Glover v. Daniel Appendix
Public Court Documents
January 26, 1970

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Glover v. Daniel Appendix, 1970. 21534777-b39a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a5cf84a8-bc2b-4074-a9cc-d860070cc26a/glover-v-daniel-appendix. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
In t h e MnlUh BMm GInurt of Appeals F ob the. F ifth Cibctjit No. 29253 D. F. Glover, Plaintiff-Appellant, H arold T. Daniel, et al., Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FBOM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION A P P E N D I X J ack Greenberg Conrad K. H arper 10 Columbus Circle Suite 2030 New York, N.Y. 10019 P eter E. E indskopf H oward Moore, Jr. Suite 1154 Citizens Trust Company Bank Building 75 Piedmont Avenue, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant TABLE OF CONTENTS Transcript of Proceedings of June 23, 1969 .......... ....... 1 Docket Entries ................................................................ 299 Complaint ....... .............. ................................................... 301 Exhibit A Annexed to Complaint—Letter dated April 9, 1969 ........................ ............... 306 Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate ....... ............ ............ 308 Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Consolidate................ 310 Order of Consolidation .......... ............ .................. ......... 314 Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.............. 315 Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction ............................................. 317 Order and Decision .............. 321 Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Vacate Temporary Bestraining Order ................... 330 Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Bestraining Order .......... 331 Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Vacate Bestraining Order ...... 333 Plaintiff’s Notice to Take Deposition............ ................ 339 Answer In Case No. 890 .............................. ............. . 341 PAGE 11 Order to Show Cause ....................... ....... ...................... 345 Defendant’s Interrogatories......... ....................... .......... 346 Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time to Answer Interrogatories ............. ................................. ............. 348 Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Shorter. Time ........................................................ ..... 351 Transcript of Proceedings dated June 11, 1969 .......... 353 Plaintiff’s Answer to Interrogatories............................ 377 Exhibit A Annexed to Foregoing—List of Names ........................................ 379 Order and Decision.......................................................... 382 Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Amend ......................... 395 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and Supplement Findings, etc................................................................................... 396 Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Amend, etc..... 401 Order Denying Motion to Amend ..... ...... ............. 406 Notice of Appeal............ ...... ...... ....... ............... ...... 407 Cost Bond on Appeal ............... .............. ............... 408 Clerk’s Certificate ........ 410 PAGE T estimony (Hearing June 23, 1969) Plaintiff’s Witnesses: page Dennis Glover Direct...................................................................114, 287 Cross - ................................................................ 156 Redirect............................................... 191 Louise Batts D irect....................... 192 Cross ........................................ 198 Halley Derr D irect........................... 199 Margaret Walls D irect........... ..................... 203 Cross .............................................. 206 Leola Parks Direct ................. 209 Cross ........................................ 211 Redirect.................... 215 Defendant’s Witnesses: Paul Oxford D irect....................... 25 Cross .................... 4 Harold T. Daniel Direct..................... 282, 288 Cross ..................... 26, 285 Sue Snipes D irect................ 216 Cross .................... 227 Ill IV Talmadge Lee Cook Direct ..................... 236 Cross ....... ............................... ........................... 255 Hoyt Chambers Direct............ .................................. 267 Cross ............... 272 Redirect............................ 275 Recross ______ 275 Astor Riggins Direct......... 278 Cross - ......- ...... ............................. .................... 280 PAGE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F. Glover ) ) ) ) , ) CIVIL ACTION vs. NO. 890 HAROLD T. DANIEL, individually and as Superintendent of )PIKE COUNTY SCHOOLS, et al ) ) Atlanta, Georgia; June 23, 1969 Before Honorable NEWELL EDENFIELD, Judge» APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: For the Plaintiff: Peter E. Rindskopf 859 1/2 Hunter Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia For the Defendant: Johnnie Caldwell Thomaston, Georgia Index Name ____ BATTS, Louise CHAMBERS, Hoyt COOK, Talmadge Lee DANIEL, Harold T. DERR, Halley GLOVER, G. T. OXFORD, Paul PARKS, Mrs. Leola RIGGINS, Astor SNIPES, Sue WALLS, Margaret W I T N E S S E S Page 192 267 235 2 6, 282, 287-A 199 114, 189, 287 4 209 278 216 203 1 2 JUNE 23, 1969 oOo THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. Are we ready in Glover versus Campbell, I believe it is? CLERK: Daniel. THE COURT: Daniel. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. Plaintiffs are ready, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. CALDWELL: Defendants are ready, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rindskopf, let's see. If I understand the issue here, we are going ahead and try this matter finally and conclusively without a jury, the sole issue being, as I understand it, whether or not the plaintiff, Mr. Glover, was discharged for racial reasons 6r for other justifiable reasons. Is that correct? MR. RINDSKOPF: That's basically correct. Your Honor. In reviewing the pleadings, I think there are probably also due process and First Amendment issues, but we can always amend to conform to the evidence. THE COURT: Well, that may affect the legal determination, but it won't affect the issues to be determined this morning, will it? 96*4 MR. RINDSKOPF: No, sir. 3 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed, sir. CLERK; Do you have any witnesses, gentlemen, and do you wish the Rule as to any witnesses? When your name is called, will you please come forward as witnesses in the case of D. F. Glover versus Harold T. Daniel. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witnesses present answered to the roll call as per above.) CLERK: Do you wish the Rule, gentlemen? MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes,we do. CLERK: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, would you please raise your right hand? Each of you do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the issue joined between D. F. Glover versus Harold T. Daniel, individually, and as Superintendent of Pike County Schools, et al, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Now, ladies and gentlemen, you're instructed not to dis cuss your testimony among yourselves nor allow anyone to discuss it with you except counsel or either of them. You are to retire from the Courtroom at this time. Do not return into the Courtroom until called in by an officer of this Court. You may retire to the corridor at this time, other than parties to the case. THE COURT: Gentlemen, before we begin, let me make one 3 4 comment and request. As I am sure counsel are aware, I have recessed a jury trial which is going on in this Court to hear this matter. I had allowed for it, on the advice of counsel, a day. And I understood I was told it would require probably less than that. I notice we have a great number of witnesses here. We want to hear the matter and hear it thoroughly. I would request however, that to the extent that your witnesses are merely cumulative, that you consider not piling up cumulative testimony upon cumulative testimony, to the extent that you feel like you can eliminate it in the interest of time. You may proceed, Mr. Rindskopf. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. I expect most of our witnesses THE COURT: All right. MR. RINDSKOPF: •— would be very brief. THE COURT: All right, sir. MR. RINDSKOPF: We call Mr. Oxford. 0O0 PAUL OXFORD, laving first been duly sworn and called as a witness testified as follows: CROSS EXAMINATION 3Y MR. RINDSKOPF: ft Would you state your name, please? A Paul Oxford. 4 5 Q. How old are you* Mr. Oxford? A. Fifty-five. 0- Where do you live? A, Near Concord, in Pike County. 0- Okay. And what is your occupation? A■ I'm a farmer and also substitute on a rural mail route at the Post Office. 0. Okay. Do you hold any position in regards to education in Pike County? A. Yes, sir. I'm a member and Chairman of the County Board of Education. 0- Okay. How long have you been on the County Board of Education? A. About eleven years. Q. About eleven years? And when did you become the Chairman? A. The first Tuesday in January, I was elected, of this rear. 0. How were you elected? A. By the other members of the Board. 0. And how is the Grand Jury -- pardon me -- how is the : soard of Education chosen in Pike County? A. It was elected by the voters of Pike County. 0. And when was the last election? A. In November of last year. 5 6 0- November, 1968? A. *68; yes, sir. Q. To take office in January? A. In January, first of January, '69. Yes, sir. Q. How long is your term? A. My term? Q. Yes, sir. A. Two years. Q. Two years? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you the only member of the Board of Education who vas previously on the Board? A. Yes, sir; at this time. Yes, sir. Q, And how many members are there? A. We have five members. 0- Now, in your duties as Chairman of the Board of Education and on the Board of Education generally, do you consider the employment of principals? A. Yes, we do. Q. How do you go about employing principals? A We wait for the nomination of the Superintendent, and thenve consider them. Q. Are you absolutely bound by the fact that the Superintendent nominates someone, or not? A. No, sir. I think the law allows us to choose someone 6 7 not nominated. But by custom of this Board, it has always been, with maybe one or two exceptions, to follow the Superintendent's recommendations. Q. Okay. In the eleven years you've been on the Board, how many times have you not followed the Superintendent's nomina tion? A. Only one time that I can remember. Q. And when was that? A. That was about three years ago. Qi Whatvas that for? A. That was for a nomination of a high school principal that we did not elect the first man that Mr. Daniel, the Superin tendent, recommended. Q. After you failed to recommend — after you failed to elect this person, did he recommend someone else? A. Yes, sir. Q. He did. And was that person subsequently elected? A. Yes, sir. Q. And after you elect people, you then sign them to contracts? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, what was the reason that you overrode his first recommendation? A. One of the members of the Board knew somebody that lived in the town where one of the applicants lived, and he wanted ? 8 to check with that person before he voted for the recommendation as it was made, Q. In other words, this person was coming from somewhere outside the system? A, Yes. Outside the system. Q. And after the member checked with his informant# he decided that he preferred someone else, is that what happened? A. No, sir. The Superintendent couldn't get a majority vote on the one he had recommended first. So he decided to recommend the second, another man, Q. I see. He withdrew -- A. Yes, sir. Ql — his nomination? Is it, that a normal thipg? Does he actually make a nominatior or does he suggest to you? A. He presents the name to us and says, "This is the man I recommend." Q. Does he make this presentation in writing? A. No, sir. I think not. Q. Does he make it at a regular meeting of the Board? A. Yes, sir. At a regular Board meeting. £X Okay. How often do you hold your meetings? A The regularly scheduled ones, once each month, on the first Tuesday. Q. First Tuesday? 8 9 A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. When did you consider the election and contracting with Section 12, Administrative Personnel, for this year? A. I believe it was the first part of April. I believe it was the first meeting in April. Q. In your first April meeting? A. Yes, sir. The regular April meeting. Q. All right. And at that meeting, did the Superintendent make nominations? A. Yes. Q. Whom did he nominate? A. I may be mistaken about him making recommendations at that meeting. It was about 1:30 in the morning when we finished, and I believe we instructed him to write us a letter making nominations, and we would have a special meeting on the next Tuesday. Q. And did he write this letter? A. Yes, sir; he did. Q. And did you hold your meeting on the next Tuesday? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Well, who did he nominate in this letter? A. He nominated by name -- Q. Yes? A — Mrs. Edna Miller. Mrs. Edna Miller, Mr. T. H. — - 9 10 no •— Mr. Lee Cook, and I believe Mr. T. E. Sellars, and I believe Mr. Crowder. Q. Mr. Halbert Crowder? A. Halbert Crowder; yes sir. Q. Was that at this time, are these principal nominations? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was Mr. Crowder nominated at this time or nominated at a later time? A. I cannot remember exactly. I don't believe his name was in the letter, no. No, sir. Q. Okay. But he was eventually nominated? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Did your Board approve each of these nominations? A. At the regular meeting, yes,sir. I mean at the call meeting on the 8th. Q. At the call meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was this meeting open to the public? A. Yes, sir. 0. Now, -- A. It was open to the public. We usually have meetings open to the public except when we' re considering personnel, and when we're considering personnel, I do not think it was open to the public. 1 0 11 Q. You went into executive — A Yesf sir. Q. — session? All right. Now, is it also customary in your system for someone who has a job as a priniipal to be renominated? A It has been? yes, sir? most of the time. Some of the time not. Q. And in your eleven years on the Board, that has been your experience? A & A we had Qt A Well, one time we did not. All right. When was that? That vas the same year, three years ago, when the principal was not nominated by the Superintendent. Now was this the same person who failed to carry a majorit No, sir. It was the one who had been there two or three Y? years. Q. I see. Do you know the reason why the Superintendent didn't renominate this person? A No, sir? I do not. Q. Did he ever tell the Board? A No, sir. I don't remember him telling it; no, sir. Q. Okay. Now, did you, as a Board, vote on these nominations at your executive session? A Yes? we did. Q, And were the votes unanimous? I I 12 A. I don’t remember whether they were unanimous or not. 0- How many members are on your Board? A. Five. 0- There are five. All right. Now, what are the qualifications of Mrs. Edna Miller for her job? A. I believe she has a master degree and A-4 certificate, I believe, and is doing some work on her A-5 certificate. o. Where does she have her Master Degree from? A. I’m not sure. o. You don't know? A. No, sir; I don’t know. Q Okay. How long has she been a teacher? A. She has been a teacher a good many years -- I'm not sure how many -- in our system. a And how long has she been a principal? A. This past year was her first year as principal. Q. Her first year as principal. And isn't it a fact that she took office in the middle of the school year or while it was going on? A. It was after school started, yes, sir, I think in September, probably. Q. Okay. Now what school has she been elected as principal of? A. The former East Pike Elementary. 12 13 0- And what grades would that be under the new plan for next year? A First, second and third, Q. Okay. What about Mr. Lee Cook? What are his qualifica tions? A He has an A-5 and is working, I mean — beg your pardon he has an A-4 certificate and if he finishes the work he’s on this summer, he'11 have an A-5 at the end of this summer. Q, Do you know if he's going to school this summer? A. I understand he is; yes, sir. Q. Did you know at the time you elected him — A. Yes, sir; we knew he planned to go. Q. — where he's going? A I believe it's Statesboro or — Q. — • Statesboro? A I don't know the, the name of the college. Q. You don't know the name of the college? A No. Q. Okay. How long has he been in your school system? A Three years, I believe. Two or three. Maybe two. Q. Did he start in with your system? A. No, sir. I think he taught some before. 1 know he did. He was at another school before he came to our school. Q. Does he have any previous experience as a principal? A I do not know whether he has or not. 1 3 Q. You regard previous experience as an important qualifica tion? ft. Well, we usually leave the qualifications completely up to the Superintendent, and I presume they, that would be a qualification. o. In ether words, you don't make any independent investiga- tion on these people? A. No, sir, not as individuals nor as Board members. Q■ You just take the Superintendent's word, that he wouldn't nominate anyone who wasn't qualified? A. Yes, sir. That's been the custom; yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now what about Mr. Sellars, -— oh, let me ask you, Mr. Cook, what school was he elected for? ft. The present Pike County Elementary, which will be Grades 4, 5 and 6 under the plan for next year. & Okay. Now, how abotit Mr. Sellars, — ft. He was -— 0. — - do you know — • ft. nominated for principal of the Pike County High School, which will be Grades 10, 11 and 12? Q. And do you know what his qualifications are? ft. He has a Masters Degree and an A-5 certificate, or will be able to get an A-5 certificate. 0- V7here does he have his Masters from? ft. I'm not sure. I don't know. 0. Does he have any previous experience — - A. Yes, sir. 15 & As a principal? A. Yes, sir. He has had. He started as principal in 1948, I believe, at the Gordon High School in the adjoining couftty. a Would that be the Gordon Military College at Barnesville? A Yes, sir. The high school part of it. Q. Okay. That’s a private school? A. Yes, sir. & Do you know the enrollment of that school? A. No, sir, I do not. a Okay. A. I believe the private school had the pupils from the City of Barnesville, and they also went to this school, the high school pupils. & Okay. So, it was sort of a public and a private school? A. Yes, sir. I think they had an agreement with the college. 0. Now, has Mr. Sellars accepted a position to teach or to be a principal in Pike County next year? A. No, sir. He has not accepted. 0. I see. Has he indicated one way or the other whether he's going to accept? A. He has said that it would be doubtful if he would take it. 0. It would be doubtful? 1 5 16 ft. Yes, sir. 0- When did he tell you this? ft. Well, in a letter he wrote to the Superintendent, I gathered that. THE COURT: Is he coming there from the school at Gordon? THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's been some time since he was at Gordon. He went to Columbia, Tennessee, and to Staunton, and he's presently at Front Royal, Virginia, Randolph- Macon Academy. That's where he's coming — THE COURT: Coming from? THE WITNESS: -- from, yes, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Do you expect him to show up? ft. We hope so. Yes, sir. Q. In spite of his letter that it's extremely doubtful? ft. Yes, sir. He’s already signed his contract. 0. I see. When did he sign his contract? Do you know? ft. I believe it was the first part of April. I'm not sure. THE COURT: Well, doesn't that indicate an acceptance? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Well, I understood you to say he had not yet indicated acceptance; but on the contrary, had expressed some doubt about it. How is that consistent with him having signed a contract? THE WITNESS: Well, he has signed a contract, but I believe 1 8 17 he indicated he might like to get out of it, if it was possible. THE COURT; All right. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; Q. Well, is the Board waiting on him to make a final determination, or are you still in the market for a principal? A. No, sir. We're still counting on him being principal. Q. You're counting on him to honor his contract? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Now what about Mr. Crowder? Can you tell me what his qualifications are? A. He has an A-5 with a Masters Degree, I believe. Q. Do you know where he got his Masters Degree? A. No, sir; I do not. q. Do you know whether he has any previous experience as a principal? A. It's my understanding he's assistant principal or principal this year. I don't know how many years experience he has. Q. Where is he in the system presently? A. At a school, I believe, in Randolph County. Q. Do you know the name of the School? Pi. No, sir; I do not. Q. Do you know what grades it encompasses? A. It's my understanding it's a high school. I could be 1 7 18 wrong. Q. Do you know whether it’s an integrated school or an all-black school or what? A. My impression is that it's an all-black school. I might be wrong there. Q. Okay. Have you signed Mr. Crowder to a contract? A. No, sir. He has not signed a contract. 0- Has he given you any indication that he intends to respond to his election fy your Board? A. No, sir; he has not. Q. Isn't it a fact that he wrote you and told you he didn't want the job? A. Yes, sir; it is. Q. It is. Well, so, are you in a market to get someone to replace Mr. Crowder? A. Yes, sir; I think so. Q. You think so. Okay. Have you considered anyone — A. No, sir. Q. — to take his place? A. No, sir. I believe the letter only came, I only heard abou b it Saturday, I believe. Yes. Q. All right, sir. Okay. And he would be teaching or he would be in charge of Grades 7, 8 and 9 -- A- That' s right. 1 8 19 Q. — for next year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Nov;, has the Board selected anyone to be a principal in the system besides the persons we have discussed for the coming year? A, We have a. supervising principal, yes. Q. What is a supervising principal? A. To assist Mr. Daniel in some of the problems we thought we might have in getting the schools coordinated. Q. Okay. Who would the supervising principal be? A. Mr. Elliston. Q. Mr. Elliston? A. Yes, sir. He has twenty years experience as a county school superintendent, and we thought maybe his experience would be extremely valuable to us. Q. He's the fellow who was formerly the superintendent over in Taylor County? A. Yes, sir. g. And who was defeated at the last election? A. That's right. Q. Okay. Now, will he be in charge of any specific school? A. No, sir. He will work over the whole school system, g. I see. He will be Mr. Daniel's — A. Yes, assistant. — assistant? All right. la 0. 20 And when was he nominated? A. I believe it was in May, sometime. I don't know the exact date. We had about eight or nine meetings in May, and I'm not sure. Q. Okay. When was he elected? A. Well, I would guess the first meeting in June, I believe. Q. That would have been the first -- A. First Tuesday. Q. -- Tuesday of the month of June? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Has he signed his contract? A Yes, sir. Q. He has? A. I believe he has. I'm sure he has. Q. Has he indicated that he intends to show up? A No, sir. He's working now in the summer school. Q. Okay. You don't anticipate that he won't be there? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Now is this position of supervising principal a brand new one? A Yes, it is. Q. This will be the first year that you will have such a thing in Pike County? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Did you consider anyone within your system for 21 this post? A. I believe not. Q. Now, what about the other two principalships where you went outside the system, did you consider anyone for them within your system? A. I believe we considered one person in the system for one of the principalships. Q. Who was that? A. Mrs. Bates. She had been a principal of one of the previous, of one of the elementary schools that we previously had. QL And for which position did you consider her? A. I believe she was mentioned by the superintendent for the principal of the Junior High School, which would be the 7th, 8th and 9th. Q. Where Mr. Crowder was elected? A. Yes, sir. g. Okay. Was her name placed in nomination?. A. No, sir. g. There wasn't a vote on the Board — A. No, sir. Q. — between — A. There was no nomination. g. •— between her and Mr. Crowder? A. Sir? g. I say there wasn't a contest between her and Mr. Crowder? 21 22 A. There was no nomination of her name. Q- He just suggested her name? A. That's right. Talked about her, and decided that she wouldn't fill the bill* Q. All right. Was anyone else suggested for any of the positions who didn't fill it? A. Of any of the schools? & Yes * A. Yes, we interviewed three or four other men. 0- From within the system or outside? A. From outside the system. & Okay. How about inside A. No, sir. & -- the system? A. We didn't interviewer consider anybody else from inside the system; no, sir* Q. Okay. Now there are one or two people who are principals this year who will not be next year, is that right? A. That’s right. Q. Now, did you consider Mr. T. H. Chambers? A. Mr. Chambers submitted a letter of resignation before the time for, to elect the principals. 0- So, before the April meeting? A. Yes, sir. 0- And Mr. Chambers was the principal at the Pike County 22 23 High School this year? A. Yes, sir. 0- So his name was never considered for a job next year? A. That's right . Q. Okay. Now, what about Mr. D. F. Glover? He's a principal this year? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was his name ever considered for a position for next year? A. No, sir, 0. Why not? A. He was not nominated by the Superintendent. 0. Okay. And is that the only reason he wasn't considered A. Yes, sir. 0. -— to your knowledge? A. Yes, sir. Q. And if he had been nominated, you would have considered it? A. Yes, sir. We sure would have. 0. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of whether he was interested in continuing to work in Pike County? A. No, sir; I do not. Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge either way? A, No, sir. That's right. Either way. 0. Okay. Now, let me just identify the races of all the 2 3 24 people we're involved with here. You are a member of the white race, Mr. Oxford? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I believe all of the other members of the Board of Education are white? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have they all been white within memory? A. Since I can remember, yes, sir. Q. Okay. And how long have you lived in Pike County? A. I was born and reared in Pike County, and lived there all my life with exception of about twelve years, from 19 -- you want those dates? Q. I think you told me it was A. '37 to '49. Q. — '37 to ’49? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. But you've been back in the county since *49? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And what about Mrs. Elna Miller, who’s going to be principal, she's a member of the negro race? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Lee Cook, he's a member of the white race? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Sellars? A. Member of the white race. 2 4 25 0. He's white. Mr. Crowder? A. He's a member of the black race,* yes, sir. Q. Okay. Mr. Elliston? A. He's a member of the white race. Q. All right. Mrs. Bates? A. Mrs. Bates is a member of the white race. 0. And Mr. D. H. Chambers? A. He's a member of the white race, too. Q. Okay. Mr. Glover? A. Member of the black race. 0. Okay. Mr. Oxford, thank you. MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions. oOo DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL? Q. Mr. Oxford, you stated a minute ago that -- THE COURT: Just a minute. This gentleman is a party, is he not? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. But he called him as his witness. I'm going to cross examine him. MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, I called him for purposes of cross examination, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I believe, Mr. Caldwell, under the circumstances, being an opposite party, 1hat you do not have 25 26 a right to call him for cross examination. MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. He didn't say so. I assumed he was calling him as his witness. THE COURT: No, sir. I wouldn't let you cross examine him. And if you wish to put him up when you come to your side of the case, you may do so. MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir. Come down, Mr. Oxford. THE COURT: All right. You may step down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 10:36 a.m.) 0O0 MR. RINDSKOPFs Okay. We'll call Mr. Daniel for cross examination. 0O0 HAROLD T. DANIEL, Having first been duly sworn and called as an opposite party testified as follows: CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q, Would you state your name, please? A. Harold Daniel. Ql Where do you live, Mr. Daniel? A Zebulon, Georgia. 0. And how old are you? 21 A. Fifty-three. 0- Do you hold any position with the schools in Pike County? A. Yes , sir. Q. What position is that? A. Pike County School Superintendent. Q. How long have you been the Superintendent? A. Over twenty-four years. 0. Over twenty-four years? What did you do before that? A. I was a principal, teacher. 0. Was that in Pike County? A. Part of it; yes, sir. 0. Okay. And how are you chosen for your position? A. At present, by election of the Board. Q. Elected by the Board of education? A. Yes, sir. 0. When were you most recently elected? A. In May. 0. In May of this year? A. Yes, sir. 0. 1969? A. Yes, sir. 0. How long is your term? A. Two years. 0. Two years? Okay. 28 As Superintendent, do you make nominations to the Board of Education for principals? A Yes, sir, ft When do you do this? A, Well, the time will vary. We generally do this job anywhere from February through April. Q. From February through April? A. And, of course, -- Q. You don’t A ft A times. If a vacancy occurs, it could run up to May or June* You don't have any set time? No, sir, because you have, you have resignations at Q. Okay. When did you make nominations this year? A Nominations for principals and Section 12 personnel were made in April of this year. Q. When you say and "Section 12 personnel," who else do you mean? A Section 12 personnel, composed of librarians and counselors, full time counselors, visiting teachers, curriculum directors. Ql Now, it's customary in your system to renominate persons who are holding principals' jobs for the coming year if they wanted it, right? A. Yes, if their work has been satisfactory, yes. 2 d 29 Q, Okay. And for this year, you renominated Mrs. Edna Miller? A Yes. & Okay. What about Mr. Lee Cook? Did you renominate him? A Yes . Q. He was holding a position as principal? A Assistant principal. & Assistant principal. Does Mr. Cook have any previous experience as a principal? A He was assistant principal one year up, up until this year, this past year. & So the answer is no, he doesn't have any previous experience as a principal? A Yes, sir. One year prior to this past year. & As an assistant principal? A Yes, sir. & There is a difference between being a principal and being an assistant principal. A Yes, sir. Q. Okay. What about Mrs. Miller, how much experience does she have as principal? A Mrs. Miller has one year as principal. Q. One year, and was this this past year? A Yes, sir. & Was that for a whole year? 2 H 30 H Y e s , s i r , with exception of about two weeks? Q. So she came on some time during this year? A During the month of September; yes, sir. 0- Okay. Now, you didn't renominate Mr. Chambers? A. No, sir. & And that was because he had already said he wasn't coming back next year? Yes, sir. 0- And you didn't renominate Mr. Glover? A No, sir. 0. Now, since you have been Superintendent, how many times have your nominations been turned down? A Well, the Board Chairman just spoke of one. And there may have been other cases in the past years. I do not recall. I know there's been quite a few discussions about various personnel over the years. I just do not recall at this time. 0. Okay. Well, in your twenty-four years, you don't recall anything other than this one instance? A On principalships, at this time, I don't believe I do. Qt Okay. Now, what about teachers? Do you apply the same renomination of teachers, as long as their work is satisfactory? A Well, the principals recommend the teachers to the Superintendent. 0. I see. And do you always follow their recommendations, or do you make an independent recommendation? 31 A Not always. Q. You -- not always. A Do not. Q. For both? A. Do not always follow the recommendation of the principal. Usually, I do. 0. Okay. Do you always make an investigation? A. If there are individual teachers that I feel should be investigated, if there have been complaints that have reached my office, usually I will discuss these things, however, with the principal. Q- Okay. How many teachers do you have in your system? A. About eighty-five. 0. About eighty-five? And of that number, how many have you renominated for this next year? A All were renominated with, I believe, four exceptions. o. Four exceptions? Why didn’t you renominate those four? A. Let's see, — • Q. Take them one at a time, — A Yes, sir. 0- — probably be easier. A One at a time, you mean the name? o. Yes, sir. A Counting Mr. Glover, it would be five. Q. Okay. Well, leave Mr. Glover aside. 31 32 A. Yes, All right. Mrs. Marjorie Sanford was not renominated. Q. What was the reason for that? A. The reason for her non-nomination was the fact she did not have a degree, and she violated her 1968-69 contract by not attending summer school, and it was written in her contract she mutt, in order to teach, she must take at least two courses to work towards her degree. Q. summer? And this was the summer school, not this summer, but last A. That's right. The stammer of 8 68 . Q. The summer before she started in teaching, in her contract? A. That's right. Q. So, she violated her contract? A. Yes, sir. & What were the other teachers you didn't renominate? A. Mrs. Martha McCrary also was not renominated. Qt And what were the reasons for that? A. She only holds a three year certificate. a A three year certificate? Does that mean she hasn't completed college either? A That's right. Q. Okay. And it's a fact, is it not, that, what, beginning in 1971, all teachers in Georgia are going to be required to have 33 Masters Degrees? A. I read that, I don't know, 0- You don't know it any more than I do? A. No, sir, 0- All right. Okay. Was she also supposed to hav e gone to summer school or picked up her degree as part of her contract? A. No, sir. That was not written in her contract. Mrs. McCrary is nearing retirement. In fact, I believe she has one more year. We did not write that in her contract in reference to her age. Q. I see. So, if, if you renominated her, she would only go for one more year anyway? A. That's right. Q. Okay. What about the next one? A. Mrs. Lee Cook. Q. f Mrs. Lee Cook? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that the wife of Mr. Cook? A. Yes, sir. & The new principal? A. Yes, sir. Q- All right. What was the reason A. She also did not have her degree o. Okay. 33 34 A. But she has attended summer school for the last several summers. & But hasn't picked up her degree yet? A No, sir. 0- And that was the reason why you didn't renominate her? A. Yes, sir. & You're trying to upgrade the system? A. That's right. Yes, sir. & Okay. And who's the fourth one? A. Well, as I said, Mr. Glover, he was not nominated. & I thought you said he was the fifth one. A. No, sir. & There's only these three teachers? A. Yes. One other teacher did not have a degree, but did not violate her contract. Mrs. Georgia Glannon, but she did receive a contract , though she did not have a degree, but she was renominated. & She was renominated? A Yes. & Did Mrs. Cook violate her contract? A No, sir. Q. She didn't? Was there any distinction between Mrs. Cook and Mrs. Glannon? A Well, Mrs. Glannon, yes, Mrs. Glannon had been going to summer school for a good many years, and Mrs. Glannon does hold a, 35 an old three year certificate. You must remember, the State Department of Education does not offer three year certificates and hasn't for a, quite a few years, Mrs. Cook is a younger lady and was never able to receive a three year certificate. They'll only issue a four year certificate at this time. Q. Right. Okay. Could you give us the race of these three teachers you haven't renominated? A Mrs. Glannon is black. Two of them are white. Mrs. Ann Cook or Mrs. Lee Cook, and Mrs. Martha McCrary, Q. All right. Mrs. Sanford is black? A Yes. Ql Okay. Let's go back to Mr. Cook and Mrs. Miller, What are Mr. Cook's academic qualifications? A Mr. Cook has an A-4 certificate, and he is in his final quarter at Georgia Southern College, and is to receive his Masters Degree this summer. Q. Okay. He doesn't have his Masters yet? A No. Q. How long has he been teaching? A I believe about six years, Q. How long has he been in your system? A He's just finished his second year. 35 36 Q. Just finished his second year. Do you know where he was before that? A. Yes, sir, Q. Where was he? A. Georgetown, Georgia. Q, What position did he hold in Georgetown? A. He was a teacher there. Q. He was a teacher. Okay. Now, what about Mrs. Miller? What are her qualifications? A. Mrs. Miller has a Masters degree and an A-4 certificate, and she's working on her R - 5. Q, How long has she been a teacher? A. Mrs. Miller has been a teacher in Pike County almost as long as I've been there. I'd say at least twenty years. Q. And has she had any previous administrative experience besides this year? A. This year is the only administrative experience in Pike County. Q. Okay. She's never been an assistant principal? A. No, sir. Q. Or a principal at any other school? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Now what about Mr. Halbert Crowder whom you nominated? Have you heard from him, that he's not coming? A. Yes, sir. 38 37 Ql You have. When did you hear? A. I received a registered letter the other day. I have that letter. It's here, in this Court. & Okay. A. I don't recall the day it was received. One day last week. q. All right. Now, did you discuss his nomination with him before you made that? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Crowder made application for the position. Q. I see. When did he make application? THE COURT: Somehow, I'm getting teachers and principals all mixed up here. Mr. Crowder, now, was a proposed principal? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Mr. Crowder, he's a black principal. THE COURT; All right. MR. RINDSKOPF; Right. Okay. THE WITNESS; He made application. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; Q, When did he make application? A. I believe it was about the first of May. Q. And when you say he made application, this was because he was outside the system? 37 38 A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. A. I've known Mr. Crowder for many years. ft Did he formerly teach in your system? A Yes, sir. ft Has he ever been a principal? A Yes, sir. I understand he has. ft Where? A In Gwinnett County, is my understanding. ft In Gwinnett County? When was that? A I don't know the exact years. It was prior to his leaving for Randolph County. & Well, whenvas he last in your system? A He was in my system about ten years ago. Eight or ten years ago. ft I see. Was he in your system as a teacher? A As a teacher; yes, sir. ft Did he have any administrative position in your system? A No, sir. Not at that time. ft Okay. ft Do you know what kind of a school he was principal of in Gwinnett County? A To my understanding, it was elementary school. & You don't know for a fact, -~ A No, sir. 3 a 39 & -- one way or other? A. No, sir, Q. Did you check with Gwinnett County before you nominated him? A. Yes, sir, Q. Did they tell you what kind of school he had been a principal of? A. I believe it was an elementary school, best of my remembrance, & Okay. What about down in Randolph County? A. He8 s an assistant principal at Randolph County. Q. He was an assistant principal? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what kind of a school? A. A high school. Q. Assistant principal at a high school? Do you know how big the school was? A No, sir; I do not know. My understanding, it was a twelve grade school. Q. Okay. Did you check with Randolph County before you nominated him? A Yes, sir. Q. Did they tell you how big the school was? A I'm sure that came up, but I do not recall the figure at this time. But I did talk to the Superintendent. 3d 40 Q. Okay,, Do you know Mr. Crowder’s academic credentials? A Yes, sir. Q. What are they? A. Besides having a good many years teaching experience, he has a Masters Degree, an A-5 certificate. His Masters Degree from New York University, and he has been to many seminars and workshops over about the last eight years, various universities and colleges over the country. 0. Has he picked up any degrees from these workshops? A. I'm sure he's picked up credits from those workshops. I wouldn't think he picked up any degrees? no, sir. & Okay. And have we established how long he was in Gwinnett County? Do you know that? A No, sir. I don't recall at this time. Several years, however. Q. Several years. Okay. Now, what about Mr. Sellars? Do you know what his qualifica tions are? A Yes, sir. Q. Has he told you whether he' s coming or not? A Mr. Sellars did accept the position. He signed his contract; yes, sir. Q. Do you have any knowledge about whether or not he intends to honor his contract? A No, sir. I do not, although he has expressed an 40 41 interest in not doing so. 0. Did he do this by letter? A. Yes, sir. He has not been released by the Board of Education o & Okay. And was he in fact a principal over at the Gordon Military College? A. Yes, sir* & Do you know how long? A. Yes, sir* & How long? A. Six years* o. Six years* Do you know how big a school that is? A, Yes, sir* a How big? A. Several hundred* & Several hundred? And is that Grade 1 to 12? A. Yes, sir* & And has he been a principal anywhere else? A. Yes, sir. Principal and Vice President of various institutions, and I think Vice President position generally goes with the principal of a high school* Ql I see. His experience has been mostly in private schools? A. Private schools and maybe a dean of the instituion is a title also that he would have* 41 42 THE COURT: Is that the man that originally, formerly was at Gordon? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, Mr, Sellars, THE COURT: Now, is he the man that was to replace Mr. Glover? THE WITNESS: No, sir. When Mr, Chambers resigned, that left a vacancy as principal of Pike County High School, and Mr. Sellars was to replace Mr, Chambers. THE COURT: I see. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0 Mr. Glover is also principal of a high school? A. That school just wound up as a high school, but it is no longer a high school. A junior high. 0. Under the new plan, -~ A. Yes, sir. 0 -- the — • A. Under the plan which we're implementing, the Court ordered. 0 The plant where Mr. Glover is is going to become a junior high? A. Yes, sir. 0 Okay. And it was at that school that you intended Mr. Crowder to go? A Yes, sir. That was the job he made application for, 0 All right. Now, do you know what Mr. Glover's 42 43 qualifications are# -- A. Yes, sir. Q. — academically? A. Yes, sir. a What are they? A. Mr. Glover has a Masters Degree and an A-6 certificate. Q. Where is his Masters Degree from? A I believe Atlanta University. ft And A-6 certificate? A Yes, sir. Qi How long has he been a principal? A Mr. Glover has been principal of Pike County Consolidated School for eight years. Q. Did he have any previous experience as a principal? A Yes, sir. Qi Before that? A Prior to that he was principal several years of East Pike Elementary. Q. At East Pike? And he has been principal of those schools while they have been all-black? A Yes, sir. 0. Was he a teacher before that? A Yes, sir. ql In Pike County? 43 44 ft. Yes, Q. How long has he been in Pike County, total time? A. I believe he finished nineteen years. Q. Nineteen years. And you have renominated him to the Board of Education every year up to this one? A. Yes, sir; but with reluctance the last two years. & Okay. Well, we'll come to that. Did you renominate him with reluctance any other years but the last two? A. I do not recall that I did. & You say that you didn't? A. I do not recall at this time that I did, up until two years ago. Q. It would be the kind of thing you probably would remember, I would think, sir? A. That's correct. & Okay, Now, when we took your deposition, you told me that the reason you didn't recommend Mr. Glover for this year was because it wasn't in the best interest of the school, right? A. That is correct. & And A. And other reasons, also. & Right. And that reason, not in the best interest of the school, was the reason you expressed to Mr. Glover in a letter you wrote to him? 44 45 A I think that's correct; yes, sir. & Okay. And as a matter of fact, until the other day, you've never expressed any other reasons to Mr, Glover? A No, sir, because we had been threatened with a Court case. & Okay. And it's a fact that before the Court case got started, you never expressed any other reasons to Mr. Glover than the -— A Well, — 0. best interest of the school? A — it wasn't necessary for me to express any reason to him. I'm not required by law or by the Board. Q. I'm not interested in whether it was necessary or not. I want to know what you did. You didn't tell him anything except it wasn't in the best interest of the school? A Thatfs what I told him. & Okay. You told me the other day that behind this best interest was the idea there was a lack of cooperation, —~ A Yes, sir. & — right? A Definitely. & And then you gave me, I think, about five instances of lack of cooperation. Let's go over those and see that I haven't omitted any. 45 46 First instance of lack of cooperation was that the Fire Marshal told you Mr. Glover didn't have a fire drill, is that right? A. When Mr. Bell went to Mr. Glover's school the last of October, Mr. Glover admitted to him he had not had a fire drill during that school year. ft During that school year? A Yes, sir. & This was October, 1968? A Late October, '68. Mr. Bell asked that a fire drill be held that day. Q. Okay. Now, by law, or to keep you accreditation, you're required to have eight fire drills in a year, right? A. No, sir. Q. How many are you required to have? A. The accrediting commission requirement is a fire drill monthly. Q. A fire drill monthly? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. A Which would mean nine, ft Nine? A And one each month, not otherwise — Qi Right. When we took your deposition, you told me it was eight, right? 4 8 47 A. No, sir. Well, the eight has to do with the State law, I believe. I believe the State law calls for eight fire drills, but the accreditation commission calls for nine drills, or one each month. Ql Okay. So, there is in fact a State law here? A. I understand there is a State law, Q, Okay. A. That requires at least eight. Ql And it requires at least eight? Did you report what Mr. Bell, the Fire Marshal, told you to Mr. Glover? A. Yes, sir. Ql And did Mr. Glover take steps to remedy the situation? A Well, I assume he did. Q, You assume he did? Well, do you know or not? A As far as I know, he did, Ql Okay. When did you tell him about this? A After Mr. Bell reported this to my office. Mr. Bell came back to the office, I was out when he came in, and he left, a message with my secretary, left this message with me in writing and, of course, later on, I received a written report from Mr, Bell 's office stating that no fire drill had been held. That was one of the deficiencies, under the fire drills. It had "none,” $ And this was in October? A That was for the month of September and October. 4 7 48 Q. Okay. There was a school boycott down in Pike County in# when, September? A. Yes, sir. Q, And did that last most of the month of September? A No, sir. Q. How long did it last? A. Lasted eight school days. Q. Eight school days, starting at the beginning? A. That's, I believe that's correct; yes, sir. Q. Okay. Well, do you know if Mr. Glover had afire drill in November? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know if he had one in December? A. No, sir. gt And if I go through the rest of the months of this school year, will your answer be the same? A That is correct. Q. Okay. Now, how frequently do you get reports from Mr. Bell? A Mr. Bell and other fire marshals asast in making periodic visits to Pike County, as well as the other counties, and they're not monthly. Q. They're not monthly? A No, sir. Several times a year. q. Okay. Did they go to the schools in your syseem in 4rf 49 September? A I don't recall. Mr. Bell has made several trips to the county, and then Mr. — there's another gentleman that’works out of Mr. Bently's office that visits other schools, and there's some overlapping. I do not recall at this time. £X Okay. Did Mr. Bell make any visits to your system after the month of October? A Yes, sir. & He did? Did he visit Mr. Glover's school? A Yes, sir. Q. Did he report deficiencies in fire drills? A. I don't recall any after the month of September. Q. You don't recall any? A, No, sir. Q, Okay. Do you know of any? A I don't know of any; no, sir. (X Okay. So, this instance of lack of cooperation was a limited thing? A No, sir. I consider this a very definite lack of cooperation. We try to maintain good working relationships with other State agencies. The Fire Marshal's office, they send out these men to check our schools, and there's a definite lack of cooperation if any principal does not carry out these recommendation of the Fire Marshal's office. 0. Okay 50 A. Whenever any school is in danger of losing its accreditation, then that's a sham on our county — ft I see. A — and — ft I believe the Fire Marshal also inspected the buildings over there, is that right? A That is correct. ft And he found the buildings to be acceptable? A Well, what you’re referring to, I assume, is the addition, the four-room addition to the building and also the gymnasium where the occupancy permit was lost. ft The occupancy permit was lost? Okay. But the schools were safe? There wasn't any question that, that they were in good shape as far as their fire-worthiness was concerned? A I don't recall any building deficiency at this timer no, sir. ft Okay. If there had been a building deficiency, would this have been a lack of cooperation by Mr. Glover? A If it were structural, of course, that's the responsibili of the Board of Education. If it's something like failure to have fire drills monthly, that's the principal's responsibility. ft I see. But the buildings are the responsibility of the Board of Education? ty A The structural part of the building; that’s correct. 50 51 0. Okay. What about the, what about the rest of the building? Suppose there's flammable materials lying around? A. That's the responsibility of the principal and custodial staff. Q. You never got reports on anything like that? A. I don't recall at this time if I have. Q. And as I say, this lack of cooperation was limited, what I mean, there were never any other reports from the Fire Marshal about Mr. Glover, right? A. Well, the day Mr. Bell came to my office, he said he asked Mr. Glover to hold a fire drill at that time, and Mr. Glover said he was too busy, he had too many activities going on at the time, and for that reason the fire drill was not held. I think that's a definite lack of cooperation on his part. Q. I repeat my question to you: Did Mr. Bell tell you any instance other than this one October visit? A. I don't recall any at this time; no, sir. Q. You don't. Okay. So would it be safe to assume that if Mr. Glover had any deficiencies, he corrected them when you told him about them? A. He may have, but the Georgia Accrediting Report went in and, stating that fire drill® had been held monthly at Pike County Consolidated School, and they had not. And no fire drill had been held in September and up until October 28„ Q. You don't know whether he held one in the remaining 5] 52 one or two days of October, do you? k No, sir, Q. And you let this report go into the Accrediting Commission? k The report was signed by Mr. Glover. Q. It has to go through your office? k Yes, sir. Q. Did you let it go through? k He stated, he stated that he had held fire drills. Q, You let it go through? k He stated he had held fire drills. Q, So, do I take it you believe Mr. Glover as against Mr. Bell? k I believe Mr. Glover against Mr. Glover. Ql I don't understand your answer. k Yes, sir. & Well, you did let this report go on through your office? k It was sent in to Atlanta. Q. It was. Okay. Even though you had knowledge of what Mr. Bell had told you? k Mr. Glover signed the report. Q. Yes, but you saw the report. k Yes, I saw the report. Qi And you let it go on through? k Yes. 52 53 (X Okay. A But Mr. Glover signed the report. Q. And then it went through your office and on to Atlanta? A Yes. Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of whether they had fire drills every month at the other schools in your system? A. As far as I know, they did. 0- But do you have any knowledge as to whether they did or not? A At least, they reported to Mr. Bell they did, because I had no reports on any other schools that they had not had fire drills. (X Okay. A Not only Mr. Bell, but other people working out from the Fire Marshal's office. & Do you ever make any checks yourself as to whether the schools have their fire drills? A No, sir. That is not one of my responsibilities. £X You don't regard it as a responsibility of yours? A. No, sir. & As Superintendent? A No, sir. It's not the responsibility of the Superintendent, either imposed by the State Board of Education or the County Board of Education. & You don't think it's one of your responsibilities to help 53 54 schools keep up their accreditation? A. I do that to the best of my ability; yes, sir. Q. But that doesn’t include checking on fire drills? A. No, sir. That wouldn't be one of my responsibilities. Qt All right, sir. Do you have any written policy in your system about fire drills? A I do not recall if there is a policy on that. There may be. I'm not sure at this time. Q. It's not something you're familiar with as a Superintendent? A, Well, that's, as I say, that's an accrediting regulation The principals all know it. They know they're supposed to have fire drills monthly. That is, that's a regulation of the Georgia Accrediting Commission, and they know it. Qt But I'm asking about your school system and its regula tions. A I don't recall that the Board of Education -- the Board of Education policies say that the principal is in complete control of the school and that the principal is supposed to know his duties. Q. Okay. The second instance of lack of cooperation you told me about, by Mr. Glover, was the fact they had some burglaries at his school. Is that right? A Yes, sir. g, And you attribute these burglaries to a lack of coopera- tion by Mr. Glover? 55 A. I think it was carelessness on Mr, Glover’s part, Q. Oh, I see. That's not the same thing as lack of cooperation? A. Oh yes, sir. It's lack of cooperation, definitely. But I think it was carelessness. Cooperation could embrace many things, many angles. Q. That is true. With whom was it a lack of cooperation? A. Well, I think it's a lack of cooperation with not only the Superintendent, Board of Education, other members of his staff possibly. Q. A. of 1968 Q. A. Q. Okay. When were these burglaries? These burglaries took place between October and December Were there any burglaries after December, s68? No, sir. We've had no reports of any. No reports of any. Who did you get your reports from? Sheriff Riggins? A. You're referring to October — did he say December or — Q. You said you hadn't had any after December. Now where did you get them? A. We got the reports from Mr. Glover that some articles, typewriters and television sets, were missing. Air conditioner, adding machine. Q. A. Okay. Have they ever apprehended the criminals? Not to my knowledge, they haven't. 55 56 Q. You don't regard Mr. Glover as having been in league with them, do you? A. No, sir. Q. Well, how was he responsible for these burglaries? A. Mr. Glover failed in his duty of securing the building. Now all principals have been delegated the responsibility by the Board of Education, the Superintendent, to see that the buildings are securely locked at the end of each school day. He has a custodial staff. We pay the required, recommended number of custodians for that school. We haven’t shorted him on personnel here for custodial help. Every principal knows it’s his obligation to see that the buildings are locked at the end of the day, and the windows are closed, and it’s definitely a principal’s responsibility, in cooperation with his custodians. But the Board and Superintendent delegate that responsibility to the principal. Q. Okay. How many custodians does his school have? A. His school has three, which is the required number by the State Department of Education. § All right. Is there a high turnover in custodians at that school? A. Yes, sir. That’s a high turnover in all schools. Q. High turnover in all schools? High turnover in all of is..* W the schools? Okay. 5? Do you pay the custodians of each of your schools A. Yes, sir. Q. — the same amount? A. Yes, sir. 0. Did you — A. Yes, sir. Q. — this past year? A. Your question again? Q. This past year, you paid the custodians in each of your schools the same amount? A. I don't believe they all receive the same amount because they've been working for various lengths of time. Q. Isn't it a fact they got more money at the white school thaii Mr. Glover's school? A. I don't know that that's the case. No. 0. Is it you don't know? A. If it is, it's because the person working at that school has been working for many years, and, naturally, we reward longevity in service. Q. What is the base pay for custodians in your system? A. The base pay would be the minimum wage. Ql And what is that? A. I believe for school workers it's a dollar forty an hour or maybe a dollar thirty an hour, I believe, for cafeteria workers and janitors, right now. 57 Q. Okay. Did you talk to Mr. Glover about his lack of cooperation in permitting his building to be burgled? A. Yes, we discussed this. I received word from Sheriff Riggins and of, from time to time, about that building being unlocked, in his patrols. He and his deputies go around, and they’ve been asked by my office to help me guard school buildings or look after them. Pike County Schools are outside the city limits of Concord, and we have no police protection. Sheriff Riggins has reported to me on occasions that that building was found unlocked and, yes, that was called to Mr. Glover1s attention. Q. Did he report this to you after December, 868? A. Yes. 0. When? A. Before and after. & When after? A. You said after, did you say after December? & Yes. A. December, after, we 1ve had no reports from Sheriff Riggins after December, '68. We did have reports from Sheriff Riggins between October and December, '68, and also prior to October of '68, that the building had been unlocked or windows open. Qt How many of these burglaries were there? 59 A. Three. 0. Three? A. And -- 0. And they were in October and December, is that right? A. October through December. I'm not sure whether it was one a month or not. 0- Okay. When did you talk to Mr. Glover about this? A. Well, we discussed it after each burglary, and in between times, I'm sure. 0. Okay. Now, have there been any burglaries at any other schools in your system this year? A. Not this calendar year? no, sir. 0. What about this school year? A. Yes, sir. 0- There have? Well, what other schools had burglaries? A Pike County High School had one. 0. Pike County High School had one? When was this? A. This was, I believe, in December of '68. 0. In December? Okay. Were those people apprehended? A No, sir? not to my knowledge. 0. You don’t have any knowledge whether it was the same people at each school, do you? A No, sir. 0. Was it the same sort of stuff that was taken? 5J 60 A Two typewriters. 0. Two typewriters? And they took things like that from Pike County Consolidated? A Yes, sir. Quite a few typewriters and television sets, and air conditioner from the principal's office. However, they did break in the principal's office, and Mr. Peterman, on one occasion at Pike County Consolidated, found a television set sitting outside the school house one afternoon, one Sunday afternoon. Mr. Glover got after him about it, asked him what was he doing down at his school on Sunday afternoon. But after we put up a chain at that school, we had no further, we had no further burglaries down there. Q. After you put up a chain? A. Yes, sir. Q. What's that? A. In front of the school building, at the entrance, -- Q. I see. A. — - and — Q. You chained it, closed it with a chain? A No, sir, the roadway leading up to the school house. & You just blocked it off the road? A That's right. And — 0. Did you take similar steps at Pike County High School? A No, sir. Little impractical there. They have more than 60 61 one driveway. Q. They have two, don’t they? A. Yes, sir. & You just didn't feel it was necessary at that school? A. We had only had one burglary, and that school is in the city limits, and we have more police protection there. 0- That didn't keep a burglary from occurring? A. No, sir. Q. Was this burglary at Pike County High School in the city limits, was it due to a lack of cooperation by the principal there? A. Well, there could have been some carelessness, just as in Mr. Glover’s case. Q. Well, was there or was there rot? A. I have no way of knowing. The only thing I want to point out to you is that - & Just answer my questions. A. Yes, sir. Q- You don't have any way of knowing A. We found no forcible entry on any occasion at Mr. Glover's school or Pike County High. No forcible entry. & What conclusion do you draw from that? A. That's very simple. The doors were either left unlocked or windows left open, 0. Or whoever it was that robbed the building knew how to 6 ! 62 get in the locks or the windows? A. That's right. Q. Okay. And did you answer my question as to whether this was due, this robber at Pike County High School was due to a lack of cooperation by the principal there? A. Well, Mr. — I discussed this with Mr. Chambers, and we had no other robberies there, and I'm, so I'm sure he cooperated. Q. He cooperated. Okay. And you had no other robberies at Pike County Consolidated after December, either? A After December, after we, we put up a chain, and we also set a trap during the Christmas holidays. Ql Did you catch anybody? A. No, sir. We had ro other robberies. Q. Okay. A. Burglaries. Q, Well, was the fact that the burglaries stopped due to the fact that Mr. Glover started to cooperate with you, is that right? A I have no way of knowing. Ql You don't have any way of knowing when he started to cooperate or whether he was not cooperating throughout? A All I know is his buildings were not securely locked to keep people out. There was no forcible entry, and I want to 0 2 63 emphasize that, no forcible entry was found into the buildings on any of the three burglaries. Q. Or into Pike County High School? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Were there any other burglaries in your system this school year? A. I don't recall any at the present time. Q, You don't recall any? Have you had burglaries in your system in previous years? A. Oh, occasionally, a little, someone will break in, maybe the lunch room and get some food out of a freezer, something of that nature. But nothing of a serious nature, we've never had any typewriters stolen before that, 1 recall. We've never had any television sets taken ■— I beg your pardon -- we have had one occasion of two television sets, years ago, being stolen. But not recently. Q. Where were they stolen from on the previous occasions? A. Two sets were stolen years ago, I believe, from this same school. Years ago. Q, From this school? Was that while Glover was principal? A. I don't recall. I don't think so. I don't recall. Q. Well, did you regard that as a lack of cooperation by whoever was principal? A. At that time, also, we had no way, no way of knowing who the burglars were, they were never apprehended, but there was 64 no forcible entry that was found at that time, either. Q. It didn’t prevent you renominating whoever was principal? A. I don't recall. I don't remember who the principal was Q. Okay. If it was Mr. Glover, obviously you renominated him? A. Beg your pardon? a If it was Mr. Glover who was the principal way back when, you did renominate him? A. Well, I'm sure they got to locking the building after that happened. & You did renominate him? A. Mr. Glover? & Yeah. A. What year are you speaking about? Q. You say this happened several years ago. A. I don't recall if Mr. Glover, Mr. Glover was principal at that time or not. Q. If he had been, you were the man who renominated him? A. Yes, if he had been. a Okay. All right. Okay. Let me see, you gave a third instance of lack of cooperation by Mr. Glover. I gather you felt he didn't cooperate when he failed to attend some desegregation meetings, is that right? A. Yes, sir. I think so. 64 65 Q. When were those meetings held? A. Those meetings were held from October through May, October, *68, through May of 569. Q. Okay. Did you ask, did you ever ask Mr. Glover to attend the meetings? A. No, sir. But he received a letter from the University of Georgia, just as other principals did. Q. How do you know that? A. The University has all principals on its mailing list. Q. I repeat, how do you know he received the letter? A. Well, he didn't bring me the letter to show it to me, but all my other principals in the system received one. Q. Okay. So you don't know for a fact and you didn't know for a fact back in April that he didn't receive the letter? A. Mr. Glover never denied receiving a letter. g. He never said one way or the other about the letter, I imagine? A. It's my understanding he received the letter. Q. What did you base your understanding on? A. He received the letter, I'm sure. Ql Would you answer my question, please? A. Someone told me he received the letter. Q. Who told you? Who told you? A I don't recall right now. Maybe a member of his faculty, n And when were these letters sent out? 65 A. The letters were sent out in September, Q. And when did this person tell you he received the letter? A. And, incidentally, I believe, Mr. Rindskopf, if you'll check Mr. Glover's deposition, I believe Mr. Glover himself admitted receiving the letter. Q, I'm sure he may have received the letter, but the question is, did you know it? A Yes, sir. Q. And you knew it because some person told you? A. I figure the United States mail, I have a lot of confidence in it, and when you have a mailing list, I feel like everything on that mailing list, every person will receive a letter unless I'm informed otherwise,, Q. Did this person tell you he received it, or not? A Yes, sir. I don't recall who it was. All my other principals did receive the letter, Q. You don't recall? A No, sir. Q. And you don' t know when? A No, sir. Q. Did you know back in April. A April of '68? Q. '69, when you recommended someone else instead of Mr. Glover to the Board of Education? 66 6 ■> 67 A. Oh yes, sir. Q. You did know? Okay. Did you ever speak to Mr. Glover about his failure to attend these meetings? A. No, sir. & You didn't? When did you start attending the meetings? I believe I attended all of them.A. Q. A. Q. A. & A. Going way back to the beginning of the year? Yes, sir. And you noticed Mr. Glover wasn't there? Yes, sir. And you never said anything to him about it? No, sir. I took it that he wasn't interested in attending but, it was voluntary. 0- It was voluntary? When were these meetings held? A Where? Q. When? A When? Q. Yeah, what time of day or week? A Oh, 4;00 o'clock in the afternoon, and they went until about 9:00 o'clock at night, with a break up for a dinner period, Q. Once a month? A. Yes, sir. Q. I see. Did teachers attend these meetings, too? A Yes, sir. 67 Did teachers receive letters from the University ofQi Did teachers receive letters from the University of Georgia? A No, sir. Not to my knowledge, they didn't. & I see. How did teachers know to attend these meetings? A, Well, I assume they heard it from their principal, as far as I know. Q. Any teachers from Mr. Glover's school attend the meetings? A. Yes, sir. & Were you satisfied with the attendance of teachers from his school? A. Yes, sir. & You were? A. And all the schools, in fact. & Okay. And you never mentioned to Mr. Glover at any time during the year that you wished he would attend these meetings? A No, sir. Neither did he discuss it with me. & He did not discuss it with you? A I said neither did he discuss it with me. & I see. Okay. You did talk with him throughout the school year? A. Oh yes. We had* we've always carried on communication from my office. Q. In fact* in running the system, you talk with him virtual every day? A Well, either I or some member of my staff, most every day 69 Yes, sir * ft And at no time during the year did you tell him that you wished he would attend these meetings? A. No, sir. I didn't feel that was necessary. He received a letter just as I did. ft Did you feel it was necessary for him to attend the meetings? A. I felt like he should have. There certainly was a desirability for him to attend. We met at these group sessions. We had talks from University professors on how to teach disadvantaged children. We studied teacher-pupil ratios. We took up the Court order that Judge Edenfield had issued to us, after it came out, oral order in November and written order in January. We discussed it thoroughly. We made plans for the next year, as to pupil-teacher ratios, as I said, and teacher transfer between schools, teacher-pupil relation ships, and everything having to do with, with the disestablishment of the dual school system. Q. why didn't you make any efforts to have Mr. Glover attend these meetings? A. Mr. Glover is his own boss. He got a letter just as I did, and the other Pike County school principals. He should have been there, if he wanted to go. Ql I see. Do I gather, then, that you didn't think these meetings were so crucial that he had to be there? 6 if 70 A Yes, sir. I thought they were very, as I told you just a moment ago, I thought it was very desirable for him to be there, and we discussed testing, we discussed many things that, especially of interest and value to the desegregation process. Q But it -- A I felt it was a lack of interest on his part. Q Okay. You never asked him, of course, whether he was interested in this? A No^sir. He didn't ask me either. Q And although you thought that these meetings were crucial, you never made any efforts to get him to attend? A Mr. Glover, he's a principal of that school. I repeat, again, Mr. Rindskopf, he received a letter just as I did. Q Principals are under your authority? A Yes, sir. But I don't command principals to go to voluntary meetings. Q But you did hold it against him when the time came to renew his contract? A That was eight months of studying the Court order and the desegregation process. He wasn't there. I think he should have been there. Q But you never told him -- A I didn't order him, no, sir, because this wasn't in his contract to attend. Q You didn't even tell him, now I'm not talking about 7U 71 ordering, — ■ A. He received a letter like I did. Q. You never asked him — THE COURT: I think — MR. CALDWELL: We object to arguing with the witness, THE COURT: All right, sir. I think the facts are pretty clear. Go on to something else. MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay, Fine. THE COURT: Okay, sir. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. I didn't intend — THE COURT: All right. MR. RINDSKOPF: I didn’t intend to address the Court, I was more or less speaking to myself, THE COURT: All right. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Now, I gather also that an instance of lack of cooperation by Mr. Glover occurred when you attempted to test some children in your system, right? A. Yes „ q. And I gather what happened was that the children in Mr. Glover's school didn't want to take the tests, is that right, or didn't take the tests? A. They didn't take the tests. It was a total failure there. 71 2 Total failure there? Are you referring to some notes, sir? A Yes, sir. 2 Okay. A Yes, sir. 2 Any time you can't remember the facts, -- A I can remember, 2 — - let us know, and you can refer to your notes. A Go right ahead. 2 Okay. Fine. THE COURT: Perhaps I missed something* What sort of test was this? MR. RINDSKOPF: I think we'll come to it in a minute, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q What was the purpose of these tests? A These, the purpose of these tests was to test basic achievement, California Bureau Basic Achievement Test for Grades 3 through 8; Metropolitan Reading Test for Grades 1 and 2. Incidentally, at this Griffin meeting, desegregation institute, this was discussed. Q When you say this was discussed, — A The tests. Q -- you mean — ■ 72 73 A The tests. Q, — you discussed? A. Yes, sir. At this meeting of black and white teachers. Q. Including teachers from Mr. Glover's school? A, Yes, sir. (X Now, when these tests were given at Mr. Glover's school, I believe you told me that the children would not take them, is that right? A That is my understanding, from the counselors, the black and white counselors who gave these tests, that the children would not take them, or if they did, they would just mark them up, and if they put something down, they would erase it. It was a total disaster at his school. Qt When was this test given? A The test was given, attempted to be given in the third grade, between March 18 and 25. Q. Were they attempted to be given at any other grades? A Not in that school, but in other schools, yes. g. Not at that school? Okay. How many third grades do they have at Pike County Consolidated? A I believe two or three. Q. Two or three? A I'm sure of two. Q. Now, have the teachers who taught these two grades attended your meetings in Griffin, your desegregation meetings? 73 74 A. I'm not sure whether they did or not. I don't recall. Mrs. Barrow, I don't know whether she was teaching third grade or not. Mrs. Barrow attended the meeting in Griffin. Q. All right. And I take it that neither of these two teachers or three teachers were not recommended by you for employ ment next year? A. They were or were not? Q. Is that correct, they were? A They were recommended. Q. Yes. A Yes. Q. In spite of this incident? A Yes. Q. Okay. Now was Mr. Glover in attendance during this testing? A Mr. Glover was in his school. I did not know whether he went into the school room or not, where the testing took place. Q. Okay. Do you know whether he was told that the children weren't taking the tests? A I'm sure that he was. Mr. Walker Cook, Junior, reported back to me that he went into Mr. Glover's office and told him that the, that the children were not taking the tests. Mr. Glover had a big grin on his face. q. Mr. Walker Cook told you Mr. Glover had a big grin on his face? 7 4 75 THE COURT; Who is Mr. Walker Cook? THE WITNESS; Mr. Walker Cook is one of the counselors that assisted in the testing, Your Honor. We had two black and two white people giving the tests. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; Q. Which is Mr. Cook? A. Beg your pardon? Q. Is he black or white? A. He's white. Q. He's white? THE COURT; These counselors are part of your school system? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Are they not? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; Q. When did Mr. Cook report this to you? A. I believe, that day, that the testing took place. Q. Sometime in March? A. Yes, sir. Oh yes. Between March 18 and 25. Q. Were they just at Mr. Glover's school for one day? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did they just try the third grade at that school? A They were doing the third grade that day. 75 Q. They didn't go back to try any other? A. No, sir. It was a total disaster. Q. When did these tests take place? In the morning or in the afternoon, or do you know? A. They started in the morning. Q. And were they supposed to take all day? A. As long as required. I'm not just sure how long it would have taken to have done the third grade. 0. Okay. Did they start in the morning at Mr. Glover's school? A. I believe they did. Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Glover about this testing? A. Mr. Rindskopf, a letter was sent out to all school principals asking for their cooperation in, when the counselors came around, in giving the tests. Yes, sir. Q. Did your letter say anything besides, Please cooperate with the counselors? Did it say anything else? Was it self — did it say, Do this, or Do that? A. Well, I'm sure the letter was of a general nature, in making the children available, preparing them for it. Of course, the letter meant to be sure to tell the children to be there that day, so that there wouldn't be a lot of absentees, so that the testing wouldn't have to be redone. Q. Did you ever make any attempt to redo the testing at 7 8 76 77 Mr. Glover's school? A. No, sir. 0- You never spoke with Mr. Glover about the failure in the testing and set up another date? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Did you ever speak with him about the failure in the testing at all? A. No, sir. I don't recall having done so. Mr. Glover had already made himself, put himself on record as being opposed to standardized testing. It came in the GTEA HERALD, that he was much against it. He thought standardized testings were racially biased and later on, he made himself very clear in the Atlanta newspapers. THE COURT: I perhaps missed it. What was the specific purpose of these tests? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, the specific purpose to test all children, since we were going, implementing the Court order, we were going into this redistribution of children, and we’re going to put first grades here, second and third grades here, fourth, fifth and sixth grades, blacks and whites together, so the purpose vas to, to test the children and see where they are now, to see what achievement level they've already come to. Now the reason we selected the California Basic Test was that it's the newest thing out, and, for instance, in English, it will, this test will show where a child is in punctuation, 77 78 for instance. Show if they have a weakness or strength in capital letters, sentence structure. It breaks it down, and a teacher won’t have to keep working with a child on capital letters or punctuation or verbs, it'll show the different parts -- THE COURT: Where did you get these tests from? Are they put out through the State Board, University system, or did you get them — I mean, is it a general test that was given across the State, or was it peculiar to your system? THE WITNESS: It was peculiar -- well, of course, California Test Bureau is a national testing organization. I believe the, I believe it's in Stanford, California. Some where in California. But it is a very fine testing system. We also have educational testing services in Princeton, New Jersey. We had these test machine scores. That's another value of it. It takes out any human error there. But it's the latest, one of the latest testing devices out, and it's recognized by all the educational institutions. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0. You regard these tests as a useful educational tool? A Yes, sir. Q. Have you used them in your system at any time before you went under Court order? A Yes, we have depended on standardized testing for years. 7>i 79 Q How about these tests? A. How about these tests? Q. Yes, sir. A. We have used California, but as I told you, Mr. Rindskopf, this is a new test, just out. In fact, — 0- So I gather you haven't used it before? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. A. This was the very latest, and it measures so many areas of a particular subject matter. 0- When was the last time you did testing in your system? A. We do some testing every year. Q. I gather this time you attempted to test the whole system? A. In Grades 1 through 8; yes, sir. 0. Grades 1 through 8? When is the last time you tested Grades 1 through 8? A. Well, the first grade had already undergone preliminary tests this last fall, using the Harcourt and World Test. Q. Could you answer my question? A. Yes, sir. Q. When was the last time you tested all eight grades at once? A. All eight grades have not been tested before, to my knowledge» 80 However, Grades, first, second grades and fourth and sixth and eighth, fourth, sixth and eighth were tested the year before, or should have been, in all schools. The tests were made available to the principals for those grades. THE COURT: Was there any racial purpose or implication in these tests? THE WITNESS: Your Honor, not in the least, because it's just a basic achievement test to see where the child has progressed to at that point. The purpose of the test was not to resegregate any children in a classroom, and it has nothing to do with any resegregation. THE COURT; Well, in, in measuring the achievement of particular children in this particular grade, were you in any sense trying to find out whether there was any disparity between, for example, the third grade children in a previously negro school and in a previously white school? THE WITNESS: No, sir. That was not the purpose. The purpose was to see where every child was right then so that the teacher could look at these tests and see where to take them from there. THE COURT: On an individual basis, irrespective of race? THE WITNESS: On an individual basis, irrespective of race, or color. 8 U 81 And incidentally, another witness could testify later, I don't have the figures, but it even showed that Pike County Elementary School, where there are blacks and whites already in the same class, that some of the blacks scored on this test more than the whites. THE COURT: All right, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q Do you plan to group pupils by abilit3'- next year in your schools? A No, sir. I don't have any plans to group by Ability-— No, sir. Q You're not going to have a track system in your schools? A Well, the Pike County High School has had a general and, general diploma, and, academic track and diploma several years. Q Is that going to continue next year? A I don't know, sir. That will be up to the new principal. And, of course, I'm sure he would bring that before the Board of Education. Q Okay. A But I might add, the general track has been very popular with a good many of our white studeints. Q What about lower schools, junior high schools? You're going to have tracks? A No, sir. I couldn't see the advisability of any track 8 ] 82 system in the junior high. 0- Okay. And you're not going to have separate sections and classes, A section and B section? A I don't believe so. That, I don't know, sir. That would be up to the new principal. I have no plans along that line. Q. Okay. And you haven't told any of the principals you've signed to contracts they should have A sections and B sections? A. No, sir. Qt Now, you said you learned Mr. Glover's views on testing from reading of them in two publications, the Atlanta Newspaper? A Yes, sir. Q. When did you read about that in the Atlanta newspapers? A I don't recall. I don't recall the dates. But it is, my counsel does have that clipping. 0. He has the clipping? A. And also I did read an article, someone handed me an article from the GTA JOURNAL, HERALD, I believe they call it, that very distinctly stated his views on testing. 0. I see. Did it quote from him or was it a signed article? A It was a signdd article. 0. And when did you see this document? A I don't recall, sir. It's been several months ago. 0. Was it after April or before April? A. I don't recall right now. But it has been, I think it was before April. But I don't recall exactly. 8 ‘> 83 THE COURT: Is the article available? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT; Well, doesn't it bear a date? THE WITNESS; I've forgotten the date, but -— MR. RINDSKOPF: It says the Fall issue, Your Honor. It doesn't seem to have any date on it. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. And you don't recall when you saw it? A. No, sir. I don't subscribe to that magazine. It was handed me. Q. I see. Was this after the incident in the spring? A. After what incident, are you talking about? Q. Well, the incident when the children at Pike County Consolidated School weren1t taking a test? A I'm sure I saw the article before that time. 0. All right, sir. A. That was a fall issue, and I do not recall when it was given to me. Q. Did you ever speak to Mr. Glover about his article? A. No, sir. I didn't discuss it with him. Those were his views. 0. You didn’t discuss those views with him? A. No, sir. g. Okay. A. Those are his views. 84 Q. Okay. THE COURT: Who ordained this policy of testing? THE WITNESS: The Pike County Board of Education, Your Honor, approved this testing. And, of course, I acted under their instructions and sent out the word to the principals in a letter. THE COURT: Do you know who suggested it to them? THE WITNESS: Well, I think it was just general concensus and this desegregation meeting in Griffin decided on it, that testing would be necessary, getting all these children together. THE COURT: Well, some educator must have recommended it to the Board. Did you recommend it? THE WITNESS: Oh yes indeed, I have, sir. Yes, sir. Other educators in our system were much in favor of it, too. Yes, sir. Oh yes. I was very much in favor of testing. You've got to test to find how far the children have progressed. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. It was your recommendation that started the ball rolling? A. Well, it was my recommendation, certainly. Q. Okay. Now, were there any other schools in the system where testing was less than a success? A. Yes. Q. Which school? m 84 85 A. At the East Pike Elementary School. 0- At the East Pike School? That is the school that was all-black school this year, is that right? a. Yes, sir. ft And who is the principal over there? A Mrs. Edna Miller. ft Mrs. Edna Miller? And you have recommended her for a job for next year? A. Yes. & In spite of the fact the testing wasn’t successful there either? A. Yes, sir. ft Okay. Now, the next example you gave of lack of cooperation by Mr, Glover was the fact that he spoke out at a principals8 meeting at the beginning of this last school year, *68-69 school year, and opposed the election of a Mrs. Elder as a principal, — A. Yes, sir. ft — is that, correct? A. Yes, sir. & And I believe you told me that he spoke for about five minutes on that occasion? A. Well, I’d say something like that. a And the tenor of his remarks were that the negro community hadn’t been consulted in the choice of this principal? 8 86 A. That was one of the statements he made. Yes, sir. He made other statements also. 0. Okay. Well, which statements, if any, did you view as a lack of cooperation on his part? A. Well, he became very insensed when it was announced that Mrs. Elder had been selected by the Board, elected by the Board as the principal of East Pike Elementary School. He said I had not done right, the Board of Education had not done right, the negro community had not been consulted, and words to the effect they would not stand for it, and we would hear from it later. And we did, because we had a boycott pretty soon after that. Q. You had a boycott and you also had a lawsuit? You also had a lawsuit? A. Yes, sir. But the boycott was settled prior to that. Q. Yes, sir. A. I don't see that those two have any, any relation. (X Okay. THE COURT; Is Mrs. Elder still in the system? THE WITNESS; No, sir. She retired. They drove her out. THE COURT; Is she a negro or white? THE WITNESS; She's white. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; This is the lady who was appointed or elected to be the 87 principal at the East Pike School? A Yes, sir. & And that's a school where Mrs. Edna Miller then took over? A. That's correct. & Okay. THE COURT: And Mrs. Miller is colored? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. She's black. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Well, what sort of meeting were you having where Mr. Glover made these remarks? A That was the initial principals' meeting of the year. o. It was a meeting of the principals? A. Principals and there were some other people present at the meeting, the initial principals' meeting of the year. Q. Well, Mr. Glover wasn't speaking out of turn, was he? He was free to speak? A Oh, he had a perfect right to speak; yes, sir. o. And he was perfectly free to express his views? A Yes, sir. But it was the manner in which he spoke. Q. I see. Well, what was wrong with the manner in which he spoke? A. Well, as I told you, Mr. Rindskopf, he appeared to be very insensed at the idea of the Board had elected this white lady to be principal of that school. Q. Would you say he was upset about it? 8 7 88 A. & A. purposes, 0 A, Yes, sir. You say he was upset about it? He appeared to be; yes, sir. And for all practical that meeting was broken up. The meeting was broken up? We — Q. Well, he didn't use any abusive language, did he? A. No, sir. 0, He didn't act in a disorderly way? A. No, sir. I, I considered him as acting in an unprofess manner, because it was very embarrassing to the Superintendent, was very embarrassing to the other principals present at the meeting. They so expressed themselves to me. 0. After the meeting? A. Oh yes, sir. 0. He didn't continue speaking after you told him to stop: When he finished his remarks, he was through, right? A. He made his point. 0. He made his point? Okay. And when did this meeting take place? Do you recall? A. This meeting took place on August 22, the best of my recollection. We had already received this resignation from Mr. Frazier. Q. Now, Mr. Frazier was a negro who had previously been the head of this East Pike School? 88 ional It 89 A. That's correct, Q. And he resigned just before your term began? A. Yes, sir. Very bad time of the year, on August 12th, I believe it was. And we were hard put to find a replacement that late in the term. Q. Okay. And finally, I gather that the lack of cooperation by Mr. Glover took place around the question of textbooks for your first grade, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I gather that, once again, Mr. Glover spoke out at one of your meetings, is that right? A. Yes, sir. 0. And his remarks were that he favored using multiethnic textbooks as opposed to textbooks with only pictures of white people in them, is that right? A. Yes, sir. That seemed to be what he was in favor of. Q. Why did you view this as a lack of cooperation? A Well, he had a perfect right to express his views on this, but it was the manner in which he did this. We had called these first grade teachers, and I understand some other teachers were invited too, but primarily it was a meeting for the first grade teachers because the Board was integrating the first grade for that next year. Q. When you say the next year, you mean the '68 -- 8!) 90 Q. Okay. A. That was part of the Board's HEW compliance plans. Q. Right. A. And so, it was necessary to call these teachers together, we thought, to work out plans for integration, orderly procedure, and also for the selection of a first grade textbook with the emphasis on a first grade reader. And -- Q. When did this meeting take place? A. That meeting took place sometime in May of '68. Q. May of '68? Was this after Mr. Glover had been renominated for the '68-69 school year? A Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And after he had signed his contract? A I'm not sure whether he signed his contract then or not, but he had been renominated and reelected. Q. Okay. And so, what you objected to was the manner in which he spoke? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was wrong with his manner? A I think it's unprofessional on his part because this textbook committee, which really was a textbook committee, first grade teachers, sitting as committee, they had voted in favor of continuing the American Book Company Reading Series. *69 year. * 90 91 Incidentally, Miss Sue Snipes, the reading and curriculum consultant, Educational Services Center, had also recommended this book. It was a democratic process of selection. This book was already being used by some of the teachers, and Mr. Glover took the floor, and for some five, six, seven minutes, and in a very forceful manner, showed his displeasure. And then, to top it all off, he violated a policy of the Board of Education and the Superintendent, later, by submitting a requisition for books which were not on the textbook list, and were not approved by the State, and also were not, these were not books selected by this Committee. Q. Okay. Back again to the question, my question was what was wrong in the manner in which he spoke? A. As I say, he was very irate. Q. He was very irate? A. Very irate and upset. Yes, sir. And very embarrassing. Q. Did he use abusive language? A. No, sir, Very embarrassing to all present. Q. Did he cause the meeting to break up? A. The meeting was virtually over along about that time, but for all practical purposes, it ended. 0. The meeting was about to end anyway? A. I don't recall how long it went on, but he broke up the meeting, for all practical purposes. THE COURT: Who usually chooses what book is used for a 91 92 grade? THE WITNESS s Your Honor, we have textbook committees of teachers, composed of teachers usually from all the schools, black and white„ THE COURTs You say from all the schools, you mean all the schools in your system? THE WITNESSs Yes, sir. It's left up to individual THE COURT: If I'm a sixth grade teacher, and there are a dozen sixth grade teachers, those dozen sixth grade teachers will meet and select which book they want to use? THE WITNESS s Yes, sir. They recommend to the Superintend^ he in turn recommends to the Board and ■— THE COURT: And the Board adopts a particular -- THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: First grade reader, sixth grade speller and ntr what not? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. A basic reader. There are other readers that can be used for a, supplemen tary, but a basic reader is also selected, standardized for the system. And that's what we're talking about here. It was more economical for the Board to continue the use of the American Book Company reader because we had more teachers at that time using that reader, and they liked the book, and I believe four or five teachers were already using that. Mr. Glover only had two sections of his school using a 92 93 Harper-Roe Series, and we wanted to coordinate, with everyboddy using the same book, building up this thing of coordination, cooperation, and then also the economical factor, in not having to throw out the American Book Company, because we already had a good supply of that. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q You say it would have been more economical, do you mean you were only going to replace some of the books in the system, some of the first grade books? A Yes, we would have had to replace some of the first grade books, yes. Have to replace less, had we continued with the American Book Company Series, which as I said, was voted by the majority of the teachers present, to use, Q Well, wouldn't it be an educationally good idea for a system that's integrating its grade, first grade, to use multi ethnic textbooks? A We had no objection to the use of multiethnic textbooks. In fact, later on, we were able to get Mr. Glover a multiethnic textbook. American Book came out with one in the same area later, and we had no objection to that. But at that time, that book was not on the State list. What Mr. Glover said to the committee that was present was that, well, there were ways to get those books, subrosa, I guess he meant, under the table. Q They weren't on the State list? 93 94 A. No, sir, not on the State list, not in American Book Company Series. Q. They were being used at Mr. Glover's school? A. He had an old Harper-Roe Series, he said, that channels could be gone through to get those books. Q. Harper and Roe Books at Mr. Glover's school, that he was using, were multiethnic, were they not? A. The ones he was using at that time, whether or not — that was an old Harper-Roe Series. There was another book he thought could be acquired from Harper-Roe, that was multiethnic. Q. I see. So it, it is a fact that there were some multiethnic textbooks that were available, right? A. There possibly were, but not the American Book Series, which the majority of the teachers voted for. THE COURT: Are you now using a multiethnic textbook? THE WITNESS: Using some, Your Honor. As I said, that fall, we learned that the American Book Company had come out with a multiethnic series, and we did get those books, best of my knowledge, for Mr. Glover's school. That was the only school that needed them at that time. His other books were old. That's the best of my understanding. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Let's go back to the teacher committee. You say there were seven teachers on the committee? A, I believe seven first grade teachers, yes, sir. 94 95 Q. Okay. And since two of them were from Mr. Glover's school, I gather two of them were black, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. What about the other five? A. I don't, let's see, I believe that Mrs. we had several white teachers, Mrs. Walter Johnson, Miss Flossie King were white. I don't recall right now the other teachers present. We've had some changes in the meantime, but several were white, several were black. Q. Which was in the majority? A. I don't recall. I don't know. Could have been that the blacks were in majority. I'm not sure. THE COURT; Gentlemen, we’ve been here about two hours. Suppose we take about five minutes recess at this time? All right. We'll be in recess five minutes. 0O0 (Whereupon, Court was recessed at 12:00 o'clock noon.) RECESS (Whereupon, Court was reconvened at 12:08 p.m.) oOo THE COURT: All right. You may resume the stand. All right, Mr. Rindskopf. oOo HAROLD T. DANIEL, Having already been duly sworn and resuming the stand, testified 95 96 further as follows: CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Have you had an opportunity during the break to refresh your memory as to the race of your first grade teachers back in May, s 6 8 ? A I haven’t thought about it any more. Q. You don't recall whether there was a majority black or w h i t e ? A No, sir. I don't, I don't think that is so important. There were both black and white teachers there at the meeting. Q. Okay. Isn't it a fact that, that that was a meeting involving grades 1 through 6, not just the first grade? A I don't, I don't recall what, what grades were invited, but it was basically, we were talking about primary reading and primary grades, 1 through 3. But our primary emphasis at that time was for Grade 1, because that grade was to be integrated the next year. Q. So, based on what you say, from the fact you were consider primary reading, there probably were other people there than first grade teachers? A. Yes. Q. From other grades? A I'm sure there were. But they did not vote on the first grade reader. ing 98 97 0- Okay. And isn't it a fact that Mr. Glover spoke out at this meeting after Miss Snipes asked for any comments as to what readers they should use next year? A. I don't recall that comments were asked for. All I remember is Mr. Glover was very insistent and unreason able concerning the multiethnic books. Q. By unreasonable, you mean that he stuck to his guns? A. By unreasonable, I meant in his tone and manner of speaking. 0, In tone and manner? Okay. Isn't it a fact that there was no vote taken at this meeting? A. Yes, sir. There was a vote taken. I don't think it was secret ballot. Didn't have to be. Yes, sir. There was a vote taken, a raise of hands or consensus vote. Yes, sir. Q. What was the vote? A. To the best of my remembrance, it was five to two. Q. Five to two? A. It was definitely a majority, though. Q. Okay. And when did this vote or whatever it was become the policy of the Board of Education? A. This has been a policy of the Board of Education for many years, that a textbook collection committee would make recommendations to the Superintendent on the book they wish to use, and then the Superintendent in turn would relay that to the 9 7 98 Board of Education. And I enunciated this policy to these teachers at this meeting. I also told them that would be the books after it was decided they would use that book. I told them that would be the book we would use from then on for at least the next few years. Q. Did you have a position on which text they should use? A. Not necessarily, no, Q. Would either have been acceptable to you? A. As far as I'm concerned, either would have been. With this, with this point right here, I want to emphasize, there was a matter of economy involved there. Our textbook funds are limited, We had to stick pretty well to an economy measure. We had far more American Book Company books being used by first graders at that time than any other series. In fact, we would have to have thrown them away and brought in new books for seven teachers. Q. Of course, you could have brought in books when the old ones wore — A. Yes, when they wore out, we generally would replace them with a newer series. But, yes, sir, I had the interest of trying to coordinate, letting each teacher have those use the same book and also this thing of economy, having, the economy angle entered in and, also, that we could only spend a limited amount for these first graders that year. 98 99 Q. Well, did you say you could only spend so much? A. Yes. 0- On first grade readers? A. Yes. Q. There wasn't really any choice, was -- A. That was after the vote. We could not use two different series. Q. Okay, A. I said, I mentioned a moment ago, I enunciated a policy of the Board of Education in that matter, Q. You told them whatever books they chose would be what everybody would have? A. Yes. THE COURT: They had previously been using two types of books, did I understand that Mr, Glover had been using a different type of book in his THE WITNESS: Yes, THE COURT: — school? THE WITNESS: The Harper-Roe, THE COURT: Why was it impossible to continue that setup? THE WITNESS: That was an older edition, Your Honor, that I don't think would, it would have paid. I don’t know whether he could have gotten that edition, could have gotten a new edition of Harper™Roe, and that's what he wished to do, 99 100 best I remember. THE COURT: Had there previously been a policy which permitted him to use a book different from the ones that are used in the other schools? THE WITNESS: No, sir. He was not supposed to have used any other than the basic reader. Now, of course, principals have leeway in ordering additional readers for supplementary use. But he was supposed to have used the basic book. Now, the American Book Company book was also, was a newer edition. Our committee, our curriculum director and others that knew something about this particular book, they felt this was the best on the market, and they had put it in the new Pike County Elementary School. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Do you know when Mr. Glover got the books that he was using in his school, the Harper and Roe books? A. No, sir. I don't fcecall. They were several years old. Q. Had they been there before he took over as principal? A I'm sure they were not that old. Q. That would have been about seven years, at that time? A. Yes. Q. How frequently do you replace textbooks? A About every five years. That's about the normal usage of textbooks. 10U 101 A Sometimes, if the children are a little rough with them, they won't last over four years. Q Okay. Then, I believe you said that Mr. Glover submitted a requisition for multiethnic textbooks, is that right? A Yes, sir. Q And you regarded this as being a violation of your policy? A Yes, sir, because this, we had already decided, this committee had democratically voted, and they had decided in favor of the American Book Company Book. And so, for him to then come along and submit a requisition for a Series which I considered to be out of order, that was a violation of our policy. In other words, it was really an affront to the Superintendent, as if to say, Well, we know what you decided on that, but I don't care what you decided. We want this book. Q When did he submit these requisitions? A Late June, late summer, first of September. I don't recall. But after this meeting was held. 9. But you don't recall? A No, sir, because different principals submit orders at different times. Some in June and some in July and August, and some even in September, if they find out they need additional hooks. Q Okay. And what did you do with this requisition? A I did not honor it. 101 102 Q. You did not honor it? A. No, sir. Q. What does that mean? A. I did not select,, I did not order this book that he requisitioned. Q. I see. Did you order some books for his school? Ac Yes, but a little later, after that, we found out that American Book Company did put out a multiethnic edition, and it was on the State textbook list. Yes, we got him some multiethnic textbooks, finally. Q, So you got some multiethnic books? K Yes, sir. But it was in the agreed upon series. K Okay. Were these multiethnic books different from the books that you were using at the other first grades? A. Well, I'm — I don't, I don’t know. I think they had some multiethnic pictures in it, if that's what you mean. Q, Let me get this straight. There were first grades in two different places in Pike County this past year, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. One was at Pike County Consolidated? A. Yes, sir. Q, Where Mr. Glover was? h. Yes, sir. Q, And those pupils were all black? A. Yes, sir. 1 1 ) 2 103 Q, And one was that, which is it, one of the buildings of -- A East Pike Elementary, Building B. Q. Rights And that was integrated group? A Yes, sire Q, Okay. And the integrated group used the older American Book Company books? A. Well, it was, it was the American Book Company that we were then using. Yes, sir. Q. So they were older than the ones used at Mr. Glover's school? A Yes, because that edition just came out. Q. And the ones they used in the integrated classes were not multiethnic books? A Not to my knowledge, they weren’t. Q. Okay. But the ones Mr. Glover wound up with were multiethnic? A Yes, sir. a Okay. So those books were different in at least one theyrespect than the books that/were using at the other first grades? A I think maybe in some pictures. That's about all. q. Have you compared the textbooks yourself? A I did at the beginning of the term. That's the only difference I could find. I don't remember any other differences. Q. Okay. So if we construe Mr. Glover's requisition as being for multiethnic textbooks, that's what he got? 103 104 A. Ho, sir. It was in violation of our agreed policy, that once a series is decided upon, if a principal sends in a requisition for an off-series, that's wasting the Superintendent's time. It's, as I say, it's against the — THE COURT: Well, let me ask a question right here. You voted to use the American Textbook version? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Well now, suppose, I believe you said they later came out with a multiethnic version? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Would it still have been within the vote if they had chosen the multiethnic version of the American Textbook Company? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. At that time, — THE COURT: In other words, you were talking about, if American Textbooks had gone to a multiethnic version, any teacher would have been perfectly within their rights to have requisitioned multiethnic books? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: As well as any other kind, so long as they came from the American Textbook, is that what you are saying? THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. If we had known at the meeting in May that the American Book Company had a multi ethnic, we would have been delighted to order those books at that time. 105 THE COURT: You would have then lost your economy measure again, would you not? THE WITNESS: No, sir* We were already using the American in several classrooms, and there is no difference in the wording, as to my knowledge. There may be a few different pictures, black, white, Chinese, yellow, I don't know what color was in there. That was the only difference in the book, best of my knowledge. THE COURT: All right, sir. , THE WITNESS: The wording was the same. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Qt And you used Mr. Glover's requisition to learn how many books you should buy, is that correct? A Oh, I don't recall about that. I'm sure we made another check with the school later on when the, or when American Book Company came out with a multiethnic edition. Did they come out with a new edition after the school year started? A We learned of the new edition. We did not know -- in fact, we did not have one in — * Q. Well, you learned of it after the school year started? A Yes, sir. Q. When did you — A After the school year started, maybe September, October, somewhere in the fall. log 106 Q. Is this a standard education policy, to bring in new books in the middle of a year? A Yes, sir, if, if the funds permit and if we can get what the teachers want. We had voted for the American Book Company Book. They became available in the multiethnic division, that was what Mr. Glover wanted, and that's what Mr. Glover got. Q. That's right. A But he still violated a policy by sending in one of the off-series on his requisition. 0= Okay. So you did bring those books in during the school year, right? A After the school year started, yes. Q. What did you do with the books you were using when the new books arrived? A I don ' t knov;. Q. All right. Okay. I believe what we have covered here this morning were all the instances of lack of cooperation against Mr. Glover this year, is that right? A. Well, that's all that I outlined to you; yes, sir. Q. Okay. Well, there wasn't any other reason why you didn't recommend him for rehiring, was there? A Well, there's one additional reason I can give you, if you want it. lub 107 Qt Well, what was that additional reason? A. Well, after that principals' meeting, I related to you, that a boycott ensued and there were two occasions that Mr. Glover did not report or did not report off during that boycott, that he came over to Zebulon and sat in a meeting of parents, and he left his job during the school hours. He did not get my permission to leave his job and he did engage in civil rights activities, which I consider, during school hours — QL Civil rights activities during school hours? A. Yes, sir. Q, When you say he met with parents, who — A, There were some parents there, yes, at the meeting. Ql Who else was at the meeting? A. Our Board of Education attorney. Q. Would that be Mr. Richard Bridges? A. Mr. Bridges. Ql Mr. Glover met with Mr. Bridges? A. Well, met with a group of people, some negro parents. Ql How many times did this happen? A. On two occasions. Ql For how long was he in attendance at these civil rights meetings? A. Well, they were — there were meetings, I don't remember how long they took, but it was definitely during school time. Q. Well, how long did they go on? 1 y V 108 A I don't recall. Maybe a couple of hours. 0, How much school time did he miss? A 1 believe one meeting was in the afternoon, and one meeting was in the morning of the following day. I would say he, I would say he lost about two hours on the afternoon meeting and all the morning of the next meeting. Eor all practical purposes, that could serve no purpose at a school, missing that part of a morning. 0. Were there any children in attendance at his school? A Yes, sir. 0. How many? A Well, he has over five hundred pupils. Now, one of those meetings, the children had walked out that day, that is true. But still, he was supposed to be on the job. 0, Well, which meeting had the children walked out, afternoon or morning? A I believe the boycott took place on September 10 and that afternoon, we had a meeting. And then, the following day, I believe, I believe those are the right dates. Qi Were you at the meeting? A Yes, sir. 0. Oh, I see. A I was at both meetings. Q. Didn't you tell Mr. Glover that his business was back at his school? i u d 109 A Mr, Glover knew what his contract was for. I didn't have to reprimand Mr. Glover publicly. & You didn't tell him he should be back at his school rather than at that meeting? A No. THE COURTS During the boycott,, were some students in and some out, or were they all out? THE WITNESS : During the September boycott, Your Honor, the boycott took place mostly at East Pike Elementary School in ZebuIon. On September 10th. All students and teachers walked out of Mr. Glover’s school. They marched seven miles to Zebulon, and we lost control of that school that day. THE COURT: All of them went out? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. All of them walked out apparently. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Mr. Glover didn't participate in this march, did he? A I don’t think Mr. Glover was in the march. Q. Now what about the next day? Were they back in school? A I don't know how many. I'm sure that many of them were. I don't recall. Q. You don't recall. THE COURT: Let me ask a question here. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of Mr. Glover's contention, irrespective of the action or inaction of the l U d 110 mystifying to me is why, if there is a grievance against the School Board, whether justified or unjustified, why take it out on the students? I, if somebody has done my child or me an injustice, I never could quite see the logic of punishing the child for the injustice of someone else. 1 say, I simply make that comment. It has nothing to do with the issue we're hearing. But it’s a little difficult, has been a little difficult for me to understand. All right, sir. Go ahead. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; 0- Did Mr. Glover play a constructive role in these meetings on the 10th and 11th? A I don’t recall that he did, no. Q. Did he play a destructive role? A I don’t know what you would call it. He made some comments. I don’t recall everything that was said or done at that meeting. 0- All right, sir. Well, wasn't he trying to get the situation resolved? A. No, sir. No, sir. I don't think, I don't remember him trying to get it resolved, no. Q. What about you, were you trying to get it resolved? Board or the Superintendent, one thing that has been rather A ill) Yes, sir. Ill Q. Okayo Is there anything else? A. I don’t, I don’t recall anything this school year, necessarily. (X Okay. Now, do you have any standards that are in writing as to how you judge whether a person is fit to be hired or rehired? A, No, sir. Not in writing. I'm not required to have any such standards. 0= And you don * t? A No, sir. Q. And so, you just approach these things on a case-by-case basis? A. Well, of course, naturally, we have standards relating to certification, teachers' certificate. We have, of course, naturally, experience plays a part and college training; maybe the college they went to; and on application, we will observe the activities they entered into, maybe the clubs they were members of and professional organizations. All of those things enter in, naturally, into whether a new person that's going to be hired for a job — Ql Okay. Well, in terms of these things, Mr. Glover is still fully qualified? A. Well, yes. He's a member of organizations, I'm sure, and he was hired by us. Q. And rehired? I ' l l 112 A And rehired. 