f nir n w r  fiiirTj m < h i  »fi fmm HifmtliT h r
nur having that experience hr the hraer-nty streets 

with tuts— this ,s the me tutu, we nse :n the JutiytmE areas 
and I  iav? nut ac taxed this same nrhunme and nor had the 
-ante -nrerence it apmnngt ~har rde to ue •nrn»iw rr and. 
to say tinswscHMCty thac x  vouid wors. i«*wdd not 3dr 
n »  wasrc- •sum '.use 1 was nssstirr

%- 3d", le-rm s. wcec m nat nvt-tc, ws wEere tsikisc a 
T S W B K n  XT' 2  'V'TSSSS . . i  '3Se 'T S C tS e U  i r s s  s a d  tSSft*- w  r  

2cjirsa.sr. ats - -"easi... -sou 'wmt ts*S '2s» .jjubu. ass mter

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1103a

one and one-qnarter mile diagram for those. A. Yes, but 
the rezoned areas are areas tied more closely together than 
what we are talking about here and I don’t know the net­
work of roads and all coming across here. But I could 
assume that we could apply it and get it fairly accurate.

[16] Q. The areas you’re crossing are the same areas 
you used for the one and one-quarter mile, aren’t they? 
A. Yes, but I say I have not had the experience of whether 
or not a direct route from Lincoln Heights over here, the 
manner in which it has to be run. I testified before either 
13 or 14 miles. What would this figure out ? If I divide my 
5280 into that, that comes out to 9^2 or close to 10 miles, 
we’ll say. Now, my statement was that the principal gave 
me by car the way he would have to route the bus. That 
came closer to being 13 miles. That would be a principle 
which we’d apply or a method we would apply but you 
never actually know until you get on the ground and run 
it. The other factor that I was pointing out that would be 
different would be this right here. If on a road like this 
at this point here, which is a road that runs by Idlewild 
School, Idlewild Road, there is a child that lives more than 
one mile from this school, then that bus must be routed 
to pick that youngster up and, therefore, the bus driver 
may live at this point but instead of coming to here to pick 
them up, he may have to run the route all the way out here 
to a safe turning around point and turn around to pick 
the youngsters back up that live a mile from this walking 
point here.

Q. Aren’t those children already bused at Idlewild 
School? A. If they are more than a mile and half they 
are, yes. But you were asking me the question could they 
not walk into the [47] school. Your question to me was 
could they not walk into that school and be picked up.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1104a

You’re stating now can these children not ride that same 
bus and ride it into Idlewild and transfer!

Q. Yes. A. Yes. That adds mileage to what that child 
travels. He’s not going to travel from here to here, he’s 
going to travel from here to there to there. I ’m getting at 
total mileages he is going to travel.

Q. The point is that in the Idlewild district the children 
are already being bused to school and you have the same 
compact areas in the inner-city schools that you are pres­
ently operating on and those children are already walking 
to school and I don’t think that any of them are more than 
a mile and a half from the school. A. Then using our 
calculations here, then, you’re just going to transport them 
10 miles farther than now.

Q. I understood that’s what the Court ordered. A. 
That’s what I ’m saying but I thought you were trying to 
get at examples of how children. . . .  I just wanted to make 
sure I cleared it up for you. I was trying to clear it up, at 
least.

Q. Another thing, the 12-mile per hour trip that you 
talked about for the Idlewild School, was that contemplating 
your bus stopping on the route to the school! A. This 
was calculating the overall time. There would be times 
[48] when he would make more than 12 miles an hour. 
There will be times when he will make zero miles per hour 
when he stops. So we figured a fair way to average it out 
would be the 12 miles. This way my opinion. Mr. Harrison 
thinks I am too high. He does not believe it will average 
that but I was of the opinion that we could probably average 
that.

Q. If the bus ran from school to school would it average 
more than 12 miles an hour, instead of stopping! A. A 
bus can certainly average more when it travels straight

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1105a

non-stop but remember the stop lights in the city is going 
to slow you down.

Q. I understand but you have an overall average of 
12 miles an hour now and you’re stopping to pick up chil­
dren. In addition you’re stopping for stop lights. A. And 
I pressed on this say one time we get him he may not 
average that in here, no. One time you get him out here, 
he can move freely.

Q. We’re talking about 12 miles an hour now on the 
overall trip from wherever he picks up the children to the 
school to which he is carrying them, is that correct! A. 
Yes

Q. And that includes the inner-city traffic. A. That’s 
correct.

Q. And you say that if the hus ran just from the school 
to school without stopping to pick up children that the 
average would [49] he greater than 12 miles an hour! A. 
No.

Q. It would not be! A. No.
Q. Mr. Morgan, maybe you don’t understand the ques­

tion. If you average now 12 miles an hour on your overall 
trip, stopping to pick up children, and you’re going to 
run directly from school to school, are you saying you 
would have the same mileage per hour! A. Let me see 
if I can explain it to you this way. In working to figure 
out this average miles per hour, we made allowance that 
the children in highly compact areas would be able to walk 
into the school there and be picked up and taken on a 
trip without picking up additional children, just the normal 
stops as required by heavy traffic in the inner-city, stop 
lights and intersections and whatever other problem they 
run into, and coming out to this school here.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1106a

Q. That’s Idlewild? A. That’s Idlewild School from 
Lincoln Heights. By the same token, we said that this 
child traveling in the other direction, that the hns must stop 
to pick them up out here and it might be longer going this 
way and what we tried to do is to take throughout every 
school we had and try to get an average which is a dangerous 
thing to do, I realize, but we tried to get an average and 
to make sure we had as accurate an average [50] as we 
could come up with on the travel time and we did take those 
things into consideration when we were computing it.

Q. In computing the 12 miles per hour average did you 
anticipate the bus stopping from Idlewild to Lincoln 
Heights to pick up children?

Mr. Horack: I believe he answered that, that that 
was not as you suggest but an overall average of 
all schools everywhere.

Mr. Chambers: I am asking in that overall average 
is he anticipating the bus stopping on the trip be­
tween Idlewild and Lincoln Heights.

A. No, but I was anticipating it stopping before it got to 
Idlewild.

Q. You testified a moment ago that children who would 
be west of Idlewld who would be living more than a mile 
and a half from the school would have to be picked up and 
transported over to Lincoln Heights. A. A child living 
more than a mile from the school, yes.

Q. West of Idlewild? A. I don’t remember that I testi­
fied west, I meant east. This is east.

Q. Take the child who would be west of Idlewild and is 
more than a mile and a half from school. A. All right. 
Then he must be transported into Idlewild and from his

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1107a

present transportation transferred onto a bus at [51] Idle- 
wild, doubling back over the same route he came, to go to 
Lincoln Heights.

Q. Does your estimate anticipate that or does it antici­
pate the bus going from Idlewild to Lincoln Heights stop­
ping to pick them up? A. I anticipate the average of all 
of them working together.

Q. Was the factor of the bus stopping on the way from 
Idlewild to Lincoln Heights considered in your determina­
tion of 12 miles an hour average? A. Mr. Chambers, what 
I ’m saying is that one time the bus gets its load to here at 
Idlewild, then it would not necessarily be picking up any 
more children on the way to Lincoln Heights.

Q. You did anticipate that in making your average of 12 
miles an hour, the bus stopping? A. The bus would have 
made its stop when it picked up its last child at Idlewild to 
go to Lincoln Heights and would have had its load and, 
therefore, would not be picking up any more children. But 
we might find it advantageous, if we had 36 children on 
this bus at Idlewild, to run this bus by here and stop and 
pick up those children on the way to Lincoln Heights. This 
way the child is going to be involved in the same amount of 
time.

Q. The only question I ’m asking is did you consider that 
in determining that the bus would travel an average of 12 
miles an hour. [52] A. We took all the factors into con­
sideration.

Q. Now, if you eliminated that factor, that is, the bus 
stopping, would your average still be 12 miles an hour? A. 
Let me make sure I understand the question now. You’re 
saying that if the child was brought into Idlewild and 
put on the bus then?

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1108a

Q. Mr. Morgan, in making your average of 12 miles an 
hour, one assumes you talked about the speed limit of the 
bus, the speed limit of the city, that is, to travel 35 or 20 
miles, whatever it is, an hour, the stop lights the bus would 
have to stop at and the distance and what the bus would 
be doing on the route from wherever it was going to where 
it was going. Now, one of those factors that we under­
stood you to say that you considered in determining it 
would run an average of 12 miles an hour over the trip 
was that the bus would stop en route to the school to which 
it was going. A. It could or could not.

Q. Well, we asked if you had anticipated that it would 
and that’s all we’re trying to find out. A. We’re not tuned 
in on this. I’m not tuned in with you.

Q. Well, let’s move to something else. Would you use 
your same 25% addition to the measure of inches on Park 
Road and Marie Davis to get how far those schools are? 
A. We would use the same method on all schools to deter­
mine our estimates until the buses are actually routed and 
the stops [53] set up. I gave that distance.

Q. Marie Davis to Park Road is 3 1/8 inches and what 
was your estimate of the distance between Pinewood and 
Marie Davis? A. We used Park Road, approximately 
three miles.

Q. Let’s turn to your estimate of the number of buses 
that will be required. Before getting into that, Mr. Morgan, 
we want to get these distances in inches between schools 
because we don’t have a copy of the map. We would like 
to get them in the record. A. Mr. Chambers, let me ask 
you this, we will have to make some copies of these maps. 
Well, we can do it here. I was just trying to save some time.

Q. Would you give us the distance between Hidden Valley 
and Druid Hills? A. 3 7/8 inches.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1109a

Q. What is the distance from Beverly Woods to First 
Ward? A. Call it 7% inches.

Q. What is the distance from Lansdowne to First Ward? 
A. 8% inches.

Q. And from Olde Providence to First Ward? A. 11 
inches.

Q. What is the distance from Ellenbrook to Oaklawn? 
A. 5 inches.

Q. And from Paw Creek to Oaklawn? A. 8 inches.
[54] Q. Paw Creek Annex to Oaklawn? A. 7-15/16.
Q. What about Tuckaseegee to Oaklawn? A. 7-1/16 

inches.
Q. What is the distance from Hickory Grove to Tyron 

Hills? A. If something is going to check on this, I want 
to make sure I ’m right. I don’t know if that makes that 
much difference. 8% inches.

Q. What is the distance from Montclaire to University 
Park? A. 10% inches.

Q. What is the distance from Rama Road to University 
Park? A. 10% inches.

Q. What is the distance from Selwyn to Villa Heights? 
A. 6%.

Q. And from Windsor Park to Villa Heights. A. 4%.
Q. From Winterfield to Villa Heights? A. 4-1/2 or 

7/16.
Q. That covers them all. Would you look now at your 

estimate of the number of buses. At East Mecklenburg 
you indicate that you have estimated you have 465 addi­
tional students to transport and that you would need 11 
buses. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, would you tell us how you arrived at this 11? 
A. Yes, sir. For the senior high schools we calculated, as 
we [55] have on all of this, that we use 54-passenger buses.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1110a

Now, this is a figure that we have used standardizing 
throughout the entire system using this size bus. Realizing 
that in some cases we will he able to use a larger capacity 
bus and in other situations it will require a smaller type 
bus. Mr. Dark, in discussing city transportation with us 
some time ago when it appeared that the legislature was 
going to enact a law providing transportation for all, stated 
to us that he felt like in an area such as ours it might be 
wise for us to go to 48 or 36 passenger buses but, neverthe­
less, for our purpose here, we have stuck strictly to the 54- 
passenger capacity bus. Now, a 54-passenger bus has nine 
seats on each side of the bus for a total of eighteen seats. 
Each seat has a span of 39 inches. In our calculations for 
seating adults, which the majority of seniors are adults, 
we figure it takes 18 inches rump space for each child, 
thereby you can only seat 36 senior high school children on 
a 54-passenger bus. For our calculations here for junior 
high schools we used a figure of 40 children per bus, and 
we did this school by school. So, to anwser your question, 
at East Mecklenburg 465 children, we divided 40 into that 
at that school and came up with 11 buses with 25 children 
over. So we said that. . . .

Q. That you’d use 11 buses. A. We’d use 11 buses, yes, 
sir.

Q. Did you consider the buses already operating in that 
school [56] district? According to the principal’s report 
you now have several buses now operating in the East 
Mecklenburg school district. I call your attention to the 
principal’s report beginning November 27, 1969, and end- 
ng January 9, 1970—it shows presently East has one bus 
transporting 44 students. A. The average number trans­
ported daily on the first trip. The first trip is to East and

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1111a

it shows 44, that’s correct. By the same token, it shows it 
transporting only 39 elementary children. You see that?

Q. On the second trip? A. On the second trip, yes.
Q. And 5 more on the third trip. A. Well, this third 

trip I would have to check to see where that bus runs. The 
third trip could very easily be when it makes its second 
trip to Lansdowne that that same bus picks up five drivers 
and this bus runs to East Mecklenburg with the five drivers.

Q. But it shows that it transported 44 high school stu­
dents to East Mecklenburg. A. Yes.

Q. On the first trip. A. On the first trip, that’s correct, 
and, Mr. Chambers, I’d have to know again exactly where 
that bus route is. That’s only 9 miles that it’s running and 
it could he very easy that the last four of those children are 
picked up right close to [57] the mile and a half limit 
which means they’d only have to stand for that short dis­
tance. You’d have to go back and know the route descrip­
tion of this to tell exactly what is taking place.

Q. I understand that hut the fact is that it presently 
transports 44 high school students on the first trip to East 
Mecklenburg and 39 elementary students to Lansdowne 
and five more students on a third trip, is that correct? A. 
The five more would he the system where this bus in this 
compact area from Lansdowne to East Mecklenburg is a 
relatively short distance and the drivers have to get over 
there and we allow a bus to carry the drivers to the school. 
This is the only way we can get drivers.

Q. Here’s a second bus going to East Mecklenburg that 
carries 58 students to high school on the first trip, 33 stu­
dents to Idlewild on the second trip and 4 more students on 
a third trip. A. That’s correct, high school 58.

Q. And 33 to Lansdowne on the second trip? A. That’s 
correct.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1112a

Q. And 4 more on a third trip. A. Right.
Q. Here’s a bus, the driver’s name is Hugh McCrory, that 

carries 32 students to East on a first trip, 38 students to 
Oakhurst on the second trip and 1 student on a third trip, 
is that [58] correct! A. I would assume that the 32 and 
the 38 are correct. If that’s the only bus at Oakhurst, 
then . . .  I don’t know.

Q. It shows further on in the column that the 1 student 
on the third trip goes to East, A. That’s the only bus at 
Oakhurst. That’s the only reason for it.

Q. That bus makes three trips, is that correct! A. If 
you want to call the trip from Oakhurst to East Mecklen­
burg the third trip. It’s officially recorded it runs with no 
children on it.

Q. It’s making a trip from Oakhurst to East. A. It’s 
making a trip from Oakhurst to East to take the driver over 
there and have it serviced as well. That’s the central service 
point.

Q. That’s the third trip the bus makes. A. That’s right.
Q. Here’s another bus driven by Ralph Marett. It carries 

39 students on the first trip to McClintock and 2 students 
to East. Is that correct! A. Yes, two drivers. Two stu­
dents the second trip . . . Mr. Chambers, to know exactly 
on these reports, what they are doing, I ’d have to call the 
principal of East Mecklenburg in to explain this third 
trip and these second trips with 1 or 2 children. All I can 
do is to give you the experience that I [59] have stated 
there that I think those are drivers rather than students.

Q. Well, Mr. Morgan, the records show that you have 
been rather liberal in the number of students the buses 
carry and also the number of trips the bus makes under the 
present system but under the estimates you make here you 
have the bus making one trip and carrying a limited number

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1113a

of students. Will you explain why the difference? A. Run 
that through again.

Q. Your records show now that you permit a bus to 
carry more than your 40 students that you have indicated 
and the bus to make more than the one trip as you indicated 
and under your estimate for the additional buses that 
would he needed you say you’re going to have one bus 
making one trip carrying 40 students. Would you explain 
why the difference? A. By the same token you see one 
bus here carrying 19 children and why the difference there? 
I can’t explain the difference to you without knowing the 
route.

Q. The 19 students are on a second trip, are they not? 
A. First trip.

Q. And how many on the second trip? A. 19. So that 
indicates that we’re not putting them. . . .

Q. They are not going to East, though, are they? A. 
These are smaller children and you can put many more 
elementary children on a bus than senior high school chil­
dren.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970

[60] Mr. Horack: May I ask him a question off 
the record?

Mr. Chambers: Yes.
(Off the record by consent at this time.)

Q. Mr. Morgan, in an affidavit that was submitted by the 
Board from Mr. John W. Harrison, Sr., he attaches the 
explanation for the principals’ monthly bus reports. Would 
you read for the record what column 8 is supposed to 
show? A. Column 8, maximum legal capacity of bus. The 
rated seating capacity of North Carolina public school 
buses is based on minimum standards for school buses



1114a

adopted by the 1964 National Conference on School Trans­
portation. In rating the seating capacity of a school bus, 
it is assumed the bus load will be comprised of pupils in 
grades 1 through 12, having various weights and sizes. 
Under the rating standard each standard 39-inch seat will 
provide seating space for three pupils. The pupils seating 
capacity to a particular school bus may be calculated by 
multiplying the number of bus seats by 3. The State Board 
of Education, under authority granted by statute, permits 
local school authorities to assign to a bus and transport at 
the same time pupils in excess of the bus rated seating 
capacity by 25%. Aisle space in the bus is sufficient to 
provide one and one-half square feet of standing space 
for each pupil standee. Grab handles on top of each seat 
are provided for each standing pupil. The maximum legal 
[61] rated capacity of a school bus may be determined by 
referring to the following table: The table gives the type of 
bus for conventional type buses, for transit type buses. 
Number seats per bus; under conventional type buses panel 
12, 16, 18, 20 and 22; the number seats per bus transit type 
buses, 8, 10, 12, 22, 23, 24, 26; rated pupil seating capacity 
for conventional type bus, 18, 36, 48, 54, 60 and 66; for the 
transit type buses, 20, 25, 30, 66, 73, 72, 78. 25% of rated 
seating capacity conventional type bus, 0 with an asterisk 
saying no standees permitted due to lack of standing space, 
9, 12, 14, 15 and 16; for the transit type buses, 5, 6, 7,16,18, 
18, 19. Rated pupil maximum capacity, conventional type 
buses, 18, 45, 60, 67, 75, 82: for transit type buses. 25, 31, 
37, 82, 91, 90 and 97.

Q. Now. the present state regulations and what appears 
to be the practice as shown by the principals’ month hr re­
ports is that you transport more than 40 senior high school

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1115a

students on a 54-passenger bus, is that correct! A. We’re 
transporting 44 students on a 75 capacity bus.

Q. Now, that 75 capacity is 25 times the seating capacity. 
A. According to those records, whatever it is. I ’ll have 
to go back.

Q. Is that correct! A. I don’t know. The chart for a 
75 conventional bus would have a total of 10 seats on each 
aisle, a total of 20 seats. Is [62] that your question!

Q. As I understood column 8 from what you read, the 
rated maximum capacity would be 25 times the seating 
capacity. A. The rated pupil seating capacity is 60 with 
15 standing.

Q. Column 8 asks for the maximum legal capacity of the 
bus! A. The rated pupil maximum capacity was 25% ; on 
a 54-passenger is 67.

Q. Right. The rated maximum capacity of the bus driven 
by George Johnson to East is 68 and that 68 represents, 
does it not, 25 times the seating capacity on the bus! And in 
that bus you transport to East 58 students. A. This 
chart does not show maximum legal capacity 68.

Q. It shows 67. A. It shows 67.
And it shows on that 67 capacity bus 58 children being 

transported to East Mecklenburg.
Q. And that is your 54 seating capacity bus that you have 

been talking about, is it not! A. That would mean, yes, 
on the seating capacity there would be. . . . That would 
indicate, based on what I have said, of the 36 seated on a 
bus that there must be 22 standing or there are some little 
folks on the bus, one. There are some little seniors on the 
bus where they are able to get three to a seat.

Q. Are you stating that you presently have 22 students 
standing on a bus! [63] A. No. I do not know, Mr. 
Chambers, without seeing the bus, and I don’t know how

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1116a

close . . .  even if this bus is doing this, I don’t maintain 
that is right and is a safe way to transport them.

Q. The fact is that you can carry more than 40 students 
on a 54-passenger bus, more than 40 seniors. A. Yes, you 
can put more than that on but I don’t think it’s a safe thing 
to do. It wouldn’t be necessarily by choice.

Q. I notice that the state rules talk about the rules being 
applicable to all students grades 1 through 12 for the 
seating capacity. A. That’s what the state rules say.

Q. And your practice in the system now shows that’s 
what you’re doing. A. The practice shows that we are 
now . . .  we don’t mix them all up on buses. Those are all 
senior high or elementary or junior high school children.

Q. I understand. The point is that you limited your 
number of students that you would transport on these 
additional buses to 40 and I was curious why you would 
have a different rule for the additional buses than what you 
presently operate under. A. Well, in transporting the 
distance we will be, we think this is the safest way to do 
it.

Q. They are not going to be transported any further than 
they [64] are already transported. A. I don’t know. I 
can’t tell you how many of those are real close to a school. 
There may be 15 standing but they might not stand but 
a mile and a half. We don’t think it’s safe, nor should chil­
dren with books and other gear they have to take back 
and forth to school try to stand on a bus through the 
city of Charlotte.

Q. Are you telling the Court that on the 54-passenger 
bus you can't put 54 senior high school students sittine? 
A. That we cannot seat 54?

Q. Yes. A. No, sir, I don't think we can.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1117a

Q. Well, your rules indicate that you can. A. That’s 
what the rules say but we have to judge it from our actual 
experience.

Q. Your actual experience shows that you’re doing it. 
A. We don’t show we’re seating them.

Q. Now, for East you say you will need 11 more buses 
and I would like to know whether you considered the buses 
that you already have operating there in making that deter­
mination. A. Yes, we did.

Q. All right. Would you tell us what consideration you 
gave to the buses you have operating there now? A. The 
buses that we have operating in the present East Mecklen- 
berg area the area that has been rezoned to Independence, 
[65] those children who are now eligible for transportation 
and are riding to East Mecklenburg would ride those same 
buses to Independence High School.

Q. What about those students who are presently in the 
East Mecklenburg district and will remain in the East 
Mecklenburg district? A. All right. As you can see, the 
present East area runs from this point right here back to 
the school at this point right here.

Q. And the end of the county line. A. And to the end 
of the county line bordering South Mecklenburg and Inde­
pendence. Now, from this area that has been added . 
and the youngsters from the north side are presently being 
transported out here. Now, in estimating or in our computa­
tion of the number of buses needed, none of the children 
. . .  let me check before I say none. There are presently in 
th eEast Mecklenburg area that live in a rezoned area 
would continue transportation wherever they’re going, but 
we’re interested, I gather, in the 465 children that have 
been rezoned into East Mecklenburg. Based on our buses 
that are now operating out of this area, it would require

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1118a

the 11 new buses to handle the youngsters that have been 
rezoned into it.

Q. Mr. Morgan, did you consider in arriving at that 
estimate utilizing these same buses to pick up these stu­
dents in the northern part of the school district? [66] A. 
We can’t do it.

Q. Could you tell us why you couldn’t? A. Because the 
loads they are presently making into the schools.

Q. Well, do you know how many buses you have operating 
the East Mecklenburg area that live in a rezoned area 
Chambers, but I don’t know where. The reason you couldn’t 
tell it from this is because there are other buses serving 
East that are going to other elementary schools or junior 
high schools, making other trips, and we cannot utilize 
those buses for making more trips than they are now mak­
ing. Our overall record is that our buses are now making 
1.8 trips and to add any more trips on to these buses would 
mean that the drivers would have to make their same trips 
and add other trips on top of that.

Q. You, in effect, excluded any possibility of the buses 
now operating transporting students added on the rezoned 
areas. A. We feel like the ones we are now operating are 
operating at capacity, making as many trips as we can 
get out of them.

Q. Even the ones carrying 19 to Cotswold? A. It’s 
making two trips, I believe.

Q. Yes. A. The time element.
Q. It says here that it travels one hour one way and your 

buses going to East travel one hour and thirty-five minutes. 
A. Mr. Chambers, let me see what you’re getting at. I 
don’t [67] know what you’re getting at.

Q. Your bus carrying 19 students to Cotswold travels one 
hour. A. All right. You’re talking about John Marett.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1119a

Q. Yes. A. It’s making two trips.
Q. That’s correct, and it takes him one hour. A. And 

it takes him one hour to make those two trips. Now remem­
ber this, this is in a very compact area. Cotswold is a very 
small area.

Q. I understand, but it also says he travels 13.6 miles on 
the first trip, 23.5 on the second trip and he does both trips 
in an hour. A. He is traveling 6-3/10 miles. I remember 
now. This is the total mileage. So that is 6 miles and let’s 
just say 6 and 12, that’s 18 miles.

Q. That he travels in one hour. A. That he travels in 
one hour.

Q. And your estimates in the compacted area for the 
additional buses is one and a quarter hours for 12 or 13 
miles. A. That’s correct. And again you’d have to know 
the area and know what problems they have along the bus 
route and how many stops they have to make to pick those 
19 children up.

Q. I understand. This is the same kind of compact area 
that you say the buses at the paired school district would be 
traveling. [68] A. Some of them yes, not all of them.

Q. This bus traveling one hour, the one driven by John 
Marett, and it makes the two trips and the bus makes three 
trips at East which you say you couldn’t utilize for the 
additional students travel one hour and thirty-five minutes, 
is that correct? A. The one transporting the 44 children, 
the time required to make those two trips. . . .

Q. Three trips. A. Those three trips is an hour and 
thirty-five minutes.

Q. And that’s the one driven by Harry Stegall? A. Yes.
Q. The one driven by George Johnson makes three trips 

in one hour and thirty-five minutes? A. Yes.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1120a

Q. And the one driven by Hugh McCrory makes three 
trips and it takes one hour and forty-five minutes. A. But 
you’ve got to know the distance on that third trip from 
Idlewild to East Mecklenburg, Mr. Chambers.

Q. Yes, I understand that, Mr. Morgan. The question 
that we had is why you could not utilize the buses that you 
presently have operating in the system to carry the addi­
tional students. A. Well, they’d have to make those trips, 
they make three trips and what you’re proposing to do is 
to add four trips to it and the time schedule is getting them 
to idlewild and East [69] Mecklenburg would mean the 
travel time back from that point all the way back to the 
beginning point and pick these children up and add a fourth 
trip to it.

Q. I’m not talking about adding a fourth trip. The bus 
now operating in the East district would have to make a 
trip around in the northern area, it does that now, is that 
correct? A. I  don’t know where the route is.

Q. You have buses operating in the north. A. We have 
buses operating in the northwest area.

Q. And is there anything that would prevent him from 
going further to cover the whole northern area ’ t. W rit. 
this bus>___

Q. Chi the first " ’ U. A  This bus at LuLewiui mar yonf-e
ayw ftM gt aJfcwt. I m Ie; I m .  9 h n & . Siasc Sfadttoft-
httcg im t here's Id lew ld  ~eno*ti. sre here

v  b taderscsavu "  hi -e iw uirrc ntfmieasc t Ass' 
hfexsieaourx: A fin hi . S: wrist t n n  s- test
a C vc- nssanee T ja c  y  ssfr.vc s  ursi '  < n c
t m  dtest sstsv Ats lit  i t a t  n  m n .

v  Y’e: nis. "«rs nor-a \ Sites r.-c: sac
• !>. auT fi'n tejicog > v-v- rjvnuti "■ —in -:r*2t?r
jovul r̂>\e'' -'tv vivtt. ascr-vr oi tie rrst r*y. A  T£

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1121a

Q. You didn’t consider that in deciding that you would 
need CTO] 11 additional buses for East. A. We considered 
that bus was already making two trips.

Q. You didn’t consider the possibility on the first trip of 
it covering the whole district. A. And we know that it 
already has 44 students on the first trip.

Q. I understand that the rezoned area will cut off some 
of those children. You indicated a moment ago that some of 
the students now attending East will be going to Inde­
pendence. A. We made our adjustments as we went 
through this to make sure we were not duplicating buses. 
I’m trying to say we’re going now just to do away with it. 
All the buses in this area were not necessarily assigned to 
here.

Q. I understand that but we’d like to know what hap­
pened to these students who previously were in the East 
district and now are going to Independence. Why couldn’t 
the bus that was previously picking them up now cover the 
added district? A. Well, the children right here that had 
transportation to East that are now assigned to Garinger. 
You can’t isolate just one situation, you’ve got to take 
what happened to these children in here. The bus you are 
speaking about could very easily have been utilized to haul 
these children in this direction here.

Q. Was it utilized to carry them to Garinger? A. Yes. 
We took every one of the areas.

[71] Q. When you cut off the area previously in East 
and added it to Independence, how many buses did East 
lose? A. I’d have to go back. . . .

Q. Don’t you have some records on that? A. No, sir. I 
don’t. I don’t know what we did. We’ve worked up so many 
figures and so many different times that I don't— As we 
went through it, we made our calculations to make sure 
we were not.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1122a

Q. Are you telling the Court you do not know how many 
buses you would be assigning to Independence? A. Yes, 
we know. I’d have to go back through the records.

Q. Can you show us the records now? A. No, sir, I ’d 
have to go back.

Q. We’d like to see them, Mr. Morgan. A. I ’d be glad 
to do that.

Q. Can we stop now and do it? A. I don’t know whether 
I can dig them up at the moment or not.

Q. Do you know how many additional buses Garinger 
will require, if any? I ’m talking about the rezoning and 
cutting off part of the East district. A. No because we 
tried to utilize those buses and make those calculations as 
we went along.

Q. Can you show us how you utilized them? A. I can get 
the men in here who worked with me on it and we did them 
one by one because I had computations made by more than
[72] one person rather than just me, isolating them out. 
We had two people working on the map and two over here 
taking it down.

Q. We’d like to examine whoever would know. You have 
submitted an affidavit saying yon will need these adcironal 
buses and we‘d Like to hud out. A  Fur also seating on my 
honesty that we worked out to nth:re van: hoses we pres­
ently have in operation.

Ql We'd see the Eposes. 3b-. 3Eecyntt. WaM
to know how many of nose hoses present:" n joeradon 
are going ~o he used. o'mid you so • \ s  re ssantn.- v > r  
you ttclhsed an sxrstrng inns* A No answer 

%  3 b . 3feqp«fc. ate osil to yeoar a ttM b t afe*
mcer hie Caur nree?e« nan Hast teexsnoarg: vwnt 
havs 2Z-s' sendsnes jBssgre*: v Then* are rr-seouv 
v. • .> sss.cte*; »  SeessNuou sc "he < amt -  it-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1123a

qniring only 7 more students and we’d like to know, if you 
could tell us, why you’re going to need 11 more buses to 
carry the 7 more students. A. Repeat that question for me, 
please, sir.

Q. Read it back.
(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 14 

above.)

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970

Mr. Horack: May we go off the record just a 
moment ?

[73] Mr. Chambers: Yes.

(Off the record by consent at this time.)

A. Mr. Chambers, in the rezoning the Court order instructed, 
as was interpreted to me, that all children that were re­
zoned into a school and lived more than a mile and a half 
from that school would be eligible for transportation. Is 
that correct?

Q. Yes, sir. A. 465 children in the inner city . . .
Q. Let me say only that my interpretation of the order 

is slightly different, but go ahead. A. Well, the number of 
children that we list here to provide additional transporta­
tion for live inside the pre-’57 city limits and therefore have 
never had transportation. Those children were all shifted 
to East. So apparently to balance that off, the youngsters 
who were at East Mecklenburg were shifted to other areas 
so that explains why East Mecklenburg would have the 
same number of children but to promote integration we 
brought these 465 children here out to East Mecklenburg 
who had never had transportation before.

Q. Mr. Morgan, your affidavit submitted to the Court 
shows that you have only 25 students living within the



1124a

radius of a mile and a half of East which means that pres­
ently you are transporting over 2115 students to East Meck­
lenburg. A. All right. It means that there are that many 
children [74] eligible for transportation to East Mecklen­
burg now. To help you understand it, let me show you the 
whole picture. Those children who were taken out of East 
Mecklenburg and were entitled to transportation, we uti­
lized those buses that were being used to East Mecklenburg 
to transport those children to the schools to which they 
were assigned and I used as an example East Mecklenburg 
to here. Now, you want to know where I got Garinger, the 
additional students for Garinger. The Garinger area was 
extended all the way almost to West Charlotte. None of 
these children in here—see, here’s the pre-’57 city limits 
line—none of these children in here have ever had trans­
portation. All of those have been rezoned to the Garinger 
area so we must provide them transportation.

Q. Mr. Morgan, the only thing you’re doing is just shift­
ing some students from one school to another and you indi­
cated you were going to utilize some of the buses from East 
in transporting students to Independence. Now, how many 
buses are you going to utilize that are presently in existence 
for transporting students to Independence that were previ­
ously assigned to East? A. This is what I ’m saying, I ’d 
have to go back and count the grids and these buses in here.

Q. Would you stay at the map a moment and let me call 
to your attention that at Independence you presently have 
1212 students assigned and you assign under the Court 
order 1481. [75] Does that tell you anything about the num­
ber of additional buses that you will need? A. Now you’re 
beginning to tie the whole picture together. See where the 
Independence new line comes? Now you begin to get the 
whole picture. Right here is the Independence line.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1125a

Q. You’re pointing north of Independence! A. I ’m point­
ing north of Independence. Now, as you can see, these 
children have been transported to Independence. These 
will now be transported from right here on the county line 
all the way across the county to center city, West Charlotte.

Q. Those children are already being transported. A. Now, 
those children that are in here are already being trans­
ported and they will be provided transportation there and 
that’s what happens to the children at Independence.

Q. What buses are going to go from East to Indepen­
dence! A. The buses that we presently have in here, we 
took these grids down and estimated how many children 
would be in there and we applied the same principle to 
them going over here as we had previously done.

Q. Mr. Morgan, who helped you determine the number 
of buses or how you would utilize the buses in existence? 
A. To do this, I had a total of 11 people in here. We worked 
675 hours on this to get the figures and to make sure we 
had them right and doublechecking them.

Q. Is there anybody on your staff or who assisted you 
who can [76] tell us now how many buses previously as­
signed to East will be assigned to Independence! A. Yes. 
I ’ll have to go back and dig this out again and bring these 
people in here to help me do the counting and all to show 
you where we did it. But I can assure you it’s there.

Q. We would like to see it, Mr. Morgan. A. You see what 
happened to the children, Mr. Chambers, when you began 
to question me about the balance of children?

Q. No, I can’t. The problem that I have, I don’t see your 
utilization of the buses already in existence. A. Well, it’s 
just because I don’t show it on the chart. The Court didn’t 
call for me to give the number of buses we were using over 
there and, therefore, not calling for that information, I

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1126a

didn’t keep a record. I kept a record only of the Court 
ordered information and that’s why I’m saying I’ll have 
to go back and recalculate now. I’m stating something again 
that we figured the utilization of them at that time to make 
sure we were not having buses standing idle. Now I’ll have 
to go back and figure that because I didn’t keep records. I 
didn’t know I would be called upon to present that infor­
mation. But I can explain to you what happened to the 
children and how we utilized the buses and can show you 
where all of these children have been assigned, for example, 
to West Charlotte.

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Morgan. You indicated a 
moment ago that you had not devised any new bus routes 
under the Court [773 ordered plan. A. No, and the actual 
route descriptions cannot be made until the children are 
assigned, the principal pinpoints where they live and runs 
his bus along those routes.

Q. How can you testify now that you’re utilizing those 
buses when you don’t know where they’re going to run! 
A. We knew how many children were in this area. Look at 
West Charlotte just a minute. To show you how we utilized 
our buses, we said at West Charlotte that there were 1409 
children in the rezoned area for West Charlotte. To show 
you how we utilized our buses, we said that 1135 of them 
are now being transported and thereby we did not add any 
buses to it hut we utilized those same buses that transport 
the 1135 children to transport them all to West Charlotte. 
Now, we did this, we took West Charlotte and we applied 
that same principle of the measurement that I showed you 
to West Charlotte and we took all outside of this area, 
who did not presently have transportation but lived more 
than a mile and a half from the school, and we came up 
for the West Charlotte area that we would have 219 more.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1127a

So we’re saying that we’ll only have to transport 219 addi­
tional children to West Charlotte. What I’m trying to de­
monstrate is that we did utilize those buses and we took 
them out of the numbers.

Q. How many buses do you have assigned to West Char­
lotte? A. Again, that information was not asked for and 
we took the [78] ones that would be going and added five 
buses to West Charlotte to transport those youngsters.

Overnight Eecess 
Friday, March 20,1970:—

Q. Mr. Morgan, yesterday when you were talking about 
how you utilized the present buses in the system you made 
reference to your chart that you submitted in your affidavit 
to the fact that in your column talking about students now 
transported and additional students to transport, I call 
your attention to that chart. Start on East Mecklenburg. 
A. All right. Let’s see, Mr. Chambers, which—

Q. This is the chart showing the children living in dif­
ferent zones under the order directed by the Court. Your 
second column there shows the students living in the new 
zone who are now being transported. Would you tell the 
Court how many you say at East Mecklenburg, for instance, 
4 students are now being transported. How many of your 
existing buses are being utilized to transport these four 
students? A. I do not know.

Q. You say for Garinger that 365 are now being trans­
ported, in the new zones. How many of your existing buses 
are being used to transport these students? A. I don’t 
have those figures. I guess we could go back through the 
monthly reports and pull out the number of buses that are 
being used to transport those children.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1128a

[79] Q. The thing we were interested in, yon indicated 
some buses were being shifted to other schools, etc., and 
you advised the Court that you won’t need bus transporta­
tion for these students because they are now being trans­
ported. We’d like to know how many of your buses are 
being utilized or will be utilized under the plan directed 
by the Court to transport these students. A. Well, those 
that are now being transported that live in a rezoned area 
will be utilized out of the present fleet of buses we now have.

Q. I understand that hut we’d like to know how many 
buses you are saying you will need to transport these 365 
to Garinger. A. That live in a rezoned area to Garinger—

Q. Could you just give us a number? A. No, sir, I 
couldn’t.

Q. You can’t give us a number of any of these schools? 
A. No, sir. I can’t. For the record. Hr. Chambers. I don’t 
know whether toward the end of the meeting that I became 
confused over your question or not as to the number of 
buses running by areas and Fd like to clarify if I did mis­
understand and if I told you wrong I want to correct A  
I was using total numbers of mildren off this rerom that 
are n o w  transrorrah

Mr Hererk Are ymi rymig to r t  hack m the 
same mar *

18' 1 A  Y es. A t m e hose xt me meemsE I  was ;— --rr~—m - 
m show in : 7m  irrsar i s  I  gut ur m rm m g .scour r i&sr 
m ghr iu d  m vrrsk n t the t j -  1 t -js - -  lin g  m e 1m m  t s s  
m ar the m tui number rc m tidfen that had hees sM E @ £  
me Yost Xeekenimrg mss m me In-mreadess- ir*a» we 
wuoid tm lia* me same njse»s 7  ior tae-: mewe.
Tiam"  » »  many beses- see •* n n .  '  -satsd: mat as

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1129a

we went through it we computed. I think this is where I 
was getting off track. All we said was that if we are now 
transporting the 23,000 children on the total number of 
buses we are now using that those buses would be utilized 
not in this area, from East Mecklenburg to Independence, 
from the Independence area to West Charlotte, from the 
East Mecklenburg area to Garinger, and so forth. Now, 
to tell you the exact number of buses in this area, I could 
not because—

Q. Mr. Morgan, you also couldn’t say whether those buses 
in the Independence area, for instance, already being used 
or those you propose to assign could not also be used to 
transport the additional students that are now being added 
to that district. A. Well, the buses that we are now 
utilizing in Independence, in refining it through the year, 
we are utilizing the total number of buses it takes to trans­
port them to Independence. Therefore, I could not assume 
that any more would be available from Independence to 
come pick up additional children [81] without adding more 
trips to those buses now being used.

Q. But your number of students at Independence will 
remain basically the same. A. Yes.

Q. Why will additional buses be needed if you’re going 
to have the same number of students! A. It could be that 
additional buses will be needed here because I do not know 
this yet until the principal actually runs the route in there. 
I could not tell you for this reason, Idlewild School is 
located close to Independence—I mean close to East Meck­
lenburg. If it is located close to East Mecklenburg, then 
on the second run that it makes to the elementary school 
the driver has time to meet his second period class at East. 
He may not have time to meet his class and get back to 
Independence which may be five times as far away. It would 
put him 10 or 15 minutes late to his class.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1130a

Q. But you don’t know that. A. We will not know it 
until the principals actually run it but I can assume that 
it will take more buses to serve this area because of the 
rezoning for it as well as anyone can assume it will take 
less buses.

Q. Would you tell the Court what factors you are using 
to assume more buses? A. The fact that I am saying that 
a bus that now brings the second load to Idlewild Ele­
mentary School and then comes on [82] to East Mecklen­
burg.

Q. You told me that— A. I’m saying where it may take 
more buses. The bus that now runs its first load into East 
Mecklenburg runs a second load and comes into Idlewild. 
When the bus driver unloads the children at Idlewild he is 
real close to East Mecklenburg and can get over there in 
a very short period of time to meet the second period class. 
I ’m saying now, then, in reorganizing this and when the 
principal gets down to it, when they make the first load 
into Independence and the bus has to come back in there 
and make a load into Idlewild, that driver may not have 
time to get all the way around back to Independence as 
he would to get to East Mecklenburg. It could make him, 
I don’t know, 10,15 minutes late or more for his class there 
and, therefore, we wouldn’t have a driver.

Q. Would you state, Mr. Morgan, whether that driver 
now going to East is making two or three trips? A. As 
demonstrated there, if you want to count the third trip, 
the trip where he hauls student drivers only.

Q. Do you call it a third trip in the principal’s monthly 
report? A. You have to account for it some way and they 
have been using this for the entire state. They have no way 
of showing another trip.

Q. Is it accounted for as a third trip? A. It has to be

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1131a

on their reports but we don’t count it as a [823 third trip 
where he’s only hauling drivers.

Q. It’s a third trip according to the report you filed 
with the state. A. Yes and the state can’t adopt a special 
form for us here in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

Q. You call it a second trip going to McClintock after 
he drops the children off at East, is that correct? A. Yes. 
He drops the children off at East and makes another trip, 
a second trip to McClintock.

Q. Isn’t it possible that instead of the bus going now 
directly to East for the first trip that the bus will be routed 
to McClintock and then to Independence? A. All right. 
It could be routed then to Independence and then he has 
to get hack to East Mecklenburg.

Q. The students are assigned to Independence, that’s 
what you were telling us. A. Yes, but the driver may not 
he assigned to Independence. If you’re talking about the 
driver living as close to the school as possible—-

Q. You don’t know where the driver lives. A. No, hut 
we would try to find one as close to the school as possible.

Q. And that’s the extent that you have considered the 
buses now in use for transporting the students in a new 
attendance zone, what you have just described. [84] A. 
Yes. Mr. Chambers, just as I told you about the original 
areas, we won’t actually know because this is going to 
change the whole bus-routing system throughout for our 
existing fleet as well as the newT fleet. This is the entire thing 
that has to be done.

Q. Mr. Morgan, I understand that there are presently 
5000 students transported by City Coach Line in the city 
to and from school each day. A. I believe that was a state­
ment made by Mr. Deaton.

Q. Do you know how many of these students will now be

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1132a

riding school buses rather than city coaches? A. No, I 
do not.

Q. And you don’t know what effect the relief from the 
5000 who might be assigned to school buses will have on 
the system either? A. Repeat that for me.

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 
13 above.)

Mr. Horack: Repeat that again for me.

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 
13 above.)

Mr. Horack: Which system are you talking about ?
Mr. Chambers: City buses.

A. Free transportation provided for youngsters—I do not 
know how many of them would discontinue riding a city 
bus but under the order, whereby no children will be pro­
vided additional transportation in the existing areas, a 
great many [853 of those are now served by the city buses.

Q. I thought you testified yesterday that you don’t know 
exactly where those students lived who rode city buses. 
A. I say I do not, but we know this . . . .  when I say I don’t 
know, I don’t know the exact location, we know in the 
attendance area of that school. Myers Park, for example, 
we know out of the present Myers Park area that so many 
are served now with city buses. Many of them are within 
a mile of the school. I see those buses stopping and getting 
children less than a mile from Myers Park.

Q. Just as an example, what would prevent the City 
Bus Lines from providing service for all the students in 
the Myers Park area? A. I f  they have that capability.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1133a

Q. Well, if you are now providing public transportation 
for some of them, wouldn’t it relieve some of the 5000 now 
riding the city buses? A. I don’t know that it would 
because many of those are less than a mile and a half 
from the school now, riding on the buses.

Q. There’s nothing that would prevent them from con­
tinuing, is there? A. Those less than a mile and a half, 
they have no transportation one way or the other.

Q. Doesn’t the city bus operate in the northern part of 
the Myers Park district? [863 A. I don’t know where 
their buses run.

Q. That’s in the city, isn’t it? A. That’s right.
Q. Doesn’t the city bus operate in the northern part of 

the Garinger School district? A. See, right here is where 
the Myers Park line cuts off. They have no buses in this 
area now serving the Myers Park children and we did not 
include any of these children presently being served by 
those same buses, we didn’t include them in this.

Q. I understand, but the city bus line operates in the 
northern area of the rezoned Garinger district, they 
operate in the northern area of the Myers Park High 
School district, do they not? A. I would assume they do.

Q. And some students now living in the northern area 
of the Myers Park district have opted freedom of choice 
to go to the Myers Park School when you closed Second 
Ward High School. A. You say they did?

Q. I ’m asking if you know that to be true. A. No, I 
don’t.

Q. Well, you didn’t consider that factor, either, in deter­
mining the number of additional buses that would be 
needed. A. I considered only the number of children in 
the rezoned area that would be additional children.

[873 Q. Would you state for the record whether you 
considered the City Coach Lines transportation as a pos-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1134a

sibility for reducing the number of buses that would be 
needed? A. By contract transportation?

Q. By any kind of transportation. A. Yes, we ap­
proached the coach company.

Q. I ’m talking about, Mr. Morgan, in determining whether 
the City Coach will provide all the transportation that 
would be necessary for the Myers Park High School, did 
you or did you not consider that? A. I don’t know.

Q. And you didn’t consider whether City Coach Lines 
would provide some of the transportation in the Garinger 
High School district. A. No, I had no instructions to.

Q. You didn’t consider whether the City Coach Company 
could provide some of the transportation for the students 
now in the West Charlotte High School district, the rezoned 
district? A. No.

Q. Do you know this area here, Mr. Morgan, the area 
north of 85 commonly referred to as Northwood Estates 
area? A. Just off Beattys Ford Road?

Q. Just off Beattys Ford Road. A. Yes.
Q. Do you know that those students are now being trans­

ported to [883 North High School? A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider the reduction in the number of stu­

dents who would be now assigned to West Charlotte and 
less than a mile and a half from West Charlotte? A. Yes, 
because that’s the total number of the children in the 
rezoned area for West Charlotte.

Q. Did you consider their reduction in the number of 
students who would be required transportation? A. Yes.

Q. Will you show us where you considered it? A. Mr. 
Chambers, as far as these youngsters are concerned here 
from North Mecklenburg, there are a number of children 
not just in the Northwood Estates here but in this entire 
area north of Interstate 85 to the new rezoned line. All

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1135a

of these children were assigned in here and we said 
there. . . .

Q. Assigned to West Charlotte? A. Assigned to West 
Charlotte. We’re saying that there are 1135 of them who 
are being transported there.

Q. Who are being transported to West Charlotte? A. 
Who are being transported to North Mecklenburg. See, 
all of these children here in Northwood Estates and all 
of this entire area all the way out here to Interstate 85, 
all those north of Interstate 85, all these are being trans­
ported now to North Mecklenburg and our count gave us 
a total of 55 who [893 would live in the area that is within 
a mile and a half of the rezoned West Charlotte area who 
would not be transported. Now, that’s in the rezoned area 
only, we had 55 children.

Q. Are you saying there are only 55 children from North- 
wood Estates who will not be provided transportation? 
A. In the West Charlotte area.

Q. That’s your estimate of the total number of children 
in that area? A. Yes. Or it could be not in the North- 
wood Estates alone, Mr. Chambers, but it’s all within a 
mile and a half of this school. Some of them could be 
over in this area here.

Q. You’re pointing to an area east of Beattys Ford 
road? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That’s the only reduction in the number of students 
being transported to North who now would be assigned 
to West Charlotte that you counted? A. That’s right, 
yes, sir.

Q. Going again to your estimate of the number of buses 
required, as I understand what you’re testifying to about 
your determination of the number of buses, you would 
take a 54-passenger bus and assign only 40 students to it

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1136a

and yon then divided it into the number of students you 
estimate would need additional transportation. A. Yes, 
sir. And, Mr. Chambers, in addition to that, you called 
my attention to something that I went back last night and
[90] reviewed. Out of the first five months reports you 
had picked out only one situation, bus #17, and. . . .

Q. I thought we talked about three or four buses. A. 
We did but I was using 17 as one in particular that you 
talked to me quite a bit about which showed on the fourth 
month report 58 children on the first trip which went to 
East Mecklenburg. So I went back and looked at each 
one of these and I found that bus 17 the first month of 
school transported only 32, the next month 33, then the 
next month 58, which indicated to me that something was 
going on in the way of increase in enrollment or something 
that brought about an overload on that bus. So I looked 
back and then I came on to the fifth month, which was not 
available at the time I submitted this to the Court, which 
I went back and got also and indicated that same bus is 
transporting for the fifth month 36 and for the sixth 
month 36.

Q. 36 high school students! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you check, Mr. Morgan, the other buses trans­

porting students to East Mecklenburg!

Mr. Horack: Let him finish whatever comments 
he wishes to make on this.

A. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Chambers had 
picked out just one month here where the average number 
of youngsters transported daily was 58, whereas if you 
looked at the entire [91] picture you get a different picture. 
If this bus had an overload, then we came back and made

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1137a

adjustments to that bus in the fifth month and the sixth 
month where only 36 were riding in it.

Q. Let’s look at bus #12. A. I did the same thing 
for bus #12. The first month it had 51, the next month 
it had 48.

Q. What month is this? A. This is the first month.

Mr. Horack: May I ask that we identify, Mr. 
Morgan, you’re referring to the first, second, third, 
fourth, fifth and sixth months. Identify those by 
calendar, months and years, please.

A. These are principals’ monthly bus reports.

Mr. Horack: What month for what year?

A. For the current school year, 69-70 school year.

Mr. Horack: The first month being what, Septem­
ber?

A. September 2 to October 1. During that month bus #12 
transported 51; the second month adjustments were made 
to where it transported 48; the third month it was adjusted 
to where it transported 46; the fourth month 44; the fifth 
month 41 and the sixth month 41. So we are constantly, 
as this county changes and enrollment grows, we are trying 
to balance our buses and you can pick out any month and 
maybe find a bus loaded beyond what we would say is 
desirable to have on a bus. [92] We are constantly work­
ing to reduce this all the way through.

Q. Look at the same page, Mr. Morgan, for the bus 
driven by Chris Nelson. A. That’s the one for Eandolph 
Junior High School.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1138a

Q. Would you read that out for us! A. All right. Now 
bus #37, which is a bus that serves Randolph Junior High 
School. These are junior high school youngsters and this 
is where I indicated on the form that we use that we will 
put more junior high school children on a bus than we will 
on elementary.

Q. And along with that same explanation, did you in­
crease the number in determining the number of buses you 
would need for elementary and junior high schools! A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. What number do you use for elementary! A. We 
worked out a formula to use the same formula all the way 
through senior high school 40, and we said number of stu­
dents 54 to 58.

Q. What do you mean by that! A. In other words, on a 
54 capacity bus, which is a 67 maximum, we stated from 54 
to 58 one bus. In other words, it would take one bus utiliz­
ing 54 to 58 children.

Q. Why did you divide 40 into the numbers! A. That 
was for senior high schools.

Q. What are you using that for now! [93] A. This is 
elementary and junior high school. They are smaller chil­
dren and more children can get on a seat.

Q. Instead of 40 for the junior high schools you used 54! 
A. 54 to 58 for one bus. We worked out how many buses it 
would take if you had that many children. Two buses would 
transport 108 to 116. I did this on a chart form so I could 
look when we were computing this up, that we could look 
over on the report and see school by school the number of 
children you can put on a bus. And then we looked at the 
number of children in the rezoned area assigned to these 
schools and applied this formula against it to arrive at the 
number of buses.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1139a

Q. All right. Now, would you read the number of stu­
dents transported on the bus we are talking about! A. 
All right. On bus #37 there were 68 on the first trip, 52 on 
the second trip.

Q. How many on the third trip! A. The third trip, 
which was to carry drivers only, to get them from the school 
where they stopped to the senior high school, 3 children. So 
that means that there were three drivers from two other 
buses that must have stayed at Randolph that got on there 
to ride on that bus to East Mecklenburg. The second month 
there were 76 and 75. Now, this tells you something because 
it must be a rapidly growing area where the children had 
increased. The third month there were 75 [94] and 68. On 
the fourth month there were 63 and 59; on the fifth month 
there were 70 and 63; and on the sixth month there were 
67 and 59. So as they fluctuate and we try to adjust and 
utilize buses in an area, we try to balance the loads off. 
Of course, we are not always able to do that. Because we’re 
transporting this number, Mr. Chambers, I ’m not saying 
that makes it right. It’s a necessity that we have to live 
with because we don’t have money to buy more buses to 
put on to relieve the loads.

Q. Now, you were talking about high school. I ’ll show 
you the principal’s monthly report for Garinger High 
School for December 1, 1969, to January 9, 1970, the bus 
driven by Jessie Tennent transported 53 children to Garin­
ger Senior High School, is that correct! A. Yes.

Q. The bus driven by George Mahatha transports 30 
children to Garinger High School on the first trip, is that 
correct! A. That’s correct.

Q. The bus driven by Frank Wallace transports 51 stu­
dents to Garinger High School and the bus driven by Jerry

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1140a

Dahl transports 56 students to Garinger High School, is 
that correct! A. That’s correct.

Q. The bus driven by Joe Thompson transported 62 stu­
dents to . . .  61 to Hidden Valley and 30 to Garinger High 
School. A. Yes.

[95] Q. The bus driven by Dean . . . well, another bus 
transports 65 students to Garinger and 38 on a second trip 
to Garinger, is that correct! A. Yes. Now, Mr. Chambers, 
to do that I’d need to get every monthly report and put it 
out in front of me and look and see what’s happened for the 
first month and the second month. I selected one month 
here. It may have been a growing area, there may have 
been changes in it. I just can’t pull out one month.

Q. All of the bus reports that you have given us are of 
record and are before the Court. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, for these additional buses you also have a col­
umn here about the parking areas and you say that in many 
instances you need to make some additional parking facili­
ties for the buses. Do you anticipate under your estimate 
that each of these buses will go on one trip to the one 
school with the number of students indicated and will park 
there all day! A. We state that there will have to be 
space for them to pull into that school and unload whether 
they stay there or not. We still have to have unloading 
space and a safe way to unload the children whether they 
stay at that particular school or not.

Q. Well. I understand that you are transporting "60 
some black students from the inner-city now out to some 
whits schools. [ A 3 What additional space did you provide 
for at those schools, the black schools from which the sen­
d ees are being rransoortee ' A. A.- some of the schools 
we already had spaces avaha'Se tor -hem. A : Sharon, fo r  
exam pie.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1141a

Q. I’m talking about the schools from which these chil­
dren are being transported. Oaklawn Avenue is one ex­
ample, you’re transporting some students from that area. 
Did you provide any additional spaces at that school? I ’m 
talking about for the 764 black students you are now trans­
porting out to white schools. A. At Oaklawn we said that 
the number of buses required there would be 9 and we would 
have to have space available to park the buses.

Q. Are you presently transporting 764 black students 
from the city to the white schools? A. Scattered out to 
various areas, yes.

Q. Didn’t you testify earlier that Oaklawn Avenue was 
one of the streets that you traveled and isn’t it a fact that 
some of the black students being transported now come 
from the Oaklawn School? A. Oaklawn . . . unless they 
exercised freedom of choice to go from majority to minority 
situation, Mr. Chambers, they were not supposed to be 
going from Oaklawn School.

Q. Did you close Fairview School at the end of the 68-69 
school [97] year? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know where the Fairview attendance area was? 
A. I could locate it on the map.

Q. Do you know where the black students who constituted 
the 764 students going into white schools now reside? A. 
I know the attendance area in which they reside.

Q. What attendance areas ? A. Well, Fairview, Bethune, 
Isabella Wyche, Zeb Vance, Alexander Street, elementary 
children.

Q. What about the 73 students who were in overcrowded 
black schools? A. If they exercised a freedom of choice 
to go.

Q. I thought you reported to the Court they had exer­
cised a freedom of choice. A. I don’t know how many of

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1142a

them did. Now, let me say about this, these schools have 
been closed. Now, we’re doing something there we have 
been talking about differently from these other schools. 
We’re talking about all walking in to a point to be picked 
up. We’re running the bus through the area and picking 
them up at key points along the way and making that a 
route as we would for any bus.

Q. Did you make any additional ground preparations? 
A. The schools were closed and we ran the buses through 
the neighborhoods not to do that.

[98] Q. Would you explain how you arrived at an addi­
tional 7000 parking areas space for Garinger High School? 
A. Well, at Garinger Senior High School we are presently 
parking them in drives and so forth, wdiich is not what 
we want and we have not had the money to go to Garinger 
and develop a bus parking lot for these buses.

Q. You’re presently not parking them in areas that you 
tell the Court you need for the new buses? A. We don’t 
have the space prepared for it and we have to park them 
in the streets and what not. As money is available we will 
provide spaces. If I get money to do it with, I ’ll do it.

Q. Are you telling the Court that you are presently park­
ing these buses on the sidewalk and now you tell the Court 
for the additional buses you’ve got to have some parking 
areas? A. We park them on the drives, not the sidewalks.

Q. You can’t park these 11 additional buses you estimate 
you need for Garinger the same way? A. I don’t think so.

Q. Why can’t you? A. Because we already have a num­
ber of buses there already and to add 11 more to the fleet—

Q. How much space do you have there now? A. The 
survey that was made, we actually do not have a bus 
parking lot there now, but we need one and it s been [99] 
recommended we put one there, and haven t had the money 
to do it.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1143a

Q. I understand that but I would like to know, if you 
can tell us, how much space you’ve got there now. A. Land 
is available to convert it to space but we have—

Q. Mr. Morgan, do you understand the question? Could 
you tell us how much space you have there now that you’re 
utilizing for parking? A. We’re utilizing the drives, and 
so forth, to park them in.

Q. You’re saying you’re utilizing all of the drives, is 
that what you’re saying? A. No, we’re utilizing the back 
drives. The front drives, where it was necessary for traf­
fic, student traffic, we keep the buses separated from the 
student traffic altogether.

Q. How much of the hack drives were you using? A. 
How much of it? I’d have to go out and actually see.

Q. You made this report without being able to tell the 
Court presently how much you have. A. I made it on the 
basis of the additional buses we would have there.

Q. Would you tell the Court why you would need 5400 
additional spaces at Myers Park High School?

Mr. Horack: Excuse me, Mr. Chambers, you’re 
reading from that last column. Those are dollars 
not spaces, are they not?

[100] Mr. Chambers: I don’t know.

A. That’s dollars. It would take $5,400.00.
Q. Would you tell the Court what you have to do there 

to spend that amount of money? A. We would have to 
develop a bus parking lot.

Q. Do you have a bus parking lot at Myers Park now? 
A. We do not have a bus parking lot now. They utilize 
the drives around the gymnasium and all at the present

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1144a

time and that’s utilized for city bus transportation which 
we estimate that will still have to be continued because of 
the area we have not provided transportation. They’ll still 
come in there by city bus transportation which by necessity 
will have to be continued since the children in the present 
Myers Park attendance area that’s left in the area will con­
tinue utilizing city transportation because no other trans­
portation is provided for them.

Q. Do you have school buses at Myers Park now? A. I 
believe we have.

Q. And they park in the driveway? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But these new buses can’t park in the driveway? A. 

There are just so many you can park in the driveway.
Q. Can you tell the Court how much parking space you 

have in the driveway now at Myers Park High School? A. 
Well, we have the area from the back of the auditorium 
to the [101] gymnasium where all the city buses line up in 
the afternoon to pick up the children. I have observed those 
buses along the streets.

Q. Can you tell the Court how much space you have now 
at Myers Park that you presently utilize for parking 
buses? A. We estimate that this is for seven additional 
buses there.

Q. But you aren’t talking about the same type of park­
ing space for these additional buses. A. No, sir. We’re 
talking about a safe way of parking them and not just 
parking them on the streets.

Q. You can’t tell the Court how much parking space 
you now have at Myers Park that you utilize for parking. 
A. Only that area I described.

Q. Do you know the square footage? A. No, sir, I 
don’t.

Q. Can you tell the Court why you say you would need

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1145a

to spend $6,600.00 at South Mecklenburg High School? 
A. Yes, sir, because the present area we have will not take 
care of it and you have to expand the present bus parking 
lot.

Q. Do you have a bus parking lot now? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how much square footage you have 

there? A. I can get it off the plans in here. We have it.
Q. May we see it? [102] A. Yes, sir. (The witness leaves 

the hearing room and returns.) Here is the plot plan of 
the school and to give you the square footage I will have to 
measure it off.

Q. Can we make a copy of that, Mr. Morgan? A. Yes, 
sir. I think I can get a copy of it, I ’m sure I can. Would 
you like it?

Q. Yes, please. We’d like to get a copy. A. This demon­
strates, Mr. Chambers, to you how we feel that it’s neces­
sary for the safety of children to arrange bus parking 
areas separate from all other traffic. For the safety of 
children, to load and unload and service the buses and 
parking the buses, this demonstrates what we try to do. 
And I say again we don’t have any space like this that we 
say is safe for children to, for buses to park and it’s a 
desirable way and a safe way and I ’m saying that we’ve 
got to expand South Mecklenburg. You can see right here 
that we have an area where this parking lot will have to 
be expanded to take care of it.

Q. Mr. Morgan, according to the plan directed by the 
Court, South Mecklenburg will have 2247 students, is that 
correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And it presently has 2114, is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. According to the affidavit that you filed with the Court 

only five students live within a mile and a half of South 
[103] Mecklenburg. This is the affidavit you filed with the

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1146a

Court showing the students within a mile and a half and 
students living within two miles. A. That came off of a 
different exhibit, didn’t it?

Q. Yes, sir, that’s the exhibit you filed on March 13. A. 
That’s right, I remember it. South Mecklenburg indicates 
that five children live within . . .

Q. According to your testimony all students living within 
a mile and a half or beyond a mile and a half of South 
Mecklenburg are presently provided transportation. A. 
Transportation is available for them.

Q. Now, would you explain why you’re going to need so 
many more buses at South Mecklenburg when you are al­
ready transporting about all the students in there ? A. Mr. 
Chambers, we are not transporting all of those children 
now. Many of them drive their own cars to school.

Q. Will they stop driving with the new arrangement? 
A. We do not anticipate them stopping. They haven’t exer­
cised it heretofore and we don’t have a reason to believe 
they’ll change their pattern.

Q. Do you anticipate you’re going to need that many more 
buses out of the rezoned area? A. Yes.

Q. You do? A. Yes, sir. May I explain why?
[104] Q. Yes, if you don’t mind. A. We have found that 

in areas that the income of the parents is not as great, 
they exercise the right to ride a bus more than those who 
live in a more affluent area. And so we estimate from that 
based on the experience of those who utilize it when it’s 
provided in an area like that that the children assigned 
to South Mecklenburg from this inner-city area will most 
certainly utilize transportation. This comes from the prin­
cipal of the former Second Ward School and . . .

Q. I'm looking at the map. Mr. Morgan, and it seems like 
■' - - - • .

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1147a

what the new zoned area will be. A. The South Mecklen­
burg area comes, as you can see, and stops off at this point 
here and you’re adding all of this.

Q. You’re adding . . .  A. All of this to it.
Q. Well, let’s specify for the Court. You’re adding 342 

grid C and D, 343 grid C and D, 369 grids A and B, 368A 
and a part of B, 367 B and C and D. A. That’s right, you’re 
correct. It comes on up here.

Q. A part of D? A. All of D.
Q. Part of D is already included. A. Yes, part of D is 

already included.
Q. Well, do you know how many buses you presently have 

at South! [105] A. We’d have to look on the report or I 
can call the Transportation and ask him how many buses.

Mr. Horack: Mr. Chambers, isn’t this the same 
line of questioning which Mr. Morgan has already 
answered and explained in the example that involved 
East Mecklenburg and Independence!

Mr. Chambers: No, it isn’t, Mr. Horack. We’re 
talking about Mr. Morgan’s estimate of the addi­
tional parking space.

Q. Mr. Morgan, I show you a copy of the principals’ 
monthly report for a period December 1, 1969, to January 
9, 1970, and ask you if it does not show the buses serving 
South. A. Well, it shows not only those serving South but 
other schools around South.

Q. Is it prepared by the principal of South Mecklenburg? 
A. That’s correct but, Mr. Chambers, there’s another fac­
tor that enters into this. As the buses come in, they may 
come in and not necessarily terminate at South Mecklen­
burg and stay there. They may go on to another school

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1148a

and they’ll have to unload the children there and space has 
to be provided for them to unload.

Q. Mr. Morgan, I thought you testified earlier that the 
buses that stay at the school are accounted for by the 
principal of the school and that’s why we have the report 
from South Mecklenburg. [106] A. Yes, that’s right, he 
accounts for the ones that stay there but I ’m saying he is 
not accounting for those that pass through.

Q. If he accounts for those that stay there, he would 
show those that are there that require parking space. A. 
Yes, but what he would not show would he the number that 
he must provide a space for to unload and go on for another 
trip.

Q. Well, if there is any other bus that passes South 
Mecklenburg to unload or pick up students, they would he 
shown in the principal’s monthly reports, would they not! 
A. They would show, that’s correct, in the reports. That’s 
right.

Q. And you have given us copies of these monthly reports 
which we have introduced as exhibits. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Turning to your exhibit about the cost . . .

Mr. Horack: What page is that!
Mr. Chambers: It’s not a page. It’s the Court 

Ordered Plan, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Senior 
High Schools, showing capital outlay, cost operation, 
personnel.

Q. Do you have that! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Under capital outlay you’ve got 69 buses which you 

estimate you will need. Are these 54-passenger buses you’re 
talking [107] about! A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you estimate a cost of $5,387.64 each. A. Mr. 
Chambers, this was the contract price this past year. As I

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1149a

indicated in previous testimony that the bids that have 
come in to units in the State of South Carolina and Georgia, 
they have been averaging $400.00 more per bus than this, 
hut I could not testify that will cost us that until the new 
contracts come in.

Q. Do you know that the State Board of Education has 
already received bids for the next school year! A. It was 
my understanding they were going to take bids on the 
27th of March. That was the information I had from the 
Division of Purchase and Contracts in previous correspon­
dence. Have they received them?

Q. Well, I can’t . . .  A. Excuse me, I thought maybe you 
knew something I don’t know.

Mr. Horack: Let’s swear Mr. Chambers.

Q. Under column B you have equipment $1,750.00. Would 
you explain what that is? A. The equipment needed is a 
variety of the different types of equipment that was esti­
mated that would he needed to service these buses such as 
air compressors, small tools, grease guns, and the like of 
that that we would need this additional equipment for ser­
vicing the buses.

[108] Q. You don’t already have such equipment? A. 
We have equipment but it’s used to capacity now.

Q. Now, how did you estimate the cost of $1,750.00? A. 
It was run through at the present cost of each of these 
items.

Q. Do you have any record of what you did to make that 
computation? A. I don’t have it with me. I ’d have to go 
back and dig out where and how we figured that out.

Q. You estimate you need three additional service trucks. 
How did you arrive at that? A. To service the number of

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1150a

buses that will be on the road. We’d have to have the for­
mula we currently use.

Q. What is that formula? A. I believe it is that one 
service truck will service, I believe it will service 20 to 25 
buses. I’m giving you a range here of between 20 and 25.

Q. Is that the state formula? A. That’s the formula 
we found we need here in our system.

Q. For 20 to 25 you need one? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the state formula? A. I don’t know that the 

state has a formula. You know, it varies from county to 
county, the complexity of the situation. You know, we have 
one of the most complex programs in the [109] system here 
that we have in the state.

Q. I understand. You have a gasoline delivery truck. 
What’s your formula for determining the gas delivery 
truck? A. We need one truck for a miniTrmm of 69 and 
when you reach past that, we say when you get over into the 
84 then you've got to have more than one for it.

Q. Well, now, could you tell us your formula, whatever 
it is ? I'm talking about determining the senior high school 
buses. A. Gasoline trucks.

Q. Gasoline trucks, tfaahs right. A. Itr. Chambers, we 
have stated that it would take, for senior high schools, one 
truck to service 69 buses.

Q. So your formula, is that you need one m c k  to service 
69 buses. A  W A L  we nave seated that this one would 
serve it hers. W hat I  wns -r i n g  to get ir  w as in i: n t y ­
ing to work in s  out no show ~oa senior a im  school b y  
tm nor h.gn c u e  i ->m m erar^ school ita r  v -  said mac x  
m a~ b>~. when I rim ed  over -* o  xssoiim- -ruecs —rr  8 - 'oases 

Mae .nnint Vrft rrlm l ,~ihiin -ftnr nor uTilri fiwfiM y  
ins- trwst j n k  i*e»n taes rji some jc ~he o*d Me-her sonar

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1151a

Q. I would just like to know your formula that you worked 
with. A. Well, it was based on the number of gasoline 
trucks that it now takes to serve our present fleet.

Q. How many gasoline trucks do you now have to serv­
ice! A. I ’ll have to go back and get that.

[1103 Q. Do you have that information available! A. 
We used it. I’d have to call and get it.

Q. Could you call now and give us the number of gasoline 
trucks? Also check the service trucks, if you don’t mind. 
A. Is there anything else?

Q. We’d like to know the number of supervisory person­
nel you have and the number of clerical personnel you have.

(The witness leaves the hearing room at this point and 
returns.)

Q. Are you ready to give us the formula for determining 
the service trucks ? A. Yes, sir. You had asked the present 
number we now have. We presently have 12 which we were 
short on servicing our vehicles. We have two on order, 
have been on order for some time and we’re expecting de­
livery soon. So that will give us 14. Taking this 14 into the 
approximately 300 buses we are now operating—this is for 
all programs, the regular school program, Child Develop­
ment Centers—that . . .

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Morgan. How many buses 
do you regularly use for the regular academic program, 
not the special programs? A. I believe I said in the re­
port here that the regular program . . .  I submitted to the 
Court.

Q. Wasn’t it 280? A. It was 284. I believe that’s right.
[ I l l ]  Q. OK. A. But on this formula here of service 

trucks, 14 into the approximately 300 buses would give one

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1152a

service truck for each 21 buses, and I testified that our 
formula ran somewhere 1 for 20 to 25 buses. So currently 
we are using 1 for each 21 buses. We now have five gas 
trucks that are serving the 300. That’s 1 per 60. Now, 
there is one thing, Mr. Chambers, that I think I alluded 
to this and I don’t know whether I made it clear or not. 
For the purpose of the Court, to separate senior and 
junior and elementary, we tried to put down figures here, 
but we do not operate a system for senior high schools 
and a system for junior high schools and a system for 
elementary schools. We tie the whole thing together and 
to get the clear picture of what we did and how we applied 
what we are presently doing against that, we’ll need to take 
all of them for the entire system because we are a central­
ized operation. I ’ll do it any way you want to but it would 
be better for us, I think, to get the overall picture.

Q. How many gasoline trucks do you presently have? 
A. Five.

Q. How many supervisory personnel do you presently 
have? A. We have three and we’re badly understaffed.

Q. You have three? A. Yes.
Q. How many clerical personnel do you presently have? 

[112] A. We have four and we are understaffed again.
Q. And the three supervisory personnel are taking care 

of the 300 buses, or the 284 buses, and your four clerical 
personnel are taking care of your 284 or 300 buses. A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Now, in your cost of operation how did you determine 
the average daily driver salary? A. This I requested Dr. 
Cameron, who is the Controller for the system, to figure 
this out for me, the actual salaries taken, and to give us 
an average salary of our present operation.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1153a

Q. Well, what factors did he consider in arriving at this 
average daily salary? A. The average daily salary was 
taken by taking the total salaries paid to all drivers and 
getting an averag*e for the present fleet of drivers.

Q. Do you pay drivers by the hour? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, let’s see now, you have buses that you recom­

mended for the additional transportation required who 
would be making one trip, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the buses now operating are making two and 
in some instances three trips? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Well, how did you use your present system to deter­
mine the [1133 salary for the additional bus transporta­
tion? A. By taking the average hourly salary times the 
estimated number of hours that we said it would take for 
the fleet to get them there.

Q. Was this estimated number of hours that it would 
take the fleet to get there your one and a quarter hours 
and two and a half hours a day? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you estimated one driver for each bus you told 
the Court you thought you would need? A. Yes.

Q. Now, how did you arrive at your figure for gasoline 
and oil and grease, and so forth? A. That came from our 
current records of operation, taken directly from that, and 
applied on a mileage basis to this.

Q. Is that 15 mile average one way? A. Yes.
Q. How did you determine your mechanics’ salaries? 

A. We based that on the present salary schedule of the 
mechanics.

Q. How many mechanics did you estimate you would 
have? A. Well, again we went back to the number of 
mechanics that we have presently to operate our fleet on 
and applied that same formula just as we did to the 
gasoline trucks and supervisors and so forth, and we also

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1154a

did this; we scattered them out according to the number 
of apprentice mechanics, the number [114] of mechanics 
2 and mechanics 1 we would need. We didn’t put all top 
mechanics in here. We put them on the same basis as 
we have now.

Q. You don’t know how many mechanics you now have! 
A. I ’d have to dig it out from the records.

Q. How did you estimate your repair parts! A. Based 
on our current figures on parts that it takes. We did not 
allow for any increase in parts. We are experiencing any­
where from 3 to 6, 7% increase in the cost of parts and 
tires, and so forth. We did not allow that in there. There 
are a number of factors, Mr. Chambers, and I feel like my 
figures are really conservative and will be low because 
we did not allow for the increase in the cost of these 
items.

Q. Well, did you allow for the fact that these additional 
buses are not going to be traveling like the buses you now 
have in service? A. Yes, we made the allowance for it.

Q. For just making one trip? A. Yes, sir. We based 
it on a mileage basis.

Q. Who made these computations for you! A. I had 
several people working with me.

Q. Would you just explain for the record how you 
allowed for all of these factors in your determination that 
repairs would run $16.56 per day? A. This was based 
on what our current records show that it is [115] costing 
us to operate our present fleet.

Q. What adjustments did you make to allow for the fac­
tors we have been discussing?

Mr. Horack: Would you mind repeating the
factors, Mr. Chambers?

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1155a

Mr. Chambers: The ones we just discussed, Mr. 
Horack. Mr. Morgan said he made allowances for 
all these factors.

A. I didn’t make allowances for the rising cost factors.
Q. You made allowances for the fact that the additional 

buses would he making one trip. A. I said we took it on 
the mileage basis.

Q. What did you do, determine the cost you average now 
to run the buses you now have and use that as a daily 
average? A. Mr. Chambers, look down at tires and tubes. 
We did not make any allowance for tires and tribes the 
first year because we said if we get all new buses it will 
not he necessary to put tires and tubes on them the first 
year hut it is going to be necessary for a certain amount 
of repairs even though it’s a new bus. We experience break­
downs and mechanical failures.

Q. Mr. Morgan, I ’m only trying to find out how you 
determine your average daily repairs. A. Based on our 
current operation.

Q. Average daily cost for repairs today? A. Yes, sir.
[1163 Q. And that is the only factor you considered? A. 

Yes, sir.
Q. I think you testified that you presently have three 

supervisors. How did you estimate you would need one 
supervisor for the high school and three for the junior high 
schools and five for the elementary schools? A. We based 
it upon the work load of the present supervisory staff that 
we now have.

Q. You now have three supervisory personnel servicing 
the 300 buses? A. We now have three supervisors servic­
ing the 300 buses.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1156a

Q. And yon would estimate you would need nine to 
service the 492 buses! A. Yes, sir. I have requested in 
my budget each year for an increase in supervisory person­
nel, that we do not have enough for them; I have requested 
each year that we need more men, that our buses were badly 
lacking in mechanical repairs, our fleet is going down for 
the lack of personnel and if we’re going to add this many 
more to it, our fleet is going to soon get in such a state 
of repair that I would not want to be responsible for the 
operation of these buses unless we get adequate people 
that it will take to do it. We’re treading on dangerous 
ground.

Q. The Board of Education felt that you didn’t quite need 
that many people. [117] A. I don’t know. The money 
wasn’t available.

Q. And the Board of County Commissioners didn’t ap­
propriate funds for it. A. We didn’t get the funds to 
operate on.

Q. How did you determine you would need five addi­
tional clerical personnel! A. Well, we now have four for 
300 buses and we came up with five for the additional 400.

Q. What would these clerical personnel do! A. They 
keep all records of bus reports, of cost, salaries, and all of 
the regular routine work that goes into running the Trans­
portation Department.

Q. They keep records! A. They keep records, yes, sir.
Q. I notice in your elementary schools you say you need 

a bus dispatcher and an assistant bus dispatcher. What is 
a bus dispatcher! A. A bus dispatcher is a person that we 
must have in order to use these buses as they are being 
used for more and more activities and to keep up with the 
fleet of buses that will be operating, in making sure that 
a bus is sent out if there is a breakdown in a bus and it

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1157a

requires a substitute bus somewhere, to get it, or doubling 
a load or whatever we have to do to get the buses to school. 
We must have some of these people in order to look after 
the buses, and to make sure [118] we’ve got them in the 
right place, and so on and so forth.

Q. How many bus dispatchers do you have now! A. We 
don’t have any. We’re utilizing our three people about 14, 
15 hours a day to do this.

Q. You don’t have any assistant bus dispatchers then. 
A. No. I finally got another person added to the staff this 
year who we refer to as a technical person, really in a 
coordinating position to handle just nothing . . .  we use him 
for many more things. He was employed to handle the 
field trips, the special programs that are in effect, the con­
certs, and so on and so forth, and we are finding his duty 
eaten up with other things now rather than doing that which 
we employed him to do.

Q. Like what other things! A. Investigating accidents, 
check routes, working with drivers to keep enough drivers 
on hand, training drivers, and things of this type.

Q. Well, who takes care of arranging for the transporta­
tion of pupils when buses break down now! A. That’s 
done by the person that is available in the office.