0. Each succeeding year? A Until the last two years, as I told you this morning, he was recommended reluctantly the past two years. & But, nevertheless, he was recommended. A Yes, he showed some improvement towards the, towards the end of the school year. Yes, sir. 0. And what about this year? Did he show any improvement as the year went on? A I can't say that he did; no, sir. (X Okay. And what do you base this opinion on? A Well, as I say, I carry things in my evaluation that, in my mind. Of course, naturally, some of these items that I’ve mentioned to you, we keep a personnel file, they went in his file, and definite lack of cooperation on Mr. Glover's part this year, and I could not, 1 could not recommend him. No, sir. Q. I see. And in every instance it was a lack of cooperatior with you, was it not, as the Superintendent? A Yes, sir. In these instances I've outlined this morning, they were. Q. Yeah. Are there any other people in your system who are charged with evaluating principals? A No, sir. & Do you go into the schools to watch them function? A The Board of Education holds the Superintendent responsible 112 113 fibr recommending principals, and the principal recommends teachers to the, to the Superintendent, and he in turn to the Board. Ql Did you understand my question? A Yes, sir. I'm answering your question, yes, I go into the schools. I evaluate principals in their, in their daily jobs, when I can find the time to get to the school. And I also observe some teachers. I, I might add the duties of my office do not allow me to visit schools and sit in on classrooms as they didnany years ago. That's the principal's responsibility. Q. Right. Okay. Did he discharge this responsibility? A As far as I know, he did. 0. As far as you know he did. Okay. What other responsibilities does the principal have? A Well, the principal is in complete charge of his school. And that takes in a wide range of territory. Q. Well, except for these instances you've spelled out for us today, Mr. Glover did a satisfactory job? A Well, these instances were enough to keep me from recommending him to the Board of Education, if that's what you are asking. Q. And except for these instances, you were satisfied with his performance? A I won't say I was satisfied with his performance, no, sir. 0. You think these instances have colored your view? 113 114 A, These instances are sufficient not to gain my recommends tion. Q. Well, I'm just trying to find out if there's any other reason you didn't recommend him. It’s pretty simple. A. These are the reasons. Q. These are the reasons? A. I didn't need any other premise. Q. Okay. MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions of Mr. Daniel at this time. THE COURT: All right, sir. You may go down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 12:32 p.m.) 0O0 MR. RINDSKOPF: We call Mr. Glover at this time. 0O0 DENNIS GLOVER, Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Would you starts your name, please? A, Dennis Glover. {X Okay. Are you the same D. F. Glover who is plaintiff 114 115 in this lawsuit? & Yes« ft Okay. Where do you live, Mr. Glover? A. Zebulon, Georgia. & How old are you? A. Forty-two. & Did you hold any position with the Pike County School system this past year? A. Yes. ft What position did you hold? A. Principal. ft And what school were you principal? A. Pike Consolidated School. ft And was that an all-black school this past year? A. Yes. ft And you are a black person, member of the negro race? A. Yes. ft Could you tell us how old you are? A. Forty™two. ft And what about your academic training and background? A. I hold an AB Degree, MA Degree and a six year certificate from the State Department of Education. ft Okay. Where did you receive your AB Degree? A. Fort Valley State College. ft And your Masters Degree? 115 116 A Atlanta University. 2 Okay. And when you speak of a six year certificate, does that mean you've done work beyond your Masters Degree? A Yes. 2 Okay. Now, how long have you had, how long have you been a principal? A For thirteen years. 2 For thirteen years? A Yes, sir. 2 Where have you served in these thirteen years? A I served five years at East Pike Elementary School in Zebulon, and eight years at Pike Consolidated School, Concord. 2 And both of these schools were all-black schools while you were there? A Yes. 2 Okay. What did you do before you became a principal over at East Pike? A I was teacher in the Pike County system. 2 Where were you a teacher? A At Zebulon and at Concord. 2 Okay. What was your principal subject? A Social science. 2 Social science. All right. Now, since you have been a principal in the Pike County system, what have you accomplished in regard to the schools there? - 1 i b 117 A. When I accepted the principalship of East Pike Elementary School, I believe the attendance there was in the low eighties. It was increased to the middle nineties. We were the first school in the system to be evaluated using the evaluative criteria as a guide. THE COURT : You say the low eighties or nineties, I don't know that I follow you. THE WITNESS: That's average daily attendance. THE COURT: Attendance. All right. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. You mean the percentage? A Right. Percentagewise. Right. fX Okay. THE COURT: You mean of the pupils enrolled, eighty or ninety per cent of them were in attendance? Is that what that means? THE WITNESS: Yes, or the people enrolled, on an average, when I accepted the job, we had about eighty some per cent of them in attendance every day. And when I left, we had on an average of ninety-five per cent. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: In attendance every day. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Ql Okay. And you were there for — 117 118 A. Five years. Q. Five years. Okay. What else did you accomplish while you were at East Pike? A. We increased lunchroom attendance from about fifty per cent to about seventy per cent. Q. Okay. Anything else? ft. And the self-study that we made, using the evaluative criteria. Q. Okay. What was the purpose of this self-study? A. This was to upgrade the curriculum of the school. Q. Okay. And you say you were the first school in the system to do that? JL To do this; yes. Q. Okay. And did that have any tangible result? A. Yes. The other schools followed, and consequently, we had the two high schools accredited by the Southern Association. East Pike was not accredited because we didn't get the money to submit our application. THE COURT: Now, somewhere, I kind cf slipped something. You say you were the first school to do what, now? THE WITNESS: To have a self-study, using the evaluative criteria. This is for the purpose of upgrading the curriculum, BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Did you get these self-study criteria from some State Agency or how do you go about a self-study program? 116 119 A Well, this would be a group of standards got together by experts all over the country. ft Okay. And you apply these against your school -- A Yes. Q — and see where you fall short? A Yes. Qi Okay. Fine. And then, I guess in 1961 you went over to Pike County Consolidated? A Yes. a What grades were at Pike County Consolidated when you started? , A One through twelve. 0. And that's the same as it then, or, I mean this past year? A Yes» 0. What did you accomplish in your time at Pike County Consolidated? A We did a similar thing there. The attendance at Pike Consolidated was in the high seventies. We increased it to the low nineties. The lunchroom participation was less than fifty again, and we increased it to seventy per cent or more. Q. When you say that the lunchroom participation was less than fifty per cent, what would that mean? That the students who didn't eat at the school were doing what for their lunches? lid 120 A, They didn' t eat or they were buying things from concessions. THE COURT : Do they pay for their lunches? THE WITNESS: Some do. Those who are able and those not ±>le are supposed to eat free. THE COURT: Wellf now, why wouldn't all of them eat one way or the other? THE WITNESS: It depends on the time the lunch is served, whether or not you have concessions, anything to attract the attention of the — THE COURT: In other words, there was nothing to prevent a hundred per cent of them from eating, either by paying, if they had money, or even free, if they didn't have money, except that maybe they didn't like the menu, maybe they had spinach or something and they'd rather have candy bar? Is that what you mean? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That is correct. THE COURT: And you were undertaking to discourage that and give them a balanced meal or something? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: q. What are these concessions that you were speaking about? A. That would be selling cookies, soft drinks and things of that nature. Ql Okay. Did you take any steps in regard to the concession 120 121 k Yes. Ql What did you do? k We eliminated the concession. Qi So that if students wanted to eat at the school, they would have to go through the lunch line? k Yes. 0. Okay. Have you accomplished anything else since you've been at Pike County Consolidated? k While there, upon accepting the principalship of Pike Consolidated, the morale of the teachers and students was very low. I believe that we have increased the enthusiasm for school by parents, teachers and students. Q. Do you have an active parents organization? k Yes. Q. Okay. Do you meet during the year? k Yes. (X How frequently? k Monthly. Q. Okay. Was this in existence before you took over? k There was an organization, but it was not too active. Q. All right. Anything else you can tell us that you've accomplished specifically while you've been there? k I can't think of anything. Q. Okay. Now, you heard Mr. Daniel speak of these instances of lack of cooperation that you've shown during the past year. 12l 122 Have you ever deliberately not cooperated with him? A No. Q. Okay. Now, let's run over them. The first one we talked about was the business with the Fire Marshal and the fire drills. How many fire drills did you have at your school? A We have had approximately eight fire drills. Q. Okay. As far as you know, were you in compliance with State law? A Yes. Q, And did you have enough to keep your accreditation? A. Yes. Ql Okay. You didn't think there was any danger that you would lose your accreditation? A No ̂ THE COURT: Did you say to Mr. Bell that you had not had firedrills? THE WITNESS: I don’t recall. It's possible that I said to Mr. Bell I had not had one within that month, somethin of that nature. g THE COURT: Were you aware of his report? THE WITNESS: I was aware of his report when the Superintendent called me. I was not aware that he put that in his report, no. 122 123 THE COURT ; Prior to that time? THE WITNESS: Prior to that time. BY MR. RXNDSKOPF; & Okay. Did Mr. Bell in fact ask you to have a fire drill when he was there? A No, he did not. 0= He did not. So, you never told them that you were too busy to have a fire drill? A No, not as such. Q. Okay. Well, could you tell us what the conversation was? ft, Mr. Bell suggested maybe that we should have a fire drill, and he wanted my opinion. It was during lunchtime, and I told him that we did not have a fire drill during lunch period. We had never had one. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Fire Marshal to pull the fire alarm. He's not supposed to ask the principal for any permission. Qt I see. If he wanted to have a fire drill, while he was there, he could have just pulled the alarm? A. ‘ Yes. THE COURT; Well, the drill consists of marching out of the building? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. THE COURT; If it was during the lunch hour, they're 12;-i 124 already out? THE WITNESS t They were eating. THE COURT % They were in the building, but in the cafeteria? THE WITNESS s Yes, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF? Q. Okay. Is it a standard thing to have fire drills during lunch time? A. No, not with us. Q. A t least partly because of the confusion of leaving your lunch — A. Yes. (X — and getting it back, I suppose? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Had he been in your building and run a fire drill previously, ever? A. Most Fire Marshals do. I don't recall. Mr. Bell is new. Q, All right. A. I don't recall, but most Fire Marshals do. 0. And as you said, they just come in and they pull the bell? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did Mr. Bell come back at any time during the school year? A. Yes. 124 125 2 And did he have any complaints? A No e 2 made? Did you hear anything about any subsequent report he A No. 2 To Mr. Daniel? A No. Q Okay. And there was no reason why he couldn't have pulled the bell if he wanted to? A No. 2 You didn't physically prevent him? A No. 2 Did he ask you where the bell was? A No. He is supposed to know. Q Okay. The second, I guess, was this business about the burglaries. Is it true that your school's been burgled? A Yes. 2 During the school year? A Yes. 2 When was it burgled? A Sometimes in October. 2 All right. Any other time? A No. I believe we had three in the month of October, or maybe first of November. I'm not certain. 125 126 0- Okay. Do you know whether they ever apprehended the burglars? A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Do you know how they got into the school? A. No. & Okay. Did they break into your office? A. Yes. Q. How did they break into your office? A. They forced the door. Q. What about, what about getting into other parts of the school? Did they break in or what? A. They did not break in. Q. Do you knov; how they got in? A. No. 0. When did these burglaries take place? At night or after school or when? A. I would assume at night for one and it could have been in the day for two. I'm not certain. & I see. Okay. How did you learn of these burglaries? A. We missed things when we got to school the next day. o. Okay. Mr. Daniel didn't call you up and tell you your school had been robbed? A. No. Q. Now, did you have a sufficient number of janitors at your school to make sure that the doors were locked and so on? 1 2 b 127 A. We had a sufficient number. & Okay. How many did you have? A. Three or five student helpers. Q. Three or five, students help them? A. Yes o Q. I see. Who would have keys to the building? A The principal, counselors, the coaches and the janitors. Q. Did you experience any difficulty with your janitors during the school year? A„ Yes . & What were those difficulties? A. We had a terrific turnover of janitors. Q- Why was that? a They were insufficiently paid. & What were they paid? A. From a dollar fifteen to a dollar forty an hour. & And who determines how much the janitors are to be paid? A. The Superintendent. & Superintendent. Okay. And you found, what, that you couldn't keep people at those wages? A. No, I could not keep people at those wages. & Would you think your security at the school would have been better if you had had your janitors for longer periods? 12/ 128 ft Yes. Qt How many janitors did you go through during the whole school year? a, I believe about six, 0, About six or so? THE COURT: Mr. Rindskopf, aren't we getting a little bit far afield? MR.RINDSKOPF: Well, I don't know if we are or not, Your Honor, frankly. THE COURT: I mean, what's the turnover in janitors got to do with what we're here to decide? MR, RINDSKOPF: Well, the only thing, Your Honor, Mr. Daniel, Superintendent, was holding, apparently, these thefts of the school against the principal. THE COURT: Well, suppose he was, correctly or incorrectly? How does that show whether the failure to renew this man's contract was on racial grounds or some other grounds. MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, — THE COURT: As a matter of fact, accepting what you say at face value, it would show the contrary, wouldn't it? Why don't you ask the man what he knows about being fired on racial grounds. MR. RINDSKOPF: I'll come to that. I was trying to take care of — THE COURT: When you get down to his turnover in 12tJ 129 janitors, it looks like we're a little bit far afield. MR. RINDSKOPF: All right, sir. Well, let me come to — THE COURT; I don't mean to cut you off from asking his version of these other incidents, but -- MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, I would think, Your Honor, that if the reasons are totally without foundation, -- THE COURT: Well, I don't wish to cut you off and I didn't mean to cut you off hbout the burglaries, but when you go beyond burglaries and get to the turnover in janitors, we're a little bit — MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. THE COURT;--- removed. Go ahead to the next, to the other ground of what Mr. Daniel says were — MR. RINDSKOPF; Yes, sir. THE COURT: — failures to cooperate. MR. RINDSKOPF: I will. THE COURT: And let him give his version of them. MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. Fine. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: (X The next one would be the desegregation meetings over in Griffin? THE COURT: You say these were held in Griffin? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What were they? I understood they were put 1 2J 130 on by the University of Georgia. Did people come from the University to Griffin and conduct them? THE WITNESS: Yes , sir. THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. BY MR. RXNDSKOPF: q, Okay. Is it a fact that you did not go to these meetings A Yes, it is. Ql Why didn't you go? A Well, it was my understanding from the communication that I got that the Superintendent was supposed to head the team, and he asked some of the teachers to go, but he didn't ask me. So ? I didn 81 gOc Q. Okay. He specifically asked teachers at your school — A Yes. Q. ■■■■ to go? Okay, do you know whether he asked any of the other principals ? A No. Q. You don't know whether he asked Mrs. Miller, say? A No. Q. Okay. And — THE COURT: You say no, you mean No, he didn't ask her or, no, you do not know? THE WITNESS: I do not know. B Y M R . R I N D S K O P F : Ql Okay. And at no time did he tell you that you should be 130 131 there? ft. Noe he did not. Q. Now, what about this incident with the testing of children? Mr. Daniel said, as I recall, that they were unable to test the children at your school; they wouldn't take the tests. Is that correct? ft. That's correct. & Did you have anything to do with that? A. No. Q, Did anybody ever ask you to go in and lecture the children to get them to take the tests? A, No. Q. What about this instance where one of the counselors came in and told you about it, and you were supposed to have had a big smile on your face? Anything to that? ft. I don't recall that. Q, Okay. Do you personally have any knowledge as to why the test didn't come off? ft. Yes. 0- Go ahead. ft. I think the parents had instructed their children not to take the test. Q. And why did the parents do that? ft. They didn't understand the test, and they felt that the test was going to be used to resegregate their children under an 13 i 132 integrated setting. THE COURT: Okay. Did — were there any communications to the parents from the Superintendent or the Board of Education? THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge. THE COURT: Did you entertain that view? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; I did. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: (X Do you, still? A, Yes, I still entertain that view. Q, Okay. Did you tell any children they shouldn't take the test on that account? ft. No, I did not. Q. All right. THE COURT: And the tests were supposed to test the achievement of each child at that particular time, is that correct? THE WITNESS: I think that is correct. I was not familiarized with the test, nor the testing program. THE COURT: You didn't, didn't see the test? THE WITNESS: No, sir. Not as such. I did not see that particular test. THE COURT: Were similar tests given in the white schools? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It's my understanding that U 2 133 this same test would have been given to all of the students in the system. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: ft What about the fact the children didn't take the test over in East Pike? Did you have anything to do with that? ft. No. ft Did you go over to East Pike and tell anybody they shouldn * t take the test? ft. No. ft Did you communicate with Mrs. Miller, the principal over there, about the test? ft. No. ft Okay. The next item would seem to be the election of Mrs. Elder to — THE COURT: Wait just one minute, Mr. Rindskopf. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. THE COURT: When were these tests given? THE WITNESS: That would have been between the dates of March the 18th and 25th. Pike THE COURT: Of what year? THE WITNESS: Of 1969. THE COURT: Now, in the meantime, your first grade at County had already been integrated, is that correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's correct. THE COURT: Well, had it been completely integrated or J33 134 to what extent had it been integrated? THE WITNESS: All of the children on the Zebulon side of the county were integrated. But those children on the Concord side or the west side were still segregated, the black children, all of the white children were transported to the kindergarten center and all the black children on the Zebulon side were integrated into the kindergarten on the Zebulon side. THE COURT: How did it happen to break down east and west? THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir. It was planned that way. THE COURT: Well, in the integrated part of the school, was the integration as far as those on that side of town, at any rate, complete? You say one side of town it wasn’t integrated at all. The other was integrated completely? THE WITNESS: Completely. In other words, half of the black schools were integrated with all the white first graders. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q So the zones through the county was only around Concord for the black students? A Black students. Q Not for white students? 134 135 ft. That1s right. THE COURT; And you have no, no way of explaining how that happened? This was kindergarten and first grades. THE WITNESS; This was first grade. All of the kindergarten students were integrated. THE COURT; From all over the county? THE WITNESS; From all over the county. THE COURT: Completely? THE WITNESS: Completely. THE COURT: That’s during the school year '68-69? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And half of the first grades were integrated completely? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: That is — now, did that come about on the basis of, how many, how many first grade schools or actually sitting, did you have? Two? THE WITNESS: Two first grade schools, that's correct. THE COURT: And did it come about that one of them was completely integrated and the other was not integrated at all? Is this what happened? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE COURT: And the effect of that was to integrate all of the whites in the county with the blacks on one side of the county, is that right? 13 5 136 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And the blacks on the other side of the county were not integrated at all? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE COURT; All right. Gentlemen, I have an engagement with Judge Smith for lunch at this time. So we'll recess at this point, ladies and gentlemen, until 1:00 o'clock. You may be at ease and be back, then, at 1:00 o'clock. MR. RINDSKOPF: Two o'clock, Your Honor? THE COURT: Two o'clock. I beg your pardon. My appointment is at 1:00 o'clock. oOo (Whereupon, Court was recessed at 12:53 p.m.) RECESS (Whereupon, Court was reconvened at 2:04 p.m.) oOo THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. oOo DENNIS GLOVER, Having already been duly sworn and upon resuming the witness stand, testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Let me just finish off one matter that was sort of 1 3 b 137 hanging at loose ends before we went to lunch, Mr. Glover. Do you have any knowledge of whether the students attending the first grade and the kindergarten are in fact attending them on an integrated basis over in Zebulon? A. They are attending the first grade and kindergarten, but I couldn't say it was on an integrated basis. (X Well, how is it? A. It is my understanding that at the first grade center, all of the black children, upon investigation by a parent group, found that all of the black children were seated on one side of room and all of the whites on the other side of the room. MR. CALDWELL; Your Honor please, Mr. Glover said that he understands. Now, this would be hearsay and we object to it on those grounds. Now if he knows of this of his own knowledge, of course, we contend he's entitled to testify. THE COURT; Well, perhaps I'm responsible for this line of questioning because — but, what, happened, this is really what happened in '68-69, isn't it? MR. RINDSKOPF; Yes, sir. I agree with you on both counts. THE COURT; I'm the one who brought it up, and the reason, I don't think that's relevant except that I was undertaking to ascertain or had in the back of my mind in 13 138 going to the subject, what the situation was with respect to books and so forth among those integrated classes last year, and find out to what extent they were integrated. What he's really saying, there are track systems within an integrated classroom or school, I judge. Anyway, I, to answer your objection, I overrule your objection. Let's don't dwell on what happened last year, but this is nob-jury, and if I have judgment to rule on the objection, I have enough judgment to rule to exclude what is irrelevant or what is hearsay. MR. RXNDSKOPFj Okay. THE COURTt So, I'll let anything in in a non-jury hearing as long as it doesn't take too much time. MR. RINDSKOPFj Okay. BY MR. RINDSKOPFj Qi Do you have any personal knowledge of this? A No, except this was an official report made to the parent group. Q. I see. And, this is a group of parents who go to your school, or — A Group of parents of Pike County. This is county-wide. Q, Okay. And what about the kindergarten? A The kindergarten I would be a little more knowledgeable of. There are three, six kindergarten classes, or, three of those classes are placed in East Pike Elementary School which is the all-k lack 13o 139 school« Three of the classes are placed in the old Pike County, Zefoulon Elementary School, which was formerly all white. Now all black students are placed down at East Pike in these three classes, and in the integrated classes at the old Sebulon Elementary School you have, it was placed, in the beginning, at the beginning of the term, about two black students in each one of the classes. It is my understanding that most of those six or eight left and went to East Pike. Q. Okay. Now let's come back to the other charges against you by the Superintendent. I think the next one would have been your behavior at a meeting where the election of Mrs. Elder was announced. Did you speak out at such a meeting? A. Yes, X did. (X How did you come to speak? A. The Superintendent stated that there had been persons who seemingly were interested in the appointment of the principal at East Pike Elementary School, and I will now make the announcement.. He made the announcement and asked for comments, and I did comment. Q. Okay. And what was the nature of your remarks? A. i told him, I said to the group that that I said to the Superintendent in private, that I was opposed to this, and since it had come up, I thought that I better make the same statement for the record that I was still opposed to the appointment of Mrs. Elde:: 13 d 140 as principal of East Pike Elementary School. 0 Okay. Were you out of order in any way? THE COURT: Was this racial? THE WITNESS: This was based more racially, I would have to say, because we had previously had a black principal there. We have about fifty per cent black students and I felt we should keep a racial balance until we were fully integrated. BY MR„ RINDSKOPF: 0 Okay. Mrs. Elder was white? A She was white. 0 And the man who resigned that she replaced was black? ft. Black. 0. Okay. Were you out of order in any way when you spoke? ft, No, I did not consider myself as being out of order. I spoke only when the time came for people to speak. 0. All right. WEre you abusive in any way? A No, I was not abusive in any way. I made it known that I had nothing personally against Mrs. Elder. I thought she was professionally trained. 0. Okay. And did anybody make you stop your remarks in the middle or anything like that? A No. I don't recall it. 0 Okay. The Superintendent didn't tell you to sit down and be quiet? 140 141 A No, ft And did the meeting continue after you finished speaking? A Yes, ft Okay. Next item I guess would be the meeting of the teachers to choose the textbook. Were you at such a meeting? A, Yes. ft Could you describe to us what the meeting was like? A This was a meeting called for the teachers of Grade 1 through 6 , and the purpose of the meeting was to adopt a textbook, a series that would be used from Grade 1 through 6, in the elementary grades. ft Okay. How many teachers were there? A I don't recall the number of teachers, but all the teachers from our school v;ere there, from 1 through 6. ft All right. It wasn't just the first grade? A No, it was not. ft All right. And THE COURT: Well, did the teachers from each grade vote on the books for their grade? THE WITNESS % No, sir. There was no vote taken at that meeting. THE COURT: Had there previously been a vote taken? THE WITNESS: No, sir. Not in a meeting I recall. THE COURT: Well, do you agree with the statement of 141 142 Mr. Daniel that the method of choosing or not choosing, but recommending a textbook for a particular grade is made by the vote of the teachers of that grade? THE WITNESS: Except for this particular meeting, I would not agree, and there was no vote taken at this meeting, so I could not agree. THE COURT: It had not been the practice or custom to allow the teachers in a particular grade to suggest the books to be used in that grade? BY MR. THE WITNESS? No, sir. RINDSKOPF: Q. At least to your knowledge this hasn't been the custom? A. To my knowledge. Q. How have textbooks previously been chosen? A. Each teacher has been permitted to select books from the State adopted list. Ql And has there been any effort made to cut down on the number of different textbooks used in the system? A. Yes. We have been told to try to stick with a single series. Q- Would that be at your school or in the whole system? A. This would be at the black schools. Q. Okay. A. We find this not to be true at the white schools at all times. 1 4 -a 143 0. Okaye Well, howt did you speak at this meeting, this meeting on the textbooks? A Yesf I did. 0. Okay . How did you come to speak? h After Mrs. Snipes had given the breakdown on the number of books found in each school, again, comments were called for. Q, Who is Mrs. Snipes? A Mrs. Snipes is the reading consultant. & She’s employed by the Board of Education? A. Well, she works with the Educational Services Group from the, from the Educational Service Center, which serves Pike County along with four or five other counties. 0. All right. And what did you say when, when you responded? A. We had talked among ourselves, the teachers of Pike Consolidated School and people at East Pike, and I said that we were not concerned with the series, whether it was Harper and Roe, or the American Book Company. We felt that all of the books listed in the State adopted list were good, but that we felt if we were going into a single series, we should get a series that was of the multiethnic nature. (X In other words, you were going to use one set of books for the entire system? Is that what you mean? A Yes c Qi By a single series THE COURTt Do you save any money by sticking to one 143 144 publisherfe series, — THE WITNESS: That's -- THE COURT: -- leaving out multiethnics or otherwise, for example, suppose that, and do you make a contract with the publisher and thereby gain some advantage if you use nothing but his books, leaving out the ethnic consideration? THE WITNESS: It's possible that you could gain some consideration from the company. THE COURT: Economic ~~ THE WITNESS: But this is not suggested nor recommended by experts. THE COURT: Well, I suppose as between publishers, suppose a publisher, all of them publish multiethnic books and other books. I suppose you could, all other things being equal, you might save some money or could you, I don't know, by dealing exclusively in the books of one publisher as distinguished from another, or do you know? THE WITNESS: I don't know, except that you might be able to get a discount. That would be about the only thing I could say. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Did anyone ever suggest at this meeting that you could get a discount? & No. Q, Okay. Now, did the meeting come to any resolution as to 144 which books the first grade was going to use next year? A After I mentioned the multiethnic series, if I recall, the Superintendent spoke up and said, Well, we won't bother about his school. We'll let him use the multiethnic book in his school, and, of course, the other schools will use the American Book Company series. 0> So, in other words, he was going to maintain the status quo? You were going to keep on using your books and the others were going to use their books? A Yes. But I objected to this. & What do you mean when you say you objected? A I said that the recommendation was not ipade based on one school, but it was made based on the school system. We felt that the book used by black and white students ought to show some faces of black and white people. £X Okay. Well, did the Superintendent tell you at this time that you had to requisition one kind of book as opposed to another, for the next year? A No, he did not change, he said that we would be permitted to use the same books we had been using, if we wanted to. Q, Okay. What happened, then, when you came to make your requisition? A When the requisition was made, we had called the companies and at that time, the American Book Company stated that they did not have a book of the multiethnic series. 145 .1 L s 146 And so, we requisitioned a book from the Harper and Roe Company, with a statement or notation stating that if the American Book Company would or did in fact have a book of the multiethnic series, we would settle for the American Book Company’s book. 0 When you say a note, you mean you wrote something on your requisition or attached a piece of paper to it? A This was attached on the note on the requisition. Qi Who wrote the note? A The note was written by the secretary and signed by niB © k Q, Okay. Do you recall when or at what time of year you made this requisition? A That would have been, I believe, at the end of ‘67-68 school year, somewhere thereabout. 0. Approximately in June? A Yes. Ql Okay. Did you ever hear anything further about the fate of your requisition? A Yes. The secretary of the Superintendent's office called me later and said that the American Book Company did have a book of the multiethnic series. Ql And what was your response? A My response was that we would settle for that book. Qi Okay. And is that in fact what happened? A Yes, that is in fact what happened. 14b 147 Qt Okay. Finally, we come to the meeting in September of this year when there was a boycott going on and you attended. How did you happen to go to that meeting? A All the students and teachers walked out, and I reported to the Superintendent. He stated that the Board might and himself might want to talk to me and I told him that I would be to the office as soon as possible. I understand a citizens group was coming and I wanted to be in with that group. Q, Okay. This was on the first day of the boycott? A. Yes. Q. And when you say All the students and teachers walked out, you mean out of your school? A Yes. Q. There were no students left? A No. Q. And what about teachers? A No teachers left. Ql So , the school was finished, for that day, would that be correct? A Yes, except for the secretary and people who work in the office. Qi Okay. Well, what time did you go to this meeting? A I don’t recall the time. 14/ 148 Q. Was it in the morning or the afternoon or — A. I think it was in the morning. I'm not certain. Q. Okay. This was on the first day of the boycott? A. On the first day. 0. Okay. Did you participate in this meeting? A. At that meeting, yes. I was in the meeting. I don't recall having met with the Board. Something happened, I don't know what went wrong in that meeting. THE COURT: What was the purpose of the boycott? THE WITNESS: The boycott was brought about because of the appointment of a white principal over a formerly black school or an all black school. THE COURT: Did you think that a boycott by the students was the way of redressing such a grievance or do you think — THE WITNESS: No, I thought it should have been settled otherwise. I thought that it could have been and should have been settled before the people were upset to this extent. THE COURT: You agree with me that it's hard to conceive of any justification for a grievance respecting teachers' employment which should be settled by having students boycott the whole educational process? THE WITNESS: I would agree that this ought not to be done, but when you get to a situation where you can't deal with the people who are responsible, it might cause this type of thing to happen. 140 149 THE COURT s Well, it wouldn't be the better part of wisdom, though, would it? THE WITNESS; No, sir. I would not consider it as being the better part of wisdom. THE COURT; All right. BY MR. RXNDSKOPFs (X Okay. And you went to the meeting to try and put things together, didn't you? A Yes. I had hoped that I would be able to. MR, CALDWELL; We object, he is leading his witness all the way around, and if he wants to coach him a little, it's all right. But we object to him leading him. THE COURT; All right, sir. I overrule the objection. Go ahead. A (Continued) I had hoped that I would be able to be of some assistance in getting the students back in school. (X Okay. Well, what did happen at the meeting? A I can't recall the first meeting. Seemingly, the Board did not meet with the group as promised or something. We didn't have that meeting as I recall. 0, Okay. What about Mr. Daniel? Was he there? A Yes. Mr. Daniel was there. CX Okay. And was there a discussion with Mr. Daniel about the situation? A Yes. If I recall correctly, there was a discussion. 14 ii 150 Q. Okay. Fine. Now what about the second day or the second meeting? When was that handled? A. That must have been the following morning. & How did you happen to be at the second meeting? A. Well* I was in the first meeting* and it was not completed, and so I felt that I should follow it up until it was completed. Q. Okay. Was school going on on that day? A. Yes* we did have about half of the student body present that day. Q. Okay. Were you at the meeting all day, or how long? A. Again* I don't recall the length of time. Q. Okay. Now, as a principal, is it customary for you to be at your school all day, every day, when school is in session? A. No. Q. What might you do otherwise than be at your school? A, Well, I have reasons to leave for any school business. Ql Okay. THE COURTS Was this a, when was this meeting? This was in September of 1968, during the boycott, was it? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And had the suit to desegregate the Pike County Schools been filed at that time? THE WITNESS: No, sir. THE COURT: It had not been filed? THE WITNESS: It had not. It grew out of that. 15 u 151 THE COURT: I see. MR. RINDSKQPF: I think the suit was filed up in October,, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. It's a matter of record. I just didn't recall. MR. RXNDSKOPF: Yes, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF? Qt Okay. Well, did you think you were there on school business? A Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And as a result of these meetings, did the boycott come to an end? A Yes, it did. Qt Okay. Now have you engaged in any civil rights activities since you've been a principal? A Yes. Qt What have you done? A I have participated in voter registration drives, you might call this civil rights. I was instrumental in getting the food stamp program adopted in the county, and things of that nature. Qt Okay. Well, how have you participated in voter registra tion? A First, we see to it that students who become eighteen years old in our school are registered, and then we put on campaigns 15 s. 152 in the county, rallies and so forth, to make people conscious of their duty in voting. 