Q. Now, you talk about mechanical supervisors for the 
elementary schools. How many mechanical supervisors do 
you have now! A. We have one.

Q. And you estimate you need two! A. Yes, sir.
[119] For the elementary schools! A. Well, again, we 

pulled it out, Mr. Chambers. I’d have to tie the whole fleet 
of buses to it. Just for the purposes here we simply put 
it under elementary and this was just for a system of 
showing. That’s where the largest number of buses are.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1158a

They’d also have to help supervise some of the existing 
of the ones for junior and senior high schools.

Q. Well, what does the mechanical supervisor do? A. He 
occupies the same position as when you go into a garage 
to have your car repaired and you meet the man on the 
line to tell him what is the trouble and he’s the expert who 
can analyze and take down what is wrong and then direct 
mechanics to repair that. If they don’t know what’s wrong, 
they call upon that person to come help them.

Q. Where is your present mechanical supervisor located? 
A. In the bus garage.

Q. How many bus garages do you have ? A. One.
Q. Do you anticipate building another one? A. We are 

needing very badly now to add to our existing plant and we 
had put money in this past bond issue for the expansion of 
this facility but we didn’t get enough money to do it. We 
have had to delay it. We have three men, these three 
supervisors I ’m talking about, occupying three desks in 
a space that’s about 12 by 12.

[120] Q. We’re talking about mechanical supervisors? 
A. Well, I was just illustrating to you our need for space 
and we’d have to also add space to our present plant.

Q. Well, at present you don’t have any funds or any plans 
for building any addition to the garage or building another 
garage. A. One of two things. We can’t continue servicing 
where we are. We have got to either expand in a satellite 
operation or in the present facility. Or, Mr. Chambers, I ’ll 
say this, if we don’t, all I can say is that I ’m deeply con­
cerned and I have expressed this before to the school 
officials, that I’m deeply concerned about continuing our 
present operation as crowded as we are.

Q. I see. Would your answer be yes or no to the question? 
A. That we do not have money to do it with, no, sir.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1159a

Q. You don’t have present plans to do it. A. We have 
plans prepared.

Q. But you haven’t any authorization from the Board to 
do it. A. No, sir.

Mr. Horack: May I make an inquiry ? Are we talk­
ing about plans with reference to your existing fleet?

Mr. Chambers: Yes.
Mr. Horack: You’re talking about the needs of the 

existing fleet.

[121] A. Yes, sir.
Q. What about your personnel manager, how many per­

sonnel managers do you have now? A. None. Just our 
Director is having to look after all of this.

Q. You don’t have any personnel manager now? A. 
No, sir.

Q. What about the driver training supervisor, how many 
do you have now? A. Well, the driver training super­
visor. This is furnished by the Department of Motor 
Vehicles.

Q. You have indicated here you have to pay for it. A. 
I ’m saying we need, in addition to what the State furnishes, 
we’ve got to have one of our own.

Q. How do you know the State won’t furnish this one? 
A. Personnel Manager?

Q. Driver training supervisor. A. Well, in addition to 
. . . excuse me, I ’m off the track there. We need, in addition 
to what the State furnishes, we need another person who 
can work with nothing but training drivers, recruiting 
drivers.

Q. Mr. Morgan, you reported to the Court that you esti­
mate you’d have to have 400 and some buses. Now, we have

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1160a

gone over several instances of additional personnel that 
you told the Court you would need and some of them you 
say you don’t even have such persons now. We’re trying to 
find out what basis [1223 you have for telling the Court 
why you’re going to need a driver training supervisor. 
You told us that the State already furnished that person.

Mr. Horack: He explained that.

A. Well, let me see if I can make it clear. At the present 
time the Department of Motor Vehicles furnishes driver 
trainers but they don’t do the complete job.

Q. As you would like to see it done. A. As it’s got to 
be done to see that these youngsters are properly trained 
and trained on specific pieces of equipment. It may he 
that they will take their training on one type of equipment 
and they may he assigned to a different kind of bus and 
we need a person on our staff who can fill in and substi­
tute for them just as we’re doing now. We’re doubling up 
with the three people we have now.

Q. Have you approached the State about providing 
another one? A. We asked them and they assigned us 
%  of one. This is still not adequate.

Q. You’re saying that because of the additional buses 
you have to have this person or without these buses you 
have to have him! A. And we’re going into. . . .

Q. Would you answer that! A. I ’m saying because of 
the additional buses we’ll have to have them.

[123] Q. Because of the additional buses you have to 
have the driver training supervisor! A. Yes. We’re going 
into something beyond the State operation.

Q. Well, we’re going to come to that. Have you ap­
proached the State about providing this person if you have 
to put the buses into operation, this driver training super-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1161a

visor? A. That is one of the things on that list of activities 
I gave you that I was to do and I haven’t had a chance to.

Q. I see. So this is an item that might be paid for by the 
State? A. The State, Mr. Chambers, as you know, furn­
ished the minimum to any system and the minimum is not 
enough to insure the safe operation of buses in this school 
system.

Q. Are you saying that’s true even today without the 
additional buses? A. Yes, I’m saying it’s true today.

Q. Now, what is this bus route specialist? A. All right. 
This is a person that we need to check bus routes for 
safety, that the buses are running in the safest manner 
possible, that the stops are safe, adjusting routes when it 
becomes necessary, rerouting buses, and working with the 
principals of the schools to make sure that the bus routes 
and the buses are routed in the most efficient manner to 
give the greatest service to the children, working altogether 
with routes. Presently we’ve got men doubling up on it 
and not [124] half-way doing the job. It’s not being checked 
out.

Q. Are you saying you don’t have one now? A. We 
are utilizing people presently to do that that do not have 
the time to do it.

Q. You don’t have a bus route specialist today? A. 
We’ve got really, I think, three of them. They are the 
three supervisory personnel that’s doing all these other 
jobs.

Q. And these additional nine that you’re adding couldn’t 
do that? A. No, sir, I don’t think so.

Q. So you don’t have a person today with the title of 
bus route specialist? A. No, sir.

Q. Now, all of these duties you were just describing you 
said that the bus dispatcher would be doing basically. A.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1162a

The bus dispatcher, I said, would be sending buses where 
you have a bus broken down. He wouldn’t be cheeking 
routes.

Q. I see. Mr. Morgan, have you checked the new atten­
dance zones to determine which one of these zones would 
qualify for state support in terms of providing transporta­
tion? A. No, sir.

Q. And all this money you indicate down here, the zones 
that would qualify for State assistance, you would receive 
the same kind of State support you have been receiving in 
the past. A. Mr. Chambers, it was not in my directions to 
estimate where [1253 the money would come from or who 
would bear any portion of the expense. I was simply di­
rected to get the overall picture and not take into considera­
tion where the money would come from.

Q. Mr. Morgan, you have filed an affidavit and have 
testified this cost would be money that would be paid for 
by the local Board of Education. Now, have you considered, 
again, what portion of these funds that you estimate you 
would need would be paid for by the State? A. May we 
go off the record!

Mr. Chambers: Yes.

(Off the record at this point by consent.)

Mr. Chambers: Bead the last question.

(The Court Beporter reads the question on Line 5 
above.)

A. My answer is no.
Q. Just as an example. Mr. Morgan,, the State uroonSas 

transportation for snnieucs who live mtsnre “he 1957 city 
limits who ittemi schools nrtsroe those limits- or who live

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1163a

in the city and are assigned to schools outside those limits, 
is that correct? A. Under the present law the State fur­
nishes the operational money for the transportation of all 
children who are eligible for transportation outside the ’57 
city limits and for those children that are assigned inside 
the ’57 city limits to schools outside the ’57 city limits. 
Was that your question?

[126] Q. Yes. Just as an example, Tryon Hills is inside 
the city limits of ’57. A. Yes.

Q. And Hickory Grove is outside the city limits. A. 
That’s correct.

Q. Students being transported from Hickory Grove to 
Tryon Hills would receive State assistance. A. I don’t 
know what the present law . . . that letter we got from Dr. 
Phillips and Davis and all that, I don’t know.

Q. Excluding what you understand to he the anti-busing 
law, under the present State law would the students who are 
assigned from Tryon Hills to Hickory Grove be provided 
State transportation? A. I don’t know what the present 
State law is.

Q. Didn’t you just describe, Mr. Morgan, that the stu­
dents who are living inside the ’57 city limits and are as­
signed to school outside those limits are provided State 
transportation? A. Yes, but, Mr. Chambers, you asked 
me under the present law. Until that present law is cleared 
up, I. . . .

Q. We also said exclude what you understand to be the 
anti-busing bill. A. If they applied the present law to this 
situation, yes.

Q. Would the students under the formula you have 
given us a moment ago and excluding any consideration of 
the State [127] anti-busing bill, who reside in Tryon Hills

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1164a

and assigned to Hickory Grove be provided State trans­
portation! A. Yes.

Q. Would the students in Hickory Grove assigned to 
Tryon Hills be provided State transportation? A. Yes.

Q. Would the students in Devonshire and Briarwood who 
are assigned to Double Oaks be provided State transporta­
tion? A. For those children who are eligible for it, yes. 
I don’t know the lines up in here, Mr. Chambers.

Q. Were eligible under this formula you mentioned a 
moment ago, is that what you’re saying? All right, you 
want to talk about Lincoln Heights and Merry Oaks and 
Idlewild and Albemarle Road? A. Yes, right. Now, under 
the present law, excluding what you described . . .

Q. You’re talking about excluding the anti-busing bill? 
A. Yes. The children assigned from Lincoln Heights to 
Albemarle Road and to Idlewild would be eligible for 
transportation. , I |

Q. Under State support? A. Under State support, yes. 
Those assigned to Merry Oaks would not be.

Q. Except those students residing outside the ’57 city 
limits who are in the present Lincoln Heights zone. A. 
Right. And the children assigned from Albemarle Road 
and [128] Idlewild would be eligible for State transporta­
tion. Those children in Merry Oaks that live outside the 
’57 city limits and assigned to Lincoln Heights would be 
eligible, but those inside would not be.

Q. Mr. Morgan, have you determined the number of 
students, the average number of students who are eligible 
for bus transportation but who do not utilize buses for 
getting to and from school? A. Mr. Chambers, under the 
original exhibits that I submitted to the Court I was re­
quested to figure up State transportation, Finger plan; 
State transportation, Board plan; and the same thing with-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1165a

out transportation, but we were figuring that and the game 
has changed so much with me to get up one set of figures 
to present and then come hack to another one, I’d have to 
go back and dig all those out to see who would be eligible. 
We did figure it up one time, those we estimated would be 
eligible by State, but how that would apply to what I have 
done here, rezoning, I’d have to go back and figure that all 
up again.

Q. The only thing I ’m asking you is under your present 
operation what percentage of the students who are eligible 
for transportation take advantage of it. A. I do not know.

Q. Do you have any approximate figure? A. I do know 
this, that there are large numbers of children £1293 that 
are eligible for transportation that if they did exercise 
their right to ride the bus, there would be a considerable 
increase in the numbers riding. For example, you men­
tioned East Mecklenburg. East Mecklenburg has approxi­
mately 2100 children. I believe our reports show that only 
about 600 of them ride the bus. So there are 25, I believe 
we stated, that are in the area eligible—maybe I ’m getting 
tangled with South Mecklenburg here—but, anyway, ap­
proximately 25 eligible in the present area . . . not eligible 
for transportation, excuse me. And of the balance, if we 
use 2100 and take 25 from that and that leaves you 2075, 
only approximately 600 of those children are not exercising 
that right. I use that as an example to show you if all the 
children did exercise the privilege of riding that there 
would be a considerable increase in our present transporta- 
ton under the State law. We find that this will vary from 
area to area. The percentage riding at South Mecklenburg 
will be greater than the ones riding from East Mecklenburg, 
and we can come on to West Mecklenburg and all the 
schools and you would find this to be true. This is where

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1166a

I came at it a minute ago, saying that the children in rural 
areas and other economically deprived areas of our present 
system, that more of those children ride than do youngsters 
in the more affluent areas.

Q. Do you have an average? A. No, sir, I don’t.
[130] Q. Well, if we took the number of students from 

these lists that you have supplied to determine those eligible 
and used your monthly reports to get the average number 
of students who are transported, we can determine the 
average number of students in the system who are eligible 
for transportation hut who provide other means for getting 
to and from school. A. Yes, sir, we’d have to do that with 
the principals school by school in order to get that.

Q. The monthly reports would show that, wouldn’t they? 
A. No.

Q. They don’t show the number of students transported 
each month? A. They show the number of children hut 
they don’t show the number eligible.

Q. I know, hut we can take your list of the pupils in 
the school who are residing within a mile and a half radius 
of the school and subtract that from the total number as­
signed to determine the total number eligible, could we not ? 
A. Yes. On the original 23,384 we took off of the senior 
high schools where we fairly well knew the senior high 
schools, which was the easiest for us to do, and applied 
a percentage to get that 23,384. Otherwise that number 
would have been much larger than the figure I showed. 
We did apply that to the senior high schools because these 
are youngsters who drive to school.

Q. You didn’t apply it to these later figures that you 
submitted [1313 to the Court. A. The rezoned figures, 
no, because it was an entirely different picture then be­
cause you begin to get into areas where youngsters do not 
have the means of furnishing their own transportation.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1167a

Q. Mr. Morgan, isn’t East Mecklenburg and South 
Mecklenburg still there and don’t you still have these same 
exceptions in the East Mecklenburg and the South Meck­
lenburg rezoned attendance areas? A. The areas that are 
presently in East Mecklenburg you’re saying? Mr. Cham­
bers, look here. What I’m saying is you’ll find these chil­
dren down in this area here. . . .

Q. You’re going to the southern part? A. The southern 
part of East Mecklenburg’s area. You’ll find a very high 
percentage of these youngsters riding the bus to school, 
whereas when you get in closer to East Mecklenburg you 
will find youngsters driving to school or parents are drop­
ping them off at school on their way to work. That’s the 
only way I know to explain it.

Q. Well, the point is you did not apply the formula that 
you indicated you used in your earlier reports which con­
sidered students eligible but who did not ride the bus in 
the figures that you submitted to the Court of the number 
of students who would be entitled to bus transportation 
under the Court ordered plan. [132] A. The 23,384 would 
be a much higher figure because from senior high schools 
only we tried to make sure we were trying to use the same 
thing and not inflate the figures. We used those percentages 
—and I ’ll say this—for only those children in the areas I 
described to you. When we begin to move out into areas 
where we knew they used transportation, we applied maybe 
95% of them would ride.

Q. Did you apply any sort of formula like that to the fig­
ures you submitted to the Court on March 17? A. We used 
the same basis for figuring those that we did originally.

Q. You applied the percentage formula? A. Yes, sir.
Q. For East Mecklenburg? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I thought when we went through East Mecklenburg 

the other day to determine that you’d have about 469 who

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1168a

live in the rezoned area, 4 who were now transported and 
465 who would he eligible. A. That’s what I was trying to 
explain to you here. In this rezoned area of East Mecklen­
burg we took these children in this area originally in the 
23,384 and we applied about a 95%. See this area right 
here. In these grids up here we said that approximately 
95% of those children would use transportation in the 
23,384. In this 19,000 figure here that [133] we used, we 
used the same, we went on the same basis.

Q. You applied 95% or 100%? A. 95%.
Q. Would you show me on the affidavit you submitted on 

March 17 where you applied only 95% A. Well. . . .

Mr. Horack: Mr. Chambers, he didn’t say that he 
had said that in his affidavit, I don’t believe.

Mr. Chambers: Well, that’s all I’ve been asking 
him about.

Mr. Horack: He’s explained to you, as I under­
stand, how he arrived at the figures submitted, and 
it was on a school by school experience basis.

Q. Let me ask this question. Mr. Morgan, in the affidavit 
you submitted to the Court did you list as additional stu­
dents to transport 100% of the students eligible in all of 
the areas? A. In the rezoned areas?

Q. Yes, sir.

Mr. Horack: He said 95%.

A. I said we applied the same principles to those that we 
did utilizing the entire area. Down here we may have said 
only 35% would use it down in here.

Q. Let’s take East Mecklenburg and let’s apply your 
formula. We didn’t go through counting the grids but let’s

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1169a

count the [134] grids in East Mecklenburg and use your 
printout chart and see how you applied 95%.

Mr. Horack: I object to this line of questioning, 
Mr. Chambers. Mr. Morgan assuredly is not a statis­
tician and it’s already been represented that he 
worked together with a staff of 11, 12 or more people 
with computers that worked out this data and I don’t 
think it’s fair to put him in the middle of all this 
detailed data when admittedly he is not a statistician 
and require him to come up with a specific figure. 
Therefore, I object to this approach and really 
should have interposed that same objection on some 
of the same matters and techniques when we were 
convened yesterday.

Mr. Chambers: Mr. Horack, Mr. Morgan testified 
that they had determined the number of eligible 
pupils in the rezoned area, those additional ones 
that would be added to the area and had applied 
a formula of 95% of these pupils in the inner-city 
who would take advantage of it and would elect to 
be transported rather than provide their own means 
of transportation. He has also testified that in the 
area nearer to East Mecklenburg that most of those 
students, although eligible, [135] provide their own 
means of transportation and that they had applied 
a formula for those students, too. The only thing 
we asked Mr. Morgan is to show us how he applied 
that formula.

A. The thing, Mr. Chambers, that I ’m having difficulty 
with here is determining those grids that a part of them 
are in the area and I testified that the printout that they

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1170a

have on house by house, or student by student in the grids 
that the school he attends is coded there.

Q. Mr. Morgan, for the 95% formula you indicated you 
were concerned with the inner-city children in the northern 
part of the East Mecklenburg school district. This, I 
thought, would be concerned with the students from grid 
377A north. A. It would also be concerned, Mr. Chambers, 
in inner-city, of the children here.

Q. You’re talking about grid 458A ? A. That portion 
of it.

Q. But you just testified that students in this area 
generally provide their own means of transportation to 
school. A. Well, I didn’t testify that particular area. 
I said in the area as a whole. You’ll have to know the 
particular areas and know where that is in order to know 
whether they do or not.

Q. Do you know that area! A. Yes, sir, it’s just off of 
Sharon Amity.

[136] Q. Isn’t that the section where students generally 
provide their own transportation! A. Off of McAlway 
and those streets in there, not altogether, no, sir.

Q. You testified a moment ago that you had about 2000 
students under the old zone at East Mecklenburg who 
were eligible for transportation and you transport only 
600. A. I believe the records will show that.

Q. And you said that because you were adding the 
northern section of that attendance zone that you thought 
that about 95% of the students would elect to be trans­
ported by public transportation. A. I said of the rezoned 
area to East Mecklenburg. There are other areas in there 
other than these areas that have been rezoned.

Q. I understand that hut you testified that in the area 
immediately northwest of East Mecklenburg that those

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1171a

students generally provide their own transportation. A. I 
didn’t say all of them would.

Q. I understand. We have a figure of one-third of the 
students in the old attendance zone who have elected to 
be transported by public transportation; two-thirds pro­
vide their own means of transportation. A. I ’ll have to 
go back. I came up here with a total of 577 and I have 
here, lived in rezoned area 469; 4 are now being [1373 
transported; 465 that are being rezoned. As I counted 
the area, I didn’t count all the blocks that you mentioned, 
Mr. Chambers, because part of that is already in the 
East Mecklenburg area. See, I didn’t count 377. Here is 
the East Mecklenburg area at the present time so I didn’t 
count that. You said 377, I didn’t count that.

Q. Are 345C, A, and 320 C and A, are these presently 
in the zone! A. Yes, sir . . .  . no, no. And 319B and D.

Q. Mr. Morgan, just looking at the map, you say that, 
600 students are electing to be transported in the old zone 
and you say that most of these students are coming from 
the southeastern part of the zone. A. No, no, I didn’t say 
that. I said that a larger number of children in this south­
east, south of the school will utilize transportation more 
than they will in the area immediately around East Meck­
lenburg and I did not include areas on farther out because 
we have found they use transportation more than those 
that live immediately around the school where the parents 
drive by the school or take them.

Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Morgan. Apparently 
presently only one-third of the students in East Mecklen­
burg who are eligible for transportation elect to ride public 
buses, 600 of 2000.

Mr. Horack: You mean school buses.

Deposition of J . D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1172a

Q. School buses, yes. Is that correct! [138] A. Yes.
Q. In your report that you submitted to the Court on 

March 17 you said that 469 students lived in the rezoned 
area, additional students. A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct! A. Yes.
Q. 469 new students were added to the rezoned area, 

is that correct! A. Yes.
Q. What percentage of those students did you determine 

under the formula that we have talked about under the 
present system would elect to provide their own means 
of transportation? A. All right. 100% because 465 and 
4 makes 469.

Q. So you say you are not applying any percentage 
formula to the affidavit you submitted on March 17. That’s 
all I asked you before. A. I see what you mean now. 
No, I took the number of children.

Q. You used the percentage of 100%? A. Right.

Mr. Chambers: I have no further questions.

By Mr. Horach:

Q. Mr. Morgan, it’s a fact, is it not, that in assembling 
all this data in these two recent submissions in response 
to the Court’s request as contained in the order that I 
believe was [139] dated March 6 you did have a group 
of people working with you to ferret out all this informa­
tion and to check and cross check it, did you not? A. I 
had a total, I believe, of eleven people who worked with 
me in compiling all of the data. Some of those worked 
on the maps for the Court. Others worked with me on the 
counting of the rezoned children and the other data that 
was required.

Q. In your affidavit you gave an estimate of the total

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1173a

amount of man hours that were employed. I ask you what 
that figure was and if that represents all of the time that 
ultimately was used on this project. A. At the time I gave 
you that, Mr. Horack, there were other hours put in after 
that were not included in the hours I gave you. I believe 
I gave you some approximately 600 man hours and I be­
lieve that some of us worked some additional time which 
brought it to about 675, as I recall, total hours, of the 
people who worked with me plus the secretaries who we 
used on various occasions to help us, doing the typing and 
working the reports out.

Q. Would it be fair to describe this as being a very 
laborious process!

Mr. Chambers: I object to that.
Mr. Horack: Well, strike it.

Q. Mr. Morgan, refer to the cover page of item 2. I 
direct your attention to the column entitled now trans­
ported which shows [140] a grand total of 9,016. Would 
you please tell us whether you anticipate the children 
represented by that total figure, that they will travel a 
greater or lesser distance than they are now traveling? 
A. I have stated here that a substantial number of them 
will travel a greater distance.

Q. Would you explain why? A. Well, using the high 
school map. . . .

Q. I direct your attention to the West Charlotte area 
under the Court plan. If you think that would be truly 
representative, please comment on that or if you don’t 
think it will, pick out another one. Pick out whichever 
one you think best illustrates whatever you have to say. 
A. The children here presently being transported to

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1174a

Independence and the children in the area that have been 
rezoned from Garinger to West Charlotte will travel a 
greater distance to school than they would have to . . .  . 
they’ll travel a greater distance farther to West Charlotte 
than they would to Garinger or Independence. Yon can 
see by the map the distance to these two schools and so you 
see they are traveling . . . .  I don’t know how much 
distance—it would have to be calculated—but it’s a con­
siderable distance to West Charlotte.

Mr. Chambers: I object to the word considerable.

Q. What effect, if any, would these greater distances 
have on costs of bus operations and time of students 
traveling! [141] A. Well, it’s additional mileage which, 
of course, is going to take more money for operation.

Q. I direct your attention to the map that was colored 
up and submitted to the Court, map #1, attendance areas 
for elementary schools.

Mr. Chambers: Showing the paired schools?

Q. That’s right, showing the paired schools, and when we 
began our deposition yesterday we were measuring as the 
crow flies with a ruler the various distances between the 
respective paired schools. Comment, if you will, what 
effect of the distance the bus must travel and the distance 
the children must be transported with reference to the 
areas that lie beyond the school, using Olde Providence 
as an example. A. The children in Olde Providence that 
are paired with the youngsters in First Ward, the fifth and 
sixth grade youngsters traveling to First Ward, of course, 
will travel a much greater distance but, by the same token, 
the children in grades 1 through 4 paired with the young-

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1175a

sters in Olde Providence will, by the same token, have to 
be transported much farther.

Q. What I’m asking yon to comment on, using Olde 
Providence Elementary as paired up with First Ward as 
an example, how will it effect the distance traveled for 
those 4th and 5th graders who will be cross-bused to First 
Ward who live in the various southern portions of what is 
shown in brown as the [142] Olde Providence area on 
this map. A. Well, Mr. Horack, it’s the 5th and 6th grade 
youngsters.

Q. Excuse me, 5th and 6th grade youngsters. A. A 5th 
or 6th grade youngsters that is on Highway 51 that’s 
picked up by bus there and travel to Ray Road. . . .

Q. Are you pointing to the more southemly margin? 
A. I’m pointing to the most extreme margin, yes, sir. That 
are picked up on 51 and travel to Olde Providence must 
then travel on the nearest route to get to First Ward.

Q. So that extra distance would be in addition to what­
ever the measured distance is between the two schools, 
two paired schools involved, is that correct? A. Yes.

(Off the record at this point by consent.)

Q. There were certain inner-city children—is that begin­
ning with the 1969-70 school year? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who were transported from the certain inner-city 
schools out to certain outlying schools located predom­
inantly in the wThite suburban area. Would you please 
tell us what your conclusions are from having made that 
study of the number of buses and the distances now being 
traveled by those buses? First of all identify the inner- 
city schools previously attended by those children and the 
schools in the predominantly white areas to which they are

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1176a

now being transported. [143] A. This information came 
from the fourth month bus report for those youngsters 
who were assigned by the Board which was approved by 
the Court for closing and assigned to outlying schools. 
There were a total of 30 buses that traveled for that 
month 1,051 3/10 miles. I divided the 30 buses into that 
to get the average daily mileage per bus.

Q. And what was the daily average per bus? A. 35 
miles daily.

Q. Is that round trip? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So half of that would be a one-way trip and it would 

nVz miles one way, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I  ask you to identify the inner-city schools previously 

attended by these children and also the schools to which 
they are now being transported.

(Off the record at this time by consent.)

Q. I believe I have a list and I would read them off to 
you, Mr. Morgan, and you will simply tell me whether I ’m 
correct or not.

Mr. Chambers: If it was showing the time. . . .

A. I can give the schools from memory and then I ’ll stand 
to check myself.

Q. First of all the inner-city schools. A. The schools 
were Fairview, Bethune, Zeb Vance, Isabella [144] Wyche, 
Alexander Street, Ervin Avenue and Metropolitan Senior 
High School.

Q. To what outlying schools are these children now being 
transported? A. They were assigned to Olde Providence, 
Beverly Woods, Sharon, Selwyn, Park Road, Idlewild.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1177a

Q. By referring to one or more of the maps already 
in evidence, using the same ruler technique employed 
earlier in this deposition yesterday, you could measure 
by a rule as the crow flies the distance between these inner- 
city schools and the outlying schools to which the children 
are now being transported, could you not? A. Yes.

Q. Would such a crow fly rule measurement be indica­
tive of the actual distance traveled by one or more these 
30 buses to which you referred? A. In some schools yes, 
in some schools no.

Q. Why not in some schools? A. Well, because the 
children do not travel from school to school. They travel 
from their home to the school.

Q. Do they travel as the crow flies, as the straight line 
rule would measure? A. No, but they have to travel the 
nearest and safest route for them to follow.

Q. Is that or is that not normally a longer distance 
than the [145] crow flies? A. Yes.

Q. You testified that in computing your figures to 
ascertain the number of additional buses which will be 
required, namely, a total of 422, you have based this 
on what we refer to as a 54-capacity bus, is that correct? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What, if anything, do you have to say with reference 
to the use of 54-passenger or larger capacity buses in the 
in-town areas, inner-city areas? A. Well, . . .

Q. As far as the suitability of large buses or small buses 
or whatever. A. We will find many instances of where 
it would probably be necessary to use smaller buses. I 
indicated yesterday that there would be 36-, 48-passenger 
buses and there would also be occasions when we would 
be able to use the larger capacity bus, the 67-capacity 
bus, but our estimates are that it will average out to a

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1178a

54. It could be that when we get deeply involved with 
inner-city transportation that we will find it necessary 
for maneuverability in the inner-city to use a smaller bus. 
We are experiencing this now, where we could use to 
advantage smaller buses although we have 54 capacities 
now running in these 30 buses we are presently using. 
So until the routes are established and the determination 
of [146] where the children live and how will be the safest 
and best way to serve these youngsters, we will not know 
exactly what capacity buses are needed on each route, but 
I’m fairly confident it will average out to a 54-passenger 
bus. And if I might interject something else here, Mr. 
Horack, I have never said that what we’re doing in our 
present transportation system is the safest and best way 
of transporting children. If we had the money and could 
afford the additional buses, I would seat every child that 
rides a bus and we would put a seat belt on that bus.

Q. You mean on the child. A. A seat belt on the bus 
so the child could buckle himself in because I think it’s 
not only in the inner-city area but all over that I feel this 
is a much needed safety piece of equipment needed on 
our buses.

Q. How would you relate what you have just said to 
the desirability or undersirability of allowing children to 
stand on buses! A. I don’t consider it the safest and best 
way for children to ride and I have so indicated that I have 
never felt that and although we try with our present system 
to have children seated, we try to only have those standing 
that have to stand the shortest distances.

Q. Who would be those who would stand the shortest 
distance! A bus at the beginning of the pickup route 
of the bus, I [147] presume the bus is empty when it 
starts and it fills up as it goes along, is that correct!

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1179a

A. Yes. An example of an undesirable situation where we 
need to do something about it was the example Mr. 
Chambers pointed out this morning of the number of 
children riding those two loads to Randolph Junior High 
School where we have 68 children on a bus. This is not 
desirable, but. . . .

Q. Why do you permit it! A. Well, Randolph is a fairly 
compact area and the children that get on last have the 
shortest distance to ride and we do not have buses to 
solve all those problems.

Q. Why don’t you get the buses! A. Well, it’s a matter 
of funds.

Q. Along this same line, would you care to comment, 
please, with reference to the standup problem, if it is a 
problem, comparing junior and senior children standing- 
up on the one hand and elementary children on the other 
from a safety standpoint.

Q. Well, from the safety standpoint I consider it more 
dangerous, of course, for elementary children to stand 
than I do either junior or senior high school.

Q. Why? A. Well, they are smaller youngsters; there 
are discipline problems on the bus, they are pushing and 
shoving and horseplay that should not go on. However, 
it does go on and the [148] youngster is not as conscious 
of safety as the older child is.

Q. What you’re saying is that you have a great number 
of situations as far as over-capacity, having too many 
children on a bus, under the existing setup? A. In many 
cases we do and we work throughout the entire year to 
adjust routes and adjust loads to make it safer for the 
children.

Q. Would what you have just described account for 
the differences in the load figures as they appear from

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1180a

month to month in the principals’ monthly bus reports! 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you care to give us your views on the wisdom 
or lack of it of having children stand on long interrupted, 
perhaps even express bus routes from the outer area 
schools into the paired schools?

Mr. Chambers: I object to that question. I don’t 
know of any discussion that we had on direct 
examination dealing with students standing and I 
understand that Mr. Morgan has estimated that the 
54-passenger bus would be able to seat all the 
students that he said were needed to transport. 
He used 40 students for the senior high schools 
and he said he used a range of 54 for the junior 
high school grades.

[149] Mr. Horack: Well, we’ll let him answer the 
question and then . . .

Mr. Chambers: I can’t stop you from asking the 
question. I just wanted to note my objection in the 
record so we wouldn’t have anyone misled.

Mr. Horack: Would you read the question back, 
please ?

(The Court Reporter reads the question on Line 13, Page 
148.)

A. I don’t think it’s wise. I don’t think it’s wise on relatively 
short runs to have them stand.

Q. Are there any special factors in the inner-city that 
might lead you particularly to this conclusion? A. Well, 
the nature of the city traffic, the congestion in the inner- 
city, the number of vehicles that are encountered in an 
inner-city area where the traveling public is coming back

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1181a

and forth. There is a concern on my part as to that and it 
is for that reason that I said we have some presently operat­
ing that I do not consider safe and our reports will show 
that you will find in these buses that are now operating in 
the inner-city, those 30 buses I mentioned, that where we 
had one bus serving Park Road and Selwyn, as soon as we 
could readjust loads and use another bus we put another 
bus on there to reduce the load to that particular school. 
It was such a problem that the principals reported to me at 
both schools that they had a problem with children stand­
ing and [150] it was the only safe thing to do to split these 
loads up and we finally were able to shift around and use 
another bus to relieve this load. So it’s not just these that 
we’re talking about for the future, it’s those we now pres­
ently have that I am concerned about as well and we’re 
making every effort to reduce the numbers on those so that 
as few as possible, if any, will have to stand.

Q. Turning to another subject, I want to be sure I ’m 
clear on this point. Reference was made to the principals’ 
monthly reports that in some instances show a third trip 
that carries one or maybe sometimes it’s two or three pas­
sengers. Did I understand you correctly to say that those 
undoubtedly were instances where the passenger was a 
driver being transported to the school? Explain that. A. 
Our report shows third trips.

Q. By our report you’re talking about the principals’ 
monthly reports ? A. I ’m speaking of the principals’ monthly 
report. There has to be an accounting to show the mileage 
driven and how many students transported, and so forth, 
and by necessity it has to show it somewhere for the record. 
So we record it as another trip but actually . . .

Q. Is that required for the State reports! A. It is re­
quired for the State reports. But if we are going to secure

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1182a

drivers, they cannot drive to a school and stop [151] and 
not have any way to get to school. So we let a bus go from 
that point on to the senior high school to where they are 
assigned and it just simply shows up as a third trip. If 
you look at the mileage, you can see it’s a relatively short 
mileage. It’s 2 miles or 3 miles or 2% miles from the ele­
mentary or junior high school to the senior high school.

Q. Now, heretofore in various submissions to the Court 
your affidavits have referred to the number of trips traveled 
by a bus or the average number of trips traveled by a bus. 
Did you count as a trip the type of trip you have been 
referring to here included in the State reports to the State 
when they are only carrying the driver? Was that included 
as a trip in your previous computations ? A. I don’t know, 
sir. Mr. Horack, I might add this to it, that you will see on 
some principals’ reports showing a third trip on them, 
showing three trips. Now, it can very easily be that one 
bus is serving two schools and it will drive to one school 
and deposit youngsters and then will go on to the other 
school and deposit the balance of them and then it will 
make a third trip on to another school. But all of these 
are schools that are very close together where it’s per­
missible to do this. In the accounting of it the principal 
should have shown that as one trip but it shows up in some 
instances as two trips.

Q. Referring to the cost figures set forth as item 2 in the
[152] information recently submitted to the court, I direct 
your attention to the drivers’ salaries listed under a caption 
cost operation, using the senior high pages as an example. 
Did I understand you to state that those computations were 
based upon one driver per each additional bus? A. Yes.

Q. Do they include any supplemental or substitute driv­
ers? A. Their salaries are computed on an hourly basis.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1183a

Q. I know, but this represents the estimate of the cost 
involved in providing drivers’ salaries and I understood 
you to say that those salaries are based upon one driver 
per bus, is that correct or not? A. Yes, it’s based on one.

Q. Is there any figure in here in the estimated cost of 
providing this additional transportation that takes into 
account any additional or supplemental or substitute driv­
ers? A. Well, if a driver does not drive the bus for those 
hours he is not paid for it. His substitute is paid in his 
stead. Now, if you’re getting at field trips and extra trips 
such as that, there is no computation in here on that. If 
it’s extracurricular activities and all that, we have not ac­
counted in this. This is based upon the hours required to 
drive to the schools and not for extracurricular. If a driver 
does not drive and a substitute driver drives in his place, 
the regular driver is not paid for the hours he does not 
work.

[153] Q. So that would not involve any additional cost 
is what you’re saying? A. No, sir.

Q. Ho you have in our existing operation substitute driv­
ers or a need for them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have any approximation as to how many addi­
tional are needed? A. Somewhere in previous testimony 
or documents I worked it out and I stated that there were 
so many substitute drivers required each month but I do 
not have that figure. It will vary from month to month; it 
will vary from day to day; whether a youngster is sick, 
whether he has some conflict in the school program and he 
has to get a substitute to take his place. There are many 
variances where we have to use substitute drivers and this 
can amount to probably, with our present fleet, close to a 
hundred substitute drivers that are needed to fill vacancies 
from day to day.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1184a

Q. Do you presently have a full complement of these 
extra hundred relief drivers that you say are needed? A. 
Not all the time, no, sir.

Q. Again with reference to drivers’ salaries, how is a 
driver paid? Is he paid for the period when he is actually 
transporting children or is he paid . . . what basis is he 
paid on? A. The driver is paid from the time he cranks 
up his bus.

[154] Q. You mean in the morning? A. From the time 
he starts his bus until he terminates the bus and the children 
are unloaded and he makes his count and takes the report 
into the principal.

Q. What about at the end of the day? A. The same way, 
from the time he enters the bus and cranks the bus up and 
until he gets to his home and parks his bus. He’s paid for 
that time, and is paid on the minimum wage for student 
drivers. Adult drivers, we have paid them according to 
our classified salary schedule.

Mr. Horack: I believe I ’m through.
Mr. Chambers: I just want to ask one or two 

things.

By Mr. Chambers:

Q. To show possibly some exceptions to your third trip, 
I show you the principal’s monthly report for December 1, 
1969, through January 9, 1970, the bus driven by Frankie 
Stroud, and it shows a total of four trips. It looks like he 
carries 45 students on the first trip to Davidson, 5 students 
on the second trip to Cornelius, 11 elementary and 6 high 
school students to Alexander on the third trip and 29 
students to north on the fourth trip. A. All right. First 
of all, this is an 82 maximum capacity bus. On the first trip

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1185a

there are 45 children that get off at Davidson. On that bus 
he has picked up also 5 children who [155] are dropped 
off at Cornelins. You know Cornelius is just a short dis­
tance from Davidson and so the bus drives on down and 
deposits those children and then picks up a load of young­
sters that are going to Alexander and to North Mecklen­
burg. North Mecklenburg is only, oh, 2/10 of a mile or so 
from Alexander. So what he is doing, this shows four trips, 
Mr. Chambers, and that’s what I was trying to point out. 
This should really be two trips.

Q. It shows on the report to the State that he carries 46 
students on the first trip, 34 on the second trip, 36 on the 
third trip and 29 on the fourth trip. A. Eight, and what 
he’s actually doing, these children right here, the bus turns 
in and drops them off at Alexandar and goes on down to 
North Mecklenburg.

Q. Would you look at the bus driven by David G-orman. 
A. That is a 75 capacity bus. On the first trip to Long Creek 
they transport 55 youngsters, well, 56. I don’t know whether 
the driver is included in that or not—could be. And the 
next trip shows a total of 60 children going to Alexander 
and then other children that have come in on buses to 
Alexander are then transferred on that bus just to go on to 
North Mecklenburg. It’s only about two minutes or so from 
the school there.

Q. Well, the 40 students are going to North Mecklenburg, 
they wouldn’t be bus drivers, would they? [156] A. No, sir, 
they would be children that had come in on other buses 
from the remote area to that.

Q. I show you another bus that seems to make a trip to 
Myers Park High School to deliver 29 students and then 
two more trips to Selwyn elementary school, the first trip 
carrying 42 and the second one carrying 27. A. I’m trying

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1186a

to figure out, Mr. Chambers. Look at this. It shows bus 
17 and 16 here. In parenthesis it shows two buses here. 
No, that’s the age of the drivers. I ’m trying to find out the 
number of the bus and why.

Q. Anyway, we can’t quite explain whatever appears as 
the third trip is delivery of drivers. A. No, sir, and it 
would not be and I can’t . . .  I ’d have to go back to the 
principal and driver to see what they have done here.

Q. I just had one question about something that appears. 
This is also the fourth month report for Smith Junior 
High School. This shows a first trip, the bus driven by M. 
Hance, with 84 students. A. A 90 capacity bus. They no 
longer make those buses. That is one of the cab over the 
engine. I guess you’d refer to it as a transit type bus. As 
I say, we no longer get that size bus. It shows a maximum 
capacity of 60 with 84 on it . . .  a maximum capacity of 90 
with 84 on it.

Mr. Chambers: I have nothing further. I ’d like 
[157] to get a copy of this and include it as an ex­
hibit to Mr. Morgan’s deposition.

(Exhibit attached to all copies of deposition.)
* # *

Certificate

I, Evelyn S. Berger, Notary Public/Reporter, do hereby 
certify that J. D. Morgan was duly sworn by me prior to 
the taking of the foregoing deposition; that said deposition 
was taken and transcribed by me; and that the foregoing 
157 pages constitute a true, complete and accurate tran­
script of the testimony of the said witness. I further certify 
that the persons were present as stated on the caption.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970



1187a

I further certify that I am not of counsel for, or in the 
employment of any of the parties to this action, nor am I 
interested in the results of this action.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name 
this 3rd day of April, 1970.

Deposition of J. D. Morgan March 19, 1970

/ s /  E velyn  S. B ergeb

Notary Public in and for 
County of Mecklenburg 
State of North Carolina



1188a

Exhibit Attached to Foregoing Deposition

(See Opposite) BSP



I ✓ “> F4 j h

- ' - - ti c  
T a n  K

/. •
- * 9 *  . 

- ^ 6 -

..BLDG LFGFklD
(

K
/ /

/ /
X

O bu  ̂ repaid
OA* 2-

\ / / 
<b.- pootbal

//FIELD HOOFS 3t ,

(. / /
,  V<0 '

X *
/  / /

. /  . M ILE  q u m u iM -T , T E 1C K .

/

, \v 
A

& .V t ...

I-
.5-'. L_

T O - ~rr&- —h -

Lth

A  P H  V S -  E D U G A -  B L D G .

|JJ  C L A S S R O O M  P r . L D G -  

C  S P E C I A L  S U B J E C T S  B L D G .

D  C L A S S R O O M  B L O G  

E  C L A S S R O O M  B L D G  

1 7  E  A D M I N i S .  6  L I B R A R Y  

‘  G  C A F E T E R I A

H  I N D U S T R I A L  S H O P  S  M U S K  

/  I H E A T I N G  P L A N T

/  J  F I E L D  H O U S E

K  B U S  M A I N T E N A N C E  G A R A G E  

L  P R I N C I P A L S  R E S I D E N C E

c

iG

A '*( OFPAvsr _  ^ ^  ‘iu  n
a k e a  l 5

i, r s
0 > A - S K t 'E A - V  - * I - - -  1 < n l -----------

,____ J•- i __
FACULTY ■■ -----

STUDENT :
r '? Hr Po16 PAR ,< I NG4*

-»! L

“7  ^  /  ■ -r
7  -5  ■'/-.•Q

_

r-3
Vj

CO

GRAPH IC .A L
S C A L E

0 100 200

l o > f

f r a n c o  L  S A M E  0  T O P E H A M S  C P  A D H t M .  U N I T

C C J T H

M L C K . C r j R U K G  

! H I G H  S C H O O L  

! P A R K  R . 0 - 0

c h a r l o t t e  - m e c k .

S G H C O l S

7 2 4  E -  F O U R T H  (  

C H A R L O T T E  .  N .  l

•- j L S L D C V -  S h a u r J . U M , T  l t o - P C r t T -  H o .-  . - J -
- L O T  F L A T J  A  L I  

i . S S A L t :  1 =  2  0 0 ;  O L D S  2 .
.................... C  1-. ^  • * » r . »

1

'  ■ - r . ' . l  o f





1189a



1190a

Plaintiff’s Exhibit, March 20, 1970

(See Opposite)



ESTIMATED DISTANCE AMD TRAVEL ME BETWEEN CLU£ ]RED SCHOOLS 1 /

i t a i n e d  m  t h e  c h a r t  a r e  a s  s u p p l i e d  b y  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s .  P l a i n t i f f s  c o n t e n d  th at  t h e  e s t i m a t e  a s  t o  
t r a n s p o r t e d ,  t h e  n u m b e r  o f  b u s e s  r e q u i r e d  and  t h e  f a c t o r  ( c o l u m n  " e " )  a d d e d  t o  d e t e r m i n e  d i s t a n c e  
P l a i n t i f f s  f u r t h e r  c o n t e n d  t h a t  t h e  a v e r a g e  s p e e d  o f  t h e  b u s e s  (12 MPH) i s  g r o s s l y  u n d e r e s t i m a t e d .

t h e  : 
t c  b e

o f  D e f e n d a n t s '  S u b m i s s i o n  o f  M a r c h  1 6 ,  1 9 7 0 .

in t e s t i f i e d  i n  d e p o s i t i o n  o n  M a r c h  1 8 ,  1 9 7 0 ,  t h a t  an  a c c u r a t e  e s t i m a t e  f o r  the d i s t a n c e  f o r  a b u s  t r i p  
Ln b e  d e t e r m i n e d  b y  m e a s u r i n g  t h e  d i s t a n c e  o n  t h e  m ap ,  p o i n t  t o  p o i n t ,  a n d  add ing  25%. l

l i s  c o n t a i n e d  i n  D e f e n d a n t s '  S u b m i s s i o n  o f  M a r c h  1 7 ,  1 9 7 0 .  The n u m b e r  o f  t r i p s  e q u a l s  t h e  number  o i  b u s e s ,  
s s c h e d u l e d  t o  m ake  o n l y  o n e  t r i p .  The n u m be r  o f  b u s e s  p r o j e c t e d  f o r  t r a n s p o r t i n g  b l a c k  s t u d e n t s  a r c  t h e  
'U ses  f r o m  t h e  w h i t e  s c h o o l s  t o  t h e  b l a c k  s c h o o l s  a r e  g i v e n .  Th e  l a t t e r  f i g u r e  i s  a p p o r t i o n e d  b e t w e e n  t h e  
d u p o n  t h e  n u m b e r  o f  b u s e s  p r o j e c t e d  f o r  t h e  b l a c k  s t u d e n t s  a n d  i s  t h e  s e c o n d  f i g u r e  w i t h i n  t h e  p a r e n t h e s i s ,  
if b u s e s  p r o j e c t e d  f o r  e a c h  c l u s t e r  i s  a s  g i v e n  i n  t h e  D e f e n d a n t s '  S u b m i s s i o n .

in  t e s t i f i e d  i n  d e p o s i t i o n  
o b e  12 MPH. I f  t h e  b u s e s

o n  M a r c h  1 8 ,  1 9 7 0  t h a t  t h e  
a v e r a g e  2 0 MPH r a t h e r  t h a n

e s t i m a t e d  a v e r a g e  s p e e d  f o r  
12 MPH, t h e  a v e r a g e  t r a v e l  '

t h e  a l l  new b u s e s  t r a n s p o r t  
ime w o u l d  b e  r e d u c e c  t o  2 0 . W 

f.)



'



ESTIMATED DIST AND TEAVI .‘±:"U I TWEEN CLUSTERED SCHOOLS





1191a



il92a

Submitted herewith is Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental Exhibit of March 20, 1970, in the form of 
an Affidavit by J. D. Morgan and John W. Harrison, Sr.

The information which the Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Ex­
hibit purports to refer to was the Deposition of J. D. Mor­
gan taken at the instance of the Plaintiffs on March 19 and 
20, 1970. The Defendants have not received and hence have 
not examined the transcript of that Deposition and enter 
an objection to a consideration by the Court of the Plain­
tiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of March 20, 1970, for the 
above-mentioned reason and also for the reason that it com­
pletely ignores the explanations, the data and information 
given by Mr. Morgan on that occasion. The Defendants 
submit that no consideration can be given to the self-serv­
ing, piece meal accounts of the Plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted, this 21 day of March, 1970.

/ s /  W illiam  J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner

/ s /  B e n j . S. H orace:
Benj. S. Horack 
Attorneys for Defendants

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

(Filed March 21, 1970)



1193a

J. D. M organ and John W. H arrison, Sr., being duly 
sworn deposes and says that:

1. J. D. Morgan is Assistant Superintendent for Busi­
ness Services and John W. Harrison is Director of Trans­
portation for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, and as 
such are thoroughly familiar with the bus transportation 
requirements that will be necessary to provide transporta­
tion between the clustered elementary schools under the 
Court approved Plan.

2. Mr. Morgan has read and analyzed the Plaintiffs’ 
Supplemental Exhibit of March 20, 1970, and says that the 
statements, the purported calculations and conclusions set 
forth therein are gross distortions of the true facts as they 
relate to the transportation requirements which will be 
necessary with reference to the paired and clustered 
schools. Both Mr. Morgan and Mr. Harrison reaffirm that 
the estimates and projections previously submitted by the 
Defendants are correct.

3. Attached to and made a part hereof is a tabulation of 
the number of daily miles (round trip) travelled by each 
of the indicated 30 buses that are now transporting the 
innercity children to schools in the outlying areas to pro­
mote desegregation for the school year 1969-70. These 
innercity children are those who previously attended inner- 
city schools that were closed pursuant to prior orders of 
the Court. Prior Orders of the Court identify these school 
children and the schools to which they are now being trans­
ported. The identity of the trip made by each of the buses

Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of
March 20, 1970



1194a

(and the specifics relating thereto) are shown on the princi­
pal’s monthly bus reports which are already in evidence at 
the instance of the Plaintiffs, the same being the monthly re­
ports for the period from December 1, 1969 through Janu­
ary 7, 1970'. The routes, traffic conditions and travel time 
for these 30 buses are comparable to the transportation that 
will be necessary in connection with the paired schools, and 
forms a reliable basis for the estimates and projections 
regarding the transportation for the paired and clustered 
schools under the Court Plan. The specifics shown on the 
above-mentioned principals’ monthly bus reports with refer­
ence to each of these 30 buses is included herein by 
reference.

4. Also attached hereto and made a part hereof is a 
correct summary of data relating to accidents involving the 
30 school buses transporting the above-mentioned inner- 
city children.

5. The purported data and tabulations set forth in the 
Plaintiffs’ March 20, 1970 Supplemental Exhibit are in­
accurate and distorted. They are based upoon “crow-fly” 
ruler measurements of distances between the paired schools 
with an arbitrary add on of 25 %. Although the 25 % add on 
may sometimes be used as a rule of thumb for hasty 
measurement of map distances, it does not accurately re­
flect the bus route distances between two schools particu­
larly as the distance relates to the streets and traffic arteries 
that must actually be travelled in order to transport the 
students from one school to another school. Further, the 
Plaintiffs’ calculations completely ignored the bus distance 
involved in picking up students in outlying areas of an at­
tendance zone in order to transport them first, for example, 
to Olde Providence, before resuming the journey to, for ex­

Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of
March 20, 1970



1195a

ample, First Ward. Using Olde Providence-First Ward 
pairing as an example, a 5th or 6th grade child who lives 
a mile from Olde Providence will require 20 minutes walk­
ing time to get to Olde Providence Elementary, will expend 
about 5 minutes boarding a bus at that location, 52 minutes 
in transit to First Ward and another 5 minutes getting off 
the bus at First Ward—a total of an estimated 82 minutes. 
Using the same example for a 5th or 6th grader who lives 
more than 1 mile from Olde Providence, such a child must 
be bussed into Olde Providence before resuming his journey 
to First Ward. The foregoing is a typical example of the 
time factors and problems which will be involved in trans­
porting children to and from the paired schools. Of course, 
the same factors are involved in reverse with reference to, 
for example, the First Ward 1st through 4th graders who 
will be picked up and transported to the outlying schools.

6. The figures and tabulations set forth by the Plaintiffs 
in their Supplemental Exhibit of March 20, 1970, are solely 
and entirely their own, not those of the School Board or its 
staff.

/ s /  J. D. M okgan 
J. D. Morgan

/ s /  J ohn  W. H abbison, Sb. 
John W. Harrison, Sr.

S everally S wobn to and S ubscbibed before me this 21 
day of March, 1970.

/ s /  V ivian K e s t a  

Notary Public
My commission expires:
April 2, 1971.

Response to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Exhibit of
March 20, 1970



1196a

Tabulation

March. 20,1970

Thirty buses that are serving innercity children to promote 
desegregation for 1969-70 school year travelled 1051.3 miles 
daily for an average of 35.0 miles daily per bus.

D e s e g k e g a t io n  B u s e s

BUS NO. DAILY M il

23 43.2
86 34.0

116 44.0
171 51.5
174 20.0
175 73.3
176 33.1
183 22.6
283 42.0
304 50.0
309 30.0
310 30.0
311 33.0
312 44.0
315 38.0
208 41.3
302 25.1
303 30.0
305 33.0
306 26.0
307 24.6
308 33.0
313 35.0
314 21.1



Tabulation (Continued)

BUS NO. DAILY m i l e s

285 23.5
301 33.6
299 46.0
317 20.0
300 37.6
181 32.8

1051.3

C harlotte-M ecklenburg S chools

T ransportation D epartment 
March 20, 1970

D ata R elated to A ccidents I nvolving S chool B uses F or 
the 1969-70 S chool Y ear T hrough M arch 18, 1970 

F or a T otal of 126 S chool D ays

I. Thirty school buses transporting children from inner 
city to promote desegregation for the 1969-70 school 
year travelled an average of 1,051.3 miles daily for a 
total of 132,463.8 miles year to date. This same thirty 
buses have been involved in seventeen reportable acci­
dents. This is an average of .57 accidents per bus, and 
an average of one accident per 7,792 miles travelled. II.

II. Two Hundred and Fifty-Five buses travelled an aver­
age of 9,635.8 miles daily for a total of 1,214,110.8 miles 
year to date. These same 255 buses have been involved 
in 57 reportable accidents. This is an average of .22 
accidents per bus, and an average of one accident per 
21,300 miles travelled.

JWH :rvc



1198a

Pursuant to the March 5, 1970 order of the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, the court makes the following 
supplemental findings of fact:

1. Paragraph seven of this court’s order of February 5, 
1970, as amended, reads:

“ 7. That transportation be offered on a uniform 
non-racial basis to all children whose reassignment 
to any school is necessary to bring about the reduc­
tion of segregation, and who live farther from the 
school to which they are assigned than the Board 
determines to be walking distance. Estimates of the 
number of children who may have to be transported 
have run as high as 10,000 or more. Since the cost 
to the local system is about $18 or 20 a year per pupil, 
and the cost to the state in those areas where the 
state provides transportation funds, is about another 
$18 or $20 a year per pupil, the average cost for 
transportation is apparently less than $40 per pupil 
per year. The local school budget is about $45,000,000 
a year. It would appear that transporting 10,000 addi­
tional children, if that is necessary, and if the defen­
dants had to pay it all, would add less than one per 
cent to the local cost of operating the schools. The 
significant point, however, is that cost is not a valid 
legal reason for continued denial of constitutional 
rights.”

2. A bird’s-eye picture of the indispensable position of 
the school bus in public education in North Carolina, and 
especially in the school life of grades one through six (ele­
mentary students) is contained in a summary by the de­

Supplementary Findings of Fact
dated March 21, 1970



1199a

fendant Dr. Craig Phillips entitled “ R iding the  S chool 
B uses” - (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 15), published January 1, 1970, 
which reads as follows:

“ The average school bus transported 66 students each 
day during the 1968-69 school year; made 1.57 trips 
per day, 12.0 miles in length (one w ay); transported 
48.5 students per bus trip, including students who were 
transported from elementary to high schools.

“ During the 1968-69 school year:

610,760 pupils were transported to public schools by 
the State

54.9 percent of the total public school average daily 
attendance was transported

70.9 percent were elementary students

29.1 percent were high school students

3.5 students were loaded (average) each mile of bus 
travel

The total cost of school transportation was $14,293,- 
272.80, including replacement of buses: The average 
cost, including the replacement of buses, was $1,541.05 
per bus for the school year—181 days; $8.51 per bus 
per day; $23.40 per student for the school year; $.1292 
per student per day; and $.2243 per bus mile of opera­
tion.” (Emphasis added.)

In Mecklenburg County, the average daily number of 
pupils currently transported on state school busses is ap­
proximately 23,600—plus another 5,000 whose fares are 
paid on the Charlotte City Coach Lines.

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1200a

3. Separate bus systems for black students and white 
students were operated by the defendant Mecklenburg 
County Board of Education for many years up until 
1961. Separate black and white bus systems were operated 
by the combined Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board from 1961 
until 1966 (Defendants’ answers to Plaintiffs’ requests for 
admissions, Nos. 1 and 8, filed March 13, 1970).

4. Pertinent figures on the local school transportation

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970

system include these:

Number of busses ...................................... 280

Pupils transported on school busses daily 23,600

Pupils whose fares are paid on Charlotte
City Coach Lines, Inc.................................  5,000

Number of trips per bus daily ................  1.8

Average daily bus travel ........................  40.8 miles

Average number of pupils carried daily,
per bus .................................    83.2

Annual per pupil transportation cost .... $19—$20

Additional cost (1968-69) per pupil to
state ...............................................................  $19.92

Total annual cost per pupil transported $39.92

Daily transportation cost per pupil trans­
ported ...........................................................  $0.22

5. Information about North Carolina:

Population ..........;........................................  4,974,000

1969-71 total state budget ........................  $3,590,902,142



1201a

1969-71 total budgeted state funds for
public schools .............................................  $1,163,310,993

1968- 69 amount spent by state on trans­
portation (including replacement busses) $14,293,272.80

1969- 71 appropriation for purchase of

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970

school busses ........................ ....................... $6,870,142

Average number of pupils transported
daily, 1968-69 .......................... ..................... 610,760

Average number of pupils transported
daily per bus—statewide .......................... 66

6. The 1969-70 budget of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
school system is $57,711,344, of which nearly $51,000,000 
represents operational expense and between $6,000,000 and 
$7,000,000 represents capital outlay and debt service. 
These funds come from federal, state and county sources, 
as follows:

F ederal S tate County T otal

$2,450,000 $29,937,044 $25,324,300 $57,711,344

The construction of school buildings is not included in these 
budget figures (see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6).

7. State expenditures in the past ten years have usually 
not equalled appropriations. There has been a sizeable 
operating surplus in the state budget for every biennium 
since 1959-60 (State Budget, page 86).

8. The state superintendent of public instruction in his 
biennial report (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12) for the years 1966- 
68 recommended that “city transportation should be pro­



1202a

vided on the same basis as transportation for rural children 
as a matter of equity.”

9. The 1969 report of the Governor’s Study Commission 
on the Public School System of North Carolina (Plaintiffs’ 
Exhibit 13) recommended that transportation be provided 
for all school children, city as well as rural, on an equal 
basis. Signatory to that report was one of the present de­
fendants, the state superintendent of public instruction.

10. The basic support for the public schools of the state 
comes from the State Legislature.

11. Some 5,000 children travel to and from school in 
Mecklenburg County each day in busses provided by con­
tract carriers such as Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc. 
(Morgan’s deposition of February 25, 1970, page 36).

12. Upon the basis of data furnished by the school board 
and on the basis of statistics from the National Safety 
Council, it is found as a fact that travel by school bus is 
safer than walking or than riding in private vehicles.

13. Traffic is of course heavy all over the 540 square 
miles of the county. Motor vehicle registration for 1969 
was 191,165 motor vehicles (161,678 automobiles and 29,487 
trucks).

14. Many children eligible for transportation do not ac­
cept that transportation. Estimates have been made that 
this number of those who do not accept transportation is in 
the neighborhood of 50% of those who are eligible.

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1203a

15. Approximately 5,000 children in the system attend 
school outside the school zone in which they reside. Al­
though requested of the defendants by the court on March 
7, 1970, information as to where these children go to school 
has not been forthcoming and the defendants have indicated 
that it is impossible to produce it.

16. As the state transportation regulations* are under­
stood by the court, the state will bear its share (about half) 
of transportation costs for children who live more than 
1^2 miles from their school, as follows:

(a) All rural children, wherever they attend school;
(b) All perimeter children (those living in territory 

annexed by the city before 1957), wherever they 
attend school; and

(c) All inner city children assigned to schools in either 
the perimeter or the rural areas of the system.

17. The defendants submitted information on the num­
ber of children who live within 1% miles of the schools 
which are to be desegregated by zoning. This information 
shows that East Mecklenburg, Independence, North Meck­
lenburg, Olympic, South Mecklenburg and West Mecklen­
burg high schools, and Quail Hollow and Alexander junior 
high schools, with total student populations of 12,184, have 
in the aggregate only 96 students who live within IV2 miles 
from the schools. Some 12,088 then are eligible for trans­
portation. These same schools among them provide bus 
transportation for 5,349 students. This information illus­
trates the importance of the bus as one of the essential

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970

General Statutes of North Carolina, Chapter 115, §180-192.



1204a

elements in the whole plan of operation of the schools. It 
also shows the wide gap between those entitled to transpor­
tation and those who actually claim it. There is no black 
school in the system which depends very much upon the 
school bus to get the children to school. The total number 
of children transported in October, 1969, to schools identi­
fiable as black was 541 out of total population in those black 
schools of over 17,000. Black schools, including the new 
black schools, have been located in black areas where busses 
would be unnecessary. Suburban schools, including the 
newest ones, have been located far away from black centers, 
and where they can not be reached by many students with­
out transportation.

18. Bus travel in both urban and rural areas takes time. 
An analysis of the records of bus transportation, based 
upon the reports of school principals, is contained in the 
extensive exhibits bearing Plaintiffs’ Exhibit numbers 22, 
23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. For the month of October, 1969, by 
way of illustration, these principals’ reports when analyzed 
show' that out of some 279 busses carrying more than 23,000 
children both wTays each day:

The average one wrny trip is one hour and fourteen 
minutes;

80% of the busses require more than one hour for a 
one way trip;

75% of the busses make twm or more trips each day; 
Average miles traveled by busses making one round 
trip per day is 34x/2 ; and

Average bus mileage per day for busses making two 
trips is 47.99.

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1205a

19. It was the testimony of Dr. Self and Dr. Finger, and 
the courts finds as a fact, that transportation provided by 
the school hoard’s plans, which include narrow corridors 
several miles long and in places only one-half mile wide, 
proceeding in straight lines diagonally across streets and 
other obstacles, would be more expensive per capita than 
transportation under the satellite zone plan. The court 
plan calls for pick-ups to he made at a few points in each 
school district, as testified to by Dr. Self, and for non-stop 
runs to be made between satellite zones and principal zones. 
There will be no serious extra load on downtown traffic be­
cause there will be no pick-up and discharge of passengers 
in downtown traffic areas.

20. The court finds that from the standpoint of distance 
travelled, time en route and inconvenience, the children 
bussed pursuant to the court order will not as a group 
travel as far, nor will they experience more inconvenience 
than the more than 28,000 children who are already being 
transported at state expense.

21. On July 29, 1969 (pursuant to the court’s April 23, 
1969 order that they frame a plan for desegregation and 
that school busses could be used as needed), the defendants 
proposed a plan for closing seven inner-city black schools 
and bussing 4,200 students to outlying schools. The plan 
was approved. It had some escape clauses in it, and the 
defendants in practice added some others; but as presented, 
and as approved by the court, the “ freedom of choice” con­
templated was very narrowly restricted; and bussing of 
several hundred students has taken place under that plan.

22. Evidence of property valuations produced by the 
defendants shows that the value of the seven school proper­

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1206a

ties closed under the July 29, 1969 plan, and now for the 
most part standing idle, was over three million dollars.

23. The all-black or predominantly black elementary 
schools which the board plan would retain in the system 
are located in an almost exclusively Negro section of Char­
lotte, which is very roughly triangular in shape and meas­
ures about four or five miles on a side. Some are air-condi­
tioned and most are modern. Virtually none of their patrons 
now ride busses; the schools were located where the black 
patrons were or were expected to be. These schools, their 
completion dates, and representative academic perfor­
mances of their sixth grade graduating classes are shown 
in the following table:

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



school

bvjiov; v. 
t o  in t o  
1 - r ,  1 -  
Or1*o1i^r

taker. fa  
r r o g a t o r i o s  
g and i - h ,  
- .25 . 1963.

o:n answers 
i  E o s .
f i l e d  GRADE 6 AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST SC 

EQUIVALENT (su ch  as 6 .2  = 6 th  grade
ORES. SHOWN IN GRA 
, 2nd m on th ) , 1933 -5 5.

YEAR
BUILT

YEARS 0 ?  
ADDITIONS-

• NO. C?
MOBILE a’ORD 
UNITS MEANING

PARAGRAPH
MEANING SPELLING LANGUAGE

a .U.'i
(MATH)

ACN
(MATH) (MATH

, 1

12."".; 3 avenue 1953 — 0 4 .1 4 . 1 4 .7 4 .1 4 .0 4 .7 4 .1

.m r ie  d.-.v is 1951 1953 0 4 .3 4 .4 4 .8 4 .1 4 .5 4 .8 4 .  i
.. 1957

1559

OCUBLE OAKS 1952 1955 1 4 .0 4 . 0 4 .6 3 .6 3 .9 4 .4 3 .7

: 195 5

3.TJID KILLS ‘ 1550 1554 0 4 .0 4 .2 4 . 5 3 .9 3 .9 4 .5 4 .1

riP.ST HARD 1912 1950 0 4 .0 4 . 1 4 .8 3 .6 3 .9 4 .6 • *

1551
1553

LINCOLN HEIGHTS 1955 1953 5 4 .4 4 .4 4 . 9 A . 2 &  . 3 £  ° 4 .1

2<7. yr * 1954 — 0 4 .4 4 .5 5 .2 4 .7 4 .5 4 .9 4 .4

.DIVERSITY PARK 1957 1553 5 4 .4 4 .7 4 .8 4 .3 4 .4 4 .8  i A A 
~ r .  ~ r

1554

•7il l a  h e ig h t s 1912 1934 3 4 .3 4 .4 4 .7 3 .6 4 .4 . 4 .7  ' 4. 21
1S37





1207a

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1208a

24. Both Dr. Finger and the school board staff appear 
to have agreed, and the court finds as a fact, that for the 
present at least, there is no way to desegregate the all­
black schools in Northwest Charlotte without providing (or 
continuing to provide) bus or other transportation for thou­
sands of children. All plans and all variations of plans 
considered for this purpose lead in one fashion or another 
to that conclusion.

25. In the court’s order of April 23, 1969, a suggestion 
was made that the board seek consultation or assistance 
from the office of Health, Education and Welfare. The 
board refused to do this, and as far as the court knows 
has not sought help from HEW.

26. Some 600 or more pupils transfer from one school 
to another or register for the first time into the system 
during the course of each month of the typical school year. 
It is the assignment of these children which is the particu­
lar subject of the reference in paragraph 13 of the order 
to the manner of handling assignments within the school 
year.

27. No plan for the complete desegregation of the schools 
was available to the court until the appointment of Dr. 
John A. Finger, Jr. and the completion of his tactful and 
effective work with the school administrative staff in De­
cember 1969 and January 1970. Dr. Finger has a degree 
in science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 
a doctor’s degree in education from Harvard University, 
and twenty years’ experience in education and educational 
problems. He has worked in a number of school desegrega­
tion cases and has a rare capacity for perception and solu­
tion of educational problems. His work with the staff had

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1209a

the catalytic effect of freeing and inducing the staff to 
work diligently in the preparation of plans that would 
accomplish the result required, and which would be co­
hesive and efficient from an educational point of view.

28. Hearings on the “Finger” plans and on the board’s 
proposed plans were conducted on February 2 and Febru­
ary 5, 1970. These plans may best be understood if they 
are considered in four divisions:

29. The plan for senior high schools.—The plan ordered 
to be put into effect May 4, 1970 is the board’s own plan 
for desegregation of the senior high schools in all particu­
lars except that the order calls for the assignment to 
Independence High School of some 300 black children. The 
board contends the high school plans will call for additional 
transportation for 2,497 students and will require 69 busses. 
The court is unable to accept this view of the evidence. All 
transportation under both the board and the court plan 
is covered by state law.

30. The plan for junior high schools.—A plan for junior 
high schools was prepared by the board staff and Dr. 
Finger and was submitted to the court as Dr. Finger’s 
plan. The board submitted a separate plan. Both plans 
used the technique of re-zoning. The school board’s plan 
after all of their re-zoning had been done left Piedmont 
Junior High School 90% black and shifting towards 100% 
black. The plan designed by Dr. Finger with staff assist­
ance included zoning in such a way as to desegregate all 
the schools. This zoning was aided by a technique of 
“satellite” districts. For example, black students from 
satellite districts in the central city area around Piedmont 
Courts will be assigned to Alexander Graham Junior High,

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1210a

which is predominantly white. Black students from the area 
around Northwest Junior High School (all-black) will be 
similarly transferred to Wilson Junior High, northwest of 
the air port. These one-way transfers, essentially identical 
in nature to the board’s July 29, 1969 plan, will result in 
the substantial desegregation of all the junior high schools, 
which are left under this plan with black student popula­
tions varying from 9% at J. H. Gunn to 33% at Alexander 
and Randolph.

The court order did not require the adoption of the 
Finger plan. In paragraph 19 of the order the board were 
given four choices of action to complete the process of 
desegregating the junior high schools. These choices were 
(1) Re-zoning; (2) Two-way transporting of pupils between 
Piedmont and white schools; (3) Closing Piedmont and as­
signing the black students to other junior high schools; or 
(4) Adoption of the Finger plan.

The board elected to adopt and did adopt the Finger 
plan by resolution on February 9, 1970.

The defendants have offered figures on the basis of which 
they ask the court to find that 4,359 students will have to 
be transported under the junior high school plan and that 
84 busses will be required. The court is unable to find that 
these contentions are borne out by the statistics ajid other 
evidence offered.

Hr. Self, the school superintendent, and Dr. Finger, the 
court appointed expert, both testified that the transporta­
tion required to implement the plan for junior highs would 
be less expensive and easier to arrange than the transporta­
tion proposed under the board plan. The court finds this 
to be a fact.

Two schools may be used to illustrate this point. Smith 
Junior High under the board plan would have a contigu­

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1211a

ous district six miles in length extending 41/) miles north 
from the school itself. The district throughout the greater 
portion of its length is one-half mile wide and all roads 
in its one-half mile width are diagonal to its borders. East­
way Junior High presents a shape somewhat like a large 
wooden pistol with a fat handle surrounding the school 
off Central Avenue in East Charlotte and with a corridor 
extending three miles north and then extending at right 
angles four miles west to draw students from the Double 
Oaks area in northwest Charlotte. Obviously picking up 
students in narrow corridors along which no major road 
runs presents a considerable transportation problem.

The Finger plan makes no unnecessary effort to main­
tain contiguous districts, but simply provides for the send­
ing of busses from compact inner city attendance zones, 
non-stop, to the outlying white junior junior high schools, 
thereby minimizing transportation tie-ups and making the 
pick-up and delivery of children efficient and time-saving.

It also is apparent that if the board had sought the 
minimum departure from its own plan, such minimum re­
sult could have been achieved by accepting the alternative 
of transporting white children into and black children out 
of the Piedmont school until its racial characteristics had 
been eliminated.

In summary, as to junior high schools, the court finds 
that the plan chosen by the board and approved by the 
court places no greater logistic or personal burden upon 
students or administrators than the plan proposed by the 
school board; that the transportation called for by the 
approved plan is not substantially greater than the tran­
sportation called for by the board plan; that the approved 
plan will be more economical, efficient and cohesive and 
easier to administer and will fit in more nearly with the

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1212a

transportation problems involved in desegregating ele­
mentary and senior high schools, and that the board made 
a correct administrative and educational choice in choosing 
this plan instead of one of the other three methods.

31. The plan for elementary schools.—The elementary 
school desegregation program is best understood by divid­
ing it into two parts: (a) The 27 schools being desegregated 
by zoning; and (b) The 34 schools being desegregated by 
grouping, pairing and transportation between school zones.

32. The re-zoned group. Two plans were submitted to 
the court. The school board plan was prepared for the 
board by its staff. It relied entirely upon zoning with the 
aid of some computer data supplied by Mr. Weil, a board 
employed consultant. It did as much as could reasonably 
be accomplished by re-zoning school boundaries. It would 
leave nine elementary schools 83% to 100% black. (These 
schools now serve 6,462 students—over half the black ele­
mentary pupils.) It would leave approximately half the 
white elementary students attending schools which are 86% 
to 100% white. In short, it does not tackle the problem of 
the black elementary schools in northwest Charlotte.

The “Finger plan” was the result of nearly two months 
of detailed work and conference between Dr. Finger and 
the school administrative staff. Dr. Finger prepared sev­
eral plans to deal with the problem within the guidelines 
set out in the December 1, 1969 order. Like the board plan, 
the Finger plan does as much by re-zoning school atten­
dance lines as can reasonably be accomplished. However, 
unlike the board plan, it does not stop there. It goes fur­
ther and desegregates all the rest of the elementary schools 
by the technique of grouping two or three outlying schools 
with one black inner city school; by transporting black

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1213a

students from grades one through four to the outlying white 
schools; and by transporting white students from the fifth 
and sixth grades from the outlying white schools to the 
inner city black school.

The “Finger plan” itself in the form from which in prin­
ciple the court approved on February 5, 1970, was prepared 
by the school staff and was filed with the court by repre­
sentatives of the school board on February 2, 1970. It 
represents the combined thought of Dr. Finger and the 
school administrative staff as to a valid method for promptly 
desegregating the elementary schools, if such desegrega­
tion is required by law to be accomplished.

This plan was drafted by the staff and by Dr. Finger 
in such a way as to make possible immediate desegregation 
if it should be ordered by an appellate court in line with 
then current opinions of appellate courts.

The testimony of the school superintendent, Dr. Self, 
was, and the court finds as a fact, that the zoning portion 
of the plan can be implemented by April 1, 1970 along edu­
cationally sound lines and that the transportation problems 
presented by the zoning portion of the plan can be solved 
with available resources.

The court has reviewed the statistics supplied to it by 
the original defendants with regard to elementary schools 
to be desegregated by re-zoning. These schools have been 
zoned with compact attendance areas and with a few ex­
ceptions they have no children beyond IV2 miles distance 
from the school to which they are assigned. Although some 
transportation will be required, the amount is not consider­
able when weighed against the already existing capacity 
of the system. The court specifically finds that not more 
than 1,300 students will require transportation under this 
portion of the program and that the bus trips would be so

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1214a

short and multiple bus runs so highly practical that 10 
school busses or less will be adequate.

33. The pairing and grouping of 34 elementary schools.
This part of the plan as previously described would

group an inner city black school with two or more outly­
ing white schools and assign children back and forth be­
tween the two so that desegregated fifth and sixth grades 
would be established in the presently black schools and de­
segregated grades one through four would be established 
in the presently white schools. The estimate of Dr. Finger 
and Dr. Self, the superintendent, was that this program 
would require transporting roughly 5,000 white pupils of 
fifth and sixth grade levels into inner city schools. The 
board in its latest estimate puts the total figure at 10,206. 
.bust what is the net additional number of students to bo 
transported who are not already receiving transportation 
is open to considerable question.

34. The Discount Factors.—The court accepts at face 
value, for the most part, the defendants’ evidence of mat­
ters of independent fact, but is unable to agree with the 
opinions or factual conclusions urged by counsel as to the 
numbers of additional children to be transported, and as 
to the cost and difficulty of school bus transportation. The 
defendants in their presentation have interpreted the facts 
to suggest inconvenient and expensive and burdensome 
views of the court's order. Their figures must be discounted 
in light of various factors, all shown by the evidence, as 
follows;

tat Some 5.000 children daily are provided trans­
portation on City Coach Lines, in addition to the

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1215a

23,600 and more who ride school busses. These have 
not been considered in the defendants’ calculations.

(b) Not all students eligible for transportation actu­
ally accept it. The board’s estimates of transportation, 
however, assume that transportation must be provided 
daily for all eligible students.

(c) Not all registered students attend all schools 
every day. The board’s figures appear to assume they 
do. Statewide, average daily attendance is less than 
94% of initial registration.

(d) The present average number of students trans­
ported round trip, to and from school, per bus, per 
day, is more than 83. The board’s estimates, however, 
are based on the assumption that they can transport 
only 44 or 46 pupils, round trip, per bus, per day 
when the bus serves a desegregation role.

(e) Busses now being used make an average of 1.8 
trips per day. Board estimates to implement the de­
segregation plan contemplate only one trip per bus 
per day!

(f) The average one-way bus trip in the system to­
day is over 15 miles in length and takes nearly an hour 
and a quarter. The average length of the one-way trips 
required under the court approved plan for elementary 
students is less than seven miles, and would appear 
to require not over 35 minutes at the most, because no 
stops will be necessary between schools.

(g) The board’s figures do not contemplate using 
busses for more than one load of passengers morning 
or afternoon. Round trips instead of one-way trips 
morning and afternoon could cut the bus requirements 
sharply.

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1216a

(h) The number of busses required can be reduced 
35% to 50% by staggering the opening and closing 
hours of schools so that multiple bus trips can be made. 
This method is not considered in the board’s estimates, 
according to testimony of J. D. Morgan, bus superin­
tendent.

(i) Substantial economies may reasonably be ex­
pected when all phases of the bussing operation have 
been coordinated instead of being considered sepa­
rately.

(j) In estimating how many children live more than 
a mile and a half from schools, and therefore are en­
titled to transportation, the board’s transportation peo­
ple have used some very short measurements. As the 
court measures the maps, very few of the students in 
the re-zoned elementary schools, for example, live 
more than 1 miles from their assigned schools. If 
the board wants to transport children who live less 
than IV2 miles away they may, but if they do, it is 
because of a board decision rather than because of the 
court’s order.

(k) Transportation requirements could be reduced 
by raising the walking distance temporarily from IV2 

to perhaps 1% miles. This has apparently not been 
taken into account.

(l) Testimony of J. D. Morgan shows that busses 
can be operated at a 25% overload. Thus a 60-passen­
ger bus (the average size) can if necessary transport 
75 children. Some busses in use today transport far 
more.

35. Findings of Fact as to Required Transportation.— 
After many days of detailed study of maps, exhibits and

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1217a

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970

statistics, and after taking into account all the evidence, 
including the “discount factors” mentioned above, the court 
finds as facts that the maximum number of additional chil­
dren who may conceivably require transportation under the 
court ordered plans, and the maximum numbers of addi­
tional busses needed are as follows:

Senior Highs

Net Additional Number of
Transportees Busses Needed

1,500 20
Junior Highs 2,500 28

Elementaries:
Re-zoned 1,300 10
Paired and Grouped 8,000 80

Totals 13,300 138

36. These children (all but a few hundred at Hawthorne, 
Piedmont, Alexander Graham, Myers Park High School, 
Eastover, West Charlotte and a few other places), if as­
signed to the designated schools, are entitled to transpor­
tation under existing state law, independent of and regard­
less of this court’s order respecting bussing.

37. The court also finds that the plan proposed by the 
board would have required transportation for at least 5,000 
students in addition to those now being transported.

38. Separability.—Each of the four parts of the deseg­
regation plan is separable from the other. The re-zoning 
of elementaries can proceed independent of the pairing 
and grouping. The pairing and grouping can take place 
independent of all other steps. The implementation of the



1218a

pairing and grouping lolan itself can he done piecemeal, 
one group or several groups at a time, as transportation 
becomes available. It was planned that way.