0. All right. Now what about the business with the food stamps? A We met as a county group. Then we sent committees to talk with bankers, or the two bankers, to see if we could get somebody to sponsor the food stamp program. Ql When was this? A. That must have been in the fall of *68. 0. All right. And were you successful? A. Yes. The program was adopted in the county, I believe, early in *69. 0. Do you belong to any professional groups or organizations A Yes. 0. What are those groups? A. The Georgia Teachers and Educators Association, and the National Education Association. 0. Okay. What is the Georgia Teachers and Education Association — Teachers and Educators Association? A. Yes, sir. 0. What is that group? A I don't believe I follow your question. 0. Well, what is the purpose of the Georgia Teachers and Educators Association? A. The purpose of the Georgia Teachers and Educators 15?, 153 Association is to serve the needs of youth and educators in the State of Georgia. THE COURT: What he's asking, I think, isn't that the black teachers group? THE WITNESS; We have — THE COURT: As opposed to the GEA, and in fact, didn't they recently merge their efforts, but wasn't that what it was at the start and -- THE WITNESS: It was predominantly black, but we never had a restrictive clause. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Do you hold any position in that group? A Yes, I do. 0. What position do you hold? A I am a Director. 0i All right. How long have you been a Director? A I have served one year as Director. 0. This past school year was your first? A Yes. Qt How were you chosen as a Director? A 1 was elected. 0. By whom? A By the teachers in sixteen school systems that make up Region 2. 0. I see. The State is divided up into regions? 153 154 ft. Yes. Q. Okay. You hold any other positions with that group? ft. No. Ql Okay. Now, you allege in your complaint that the reason you weren't rehired was because of your race. Can you explain to us why you feel that way? ft. I feel I've given nineteen years of good service to Pike County. I am professionally trained. I hold next to the highest professional certificate, and there I was, no other reasons that I could consider as being given validly that could lead me to any other conclusion. That is, because of my race. Q. Okay. Have there been any instances during this year which strengthened this conclusion? ft. Yes. Qt What would they be? ft. On several occasions, the Superintendent has stated to me that I shouldn't talk too much in the principals' meetings, that are integrated, because the other principals might not appreciate what I had to say, or in a meeting in which the Board was to review my case, I believe the Board had invited black citizens and myself to come in and talk with the Board about middleways of that discussion, and three local citizens came in and literally took over the meeting. They asked the questions. 0. I don't understand what you mean by your last statement, when you said they asked — 154 155 A They asked the questions. The local citizens. Q. All right*, sir. When you say local citizens, you mean white citizens? A White citizens, yes. Q. Okay. Do you know of any other instances or examples? A In a second meeting, one of the Board members stated that he would not vote for me for principal because none of the white folks wanted me to be principal in the system. Q. All right. Who is this Board member? A His last name is Alexander. I don't recall the first name. Q. Okay. Since the Board has not re-elected you for the next year -- THE COURT; Now, wait just a minute. This was at a meeting called to reconsider their action in not extending you a contract? It was after the act had been done? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. BY MR. RINDSKOPF; Q, Okay. Was that all he said? Did he indicate when he held these views? A No, I don't recall him having indicated when. Q, Okay. Since you have not been elected, have you receivec any offers to teach in any other system? A Yes, I've had one offer. 15 b 156 Q. Where was that and for what job? A. That was in Monterey, California. I had an offer for the principalship of a high school there. Q. Okay. MR. RINDSKOPF: The witness is with you. 0O0 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Mr. Glover, these two meetings -- I think the Court asked you a question, but I wasn't sure that I understood it -- these meetings where these people took over the meeting that you testified to, was that before or after you knew that you had not been recommended for the coming school year by the Superintendent? A. That was after. Q. All right, sir. Now, Mr. Glover, in selecting teachers, you heard the Superintendent testify this morning that principals recoiamend the teachers to him, and he in turn recommends to the Board, is this correct? A. That's correct. 0/ Tell me how you evaluate your teachers for recommendation? A. I observe them during the school year. Q, Is that the only criteria you have? A. That's the only criteria I have, if the teacher is working in the school. Ql Then her certificates or the number of years of teaching 156 157 in your school has nothing to do with your recommendation? A. For that particular year, if the teacher has been working, I observe the teacher for that year. Q. Only? A. Only* on my recommendations. Q. You take into consideration nothing else except your observation of her during that year? A. That's all I take consideration of, that year. Q, All right, sir. Now, if you were the Superintendent, it would be your duty to recommend principals, is that correct? A That's correct. Q. Would you make your recommendation of principals on the same criteria that you recommend teachers? A. Yes. Q. Then you feel that it was fair for Mr. Daniel to make his recommendation or non-recommendation as the case was, based on his observation of you during the year? A. No. Q. What’s the difference? A. The difference would be that in, if I had been recommend ing principals or teachers, rather, as a principal, the school would not have been in a transition period. And, I would base my recommendation on that particular teacher for that year for reemployment. Q. Yes, sir. But my question was, what would be the 15 i 158 difference? You say that Mr. Daniel did not act fairly in doing the very same thing you have said you would have done. What would be the difference? A. The difference would have been he would have doing it based on race. Q. Dan you prove this? A. I believe I can prove it. Q. Would you give us some instances? A. The instances that I gave a few minutes ago, I believe, would be sufficient. 0i I don’t recall any. Would you please recite them to me? A. My long years of service in the county, what I believe to be good service. My certification, and my qualification as principal, plus the incidents that I named, namely, in a Board meeting wherein citizens and myself were supposed to meet to air the non-renewal of my contract, and the statement made by the citizens in another Board meeting wherein one of the Board members stated flatly that the white people didn't want me to be principal. 0. But isn't it a fact that you have just stated under oath that were you the Superintendent, you would have considered the principals on the same criteria that you would consider teachers? A. Yes c Q But yet, you do not accord the Superintendent presently 15 ti 159 the same privilege that you would have operated under? A One exception. & Yes, sir. A Race. & Then it's your testimony that everything Mr. Daniel did was racially motivated? & It is my testimony that everything Mr. Daniel did was racially motivated. a All of his operations have been racially motivated? A All of the reasons he gave for idn-renewa1 of my contract were racially motivated. & All right, sir. Do you contend that your failure to show up at the meetings in Griffin showed good faith on your part as a principal in that system? A Yes, sir; I do. Q. Was it voluntary on the part of the other principals to attend? A Yes, it was voluntary. & To your knowledge, did they attend? A To my knowledge, they did. I’ll have to assume. I don't know, because I didn't attend. fr Do you have any reports from your teachers that did attend? A Yes, I do have repotts from them. & Did the other principals attend? 15a 160 A. Yes. Q. In your opinion,, as a school administrator, did this show an interest in the program by these principals? A. Yes. & Then your absence would show the contrary, would it not? A. No. & Why would it not, Mr. Glover? A. Because it is my understanding that the Superintendent was the head of the team. He was supposed to ask those people to go to the meeting, and he did in fact call to the school and ask for certain teachers to attend the meeting. He did not include me. Q. Did you receive a notice of the neetings? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did it state the time and place? A. Yes, it did. Q. The purpose? A. Yes, it did. Q. This did not arouse any concern, on your part? A. Yes, it did. Q. Then what stopped you from going? A. I didn't go because I didn't want to get into a tangle, because the Superintendent had said that he didn't want me to express my opinions, and I just don't like to attend meetings where I can't express my opinion. 160 161 ft Oh*, where did he tell you he didn't want you to express your opinion? Ac He has told me that of different occasions. He has told me that in his office and at our school. 0- 3.s a matter of fact, isn't it true that he told you he didn't like for you to make outbursts in meetings? Isn’t that what he said? A, No, he said "express an opinion." Q. Was that racially motivated? A Yes. Q, Now, Mr. Glover, with reference to the testing that you heard Mr. Daniel testify to here and the testing that you said that you opposed violently, isn’t it true that in the GTEA JOURNAL of last fall, you wrote a long article saying that all standardized tests were set up against the colored race? A Yes o 0, Then you are opposed to any kind of testing, is this correct? A I am opposed to testing if it is used incorrectly. Q How would you go about using these tests correctly? A You would go about using the tests correctly by testing for a specific purpose that will be non-racial; that would be to help the student. Q. Well, then, Mr. Glover, tell me what is the purpose of testing? 161 162 k We have different kind of tests, so that the purpose of testing is to find out information, should be, to find out information that otherwise you wouldn't know about a student, Q. Isn't it true that this type of testing has been done in your school before? A. Yes. Q. Was it not the purpose of that testing to take a child from whence he was found and carry him forward as far as his ability would allow him to go? A. Not necessarily so. Q. Tell me what's it for, the test you have had in your school? A. The purpose of the test administered in my school was to find out the progress the child had made in order that we might be able to work with him. Q. Did you not testify when your deposition was given in Zebulon that the purpose of the standardized test was to take a child where you found him and carry him as far as his ability would allow him to go? A. I believe, if I remember correctly, I said that could be a purpose. THE COURT; What was the difference in this one as compared to the previous one? THE WITNESS; The difference in this one as compared with the orevious one was that the black people were not 162 brought in on the planning for the test, and we were suspicious of the purpose. THE COURT: Were they brought in on the planning of the previous test? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Has a similar test been given in years gone by? THE WITNESS: We had had a testing program for many years, eight or twelve years or something of that nature. THE COURT: Achievement tests? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Of each child, to show where he was measuring up, whether he was measuring up to the grade he was in or to a national standard, I assume, for that grade. THE WITNESS: Yes. Not all grades. We selected grades, system-wide. THE COURT: Well, what is there or was there which led you to believe that while that kind of testing might be worthwhile or might have been worthwhile in previous years, that for this year as distinguished from previous years it was racially motivated? THE WITNESS: The type test we were using was changed. We had a testing program. The planning for the test should be cooperatively done. It was not cooperatively done. THE COURT: You mean as far as parents were concerned? 163 16 3 164 THE WITNESS: As far as teachers and parents were concerned, and principals. THE COURT: How ms it done? How was, how did the way it was done this time differ from the way in which it had been done previously? THE WITNESS: Previously, we had planned cooperatively for the testing program. In this particular test, -- THE COURT: Throughout the system? THE WITNESS: Throughout the system. For this particular test, we didn't know anything about it except I got a letter stating that the test, that the Board of Education had decided to go into a testing program, and giving the dates that the tests were supposed to have been given, and this letter itself made us suspicious because it stated that Mr. Fletcher, who is black, Mrs. Batch who is black, would be assisted in giving the test at Pike Consolidate which is black, and East Pike, which is black, by a Mrs. Bates, who is white. Now we felt that it was, felt that the white counselor would supervise the black counselor in administering the test to the black students, but would not be given an opportunity to administer tests to the white students. This led to some suspicion. THE COURT; All right. Were there, the assistants, were 164 165 they, any black assistants assisting to administer the same tests in the white schools? THE WITNESS: In the original letter, this was not the intent. However, we got a followup letter, I understand, after some discussion of this -- well, somebody had discussed that the Hack community was a little upset about this. Then we had a followup letter which stated that all counselors would administer tests at all of the schools. THE COURT: Well, did that alleviate your suspicion? THE WITNESS: It alleviated my suspicion, but it was too late to do the job that we could have done with the parent, I would think. THE COURT: Well, did you encourage or -- what did you do with your students to encourage them to take or not take the test? THE WITNESS: I was asked to do one thing, and that was to make the schools available for testing, and cooperate in any other way the counselors might request. THE COURT: Well, did you encourage the parents or the children to take the tests? THE WITNESS: No, I did not. THE COURT: Did you encourage them not to take it? THE WITNESS: No, I did not. THE COURT:. Did you discuss with the parents whether the 165 166 children should or should not take it? THE WITNESS: No, I did not discuss it with them. THE COURT: All right, sir. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. When did you receive this followup letter? A It would have been about eight or ten days or maybe more later. THE COURT: After the first letter? THE WITNESS: After the first letter. THE COURT: But still before the tests were administered? THE WITNESS: It was before the test was administered. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Is it not a fact, Mr. Glover, that the testing began at Pike County Elementary? A It is my understanding that it did begin there. Q. And is it not also true that both white and black counselors administered the test -there? A This is my understanding. 0. Isn't it also a fact that this test is graded by machine and not by teachers? A This is my understanding. Q. Then the white or black counselors would not have had any way of cheating on the test, would they? A Oh yes. There are many ways you can cheat on a test. Q. How do you go about doing it? 3 66 1$7 A. Teachers can lead students to the right answer. If only black people were giving the test to black students, they can lead them to the right answer. If only white people are giving the test to white students, they can lead them to the right answer. & But in this instance, we had both? A. We had both. 0. Did you believe with both present they did cheat? A. No, I do not. Q. And you had knowledge that there would be both prior to the time the tests were given in your school? A. Prior to the time of the testing, yes. 0- And you still did nothing to encourage the taking of the tests? A. No, I had not been asked except to cooperate with the counselors as they came to our school. & Well, Mr. Glover, as principal of the school, isn't it your duty to do the best you can for the students there? A. Yes, it is my duty to do the best I can for the students there. Q. Do you feel that you shouldn't encourage them to attend regularly just because the Superintendent doesn't ask you to? A. No. 0- Well, do you fail to ask them to study and bring their grades up just because the Superintendent doesn't ask you to? 167 169 stamp. Qt Is it unusual for a professional man of your calibre to degrade the professional standards of another citizen of the same calibre? A. It is unusual, because we're not always tinder oath. MR. RINDSKOPF? I object, Your Honor. I fail to see the relevance and purpose of this question. He asked him what his opinion was — THE COURT: Well, he's already answered it, now. And his answer may very well explain it. MR. RINDSKOPFs All right, sir. THE COURT? Lot of times, under oath, you have to say something about people you might not like to say otherwise. I think that's what he's saying. All right. Go ahead. BY MR. CALDWELL? 0. Now, with reference to the principals meeting in August of last year, Mr. Glover, when Mrs. Elder was introduced as the new principal of East Pike Elementary, you made some objection, did you not? A. Yes. g. Is it a principal's duty to make selection of other principals? A. No. Q, Was it in fact any of your business or that of any of 1 S :J 170 the other principals, contractually, as to what person was selected for another principalship? A. Yes, in a sense it would have been. Q. All right, sir. Tell me in what sense. A. In the sense that it was based on race. Q. How was it based on race? A. Mrs. Elder was selected to be the principal of an all-black school, and I had talked with the Superintendent. I discussed with him the possibility, that is, the plan, the Pike County Board of Education had with HEW, and I asked him flatly if the schools were consolidated, the high school at Concord and high school at Zebulon were consolidated, if he selected Mrs. Elder on the basis of her certification and qualification, would he do the same thing for the high school principal, would he look around in the county and find a person with the highest certifica tion and longer years of tenure and appoint him principal of that school. And his answer was, No. Q. And this was prior to Mrs. Elder's meeting? A. That was prior to Mrs. Elder's meeting. 0. Was there in fact an opening at the high school? A. In the plan, there was in fact an opening. THE COURTS Well, — BY MR. CALDWELL t Q. Had Mr. ~ 1 7 o 171 MR. CALDWELL: Excuse me, Your Honor. THE COURTs It has nothing, perhaps, to do with the facts on which this case has to be decided, but wouldn't you say it's rather unfortunate, a rather unfortunate development if what you say is true, that your objection to Mrs. Elder was based on race and his objection to you was based on race, hadn't this thing degenerated into a sort of titfor tat proposition? THE WITNESS: No, sir, Your HOnor. There would be a difference. In my objection, I was objecting to the elimina tion of the extent of black folks from the teaching profession, and his -- THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, and then I want to ask you another question. THE WITNESS: And his objection would have simply been on a, based on the fact that he didn't want a black person to be principal of a school where white children were attend ing. THE COURT: Even if your replacement was to be another black person? THE WITNESS: We're talking about two different schools now. THE COURT: Well, yes, but I say, do you concede that your objection to Mrs. Elder was based on race? You had said you had no objection to her personally or to her qualifications, 17i 172 it was based solely on race. You say that his discharge of you was based solely on race and this, you say, is true although a black person was selected tentatively at least to succeed you. So I say, isn't it unfortunate that it appears that the whole situation on both sides has degenerated into a tit for tat proposition? You kicked my dog, I kick your cat. And the only people who are suffering are the children of the county, white and black. THE WITNESS: No, sir, Your Honor. I, there would be a difference. As I stated before, the plan, as I see it, would be to put a black principal over a school that would be more of a rubber stamp and not in fact principal of the school. THE COURT: Well, now, we're talking here about racial -— your evaluation of him as a rubber stamp may be correct, I don't know the man, of course — but do you think that's a decision that you are permitted to make? THE WITNESS: Well, from the things that happened, may I could explain that, in March, according to a press release, the Board of Education hired a curriculum director and made this curriculum director parttime Superintendent. This person is white and her office, this is a new office is supposed tote at Pike Consolidated School. She would be 1 ? 2 173 Assistant Superintendent with an office in Pike Consolidated School. This,, in effect, could mean that the person who is principal would in fact not be principal, and I feel that it was felt that I couldn't be that person. THE COURT; Now, this is the person who had been defeated for county school Superintendent some place else? THE WITNESS; No, sir. This is another person, entirely. THE COURT; Well, this job apparently has not been mentioned before. Is this the first time somebody has been employed for thi s job? THE WITNESS; This is the first time. THE COURT; It's a new office? THE WITNESS; It's a new office. Yes, sir. THE COURT: And I gather a white lady was employed? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And she was to be stationed at, at your school? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. THE COURT: Which I judge you rather resented? THE WITNESS: Well, if I had been appointed principal of that school, I couldn't see the necessity for it. THE COURT: Had there been, prior to the episode in September, had there been any announced plan in Pike County at 17 3 any time;, formally or informally, toward integration of faculty? Mrs. Elder was — your colored principal or negro principal resigned, and somewhere in the pleadings I seem to recall he resigned to take a job with the Government, I believe, did he not? THE WITNESS; I don't know. THE COURT; He didn't resign because he was forced to, did he? THE WITNESS; You mean Mr. Frazier? THE COURT; Yes. THE WITNESS; Mr. Frazier took a similar job elsewhere. THE COURT; I mean he voluntarily resigned? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. THE COURT: And Mrs, Elder was selected to replace him? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: At that time, or prior to that time, had there been any announced policy or practice or plan to commence integration of faculty? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. We — THE COURT; Among the races as between black and white? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. We had one black person who was a fulltime teacher at the Pike County High School, which is predominantly white? and we had two parttime teachers at our school, which is predominantly black? and we had one or 174 174 175 two parttime teachers at the other predominantly black school. THE COURT: So, there had been at least a little bit of faculty integration? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Well, was the placing of Mrs. Elder there in furtherance of that plan? I gather you say it was not in furtherance of the faculty integration, but was a part of the plan for eliminating a negro principal? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That would have made three white principals and one black principal. THE COURT: Whereas there had been two and two? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Now, let me ask you another question, which was suggested by one of your answers while ago. What has been the trend in recent years, let’s say, the last two years, with respect to the number of black teachers employed as compared to the number of white teachers employed ■ THE WITNESS: We have — THE COURT: — and has the number of black teachers been on the increase or on the decrease? THE WITNESS: The number of black teachers has been some what, well, it decreased for some years, and then it kind of pared off the last few years, and it's been about the same for the last five years or six years. THE COURT: Is there any trend that's discernible now, I 1 7 5 176 mean in , in recent hirings, has there been any discrimination or unfairness, in your opinion or observation, in the number of black teachers hired as compared with the number of white teachers hired? THE WITNESS: If we could use this as aids, and teachers, I would say yes, this is one of the things that happened in September, immediately when Mrs. Elder was made principal, the black community lost a black secretary, I believe about two black aids, and there, it is my understanding, and I don't know this to be a fact, but that there would have been an additional white teacher, a black teacher would not have been hired. THE COURT: Were these formerly black persons, aids and so forth, discharged? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And whites were hired in their place? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: That was sort of, I gather Mr. Frazier had a staff when he was principal? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And what you're saying is, and that I suppose was a black staff? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And what you're saying is that when Mrs. Elder came in, she was going to bring her staff with her, and 1 7 b 177 it was a white staff? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Resulting in discharge of the black staff of the former principal? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. THE COURT; And so, it was not merely resentment over a new white principal, but, substituting for a black principal or to succeed a black principal, but the substitu tion of a new staff? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. All this was part of it. THE COURT; Well, what does the staff of a principal consist of? THE WITNESS; Well, my staff would be a secretary, and then I have an aid which is a parttime secretary, but you would have other aids that would be considered as part of the teaching force, I would say. THE COURT; You mean — are aids actually teachers who are simply designated as aids? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. They are teachers, teachers to aid the classroom teachers. THE COURT; That would not be true of a secretary? I assume she's a fulltime secretary? THE WITNESS; Yes, sir. THE COURT: Well, who exercised the privilege of discharging Mr. Frazier's aids and replacing them with white 1 7 / 178 aids „ THE WITNESS : According to my information, upon talking with the aids, the Superintendent stated to them that Mrs. Elder had a right to name her secretary and to name the aids in her school. THE COURT; Is that customarily true? THE WITNESS; No, sir, not for a person going into a school that has a secretary and aids. You would assume that these people are already there, they are employed. THE COURT; All right, sir. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Mr. Glover, who employs and discharges your aids? A. I recommend the aids. They are employed by the Superintendent. Q. How about the secretary? A. I recommend the secretary, but the secretary is employed by the Superintendent. But if — and when I went to Concord, we had a secretary, and therefore I did not recommend a secretary. We had to keep her. Q. All right. Now, — THE COURT; You said you had to keep her? You mean you had no choice in the matter? THE WITNESS: I had no choice. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Who told you you had no choice in the matter? 1 7 d 179 k The Superintendent told me that I had no choice in the matter. Ql How about next year? A. The next year I did have some choice in the matter. Q, Did you make a change? k She left. Ql All right. Now, isn8t it true that one of the aids of Mr. Frazier resigned to go off to school? A. I don't know whether this person resigned or, before or after Mr. Frazier left. I don't know. Q. Which one of them was it that told you that she had been discharged? k We had a Mrs. Lewis who was not certain of her job. Qt Now, did she tell you she had been discharged? k She was not certain of her job. No, she did not say she had been discharged as such. Qi Well, then -- go ahead, who was the next one? k Then we had, I believe, an Evans and then we had a — • Ql What did Evans state to you? k I don't know whether I talked with Evans or not, but it was my understanding that she would not have a job. Ql From whom? k It was my understanding from the parents organization that she would not have a job. 0. Now was this brought up at a, an official parents meeting 7 3 180 and they told you they had investigated? A This was discussed* yes. Q. Who discussed it? A The parents. 0. Well* which parents? A I couldn't say which parents. This was a general discussion. Q. And they told you that Mrs. Lewis was not certain* and they didn't know about Evans* is this correct? A That's correct. Q. All right. Now* who was the next one? A The next one was a Miss Stanley. 0. What happened to her? A Miss Stanley told me that she was not, and in fact she did not work the first two weeks of school. 0. Was not what? THE COURT: Now wait just a minute. We’re talking about what you understand and what someone told you. What actually happened* did all these people actually leave their jobs? THE WITNESS: For a while, it is my understanding that all of them lost their jobs. But I'm certain that Miss Stanley lost her job in the process. THE COURT: You say for a while* you mean, what* Mrs. Elder* I judge resigned* did she* after some time? 1 6t) 181 THE WITNESS? Yes, she resigned after about two weeks. THE COURT? And who replaced her? THE WITNESS : A Mrs. Miller. THE COURT: And did Mrs. Miller then go forward with the staff formerly held by Mr. Frazier. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: With one exception? THE WITNESS: Yes, with one exception, I believe. THE COURT; So, what happened was, Mr. Frazier had a black staff, Mrs. Elder, did she ever actually bring in a white staff? THE WITNESS: I understand, it is my understanding that she did. I did not visit the school as such. THE COURT: So, Mr. Frazier had a black staff, Mrs. Elder brought in a white staff, she was replaced by Mrs. Miller who brought in a black staff? THE WITNESS: Yes. I don't know how it happened, but this is what happened. THE COURT: Well, sort of some more tit for tat, isn't it? THE WITNESS: No, sir. It's not the same thing. THE COURT: Well, what's the difference? THE WITNESS: The difference is that these are black people that were eliminated, and jobs were created for white people. 161 182 THE COURT? Then the white people resigned and the blacks were put back in? THE WITNESS t Yes* The black people resigned and these people who had been previously hired -- THE COURT? Mr. Glover, how do you think we're ever going to solve the school problems of Pike County if each side continues this attitude? THE WITNESS? The attitude will be overweighed, Your Honor, in one instance, let's say we have ten black aids and secretaries and we have ten whites, but when somebody comes over and says we're going to have fifteen whites and five blacks, this is elimination — THE COURT: This isn't what happened, according to what you said. THE WITNESS? Yes, sir. You had white, you still •— • THE COURT: It depended on who the principal was, whether they were all white or all black. If you had a black principal with a black staff, substituted a white principal, they brought a white staff, for some reason, sufficient to herself, and then she left and was succeeded by a black principal with another black staff, so it looks to me like this is a pork barrel proposition. Whichever race gets hold of the office puts its people in there. THE WITNESS: You see, this is what happeh5* You got four schools. You still have the white staff at the two white IH2 183 schools, but you only had, you had a white staff at one black school, so now you've got a white staff at three black schools and if you put all white folks in leadership -- THE COURT? You'll have to explain that a little bit. This is, I hadn't, we haven't been into that. We were talking about the one that Mr. Frazier, Mr. Frazier’s school, followed by Mrs. Elder, followed by Mrs. Miller, now how did this three-to-one ratio come about? THE WITNESS: We still had two all-black schools and two-all white schools. We still had a — THE COURT: I see. You say this disturbed the equilibrium between the two. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Instead of two and two, it was three and one? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. CALDWELL: 0. How long in fact did that stand, Mr. Glover, that ratio? & A It stood for about two weeks or until Mrs. Elder was replaced by Mrs. Miller. 0. Right. Now, you stated a minute ago that Mrs. Stanley was part of Mr. Frazier's staff, is that correct? A Yes, sir. 0. Isn't it true that she was employed at your school — 1 3 3 184 A. She -- & and asked for a transfer over to that school? A. Yes, sir. And she had been employed and accepted for employment. £). But she was actually a part of your staff rather than Mr. Frazier's staff, isn't that true? A. Not for the * 68-69 school term; no, sir. 0. Did she ever work over there? A. Yes, sir. 0- When did she work over at East Pike? A. '67-68 school year. 0. She worked at East Pike? A. At Pike Consolidated. Q, When did she work at East Pike? A. She was employed to work for the term. *-6 8-6 9. 0. Did she in fact work there? A. After two weeks, she started work and worked all of the term. Q. Mr. Glover, as to percentages,, what is the percentage of the white students as compared with the black students in Pike County School system, or by saying it the reverse, whichever one you choose to take? A. I would say it is approximately fifty-fifty. Q. All right, sir. Now, what is the composition as to 1 o 4 faculty? 185 h At my last count,, it was approximately fifty-fifty. Ql Did you not state under oath that to the best of your knowledge all black teachers with the exception of two that taught in the school system last year, had been offered contracts for the coming year? A. That6 s true. THE COURT: What happened to those two? Do you contend race was involved in their elimination? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Those two people would have been Mrs. Betts and Mrs. Batts. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q, Now, Mr. Glover, with reference to Mrs. Batts, are you aware of how Mrs. Batts' salary was paid? A. I have an idea. I'm not aware. Qi What is your idea? A. My idea is that she was employed as a curriculum director using Pike County as a base, but in cooperation with Taylor County, which would mean that they would share her salary equally, and under some setup, Pike County would pay her one year and Taylor County would pay her the other year. Q. Do you know whose turn it is for the coming year? A. She told me that it would be Taylor County's term for the following year. 0. So, then, she would be employed by Taylor County the coming year? I b 5 186 M- Nof sir.. I understand she always received her contract from Pike County. Q. Where did she perform her services? A. In Pike and Taylor Counties. Q. Where was her home? A. Her home, I believe , is in Fort Valley. 0- Then she commuted from Fort Valley to Taylor or to Pike, whichever her duties called for? A. I assume so. Qt Then her base of operation was Fort Valley, and her employment was in two counties, Taylor and Pike, is this correct? JL When you say base of operation, I don't believe I follow you. Q. You said a minute ago that her base of operation was in Pike, but she lives in, I assume you were talking about her residential base, and that she works fifty-fifty in two counties. A. No, sir. I was talking about her contractual base. 0- Is that just for one year, last year? A. No, sir. That has been the custom in the county for some eight or ten years. THE COURT; Is she to still continue in her duties, regardless of where the contract is, is she still working for both counties just as she always has? THE WITNESS; No, sir. It’s my understanding that a Mrs. Lorraine Williams has been hired as curriculum director ldb 187 and part, and Assistant Superintendent. This would be the job that was held by Mrs. Batts. THE COURTS This is the new job that you spoke of while ago? THE WITNESS : Yes, sir. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Mr. Glover, did Mrs. Batts also tell you that Taylor County had told her they could not pay her this year? A She told me that Taylor County told her that the county was delaying her position for a year. & Well, this would be the coming year? A Yes. Q. All right. Did she also tell you that Mr. Daniel had offered her a teaching job, fulltime? A Yes. Q. All right. THE COURT; That would be in Taylor County? MR. CALDWELL: No, Mr. Daniel, in Pike. THE COURT: Oh, in Pike. Yes. BY MR. CALDWELL: 0. Did she also inform you that she had stated she did not want a teaching job? A Yes. Q. And that Taylor County had told her that they would have to delay her contract for one year? 1 b 7 188 k Yes. you know any more about it? THE WITNESS: No, sir. It is not for lack of funds, according to my understanding. You see, from the State Department of Education, each county would earn so many section twelve people. Pike County earned a half, and Taylor County earned a half, so it would be possible for these two counties to exchange the use of a person. THE COURT: Do you know whether for lack of funds or do THE COURT: I see what you're saying. Then Pike hired somebody else to do the job, which meant they wouldn't pay their half, and then Taylor said they couldn carry the whole burden. Is that what you're saying? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Either way. Either way. It would be the same thing. THE COURT: All right. We're getting far afield, perhaps through my own question. MR. CALDWELL: With Your Honor's permission, I would like to ask one or two more questions along that line. THE COURT: All right. BY MR.CALDWELL: t 0. And isn't it true and didn't you just state that Pike County paid one year's salary and Taylor County the next year, unde:: I b t i 189 an arrangement with the State Board of Education, or Department of Education? A. Yes, I would assume it was under an arrangement with the Department of Education. Q. And the coming school year was Taylor's year to pay the nine thousand dollars, is that true? A. Yes, I understand that was the arrangement. Q. All right. MR. CALDWELL: That's all I have. THE COURT: All right. Anything else, Mr. Rindskopf? MR. RINDSKOPF: You can come down. THE COURT: All right, sir. You may step down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:24 p.m.) 0O0 THE COURT: Let me ask you one more question — ■ come back and have a seat again, Mr. Glover — 0O0 D. F. GLOVER, Upon resuming the stand, testified further as follows: THE COURT: What, Mr. Glover, are you seeking in this lawsuit? Restoration of your position? THE WITNESS: I'm seeking the restoration in my position as principal of the Senior High School of Pike County. I B s 190 tranquility in the Pike County schools for the year *69 and ' 70? THE WITNESS: I think it is going to be tough. But not without hope. THE COURT: Do you think that the controversy over you is going to make it easier or harder -- not that it necessarily has anything to do with your legal rights one way or the other, Mr. Glover. THE WITNESS: I don’t think the controversy over me would make it necessarily any harder, but I do think that the controversy would make it harder. THE COURT: You mean, I don't know, I don't know that I understand you. You think at best it’s going to be difficult to bring about harmony between the races and tranquility in the school system? Now I understand that this particular controversy and the events of the last few weeks of school, which I judge were precipitated by the failure to retender your contract, is that going to make it more difficult or less difficult? THE WITNESS: I think it's going to make it more difficult It would have been better had we not had the incident. THE COURT: All right, sir. You may step down. MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor please, may I ask him one other THE COURT: What do you think the prospects are for 1 9 0 191 question? 0O0 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Mr. Glover, for the best interest of any school system, is the cooperation between the Superintendent and his principals necessary? A. Yes, sir. It is necessary. MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. 0O0 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0. At any time during this school year, did Mr. Daniel tell you that you were not cooperating with him? A No, sir. 0- Did he ever tell you to cease doing something or to start to do something? A. No, sir. MR. RINDSKOPF: You can come down. THE COURT: All right. You may step down. oOo (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:27 p.m.) oOo THE COURT: Yes, sir. i s i 192 MR. RINDSKOPF: Call Mrs. Louise Batts. She was not here when the witnesses were called, Your Honor, but she has arrived and she has remained out of the Courtroom. THE COURT: All right. CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the issue joined between D. F. Glover versus Harold T. Daniel, et al, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? MRS. BATTS: I do. CLERK: Have a seat please, ma'am. 0O0 LOUISE BATTS, Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Louise Batts. Q, Mrs. Batts, you'll have to speak louder so we — A. Louise Batts. 0. — can hear you back here. Okay. Have you held a position with the Pike County Schools this past year? THE COURT: All right*, Mr. Rindskopf. 1 9 2 193 Q. What was that position? A. Parttime curriculum director. 0, All right. And were you parttime also in Taylor County? A. Yes. 0 Okay. Who paid your salary for that past year? A. I got paid through Pike County. 0. Did Pikd County pay it all or did they get a contribution from Taylor, or do you know? A I don't know. I just got paid through Pike County. Q. Okay. And you were a parttime curriculum director? A. Yes. Q. What did this job entail? A. Well, work with the curriculum and I mostly worked with the elementary teachers in methods, technique, lesson plans, and I also tested with the, for the reading, special reading group and scored the tests, and evaluated the tests and the reading program. 0, Okay. What is your educational background? What is your educational background? A. Well, where I finished college, you mean? Q, Yes. A. I received a BS Degree from the Fort Valley State College Masters Degree from Tuskegee Institute, and I did additional studies with Atlanta University and also with the University of Georgia. Q. All right. Do you have any certificates? A. Yes, 193 194 Q. All right. Any others? A. No. Q. And how long have you been a curriculum director? A Six years. Q. Have you been shared between Pike and Taylor for these six years? A. Five years between Pike and Taylor Counties. Q. Okay. And which county did you work in before that? A. I worked in Schley, Webster and Chattahoochee County in 8 62. 0. Okay. Now, what is your status going to be next year, '69 and '70? A. Well, I’m in a teaching job, I’ll have a teaching position next year. 0. Where will you teach? A, Taylor County. 0. In Taylor County? A. Yes. Q. And you live in Fort Valley, — A. Yes. 0. -- is that right? How long of a commute is that? A, Well, fourteen miles from Peach County to Taylor County. That's Fort Valley to Taylor County. m A. Yes. I have a curriculum director certificate, five year 195 (X Okay. How, why aren't you going to be a curriculum director next year? A. Well, my job was postponed for a year. 0. What do you mean when you say it was postponed? A. Well, 1 won't have it for next year. It will be postponed for a year. Q. You expect to have it again in 1970-71? A. Well, I don't know. I was told it was postponed for a year. Q. And is that for both counties? A. Well, that was the Board of Education, Board members of Taylor County postponed it for a year. Q. Well, what did they do in regard to your job over in Pike County? A. Well, since I was working in both counties, I just presume I was out for Pike County because I was shared with both of them, you know. 0. Okay. When did you learn this? A. I believe it was in May I learned it, that the job was postponed. Q, In May. Okay. Had they gone ahead and gotten a new curriculum director in Pike County before May? A. I think so. I saw it in the paper they had one before May. 1 9 5 196 0. Before May? A. Yes. 0. I see. And who was this? A. Well, Mr. Daniel told me they had, I believe, Miss Williams. Q. Is she black or is she white? A. She's a white lady. Q, All right. And, in other words, they went ahead and they got a new curriculum director before you knew you weren't going to be it, is that right? A. Yes, before I knew I was, you know, I didn't have a job in the, you know, in both counties, they had one. 0. I see. Is she a fulltime curriculum director or is she a parttime curriculum director? A. I, I think Mr. Daniel told me she would be parttime. Q. Just like you were? A. Well, I don't know just like I was, but he told me part- time, and she would help in the office the other part time. Q. I see. Did he ever offer you that kind of job? A. No. 0. Do you make more money or less money as a teacher than you did as a curriculum director? A. Less „ 0. Less? A. Less. 1 9 b 197 Q. All right. Now,, since you've been a curriculum director, have you had a chance to observe Mr. Glover's school? A Yes. Q. How frequently would you go to Mr. Glover's school? A< I will go once, on Wednesdays, and some Fridays, because I was, would go, in one county one Friday and the other county the other Friday. And then I would get around to each school maybe about one Friday per month, since I was working with four schools, and, therefore, sometime I would be there twice a week and sometime once a week. 0. Okay. How long have you been in the teaching profession? I don't think I asked you that. A. Twenty-six years. Q. How does Mr. Glover's school compare with the others that you have seen and visited in these twenty-six years? A. Well, his is as good as any other schools I have gone in. Q. Is it better than some? A. Well, about as good as the others I have gone in. 0. Okay. Have you had any interaction with Mr. Glover in the course of your job? A. Yes. Q. Is he, from the standpoint of his job, capable, in your opinion? 19 7 A. To me he has performed it well. 198 MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. The witness is with you. 0O0 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Mrs. Batts, I believe you said that it would be Taylor County Board that postponed your job for a year? A. That's right. Taylor. That's, the Taylor County Board. Q. Right. Now, have you ever served as a principal? Have you ever served as a principal of a school? A. No, I haven't. Q. Have you ever served as Superintendent any place? A. No, I haven't. Q. Then, it has not been your duty as a principal or Superintendent to evaluate other teachers for their profession in such capacity, has it? A. 1 didn't understand the question. 0. Has it ever, have you ever had employment that required you to evaluate teachers as a principal would or as a Superintendent would? A. Well, I evaluate teachers. I have evaluated teachers. I don’t know whether it was the same way the principals or the Superintendents did it, but I have evaluated teachers. 0. But have you done it in the same capacity as they? A. Not the same capacity, but I have evaluated them. MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. That's all I have. 1 9o 199 THE COURT; Did 1 understand that you were also offered employment as a teacher in Pike as well as in Taylor? THE WITNESS; I have been offered — THE COURT: For the coming year? THE WITNESS: For a teacher, that's right. THE COURT: And you chose Taylor? THE WITNESS: Well, yes. THE COURT: Is that closer to your home? THE WITNESS: It is closer. THE COURT: All right. You may go down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:37 p.m.) oOo MR. RINDSKOPF: Mr. Halley Derr. oOo HALLEY DERR, Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0. Would you state your name, please? A. Halley Derr. Q. You were sworn this morning, weren't you, Mr. Derr? A. Yes, I was. 19 d 200 o. All right. Where do you live? A, 1800 Memorial Drive, Southeast. o. In Atlanta? A. Yes it is. 0. Did you hold a position with the Pike County Board of Education last year? A. Yes, I did. Q. What was that position? A. Teacher, social studies and French. Q- And where did you do your teaching? A. 0. At Pike Consolidated High. Okay. And do you have a contract to teach with them again next year? A. Yes, I do. o. To teach the same subjects? A. Yes. Q. All right. What grades did you teach? A. Taught tenth, eleventh and tx-zelth. & What is your educational background? A. I have a BS Degree with a DT4 certificate. o. Have you done any work beyond your BS Degree? A. Yes, I have. Q. But you don’t have a Masters Degree yet? A. No, I haven't. Q. All right. How long have you taught at Pike County 201 A. Taught there for two years. Q. And hoxv long have you been in teaching? A. I've been in teaching for eight years. 0. Where have you taught before that? A. Previously, I taught in McRae, Georgia. Q. In McRae? A. Yes. 0. What county is that? A. Telfair County. Q. Okay. What did you teach over there? A. Social studies and French. Q. All right. How does Pike County Consolidated compare with the other schools in which you have taught? A. Well, I would say that the Pike County Consolidated School could be classed as superior over the school that I worked in previously. 0. Okay. Have you had a chance to interact with the principal at Pike Connty Consolidated since you've been teaching there? A. Yes, I have. Q. And how would you describe those interactions? A. Well, I would describe the interactions as being very good. I would consider the principal a very good administrator. 0. School runs smoothly? A. Yes. — kll O 1 0. Has he had a chance to observe you at your teaching? A. Yes, he has. Q. Does he do this throughout the year? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And has he made suggestions to you, afterwards? A. Yes, he has. 0. What sort of suggestions? A. Well, he has always asked that the students be included as much as possible in the activities that take place in the classroom; that lesson plan should always be prepared prior to teaching a lesson. Of course, that bulletin boards should be kept at least monthly and, of course, they should be tied in with the unit in which you're working on. 0. Have these suggestions helped you in your teaching? A. Yes, he has. MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. The witness is with you. MR. CALDWELL: No questions. You may come down. THE COURT: During all of your tenure at Pike, have you lived in Fulton? THE WITNESS: No, I lived in Pike while I workdd there. THE COURT: Are you planning to commute next year or are you going to move back to Pike? THE WITNESS: I plan to live there. THE COURT: Live in Pike? 202 BY MR. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: I see. You may go down. 0O0 REDIRECT EXAMINATION RINDSKOPF: Q. You're just living up here for the summer? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: That's why I didn't understand whether this was a permanent resident. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:14 p.ni.) 0O0 Having MR. RINDSKOPF: Mrs. Margaret Walls. 0O0 MARGARET WALLS, first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. g RINDSKOPF: Would you state your name, please? A. Q. Margaret Walls. You'll have to speak out a little bit louder so all of us can hear you. 204 A. Margaret Walls. 0. Were you here this morning and sworn in as a witness? A. Yes. & All right. Where do you live, please? A. I live at 4 8 Atlanta Avenue, in Atlanta, Georgia. Q. In Atlanta? A. Yes. Q. Did you hold a position with the Pike County Board of Education this past year? A. Yes. Q. What was that position? A. I'm an English teacher. 0. English teacher? What grade? A. Seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth. Q. Where did you teach? A. Pike County Consolidated High School. 0. And were you living in Pike County during the school year A. Yes. 0. Do you have a contract to teach down there next year? A. Yes, I do. 0- Are you just living up here for the summer? A Yes. 0. Going to school? A. Yes. Okay. How many Years teaching experience have you had? 2 U 4 & A. One. That was last year. P- This last year was your first year? A. Yes, it was. Q. Okay.- Did you have a chance to observe Mr. Glover during that year? A. Yes. Q. On what sort of occasion? A. Well, he was my principal. Q. He was your principal? A. Yes. Q. Did you see him regularly? A. Every day. Q. Did he ever sit in in your class? A. Yes. Q. How frequently would he do that? A. Several times . 0. Several times? A. Yes. p. All right. Did he give you any suggestions after he sat in your class? A. Yes. Q. What sort of suggestions? A. Well, he told me things like, try to get more class participation, try to have class, have my bulletin board fixed according to some of the things that I was discussing in my class, . . . ~ 2 u t i 205 206 and make sure that I had lesson plans every day, prepare my lesson before coming to class the next day. 0- Okay. Did these suggestions help you in your work? A. Yes, it did. o. Did you think that Mr. Glover ran a good school? A. Yes. o. Would you be willing to teach under him again? A. Q. Yes. Okay. MR. RINDSKOPP: The witness is with you. oOo CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. Q. CALDWELL: Is that Miss or Mrs.? I'm sorry, I didn't — A. Miss. Q. Miss? Where are you now in school? A. Where am I in school? & Yes. A. You mean college. Q. Didn't you just testify that you were going to school now? A. No, I'm not going to school. I just graduated from college last year. 0. A. o. Well, Mr. Rindskopf — Maybe I didn't understand. — asked you if you were up here attending school and you0. 207 said yes. A. Well, maybe I misunderstood him. I'm not in school now. I graduated last year. I'm a teacher. 0. What other principal did you evaluate Mr. Glover with when you said he was above the average principal? A. According to the principals that I was under when I was in high school, I've never taught before, so I evaluated him according to the principals that, the principals that I kne\\? when I was in high school. 0. As a student? A. Yes. MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. That's all we have, Your Honor. MR. RINDSKOPF: You may come down. oOo (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 3:45 p.m.) oOo THE COURT: Mr. Rindskopf, how many more witnesses do you have whose testimony will constitute a testimonial to the efficiency and helpfulness of plaintiff? MR. RINDSKOPF: I have three or four, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, is there anything unique about their testimony or can't it be stipulated that if called they would testify to the same effect as the last two witnesses? 208 MR. RINDSKOPF: I don't think there's anything particular], unique. Some of them are teachers, some are parents. THE COURT: What are their names? MR. RINDSKOPF: Annie Maude Hines; Leola Barnes; Mrs. Elora Collier; Mrs. Samanna Wall. Those would be the ones, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any objection to that, Mr. Caldwell? MR. CALDWELL: Stipulating that they would testify to him operating a good school? THE COURT: Yes. MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. I have no objection. THE COURT: And somewhat in the tenor of the last two witnesses, are these teachers who served under him or under him? MR. RINDSKOPF: These are mostly parents, Your Honor. THE COURT: Parents? MR. RINDSKOPF: Who have had a chance to observe their children going to his school and visit the schools themselves. THE COURT: Well, pick out one of them and we'll stipulate: whatever they'll, we better not have parents stipulating to what teachers have testified. MR. CALDWELL: I understood them to be teachers. THE COURT: That's what I thought. Pick out one of your parents, if you have a representative 209 MR. RINDSKOPF: All right, THE COURT: Call that one and we'll stipulate that the others, if they would -- that they would testify similarly? MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. Just a moment, Your Honor. We call Mrs. Leola Barnes. Have a seat, Mrs. Barnes. 0O0 MRS. LEOLA PARKS, Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0. Would you state your name, please? A. Leola, Mrs. Leola Parks. Q. Mrs. Barnes , — A. Parks. 0. Parks? A. P-a-r-k-s. 0 Okay, I had the name wrong. Pardon me. A Yes. Q. Were you sworn as a witness this morning? A. Yes, sir. 0. Okay. How many children do you have, Mrs. Parks? A. I have eight. 0. Eight? Are any of those children in school in Pike L* u y 210 County? A. I have two. Q. Where do they go to school? A, P- Consolidated. Pike County Consolidated? A. Pike County Consolidated. o. All right. What grades are they in? A, One is in the eighth and one is in the eleventh. Q. What about your other children? Have they gone to school in Pike County? A. All; yes, sir. Q. And are they through with school? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which school did they go to? A. Pike County Consolidated. Q. Okay. Did all of your children go to school when Mr. Glover was over there? A. Well, they went to school some under Mr. Glover, the oldest one did. Q. A. When he was over at East Pike? Yes, sir. But she didn't go, see, he was at Zebulon when she was at Concord, and when he come to Concord, the other one went under Mr. Glover. Q, Okay. Have you had a chance to visit the school that he runs over there? 21 o 211 A Yes, sir. Q Have you had a chance to look through it? A Yes, sir. Q What did you think of it? A Well, it was real nice to me. Looked good to me. Q Did they seem to be doing a good job? A Yes, sir. Q Was the school clean? A Yes, sir. Q Pardon me? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. What about your children? Did they get a good education? A Yes, sir. Q A In that school? Yes, sir. Q Did they have a lot of homework to do? A Plenty. Q Okay. Would you be willing to have other children of 'ours to go to school under Mr. Glover? A Yes, sir. Q Okay. Fine. Thank you. 0O0 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL; 21 i 212 & I'ro sorry, I didn't get your name. Would you give it to me, please? A. Leola Parks. Mrs. Leola Parks. Q. Mrs. Parks, what is your educational background,please? A. The last — where I went to school at? Q. No, how much education do you have and from where? A. I went to school at the old McCavey, at the, you know, they had a little school, they hadn't integrated when I quit school. I vent to the eighth grade. Q. Went to the eighth grade? A. Yes, sir. o. All right. Nov;, six of your children have already finished school? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, how many of them graduated from high school? A. All of them except two. o. Two of them stopped school? A. No, two of them, all of them but one, one, all of them finished school but one. Six of them finished school, one finished school through the eleventh grade, the older one. Q. A. One through eleventh? And they put on the twelth, and she didn't go back. Her father got sick and she didn't go back. The others finished through the twelth. 0- The others finished through the twelth? 2i z 213 How many of them went on to college? A. Hone. 0- None of them? A. No. Q. All right. How often do you go to Pike Consolidated School? A. Well, I goes, I went pretty regular, I goes to everything they have to do, and then I visit the schools some days, some weeks Q. When they have open house? A. Yes, sir. And I go other days. I goes up there. Q. Do you go in and sit in the classrooms? A. Yes, sir. Q, Which teachers have you sat through, please? A. I sat with Miss Williams, and I sat with Miss Mays and I sat with, I can't think of that other teacher. I set with several teachers, with my children's teacher. Q. What grade does Miss Williams teach? A. At the time, she was teaching the third grade, I believe. Q. All right. When was this? A. It was when Patricia was in school. It was when Patricia was in school and she finished last year. I went all during the time that she was up there. Q. This was when Patricia was in the third grade and she finished last year? A. Yes, sir. That's when I went to her room. ‘ V J “ 0- Yeah. So then, we're talking about, about nine or ten years ago that you were in her room? A. Yes, when I went in her room, and when Arthur was in her room, my grandson, last year. Q. You went in there last year? A. Yes, sir. 0. With Arthur, your grandson? A. Yes, sir. Q. When were you in Miss Mays' room? A. Oh, I go to her room ever time I goes up there. Q. And how often is this? A. Well, I was up there occasionally. Q. All right. Have you ever had any position where you had a responsibility to evaluate school administrators? Have you ever had any position where it was necessary or imcumhent upon you to evaluate school administrators? A. Where I had to go or something? 0. No, did you ever work any place where it was your duty to evaluate school administrators? A. No. MR. RINDSKOPF: We'll stipulate that she hasn't evaluated school administrators. MR. CALDWELL: Oh,that she has not? MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes. MR. CALDWELL: That's good. 214 214 215 That's all I have. THE COURT: All right. You may step down. 0O0 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Let me ask you just one more question. You said that one child only went as far as the eleventh grade? A. Yes. That's my older girl. Q. That's all the grades they had over there at that time? A. At that time, then. Q, Then they didn't have the twelth grade? A. They didn't have the twelth then. MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. THE COURT: As I understand, your other parents would testify substantially to the same effect? MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. I think that's approximately right. THE COURT: Do you have any objection to a stipulation to that effect? MR. CALDWELL: That they would testify to essentially the same thing, both direct and cross? THE COURT: Of course, all of them don't have the same number of children, but, that in substanee their testimony would be the same. 2l5 216 MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir. THE COURT: All right. MR.CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. Read the names of those witnesses into the record, Mr. Rindskopf. MR.RINDSKOPF: All right. Those would be Samanna Wall, Annie Maude Hines, and Elnora Collins. THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other evidence? MR. RINDSKOPF: We would rest at this time, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, Mr. Caldwell? MR. RINDSKOPF: I do have the name of one more testimonial, and that would be Anthony Alexander, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Caldwell? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. We have some witnesses we would like to call. THE COURT: All right, sir. MR. CALDWELL: Miss Sue Snipes, please. Miss Snipes, come around, please. Have a seat. 0O0 SUE SNIPES, Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the defendant, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: § Would you state your name, please? 217 A. Sue Snipes. 0. Miss Snipes, were you sworn this morning? A. Yes. 0- Do you hold a position, Miss Snipes, that brings you into the Pike County School system? A. Yes. 0. What is that position? A. Reading consultant with the Educational Services Center, which serves seven school districts in the Griffin-Spalding area. Q. Then, are you directly or indirectly employed by Pike County School system? A. Indirectly. Q, Do they pay a part of your salary? A. I would assume they contribute some money toward the operation of this whole unit. Q. O f the entire unit? A. Yes. Q. You are paid directly from the Services Center? A. Yes. The funds come through the Griff in-Spalding school as the employing agency. 0. Yes, ma'am. Do you recall having attended a meeting in Pike County, Georgia, where members of Pike County School system and at least part if not all of the principals discussed certain first grade readers? 2 1 i A. Yes. 218 Q. Could you tell us how this meeting came about and what your duty was in the meeting? A. I had been working with the East Pike School through the year 1967, I believe it was, and near the end of the year, Mr. Daniel asked me about some problems related to the operation of the schools next year when the East Pike, first grades of the East Pike School and the Pike County Elementary School would be integrated. And so, he invited me to talk with him about some of the problems which we saw that would be an issue. So, out of this discussion, Mr. Daniel, we felt like that one of the things the system needed to do was to coordinate the reading materials, at least for first grades. Nov; the Pike County Elementary School was using one series of materials", East Pike was using another series of materials, and the Consolidated School was using a different series of materials. So, inasmuch as the East Pike and the elementary school were to be integrated next year, we felt like THE COURT: You mean the then next year or, when you say "next year" you mean the year just past? THE WITNESS: Yes, for the 1968-69 — THE COURT: '68-69? THE WITNESS: — term. We felt like that a problem that would ease the operation 21 o 219 would be to take a look at the basic reading materials at least for first grades, and get these on some basis so that this would not be difficult with the first grade teachers. Mr. Daniel also was looking toward the coming year when THE COURT: '69-70? THE WITNESS: -- when there would be further integration, and he felt like that whatever we did then would help to ease the '60-70 operation, if we coordinated the materials. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. How, Miss Snipes, would it ease the situation? Would you explain it, since we're not school people,how would it ease it, how would it be better on the students? ft. Well, instead of the children in one school working out of one material and then the children from another school, when the schools were put together, if the teachers had similar materials or the same materials, the children would not be at a disadvantage, and so it would be, besides serving the children in this sort of way, it would also make less expense for the Board, and the Board could provide the instructional materials they needed, if the materials were coordinated instead of being completely different in the different schools. So out of this problem, then, Mr. Daniel said that he felt like the thing to do would be to call a meeting of first grade teachers, perhaps to talk about this, and to decide what to do about it. 2Iu 220 So, Mr. Daniel decided to call the meeting. And, I don't know how he did this, but he did tell me that the meeting was scheduled for a certain day and asked me to come meet with him on this particular day. And so, I went to Pike County to Zebulon, to meet with the teachers and Mr. Daniel to help work on this problem. We met, and Mr. Daniel was delayed in coming to the meeting, and inasmuch as most of the people were present afd the time of the meeting was there, I took the place of leadership in helping the teachers to look at the problem and, well, to present the problem to the teachers and principals and to talk about it. And so, we outlined the situation as we saw it, the problem as we saw it, stating that one of the things we needed to do was to try to coordinate the reading materials for first grade and to get this squared away so that at least where the two schools were to be integrated for the, that year, that this would be taken care of. But, we also pointed out that it would serve a purpose for this coming year. And we had prepared an inventory of the basic reading materials that were available in the county. We showed this to the teachers, and laid the problem before them as being, to make a decision, which would be most economically feasible, as to which material would be most economically feasible to buy, so in the discussion, when we had presented this much information, Mr. Glover asked if it would be 221 possible to secure a multiethnic materials for use in the schools. And we explained that the State Board regulations in terms of acceptable textbooks did not have multiethnic materials on the list, And that if it were not for this, that would be perfectly feasible to get the multiethnic materials. And so, we talked a great deal about this business of the non-availability of multiethnic materials on the program, on the State listing, rather, and Mr. Glover just insisted that we needed, he needed multiethnic materials. Well, ve agreed that he needed multiethnic materials, but in terms of policies from the State Board, which state, Order specifically these materials and these editions, which are listed in the book, we tried to help Mr. Glover see that at this point we did not see how it would be possible to secure the multiethnic materials. Q. Did he accept this? A. No, he insi i, and really demanded that Mr. Daniel get the multiethnic materials. Q. Contrary to the policies set down by the State Board of Education? A. Yes. Q. And did you explain to him they were not available since they were not on the list? A. Yes, we talked ±>out it repeatedly. Q, Did you have a list showing what was available? 222 A, I suppose we had a textbook list there. I'm sure we must have. I don't recall this particular point coming out. But, of the materials which were in the system, we did have samples there to look at, and the teachers looked at these samples and examined them, and talked about the advisability of one or the other materials. So, in the discussion, it just, well, I sort of withdrew from the discussion at this point, and had to let Mr. Daniel act in response to Mr. Glover's demands that they provide multiethnic materials. So, we finally had to say, well, it seems sensible, and since we do have the American Book Company in greater quantity than we have of any other series, that this would be the materials which would be most economically feasible to be bought. And out of talking about this a right good little bit, we laid down two or three things that we agreed upon, that, for the system, the adopted series would be the American Book Company series. We also said that finances would not permit buying this material for all the grades in the school. Therefore, we felt like it would be wise to begin just with first grades and if we could begin, get this squared away with first grades in one year, the next year they could add another grade, the second grade; and the next grade, and materials for the third grade, and we repeated these two or three things as what we had agreed upon in the meeting, 9 9 9/W W 223 that afternoon. Q. Did the teachers agree to this, that were present? K Yes, Mr. Daniel had them talk about the different materials and give their opinion of them, and finally, they voted to say, well, we think this one will be all right. Q. Did a majority vote for the American Book Company? A. Yes. This was the agreement. Q. And did you recite what the agreement or repeat what the agreement was? A. Yes, tried to summarise this, two or three times, so that we would all understand. This is what we have agreed upon and this is the framework within which we will operate. 0. Was it agreed there that Mr. Glover's school would continue to use the book he was presently using? A. No. 0. The agreement was that you would use American Books only? A. A n y new materials to be ordered would be of the American Book Company series. Q. Did you later have an occasion to see an order in the Superintendent's office sent in by Mr. Glover? A. Yes. During the summer, some time, Mr. Daniel called me one day and said, "I thought we agreed at that meeting that we would use the American Book Company reading series?” I said, "Well, I thought so, too." He said, "Well, I've had an order from the Pike County Consolidated School which orders another series, not the American Book Company series at all." So, and he said that "This is too expensive. There's too much money involved in this particular operation, but I want" — he was asking me if he understood correctly that we had agreed that the American Book Company series was the thing to be ordered, and I assured him that as I understood it, that that was what we had agreed upon. So, I, I went down to Zebulon and they showed me this order, which was for another publication, not the American Book Company series at all. So Mr. Daniel said then that he would, he thought the thing that he ought to do would be to send this back to Mr. Glover and ask Mr. Glover to revise it in terms of what had been agreed upon at the meeting. I saw the order. 0. Right. Now, during the time that you withdrew somewhat from the discussion and Mr. Daniel and Mr. Glover then had their discussion as you recited a minute ago, could you detect whether either of them was irate or somewhat losing their temper? A. Well, I think Mr. Glover was pretty demanding in saying that he would not agree to any series unless it were a multiethnic series. 224 224 225 THE COURT: Does the State enforce its requirement that only certain publications be used a: -- let me ask it another way. Does any part of the money used for textbooks involve State money? THE WITNESS: All of this is State money. All of the textbooks bought on State textbook funds is State money. THE COURT: Well, do they expend their money for a book not on their list? THE WITNESS: Well, that v/as one of the reasons that I tried to explain very carefully from my past experience with the State Department in buying books, that they expect people to operate in terms of these policies. I've had requests previous to this for multiethnic materials that the State did not honor, and so, I was trying to save Mr. Daniel the embarrassment of trying to put in an order for something I felt like he might not get. THE COURT: Well, at that time, didn't Mr. Glover have some multiethnic books from another source, Roe, or somebody? THE WITNESS: No, what he was using was not a multiethnic edition. He was using an old Harper-Roe series, but it was not a multiethnic edition. Now what he ordered was of a new Harper-Roe series which does have some tinted pictures in it. MR„ CALDWELL: Excuse me just one second. 226 THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Still later, I believe, the American Book Company came out with a multiethnic series? THE WITNESS: Well, they had one available at that time, but it was not on the State list. Now, the thing that Mr. Glover finally ordered was this multiethnic edition. It is not listed in the state list. However, I suppose that the State Department did honor it, since this is the material which he received, but this is a little out of the ordinary, and I don't know why they honored this when they say, Do not order anything except that which is listed here. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Did I understand you to say that previously you had had orders turned down? A. Yes. 0. That were not on the approved list? A. Yes. Q. Miss Snipes, at this particular meeting after you had enumerated the agreement as you understood it, did Mr. Daniel state that this would be the procedure to be followed by the Pike County System? A. Yes. THE COURT: Is that the order that was not honored? 2 21 j 227 0, Was the people there present that were there at the beginning, were all the people present when he made that statement? A. I think so. 0. Was Mr. Glover present? A. I think he v/as. I don't recall his leaving before the meeting was over. MR. CALDWELL: Thank you, ma'am. You may examine her. oOo CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: & Miss Snipes, was there ever a written memorandum made as a result of this meeting? A. Not that I know of. & Nothing was ever written down as to what the policy at the Pike County Board of Education — A, No. 0. -- was? A. Q. No. How many teachers were at this meeting? A. 0. I do not know. Could you guess? A. I would guess around, maybe fifteen, fifteen or twenty. 0. Fifteen or twenty? Not just first grade teachers? A. No, there were some others. dt dj ( 228 Q. Other primary grades as well? ft. Yes. 0. How many of the teachers participated in the voting? ft- I do not know. 0. Were you there during the voting? ft- Yes. I was there. 0. What was the vote? ft. I do not know. 0. I mean what was the score? ft. Beg your pardon? Q. What was the score in the vote? What was the tally? ft. I don't recall. 0. You don't recall? All right. Can you tell me what the race of the first grade teachers who were present at the meeting was? ft. The race? 0. Yes. ft. White and negro. 0. Okay. How many white and how many negro? ft. I do not know. 0. You do not know? Okay. Now, are you familiar with the policies that the State Board of Education has in regard to textbooks? ft. Yes. 0. Why don't they approve multiethnic textbooks? 