39. The Time Table.—The February 5, 1970 order fol­
lowed the time table requested by the defendants. At the 
February 2 hearing, the school board attorney requested 
until April 1, 1970 to desegregate the elementary schools 
(T. 20); he requested that high school seniors be allowed 
to graduate where they are (T. 21); he proposed continu­
ing junior high students and grades 10 and 11 in their 
present schools until the third week before the end of 
school (T. 21). The request of Dr. Self, the school super­
intendent, was identical as to elementaries and 12th grad­
ers ; he preferred to transfer 10th and 11th graders about 
two weeks before school was over (T. 95). Availability of 
transportation was the only caveat voiced at the hearing.

40. The February 5 order expressly provided that “ra­
cial balance” was not required. The percentage of black 
students in the various parts of the plans approved vary 
from 3% black at Bain to 41% black at Cornelius.

41. Cost.—Busses cost around $5,400.00 each, varying 
according to size and equipment. Total cost of 138 busses, 
if that many are needed, would therefore be about $745,- 
200.00. That is much less than one week’s portion of the 
Mecklenburg school budget. Busses last 10 to 15 years. 
The state replaces them when worn out.

Some additional employees will be needed if the trans­
portation system is enlarged.

Defendants have offered various estimates of large in­
creased costs for administration, parking, maintenance, 
driver education and other items. If they choose to incur

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1219a

excess costs, the court can not prevent it. However, the 
evidence shows that school bus systems in Charlotte and 
other urban North Carolina counties tend to operate at 
lower costs per student than rural systems. Adding a 
larger number of short-range capacity loads should not 
tend to increase the present overall per capita cost of $40 
a year.

It is the opinion and finding of the court that the annual 
transportation cost per student, including amortization of 
the purchase price of the busses, will be at or close to 
$40.00, and that the total annual cost, which is paid about 
half by the state and half by the county, of implementing 
this order, will not exceed the following:

For zoned Elementaries (1,300) $ 52,000
For paired Elementaries (8,000) 320,000

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970

41. Availability.—The evidence shows that the defend­
ant North Carolina Board of Education has approximately 
400 brand new school busses and 375 used busses in storage,
awaiting orders from school boards. None had been sold 
at last report. The state is unwilling to sell any of them 
to Mecklenburg because of the “anti-bussing” law. No or­
ders for busses have been placed by the school board.

If orders to manufacturers had been placed in early 
February, delivery in 60 or 90 days could have been antici­
pated. The problem is not one of availability of busses

* The local system’s share of this figure would be $266,000.00, 
which at current rates is only slightly more than the annual interest 
or the value of the $3,000,000.00 worth of school properties elosed 
in 1060.

For Junior Highs 
For Senior Highs

(2.500) 100,000
(1.500) 60,000

$532,000*



1220a

but of unwillingness of Mecklenburg to buy them and of 
the state to furnish or make them available until final 
decision of this case.

This the 21 day of March, 1970.

/ s /  James B. McMillan 
James B. McMillan 

United States District Judge

Supplemental Findings of Fact dated March 21, 1970



1221a

Pursuant to the order of the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, filed March 5, 1970, this memorandum is issued.

Previous orders cover more than one hundred pages. 
The motions and exhibits and pleadings and evidence num­
ber thousands of pages, and the evidence is several feet 
thick. It may be useful to reviewing authorities to have 
a brief summary of the case in addition to the supple­
mental facts on the questions of transportation.

Before 1954, the schools in Charlotte and Mecklenburg 
County were segregated by state law. The General As­
sembly, in response to Brown v. Board of Education, 
adopted the Pupil Assignment Act of 1955-56, North Caro­
lina General Statutes, §115-176, which was quoted in the 
April 23, 1969 order and which is still the law of North 
Carolina. It provides that school boards have full and 
final authority to assign children to schools and that no 
child can be enrolled in nor attend a school to which he 
has not been so assigned.

“Freedom of choice” to pick a school has never been 
a right of North Carolina public school students. It has 
been a courtesy offered in recent years by some school 
boards, and its chief effect has been to preserve segre­
gation.

Slight token desegregation of the schools occurred in 
the years following Brown. The Mecklenburg County and 
the Charlotte City units were merged in 1961.

This suit was filed in 1965, and an order was entered 
in 1965 approving the school board’s then plan for de­
segregation, which was substantially a freedom of choice 
plan coupled with the closing of some all-black schools.

There was no further court action until 1968, when a 
motion was filed requesting further desegregation. Most

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1222a

white students still attended “white” schools and most black 
students still attended “black” schools. The figures on 
this subject were analyzed in this court’s opinion of 
April 23, 1969 (300 F.Supp. 1358 (1969)), in which the 
background and history of local segregation and its con­
tinuing discriminatory nature were analyzed at length. 
In that order the court ruled that substantial progress had 
been made and that many of the alleged acts of discrimina­
tion were not proved.

However, certain significant findings and conclusions 
were made which have been of record without appeal for 
eleven months. These include the following:

1. The schools were found to be unconstitutionally 
segregated.

2. Freedom of choice had failed; no white child had 
chosen to attend any black school, and freedom of 
choice promoted rather than reduced segregation.

3. The concentration of black population in north­
west Charlotte and the school segregation which ac­
companied it were primarily the result of discrimina­
tory laws and governmental practices rather than of 
natural “ neighborhood” forces. (This finding was re­
affirmed in the order of November 7, 1969.)

4. The board had located and controlled the size 
and population of schools so as to maintain segrega­
tion.

5. The plan approved and put into effect in 1965 
had not eliminated unlawful segregation.

6. The defendants operate a sizeable fleet of busses, 
serving over 23,000 children at an average annual cost 
(to state and local governments combined) of not more 
than $40 per year per pupil.

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1223a

7. Transportation by bus is a legitimate tool for 
school boards to use to desegregate schools.

8. Faculties were segregated, and should be de­
segregated.

9. Under Green v. New Kent County School Board, 
391 U.S. 430 (1968), there was now an active duty 
to eliminate segregation.

The board was directed to submit a plan to desegre­
gate the schools.

The order produced a great outcry from school board 
members and others. It also produced a plan which called 
for the closing of Second Ward, the only black high school 
located near a white neighborhood; and it produced no 
rezoning, no elimination of gerrymandering, and only 
minor changes in the pupil assignment plan. It did pro­
duce an undertaking to desegregate the faculties.. The plan 
was reviewed in the court order of June 20, 1969, in which 
the court approved the provision for offering transporta­
tion to children transferring from majority to minority 
situations and directed the preparation of a plan for pupil 
desegregation.

The court also specifically found that gerrymandering 
had been taking place; and several schools were cited as 
illustrations of gerrymandering to promote or preserve 
segregation.

In June of 1969, pursuant to the hue and cry which 
had been raised about “bussing,” Mecklenburg representa­
tives in the General Assembly of North Carolina sought 
and procured passage of the so-called “anti-bussing” sta­
tute, X.C. G.S. 115-176.1. That statute reads as follows:

“ §115-176.1. Assignment of pupils based on race, 
creed, color or national origin prohibited. —No per­
son shall be refused admission into or be excluded 
from any public school in this State on account of

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1224a

race, creed, color or national origin. No school at­
tendance district or zone shall be drawn for the pur­
pose of segregating persons of various races, creed, 
colors or national origins from the community.

“Where administrative units have divided the geo­
graphic area into attendance districts or zones, pupils 
shall be assigned to schools within such attendance 
districts; provided, however, that the board of edu­
cation of an administrative unit may assign any pupil 
to a school outside of such attendance district or zone 
in order that such pupil may attend a school of a 
specialized kind including but not limited to a voca­
tional school or school operated for, or operating pro­
grams for, pupils mentally or physically handicapped, 
or for any other reason which the board of education 
in its sole discretion deems sufficient. No student shall 
be assigned or compelled to attend any school on ac­
count of race, creed, color or national origin, or for 
the purpose of creating a balance or ratio of race, 
religion or national origins. Involuntary bussing of 
students in contravention of this article is prohibited, 
and public funds shall not be used for any such bussing.

“ The provisions of this article shall not apply to a 
temporary assignment due to the unsuitability of a 
school for its intended purpose nor to any assign­
ment or transfer necessitated by overcrowded condi­
tions or other circumstances which, in the sole discre­
tion of the school board, require assignment or re­
assignment .

“ The provisions of this article shall not apply to 
an application for the assignment or reassignment by 
the parent, guardian or person standing in loco pa­
rentis of any pupil or to any assignment made pur­
suant to a choice made by any pupil who is eligible

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1225a

to make such choice pursuant to the provisions of a 
freedom of choice plan voluntarily adopted by the 
board of education of an administrative unit. (1969, 
c. 1274.)”

The board’s next plan was filed July 29, 1969, and was 
approved for 1969-70 by the order of August 15, 1969. 
The August 15 order contained the following paragraph:

“The most obvious and constructive element in the 
plan is that the School Board has reversed its field 
and has accepted its affirmative constitutional duty to 
desegregate pupils, teachers, principals and staff mem­
bers ‘at the earliest possible date.’ It has recognized 
that where people live should not control where they 
go to school nor the quality of their education, and 
that transportation may be necessary to comply with 
the law. It has recognized that easy methods will not 
do the job ; that rezoning of school lines, perhaps whole­
sale; pairing, grouping or clustering of schools; use 
of computer technology and all available modern busi­
ness methods can and must be considered in the dis­
charge of the Board’s constitutional duty. This court 
does not take lightly the Board’s promises and the 
Board’s undertaking of its affirmative duty under the 
Constitution and accepts these assurances at face 
value. They are, in fact, the conclusions which neces­
sarily follow when any group of women and men of 
good faith seriously study this problem with knowl­
edge of the facts of this school system and in light of 
the law of the land.”

The essential action of the board’s July 29, 1969 plan 
was to close seven inner-city black schools and to re-assign 
their pupils to designated white suburban schools, and to

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1226a

transport these children by bus to these suburban schools. 
In addition, it was proposed to re-assign 1,245 students 
from named black schools to named suburban white schools 
and provide them transportation.

The total of this one-way transportation of black stu­
dents only to white schools under this plan was stated to 
be 4,245 children.

No problem of transportation or other resources was 
raised or suggested.

The evidence of the defendants is that the property 
value of the schools thus closed exceeds $3,000,000. For 
the most part, that property stands idle today.

The “anti-bussing” law was not found by the board to 
interfere with this proposed wholesale re-assignment and 
“massive bussing,” of black children only, for purposes 
of desegregation.

The plan, by order of August 15, 1969, was approved 
on a one-year basis only, and the board was directed to 
prepare and file by November 17, 1969, a plan for complete 
desegregation of all schools, to the maximum extent pos­
sible, by September 1, 1970.

The defendants filed a motion asking that the deadline 
to prepare a plan be extended from November 17, 1969, 
to February 1, 1970. The court called for a report on the 
results of the July 29, 1969 plan. Those results were out­
lined in this court’s order of November 7, 1969. In sub­
stance, the plan which was supposed to bring 4,245 children 
into a desegregated situation had been handled or allowed 
to dissipate itself in such a way that only about one-fourth 
of the promised transfers were made; and as of now only 
767 black children are actually being transported to subur­
ban white schools instead of the 4,245 advertised when 
the plan Avas proposed by the board. (See defendants’

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1227a

March 13, 1970 response to plaintiffs’ requests for admis­
sions.)

The meager results of eight months of planning were 
further set out in this court’s November 7, 1969 order, 
as follows:

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970

“ The Situation Today

“ The following table illustrates the racial distribution of the
present school population:

Schools Readily Identifiable as W hite

Number of Numbers of Students
% W hite Schools W hite Black Totals

100% 9 6,605 2 6,607
98-99% 9 . 4,801 49 4,850
95-97% 12 10,836 505 11,341
90-94% 17 14,070 1,243 15,313
86-89%. 10 8,700 1,169 9,869

57 45,012 2,968 47,980

Schools Readily Identifiable as Black

Number of Numbers of Studen TS
% Black Schools W hite Black Totals

100% 11 2 9,216 9,218
98-99% 5 41 3,432 3.473
90-97% 3 121 1,297 1,418
56-89% 6 989 2,252 3,241

25 1,153 16,197 17,350

Schools Not Readily Identifiable by Race

Number of Numbers of Students
% Black Schools W hite Black Totals

32-49% 10 4,320 2,868 7,188
17-20% 8 5,363 1,230 6,593
22-29% 6 3,980 1,451 5,431

24 13,663 5,549 19,212

Totals: 106 59,828 24,714 84,542



1228a

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970 

Some of the data from the table, re-stated, is as follows:
Number of schools .................................................  106
Number of white pupils .....................................  59,828
Number of black pupils .....................................  24,714
Total pupils ..........................................................  84,542
Per cent of white pupils .....................................  71%
Per cent of black pupils .....................................  29%
Number of “white” schools .................................. 57
Number of white pupils in those schools ....... 45,012
Number of “black” schools .................................. 25
Number of black pupils in those schools ......... 16,197
Number of schools not readily identifiable by

race ...................................................................... 24
Number of pupils in those schools ..................  19,212
Number of schools 98-100% black ....................  16
Negro pupils in those schools ............................  12,648
Number of schools 98-100% white ......................  18
White pupils in those schools ............................  11,406

“ Of the 24,714 Negroes in the schools, something above
8,500 are attending ‘white’ schools or schools not readily 
identifiable by race. More than 16,000, however, are obvi­
ously still in all-black or predominantly black schools. The 
9,216 in 100% black situations are considerably more than 
the number of black students in Charlotte in 1954 at the 
time of the first Brown decision. The black school prob­
lem has not been solved.

“ The schools are still in major part segregated or ‘dual’ 
rather than desegregated or ‘unitary.’

“The black schools are for the most part in black resi­
dential areas. However, that does not make their segrega­
tion constitutionally benign. In previous opinions the facts



1229a

respecting their locations, their controlled size and their 
population have already been found. Briefly summarized, 
these facts are that the present location of white schools in 
white areas and of black schools in black areas is the result 
of a varied group of elements of public and private action, 
all deriving their basic strength originally from public law 
or state or local governmental action. These elements in­
clude among others the legal separation of the races in 
schools, school busses, public accommodations and housing; 
racial restrictions in deeds to land; zoning ordinances; city 
planning; urban renewal; location of public low rent hous­
ing; and the actions of the present School Board and others, 
before and since 1954, in locating and controlling the capac­
ity of schools so that there would usually be black schools 
handy to black neighborhoods and white schools for white 
neighborhoods. There is so much state action embedded 
in and shaping these events that the resulting segregation 
is not innocent or ‘de facto,’ and the resulting schools are 
not ‘unitary’ or desegregated.

“ F reedom of C hoice

“Freedom of choice has tended to perpetuate segrega­
tion by allowing children to get out of schools where their 
race would be in a minority. The essential failure of the 
Board’s 1969 pupil plan was in good measure due to free­
dom of choice.

“As the court recalls the evidence, it shows that no white 
students have ever chosen to attend any of the ‘black’ 
schools.

“Freedom of choice does not make a segregated school 
system lawful. As the Supreme Court said in Green v. 
New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430 (1968):

“ * * If there are reasonably available other ways,
such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1230a

more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school 
ysstem, “ freedom of choice” must he held unacceptable.’

“Redrawing attendance lines is not likely to accomplish 
anything stable toward obeying the constitutional mandate 
as long as freedom of choice or freedom of transfer is 
retained. The operation of these schools for the foresee­
able future should not include freedom of choice or trans­
fer except to the extent that it reduces segregation, although 
of course the Board under its statutory power of assign­
ment can assign any pupil to any school for any lawful 
reason.”

(The information on the twTo previous pages essentially 
describes the condition in the Charlotte-Mecklenberg 
schools today.)

Meanwhile, on October 29, 1969, the Supreme Court in 
Alexander v. Holmes County, 396 U. S. 19 (1969), ordered 
thirty Mississippi school districts desegregated immediately 
and said that the Court of Appeals

“ . . . should have denied all motions for additional time 
because continued operation of segregated schools un­
der a standard of allowing all deliberate speed for 
desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible. 
Under explicit holdings of this Court, the obligation 
of every school district is to terminate dual school 
systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only 
unitary schools. Griffin v. School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 
234 (1964); Green v. School Board of Neiv Kent 
County, 391 U. S. 430, 439, 442 (1968).” (Emphasis 
added.)

Because of this action and decision of the Supreme Court, 
this court did not feel that it had discretion to grant the 
requested time extension, and it did not do so.

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1231a

The board then filed a further desegregation plan on 
November 17, 1969. The plan was reviewed in the order of 
December 1, 1969. It was not approved because it rejected 
the goal of desegregating all the schools or even all the 
black schools. It proposed to concentrate on methods such 
as rezoning and freedom of choice and to discard any con­
sideration of pairing, grouping, clustering and transport­
ing or other methods. It proposed to retain numerous all­
black schools.

The performance results, set out in previous orders, show 
that the all-black schools lag far behind white schools or 
desegregated schools.

The court, in an order dated December 1, 1969, reviewed 
the recent decisions of courts and laid out specific guide­
lines for the preparation of a plan which would desegregate 
the schools. A consultant, Dr. John A. Finger, Jr., was 
appointed to draft a plan for the desegregation of the 
schools for use of the court in preparing a final order. The 
school board was authorized and encouraged to prepare an­
other plan of its own if it wished.

Dr. Finger worked with the school board staff members 
over a period of two months. He drafted several different 
plans. When it became apparent that he could produce 
and would produce a plan which would meet the require­
ments outlined in the court’s order of December 1, 1969, the 
school staff members prepared a school board plan which 
would be subject to the limitations the board had described 
in its November 17, 1969 report. The result was the pro­
duction of two plans—the board plan and the plan of the 
consultant, Dr. Finger.

The detailed work on both final plans was done by the 
school board staff.

The high school plan prepared by the board was recom­
mended by Dr. Finger to the court with one minor change.

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1232a

This change involved transporting three hundred inner city 
black children to Independence High School. As to high 
school students, then, the plan which was ordered by the 
court to take effect on May 4, 1970 is the school board’s 
plan, with transportation added for three hundred students. 
The proportion of black children in the high schools varies 
from 17% to 36% under this plan.

For junior high schools, separate plans were prepared 
by Dr. Finger and by the board. The board plan would 
have used zoning to desegregate all the black junior high 
schools except Piedmont, which it would have left 90% 
black. The Finger plan employed re-zoning as far as ap­
peared feasible, and then provided for transportation be­
tween inner city black zones and outlying white schools to 
desegregate all the schools, including Piedmont.

The court offered the school hoard the options of (1) re­
zoning, or (2) closing Piedmont, or (3) two-way transport 
of students between Piedmont and other schools, or (4) 
accepting the Finger plan which desegregates all junior 
high schools.

The hoard met and elected to adopt the Finger plan 
rather than close Piedmont or rearrange their own plan. 
The Finger plan may require the transportation of more 
students than the board plan would have required, but it 
handles the transportation more economically and effi­
ciently, and does the job of desegregating the junior high 
schools. The percentage of black students in the junior 
high schools thus constituted will vary from 9% to 33%.

The transportation of junior high students called for 
in the plan thus adopted by the board pursuant to the court 
order of February 5, 1970, is essentially the same sort 
that was adopted without hesitation for 4,245 black chil­
dren when the seven black inner city schools were closed 
in 1969.

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1233a

For elementary schools the problem is more complicated. 
Dr. Finger prepared several plans to desegregate the ele­
mentary schools and reviewed them with the school staff. 
It was apparent that even the gerrymandering considered 
by the board could not desegregate all the elementary 
schools, and that without transportation there is no way 
by which in the immediate future the continuing effects of 
state imposed segregation can be removed. Dr. Finger 
prepared a plan which proposed re-zoning of as many 
schools as could be desegregated by re-zoning and which 
then proposed pairing or grouping of schools. By pairing 
or grouping, a black school and one or more white schools 
could be desegregated by having grades one through four, 
black and white, attend the white schools, and by having 
grades five and six, black and white, attend the black school, 
and by providing transportation where needed to accom­
plish this.

The original Finger plan proposed to group black inner 
city schools with white schools mostly in the south and 
southeast perimeter of the district.

The school staff drafted a plan which went as far as 
they could go with re-zoning and stopped there, leaving 
half the black elementary children in black schools and half 
the white elementary children in white schools.

Tn other words, both the plan eventually proposed by the 
school board and the plan proposed by Dr. Finger went 
as far as was thought practical to go with re-zoning. The 
distinction is that the Finger plan goes ahead and does the 
job of desegregating the black elementary schools, whereas 
the board plan stops half way through the job.

In its original form the Finger plan for elementary 
schools would have required somewhat less transportation 
than its final form, but would have been more difficult to

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1234a

put into effect rapidly. Tlie pressure of time imposed by 
decisions of the Supreme Court and other appellate courts 
had become such that there was concern lest there be an 
order from one of the appellate courts for immediate 
February or March desegregation of the entire system. The 
school staff therefore, based on Finger’s guidelines, pre­
pared a final draft of his plan incorporating pairing, group­
ing and transporting on a basis which would better allow 
for early implementation with a minimum of administrative 
complications, in lieu of his original plan.

The result is that the plan for elementary schools which 
is known as the “Finger plan” was prepared in detail by 
the school staff and incorporates the thought and work of 
the staff on the most efficient method to desegregate the 
elementary schools.

The time table originally adopted by this court in April 
of 1969 was one calling for substantial progress in 1969 
and complete desegregation by September 1970. However, 
on October 29, 1969, in Alexander v. Holmes County, the 
Supreme Court ordered immediate desegregation of sev­
eral Deep South school systems and said that the Court 
of Appeals “should have denied all motions for additional 
time.”  The Supreme Court adhered to that attitude in all 
decisions prior to this court’s order of February 5, 1970. 
In Carter v. West Feliciana Parish,------U. S . -------  (Janu­
ary 14, 1970), they reversed actions of the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals which had extended time for desegregat­
ing hundreds of thousands of Deep South children beyond 
February 1, 1970. In Nesbit v. Statesville, et al., 418 F.2d 
1040, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 2, 
1969, ordered the desegregation by January 1, 1970, of 
schools in Statesville, Reidsville and Durham, North Caro­
lina. Referring to the Alexander v. Holmes County deci­
sion, the Fourth Circuit said:

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1235a

“The clear mandate of the Court is immediacy. Further 
delays will not be tolerated in this circuit.”  (Emphasis 
added.)

In that opinion the Court directed this district court to 
adopt a plan on December 19, 1969, for the City of States­
ville, effective January 1, 1970, which “must provide for 
the elimination of the racial characteristics of Morningside 
School by pairing, zoning or consolidation, . . .”  As to 
Durham and Halifax, Virginia, courts were ordered to ac­
complish the necessary purpose by methods including pair­
ing, zoning, reassignment or “any other method that may 
be expected to work.”

In Whittenburg v. Greenville County, South Carolina,
——  F.2d ------ (January 1970), the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals, citing Holmes County and Carter v. West Feli­
ciana Parish, said:

“More importantly the Supreme Court said emphati­
cally it meant precisely what it said in Alexander that 
general reorganization of school systems is requisite 
now, that the requirement is not restricted to the school 
districts before the Supreme Court in Alexander, and 
that Courts of Appeals are not to authorize the post­
ponement of general reorganization until September 
1970.”  (Emphasis added.)

As to Greenville, in a case involving 58,000 children, the 
Court said that

“ The plan for Greenville may be based upon the revised 
plan submitted by the school board or upon any other 
plan that will create a unitary school system.”  (Em­
phasis added.)

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1236a

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970 

The Court further said:

“The District Court’s order shall not be stayed pend­
ing any appeal which may be taken to this court, hut, 
in the event of an appeal, modification of the order 
may be sought in this court by a motion accompanied 
by a request for immediate consideration.”

Upon rehearing the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said 
on January 26, 1970:

“The proper functioning of our judicial system requires 
that subordinate courts and public officials faithfully 
execute the orders and directions of the Supreme Court. 
Any other course would be fraught with consequences, 
both disastrous and of great magnitude. If there are 
appropritae exceptions, if the District Courts and the 
Courts of Appeals are to have some discretion to per­
mit school systems to finish the current 1969-1970 school 
year under current methods of operation, the Supreme 
Court may declare them, but no member of this court 
can read the opinions in c a r t e r  as leaving any room 
for the exercise by this court in this case of any dis­
cretion in considering a request for postponement of 
the reassignment of children and teachers until the 
opening of the next school year.

“For these reasons the petition for rehearing and for 
a stay of our order must be denied.” (Emphasis added.)

The above orders of the Supreme Court and the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals are the mandates under which 
this court had to make a decision concerning the plan to be 
adopted and the time when the plan should be implemented.



1237a

This court conducted hearings on February 2 and Feb­
ruary 5, 1970, upon the content and the effective date of 
the plans for desegregation of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
schools. On February 2nd, Mr. Waggoner, the attorney 
for the school board, requested the court to adopt a time 
table under which the elementary schools would be deseg­
regated immediately after Easter (about April 1st) and the 
junior highs and senior highs would be desegregated in 
May, about the third week before the end of school. Dr. 
Self, the school superintendent, requested essentially the 
same time table.

Dr. Self testified that the job could be done as to all 
students in the times requested if transportation could 
be arranged; and he and Mr. Waggoner indicated that by 
staggering hours of school and by effective use of busses 
the transportation problem might be solved.

The Supreme Court in Griffin v. Prince Edward County, 
377 IT. S. 218 (1964), had held that a school board could 
and should validly be required by a district court to re­
open a whole county school system rather than keep it 
closed to avoid desegregation, even though levying taxes 
and borrowing money might be necessary.

In view of the decisions above mentioned and the facts 
before the court, it appeared to this court that, the un­
doubted difficulties and inconveniences and expense caused 
by transferring children in mid-year to schools they did 
not choose would have to be outweighed by the mandates 
of the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals and that this court had and has a duty to require 
action now.

On February 5, 1970, therefore, a few days after the 
second Greenville opinion, this court entered its order for 
desegregation of the schools.

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1238a

The time table set in the February 5, 1970 order is pre­
cisely the time table suggested by Mr. Waggoner, the at­
torney for the defendants, in the record of the February 2, 
1970 hearing.

Paragraph 16 of the February 5, 1970 order reads:

“ The duty imposed by the law and by this order is the 
desegregation of schools and the maintenance of that 
condition. The plans discussed in this order, whether 
prepared by Board and staff or by outside consultants, 
such as computer expert, Mr. John W. Weil, or Dr. 
John A. Finger, Jr., are illustrations of means or 
partial means to that, end. The defendants are en­
couraged to use their full ‘know-how’ and resources 
to attain the results above described, and thus to 
achieve the constitutional end by any means at their 
disposal. The test is not the method or plan, but the 
results.”

The above summary is an outline only of the most sig­
nificant steps which have brought this case to its present 
position. Details of all the developments mentioned in this 
summary appear in previous orders and in the lengthy 
evidence.

Pursuant to the direction of the Circuit Court, this court 
has made and is filing contemporaneously herewith supple­
mental detailed findings of fact bearing on the transporta­
tion question.

This the 21st day of March, 1970.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan 
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge

Supplemental Memorandum dated March 21, 1970



1239a

The defendants, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed­
ucation and the individual Board members, object and 
except to certain supplementary findings of fact entered 
by the Court on March 21, 1970, and further move for 
amendment and clarification thereof.

The findings objected and excepted to and for which 
clarification is needed are set out below with paragraph 
numbers corresponding to those of the supplementary find­
ings of fact.

1. The Court’s order of February 5, 1970, contains a 
finding that is not supported in the record. The Court finds 
that the average cost for transportation per year per pupil 
is approximately $40 per year with local funds and state 
funds bearing approximately half the cost. This is at vari­
ance with the evidence in this matter. This finding should 
be amended to reflect that the approximate annual cost of 
transporting a pupil, without regard to depreciation or 
certain administrative costs, is slightly in excess of $20 per 
year for which the local school system receives almost total 
reimbursement from the state which receives a portion of 
its funds from the taxpayers of Mecklenburg County.

2. This finding relating to transportation to public 
schools by the state during the 1968-1969 school year re­
flects that 70.9 per cent elementary and 29.1 per cent high 
school students account for all transportation. The record 
is silent with reference to junior high schools and it is sub­
mitted that grades 7 and 8 are also included with the ele­
mentary students. In other words, the reporting in plain­

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1240a

tiffs’ Exhibit 15 is based on an 8-4 school system whereas 
the Mecklenburg system is based on a 6-3-3 system. It 
would therefore appear that of the 55 per cent of the aver­
age daily attendance in public schools transported, approxi­
mately 50 per cent would represent grades 1 through 6.

The finding “—plus another 5,000, whose fares are paid 
on the Charlotte City Coach Lines.” leaves the impression 
that the public school system reimtmrses students riding on 
buses operated by the Charlotte City Coach Lines. There is 
no evidence to support this finding and it is not true in fact.

4. The statement “pupils whose fares are paid on Char­
lotte City Coach Lines, Inc.—5,000” is inaccurate for the 
reasons stated in Paragraph 2 above.

The line “additional costs (1968-1969) per pupil to state 
—$19.92” should be changed to “reimbursement to school 
system (1968-1969) per pupil by state—$19.92.”

The line “total annual cost per pupil transported— 
$39.92” should be changed by amending the figure to ap­
proximately $20.00.

6. The Court makes the finding with reference to the 
1969-70 budget of the Charlotte-Mecklenhurg school system, 
but fails to further find that all funds are fully committed 
to fixed line items of the budget and that the school system 
has no surplus; in fact, the budgetary request was substan­
tially reduced by the County Commissioners. (Report to 
the Court with reference to compensatory education re­
quests). Furthermore, that upon official request of the 
Board of Education for additional funds with which to ac­
quire transportation equipment, the Board of County Com­

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and, Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1241a

missioners of Mecklenburg County has advised the Board 
of Education that no additional funds will he available for 
the operation of schools during the current fiscal year which 
expires on June 30, 1970, and therefore, approximately five- 
sixths of the budget had been expended at this time.

7. This paragraph leaves the implication that state funds 
could be used for capital outlay. To clear up this implica­
tion, the Court should find that state law requires local 
school boards to pay for additional school buses required 
and that the state will replace them upon obsolescence some 
twelve to fourteen years later, and further that the state 
will pay approximately $20 per year toward transportation 
of each child eligible under state law.

11. The finding of the Court with reference to trans­
portation of 5,000 children by contract carriers is erroneous. 
Mr. Morgan in his deposition of February 25, 1970, on page 
36, plainly stated that students were being transported on 
Charlotte City Coach Lines at a reduced fare. Mr. Morgan 
then inquired of Deaton that in the event a contract could 
be entered for transportation of students, would Charlotte 
City Coach Lines transport on the same reduced fare, to 
which Mr. Deaton replied in the negative. See also affidavit 
of Robert L. Deaton, Assistant General Manager of Char­
lotte City Coach Lines, Inc. dated February 10, 1970.

16. This paragraph should be amended to reflect that 
the state will bear approximately $20 of the annual trans­
portation cost of each student eligible for transportation 
under state regulations.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1242a

18. The clause “80 per cent of the buses require more 
than one hour of a one-way trip;” should he amended to 
77 per cent.

The clause “75 per cent of the buses make two or more 
trips each day;” should be amended to reflect 62 per cent 
of such buses.

The clause “average miles traveled by buses making one 
round trip per day is 34.5;” should be amended to reflect 
such average miles of 29.8 per day.

The clause “average bus mileage per day for buses mak­
ing two trips is 47.99” should be amended to reflect such 
average bus mileage at 43.5 miles per day.

For clarity, this paragraph should contain an explanation 
that each morning and afternoon mileage would represent 
one-half of the round trip mileage.

19. Clarification is requested with respect to the follow­
ing sentence in Paragraph 19: “The Court plan calls for 
pick-ups to he made at a few points in each school district, 
as testified to by Dr. Self, and for non-stop runs to be 
made between satellite zones and principal zones.” It was 
the understanding of the defendants that the method of 
pick-up and delivery of students would he left to their 
discretion. Clarification is requested to determine whether 
or not this is a specific directive of the Court amending its 
prior orders.

The Court should further clarify Paragraph 19 to find 
that in accordance with the affidavit of Mr. Herman Hoose 
dated February 24, 1970, that school buses will materially 
add to the congestion and safety of the traveling public 
on congested city streets.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1243a

20. This finding should he amended to reflect that only 
23,000 children are being transported at state expense at 
the present time. It should further reflect that although 
the distance of travel is not substantially greater for the 
children to be transported under the Court-ordered plan, 
their transportation will occur in congested city traffic 
which will require substantially longer time than trans­
portation in the outlying rural transportation system now 
principally employed by the school system.

21. This paragraph should he amended to reflect the 
true facts as follows: “On July 29, 1969, (pursuant to the 
Court’s April 23, 1969, order that they frame a plan for 
desegregation and that school buses could be used as 
needed), the defendants proposed a plan for closing seven 
inner-city black schools and transferring students from 
overcrowded schools and assigning them totaling some 
4,200 students to outlying schools. Students not wishing to 
attend the outlying schools were permitted to attend sur- 
sounding schools (transcript August 5, 1969, page 21) and 
Irwin Avenue Elementary (amendment to plan of July 29, 
1969). The plan was approved and has resulted in the 
transportation of approximately 1,300 inner-city students 
to outlying schools which required the utilization of 30 
buses. Transportation time for these 30 buses requires 
approximately one hour and fifteen minutes one way.

26. Clarification is requested of the sentence “It is the 
assignment of these children which is the particular subject 
of the reference in Paragraph 13 of the order to the manner 
of handling assignments within the school year.” Does the

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1244a;

Court direct the Board to utilize these students in making 
assignments for the conscious purpose of maintaining each 
school in a condition of desegregation? Shall such students 
be assigned to schools only where assignment of their race 
would improve or maintain a condition of desegregation 
in the school to which assignment is made?

27. Clarification is requested with reference to the cre­
dence and reliability the Court attributes to the efforts of 
the school staff in developing the plans for desegregation.

28. The term “hearings” should he amplified to reflect 
that the Court repeatedly stated that evidence regarding 
transportation costs and other transportation data was 
irrelevant. (Transcript of hearing, February 5, 1970, pages 
112-114, 128-130, 134, 150 and 151.)

29. Clarification is requested with reference to the sen­
tence “All transportation under both the Board and the 
Court plan is covered by state law.” Does the Court by 
this sentence amend its order of February 5, 1970, as 
amended by order of March 3, 1970, to the extent that the 
Board will not be required to furnish transportation to 
students who have been reassigned and whose attendance 
is necessary for the desegregation of the school of their 
attendance where they would not be furnished transporta­
tion under the applicable state law at state expense?

30. The sentence, “ These one-way transfers, essentially 
identical in nature to the Board’s July 29, 1969 plan, will 
result in the substantial desegregation of all the junior

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1245a

high schools, which are left under this plan with black 
student populations varying from 9 per cent at J. H. Gunn 
to 33 per cent at Alexander and Randolph.” As pointed 
out above, the Board in its July 29, 1969, plan as explained 
by Dr. Self (transcript, August 5, 1969, pages 21 and 22) 
provided one-way transfers only to those students who 
accepted and did not elect to go to surrounding schools or 
Irwin Avenue Elementary.

The Court should acknowledge that the four choices 
given to the School Board were, in reality, not choices at 
all. The Board had explored choice #1, rezoning, and found 
that Piedmont Junior High School could not he converted 
from a predominantly black school by such method; two- 
way involuntary transportation of pupils between Piedmont 
and white schools contravenes the Board’s idea of what 
the Constitution requires; alternative # 3  relating to clos­
ing of Piedmont was rejected by the Board among other 
reasons for the reason that the junior high schools are 
substantially overcrowded; the remaining alternative for 
the adoption of the Finger plan kept open the option of the 
Board to seek an appellate determination with respect to 
involuntary transportation of students out of their school 
district. The Board did not adopt the Finger plan, rather 
it was imposed by default in not electing alternatives #1, 
#2  and #3.

32. The sentence “It would leave nine elementary schools 
83 per cent to 100 per cent black” should be clarified to 
indicate that there are white students who will be assigned 
to each of these nine elementary schools, leaving no all 
black schools.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1246a

The sentence “In short, it does not tackle the problem of 
the black elementary schools in Northwest Charlotte” should 
he clarified to point out that although rezoning accomplished 
substantial desegregation in some predominantly black ele­
mentary schools in northwest Charlotte, nine schools re­
mained which were 83 to 99 per cent black.

The portion of the sentence appearing at the top of page 
16, ... the transportation problems presented by the zon­
ing portion of the plan can be solved with available re­
sources” is unsupported in the record. The defendants 
specifically object to the finding of the Court contained in 
the last paragraph of Paragraph 32 as there are many 
thousands of students who reside beyond one and one-half 
miles distant from the school to which they are assigned 
with respect to rezoned schools. The finding of the Court 
with reference to transportation requirements of 1,300 ele­
mentary students requiring ten buses is wholly unsupported 
by the record.

33. The sentence “The estimate of Dr. Finger and 
Dr. Self, the Superintendent, was that this program would 
require transporting roughly 5,000 white pupils of fifth 
and sixth grade levels into the inner-city schools” should 
be amended to reflect that conversely, roughly 5,000 inner- 
city blacks would be transported to the outlying Suburban 
schools.

The sentence “The Board in its latest estimate puts the 
total figure at 10,206,” should be amended to reflect that 
this figure represents approximately 5,000 white and 5,000 
black students.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1247a

The sentence “Just what is the net additional number 
of students to be transported who are not already receiv­
ing transportation is open to considerable question” is 
unsupported in the record. Both plaintiffs’ evidence 
through Dr. Finger and the Board through Mr. Morgan 
and Dr. Self are the only evidence in the record relating 
to this information and there is no dispute about the ap­
proximate number of students to be transported in the 
paired and grouped schools under the cross-busing feature.

34. Subparagraph A again carries the implication that 
some 5,000 children daily are provided transportation on 
City Coach Lines by the school system. This is erroneous 
as these children provide their own transportation and 
funds on City Coach Lines which offers a student discount.

Subparagraph B is erroneous to the extent that it as­
sumes a substantial discount of students accepting trans­
portation. The record clearly discloses that the elementary 
paired schools are so remote that transportation can be 
expected to be almost 100 per cent. This likewise holds 
true for transportation of students who live in the satellite 
districts. This leaves approximately 6,000 students who 
live in rezoned areas and even if substantially discounted 
would not materially affect the transportation require­
ments of the Court order.

Subparagraph C leaves the implication that transporta­
tion should be afforded based on average daily attendance. 
This overlooks the fact that transportation space must be 
available for all students entitled to transportation as all 
eligible students may or may not desire transportation 
on a given day.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1248a

Subparagraph D relating to number of students trans­
ported round trip per day per bus is more than 83 students. 
This overlooks utilization of each bus on 1.8 trips per 
day, thereby resulting in bus loading of approximately 44 
to 46 students per trip. This further overlooks the fact 
that larger buses may be employed in the county than 
proposed under the transportation of students in smaller 
buses in congested traffic.

Subparagraph E relating to the one trip per bus per 
day under the Board estimate clearly recognizes that 
buses may be utilized with respect to the paired schools 
for only one trip unless operational costs are increased 
40 to 60 per cent by resorting to adult drivers. The same 
holds true with reference to satellite schools. With refer­
ence to rezoned areas containing some 6,000 students, 
double utilization of some of the buses would not appre­
ciably affect the Board estimates.

Subparagraph F. The average one-way trips required 
under the Court plan are estimated at less than seven 
miles. It is submitted that this is unsupported in the record 
as the Court completely ignores lines of travel routes upon 
the streets as they exist and further ignores the actual ex­
perience of the school system as reflected on the principals 
reports with respect to the buses identified in the affidavit 
of Mr. J. D. Morgan and John W. Harrison, Sr. dated 
March 21, 1970. The actual time being reflected by the 
record for transportation is approximately one hour and 
fifteen minutes.

Subparagraph G relating to staggering of school open­
ing and closing, particularly with reference to zoned and 
paired schools, would reflect the following type schedule.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1249a

The first bus would begin picking children up at 6 :45 a.m., 
deliver the students to the first school at 8 :00, then begin 
picking up students for the second school, deliver them to 
school at 9:15, then the driver would prior to 2:30 return 
to the first school to pick up the children to return them 
home and they would reach home by 3:45. The bus then 
would go to the second school and pick up children and 
would get them home at approximately 5 :00. Obviously, 
the school administration would have to go to adult drivers 
who would increase the operational cost by 40 to 60 per 
cent (J.D. Morgan depositions and affidavit).

Subparagraph J reflects a misunderstanding with re­
spect to the requirements of North Carolina law for 
furnishing transportation. Students who reside more than 
one and one-half miles by the nearest convenient travel 
route and live in eligible areas are furnished transporta­
tion. By running a series of samples, the school adminis­
tration determined that a radius of one and one-quarter 
miles would average out to the nearest line of travel being 
one and one-half miles (J. D. Morgan affidavit and 
deposition).

Subparagraph K relating to increasing the walking 
distance would contravene state law with respect to 
furnishing transportation and would not appreciably re­
duce the number of students eligible for transportation.

Subparagraph L relating to overload is possible under 
present transportation circumstances. Only those students 
near the end of the bus run are permitted to stand and 
ride a relatively short distance. Standing in congested city 
traffic over long distances would be most unsafe in operat­
ing the transportation system.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1250a

35. Transportation estimates of the Court are unsup­
ported in the record and reflect utilization of discount 
factors in Paragraph 34 which are not valid. The Board 
estimates were prepared from demographic charts reflect­
ing the location of students to be transported and the 
record in this cause contains no such chart for the use 
of the Court in reaching its estimate. Furthermore, the 
busing estimates contravene the only reliable evidence in 
the record, the experience of the transportation system.

36. Finding of the Court that the transportation will be 
provided under state law is irrelevant as the taxpayers 
of this county contribute their tax dollars to Ealeigh in 
support of public education. State funds are merely a 
return of a portion of the funds they have paid to the 
state for public education.

38. The four parts of the desegregation plan are not 
separable. There is some overlapping between elementaries 
which are paired or rezoned which will require assignment 
of children on one basis or possibly both bases if the 
total plan is implemented.

The February 5, 1970, order, directs total and complete 
implementation of all elementary school desegregation as 
ordered at one time. The Board seeks clarification with 
respect to whether or not it was contemplated that pairing 
and grouping should be implemented piecemeal as sug­
gested by this paragraph.

39. This finding is an erroneous characterization of 
statements of counsel for the defendants and also the

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1251a

Superintendent. A  transcript of the hearing held on Feb­
ruary 2, 1970, at page 20 states:

“Assuming that the Finger plan must be implemented, 
it is believed that within the next six to eight weeks, 
we could begin phasing in elementary schools into the 
new zones and perhaps provide some of the pairing 
and groupings that Dr. Finger proposes. We would 
propose that the junior and senior high schools be de­
ferred until the last three weeks of school and high 
school senior complete the school year at the school of 
their present attendance.”

(Transcript February 2, 1970, page 21, line 23)

“ One problem that this time table overlooks is that we 
do not have the means for transporting the students 
nor is there likelihood that it will be available before 
the end of this school year.”

40. Although the February 5 order provided that “racial 
balance” was not required, it was the effect of the order. 
Otherwise, the results of the Court ordered plan would not 
have achieved approximate “optimal” ratios in all but a 
handful of schools in the system.

41. The cost estimate of the Court overlooks the un­
disputed testimony that the bus cost is being increased by 
approximately $400. Furthermore, the number of buses 
and the total reached by the Court are based upon an er­
roneous assumption as indicated above.

The Court fails to address itself to the very substantial 
problem of obtaining drivers for these buses.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1252a

The cost referred to by the Court as “excess costs” are 
not out of any desire on the part of the Board of Education 
to increase costs; rather, they are the direct and proximate 
result of the order of the Court.

Again, attention is called to the fact that the Court has 
overstated per capita costs by approximately $20.

The annual transportation cost per student, including 
amortization, is based upon erroneous premises and over­
looks substantial factors, such as the actual number of stu­
dents to be transported (19,285), the number of buses (422, 
costing $2,369,000), cost of parking areas ($285,000), cost 
of operation (annual recurring $587,000), additional per­
sonnel expense (annual recurring $166,000), all of which 
is carefully documented in submission to the Court on 
March 17, 1970, for a total initial first-year expense of 
$3,407,000, excluding depreciation or amortization.

42. The Court overlooks testimony of local and state 
officials, which is uncontradicted that the maximum number 
of buses to be made available to Mecklenburg County would 
be 30 buses to replace ancient equipment (12 to 15 years 
old) now being operated and scheduled for removal from 
service, plus 40 additional buses which would cost approxi­
mately $200,000, which funds the Board of Education does 
not have and has been informed by the County Commis­
sioners is not forthcoming.

Furthermore, the Court should find that the 375 used 
buses in storage as indicated in the record are unsafe and 
inadequate for transporting children served by this system.

The finding should further reflect that although no order 
has been placed, the Board of Education has been advised

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1253a

of the number of buses available from the state, namely 75, 
provided funds are available. Furthermore, under state 
law, school systems are not permitted to purchase equip­
ment on credit. G.S. 115-52.

The finding with reference to delivery of buses in sixty 
to ninety days is erroneous. The record clearly discloses 
that the first chassis would be available in approximately 
ninety days and a substantial period of time would be re­
quired to fabricate and attach the body of the bus to the 
chassis for ultimate delivery.

It is quite apparent from the foregoing that the Court 
has given credence to most information submitted by the 
Board of Education and for some reason rejects transporta­
tion information prepared by a staff thoroughly familiar 
with the transportation requirements of our system, which 
staff has many years of experience with the special needs 
of our Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system. It is note­
worthy that the Court’s estimates closely parallel those of 
Dr. John Finger who admittedly spent very little time pre­
paring his estimates. (Finger deposition dated March 11, 
1970, pages 74 and 75)

W herefore, the original defendants request the Court to 
amend its supplementary findings of fact dated March 21, 
1970, to conform to the record in this matter as more par­
ticularly set forth above.

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1254a

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of March, 1970.

/ s /  W illiam  J. W aggoner 
William J. Waggoner 
Weinstein, Waggoner, Sturges, Odom 

and Bigger
1100 Barringer Office Tower 
Charlotte, North Carolina

/ s /  B e n j . S. H orace 
Benj. S. Horack 
Ervin, Horack and McCartha 
806 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendants

Objections and Exceptions to Supplementary Findings
of Fact of March 21, 1970, and Motion for

Modification and Clarification Thereof



1255a

In the original order of April 23, 1969, and in the order 
of August 15, 1969, the projected time for completion of 
desegregation of the schools was set for September 1970. 
The court did not then consider and never has at any time 
considered that wholesale mid-year or mid-term transfers 
of pupils or teachers were desirable. Furthermore, it was 
contemplated by all parties that this time table would allow 
time for orderly development of plans as well as for appeal 
by all who might wish to appeal.

On October 29, 1960, in Alexander v. Holmes County, the 
Supreme Court ordered the immediate desegregation of 
schools involving many thousands of Mississippi school
children. In Carter v. West Feliciana Parish, ------ U. S.
------ (January 14, 1970), the Supreme Court reversed the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and set a February 1, 1970 
deadline to desegregate schools in Gulf Coast states in­
volving many thousands of children. In Neshit v. States­
ville, 418 F.2d 1040, on December 2, 1969, the Fourth Circuit 
read Alexander as follows:

“The clear mandate of the Court is immediacy. Further 
delays will not be tolerated in this circuit.”

In Whittenhurg v. Greenville County, South Carolina,------
F.2d-------(January 1970), the Fourth Circuit Court of Ap­
peals read Alexander to say that

“ . . . general reorganization of school systems is requi­
site now, that the requirement is not restricted to the 
school districts before the Supreme Court in Alexander, 
and that Courts of Appeals are not to authorize the 
postponement of general reorganization until Septem­
ber 1970.

Order dated March 25, 1970

#  #  #



1256a

“ The District Court’s order shall not he stayed pending 
any appeal which may he taken to this court, . . . 
(Emphasis added.)

On January 26, 1970, on re-hearing, the Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals said:

“The proper functioning of our judicial system requires 
that subordinate courts and public officials faithfully 
execute the orders and directions of the Supreme 
Court. . . .  no member of this court can read the 
opinions in Carter as leaving any room for the exer­
cise by this court in this case of any discretion in 
considering a request for postponement of the reassign­
ment of children and teachers until the opening of the 
next school year.”

The petition of Greenville for a stay of the order was 
again denied, and the Greenville schools were desegregated 
as of February 16, 1970.

The last Greenville decision was ten days old at the time 
of this court’s order of February 5, 1970. These were the 
mandates under which it was ordered that the Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg schools should be desegregated before the 
end of the spring term, and that the mandate should not 
be stayed pending appeal.

Since that time, several suits have been filed in state 
court seeking to prevent implementation of the February 
5, 1970 order, and decision by the three-judge court now 
considering the constitutionality of the “anti-bussing” law, 
North Carolina General Statutes, §115-176.1, does not ap­
pear likely before April 1, 1970. The appeal of the de­
fendants in the Swann case to the Fourth Circuit Court 
of Appeals is not scheduled to be heard until April 9,

Order dated March 25, 1970



1257a

1970, and there is no way to predict when a decision on 
that appeal will be rendered. There is also no way to pre­
dict when a final decision by the Supreme Court will be 
made on any of these issues, nor what the final decision 
may be.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the Holmes County, 
Greenville, Carter and Statesville decisions, the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals has now rendered a stay as to 
certain portions of the February 5, 1970 order, and a peti­
tion to vacate that stay has been denied by the Supreme 
Court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Su­
preme Court have now demonstrated an interest in the 
cost and inconvenience and disruption that the order might 
produce—factors which, though bussing was not specifically 
mentioned, appear not to have been of particular interest 
to either the Fourth Circuit Court or the Supreme Court 
when Holmes County, Carter, Greenville and Statesville 
were decided.

The only reason this court entered an order requiring 
mid-semester transfer of children was its belief that the 
language of the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit 
above quoted in this order, given its reasonable interpre­
tation, required district courts to direct desegregation be­
fore the end of this school year.

The urgency of “desegregation now” has now been in 
part dispelled by the same courts which ordered it, and 
the court still holds its original view that major desegre­
gation moves should not take place during school terms 
nor piecemeal if they can be avoided.

Thereforefore, i t  i s  o r d e r e d ,  that the time table for 
implementation of this court’s order of February 5, 1970 
he, and it is hereby modified so that the implementation 
of the various parts of the desegregation order will not be

Order dated March 25, 1970



1258a

required until September 1, 1970, subject, however, to any 
different decisions that may be rendered by appellate courts 
and with the proviso that the school board may if they wish 
proceed upon any earlier dates they may elect with any 
part or parts of the plan.

Order dated March 25, 1970

This is the 25th day of March, 1970.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan 
James B. McMillan 
United States District Judge



1259a

On March 2G, 1970, the defendant school board tiled 
“ Objections and E xceptions to S upplementary F indings 
of F act of M arch 21, 1970, and M otion for M odification 
and Clarification T hereof.”  The court has reviewed the 
questions raised in that document and makes further find­
ings of fact with reference to certain of its numbered para­
graphs as follows:

ifil 1, 4, 16, 40. The annual school bus cost per pupil 
transported, including everything except the original cost 
of the bus, parking arrangements and certain local adminis­
trative costs, for the 1968-69 year, was $19.92. The state 
reimburses the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system ap­
proximately this $19.92 pei- pupil. The April 23, 1969, and 
February 5, 1970, findings of fact estimated the original 
cost and periodic replacement of the busses themselves at 
$18 to $20 per pupil per year, which, added to the $19.92, 
resulted in the estimate of $40 as the total annual per 
pupil transportation cost. That estimate assumed that the 
local schools would have to pay for periodic replacement 
of busses as well as for their original purchase. Since it 
is now clear from the deposition of D. J. Dark that the 
replacement of worn out or obsolescent busses is included 
in the $19.92 figure, the overall estimate of $40 per pupil 
per year is far too high. Instead of a continuing annual 
local per pupil cost of $18 or $20 to supply and replace 
busses, as the court originally understood, the local board 
will have to bear only administrative and parking expenses, 
plus the original, one-time purchase of the busses. This 
cuts the annual cost of bus transportation from nearly $40 
per pupil per year as originally estimated, to a figure closer

Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised by the
March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants

dated April 3, 1970



1260a

to $20 per pupil per year, and reduces the capital outlay 
required of the local hoard to the one-time purchase of 
about 138 busses at a cost of about $745,200.00, plus what­
ever may prove to be actually required in the way of addi­
tional parking facilities. Paragraphs 1, 4, 16 and 40 of 
the supplemental findings of fact are amended accordingly.

THI 2, 4, 11, 34. Although the evidence concerning the 
5,000 children currently transported by City Coach Lines 
lacks clarity, the court agrees with the defendant that it 
should not be inferred that they are the source of payment 
for this transportation, and the court specifically corrects 
the previous finding so as to delete any reference to the 
source of payment for this transportation.

Tf 21. The school board’s July 29, 1969 plan (see pages 
457-459 of the record on appeal) proposed the transfer 
and transportation of over 4,200 black children. The court 
on November 7, 1969, on the basis of the then evidence, 
found that the number actually transferred was 1,315. The 
affidavit of J. D. Morgan dated February 13, 1970 (para­
graph 4, page 770 of the record on appeal), indicated that 
the number of these students being transported was 738, 
requiring 13 busses. The findings of fact proposed by the 
defendants gave the number as “over 700.” The J. D. Mor­
gan affidavit of March 21, 1970, indicated that the number 
of busses was 30 instead of 13. From this conflicting evi­
dence the court concluded that “ several hundred” was as 
accurate as could be found under the circumstances.

H 33. Paragraph 33 is amended as requested by adding 
after the word “ schools” in the eleventh line of the para­
graph :

Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised hy the
March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants

dated April 3, 1970



1261a

“—and about 5,000 black children, grades one through 
four, to outlying white schools.”

Tf 34(f). The average straight line mileage between the 
elementary schools paired or grouped under the “cross­
bussing” plan is approximately 0V2 miles. The average 
bus trip mileage of about seven miles which was found in 
paragraph 34(f) was arrived at by the method which J. I). 
Morgan, the county school bus superintendent, testified 
he uses for such estimates—taking straight line mileage and 
adding 25%.

As to the other items in the document, the court has 
analyzed them carefully and finds that they do not justify 
any further changes in the facts previously found.

Further Findings of Fact on Matters Raised by the
March 26, 1970, Motions of Defendants

dated April 3, 1970

This the 3rd day of April, 1970.

/ s /  J ames B. M cM illan 
James B. McMillan
United States District Judge



1262a

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
F or the F ourth C ircuit 

No. 14,517 

No. 14,518

Opinions of Court of Appeals
dated May 26, 1970

J ames E . S w ann , et al.,

Appellees and Cross-Appellants,

—versus—

C harlotte-M ecklenburg B oard of E ducation, et al.,

Appellants and Cross-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 
Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. James B. 
McMillan, District Judge.

(Argued April 9, 1970. Decided May 26, 1970.)

Before H aynsw orth , Chief Judge, S obeloff, B oreman, 
B ryan , W inter , and B utzner, Circuit Judges, sitting en 
banc.*

B utzner , Circuit Judge:
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District appealed 

from an order of the district court requiring the faculty 
and student body of every school in the system to be ra­
cially mixed. We approve the provisions of the order deal­

* J u d g e  C raven  d isqu a lified  h im se lf f o r  reasons stated  in  his 
sep arate  op in ion .



1263a

ing with the faculties of all schools1 and the assignment of 
pupils to high schools and junior high schools, but we 
vacate the order and remand the case for further consid­
eration of the assignment of pupils attending elementary 
schools. We recognize, of course, that a change in the 
elementary schools may require some modification of the 
junior and senior high school plans, and our remand is 
not intended to preclude this.

I .

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system serves a pop­
ulation of over 600,000 people in a combined city and county 
area of 550 square miles. With 84,500 pupils attending 106 
schools, it ranks as the nation’s 43rd largest school district. 
In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 369 F.2d 
29 (4th Cir. 1966), we approved a desegregation plan based 
on geographic zoning with a free transfer provision. How­
ever, this plan did not eliminate the dual system of schools. 
The district court found that during the 1969-70 school 
year, some 16,000 black pupils, out of a total of 24,700, were 
attending 25 predominantly black schools, that faculties 
had not been integrated, and that other administrative 
practices, including a free transfer plan, tended to per­
petuate segregation.

Notwithstanding our 1965 approval of the school board’s 
plan, the district court properly held that the board was 
impermissibly operating a dual system of schools in the

1 The b o a rd ’s p lan  p r o v id e s : “ T he fa cu ltie s  o f  a ll schools w ill be 
assigned so that the ratio  o f  b lack  teachers to  w h ite  teach ers in  each 
sch ool w ill be a p p ro x im a te ly  the sam e as the ratio  o f  b la ck  teachers 
to  w hite  teach ers in  the en tire  sch ool system .”  W e  have d ire cted  
oth er sch ool board s to  desegregate  th e ir  fa cu lt ie s  in  th is m anner. 
See N esbit v. S tatesv ille  C ity  B d . o f  E d ., 418 F .2 d  1040, 1042 (4 th  
C ir. 1 9 6 9 ) ;  e f., U n ited  S tates v. M o n tg om ery  C ou n ty  B d . o f  E d ., 
395 U .S . 225, 232 (1 9 6 9 ) .



1264a

light of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, Green 
v. School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968), 
Monroe v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 391 U.S. 450 (1968), and Alex­
ander v. Holmes County Bd. of Ed., 396 U.S. 19 (1969).

The district judge also found that residential patterns 
leading to segregation in the schools resulted in part from 
federal, state, and local governmental action. These find­
ings are supported by the evidence and we accept them 
under familiar principles of appellate review. The district 
judge pointed out that black residences are concentrated 
in the northwest quadrant of Charlotte as a result of both 
public and private action. North Carolina courts, in com­
mon with many courts elsewhere, enforced racial restric­
tive covenants on real property2 until Shelley v. Kraemer, 
334 U.S. 1 (1948) prohibited this discriminatory practice. 
Presently the city zoning ordinances differentiate between 
black and white residential areas. Zones for black areas 
permit dense occupancy, while most white areas are zoned 
for restricted land usage. The district judge also found that 
urban renewal projects, supported by heavy federal financ­
ing and the active participation of local government, con­
tributed to the city’s racially segregated housing patterns. 
The school board, for its part, located schools in black resi­
dential areas and fixed the size of the schools to accommo­
date the needs of immediate neighborhoods. Predominantly 
black schools were the inevitable result. The interplay of 
these policies on both residential and educational segrega­
tion previously has been recognized by this and other 
courts.3 The fact that similar forces operate in cities

= E g.. P h illip s  v. W e a rn , 226 N .C . 290, 37 S .E .2 d  895 (1 9 4 6 ).

3 E  g., H e n ry  v . C larksdale  M un ic . S ep arate  S ch oo l D ist., 409 
F .2 d  682, 689 (5th  C ir .) ,  cert, denied, 396 U .S. 940 (1 9 6 9 ) ;  U n ited  
States v . S ch oo l D ist. 151 o f  C ook  C ou n ty , 404 F .2 d  1125, 1130

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1265a

throughout the nation under the mask of de facto segrega­
tion provides no justification for allowing us to ignore the 
part that government plays in creating segregated neigh­
borhood schools.

The disparity in the number of black and white pupils 
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board busses to pre­
dominantly black and white schools illustrates how coupling 
residential patterns with the location of schools creates 
segregated schools. All pupils are eligible to ride school 
buses if they live farther than lfh miles from the schools 
to which they are assigned. Overall statistics show that 
about one-half of the pupils entitled to transportation ride 
school buses. Only 541 pupils were bussed in October 196!) 
to predominantly black schools, which had a total enroll­
ment of over 17,000. In contrast, 8 schools located outside 
the black residential area have in the aggregate only 96 
students living within 1 Va miles. These schools have a total 
enrollment of about 12,184 pupils, of whom 5,349 ride school 
buses.

II.
The school board on its own initiative, or at the direc­

tion of the district court, undertook or proposed a number 
of reforms in an effort to create a unitary school system. 
It closed 7 schools and reassigned the pupils primarily to 
increase racial mixing. It drastically gerrymandered school

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

(7 th  C ir. 1 9 6 8 ), aff’g 286 F . S u p p . 786, 798 (N .D . 111. 1 9 6 8 ) ; 
B rew er  v. S ch oo l B d . o f  C ity  o f  N orfo lk , 397 F .2 d  37, 41 (4 th  C ir. 
1968) ; K eyes  v . S ch oo l D ist. N o. O ne, D enver, 303 F .S u p p . 279
and 289 (D . C o lo .) , stay pending appeal granted, -------- F .2 d  --------
(10 th  C ir .) ,  stay vacated, 396 U .S . 1215 (1 9 6 9 ) ; D ow ell v. School 
B d . o f  O klahom a C ity , 244 F .S u p p . 971, 975 (W .D . O kla. 1 9 65 ), 
aff'd, 375 F .2 d  158 (iO th  C ir .) ,  cert, denied, 387 U .S . 931 (1 9 6 7 ). 
See g en era lly  F iss, Racial Imbalance in the Public Schools: The 
Constitutional Concepts, 78 H a rv . L . R ev . 564 (1 9 6 5 ) . B u t see, 
D eal v. C in cin n a ti B d . o f  E d ., 419 F .2 d  1387 (6 th  C ir. 1 9 69 ).



1266a

zones to promote desegregation. It created a single athletic 
league without distinction between white and black schools 
or athletes, and at its urging, black and white PTA councils 
were merged into a single organization. It eliminated a 
school bus system that operated on a racial basis, and 
established nondiscriminatory practices in other facets of 
the school system. It modified its free transfer plan to 
prevent resegregation, and it provided for integration of 
the faculty and administrative staff.

The district court, after a painstaking analysis of the 
board’s proposals and the relevant authorities, disapproved 
the board’s final plan, primarily because it left ten schools 
nearly all black. In reaching this decision, the district court 
held that the board must integrate the student body of every 
school to convert from a dual system of schools, which had 
been established by state action, to a unitary system.

The necessity of dealing with segregation that exists 
because governmental policies foster segregated neighbor­
hood schools is not confined to the Oharlotte-Mecklenburg 
School District. Similar segregation occurs in many other 
cities throughout the nation, and constitutional principles 
dealing with it should be applied nationally. The solution 
is not free from difficulty. It is now well settled that 
school boards operating dual systems have an affirmative 
duty “to convert to a unitary school system in which racial 
discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.” Green 
v. School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430, 437 
(1968). Recently the Supreme Court defined a unitary 
school system as one “within which no person is to be 
effectively excluded from any school because of race or 
color.” Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Ed., 396 IT. S. 
19, 20 (1969). This definition, as the Chief Justice noted in 
Xorthcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis, 90 S.Ct. 891, 893

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1267a

(1970), loaves open practical problems, “ including whether, 
as a constitutional matter, any particular racial balance 
must be achieved in the schools; to what extent school dis­
tricts and zones may or must be altered as a constitutional 
matter; to what extent transportation may or must be 
provided to achieve the ends sought by prior holdings of 
the Court.”

Several of these issues arise in this case. To resolve 
them, we hold: first, that not every school in a unitary 
school system need be integrated; second, nevertheless, 
school boards must use all reasonable means to integrate 
the schools in their jurisdiction; and third, if black resi­
dential areas are so large that not all schools can be inte­
grated by using reasonable means, school boards must take 
further steps to assure that pupils are not excluded from 
integrated schools on the basis of race. Special classes, 
functions, and programs on an integrated basis should be 
made available to pupils in the black schools. The board 
should freely allow majority to minority transfers and 
provide transportation by bus or common carrier so in­
dividual students can leave the black schools. And pupils 
who are assigned to black schools for a portion of their 
school careers should be assigned to integrated schools 
as they progress from one school to another.

We adopted the test of reasonableness—instead of one 
that calls for absolutes—because it has proved to be a re­
liable guide in other areas of the law. Furthermore, the 
standard of reason provides a test for unitary school sys­
tems that can be used in both rural and metropolitan dis­
tricts. All schools in towns, small cities, and rural areas 
generally can be integrated by pairing, zoning, clustering, 
or consolidating schools and transporting pupils. Some 
cities, in contrast, have black ghettos so large that integra­

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1268a

tion of every school is an improbable, if not an unattain­
able, goal. Nevertheless, if a school board makes every 
reasonable effort to integrate the pupils under its control, 
an intractable remnant of segregation, we believe, should 
not void an otherwise exemplary plan for the creation of 
a unitary school system. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruc.
of Orange County, No. 29124, Feb. 17, 1970 ------- F.2d —
(5th Cir.)

III.
The school board’s plan proposes that pupils will be 

assigned to the system’s ten high schools according to 
geographic zones. A typical zone is generally fan shaped 
and extends from the center of the city to the suburban 
and rural areas of the county. In this manner the board 
was able to integrate nine of the high schools with a per­
centage of black students ranging from 17% to 36%. The 
projected black attendance at the tenth school, Indepen­
dence, which has a maximum of 1400 pupils, is 2%.

The court approved the board’s high school plan with 
one modification. It required that an additional 300 pupils 
should be transported from the black residential area of 
the city to Independence School.

The school board proposed to rezone the 21 junior high 
school areas so that black attendance would range from 
0% to 90% with only one school in excess of 38%. This 
school, Piedmont, in the heart of the black residential area, 
has an enrollment of 840 pupils, 90% of whom are black. 
The district court disapproved the board’s plan because 
it maintained Piedmont as a predominantly black school. 
The court gave the board four options to desegregate all 
the junior high schools: (1) rezoning; (2) two-way trans­
portation of pupils between Piedmont and white schools;
(3) closing Piedmont and reassigning its pupils and (4)

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1269a

adopting a plan proposed by Dr. John A. Finger, Jr., a 
consultant appointed by the court, which combined zoning 
with satellite districts. The board, expressing a preference 
for its own plan, reluctantly adopted the plan proposed 
by the court’s consultant.

Approximately 31,000 white and 13,000 black pupils 
are enrolled in 76 elementary schools. The board’s plan 
for desegregating these schools is based entirely upon geo­
graphic zoning. Its proposal left more than half the black 
elementary pupils in nine schools that remained 86% to 
100% black, and assigned about half of the white elemen­
tary pupils to schools that are 86% to 100% white. In 
place of the board’s plan, the court approved a plan based 
on zoning, pairing, and grouping, devised by Dr. Finger, 
that resulted in student bodies that ranged from 9% to 
38% black.

The court estimated that the overall plan which it ap­
proved would require this additional transportation:

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated Map 26, 1970

No. of No. of Operating
pupils buses costs

Senior High 1,500 20 $ 30,000
Junior High 2,500 28 $ 50,000
Elementary 9,300 90 $186,000

TOTAL 13,300 138 $266,000

In addition, the court found that a new bus cost about 
$5,400, making a total outlay for equipment of $745,200. 
The total expenditure for the first year would be about 
$ 1,011,200.

The school board computed the additional transportation 
requirements under the court approved plan to be:



1270a

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

No. of No. of Operating
pupils buses costs

Senior High 2,497 69 $ 96,000
Junior High 4,359 84 $116,800
Elementary 12,429 269 $374,000

TOTAL 19,285 422 $586,000

In addition to the annual operatin.g cost, the school board
projected the following expenditures:

Cost of buses $2,369,100
Cost of parking areas 284,800
Cost of additional personnel 166,200

Based on these figures, the school board computed the total 
expenditures for the first year would be $3,406,700 under
the court approved plan.4

4 T he sch ool h oard  com p u ted  tra n sp orta tion  requ irem en ts u n d er
the p lan  it su bm itted  to  b e :

N o. o f N o. o f O p era tin g
p u p ils buses cost

S en ior  H ig h  1,202 30 $ 41.700
J u n io r  H ig h  1,388 33 $ 45,900
E lem en ta ry  2,345 41 $ 57,000

T O T A L  4,935 104 $144,600

T he b oa rd  estim ated  that the break d ow n  o f  costs fo r  the first year
o f  op era tion  u n d er  its p lan  w ou ld  b e :

Cost o f  buses $589,900
Cost o f  p a rk in g  areas 
O p era tin g  expenses o f $144,600

56,200

P lu s d ep recia tion  a llow an ce  o f 31,000

175,600
Cost o f  a d d ition a l p erson n e l 43 ,000

T he estim ated  to ta l first-yea r costs are $864,700.



1271a

Both the findings of the district court and the evidence 
submitted by the board are based on estimates that rest 
on many variables. Past practice has shown that a large 
percentage of students eligible for bus transportation pre­
fer to provide their own transportation. However, it is 
difficult to accurately predict how many eligible students 
will accept transportation on the new routes and schedules. 
The number of students that a bus can carry each day 
depends in part on the number of trips the bus can make. 
Scheduling two trips for a bus generally reduces costs. But 
student drivers may not be able to spend the time required 
for two trips, so that adult drivers will have to be hired 
at substantially higher salaries. It is difficult to accurately 
forecast how traffic delays will affect the time needed for 
each trip, for large numbers of school buses themselves 
generate traffic problems that only experience can measure.

The board based its projections on each 54-passenger bus 
carrying about 40 high school pupils or 54 junior high and 
elementary pupils for one roundtrip a day. Using this 
formula, it arrived at a need of 422 additional buses for 
transporting 19,285 additional pupils. This appears to be a 
less efficient operation than the present system which trans­
ports 23,600 pupils with 280 buses, but the board’s witnesses 
suggest that prospects of heavier traffic justify the dif­
ference. The board also envisioned parking that seems to 
be more elaborate than that currently used at some schools.

In making its findings, the district court applied factors 
derived from present bus operation, such as the annual 
operating cost per student, the average number of trips 
each bus makes, the capacity of the buses—including per­
missible overloads, and the percentage of eligible pupils 
who use other forms of transportation. The district court 
also found no need for expensive parking facilities or for

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1272a

additional personnel whose costs could not he absorbed by 
the amount allocated for operating' expenses. While we 
recognize that no estimate—whether submitted by the board 
or made by the court—can be absolutely correct, we accept 
as not clearly erroneous the findings of the district court.

Opposition to the assignment of pupils under both the 
board’s plan and the plan the court approved centered on 
bussing, which numbers among its critics both black and 
white parents. This criticism, however, cannot justify the 
maintenance of a dual system of schools. Cooper v. Aaron, 
358 U.S. 1 (1958). Bussing is neither new nor unusual. It 
has been used for years to transport pupils to consolidated 
schools in both racially dual and unitary school systems. 
Figures compiled by the National Education Association 
show that nationally the number of pupils bussed increased 
from 12 million in the 1958-59 school year to 17 million a 
decade later. In North Carolina 54.9% of all pupils are 
bussed. There the average daily roundtrip is 24 miles, and 
the annual cost is over $14,000,000. The Charlotte-Mecklen- 
burg School District presently busses about 23,600 pupils 
and another 5,000 ride common carriers.

Bussing is a permissible tool for achieving integration, 
but it is not a panacea. In determining who should be 
bussed and where they should be bussed, a school board 
should take into consideration the age of the pupils, the 
distance and time required for transportation, the effect 
on traffic, and the cost in relation to the board’s resources. 
The board should view bussing for integration in the light 
that it views bussing for other legitimate improvements, 
such as school consolidation and the location of new schools. 
In short, the board should draw on its experience with 
bussing in general—the benefits and the defects—so that it 
may intelligently plan the part that bussing will play in a 
unitary school system.

Opinions of Court of Appeals tinted Map 26, 1970



1273a

Viewing the plan the district court approved for junior 
and senior high schools against these principles and the 
background of national, state, and local transportation pol­
icies, we conclude that it provides a reasonable way of 
elminating all segregation in these schools. The estimated 
increase in the number of junior and senior high school 
students who must be bussed is about 17% of all pupils now 
being bussed. The additional pupils are in the upper grades 
and for the most part they will be going to schools already 
served by busses from other sections of the district. More­
over, the routes they must travel do not vary appreciably 
in length from the average route of the system’s buses. 
The transportation of 300 high school students from the 
black residential area to suburban Independence School will 
tend to stabilize the system by eliminating an almost totally 
white school in a zone to which other whites might move 
with consequent “ tipping” or resegregation of other 
schools.5 6

We find no merit in other criticism of the plan for junior 
and senior high schools. The use of satellite school zones6

5 T hese 300 stud ents w ill be bussed a stra ig h t-lin e  d istance  o f  
som e 10 m iles. T he actu a l bus rou tes w ill be som ew hat lon ger, 
d ep en d in g  u p on  the rou te  chosen . A  reasonable estim ate o f  the 
bus rou te  d istance  is 12 to  13 m iles. T h e p r in c ip a l ’s m on th ly  bus 
rep orts  f o r  In d ep e n d e n ce  H ig h  S ch ool f o r  the m on th  fr o m  J a n u ­
a ry  10, 1970 to  F e b r u a r y  10, 1970 show s the average  on e-w a y  
length  o f  a bus rou te  at in d e p e n d e n ce  is p resen tly  16.7 m iles fo r  
the first tr ip . B uses that m ake tw o  tr ip s  u su a lly  h ave a sh orter  
second  tr ip . T h e average  on e -w a y  bus rou te , in c lu d in g  both  first 
an d  secon d  tr ip s , is 11.7 m iles. T h us the d istance  the 300 p u p ils  
w ill have to  be bussed  is n e a r ly  the sam e as the average  on e-w ay  
bus rou te  o f  the stud ents p resen tly  a tten d in g  In d ep en d en ce , an d  
it is su bsta n tia lly  sh orter  than  the system ’s average  on e-w ay  bus 
tr ip  o f  17 m iles.

6 S a te llite  sch oo l zones are n on -con tig u ou s  g eog ra p h ica l zones. 
T y p ica lly , areas in  the b lack  co re  o f  the c ity  are co u p le d — bu t n ot 
g e o g ra p h ica lly  lin k ed — w ith  an area in w hite  suburbia .

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1274a

as a means of achieving desegregation is not improper. Dis­
trict Courts have been directed to shape remedies that are 
characterized by the “practical flexibility” that is a hallmark 
of equity. See Brown v. Board of Ed., 349 U.S. 294, 300 
(1955). Similarly, the pairing and clustering of schools has 
been approved. Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent 
County, 391 U.S. 430, 442 n. 6 (1968); Hall v. St. Helena 
Parish School Bd., 417 F.2d 801, 809 (5th Cir.), cert, 
denied, 396 U.S. 904 (1969).

The school board also asserts that §§ 401(b) and 407(a) 
(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b) 
and -6(a)(2)] forbid the bussing ordered by the district 
court.7 But this argument misreads the legislative history 
of the statute. Those provisions are not limitations on the 
power of school boards or courts to remedy unconstitu­
tional segregation. They were designed to remove any 
implication that the Civil Rights Act conferred new juris­
diction on courts to deal with the question of whether school 
boards were obligated to overcome de facto segregation. 
See generally, United States v. School District 151, 404

7 T it le  42 TT.R.C. § 20000 16) p ro v id e s  that as used in ,the sub- 
ch a p ter  on P u b lic  E d u ca tio n  o f  the C iv il R ig h ts  A c t  o f  1964 :

“  ‘D eseg reg a tion ’ m eans the assignm ent o f  stud ents to p u b ­
lic  schools a n d  w ith in  such  sch ools  w ith ou t reg a rd  to  th eir  race, 
co lo r , re lig ion , o r  n a tion a l or ig in , but ‘d esegrega tion ’ shall not 
m ean the assignm ent o f  students to  p u b lic  schools in  o rd e r  to 
ov ercom e ra c ia l im ba lan ce .”

T itle  42 § 2 0 0 0 c -6 (a )  (2 )  states in p a r t :

“ [P ]r o v id e d  that n o th in g  herein  shall em p ow er an y  official or 
co u r t  o f  the U n ited  S lates to  issue a n y  o rd e r  seek ing to  ach ieve 
a racia l ba lance  in a n y  sch ool b y  re q u ir in g  the tra n sp orta tion  
o f  p u p ils  o r  stu d en ts fr o m  one sch ool to  an oth er o r  one sch ool 
d is tr ic t to  an oth er in  o rd e r  to  a ch ieve  such  ra c ia l ba lance, or 
oth erw ise en large  the ex ist in g  p ow er  o f  the cou rt to  insure 
co m p lia n ce  w ith  con stitu tion a l stan d ard s .”

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1275a

F.2d 1125, 1130 (7tli (Jir. 1968); United States v. Jefferson 
County Board of Ed., 372 F.2d 836, 880 (5th Cir. 1966), 
aff’d on rehearing en banc 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir.), vert, 
denied, sub nom. Caddo Parish School Bd. v. United States, 
389 U.S. 840 (1967); Keyes v. School Dist. No. One, Denver, 
303 F.Supp. 289, 298 (D. Colo.), stay pending appeal
granted,------F.2d-------  (10th C ir.); stay vacated, 396 U.S.
1215 (1969). Nor does North Carolina’s anti-bussing lav- 
present an obstacle to the plan, for those provisions of the 
statute in conflict with the plan have been declared uncon­
stitutional. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 
------F. Supp.-------  (W.D.N.C. 1970).8

The district court properly disapproved the school 
board’s elementary school proposal because it left about 
one-half of both the black and white elementary pupils in 
schools that were nearly completely segregated. Part of 
the difficulty concerning the elementary schools results 
from the board’s refusal to accept the district court’s sug­
gestion that it consult experts from the Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare. The consultants that the 
board employed were undoubtedly competent, but the board 
limited their choice of remedies by maintaining each school’s 
grade structure. This, in effect, restricted the means of 
overcoming segregation to only geographical zoning, and 
as a further restriction the board insisted on contiguous 
zones. The board rejected such legitimate techniques as

8 T he u n con stitu tion a l p rov is ion s  a r e :
“ N o  stud ent shall be assign ed  o r  com p e lle d  to  a tten d  a n y  school 

on  a ccou n t o f  race, creed , c o lo r  o r  n a tion a l or ig in , o r  fo r  the 
p u rp ose  o f  c re a tin g  a ba lance  o r  ra tio  o f  race, re lig ion  or 
n a tion a l or ig in s . In v o lu n ta ry  bu ssin g  o f  students in co n tra ­
v en tion  o f  th is a rtic le  is p roh ib ited , a n d  p u b lic  fu n d s  shall 
n ot be used f o r  an y  such  bu ss in g .”  N .C . G en. Stat. § 115-176.1 
(S u p p . 1 9 6 9 ).

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated Map 26, 1970



1276a

pairing, grouping, clustering, and satellite zoning. More­
over, the board sought to impose a ratio in each school of 
not less than 60% white students. While a 60%-40% ratio 
of white to black pupils might be desirable under some cir­
cumstances, rigid adherence to this formula in every school 
should not be allowed to defeat integration.