22 <0 229 A. Part of the explanation, from my experience, to Mr. Glover, was that I felt relatively sure that when the next adoption for reading books comes around, that the State Board would approve multiethnic materials and place them on the list. But that would have been two, at least two more years, and I tried to explain to Mr. Glover that we did not have time to wait for that time in order to get books on the list. And that for the time being, it seemed we would just have to go along with those materials which were on the list then. Q. I see, A. But in 1971, they will be making adoptions in reading, and I feel sure by that time, although I can't guarantee what they will do, but I feel like they will place multiethnic books on -the list. 0. You don't know why, then, the State doesn't approve of multiethnic books? A. No. Q. What about you as an educator? Do you approve of them? A. Yes. 0. Would they be useful to use when you're going into an integrated system? A. Certainly. Q. Well, the State doesn't approve of the books. How did Mr. Glover wind up with multiethnic books? A. 1 do not know. „ _ 9 O w«C» *j> Q- And these are American Boole Company books? A. Yes. Q. They fit in with the others in the system? A. Yes. Q. They fit in with the others in the system? A. Yes. 0- If he had ordered American Book Company books right away instead of Harper-Roe books right away, would he have wound up with multiethnic books? A. I think that, as I recall, in the State textbook list, the copyright date for the books which are available in 1966. Mr. Glover ordered what is called the anniversary edition. 0- What's that? A. I do not know what the publication date is on this edition„ Q. Is that sometimes later than '66? A. This is the multiethnic series. I do not know what the publication date is. Q. All right. A. But he did receive the anniversary edition? 0. Well, were these new books that he received? A. Yes. Q. They weren't old books? A. No. 230 2 3 oa They weren't dated? 231 A. No. Q. They were probably newer than the '66 books, wouldn’t you think? A I’m not sure. o. Well, isn’t it a fact that multiethnic books didn't become popular until rather lately? A Yes. o. And I believe you said that you saw Mr. Glover's request or requisition, is that right? A Q. Yes . And what exactly did he request on the requisition? Whicl books? A Harper-Roe. o. What year? A The Harper-Roe series. Q. What year? A I don't know that. 0. Was it the 1966 edition or was it later? A I do not know. 0. You don't know. How do you know that the books he requested were not on the approved list if you don't know what year he requested them for. A. Well, my concern there was that the, Mr. Daniel had agreed that the series that the county would use was the American Book Company series. (> 1 f C m x j l. 232 So that was all that I was concerned about, when I supported him in that that was the agreement that we had worked under. Q. Let's come back to my question. Do you know whether the books that Mr. Glover requested were approved or not? A. You mean of the Harper-Row series? 0- Yes. A. I assume, I think they are. 0- You think they were approved? A. I think they are on the State list. THE COURT: Are these the ones you said were not multiethnic? THE WITNESS: No, this is a later, this edition that he ordered was probably -- THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: — of, probably around 1966. I’m not real sure about this. But this series is a newer series, and it's not the one that Mr. Glover had in his school at that time. He had a much older series, which was published in '45 or something like this. THE COURT: Well, I don't know, but we're getting all messed up here on something that may or may not be important. He had some old Harper and Row books? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 9 9 •> “-i Cd THE WITNESS: I don't think so. THE COURT: He sought through Mr. Daniel to order a new edition of Harper and Row? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Although the agreement had been to use American Book Company books? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: And the Harper-Row that he sought to order, was it a multiethnic series or not, or do you know? THE WITNESS: I'm not real sure, but I think that it may have some pictures in it which are slightly colored, and by this category, I would think that it would be considered as multiethnic. THE COURT: That was the order that was rejected or vetoed by Mr. Daniel? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Subsequently, he was allowed to order some multiethnic books, but they came from the American Book Company? THE WITNESS: Yes. TIIE COURT: All right. Does that straighten out the chronology of it, Mr. Rindskopf? MR. RINDSKOPF: I think that's about right, Your Honor. 233 THE COURT: They were not multiethnic? i , l> 3 M BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 234 Q. At the time you had your meeting in the spring of ’68, did you know that the American Book Company was making a multi ethnic book? A Well, I know there are a good many companies that have multiethnic series. 0. Did you know the American Book Company was making one? A I guess so. Q. You guess so? But this multiethnic boo]; was not on the State approved list? A No. 0. Okay. Now, did you see the note which was attached to Mr. Glover's requisition? A. No. 0. The note that said he didn't care what the company was so long as it was a multiethnic book? A I didn't know, I don't know anything about that. & You didn't see it? Okay. And do you know how it was that Mr. Glover's requisition wound up being sent to the State Department of Education? A No. That's done in Mr. Daniel's office. I don't know anything about that. o. A All you saw was the one requisition, one time? Yes. 0- A. You didn't see any later requisitions? No. '£ 3 4 235 0. Okay. Fine. And it's your testimony that only the first grade books were going to be replaced, right? A. Well, this was the intention of the, of Mr. Daniel's intention, since the textbook funds just do not buy everything that teachers and schools want, and so we felt like if we could begin with the first grade, Mr. Glover would have enough money in his textbook funds to supply his other needs, but also to move into the new materials at least with first grades. THE COURT: You're going to run it a grade a year? THE WITNESS: This was a proposal in order to stay straight financially. THE COURT: In order to anticipate future integration? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: All right. MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay. Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 4:25 p.m.) oOo MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Lee Cook. Mr. Cook, come around and have a seat over there, please. oOo TALMADGE LEE COOK, 2 3 b 236 Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the defendant, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: 0- Mr. Cook, were you sworn this morning, sir? A. Yes. Q. State your name for the record, please. A. Talmadge Lee Cook. 0. By whom are you employed, Mr. Cook? A. Pike County School Board. Q- How long have you been employed by the Pike County School Board? A. Two years. o. What position do you hold, Mr. Cook? A. At the present, I hold Assistant Principal, Pike County Elementary. 0. Mr. Cook, what type of grading system do you have at Pike County Elementary School? A. You mean at present, sir? o. Yes, sir. A. At present, we have the standard grading system. Q, Has there been any work done on the non-graded system? A. Yes, sir. For two years I have worked toward bringing into play a non-graded program for the Pike County Elementary School, of which 1 am affiliated. 2 3 b 237 0. Without me asking you questions, briefly, how does a non-graded system work? A. Well, I can just hit the high points, sir. A non-graded system is designed to more or less take a child where he is at present and move him along at his own rate to wherever he can go, to the utmost of his ability, and this is taking into consideration that we all know that not every one is, not in the sight of intelligence or intent, equal. We have people that are adept in one thing and maybe not in another. We have people that can learn easily and some that can't learn so easily, and we bring our children into the schools, and the first year,and we expect them all to be able to read by Christmas. Well, this is just about as, makes just about as much sense as to expect all children to wear the same size shoe at Christmas, because they don't develop at the same rate. The non-graded program in essence is to take these children irregardless of whether they learn fast or whether they learn slow, medium or what not, and take them at their own rate and teach them just as much as we possibly can. Q. Now let me ask you, sir, what grades do you use this non-graded system in? A. Right now, for the prospective non-graded system, it's not in effect yet, we have moved toward this, but it's not effective yet, but the grades would be four, five and six, prospect 0. Four, five and six? 23 / 238 h. Yes. THE COURT: You're seeking to achieve a non-graded system? THE WITNESS: No, sir, not to achieve, we are seeking to implement a non-graded system. THE COURT: You want it where the child can move as fast as ha is able to move? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Or as slow as he must move? THE WITNESS: As slow as he must or as fast as he is able. THE COURT: Now, when you get that system, what is that, a non-graded system or a graded system? THE WITNESS: Non-graded, sir. THE COURT: Graded system fits all feet into the same shoe, whether it pinches or not, is that right? THE WITNESS: Absolutely. THE COURT: In other words, you're going to move along together, whether they can keep up or whether they could go on ahead? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: That's the graded system that you are trying to get rid of? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, where you are taking thirty children, grabbing up thirty children and putting them in a < \ n . 239 room and expecting all of them to be able to do third grade work. We expect every one of those thirty children to learn that third grade work at the same rate or at the same time. Well, some of them can't do it, and they follow along at the same speed they — THE COURT: I follow you now. Go ahead. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. If you had a fifth grade student on a non-graded basis, in the morning, where would that student go? A, Into a classroom for recordkeeping of, maybe, thirty children. Q. This is called the homeroom? A, This is called the homeroom. 0. Would they be his age group? A. Yes, sir. His age group. They would go altogether into a homeroom for the recordkeeping, the rolls would be called and then at certain periods of the day, these children would go to specific groups of other children that would be on his same rate of learning in the same area of curriculum, and there they would meet together, and move to another period and be together, another, and another, and on through the day. THE COURT: Let me ask you, suppose he was fast in THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, — 240 THE COURT: his history, and slow in math. Would he go from his homerooom to a fast history class and then to a slow math class? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; he would. I have the teachers in this prospective plan, to teach, the teacher teaches one subject only, and if they are a language arts teacher, they teach nothing but that, which is English, and I have one teaching nothing but math, I have one teaching nothing but science and so forth through the rest of the curriculum. This child, if he is adept in math, he will take his WQrk group of students likewise adept at math under this teacher. THE COURT: If the student was slow in French, he would go with the slow group? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right, sir. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q, Well, under this system, Mr. Cook, is it possible to segregate as to race? A. Yes, sir. I would say it's possible; but not very probable. 0. Why isn't it probable? A. Well, you've got children of both races that are not adept at learning. 241 We have children in the school that I have now, which is predominantly white, that are just as slow as any could get. Likewise we have some that are fast. I'm sure they have the same in the black schools. 0- Do you have any black students in your school? A. Yes, sir. 0. Are any of them fast? A. Yes, sir. 0. Any of them slow? A. Yes, sir. Certainly. Q. Did you participate in a meeting where there was any discussion as to a test to be given in Pike County schools? A. Yes, sir. 0. Where was this meeting? A. There were several meetings, in which we discussed the test to be used, but if you will allow me, I will go back to the first one that I call mine, now, right after the Court order, not Court order, I beg your pardon, sir, we knew that a Court order was forthcoming, and we thought we were going to have to integrate the schools under the system as set forth. And I brought up the question, Mr. Chambers, who was principal of the high school and the elementary school about how we would classify the children and find out where their weaknesses and strengths lay, and the better method to do *diis was a test, and we started thinking about what type test could possibly be used to be £ 4 i 242 most beneficial to all children, not a certain group, but to all of them. Q. Yes, sir. A. And then we got notification through the mail of a new type test developed by the California Test Bureau which would judge nothing but the basic skills that a child had achieved in a certain length of time. So we went to this meeting. We went to this meeting which was held in Griffin back in January, if I remember correctly. Q- Who was present at that time at this meeting? A. Mr. Chambers, myself, representatives of the county office, and representatives from most of the schools within this area, the area in which we're assigned. Q. Was Mrs. Miller's school represented? A. I did not see anyone there that I remember. I couldn't say positively. 0. All right. A. Lot of people. 0. How about Mr. Glover? Was he present? A. I would have to say there, too, I didn't see anyone I recognized from either of those schools. 0. All right, sir. Go ahead. A. Well, at this meeting, they introduced this new test and called it the California Test of Basic Skills. Now this test would measure where a child actually was in all 243 phases of curriculum, and in addition to this, it would point out each thing that the child missed on the test, show where he was weak in the different phases of the curriculum. What I really liked about this test was that it showed where the basic skills were, if they were adept in any, or weak in any, and it also did not show anything dealing with IQ, mental maturity or anything of this nature. It just showed exactly what that child had achieved in the time he had been in school. Q. Was there any designation on the test that would describe this child as being black or white? A. None whatsoever, sir. This question came up in the meeting. One of the black members there asked would this discrimins. against the black community, and the representative of the test company said it definitely would not. Q. Did he tell you how the test had been made up? A. Yes, he did, sir. Q. How? A. He said this test had been cross-sectioned through all phases of our society. And it had taken into consideration the affluent white community, taken into consideration the, shall we say, poverty-stricken white, poverty-stricken black, affluent black community, affluent white community, all phases of our society were used as a cross-section to get the test, and he stated in there that it definitely would not discriminate against any ethnic group, cultural group or what not. 243 244 0* Was this test later administered in your school? A. Beg your pardon, sir? I'm sorry. 0. WAs this test later administered in your school? THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, get the witness a swallow of water there. Give him this one. THE WITNESS: Appreciate it. BY MR. CALDWELL: O. Was it later administered in your school? A. Yes, sir; it was. Thank you very much, sir. This test, I liked it quite well. Mr. Chambers who, by the way, the reason I keep bringing him in here, he's my superior under Mr. Daniel, — Q. Yes, sir. A. -- Mr. Chambers and myself discussed it. We liked it quite well. We discussed it with Mr. Daniel, he liked the test, thought we were right in using it, and we decided to use this test for the children that would be coming to my school this following year. Now that was grades 4, 5^6 of next year, present third, fourth and fifth grade. That's where my interest came in, students that would be coming into my school. 0- So, this California test was to come in, to be given to students only that would be coming into your school next year? P. That was the ones I had interest in. i- 4 4 245 0. That would be the third, fourth and fifth grades? THE COURT: Never mind the ones you had, interest in, were other teachers doing the same thing, those coming into their rooms? THE WITNESS: Sir, I don’t know. I know the test was given to some other than the group that were coming into my school. I think the seventh and eighth grades, sixth and seventh and eighth grade tests were administered to those schools. THE COURT: You are charged with third, fourth and fifth? THE WITNESS: Fourth, fifth and sixth. I was interested in the present grades third, fourth and fifth. THE COURT: And in 1969-1970, you’re going to have under your supervision every student in the county falling in eithei one of those three grades? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And you wanted to measure what, where he belonged in that strata? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Now, were you going to give that to the students already in your room? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You were going to give it to everybody who ^ i U was going to be in Grades 4, 5 and 6, 246 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Irrespective of whatever his color or race or wherever his school was? THE WITNESS: Absolutely. THE COURT: We were talking while ago about a third grade test and now we've gotten to the fourth and fifth and sixth. MR. CALDWELL: Maybe this will clear it up, Your Honor. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. The present third grade would be your next year's fourth grade? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: I see. It was the third grade at that time. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You figured it would be a year before they got there, and then it would be the fourth? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right, sir. Go ahead. BY MR. CALDWELL: 0. This was administered to black and white students alike in your school? A. Yes, sir. g As a result of this test, have you, subsequent to this test have you received the results? i j t) 247 A, I've received the results of the people that participated in the test, sir. Now, we did not get any results from the other two schools concerned in the county. The only test results that I lave are the ones that were taken in my school. THE COURT: Did you get any from Mr. Glover's school? THE WITNESS: No, sir. We sent a team of counselors over to administer the test, but I think the students refused to take the test, and the counselors came back. BY MR. CALDWELL: 0. When you say "we," what do you mean? How do you mean "we sent them over?" A. Well, that term really should be changed to "Mr. Daniel" there. I said "we" in the sense that the administration, that was concerned in the testing of the students coming into my school, was -— Q, And your interest was purely because they would be in your school next year? A. Yes, sir. I have no interest in how the other principals conduct their schools or programs, because that's not my job. My job is to see my school has the best quality education that can be afforded. o. All right, sir. Do you know whether or not the tests were taken in Pike County Consolidated? A. Yes, sir. I know that they, as far as the test itself, t j 4“ < 248 it was not taken there. The tests were made available, but I think the students, this is the information that came back to me, the students would not take the test. 0. Do you know whether or not the community was informed or if there was any effort made to inform them about this test? A. Yes, sir. There was. I myself spoke at PTA meetings of my school, of which we have black parents that should be there,of course. Very few times they have been. I canwell understand this. 1 have spoken at other places, teachers meetings, and we discussed this in the integration meetings in Griffin, the non-graded program likewise, and I went down to East Pike School and attempted to speak down there. Now, this is fuzzy in my mind, I don't know whether the situation had developed, whether, I think they were objecting to the test already before I went to East Pike, but I did go down there to try to explain to the parents at the East Pike School what the situation would be like in a non-graded system, but I never got a chance to talk to most of the people because they got up and walked out before I got a chance to speak. 0, Was Mr. Glover present at that mefeting? A. He came in after the people had walked out. Mostly what was left was teachers and a few parents, and Mr. Glover did come in after that. Yes, sir. Q. This was at East Pike? d O 249 A. This was at East Pike; yes, sir. Q. Were you present in May at a meeting where a discussion came up led by Mrs. Snipes with reference to first grade readers? A. Yes, sir, I was. I was there. I think I had representa tives from each grade in my school that were supposed to be there. Mr. Chambers was there, and there, it was a general meeting, it wasn't a principals meeting. It was a general meeting to discuss the reading type textbooks we would adopt for the county for the coming year. Q. All right, sir. Was there any discussion between Mr. Daniel and Mr. Glover about the type textbook to be used? h. Yes, sir; there was. Mrs. Snipes explained to us that she had made a more or less summary of the books available in the county at that time, and that the American Book Company seemed to be the one that was the newer edition, and that we had more or less of them in use and it was put to them more or less what books should we adopt for the first grade because that was the one that was going to be integrated in the coming year, and -- THE COURT: You mean coming year, now, you mean as of last year? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. This was prior to to '68-69 year. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: And it was voted on, and I think the American Book Company was the one that was voted to be 250 accepted. And Mr. Glover then started talking about multi ethnic books, and which Miss Snipes explained to him and the rest of us they were not on the adopted list, Georgia State Textbook Adopted List at that time. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Do you oppose multiethnic books? A. Not at all. No, sir. 0. Go ahead. A. At that time, he was quite, shall we say, adamant, any type would be adopted would have to be multiethnic — that it should be, maybe I shouldn't have said would have to be, but should be multiethnic. Q. Did he raise his voice? A. Yes, he did, sir. He raised it somewhat. He, well, I know myself, I became uncomfortable in the situation there, and I'm sure others felt the same as I did. Q. Did he appear to be mad? A. Well, I hate to judge, but I would say, shall we say, a little excited. Q. A little excited? A. Yes. Q. All right, sir. Now, let me ask you this. Were you present in September, in August, excuse me, when Mrs. Elder was introduced to the principals? A. Yes, I was at the principals meeting. 251 We were there, the principals of the county were there. I think it was Mr. Chambers, myself, Mr. Glover and Mrs. Elder. And we also had, if I remember correctly, possibly Miss Snipes and Doctor Flanders, and I think that was about all of them. And Mr. Daniel read a letter from Mr., what1s his name -- THE COURT: Frazier? A (Continued) -- Mr. Frazier, the principal at East Pike who had resigned just very shortly before that time, and he announced to us that Mrs. Elder had been moved up as principal of East Pike School. 0- What did this letter contain? THE COURT: Wait just a minute. What do you mean, moved up? THE WITNESS: She was a teacher prior to this, sir, in the system. She was a math teacher in the high school. THE COURT: In the same school over which she was made principal? THE WITNESS: No, sir. She was a math teacher in the white high school, Pike County High School. BY MR. CALDWELL: 0. What was the contents of this letter that he read to you, to the meeting? A To the meeting, the letter stated that he was resigning and that he recommended two people to be principal there at East Pike School. O it u J I. 252 If I remember correctly, it was Mrs. Miller, who I think is principal there now, and Mrs. Glover. 0. Is that the principal's, over here, wife? A. I have no wy of knowing, sir. 0. Was there a Mrs. Glover in the system? A. I had never met her, but I think that she had moved, or resigned and gone somewhere else to teach. 0. All right, sir. THE COURT: You mean she had left the Pike County system? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I think that's the information I had, sir, that she had taken a teaching position elsewhere, prior to this time. THE COURT: Was she related to this Mr. Glover? THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir. I couldn't say positively because I never met Mrs. Glover, his wife, nor this Mrs. Glover either. I think that's the only Glovers in the county that I know7 of. Possibly was. BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. All right, sir. Go ahead, now. What took place after the letter was read? A. After the letter was read and it was announced that Mrs. Elder would be the principal at East Pike Elementary School, Mr. Glover got pretty upset over it and said that the people, his people would not accept her as being principal down at that school. 253 0. Did Mrs. Elder have anything to say to Mr. Glover? A. She asked him, "Don’t you think I could make it work," something to this order, "Don't you think we could work down there and make the school work?" I remember him saying he had nothing whatsoever against Mrs. Elder as a person or qualifications or anything else, but that it would just not work with his people, with her being over a black school. 0. Let me ask you this, was his actions becoming to a man in the position of principal, and the Superintendent being present? A. I would have to form an opinion, here. MR. RINDSKOPF: I object to that. I don't think he's qualified. THE COURT: That calls for a conclusion. I'm letting everything in, and I'll let him express his opinion. MR.CALDWELL: Your Honor, he asked his witnesses, and one of them had an eighth grade education. THE COURT: Yes, sir. And many of these things I'm disregarding, them, just as I will other things. THE WITNESS: Should I answer the question, sir? MR. CALDWELL: I've forgotten the question. BY MR. CALDWELL: g. What was Mr. Glover's actions at the time he and Mr. Daniel were discussing Mrs. Elder with reference to tension or madness? A. Well, I think he became very antagonistic, to say the least, in this. Now, I've been around school a pretty good while and I've never, just never seen a principal talk to a Superintendent in a manner, not exactly what he said, but in the manner of which this was conducted. I'm just not used to that tone of voice or anything else, from a principal talking to a Superintendent. Q, Let me ask you one other thing that I think I had overlooked. I'm about finished with you. But, did you have an occasion to attend a meeting where Mr. Glover was present and testing was discussed? A. It is very vague in my memory, but it seems right after this Court action was instituted in the fall, we did have a meeting to discuss the possibility of the transcripts coming over and things of this nature, and I brought the point up, we did need a test to determine where a child might be and that, if I'm not mistaken, he did say in there, or intimate in there that he was opposed to any testing, any standardized testing. MR. CALDWELL: Younav inquire. THE COURT: Did the letter that was read from Mr. Frazier list the names of recommended successors? THE WITNESS: As well as I remember, Your Honor, they did. Mr. Daniel brought them out, if I'm not mistaken. Now it was either there or at a very short time thereafte that I heard the name Mrs. Glover, and Mrs. Miller, mentioned 255 as possible successors. I'm pretty sure he brought it out in that letter. It's so fuzzy, so far back, I don't remember exactly. 0O0 CROSS EXAMINATION 3Y MR. RINDSKOPF: o. How long have you been in the system, Mr. Cook? A. Two years. Q. And where were you before that? A. Q. Georgetown High School, Georgetown, Georgia. Was that an integrated school? A. It was, shall we say, tokenly integrated. We had very few black students in that school. Q. The majority was white? A. The majority of our students were white, yes. Q. Let's go back to the desegregation meeting where you first discussed the idea of testing these people with the California Test. You say there was no one there from Mr. Glover's school? A. That's correct, sir. 0. And no one there from Mrs. Miller's school? A. That’s correct. 0- Yet, there were some black teachers who questioned you about the test? A. No. 2 5 256 Q. What school was the black teacher from? A. No, not at the first time we discussed this test. This was right before. Now there's just Mr. Daniel, the meeting I was speaking of took place in Mr. Chambers' office between Mr. Daniel, Mr. Chambers and myself. 0. So, the first meeting where you were discussing the use of the test was a private meeting? A. Not necessarily. It was a meeting concerning the students coming to my school. 0. It wasn't a meeting that included the principals of the schools that the students would be coming from? A. No. 0. I see. Okay. And that was where you decided to use these tests? A. No, sir. It was not decided there. 0. Well, what did you do in this meeting? A. We discussed the test. We later had to get an okay from Mr. Daniel to purchase these tests and so forth. 0. There weren't any black people at that meeting? A. No. 0. And then you went to the meeting in Griffin and had further discussions about the test, is that right? A. Right. And this is the meeting where there was no one from Mr. 25b 0. 257 Glover's school? A. Now, sir, I did not make that statement. I said I recognized no one from Mr. Glover's school. They could have been there, but I do not, did not recognize anyone from Mr. Glover's school. I think if you will check this transcript, read this transcript back, you will see that's what I did say. Q, Perhaps I was left with an incorrect impression there was no one from his school there. A. Well, if you thought I said that, you were under an incorrect impression. Q. Do you know which school this black teacher there was from? A. No. Q. Are you familiar with other black teachers in your system? A. No , sir; I'm not. Q. How many black teachers were teaching in white schools this past year? A. Mrs. Manghum, I know, was teaching high school. And at the beginning of the year, Mrs. Miller was teaching at my school before she was elevated to acting principal at East Pike, and -- Q. That's it? A. I think. 0. And the black person questioning these tests wasn't either of those people, was it? 258 A. No. Q. Oh? Who was in charge of this desegregation institute? A. You mean the testing, where it was discussed? 0, Who was in charge of the overall program over there? A. The California Test Bureau? THE COURT: The meeting in Griffin, A. That's what I'm speaking about. California Test Bureau. Q. They were in charge? A. Yes. They sent out the representatives and what not and conducted the meeting. Q. What about the other meetings? A. This was entirely a different matter. Doctor Reece Welch from the University of Georgia was in charge.of these meeting the integration clinics, in Griffin. Q. Did Doctor Welch indicate he was opposed to testing all the people in your system? A. He never indicated to me, sir. Not to me. Q. Are you planning to use your ungraded system in your school next year? A. I'm going to attempt to put it in, yes. 0. How far is it from the school you're going to be in charge of, to the Pike County Consolidated School? A. Say approximately eight miles, give or take a few. Q. Eight miles. Suppose a student in your ungraded system is working faster than a sixth grade student. Will you send him r> r~- . C S O 259 over to that school? A. No, sir. We have means set up to offer them an accelerate work program in the school where he is. 0. It's all going to be in one school? A. The non-graded, yes, at the present. Q. And what about the student who is doing less than third grade work? A. That, too, will be offered to him in that school, to keep him with his age group. Q. • How far up are you prepared to go? A. We are prepared to go up, this is just a figure of speech, we're still in the planning stage. We can offer him approximately up to eighth grade work. Q. And how far down? A. Well, to the beginning, if need be. 0. Okay. THE COURT: I didn't understand that answer. THE WITNESS: The beginning, or readiness period, in first grade, if need be. THE COURT: You mean in the fourth grade you're going to go back to start teaching somebody first grade work If you have to? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. If it takes that to bring this child up to where he can learn, that's what we want to do. BY MR. CALDWELL: L-i O 260 Q. You're planning to put this system into effect next year? A We're planning to try to move it forward next year. Now this is not something that you can just set down and say here it is and this is the plan and it works this way because there are a lot of things you will have to correct, make innovations, find out this is not going to work and how to change this here and set something up different here. This is not something you just sit down and say it's going to work. 0. How much are you planning to do next year? A As much as possible. 0. As much as possible? Any specific number of grades? A We are primarily interested in four, five and six. 0. Four, five and six? THE COURT: Let me ask you a question. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: On your California Grading Achievement Test, California Achievement Test, is achievement measured against, is it relative to other students in the same system or is it measured against the standard across the country? THE WITNESS: It's both, Your Honor. We can use these percentages on this test, if you used the percentages, they're cross-sectioned to other students through the country, in a like situation, and it'll give you the percentages they fall in. THE COURT: In other words, there is a standard for third 261 grade work across the country? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And fourth grade work and fifth grade work? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, THE COURT: Nov/ this test, I judge, would measure each student tested against that average? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. In the percentages. THE COURT: All right. It will also, of course, give you a comparative achievement as among those in the group, irrespective of the nationwide standard? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's right. THE COURT: Which is going to control? THE WITNESS: Beg your pardon? THE COURT: Which is going to control? Which are you going to count as achievement, relative achievement or percentage of achievement? THE WITNESS: Relative achievement, Your Honor. THE COURT: In other words, suppose everybody you got in there falls down to level of third grade. THE WITNESS: That's the work we would start working on. I would like to make this mention here, they won't know they're doing third grade work because we have taken and marked off all reference to grade from any textbook they have. They will not know they're down on third grade level. 26 i 262 THE COURT: Well, what do you do with promotion in that situation? THE WITNESS: We take a child, and he covers just as much as he can this year, and v/hen school lets out, he will come back in the fall and we take him where we left off, and go forward, THE COURT: Is he in the fourth or the fifth? THE WITNESS: No, sir, third, fourth, fifth, sixth year of school. THE COURT; In other words, you call it years instead of grades? THE WITNESS: Right. THE COURT: And he doesn't know what grade he's in? He's just swimming along as fast as he can? THE WITNESS: That's right. THE COURT: How do you know when he gets out? THE WITNESS: We have the curriculum set up, specific phases a child has to accomplish before he get out, and the teacher, he goes along and they have worked on this already, and they will be setting up the child's needs so that he can achieve so much in this level before they get out. But when he achieves a certain amount of levels, he needs, he will be moved on. THE COURT: Let me ask you something, I've had six children in the Atlanta public schools, and they run this kind 263 of system? THE WITNESS: In some of the schools, yes, sir. I don't think all are, but Atlanta has several of them. THE COURT: I always thought my children were in grades. Maybe I 've been wrong. THE WITNESS: Very possibly, if they were in an ungraded school, you were. THE COURT: All right. They did get out. Does that mean anything? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. It does. But did they get out with all the knowedge they should have or did they just get out? THE COURT: I don't know whether I'll ever know or not. THE WITNESS: That's what we're trying to determine. BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0, Where are you going to put the children who didn't take these placement tests next year? A. Place them on teacher recommendation, on work done prior to this, until such time maybe that they will take the test and we can use it as a guide. We don't just use this test to place a child, only. Q, You've never done this, I gather? A. we've been able to group them, which is entirely differen from non-grading. The past two years we're trying to move in this system, use three major things to put a child where he can learn c v i-; >{ 4 13 i 264 the best, and that's achievement tests, teacher recommendation and past achievement, the work he's already done. Q. So in your system, your system isn't going to fall because some students didn't take these tests? A. No, sir. It would help the child a lot more if he had taken the test, but so far as school going on, it will not make the school close. 0. I take it you have a lot of familiarity with testing and testing procedures? A. I do not. I'm sorry if I let that impression get through I became interested in major testing, this California Test of Basic Skills, because it shows the skills a child has got, not maybe an IQ or mental age and things of this nature. I don't agree with IQ tests. Q. You are aware there are a number of tests in use that have bias as against racial groups or economic groups? A. I have heard this statement made, but as far as me being sure of it, I'm not. 0. You have heard that in testing circles? A. Yes, sir. I have heard it. 0. Okay. How many people were at this meeting with Miss Snipes? A. You mean the textbook meeting or which one — - 0. Textbook meeting. A. Textbook meeting. All right. I had a representative of v b 265 the grades I had in my school, which would be seven teachers there; myself; Mr. Chambers; Mr. Glover; Mrs. Dorothy Dunn, who at that time was the visiting teacher; Mrs. Snipes and Mrs. Lancaster -— I’m calling some that I do know, that I can recollect, and there know were other black teachers that I did not/at the time and neither do I know them now. Q. Okay. Were you present when the vote was taken on the textbook? A. Yes, I was. Q. What was the score? A. I don't remember exactly, but I remember it was a majority, that American Book be adopted. Q. A majority of the first grade teachers were also white, right? A. Possibly. Possibly. Q. Well, it’s a fact, isn't it? A. I could not say. I don't remember that correctly. Q. You don't remember? A. I sure don't. Listen, I'm interested in the first grades of my school. They were white. Q. Three from your school were white? A. Right. Q. All right. Do you know why it is that the State Board of Education doesn't approve multiethnic textbooks? A. No, I do not. 2 6 5 266 In fact, I was not aware they were not approved until this was brought out by Miss Snipes. 