On the other hand, the Finger plan, which the district 
court approved, will require transporting 9,300 pupils in 
90 additional buses. The greatest portion of the proposed 
transportation involves cross-bussing to paired schools— 
that is, black pupils in grades one through four would be 
carried to predominantly white schools, and white pupils 
in the fifth and sixth grades would be transported to the 
black schools. The average daily roundtrip approximates 
15 miles through central city and suburban traffic.

The additional elementary pupils who must be bussed 
represent an increase of 39% over all pupils presently 
being bussed, and their transportation will require an in­
crease of about 32% in the present fleet of buses. When 
the additional bussing for elementary pupils is coupled 
with the additional requirements for junior and senior high 
schools, which we have approved, the total percentages of 
increase are: pupils, 56%, and buses, 49%. The board, we 
believe, should not be required to undertake such extensive 
additional bussing to discharge its obligation to create a 
unitary school system.

IV.

Both parties oppose a remand. Each side is adamant 
that its position is correct—the school board seeks total 
approval of its plan and the plaintiffs insist on implemen­
tation of the Finger plan. We are favorably impressed, 
however, by the suggestion of the United States, which at

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1277a

our invitation filed a brief as amicus curiae, that the school 
board should consider alternative plans, particularly for 
the elementary schools. We, therefore, will vacate the 
judgment of the district court and remand the case for 
reconsideration of the assignment of pupils in the ele­
mentary schools, and for adjustments, if any, that this may 
require in plans for the junior and senior high schools.

On remand, we suggest that the district court should di­
rect the school board to consult experts from the Office of 
Education of the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare, and to explore every method of desegregation, 
including rezoning with or without satellites, pairing, group­
ing, and school consolidation. Undoubtedly some trans­
portation will be necessary to supplement these techniques. 
Indeed, the school board’s plan proposed transporting 
2,300 elementary pupils, and our remand should not be 
interpreted to prohibit all bussing. Furthermore, in de­
vising a new plan, the board should not perpetuate segre­
gation by rigid adherence to the 60% white-40 % black 
racial ratio it favors.

If, despite all reasonable efforts to integrate every school, 
some remain segregated because of residential patterns, 
the school board must take further steps along the lines 
we previously mentioned, including a majority to minority 
transfer plan,9 to assure that no pupil is excluded from an 
integrated school on the basis of race.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

T he b o a rd ’s p la n  p r o v id e s :

“ A n y  b lack  stud ent w ill be p erm itted  to  tra n sfe r  o n ly  i f  the 
sch ool to  w h ich  he is o r ig in a lly  assigned  has m ore than 30 
p e r  cen t o f  h is race  an d  i f  the sch ool he is requ estin g  to  a t­
ten d  has less than 30 p er  cen t o f  h is race and  has availab le  
space. A n y  w hite  stud ent w ill be p erm itted  to  tra n sfe r  o n ly  
i f  the sch ool to  w h ich  he is o r ig in a lly  assigned has m ore than 
70 p e r  cen t o f  h is race  an d  i f  the sch ool he is requ estin g  to



1278a

Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Ed., 39G U.S. 19 
(1969), and Carter v. West Feliciana School Bd., 396 U.S. 
290 (1970), emphasize that school boards must forthwith 
convert from dual to unitary systems. In Nesbit v. States­
ville City Bd. of Ed., 418 F.2d 1040 (4th Cir. 1969), and
Wliittenberg v. School Dist. of Greenville County, ------
F.2d ------ (4th Cir. 1970), we reiterated that immediate
reform is imperative. We adhere to these principles, and 
district courts in this circuit should not consider the stays 
which were allowed because of the exceptional nature of 
this case to be precedent for departing from the directions 
stated in Alexander, Carter, Nesbit, and Wliittenberg.

Prompt action is also essential for the solution of the 
remaining difficulties in this case. The school board should 
immediately consult with experts from HEW and file its 
new plan by June 30, 1970. The plaintiffs should file their 
exceptions, if any, within 7 days, and the district court 
should promptly conduct all necessary hearings so that 
the plan may take effect with the opening of school next 
fall. Since time is pressing, the district court’s order ap­
proving a new plan shall remain in full force and effect 
unless it is modified by an order of this court. After a plan 
has been approved, the district court may hear additional 
objections or proposed amendments, but the parties shall 
comply with the approved plan in all respects while the

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

atten d  lias less than  70 p e r  cen t o f  h is race  an d  has availab le  
sp ace .”

T h is clause, w h ich  w as d es ign ed  to  p reven t t ip p in g  o r  resegre­
ga tion , w o u ld  be su itab le  i f  a ll schools in  the system  w ere in te ­
gra ted . B u t since the b oa rd  en vision s som e e lem en tary  sch ools 
w ill rem ain  n ea rly  a ll b lack , it u n d u ly  restr icts  the schools to 
w h ich  p u p ils  in these sch ools can  tra n sfe r . I t  sh ou ld  be am end ed  
to  a llow  these e lem entary  p u p ils  to  tra n s fe r  to  an y  sch oo l in 
w hich  th eir  race  is a m in o r ity  i f  sp ace  is availab le .



1279a

district court considers the suggested modifications. Cf. 
Nesbit v. Statesville City Bd. of Ed., 418 F.2d 1040, 1043 
(4th Cir. 1969).

Finally, we approve the district court’s inclusion of Dr. 
Finger’s consultant fee in the costs taxed against the 
board. See In the Matter of Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 312 
(1920). We caution, however, that when a court needs an 
expert, it should avoid appointing a person who has ap­
peared as a witness for one of the parties. But the evi­
dence discloses that Dr. Finger ivas well qualified, and his 
dual role did not cause him to be faithless to the trust the 
court imposed on him. Therefore, the error, if any, in his 
selection, was harmless.

We find no merit in the other objections raised by the 
appellants or in the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal. 
The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case 
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.

S obeloff, Circuit Judge, with whom W inter , Circuit Judge, 
joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Insofar as the court today affirms the District Court’s 
order in respect to the senior and junior high schools, 
I concur. I dissent from the failure to affirm the portion 
of the order pertaining to the elementary schools.

I

T he B asic L aw  and the  P articular F acts

All uncertainty about the constitutional mandate of 
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and 
349 U.S. 294 (1955), was put to rest when in Green v. 
County School Board of New Kent County the Supreme 
Court spelled out a school board’s “affirmative duty to take

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated Map 26, 1970



1280a

whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary 
system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated 
root and branch,” 391 U.S. 430, 437-438 (1968). “Disestab- 
lishfment of] state-imposed segregation” (at 439) entailed 
“ steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to 
a system without a ‘white’ school and a ‘negro’ school, but 
just schools” (at 442). If there could still be doubts they 
were answered this past year. In Alexander v. Holmes 
County Board, of Education, the Court held that “ [ujnder 
explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every 
school district is to terminate dual school systems at once 
and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools,” 
396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969). The command was once more 
reaffirmed in Carter v. West Feliciana School Board, 396 
U.S. 290 (1970), requiring “ relief that will at once extirpate 
any lingering vestiges of a constitutionally prohibited dual 
school system.”  (Harlan, J., concurring at 292).

We face in this case a school district divided along 
racial lines. This is not a fortuity. It is the result, as the 
majority has recognized, of government fostered residen­
tial patterns, school planning, placement, and, as the 
District Court found, gerrymandering. These factors have 
interacted on each other so that by this date the black 
and white populations, in school and at home, are virtually 
entirely separate.

As of November 7, 1969, out of 106 schools in the system, 
57 were racially identifiable as white, 25 were racially 
identifiable as black.1 Of these, nine were all white schools 
and eleven all black. Of 24,714 black students in the system, 
16,000 were in entirely or predominantly black schools.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

1 In  the en tire  system , 7 1 %  o f  the p u p ils  are w hite, 2 9 %  o f  the 
p u p ils  are black . T h e D is tr ic t  J u d g e  deem ed a sch ool h a v in g  8 6 %  
o r  g rea ter  w h ite  p o p u la tion  iden tifiab le  as w hite, one w ith  5 6 %  or 
g rea ter  b lack  p o p u la tio n  iden tifiab le  as black .



1281a

There are 76 elementary schools with over 44,000 pupils. 
In November 1969, 43 were identifiable as white, 16 as 
black, with 13 of the latter 98% or more black, and none 
less than 65%. For the future the Board proposes little 
improvement. There would still be 25 identifiably white 
elementary schools and approximately half of the white 
elementary students would attend schools 86 to 100% 
white. Nine schools would remain 83 to 100% black, serv­
ing 6,432 students or over half the black elementary pupils.

To call either the past or the proposed distribution a 
“unitary system” would be to embrace an illusion.2 And 
the majority does not contend that the system is unitary, 
for it holds that “ the district court properly disapproved 
the school board’s elementary school proposal because it 
left about one-half of both the black and white elementary 
pupils in schools that were nearly completely segregated.” 
The Board’s duty then is plain and unarguable: to convert 
to a unitary system. The duty is absolute. It is not to be 
tempered or watered down. It must be done, and done 
now.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

2 In  its a p p lica tion  to us f o r  a stay  p e n d in g  ap p ea l, coun sel fo r  
the S ch oo l B oa rd  re lied  h ea v ily  on  N orth cross  v. B o a rd  o f  E d u ca ­
tion  o f  M em phis, —  — F .2 d  -------- (6 th  C ir. 1 9 7 0 ), as a ju d ic ia l
ru lin g  th at sch ool assignm ents based on  residen ce  are con stitu ­
tion a lly  im m une. T he d e fe n d a n t ten d ered  us a statistica l c o m p a ri­
son  o f  p u p il  en ro llm en t b y  sch ool w ith  p u p il p o p u la tion  by  a t­
ten dance  area fo r  the M em p h is sch ool system .

S in ce  then  the S u p rem e C ou rt in Northcross has ru led  that the 
C ourt o f  A p p e a ls  e rred  in so fa r  as it  h eld  that the M em phis boa rd  
“ is n ot n ow  o p e ra t in g  a ‘ d u a l sch ool system ’ * * * .”  38 L .W . 4219.



1282a

II

T he C ourt-Ordered P lan

A. The Necessity of the Court-Ordered Plan

The plan ordered by the District Court works. It does 
the job of desegregating the schools completely. This 
“places a heavy burden upon the hoard to explain its pre­
ference for an apparently less effective method.” Green, 
supra at 439.

The most significant fact about the District Court’s 
plan is that it—or one like it—is the only one that can 
work. Obviously, when the black students are all on one 
side of town, the whites on the other, only transportation 
will bring them together. The District Judge is quite 
explicit:

Both Dr. Finger and the school board staff appear 
to have agreed, and the court finds as a fact that for 
the present at least, there is no way to desegregate 
the all-black schools in Northwest Charlotte without 
providing (and continuing to provide) bus or other 
transportation for thousands of children. All plans 
and all variations of plans considered for this purpose 
lead in one fashion or another to that conclusion.

The point has been perceived by the counsel for the Board, 
who have candily informed us that if the job must be done 
then the Finger plan is the way to do it.

The only suggestion that there is a possible alternative 
middle course came from the United States, participating 
as amicus curiae. Its brief was prefaced by the following 
revealing confession:

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1283a

We understand that the record in the case is 
voluminous, and we would note at the outset that we 
have been unable to analyze the record as a whole. 
Although we have carefully examined the district 
court’s various opinions and orders, the school board’s 
plan, and those pleadings readily available to us, we 
feel that we are not conversant with all of the factual 
considerations which may prove determinative of this 
appeal. Accordingly, we here attempt, not to deal 
extensively with factual matters, but rather to set 
forth some legal considerations which may be helpful 
to the Court.

Nowithstanding this disclaimer, the Government went on 
to imply in oral argument—and has apparently impressed 
on this court—that HEW could do better. No concrete 
solution is suggested but the Government does advert to 
the possibility of pairing and grouping of schools. Two 
points stand out. First, pairing and grouping are pre­
cisely what the Finger plan, adopted by the District Court, 
does. Second, in the circumstances of this case, these 
methods necessarily entail bussing.

I am not “ favorably impressed” by the Government’s 
performance. Its vague and noncommital representations 
do little but obscure the real issues, introduce uncertainty 
and fail to meet the “heavy burden” necessary to over­
turn the District Court’s effective plan.3

3 A  fe d e ra l ju d g e  is n ot req u ired  to  con su lt w ith  the D ep a rtm en t 
o f  H ea lth , E d u ca tio n  an d  W e lfa r e  on  leg a l issues. W h a t  is the 
con stitu tion a l o b je c t iv e  o f  a p la n , an d  w hether a u n ita ry  system  
has been  o r  w ill be ach ieved , are  qu estion s f o r  the cou rt. H E W ’s 
in terp re ta tion  o f  the con stitu tion a l com m a n d  does n ot b in d  the 
courts.

[W ]h i le  ad m in istra tiv e  in terp re ta tion  m a y  len d  a persuasive 
gloss to  a statute, the defin ition  o f  con stitu tion a l standards

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1284a

B. The Feasibility of the Plan

Of course it goes without saying that school boards 
are not obligated to do the impossible. Federal courts 
do not joust at windmills. Thus it is proper to ask whether 
a plan is feasible, whether it can be accomplished. There 
is no genuine dispute on this point. The plan is simple 
and quite efficient. A bus will make one pickup in the 
vicinity of the children’s residences, say in the white 
residential area. It then will make an express trip to the 
inner-city school. Because of the non-stop feature, time 
can be considerably shortened and a bus could make a 
return trip to pick up black students in the inner city and 
to convey them to the outlying school. There is no evidence 
of insurmountable traffic problems due to the increased

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

c o n tro ll in g  the action s  o f  states an d  th e ir  su bd iv is ion s  is 
p e cu lia r ly  a ju d ic ia l fu n ction .

B ow m a n  v. C o u n ty  S ch ool B o a rd  o f  C harles C itv  C ou n ty , 382 F .2 d  
326 (1 9 6 7 ) .

A lth ou g h  the d efin ition  o f  goa ls  is f o r  the cou rt, H E W  m a y  be 
ab le  to  p ro v id e  tech n ica l assistance in ov e rco m in g  the log istica l 
im p ed im en ts to  the d esegrega tion  o f  a sch ool system . T h us it w as 
q u ite  u n d erstan d ab le  that at the ou tset o f  th is case the D is tr ic t  
C ou rt in v ited  the B o a rd  to  con su lt w ith  H E W . D eseg reg a tion  o f  
th is la rg e  ed u ca tion a l system  w as lik e ly  to  be a co m p le x  and  
ad m in istra tiv e ly  d ifficu lt task, in  w hich  the exp ertise  o f  the f e d ­
era l a g en cy  m igh t be o f  help . H ow ever , a fte r  a su bstantia l p er iod  
o f  tim e an d  the b e g in n in g  o f  a n ew  sch oo l year, it  becam e c lea r  
that the B oa rd  had  no in ten tion  o f  d ev is in g  a m e a n in g fu l p lan , 
m u ch  less seek ing  a d v ice  on  h ow  to d o  so. A t  that p o in t  (D e ce m ­
ber  1969) w ith  the n eed  f o r  sp eed  in  m ind , the J u d g e  a p p o in ted  
an ex p ert a lrea d y  fa m ilia r  w ith  the sch ool system  to  w ork  w ith  
the sch ool sta ff in d e v e lo p in g  a p lan .

W h e th e r  to  u tilize  the assistance o f  H E W  is o r d in a r ily  u p  to  
the d is tr ic t  ju d g e . C on su ltation  in fo rm u la t in g  the m ech an ics o f  a 
p la n  is n ot o b lig a to ry . T he m ethod  u sed  b y  the J u d g e  in  this 
case w as ce r ta in ly  sufficient. M oreov er, n ow  that a p lan  has been 
crea ted  an d  it a p p ea rs  th at there are n o real a lternatives, a r e ­
m a n d  fo r  I lE W 's  ad v ice  seem s an  exercise  in  fu t ility .



1285a

bussing.4 Indeed, straight line bussing promises to be 
quicker. The present average one-way trip is over 15 miles 
and takes one hour and fourteen minutes; under the plan 
the average one-way trip for elementary students will be 
less than seven miles and 35 minutes. The cost of all of the 
additional bussing will be less than one week’s operating 
budget.5

C. The Standard of Review

In Brown II, the Supreme Court charged the district 
courts with the enforcement of the dictates of Brown I.

4 T he o n ly  in d ica tion  I have en cou n tered  th at a seriou s traffic 
p rob lem  w ill be occa sion ed  b y  the a d d ition a l bu ssin g  is fo u n d  in 
an affidavit b y  the C ity  D ire c to r  o f  T raffic  E n g in e e r in g . H is  
statem ent is based on  the ex a g g era ted  bus estim ate p re p a re d  by  
the B o a rd  a n d  r e je c te d  b y  the D is tr ic t  C ou rt. See note  5, infra. 
M oreover, he ap p ears  to  have re lied  to  a la rg e  ex ten t on  the 
erron eou s assu m p tion  th at u n d er  the p la n  busses w ou ld  p ick  u p  
and  d isch arge  passengers a lon g  bu sy  th orou g h fa res , thus cau sin g  
“ s top -a n d -g o”  traffic o f  s low  m o v in g  sch ool busses in  con gested  
traffic.”

A  la ter  affidavit o f  the sam e official, filed  a t the requ est o f  the 
D istr ict  C ou rt, a fford s  m ore su bstan tia l data. I t  revea ls th at the 
tota l estim ated  n um ber o f  a u tom ob ile  tr ip s  p e r  d a y  in C h arlotte  
and  M eck len b u rg  C ou n ty  (n o t  in c lu d in g  in tern a l tru ck  tr ip s )  is 
869,604. T h at th e 138 a d d ition a l busses w o u ld  g ra v e ly  aggra va te  
the con g estion  is du b iou s, to  say  the least.

5 T h e D is tr ic t  J u d g e  r e je c te d  the B o a r d ’s in flated  cla im s, an d  
fo u n d  th at a ltog eth er  the F in g e r  p la n  w ou ld  bus 13,300 n ew  stu ­
dents in  138 a d d itio n a l busses. T he B o a rd  h ad  estim ated  that 
19,285 ad d ition a l p u p ils  w o u ld  have to  be tra n sp orted , re q u ir in g  
422 a d d ition a l busses. T h is estim ate is d isp rop ortion a te  on  its 
fa ce , f o r  p resen tly  23,600 p u p ils  are tra n sp orted  in  280 busses. 
A s  in d ica ted  above, the d ire c t  bus rou tes en v is ion ed  b y  the F in g e r  
p lan  sh ou ld  a ccom p lish  in creased , n o t d im in ish ed , efficiency . T he 
cou rt below , a fte r  c lose  analysis, d iscou n ted  the B o a rd ’ s estim ate 
fo r  oth er reasons as w ell, in c lu d in g  the “ v e ry  short m easurem ents”  
used b y  the B o a rd  in  d e term in in g  w ho w ou ld  have to  be bussed, 
the fa ilu re  o f  the B o a rd  to  a ccou n t f o r  rou n d -tr ip s , sta g g er in g  o f  
op en in g  an d  c lo s in g  h ours, a n d  overloads.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1286a

The lower courts were to have “a practical flexibility in 
shaping * * * remedies.” 349 U.S. at 300. Thus, in sub­
suming these cases under traditional equity principles, 
the Supreme Court brought the desegregation decree 
within the rule that to be overturned it “must [be] demon­
strate [d] that there was no reasonable basis for the 
District Judge’s decision.” United States v. W. T. Grant 
Co., 345 U.S. 629, 634 (1953). This court has paid homage 
to this maxim of appellate review when, in the past, a 
district Judge has ordered less than comprehensive relief. 
Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, 345 F.2d 
310, 320 (1965), rev’d, 382 U.S. 103 (1965). What is called 
for here is similar deference to an order that would finally 
inter the dual system and not preserve a nettlesome 
residue. As the Supreme Court made clear in Green, 
supra, those who would challenge an effective course of 
action bear a “heavy burden.” The Finger plan is a re­
markably economical scheme when viewed in the light of 
what it accomplishes. There has been no showing that it 
can be improved or replaced by better or more palatable 
means. It should, then, be sustained.

I l l

O bjections R aised A gainst the C ourt-O rdered P lan 

A. The “Illegal” Objective of the Plan

My Brother Bryan expresses concern about the plan, 
regardless of cost, because it undertakes, in his view, an 
illegal objective: “achieving racial balance.” Whatever 
might be said for this view abstractly or in another context, 
it is not pertinent here. We are confronted in this case 
with no question of bussing for mere balance unrelated to

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1287a

a mandatory constitutional goal. What the District Court 
has ordered is compliance with the constitutional impera­
tive to disestablish the existing segregation. Unless we 
are to palter with words, desegregation necessarily entails 
integration, that is to say integration in some substantial 
degree. The dictum to the contrary in Briggs v. Elliott, 
132 F. Supp. 776 (E.D.S.C. 1955), was rejected by necessary 
implication by the Supreme Court in Green, supra, and 
explicitly by this court in Walker v. County School Board 
of Brunswick Co., 413 F.2d 53, 54 n.2 (4th Cir. 1969).

As my Brother Winter shows, there is no more suitable 
way of achieving this task than by setting, at least initially, 
a ratio roughly approximating that of the racial population 
in the school system. The District Judge adopted this ad 
hoc measurement as a starting guide, expressed a willing­
ness to accept a degree of modification,6 and departed from 
it where circumstances required.

B. The “ Unreasonableness” of the Plan

The majority does not quarrel with the plan’s objective, 
nor, accepting the findings of the District Court, does it 
really dispute that the plan can be achieved. Rather, we 
are told, the plan is an unreasonable burden.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

6 T he D is tr ic t  J u d g e  w rote  in  h is D ecem ber 1 o rd er  that

F ix e d  ratios o f  p u p ils  in p a rt icu la r  sch ools w ill n ot be set. 
I f  the b o a rd  in  one o f  its three tries h ad  presen ted  a p lan  
fo r  desegregation , the cou rt w ou ld  have sou gh t w ays to  a p ­
p rove  v a r ia tion s  in p u p il ratios. In  d e fa u lt  o f  an y  such  p lan  
fro m  the sch ool boa rd , the co u r t  w ill start w ith  the thought, 
o r ig in a lly  a d v a n ced  in  the o rd e r  o f  A p r i l  23, th at efforts shou ld  
be m ade to  reach  a 71-29 ra tio  in  the v a r iou s sch ools  so that 
there w ill be n o basis fo r  c o n te n d in g  that one sch ool is ra c ia lly  
d ifferen t fr o m  the others, b u t  to  u n d erstan d  that varia tions 
fr o m  th at n o rm  m a y  be u navoid ab le .



1288a

This notion must he emphatically rejected. At bottom 
it is no more than an abstract, unexplicated judgment—a 
conclusion of the majority that, all things considered, de­
segregation of this school system is not worth the price. 
This is a conclusion neither we nor school hoards are per­
mitted to make.

In making policy decisions that are not constitutionally 
dictated, state authorities are free to decide in their dis­
cretion that a proposed measure is worth the cost involved 
or that the cost is unreasonable, and accordingly they may 
adopt or reject the proposal. This is not such a case. Vindi­
cation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional right does not rest 
in the school board’s discretion, as the Supreme Court 
authoritatively decided sixteen years ago and has repeated 
with increasing emphasis. It is not for the Board or this 
court to say that the cost of compliance with Brown is 
“unreasonable.”

That a subjective assessment is the operational part of 
the new “ reasonableness” doctrine is highlighted by a study 
of the factors the majority bids school boards take into 
account in making bussing determinations. “ [A] school 
board should take into consideration the age of the pupils, 
the distance and time required for transportation, the effect 
on traffic, and the cost in relation to the board’s resources.” 
But, as we have seen, distance and time will be compara­
tively short, the effect on traffic is undemonstrated, the incre­
mental cost is marginal. As far as age is concerned, it has 
never prevented the bussing of pupils in Charlotte-Meck- 
lenburg, or in North Carolina generally, where 70.9% of 
all bussed students are elementary pupils.

If the transportation of elementary pupils were a novelty 
sought to be introduced by the District Court, I could 
understand my brethren’s reluctance. But, as is conceded,

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1289a

bussing of children of elementary school age is an estab­
lished tradition. Bussing has long been used to perpetuate 
dual systems.7 More importantly, bussing is a recognized 
educational tool in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and North Caro­
lina. And as the National Education Association has ad­
mirably demonstrated in its brief, bussing has played a 
crucial role in the evolution from the one-room schoolhouse 
in this nation. Since the majority accepts the legitimacy of 
bussing, today’s decision totally baffles me.

In the final analysis, the elementary pupil phase of the 
Finger plan is disapproved because the percentage increase 
in bussing is somehow determined to be too onerous.8 Why 
this is so we are not told. The Board plan itself would bus 
5,000 additional pupils. The fact remains that in North 
Carolina 55% of all pupils are now being bussed. Under 
the Finger plan approximately 47 % of the Charlotte-Meck­
lenburg student population would be bussed. This is well 
within the existing percentage throughout the state.

The majority’s proposal is inherently ambiguous. The

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

7 F o r  som e ex trem e exam ples, s e e : S ch oo l B o a rd  o f  W a rre n  
C ou n ty  v . K e lly , 259 F .2 d  497 (4 th  C ir. 1 9 5 8 ) ;  C orb in  v. C ou n ty  
S ch ool B d . o f  P u lask i C ou n ty , 117 F .2 d  924 (4 th  C ir. 1 9 4 9 )'; 
Griffith v. B d . o f  E d u c . o f  Y a n ce y  C ou n ty , 186 F . S u p p . 511 
(W .D .N .C . 1960 ) ; G ains v . C o u n ty  S ch oo l B d . o f  G ra yson  C ou n ty , 
186 F . S u p p . 753 (W .D .a . 1 9 6 0 ), stay denied, 282 F .2 d  343 (4 th
Cir. 1 9 60 ). See also, C ham bers v. Ired e ll C o . , --------F . 2 d ---------- (4 th
Cir. 1970) (d issen tin g  o p in io n ) .

8 The m a jo r ity  ca lcu la tes the e lem en tary  sch ool p o rtio n  o f  the 
p lan  to m ean a 3 9 %  increase in bussed p u p ils , 3 2 %  increase in 
busses; the w hole  pack age , it  is said, w ou ld  req u ire  a 5 6 %  p u p il 
in crease and  4 9 %  bus increase.

These figures are a ccu ra te  b u t d o  n o t te ll the w hole  story . I f  
one in cludes w ith in  the n u m ber o f  students p resen tly  b e in g  tran s­
p orted  those that are bussed on  com m ercia l lines (5 0 0 0 ) , the in ­
crease in p u p ils  tra n sp orted  w ou ld  n ot a p p ea r  to  be as large. 
Thus the p lan  f o r  e lem en tary  schools w ou ld  en tail a 3 3 %  bussed 
p u p il in crem en t, the w hole  F in g e r  p la n , 4 7 % .



1290a

court-ordered plan is said to be unreasonable. Yet the 
School Board’s own plan has also been disapproved. Does 
the decision—that the Finger plan is unreasonable—depend 
on the premise that an intermediate course is available? 
Would the amount of segregation retained in the School 
Board’s plan be avowedly sanctioned if it were recognized 
that nothing short of the steps delineated in the District 
Court’s plan will suffice to eliminate it? Since there is no 
practicable alternative, must we assume that the majority 
is willing to tolerate the deficiencies in the Board plan?

These questions remain unresolved and thus the ultimate 
meaning of the “ reasonableness” doctrine is undefined. Suf­
fice it to say that this case is not an appropriate one in 
which to grapple with the theoretical issue whether the 
law can endure a slight but irreducible remnant of segre­
gated schools. This record presents no such problem. The 
remnant of racially identifiable elementary schools, to 
which the District Court addressed itself, encompasses over 
half the elementary population. This large fraction cannot 
he called slight; nor, as the Finger plan demonstrates, is 
it irreducible.

I am even more convinced of the unwisdom of reaching 
out to fashion a new “rule of reason,” when this record is 
far from requiring it, because of the serious consequences 
it would portend for the general course of school desegre­
gation. Handed a ne\tf litigable issue—the so-called reason­
ableness of a proposed plan—-school boards can be expected 
to exploit it to the hilt. The concept is highly susceptible 
to delaying tactics in the courts. Everyone can advance a 
different opinion of what is reasonable. Thus, rarely would 
it be possible to make expeditious disposition of a board’s 
claim that its segregated system is not “ reasonably” eradi- 
cable. Even more pernicious, the new-born rule furnishes 
a powerful incentive to communities to perpetuate and

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1291a

deepen the effects of race separation so that, when chal­
lenged, they can protest that belated remedial action would 
he unduly burdensome.

Moreover, the opinion catapults us back to the time, 
thought passed, when it was the fashion to contend that 
the inquiry was not how much progress had been made but 
the presence or absence of good faith on the part of the 
board. Whether an “ intractable remnant of segregation” 
can be allowed to persist, apparently will now depend in 
large measure on a slippery test: an estimate of whether 
the Board has made “every reasonable effort to integrate 
the pupils under its control.” 9

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

9 B oth  in  its ch a ra cteriza tion  o f  the fa c ts  a n d  in  its treatm ent 
o f  the ease the m a jo r ity  im p lies that the action s o f  th is B o a rd  
have been ex em p la ry . 1 fee l con stra in ed  to  reg ister  m y  dissent 
fro m  this v iew  a lth ou gh  on n o a ccou n t d o  I subscribe to  the p r o p ­
osition  that the d isp osition  o f  the case d ep en d s on  th is issue.

O n A p r i l  23, 1969 the D is tr ic t  J u d g e  d ec la red  the C harlotte- 
M eek len b u rg  S ch oo l D is tr ic t  ille g a lly  segregated . H e  fo u n d  it  u n ­
necessary  at that tim e to  d ec id e  w h eth er the B o a rd  h ad  d e lib er ­
ately  g erry m a n d ered  to p erp etu ate  the d u a l system  since  he be lieved  
that the cou rt o rd e r  to  fo llo w  w ou ld  p rom ote  substantia l changes. 
T he B o a rd  w as g iv en  u n til M a y  15 to  devise  a p la n  e lim in atin g  
fa cu lty  a n d  stu d en t segregation .

A  m a jo r ity  o f  the B o a rd  v o ted  n o t to take an im m edia te  ap p ea l 
an d  the sch ool su p er in ten d en t w as d ire c ted  to  p rep a re  a p lan . H is 
m andate w as hazy . A c c o r d in g  to  the cou rt below —

N o exp ress gu id e lin es  w ere g iven  the su p erin ten d en t. H o w ­
ever, the v iew s o f  m a n y  m em bers exp ressed  at the m eeting  
w ere so o p p osed  to  serious an d  su bstantia l desegregation  that 
ev ery on e  in c lu d in g  the su p er in ten d en t co u ld  reason ab ly  have 
con c lu d ed , as the co u r t  does, that a “ m in im al”  p la n  w as w hat 
w as ca lled  fo r , a n d  th at the “ p la n ”  w as essentia lly  a p re lu d e  
to  a n tic ip a ted  d isa p p ro v a l a n d  ap peal.

' # * # # #

T he staff w ere n ever  d ire cted  to d o  an y  serious w ork  on  re ­
d ra w in g  o f  sch ool zone lines, p a ir in g  o f  schools, com b in in g  
zones, g ro u p in g  o f  schools, con feren ces  w ith  the D ep artm en t 
o f  H ea lth , E d u ca tio n  a n d  W e lfa re , n o r  an y  o f  the oth er



1292a

The Supreme Court having barred further delay by its 
insistent emphasis on an immediate remedy, we should not 
lend ourselves to the creation of a new loophole by attenu­
ating the substance of desegregation.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

possib le  m ethod s o f  m a k in g  real p rog ress  tow a rd s d esegre­
ga tion .

T he su p er in ten d en t ’ s p la n  w as su bm itted  to  the B o a rd  on  M a y  8. 
I t  w as qu ite  m od est in  its u n d erta k in g . N evertheless, the B o a rd  
“ stru ck  out v ir tu a lly  a ll the e ffectiv e  p rov is ion s  o f  the su p er in ­
ten d en t ’ s p la n .”  T h e p la n  u ltim a te ly  filed  b y  the B o a rd  on  M a y  
28 w as "th e  p la n  p re v io u s ly  fo u n d  r a c ia lly  d is cr im in a to ry  w ith  
the a d d it io n  o f  on e elem ent— the p ro v is io n  o f  tra n sp orta tion  fo r  
[m a jo r ity  to  m in o r ity  t r a n s fe r s .]”  T h e B o a rd  also ad d ed  a ru le  
m a k in g  a stu d en t w ho tra n sfe rs  to  a n ew  h igh  sch ool in e lig ib le  fo r  
a th letics  f o r  a year. A s  the D is tr ic t  J u d g e  fo u n d ,

[t ]  he effect o f  the a th letic  p e n a lty  is ob v iou s— it d iscrim in a tes 
ag a in st b la ck  stud ents w h o  m a y  w an t to  tra n s fe r  a n d  take 
p a rt in  sp orts, a n d  is n o p e n a lty  on  w h ite  stu d en ts w ho show  
n o  d esire  f o r  such  tran sfers .

In  the m eantim e the B o a rd  f o r  the first tim e re fu se d  to  a ccep t 
a recom m en d a tion  o f  the su p er in ten d en t f o r  the p rom otion  o f  a 
teach er to  p r in c ip a l. T h e  reason  a v ow ed  w as th at the teacher, 
w ho w as b la ck  an d  a p la in tiff  in  the su it, h a d  p u b lic ly  expressed  
h is  agreem en t w ith  the D is tr ic t  C ou rt o rd er . T h e jo b  w as w ith ­
h e ld  u n til the p ro sp e ctiv e  ap p o in tee  s ign ed  a “ lo y a lty  oa th .”

T he D is tr ic t  J u d g e  h e ld  a h earin g  on  J u n e  16 an d  ru led  on  
J u n e  20. H e  d ec lin ed  to fin d  the B o a rd  in con tem p t bu t d id  note 
th at “ [ t ]h e  b o a rd  does n ot a d m it n o r  c la im  that it has an y  
p os itiv e  d u ty  to  p rom ote  d esegrega tion .”  T h e J u d g e  a lso re­
tu rn ed  to  the issue o f  g e rry m a n d e rin g  a n d  fo u n d  “ a lo n g  stan d in g  
p o lic y  o f  c o n tro l ov e r  the m a k eu p  o f  sch ool p o p u la tio n  w h ich  
s ca rce ly  fits a n y  tru e  ‘n e ig h b orh ood  sch ool p h ilo so p h y .’ ”

O n J u ly  29, the B o a rd  re tu rn ed  w ith  a n ew  p lan . T he D istr ict  
J u d g e  w as p leased  to  learn  that “ the S ch oo l B o a r d  has reversed  
its fie ld  a n d  has a ccep ted  its affirm ative con stitu tion a l d u ty  to 
d esegrega te  p u p ils , teachers, p r in c ip a ls  an d  sta ff m em bers ‘at the 
earliest possib le  d a te .’ ”  In  v iew  o f  th is d ec la ra tion  an d  o f  the 
la te  date, the co u rt “ re lu cta n t ly ”  a p p ro v e d  f o r  one y ea r  o n ly  a 
p la n  w h ereb y  seven all b la ck  in n e r -c ity  sch ools w ou ld  be closed  
an d  a to ta l o f  4245 b lack  ch ild ren  bussed to  o u tly in g  w h ite  schools.



1293a

Albert V. Bryan, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part:
The Court commands the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 

of Education to provide bussing of pupils to its public 
schools for “achieving integration” . (Accent added.) 
“ [Achieving integration” is the phraseology used, but 
actually, achieving racial balance is the objective. Bussing

The B o a rd  w as d ire c ted  to  file a p lan  fo r  com p lete  dsegrega tion  in 
N ovem ber.

B y  N ovem ber, the D is tr ic t  J u d g e  w as able to  su rvey  the results 
ach ieved  u n d er  the p lan  a d op ted  fo r  the year. H e fo u n d  that 
“ on ly  1315 in stead  o f  the p rom ised  4245 b lack  p u p ils ”  h ad  been 
tra n sferred . (L a te r  in fo rm a tio n  revea led  that the num ber was 
on ly  767 .) F u rth erm ore , he fo u n d  that

T h e B o a rd  has in d ica ted  that its m em bers do n ot a ccept the 
d u ty  to  desegregate  the sch ools at an y  ascerta inab le  tim e ; 
an d  th ey  have c le a r ly  in d ica ted  that th ey  in ten d  n ot to do it 
e ffective  in the fa l l  o f  1970. T h ey  have also d em onstrated  a 
y a w n in g  g a p  betw een  p red ic tion s  an d  p erfo rm a n ce .

O n N ovem ber 17, the B o a rd  filed  a p lan . I t  “ d isca rd ed  fu rth er  
con s id era tion  o f  p a ir in g , g ro u p in g , c lu s ter in g  and  tra n sp ortin g .”  
O stensib ly  “ to a v o id  ‘t ip p in g , ’ ”  the p la n  p ro v id e d  that w hite 
students w ou ld  n ot be assigned  schools w here th ey  w ou ld  fin d  them ­
selves w ith  less than  6 0 %  w hites. T h is w as, as the D is tr ic t  C ourt 
fou n d , a on e-w ay  street in  v iew  o f  the fa c t  th at the p la n  con tem ­
p la ted  n o effort to  desegregate  schools w ith  g rea ter  than 4 0 %  
blacks. T he p lan  also d r o p p e d  the earlier  p rov is ion  o f  tra n sp orta ­
tion  f o r  students tra n s fe r r in g  ou t o f  segrega ted  situations. Thus 
the B o a rd  n u llified  the one im p rov em en t it  had  m ade in its M a y  8 
plan. I t  also le ft  those b lack  students w ho had  tra n sfe rred  to  
o u tly in g  schools p u rsu a n t to the J u ly  29 p lan  w ith ou t tra n sp orta ­
tion . U n d ersta n d a b ly , the cou rt labeled  th is “ re -segregation .”

In  the fa ce  o f  th is tota l la ck  o f  coop era tion  on  the p a rt o f  the 
B oa rd , the cou rt w as com p elled  to a p p o in t  an ex p ert to  devise a 
p lan  fo r  d esegrega tion . T he F in g e r  p lan  w as the result.

It ap p ears fr o m  the re cord  that on  m ost issues the B o a rd  was 
sh a rp ly  d iv id ed . O f  course  I m ean  to  cast n o aspersions on  those 
m em bers— an d  there w ere som e— w ho u rg e d  the B o a rd  fo r th r ig h tly  
to  sh ou lder its d u ty . B u t the above recita l o f  events dem onstrates 
bey on d  doubt that th is B oa rd , th rou g h  a m a jo r ity  o f  its m em bers, 
fa r  fr o m  m a k in g  “ ev ery  reasonable  e ffo rt”  to  fu lfill its con stitu ­
tiona l ob liga tion , has resisted  and  d e la yed  d esegregation  at every  
turn.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated. May 26, 1970



1294a

to prevent racial imbalance is not as yet a Constitutional 
obligation. Therefore, no matter the prior or present utiliz­
ation of bussing for this or other reasons, and regardless 
of cost considerations or duplication of the bus routes, I 
think the injunction cannot stand.

Without Constitutional origin, no power exists in the 
Federal courts to order the Board to do or not to do any­
thing. I read no authority in the Constitution, or in the 
implications of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 
(1954), and its derivatives, requiring the authorities to 
endeavor to apportion the school bodies in the racial ratio 
of the whole school system.

The majority opinion presupposes this racial balance, 
and also bussing to achieve it, as Constitutional impera­
tives, but the Chief Justice of the United States has re­
cently suggested inquiry on whether “any particular racial 
balance must be achieved in the schools; . . . [and] to what 
extent transportation may or must be provided to achieve 
the ends sought by prior holdings of the Court.” See his 
memorandum appended to Northcross v. Board of Educa­
tion of the Memphis, Tennessee, City Schools,------U S -------,
38 USLW 4219, 4220 (March 9, 1970).*

Even construed as only incidental to the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act, this legislation in 42 United States Code § 2000c-6 is 
necessarily revealing of Congress’ hostile attitude toward 
the concept of achieving racial balance by bussing. It un­
equivocally decried in this enactment “any order [of a 
Federal court] seeking to achieve a racial balance in any

* O n  rem an d  the D is tr ic t  C ou rt in  Northcross has h e ld  there 
w as n o C on stitu tion a l o b lig a tion  to  tra n sp o rt  p u p ils  to  ov ercom e a 
ra c ia l im balan ce . N orth cross  v . B o a r d  o f  E d u ca tio n  o f  the M em ­
p h is  C ity  S ch ools , -------- F S  — -—  (W .D .T e n n ., M a y  1, 1970) (p e r
M cR a e , J . ) .  In  the sam e C ircu it , see, too, D ea l v. C in c in n a ti B o a rd  
o f  E d u ca tio n , 419 F 2 d  1387 (6  C ir. 1 9 6 9 ).

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1295a

school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students 
from one school to another . . .  to achieve such racial bal­
ance . . . .”

I would not, as the majority does, lay upon Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg this so doubtfully Constitutional ukase.

W i n t e r , Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting 
in part:

I would affirm the order of (he district court in its 
entirety.*

In a school district in which freedom of choice has pat­
ently failed to overcome past state policy of segregation 
and to achieve a unitary system, (he district court found 
the reasons for failure. They included resort to a desegre­
gation plan based on geographical zoning with a free trans­
fer provision, rather than a more positive method of achiev­
ing the constitutional objective, the failure to integrate 
faculties, the existence of segregated racial patterns par­
tially as a result of federal, state and local governmental 
action and the use of a neighborhood concept for the loca­
tion of schools superimposed upon a segregated residential 
pattern. Correctly the majority accepts these findings un­
der established principles of appellate review. To illustrate 
how government-encouraged residential segregation, cou­
pled with the discriminatory location and design of schools, 
resulted in a dual system, the majority demonstrates that 
in this locality busing has been employed as a tool to per­
petuate segregated schools.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970

* C erta in ly , i f  the d is tr ic t  c o u r t ’s o rd e r  w ith  resp ect to  h igh  
schools an d  ju n io r  h igh  sch ools is affirm ed, the d is tr ic t  cou rt 
shou ld  n ot be in v ited  to  recon sid er  its o rd e r  w ith  resp ect to them . 
The ju r isd ic t io n  o f  the d is tr ic t cou rt is c o n tin u in g  and  it  m ay  
alw ays m o d ify  its p rev iou s ord ers  w itli resp ect to an y  sch ool u pon  
a p p lica tion  and  fo r  g o o d  cause show n.



1296a

In complete compliance with Carter v. West Feliciana
School Board, •—— U. S .------ (1970); Alexander v. Holmes
County Bd. of E d .,------U. S . -------  (1969) ; Green v. School
Bd. of Netv Kent County, 391 U. S. 430 (1968), and Monroe 
v. Bd. of Comm’rs., 391 U. S. 450 (1968), the majority con­
cludes that the existing high school and junior high school 
system must be dismantled and that the constitutional man­
date can be met by the use of geographical assignment, in­
cluding satellite districts and busing.

The majority thus holds that the Constitution requires 
that this dual system be dismantled. It indicates its recog­
nition of the need to overcome the discriminatory educa­
tional effect of such factors as residential segregation. It 
also approves the use of zones, satellite districts and re­
sultant busing for the achievement of a unitary system at 
the high school and junior high school levels. Nevertheless, 
the majority disapproves a similar plan for the desegrega­
tion of the elementary schools on the ground that the busing 
involved is too onerous. I believe that this ground is in­
substantial and untenable.

At the outset, it is well to remember the seminal declara­
tion in Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I I ) ,  349 U. S. 
294, 300 (1955), that in cases of this nature trial courts are 
to “be guided by equitable principles” in “ fashioning and 
effectuating decrees.” Since Brown I I  the course of deci­
sion has not departed from the underlying premise that this 
is an equitable proceeding, and that the district court is in­
vested with broad discretion to frame a remedy for the 
wrongful acts which the majority agrees have been com­
mitted. In Green v. School Board of New Kent County, 
391 U. S. at 438, the Supreme Court held that the district 
courts not only have the “power” but the “duty to render 
a decree which will, so far as possible, eliminate the dis­

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1297a

criminatory effects of tlie past, as well as bar like discrimi­
nation in the future.” District courts were directed to “ re­
tain jurisdiction until it is clear that disestablishment has 
been achieved.” Baney v. Board of Education, 391 IT. S. 
443, 449 (1968). Where it is necessary district courts may 
even require local authorities “ to raise funds adequate to 
reopen, operate, and maintain without racial discrimina­
tion a public school system.” Griffin v. School Board. 377 
IT. S. 218, 233 (1964). Thus, the Supreme Court has made 
it abundantly clear that the district courts have the power, 
and the duty as well, to fashion equitable remedies designed 
to extirpate racial segregation in the public schools. And 
in fashioning equitable relief, the decree of a district court 
must be sustained unless it constitutes a clear abuse of 
discretion. United States v. IT. T. Grant Co.. 345 IT. S. 619 
(1953).

Busing is among the panoply of devices which a court of 
equity may employ in fashioning an equitable remedy in a 
case of this type. The district court’s order required that 
“transportation be offered on a uniform non-racial basis 
to all children whose attendance in any school is necessary 
to bring about reduction of segregation, and who lives far­
ther from the school to which they are assigned than the 
Board determines to be walking distance.” It found as a 
fact, and I accept its finding, that “ there is no way” to de­
segregate the Charlotte schools in the heart of the black 
community without providing such transportation.

The district court’s order is neither a substantial advance 
nor extension of present policy, nor on this record does it 
constitute an abuse of discretion. This school system, like 
many others, is now actively engaged in the business of 
transporting students to school. Indeed, busing is a wide­
spread practice in the United States. IT. S. Commission on

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1298a

Civil Rights, Racial Isolation in the Public Schools 180 
(1967). Between 1954 and 1967 the number of pupils using 
school transportation has increased from 9,509,699 to 
17,271,718. National Education Association, National Com­
mission on Safety Education, 1967-68 Statistics on Pupil 
Transportation 3.

Given its widespread adoption in American education, it 
is not surprising that busing has been held an acceptable 
tool for dismantling a dual school system. In United States 
v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 380 F.2d 385, 392 
(5 Cir.) (en banc), cert. den. sub. nom. Caddo Parrish 
School Bd, v. United States, 389 U. S. 840 (1967), the court 
ordered that bus service which was “generally provided” 
must be routed so as to transport every student “ to the 
school to which he is assigned” provided that the school 
“ is sufficiently distant from his home to make him eligible 
for transportation under generally applicable transporta­
tion rules.” Similarly, in United States v. School Dist. 151, 
286 F. S. 786, 799 (N.D. 111. 1968), aff’d., 404 F.2d 1125 (7 
Cir. 1968), the court said that remedying the effects of past 
discrimination required giving consideration to “ racial fac­
tors” in such matters as “ assigning students” and providing 
transportation of pupils. In addition, the Eighth Circuit 
in Kemp v. B ea sley ,------  F.2d ------  (8 Cir. 1970), recog­
nized that busing is “one possible tool in the implementa­
tion of unitary schools.” And, finally, Griffin v. School 
Board, supra, makes it clear that the added cost of neces­
sary transportation does not render a plan objectionable.

I turn, then, to the extent and effect of busing of ele­
mentary school students as ordered by the district court.

Presently, 23,600 students—21% of the total school popu­
lation—are bused, excluding some 5,000 pupils who travel 
to and from school by public transportation. The school

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1299a

hoard operates 280 buses. The average cost of busing stu­
dents is $39.92 per student, of which one-half is borne by 
the state and one-half by the board. Thus, the average an­
nual cost to the board is about $20.00 per student. The total 
annual cost to the board for busing is approximately 
$500,000.00 out of a total operating budget of $51,000,000.00. 
The cost of busing is thus less than 1% of the total operat­
ing budget and an even smaller percentage of the 
$57,700,000.00 which this school district expends on the 
aggregate of operations, capital outlay and debt service and 
this cost, also represents less than 2% of the local funds 
which together with state and federal money'constitute the 
revenue available annually to the school board.

The total number of elementary school pupils presently 
bused does not appear, but under the district court’s order 
an additional 9,300 elementary school pupils would be 
bused. The additional operating cost of busing them would 
not exceed $180,000.00 per year. They would require not 
more than 90 additional buses, and the buses would require 
an additional capital outlay of $486,000.00. The increased 
operating cost of the additional elementary school pupils 
required to be bused amounts to less than 1% of the board’s 
school budget, and the one-time capital outlays for addi­
tional buses amounts to less than 1% of the board’s total 
budget. The combined operational and capital cost repre­
sents less than 1.2% of the board’s total budget. I am, there­
fore, unable to see how the majority could consider the 
additional cost unbearable.

Perhaps more importantly, the tender years of ele­
mentary school students requires a consideration of the 
impact of the district court’s order on the average student. 
While this board transports 21% of the total school popu­
lation, it is providing transportation to a far lower per­

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1300a

centage of pupils than the average North Carolina school 
board. In North Carolina 54.9% of the average daily at­
tendance in the public schools was transported by bus dur­
ing the 1968-69 school year.

The average distance traveled by elementary school pu­
pils presently bused does not appear, but the district court 
found overall with respect to the children required to be 
bused by its order that they “will not as a group travel as 
far, nor will they experience more inconvenience than the 
more than 28,000 children who are already being trans­
ported * * While the district court did not make sep­
arate findings with regard to the average length of travel 
for the additional elementary school pupils required to be 
bused, it did find that the average one-way bus trip in the 
system today is over 15 miles in length and takes nearly 
an hour and a quarter. In contrast, the court found that 
under its plan the average one-way trip for elementary 
school students would be less than 7 miles and would re­
quire not over thirty-five minutes.

When I consider that busing has been widely used in this 
system to perpetuate segregation, that some busing was 
proposed even under the unacceptable board plans, that 
the cost of additional busing to the system as required by 
the court’s order, both in absolute terms and in relation to 
its total expenditures is so minimal, and that the impact on 
the elementary school pupils is so slight, I discern no basis 
for concluding that the district court abused its discretion 
with respect to the elementary school.

Two other aspects of the majority’s opinion require my 
comment.

First, the majority attempts to answer the query of the 
Chief Justice in his separate opinion in North-cross v. Board

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1301a

of Ed. of Memphis, ------ U. S. ------ (1970), as to whether
“any particular racial balance must be achieved in the 
schools” by holding “that not every school in a unitary 
school system need be integrated * * To me, the hold­
ing is premature and unwise. There is not in this case 
either the intractable problem of a vast urban ghetto in a 
large city or any substantial basis on which it may be said 
that the cost or the impact on the system or on the pupils 
of dismantling the dual system is insupportable.

The district court wisely attempted to remedy the pres­
ent dual system by requiring that pupil assignment be 
based “as nearly as practicable” on the racial composition 
of the school system, 71 % white and 29% black. The plan 
ordered fell short of complete realization of this remedial 
goal. While individual schools will vary in racial composi­
tion from 3% to 11% black, most schools will be clustered 
around the entire system’s overall racial ratio. It would 
seem to follow from United States v. Montgomery Board of 
Education, 395 U. S. 225, 232 (1968), that the district 
court’s utilization of racial ratios to dismantle this dual 
system and remedy the effects of segregation was at least 
well within the range of its discretion. There the Supreme 
Court approved as a requirement of faculty integration 
that “ in each school the ratio of white to Negro faculty 
members is substantially the same as it is throughout the 
system.” It did so recognizing that it had previously said 
in New Kent County, 391 U. S. at 439, “ [t]here is no uni­
versal answer to complex problems of desegregation; there 
is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. 
The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances 
present and the options available in each instance.” If in 
a proper case strict application of a ratio is an approved 
device to achieve faculty integration, I know of no reason

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1302a

why the same should not be true to achieve pupil integration, 
especially where, as here, some wide deviations from the 
overall ratio have been permitted to accommodate circum­
stances with respect to particular schools.

In addition to Montgomery, the same conclusion can be 
deduced from the mandate of West Feliciana and Holmes 
County to dismantle immediately a dual system. Schools 
cease to be black or white when each reflects the overall 
pupil racial balance of the entire system. What imbalances 
may be justified after a unitary system has once been estab­
lished, and what departures from an overall pupil racial 
balance may be permitted to accommodate special circum­
stances in the establishment of a unitary system, should be 
developed on a case-by-case basis and the facts of record 
which each case presents.

The other aspect of the majority’s opinion which troubles 
me greatly is its establishment of the test of reasonableness. 
My objections to this test do not spring from any desire to 
impose ?wreasonable, irrational or onerous solutions on 
school systems; I, too, seek “ reasonable” means with which 
to achieve the constitutionally required objective of a uni­
tary system.

My objections are two-fold.
First, this is an inappropriate case in which to establish 

the test. On this record it cannot be said that the board 
acted reasonably or that there is any viable solution to the 
dismantling of the dual system other than the one fashioned 
by the district court. Neither the board nor HEW has 
suggested one. So that, again, I think the majority is pre­
mature in its pronouncement and I would find no occasion to 
discuss reasonableness when there is no choice of remedies.

Second, the majority sets forth no standards by which to 
judge reasonableness or unreasonableness. The majority

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1303a

approves the district court’s plan as to high schools and 
junior high schools, yet disapproves as to elementary 
schools. The only differences are increased busing with 
attendant increased cost, time and distance. The majority 
subjectively concludes that these costs are too great to 
permit the enforcement of the constitutional right to a 
unitary system. I would find them neither prohibitive nor 
relatively disproportionate. But, with the absence of stan­
dards, how are the school boards or courts to know what 
plans are reasonable? The conscientious board cannot de­
termine when it is in compliance. The dilatory board re­
ceives an open invitation to further litigation and delay.

Finally, I call attention to the fact that “ reasonableness” 
has more than faint resemblance to the good faith test of 
Brown II. The 13 years between Brown II and Neiv Kent 
County amply demonstrate that this test did not work. 
Ultimately it was required to be rejected and to have sub­
stituted for it the absolute of “now” and “at once.” The 
majority ignores this lesson of history. If a constitutional 
right exists, it should be enforced. On this record the con­
stitutional rights of elementary school pupils should be 
enforced in the manner prescribed by the district court, 
because it is clear that the district court did not abuse its 
discretion.

Judge Sobeloff authorizes me to say that he joins in 
these views.

Opinions of Court of Appeals dated May 26, 1970



1304a

Judgment of Court of Appeals 
dated May 26, 1970

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the 
United States District Court for the Western District of 
North Carolina, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof, it is O rdered and A djudged 
that the judgment of the District Court appealed from, 
in this case, be, and the same is hereby, vacated; and the 
case is remanded to the United States District Court for 
the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte, for 
further proceedings.

Judge Bryan joins Haynsworth, C.J. and Boreman, J. 
in voting to vacate the judgment of the District Court, 
and to remand the case in accordance with the opinion 
written by Butzner, J. He does so for the sake of creating 
a clear majority for the decision to remand. It is his hope 
that upon reexamination the District Court will find it 
unnecessary to contravene the principle stated in Judge 
Bryan’s dissent herein, to which he still adheres. Screws 
v. United States, 325 US 91, 135 (1945).

By direction of the Court.

S amuel W. P hillips 
Clerk



1305a

Order of Three-Judge District Court 
dated April 29, 1970

I n the U nited S tates D istrict C ourt for the 
W estern D istrict of N orth Carolina 

C harlotte D ivision

Civil No. 1974

J ames E. S w a n n , et ah, 

versus
Plaintiffs,

Charlotte-M ecklenburg B oard of E ducation, a public 
body corporate; W illiam  E . P o e ; H enderson B e l k ; 
D an H ood; B en F . H u n t l e y ; B etsey K e lly ; C oleman 
W . K erry, Jr.; J ulia M au ld en ; S am M cN in c h , III; 
Carlton G. W atkins ; T he N orth Carolina State B oard 
of E ducation, a public body corporate; and Dr. A. Craig 
P hillips , Superintendent of Public Instruction of the 
State of North Carolina,

Defendants,
and

H onorable R obert W . S cott, Governor of the State o f  
North Carolina; H onorable A . C. D avis, Controller of 
the State Department of Public Instruction; H onorable 
W illiam  K. M cL ean , Judge of the Superior Court of 
Mecklenburg County; T om B. H arris ; G. D on R ober­
so n ; A . B reece B reland ; J ames M. P ostell; W illiam  
E. R orie, J r.; C halmers R . Carr ; R obert T. W ilso n ; 
and the Concerned P arents A ssociation, an unincorpo­
rated association in Mecklenburg County; J ames Carson 
and W illiam  H . B ooe,

Additional Parties-Defendant.



1306a

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970 

Civil No. 2631

M rs. R obert L ee M oore, et al., 

versus
Plaintiffs,

C harlotte-M ecklenburg B oard of E ducation and W illiam

C. S elf , Superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Public Schools,

Defendants.

T hree-J udge Court

(Heard March 24, 1970 Decided April 29, 1970.)
Before Craven and B u tzner , Circuit Judges, and M c ­

M illan , District Judge.

Craven, Circuit Judge:

This three-judge district court was convened pursuant 
to 28 U.S.C. §2281, et seq. (1964), to consider a single as­
pect of the above-captioned case: the constitutionality and 
impact of a state statute, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 115-176.1 (Supp. 
1969), known as the antibussing law, on this suit brought 
to desegregate the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system. 
We hold a portion of N. C. Gen. Stat. § 115-176.1 unconsti­
tutional because it may interfere with the school board’s 
performance of its affirmative constitutional duty under the 
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I .

On February 5, 1970, the district court entered an order 
requiring the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board to de­



1307a

segregate its school system according to a court-approved 
plan. Implementation of the plan could require that 13,300 
additional children be bussed.1 This, in turn, could require 
up to 138 additional school buses.1 2

Prior to the February 5 order, certain parties filed a 
suit, entitled Tom B. Harris, G. Don Roberson, et at. v. 
William C. Self, Superintendent of Charlotte-Meclclenburg 
Schools and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, in 
the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, a court of gen­
eral jurisdiction of the State of North Carolina. Part of the 
relief sought was an order enjoining the expenditure of 
public funds to purchase, rent or operate any motor vehicle 
for the purpose of transporting students pursuant to a 
desegregation plan. A temporary restraining order grant­
ing this relief was entered by the state court, and, in re­
sponse, the Sivann plaintiffs moved the district court to add 
the state plaintiffs as additional parties defendant in the 
federal suit, to dissolve the state restraining order, and 
to direct all parties to cease interfering with the federal 
court mandates. Because it appeared that the constitution­
ality of N. C. Gen. Stat. § 115-176.1 (Supp. 1969) would be 
in question, the district court requested designation of this 
three-judge court on February 19, 1970. On February 25, 
1970, the district judge granted the motion to add additional 
parties. Meanwhile, on February 22, 1970, another state 
suit, styled Mrs. Robert Lee Moore, et al. v. Charlotte-

1 O n M arch  5, 1970, the F o u rth  C ircu it  C ou rt o f  A p p e a ls  stayed  
that p o rtio n  o f  the d is tr ic t  c o u r t ’s o rd e r  re q u ir in g  bussing  o f  stu ­
dents p en d in g  a p p ea l to  the h igh er cou rt.

2 T here is a d isp u te  betw een  the parties as to the a d d ition a l n u m ­
ber o f  ch ild ren  w ho w ill be bussed an d  as to  the n u m ber o f  a d d i­
tiona l buses th at w ill be needed . F o r  ou r  pu rposes, it  is im m a­
teria l w hose figures are co rrect . T h e figures q u oted  are taken 
fro m  the d istr ic t ju d g e ’s su p p lem en ta l fin d in gs o f  fa c t , filed  M arch  
21, 1970.

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1308a

Mecklenburg Board of Education and William C. Self, 
Superintendent of Chariotte-Mecklenburg Schools, was be­
gun. In this second state suit, the plaintiffs also requested 
an order enjoining the school board and superintendent 
from implementing the plan ordered by the district court 
on February 5. The state court judge issued a temporary 
restraining order embodying the relief requested, and on 
February 26, 1970, the Swann plaintiffs moved to add Mrs. 
Moore, et al, as additional parties defendant in the federal 
suit. On the same day, the state defendants filed a petition 
for removal of the Moore suit to federal court. On March 
23, 19/0, the district judge requested a three-judge court 
in the removed Moore case, and this panel was designated 
to hear the matter. All the cases were consolidtaed for 
hearing, and the court heard argument by all parties on 
March 24, 1970.

II.
N. C. Gen. Stat. §115-176.1 (Supp. 1969) reads:

Assignment of pupils based on race, creed, color or 
national origin prohibited.—No person shall be refused 
admission into or be excluded from any public school 
in this State on account of race, creed, color or national 
origin. No school attendance district or zone shall be 
drawn for the purpose of segregating persons of vari­
ous races, creeds, colors or national origins from the 
community.

Where administrative units have divided the geo­
graphic area into attendance districts or zones, pupils 
shall be assigned to schools within such attendance 
districts; provided, however, that the board of educa­
tion of an administrative unit may assign any pupil 
to a school outside of such attendauce district or zone 
in order that such pupil may attend a school of a

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1309a

specialized kind including but not limited to a voca­
tional school or school operated for, or operating pro­
grams for, pupils mentally or physically handicapped, 
or for any other reason which the board of education 
in its sole discretion deems sufficient. No student shall 
be assigned or compelled to attend any school on ac­
count of race, creed, color or national origin, or for 
the purpose of creating a balance or ratio of race, re­
ligion or national origins. Involuntary bussing of stu­
dents in contravention of this article is prohibited, and 
public funds shall not be used for any such bussing.

The provisions of this article shall not apply to a 
temporary assignment due to the unsuitability of a 
school for its intended purpose nor to any assignment 
or transfer necessitated by overcrowded conditions or 
other circumstances which, in the sole discretion of the 
school board, require assignment or reassignment.

The provisions of this article shall not apply to an 
application for the assignment or reassignment by the 
parent, guardian or person standing in loco parentis of 
any pupil or to any assignment made pursuant to a 
choice made by any pupil who is eligible to make such 
choice pursuant to the provisions of a freedom of choice 
plan voluntarily adopted by the hoard of education of 
an administrative unit.

It is urged upon us that the statute is far from clear and 
may reasonably be interpreted several different ways.

(A) Plaintiffs read the statute to mean that the 
school board is prevented from complying with its duty 
under the Fourteenth Amendment to establish a uni­
tary school system. See, e.g., Green v. County School 
Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968). In

Order of Tliree-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1310a

support of this contention, plaintiffs argue that the 
North Carolina General Assembly passed § 115-176.1 
in response to an April 23, 1969, district court order, 
which required the school board to submit a plan to 
desegregate the Charlotte schools for the 1969-70 school 
year. Under plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statute, 
the board is denied all desegregation tools except non- 
gerrymandered geographic zoning and freedom of 
choice. Implicit in this, of course, is the suggestion that 
zoning and fredom of choice will be ineffective in the 
Charlotte context to disestablish the asserted duality 
of the present system.

(B) The North Carolina Attorney General argues 
that the statute was passed to preserve the neighbor­
hood school concept. Under his interpretation, the 
statute prohibits assignment and bussing inconsistent 
with the neighborhood school concept. Thus, to dis­
establish a dual system the district court could, con­
sistent with the statute, only order the board to geo­
graphically zone the attendance areas so that, as nearly 
as possible, each student would be assigned to the 
school nearest his home regardless of his race. Im­
plicit in this argument is that any school system is 
per se unitary if it is zoned according to neighborhood 
patterns that are not the result of officially sanctioned 
racial discrimination. Although the Attorney General 
emphasizes the expression of state policy by the Legis­
lature in favor of the neighborhood school concept, he 
recognizes, of course, that the statute also permits 
freedom of choice if a school board voluntarily adopts 
such a plan. Thus, the plaintiffs and the Attorney Gen­
eral read the statute in much the same way: that it 
limits lawful methods of accomplishing desegregation

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1311a

to nongerrymandered geographic zoning and freedom 
of choice.

(C) The school board’s interpretation of the statute 
is more ingenious. The hoard concedes that the statute 
prohibits assignment according to race, assignment to 
achieve racial balance, and involuntary bussing for 
either of these purposes, but contends that the facial 
prohibitions of the statute only apply to prevent a 
school board from doing more than necessary to 
attain a unitary system. The argument is that since 
the statute only begins to operate once a unitary 
system has been established, it in no way interferes 
with the board’s constitutional duty to desegregate 
the schools. Counsel goes on to insist that Charlotte- 
Mecklenburg presently has a unitary system and, 
therefore, that the state court constitutionally applied 
the statute to prevent further unnecessary racial 
balancing.

(D) Plaintiffs in the Harris suit contend (1) that 
in 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c(b) and 2000c-6(a) (2) (1964)3

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970

3 § 2000c:
A s  used in  th is su bch ap ter—

*  #  #  #  #

(b )  “ D eseg reg a tion ”  m eans the assignm ent o f  students to 
p u b lic  sch ools an d  w ith in  such  schools w ith ou t rega rd  to  th eir  
race, co lo r , re lig ion , o r  n a tion a l or ig in , b u t “ d esegrega tion ”  
shall n o t m ean  the assignm ent o f  stud ents to  p u b lic  schools 
in  o rd e r  to  ov ercom e racia l im balance.

§ 2 0 0 0 c -6 (a )  :
(2 )  [P jr o v id e d  that n oth in g  herein  shall em p ow er an y  offi­

c ia l o r  cou rt o f  the U n ited  States to issue an y  ord er  seeking 
to  a ch ieve  a ra c ia l ba lance  in  an y  sch ool b y  req u irin g  the 
tra n sp orta tion  o f  p u p ils  o r  stud ents fr o m  one school to 
an oth er o r  one sch ool d is tr ic t to another in  o rd er  to  ach ieve 
such  ra c ia l ba lance, o r  otherw ise en large  the ex istin g  p ow er 
o f  the co u r t  to in su re com p lia n ce  w ith  con stitu tion a l standards.



1312a

Congress expressly prohibited assignment and bussing 
to achieve racial balance, (2) that to compel a child 
to attend a school on account of his race or to com­
pel him to be involuntarily bussed to achieve a racial 
balance violates the principle of Broivn v. Bd. of Ed. 
of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and (3) that N. C. Gen. 
Stat. § 115-176.1 merely embodies the principle of the 
neighborhood school in accordance with Broivn and 
the Civil Eights Act of 1964. We may dispose of the 
first contention at once. The statute “cannot be in­
terpreted to frustrate the constitutional prohibition 
[against segregated schools].” United States v. School 
Dist. 151 of Cook Co., 404 F.2d 1125, 1130 (7th Cir. 
1968).

(E) Plaintiffs in the Moore suit argue that the 
district court order of February 5, 1970, was in 
contravention of Brown and, therefore, that the state 
court order in their suit was justified. However, the 
Moore plaintiffs also argue that certain parts of the 
second and third paragraphs in the state statute are 
unconstitutional because they give the school board 
the authority to assign children to schools for what­
ever reasons the board deems necessary or sufficient. 
The Moore plaintiffs interpret these portions of the 
statute as permitting assignment and bussing on the 
basis of race contrary to Brown and the Fourteenth 
Amendment.

III.

Federal courts are reluctant, as a matter of comity and 
respect for state legislative judgment and discretion, to 
strike down state statutes as unconstitutional, and will not 
do so if the statute reasonably can be interpreted so as not

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1313a

to conflict with the federal Constitution. But to read the 
statute as innocuously as the school board suggests would, 
we think, distort and twist the legislative intent. We agree 
with plaintiffs and the Attorney General that the statute 
limits the remedies otherwise available to school boards 
to desegregate the schools. The harder question is whether 
the limitation is valid or conflicts with the Fourteenth 
Amendment. We think the question is not so easy, and the 
statute not so obviously unconstitutional, that the question 
may lawfully be answered by a single federal judge, see 
Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 (1962); Bailey v. 
Patterson, 369 U.S. 31 (1962), and we reject plaintiffs’ 
attack upon our jurisdiction. Swift £  Co. v. Wickham, 
382 U.S. I l l  (1965); C. Wright, Law of Federal Courts 
§50 at 190 (2d ed. 1970).

In Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent Co., 391 
U.S. 430 (1968), the Supreme Court declared that a school 
board must take effective action to establish a unitary, non- 
racial system, if it is not already operating such a system. 
The Court neither prohibited nor prescribed specific types 
of plans, but, rather, emphasized that it would judge each 
plan by its ultimate effectiveness in achieving desegrega­
tion. In Green itself, the Court held a freedom-of-choice 
plan insufficient because the plan left the school system 
segregated, but stated that, under the circumstances exist­
ing in New Kent County, it appeared that the school board 
could achieve a unitary system either by simple geo­
graphical zoning or by consolidating the two schools in­
volved in the case. 391 U.S. at 442, n. 6. Under Green and 
subsequent decisions, it is clear that school boards must 
implement plans that work to achieve unitary systems.
>Northcross v. Bd. of Ed. of the Memphis City Schools, 
------U .S.------- , 38 L.W. 4219 (1970); Alexander v. Holmes

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1314a

Co. Bd. of Ed., 396 U.S. 19 (1969). Plans that do not 
produce a unitary system are unacceptable.4

We think the enunciation of policy by the legislature 
of the State of North Carolina is entitled to great respect. 
Federalism requires that whenever it is possible to achieve 
a unitary system within a framework of neighborhood 
schools, a federal court ought not to require other remedies 
in derogation of state policy. But if in a given fact context 
the state’s expressed preference for the neighborhood 
school cannot be honored without preventing a unitary 
system, it is the former policy which must yield under 
the Supremacy Clause.

Stated differently, a statute favoring the neighborhood 
school concept, freedom-of-choice plans, or both can validly 
limit a school board’s choice of remedy only if the policy 
favored will not prevent the operation of a unitary system. 
That it may or may not depends upon the facts in a 
particular school system. The flaw in this legislation is its 
rigidity. As an expression of state policy, it is valid. To 
the extent that it may interfere with the board’s perfor­

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970

4 T h e reach  o f  the C ou rt ’ s m a n d ate  is n o t  y e t  c le a r :

[ A ] s  soon  as possib le  . . .  w e o u g h t to  reso lve  som e o f  the 
basic p r a c t ic a l p rob lem s w hen  th ey  are a p p ro p r ia te ly  p r e ­
sen ted  in c lu d in g  w hether, as a con stitu tion a l m atter, a n y  p a r ­
t icu la r  ra c ia l ba lance  m u st be a ch ieved  in  the sch o o ls ; to 
w h a t ex ten t sch oo l d is tr ic ts  a n d  zones m a y  o r  m u st be a ltered  
as a co n s titu tio n a l m a tte r ; to  w h a t ex ten t tra n sp orta tion  m a y  
o r  m ust be p r o v id e d  to  a ch ieve  the en ds sou g h t b y  p r io r  
h o ld in g s  o f  the C ou rt.

N orth cross  v . B d . o f  E d . o f  the M em ph is C ity  S ch ools , --------U .S .
--------, 38 L .W . a t 4220 (1 9 7 0 ) (C h ie f  Ju stice  B u rg e r , c o n c u r r in g ) .
F o r  o u r  p u rp oses , it is su fficien t to  sa y  th at the m a n d ate  a p p lies  
to  req u ire  “ reason ab le ”  o r  “ ju s t ifia b le ”  so lu tion s. See generally 
F iss, Racial Imbalance in the Public Schools: The Constitutional 
Concepts, 78 H a rv . L . R ev . 564 (1 9 6 5 ) .



1315a

mance of its affirmative constitutional duty to establish a 
unitary system, it is invalid.

The North Carolina statute, analyzed in light of these 
principles, is unconstitutional in part. The first paragraph 
of the statute reads:

No person shall be refused admission into or be 
excluded from any public school in this State on 
account of race, creed, color or national origin. No 
school attendance district or zone shall be drawn for 
the purpose of segregating persons of various races, 
creeds, colors or national origins from the community.

There is nothing unconstitutional in this paragraph. It 
is merely a restatement of the principle announced in 
Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka. 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
(Brown I).

The third paragraph of the statute reads:

The provisions of this article shall not apply to a 
temporary assignment due to the unsuitability of a 
school for its intended purpose nor to any assignment 
or transfer necessitated by overcrowded conditions or 
circumstances which, in the sole discretion of the school 
board, require assignment or reassignment.

This paragraph merely allows the school board noninvidi- 
ous discretion to assign students to schools for valid ad­
ministrative reasons. As we read it, it does not relate 
to race at all and, so read, is constitutional.

The fourth paragraph provides:

The provisions of this article shall not apply to an 
application for the assignment or reassignment by the 
parent, guardian or person standing in loco parentis

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1316a

of any pupil or to any assignment made pursuant to 
a choice made by any pupil who is eligible to make such 
choice pursuant to the provisions of a freedom of choice 
plan voluntarily adopted by the board of education of 
an administrative unit.

This paragraph relieves school boards from compliance 
with the statute where they are implementing voluntarily 
adopted freedom-of-choice plans within their systems. It 
does not require the boards to adopt freedom of choice 
in any particular situation, but leaves them free to comply 
with their constitutional duty by any effective means avail­
able, including, where it is appropriate, freedom of choice. 
So interpreted, the paragraph is constitutional.

The second paragraph of the statute contains the con­
stitutional infirmity. It reads:

Where administrative units have divided the geo­
graphic area into attendance districts or zones, pupils 
shall be assigned to schools within such attendance 
districts; provided, however, that the board of educa­
tion of an administrative unit may assign any pupil 
to a school outside of such attendance district or zone 
in order that such pupil may attend a school of a 
specialized kind including but not limited to a voca­
tional school or school operated for, or operating pro­
grams for, pupils mentally or physically handicapped, 
or for any other reason which the board of education 
in its sole discretion deems sufficient. No student shall 
be assigned or compelled to attend any school on ac­
count of race, creed, color or national origin, or for the 
purpose of creating a balance or ratio of race, religion 
or national origins. Involuntary bussing of students

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1317a

in contravention of this article is prohibited, and pub­
lic funds shall not be used for any such bussing.

The first sentence of the paragraph presents no greater 
constitutional problem than the third and fourth para­
graphs of the statute, discussed above. It allows school 
boards to establish a geographically zoned neighborhood 
school system, but it does not require them to do so. Con­
sequently, this sentence does not prevent the boards from 
complying with their constitutional duty in circumstances 
where zoning and neighborhood school plans may not re­
sult in a unitary system. The clause in the first sentence 
permitting assignment for “ any other reason” in the board’s 
“sole discretion” we read as meaning simply that the school 
boards may assign outside the neighborhood school zone 
for noninvidious administrative reasons. So read, it pre­
sents no difficulty. The second and third sentences are 
unconstitutional. They plainly prohibit school boards from 
assigning, compelling, or involuntarily bussing students 
on account of race, or in order to racially “balance” the 
school system. Green v. School Bd. of New Kent Co., 391 
U.S. 430 (1968), Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 349 U.S. 
294 (1955) (Broivn II), and Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, 
347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Brown I), require school boards to 
consider race for the purpose of disestablishing dual 
systems.

The Constitution is not color-blind with respect to the 
affirmative duty to establish and operate a unitary school 
system. To say that it is would make the constitutional 
principle of Brown I and II an abstract principle instead 
of an operative one. A flat prohibition against assignment 
by race would, as a practical matter, prevent school boards 
from altering existing dual systems. Consequently, the 
statute clearly contravenes the Supreme Court’s direction

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1318a

that boards must take steps adecpiate to abolish dual sys­
tems. See Green v. School Bd. of Kent Co., 391 U.S. 430, 
437 (1968). As far as the prohibition against racial “bal­
ance” is concerned, a school board, in taking affirmative 
steps to desegregate its systems, must always engage in 
some degree of balancing. The degree of racial “balance” 
necessary to establish a unitary system under given cir­
cumstances is not yet clear, see Northcross v. Bd. of Ed.
of the Memphis City Schools, ------ U.S. —— , 38 LAV. at
4220 (1970) (Chief Justice Burger concurring), but be­
cause any method of school desegregation involves selec­
tion of zones and transfer and assignment of pupils by 
race, a flat prohibition against racial “balance” violates the 
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Finally, the statute’s prohibition against “ involuntary 
bussing” also violates the equal protection clause. Bussing 
may not be necessary to eliminate a dual system and es­
tablish a unitary one in a given case, but we think the 
Legislature went too far when it undertook to prohibit its 
use in all factual contexts. To say that bussing shall not 
be resorted to unless unavoidable is a valid expression of 
state policy, but to flatly prohibit it regardless of cost, 
extent and all other factors—including willingness of a 
school board to experiment—contravenes, we think, the 
implicit mandate of Green that all reasonable methods be 
available to implement a unitary system.

Although we hold these statutory prohibitions uncon­
stitutional as violative of equal protection, it does not 
follow that “bussing” will be an appropriate remedy in any 
particular school desegregation case. On this issue we 
express no opinion, for the question is now on appeal 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit and is not for us to decide.

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1319a

It is clear that each case must be analyzed on its own 
facts. See Green v. School Bd. of New Kent Co., 391 U.S. 
430 (1968). The legitimacy of the solutions proposed and 
ordered in each case must be judged against the facts of 
a particular school system. We merely hold today that 
North Carolina may not validly enact laws that prevent 
the utilization of any reasonable method otherwise avail­
able to establish unitary school systems. Its effort to do 
so is struck down by the equal protection clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause (Article 
2 of the Constitution).

V

As we have no cause to doubt the sincerity of the various 
defendants, the plaintiffs’ motion to hold them in contempt 
for interference with the district court’s orders and their 
request for an injunction against enforcement of the statute 
will be denied. We believe the defendants, including the 
state court plaintiffs, will, pending appeal, respect this 
court’s judgment, which applies statewide with respect to 
the constitutionality of the statute.

Several of the parties have moved to be dismissed from 
the case, alleging various grounds in support of their 
motions. Because of the view we take of this suit and the 
limited relief we grant, the motions to dismiss become im­
material. The school board is undeniably a proper party 
before the court on the constitutional issue, since it is a 
party to the desegregation suit. We can, therefore, con­
sider and adjudge the validity of the statute, regardless of 
the position of the other parties. That we consider the 
substantive arguments of all the parties in no way harms 
those who have moved to be dismissed.

An appropriate judgment will be entered in accordance 
with this opinion.

Order of Three-Judge District Court dated April 29, 1970



1320a

Order Granting Certiorari

June 29, 1970

Tlie motion of the National Education Association for 
leave to file a brief, as arnicas curiae, is granted. The mo­
tion of the United Negro College Fund, Inc., et al., for leave 
to file a brief, as amici curiae, is granted. The petition for 
a writ of certiorari is granted, provided that the judgment 
of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed insofar as it 
remands the case to the district court for further proceed­
ings, which further proceedings are authorized, and the 
district court’s judgment is reinstated and shall remain in 
effect pending those proceedings. The decision on the mo­
tions to expedite is deferred. Mr. Justice Black dissents 
from the Court’s order which reinstates the district court’s 
judgment. He would grant the motion to expedite action in 
this Court and set the case for hearing at the earliest pos­
sible date.





MEIIEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 219