0. You think using multiethnic textbooks would be a good idea in an integrated situation? A. Yes, sir. I don't see how we can get away from it. MR. RINDSKOPF: Okay, Thank you. THE COURT: You may step down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 5:03 p.m.) oOo MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor, could I beg for about two minutes? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Let me ask you this, Mr. Caldwell. How long is your presentation likely to take? MR. CALDWELL: Exclusive of cross examination, I'd say not over thirty minutes, Your HOnor. TIIE COURT: All right, sir. We'd better take about a ten minute recess at this time and let everybody get a breath of fresh air. oOo (Whereupon, Court was recessed at 5:04 p.m.) RECESS (Whereupon, Court was reconvened at 5:20 p.m.) oOo 2 6 o 267 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Caldwell. MR. CALDWELL: Mr. E. H. Chambers. THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, I gather some of those witnesses probably would like to be excused. I see some of them peeking through the door. CLERK: Let's see, were you sworn this morning, sir? MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, I was. THE COURT: Is there any objection to those witnesses being excused who have testified, other than the parties? MR. DALDWELL: We have none, Your Honor. MR. RINDSKOPF: No, sir. THE COURT: Tell them, all of them who testified, may be excused. CLERK: All right, sir. THE COURT: Has this witness been sxvorn? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right, sir. You may proceed. 0O0 HOYT CHAMBERS, Having first been duly sworn and called as a witness in behalf of the defendant, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. State your name for the record, sir. A. Hoyt Chambers. 26 / 268 Q. Mr. Chambers, during the 1968-69 school year, by whom were you employed? A. Pike County Board of Education. Q. What position did you hold? A. Principal of Pike County High School. Q. As a principal, were you present when the textbooks for the first grade were selected? A. Yes , I was . 0. What was your understanding as to the decision made at this meeting? A. Well, the decision was to stick to the textbooks that we were using at the present time, which was the American Book Company. Q, Was there to be any difference in any of the other schools A. The other schools were to use the one that they had been using because of the amount of funds that were available for textbook use. 0, All right, sir. What about new issues, new purchases? What was the decision as to that? A. There would be no new issue, new purchases. They were to fill in whatever book they had. a All right, sir. A. That they were using. Q, At this meeting, did Mr. Glover accept this decision? A. Yes, as far as I know he did. At least, the majority of 269 those present voted to retain the books they were then using at the present time. Q. All right, sir. Mr. Glover did not object to this? A. As to whether or not he voted yes or no, I couldn't say. Q. All right, sir. Were there any discussions between Mrs. Snipes and Mr. Glover in your presence? A. Well, I don't recall if there was anything direct. Mrs. Snipes was in charge of the meeting, and everyone there directed their comments to her as Chairman. Q. Do you recall if there was any discussion between Mr. Daniel and Mr. Chambers? A. You mean Mr. Daniel and me? Q. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Glover. I apologize for my mistake. A. Well, yes, there was a discussion that the textbooks that were being presently used would have to continue to be used because of the textbook allotment. They would not have, he made the statement to all of us, Mr. Daniel did, that the textboofe that were being used could not be replaced. They would have to continue to be used, and we would just fill in with what we had. Q. Was there any discussion concerning multiethnic books? A. Mr. Glover insisted that we purchase books that were multiethnic, and the question came up as to whether or not the companies whose books we were using had the multiethnic books. Insofar as we knew, none of them did. 270 Q. All right, sir. Were you present in August at the principals meeting where Mrs. Elder was introduced to the other principals? ft. Yes, I was. Q. Did Hr. Glover have anything to say about Mrs. Elder? ft- The announcement was made that Mrs. Elder would be the principal of the East Pike School. Mrs. Glover indicated that he did not favor that. 0- What did he say about it? ft. He said he thought that the negro principal should not be replaced with a white. That they had people who were qualified in the negro race. Q, Did you know Mrs. Elder's qualifications? ft- Well, I, I know that she had been a principal for, 1 Ttfould say some thirty-odd years. That she was principal in the Concord Elementary School the first year I was in Pike County, and then she was moved from there to the high school as a math teacher when that school was consolidated, so in order to be a principal, she would have had at least a five year certificate. 0. All right, sir. Do you know of any other positions that she had held? ft. Yes. She was a teacher in a college at Bessie Tift. She was also Dean of Women. Q. Was this at Bessie Tift als<P? ft. Bessie Tift. U 271 Q. Was that prior to the time she came to the Pike County system? A. Y e s , sir, 0, Prior to the time that you came to that system? A. Yes. 0. Did Mr. Glover have anything to say about her qualifica tions? A. Yes, he did. He made the statement that, to Mrs. Elder, that he knew she was a fine lady and that she had high qualifica tions and had been very successful as a teacher. Mrs. Elder asked him then whether or not he would support her in this new task there, and he said he, no, he could not. And — Q. During this discussion, did Mr. Glover seem to be angry or was he very pleasant? A. He was very much upset. In fact, he was very irate about it to such an extent that the meeting from there on was really just a matter of course. I don't think I've ever in all my teaching experience had someone to be as arrogant to one in authority as he was at that time. 0. A. mind to 0. Who was he arrogant to? Principally to fir. Daniel, and anyone else who was of a listen. How long have you been teaching? A. Thirty-six years. 2 ? i 272 0. All right, sir. MR.CALDWELL: You may examine him. oOo CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. You say that Mr. Glover told Mrs. Elder he couldn't support her? A Yes. 0. Do you recall his exact words? A. Mrs. Elder just asked him whether or not he would be willing to support her in this undertaking, and he told her, no, that he could not. Q. What did she say to that? A. She said, well, she was surprised that he would take that attitude. Q- That was all she said? A. Q. That's all I recall. What about Mr. Daniel? What did he say to this? A. Q, I don't know that he made any comment to that statement. Okay. Was this the same meeting where Mr. Frazier's letter was read saying that he was resigning from the system? A. That was the August meeting, yes. 0. And was this the same meeting in which Mr. Frazier's recommendations were read as to who he thought should replace him or lon't you recall? V 7 t-J 5 t.-) 273 A. I don't recall, I don't recall about a letter. No, sir. Q. You don't recall Mr. Frazier's letter saying he thought Mrs. Miller or Mrs. Glover should replace him? A. I don ' t remember that. Q. You don't recall. Well, who was at this meeting? A. Well, it was a meeting for principals. I don't know that I could name them all. It's the responsibility of the principals to be there. Q. When did this meeting occur? A. In August. 0. Can you give us a date? A. I don't recall. Q. Can you give us the day of the week? A. No. Q, Can you give us the time? A. No, I don't recall the time. This was just prior to the opening of school. Q, Do you recall the time of the day? A. Not with any accuracy, no. Q. Okay. Were there any other subjects discussed at the meeting? A. There was some other plans for the year discussed. , Q. Such as? A. Well, one I recall was health services that we had available in the county. Just the usual run of principals meetings. __ ________________ (3 274 Q. Did you have other principals meetings after that during the year? A. Very few, if any. I don't, I don't recall positively, but, certainly not very many. 0. Not very many. Okay. But you did have other meetings? A. I don't recall that we did have any other meetings. Q- Well, either you did or you didn't. A. I can't say positively whether we had any other meetings or not. But I know that later on in the year, we did not have regular meetings or any meetings at all. q. okay. Have you been in other meetings with Mr. Glover through the years? A. 0. Yes . You've had integrated meetings down there in Pike County before this year? K Yes. Q. Okay. Has he conducted himself in a seemly fashion at these other meetings? A. At other times. 0. He has. Then how about since this meeting in August? A. Well, I had no contact with him since the meeting, and no reason to have had. Q. A, You haven't seen him at any other meetings? I don't recall that I have, no. Cd & 275 & Okay. Thank you. MR, RINDSKOPF: Mo further questions. 0O0 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. Mr. Chambers, let me ask you one other question. Has the Superintendent, Mr. Daniel, stated to you subsequent to this meeting where Mrs. Elder was introduced why he had not had any other, called any other principals meetings? A Yes, quite often, he called me about various things that principals need to know, and he has stated that it wasn't advisable to have any other group principals meetings because nothing could be accomplished by it. Q. Did he state why he didn't think anything could be accomplished? A Because of the general attitude, it was not conducive to transaction business. 0- On whose part? A On the part of Mr. Glover. MR. CALDWELL: Thank you. 0O0 RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: 0- Did you attend the desegregation workshops? it 4 A Yes, I did. 276 Q. Over at Griffin? Did Mr. Daniel invite you to come along with him? Yes, he did. MR. RINDSKOPF: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. You may step down, sir. Now, Mr. Caldwell, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Mr. Rindskopf. How many more -- we've heard about these three episodes with the first grade books, the tests — how many more of your witnesses are cumulative? MR.CALDWELL: Only one witness that I can recall. Let's see. Neither of them will be about the textbook or the principals meeting. Neither of the remaining witnesses. I have three other witnesses. THE COURT: Will their evidence be similar to testimony by a previous witness? MR. CALDWELL: The sheriff will testify similarly to what Mr. Daniel testified to. THE COURT: Well, you don't have any more school people to testify what happened at these meetings? MR. CALDWELL: Not at any of the meetings that have been talked about, Your Honor. No,sir. THE COURT: All right. All right, if you have anything that's cumulative of something you've already established, or - MR. CALDWELL: The only relativity, Your HOnor, would be the sheriff's testimony about the burglaries and the sheriff __ 2 7 1) 277 did make the investigation, and I did want to put him up for supporting testimony of Mr. Daniel's testimony. THE COURT: Well, is there any dispute with that? HR. CALDWELL: I don't know that there is a dispute. THE COURT: Does he know anything more about the burglaries, or who or how and we now have before us? MR. CALDWELL: He knows that the buildings were unlocked on a number of occasions he went by there and checked it, and he knows that he reported that to Mr. Daniel and on at least one occasion he talked to Mr. Glover, and that he did instruct or ask Mr. Daniel to put certain equipment in there so he could put some people out there as guards to try to apprehend the criminals. THE COURT: Is that the trap that he talked about? MR.CALDWELL: Yes, sir. And after that, there were no other burglaries. That's in essence his testimony, if — THE COURT: All right. MR. CALDWELL: If Your Honor wants to take it into consideration, I'll put him up, either way. THE COURT: All right. Call him in and do it very briefly. He's in a little different category. If you have any in the same category as those who testified, let's stipulate it, and that they would testify the same as so and so. 2 7 (oOo 278 ASTOR RIGGINS, Having first been duly sworn and called as witness in behalf of the defendant, testified as follows: BY MR. CALDWELL: Q. State your name for the record, A. Astor Riggins. 0. Are you sheriff of Pike County? A. Yes, sir. 0. Were you sworn this morning, •— A. Yes, sir. 0. *— • Sheriff Riggins? At the instruction of the Court, I'm going to be as brief as possible, so we might go home. In your duties as sheriff, do you check the school buildings in the county? A Yes, I do. 0. Have you had occasions to check the school building known as Consolidated down at Concord? A Yes, sir. On numerous occasions. Q. On any of these occasions have you found the building to be unlocked or windows open? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you have any idea how many occasions? A. Oh, several. Four or five, six maybe. I reported them back to Mr. Daniel along with some suggestions as to what to do 279 about it. Q. Subsequent to these notices to Mr. Daniel, did you have any burglaries to occur in these schools? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you investigate them? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did these burglaries occur? ft. We had three last fall, first one occurring the weekend, it was a holiday weekend beginning the 11th of October through the 14th, on one of the nights during that time. There was four typewriters taken and an air conditioner from Professor Glover’s office. Q. In your investigation, were you able to determine how the building was entered on this occasion? A. No, sir. No forcible entry at all on this occasion, and two other occasions thereafter. 0, Was the same thing — A. Same, television, typewriter, et cetera. 0. All right, sir. In your investigation, were you able to obtain the identity of the merchandise that was taken? A. Yes, sir. By process of elimination. Professor Glover could not furnish the serial numbers. We had to take the list of typewriters and the air conditioners that was left into Mr. Daniel's office and from a process of elimination come up with numbers that supposedly were the ones that were stolen. — o 7 vt 280 Q. All right, sir. Subsequently, did you attempt to set up a situation so that you might apprehend burglars? A. ?es, sir. I did. We had another burglary in November, another one in December, and we w e r e n ' t getting any clues at all, and it w a s worrying me. I asked Mr. Daniel to send more typewriters, adding machines or any type of equipment to the Pike County Consolidated School, and that I would personally set up a guard myself. Q. Did you do this? A, I did this. Q, Did you have any burglaries thereafter? A. Haven't had any since December, and the December burglary was just prior to our moving in more equipment. Q, All right, sir. MR. CALDWELL: You may examine. 0O0 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR, RINDSKOPF: Q. Did you ever apprehend these people? A. No, sir. n They are still loose? A. I haven't apprehended •them. 0- All right. Were there any burglaries schools during the, in the system during the year? A. Yes, sir. There was one at Pike County High other School. Z 6 u 281 Q. What did they take from over there? A. Two typewr iters. 0. How did they get in over there? A. We found one of the doors, the pushbar on the inside was sprung and would not go into its place, and all you had to do was push the door open. Q. Had it been sprung by the people who took the typewriters or was it sprung in advance or what? A. Well, that, I wouldn't know. Q. You don’t know. Okay. ft. But on the Concord, Pike County Consolidated School, I asked Professor Glover to assign one door to a janitor, that he had enough janitors to go around, and maybe that would help stop it, to make sure the doors was locked. And he said, "Well, a small rock could get in behind the door and due to the rock being there, it wouldn1t lock." But if the rock had been there, the janitor could have removed it or seen what did make it not lock. 0. But there haven't been any burglaries over there since December? A. Since I had this extra equipment moved in. Q. Is the extra equipment still there? A. It has been removed since school's out. g. And what about, or at the white schools? Did you have any burglaries over there after December? 2 o j 282 A. No, ar. MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions. THE COURT: All right. You may step down, sir. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 5:41 p.m.) 0O0 MR. CALDWELL: Call Mr. Jeff Key. CLERK: He'll be right back. He went to get his car out of the parking lot. MR. CALDWELL: In his absence, could I call Mr. Daniel to the stand, Mr. Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Try not to cover what he testi fied before. MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir. 0O0 HAROLD T. DANIEL, Upon resuming the stand, testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALDWELL: q_ I'm going to try to make it as brief as possibly and I'm going to try to phrase a question to you that will shorten it. Mr. Daniel, thisnorning you testified to certain instances of non-coorperation on the part of Mr. Glover with you. What part, if any, did these incidences play in your decision, 2 d 2 283 your final decision not to recommend Mr. Glover for the coming school year? A. They played a very prominent part. In fact, they were the reasons that I did not see fit to recommend him. I had recommended Mr. Glover the past two years reluctantly. The minutes of the Pike County Board of Education will so show this. Then, in May of 1968, I had this meeting of the first grade teachers and some other elementary teachers were there, and Mr. Glover created a scene. I saw then that I had made a mistake in my recommendation, but he had been elected by the Board, he had a contract, and then we came along until August, first principals meeting of the year, and again, Mr. Glover became very irate and insistent on a black principal for East Pike Elementary School. Again, I saw my mistake, I should have fired him on the spot. Well, that was not all, of course. We went on, then, into the school boycott, beginning in September, and lasted some eight school days or about two school weeks, and Mr. Glover left his job for two days, parts of two days. THE COURT: Mr. Caldwell, haven't we been through this? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. I just was trying to find out what weight if any it had on his decision. We have been through this particular testimony, and I assume that it would suffice to say Mr. Daniel's answer was, and I think it was a minute ago, — Wasn't his previous explanation in answer to 2 0 ,i___ THE COURT: 284 the question of, "Why did you not renew it?" MR. CALDWELL: Well, I asked him what part this had to play, and I think he answered it by saying -- THE COURT: That it had all to do with it, I believe was your answer, wasn't it? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Daniel, let me ask you a question. On-this occasion when Mr. Frazier resigned, did he write you a letter of resignation? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir; he did. THE COURT: Did he recommend his successor? THE WITNESS: He had a recommendation in there. THE COURT: What was his recommendation? THE WITNESS: Of either Mrs. D. F. Glover or Mrs. Edna Miller. THE COURT: Is Mrs. D. F. Glover related to the plaintiff? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. She is the wife. THE COURT: Well, where was she teaching at that time? THE WITNESS: She had taught with him the previous year, that year, and the last year Mr. Frazier was at the school. THE COURT: She had taught in one of Mr. Glover's departments? THE WITNESS: No, sir, she -- she had taught at East 2 t) 4 Pike Elementary. 285 THE COURT: Was, at the meeting at which the announcement of Mrs. Elder's appointment made, was this letter appointing Mrs. Elder read or not? THE WITNESS: The letter from Mr. Frazier? THE COURT: Yes, sir. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I read the letter. THE COURT: Were the recommendations contained in the letter itself? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right, sir. Anything else? 0O0 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Have you ever told Mr. Glover or anyone else that you wouldn't allow a black person to become principal of your senior high school? A. No, sir. Q. You've told no one this? A. No. 0. Okay. MR. RINDSKOPF: No further questions. THE COURT: You may step down, sir. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 5:46 p.m.) 286 oOo THE COURT: Is the other witness here now? What is, what is it he's going to testify about, Mr. Caldwell? MR. CALDWELL: He is in charge of adult education, Your Honor, and he had an occasion to go into Mr. Glover's school in the afternoon after school was out to talk to teachers that teach at night for him in the adult program, and he would testify that while he was in the classroom talk ing to teachers after having gotten, after having gone to the principal's office and the principal being absent, he went to talk to the teacher, and was sent word from Mr. Glover to come to his office after he had concluded his business with the teacher, and that he did go, and that Mr. Glover somewhat crawled on him about coming into his school and trying to take over, and stated that he had no business — THE COURT: Well, apparently Mr. Daniel didn't rely on any of this because he didn't mention it, is that correct? MR. CALDWELL: I can't say what was in Mr. Daniel's mind, Your IlOnor. You can say he said this and other things, and whether this is one of the other things or not, I don't know. THE COURT: Well, so far as appears, Mr. Daniel didn't even know about it. MR. RINDSKOPF: He certainly had an opportunity to say on what he did rely. THE COURT: Well, I think so. Unless Mr. Daniel is the 2 d b 287 man who , or the Board finally declined to renew the contract, it was done as far as the evidence shows solely on Mr. Daniel’s recommendation, and he doesn’t indicate that he relied upon this incident, so suppose you just dispense with that. MR. CALDWELL: All right, sir. THE COURT: Do you have anything else? MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. That’s all we have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have anything else, Mr. Rindskopf? MR. RINDSKOPF: We would like to recall M r . Glover. THE COURT: Who is that? MR. RINDSKOPF: Mr. Glover. THE COURT: Oh yes. I thought you said Lovett. 0O0 D. F. GLOVER, Upon being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RINDSKOPF: Q. Let me just briefly ask you, Mr. Glover, did you ever tell Mrs. Elder that you would not support her? A. N o . 0. Okay. Did you ever create a scene at any of these meetings? A. Not that I would call a scene, no. Q. Okay. Have you ever been told by Mr. Daniel that he 2 b / wouldn't let a negro be the principal over at the high school in Pike County? ft. I was told that he would not appoint a principal for Pike County High, School that was black, Q. Okay „ MR. RINDSKOPF: Nothing further. THE COURT: All right. You nay step dov?n. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 5:50 p.m.) 0O0 THE COURT: Is there anything else? Is that all, gentlemen? MR. CALDWELL: Just a second, Your Honor. I was trying to get my thoughts together. THE COURT: Oh -- I have one more question of Mr. Daniel. MR. CALDWELL: I'm going to put him up right this minute, I think, Your Honor. Does Your Honor want to ask him the questions first? 0O0 HAROLD T. DANIEL, Upon being recalled to the witness stand, testified as follows: THE COURT: Mr. Daniel, when was the contract tendered to Mr. Glover's successor? That is, the man, I 287/} 2 tf 288 gather, who has signed a contract but sort of indicated he wants to back out of it, is that -- THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if you refer to Mr. D. E. Sellers, I believe that contract was tendered about the 9th or 10th of April. THE COURT: And was it tendered before or after this suit was filed? THE WITNESS: Now, if you'll, if you're referring to Mr. Sellers, -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure. The names have gotten lost in mists here. THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Sellers is not a successor to Mr. Glover. Mr. Sellers is a successor to Mr. Chambers. THE COURT: Well, Mr. Chambers is retiring or something? THE WITNESS: Has resigned to take a job in Habersham County, I believe. THE COURT: Well, that's not the man I'm talking about, then. I'm talking about the man who used to be in your school system and went somewhere else and was, after Mr. Glover was not tendered a new contract, was to be appointed as his successor. What's his name? THE WITNESS: Mr. Crowder. iw O «J THE COURT: Mr. Crowder. When was the contract tendered 289 to Mr. Crowder? THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honor, Mr. Crowder, a contract has not been tendered to him. He was, he was approached by the Board of Education for a contract. He came down for an interview and was approved. THE COURT: Well, now, do I understand that he initially applied for the job? THE WITNESS: Oh yes, sir. He, in fact, -— THE COURT: And now has indicated that he does not want it? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I received a letter from him. THE COURT: All right. Nov? when was he, when did he apply and when was he approved? THE WITNESS: Well, he first applied way last fall when the first boycott started. He, when things were touch and go in the county, I don’t know whether he foresaw that Mrs. Elder would throw in the sponge or not, but I heard from him at that time, and he did keep in touch with me periodically after that. We just didn't go out and seek him. THE COURT: Well, when was he tendered the position which Mr. Glover was not to refill? THE WITNESS: I believe about the last of April or first of May, somewhere in that vicinity. I don't recall the date. We had so many meetings along about that time, — 290 THE COURT: Was it before or after this suit was filed? THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't — THE COURT: What's the date of this suit, Mr. Clerk? Do you have it? Maybe I have it up here. CLERK: Yes, sir. It's upthere. May the 2nd, 1969. THE COURT: Do the miniates of the Board show his approval? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you have that date? THE WITNESS: I don't. MR. CALDWELL: We haven't got the minutes here, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. THE WITNESS: I don't have the minutes here, Your Honor. As I say, we had so many meetings during that month on various subjects, problems, we had a full scale boycott going on at that time which lasted thirty days, twenty-nine days, beg your pardon. THE COURT: Incidentally, it's not part of this suit, but what's going to happen to those children out on boycott, as far as promotion is concerned, or keeping up with their year or grades as the case may be? THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honor, I'm glad you asked that question. 1 took this up with the Pike County Board of Education several weeks ago. I've been very worried about it, and in 291 talking with Mr. Glover, talking with the members of the Board, interested black and white citizens, and newspaper reporters, TV reporters, and that was one of the main questions they asked me. I kept trying to get the story across that unless those children got back in school that I did not see how the seniors could graduate or the others in the high school could receive unit credit. So, I formulated a letter which I sent to Mr. Glover towards the last of May, and incidentally, this letter did have the approval of the Board of Education, and it instructed Mr. Glover and in turn he could instruct his faculty that no students could receive unit credit for that last semester since they had been out twenty-nine consecutive days. Since you asked the question, I will tell you that Mr. Glover disregarded my order in that respect. Though I have seen the records, he instructed his teachers to go ahead and those children were given grades. I did not sign any diploma because they did not satisfactorily complete the work in order to graduate. I did instruct them in the same letter that seniors and others, we're running an eight week summer school, and that it would be open and we will be delighted to have them, welcome them, and that was the suggestion I made, that we do have it, and incidentally, in carrying out your Court order, we have an integrated summer school, integrated faculty, pupils, black an! 292 white. In fact, I think we have more blacks than whites. And it is being conducted at Pike County Elementary School and it's going along, I think, very well. I believe we've just finished about two weeks maybe, and it may be in the third week. It's being pretty well participated in by black and white children. THE COURT: Are some of those children remedying what they missed during May? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What percentage of the overall boycotters are taking remedial work during the summer? THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir, what percentage. I think there are around about a hundred and maybe a hundred and twenty-five, a hundred and fifty negro children. That's my best impression of how many attended this summer. And a lesser number of whites. I instructed Mr. Glover also that, after checking with the people in the State Department of Education, accrediting commission, we could not give a half unit because they hadn't finished the final examination. But in my professional opinion that the pupils in Grades 1 through 8 should be given a conditional pass because they were not involved with unit credit. They could go ahead and proceed on up to the next grade and go in the non-graded program, and several of these grades that would be taken care of, that the teacher was to 293 In the same vain, I instructed him that pupils in Grades 1 through 8 who were not passing at that time should be, if in the teacher's judgment they thought they would not have made the grade, they should be failed for that year. THE COURT: All right, sir. That's not part of what is before the Court today, but it has concerned the Court somewhat, as it bears on the success of the overall plan next fall. This job has to be done. It's going to require the cooperation of everyone, including school board, principals, blacks and whites, and I've never seen a school case that made everybody happy or any school decision that made everybody happy. And frankly, most of them are distasteful in some respects to both sides. And it may be a long time before there is one that is not somewhat distasteful to both sides. But both sides, and I'm talking about something that's not before the Court at the minute, but we have some Pike County people here, from both sides, and let me say to you that with cooperation and understanding and Christian patience, both of you and all of you can make this thing work. And frankly, you're going, both sides are going to have to swallow some things you may not like. And if you can do it like Christian ladies and Christian gentlemen, this thing ~ ^ v j> take them where they were. 294 can be worked out. On the other hand, if you decide, or both sides get a chip on their shoulders, you're going to ruin your school system, whatever else happens. The only people who are going to lose are the children on both sides. And frankly, down that road, I see no solution. So now, both sides can just put it in your pipe and smoke it. There are some things that are going to have to be and there are some things that both sides are going to have to abide and there are going to be instances that neither side is going to like. But I say to you now that the Court has its duty and the Court will do its duty. But over and beyond whatever the Court does or doesn't do, the solution or the lack of solution of this problem is going to lie in your cooperation or your lack of it. And I hope that on both sides you are men enough and women enough to recognize your responsibility. That you’ll exercise patience enough, restraint enough, under standing enough, and tolerance enough to make this thing work come September. All right. You may step down. 0O0 (Whereupon, the witness was excused from the witness stand at 6:02 p.m.) 0O0 £ :j :> 295 THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else, gentlemen? MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. That's all the evidence we have, Your Honor. MR. RINDSKOPP: No, sir. THE COURT: All right, Let me ask you this. I'm going to take this case under advisement. Do either of you have any authorities — I have some that I, a few that I've collected. I frankly have not studied them except to read the headnotes. And it's going to be, I've got a case going on that's supposed to last perhaps another week. It's been going on for a week now, and during that time, if either side wishes to furnish me a memorandum of authorities, I would welcome it. Don't write me any elaborate brief. Frankly, I've got about as much reading as I can say grace over already Tell me what your case holds and give me the citation. I'll read it. I mean I -- don't write me any oration. If you care to write me a letter and give me your citations and what they stand for, I not only will permit it, I will appreciate it. MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. MR. CALDWELL: We will do that, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen. We'll be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.) 297 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA If James G. Pugh, Official Court Reporter of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, do hereby certify that the foregoing 296 pages represent a true transcript of proceedings had before the said Court held in the City of Atlanta, Georgia, in the matter herein stated. In testimony whereof I .hereunto set my hand on this the r~'' day of ; — - ---, 1969. ‘̂ Northern District of Georgia CIVIL DOCKET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 890 ' Jury demand date: E L I D. C. Forns No. SOSA Rev. O T L 8 O F C & m ATTORXSYS For plaintiff: D.F. GLOVER VSt Howard Moore, Jr. Peter E. Rindskopf 859 h Hunter St. N.M. Atlanta, Ga. 3031 ip HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OP EDUCATION, Jack Greenberg Conrad K. Harper 10 Columbus Circle New York, N.Y. 10019 890 For defendant: Caldwell tc Bridges Crawley Street Thomaston, Ga. 30286 (Tel. 61+7-3909) 8-7-69 Judgment for Defts. W A TI3TICJU , BJSCOHB COSTS HAKE omrsa J.S. 5>naUedx 5 /2 /6 9 lJ.S. 6 mailed Basis of Actios:i 13 th Amendment 111 th AmendmentUis. Constitution Action arose at : Clerk Marshal Docket fee Witness fees Depositions $15 $30 oo Zk FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE AND A TRUE COPY CERTIFIED, THISJAN 2 6 1970 Claude L.jQoze 2'dd %D PROCTEBBINOT D ata £>r«S#r o r Jgrf£m«ot Notad May Complaint riled. Summons issued and mailed to U.S. Marshal ------ 13 Marshal's return dated May 8, 1969 filed. ssg . s s r.11+ Pltfs. MOTION To Consolidate with cert, of service filed.Brief filed 16 Pltfs. MOTION For Preliminary Injunction with Brief and cert, ofservice filed. 1? ORDER OF THE,COURT: Motion to Consolidate is granted. Pltfs. application for a temporary restraining order is denied. COURTS restraining order granted shall become effective May 19,1969filed. Copys mailed to Attys. ssg 21 Pltfs. Notice of Motion, Motion to Vacate Temporary Restraining Order and Brief in Support of Motion with cert, of service filed. ssg23 Pltfs. Notice to take deposition with cert, of service filed. S S g 8 The above Two Motions mailed to Judge Edenfield. ssgDefts. Answer with cert, of service filed. ssgJune 1| ORDER: To show cause at a hearing Monday June 23, 1969 at 10:00 AM in Atlanta, Georgia, filed. Copys mailed to Attys. SSg 6 Defts. Interrogatories with cert, of service filed. ssg' 9 MOTION by Defts. to shorten the time to answer interrogatories and memorandum in support with Notice of Motion filed. SSg 11 Marshal's return of Order dated May 17th filed. ssg i Pre-Trial conference in Atlanta, Ga. this date. Court set the case! for trial on Monday June 23, 1969 at 10:00 AM Atlanta, Ga. The Court! verbally ordered that the case would be tried only as to Pltfs. case : and would not be considered as a class Action at this time. The Court verbally granted Motion of Defts. for prompt answer to 17 Interrogatories, Reporters Notes of hearing filed. ssg SSCTDeposition of D.F. Glover filed.; 18 Depositions of Paul Oxford and Harold T. Daniel filed. 18 Reporters transcript of proceedings June 1 1 , 1969 filed. ssg 20 Pltfs. answer to interrogatories with cert, of service filed. ssg23 TRIAL NON-JURY Hon. Newell Edenfield presiding. At closeing of ! evidence the Court took the case under consideration. ssgAug. Jj. Transcript of proceedings June 11, 1969 filed. ssg7 ; -0RDER:-Plaintiffs petition is Denied and Ordered that plaintiffs former position be filled with a Negro principal filed. Copys mailed 15 to both part£@a. ssgNotice of Motion by Pltfs. filed. MOTION to amend and supplement findings of. fact and conclusions of law with brief in supuort and 28 certificate of service filed. ssgAbove MOTION Mailed to Judge Edenfield. Oct. 23 •Reporter's notes of Aug. 5» 1969 filed. S8gHo t . 25 ORDER : Motion to emend is denied end filed. Copys mailed to all Dec. 19 1970 parties. a s g Pltfs. Notice of Appeal filed. Copys mailed to Attya. ssg Jan. 6 : j i 1 Cost Bond on appeal filed. ° ssg I • ' FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE AND A TRUE COPY CERTIFIED, THISJAN 2 6 1970 Claude L. JJoza, Cl By: Deputy Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F. GLOVER Plaintiff, i i i CIVIL ACTION HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of Schools of Fike County, Georgia and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, NO Defendants. C O M P L A I N T I 1 , jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 13̂ +3 (3), this being a suit in equity authorized by law under b2 U.3.C., Section 1983, to redress deprivation under color of state statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Con stitution and laws of the United States, or by any act of Con gress providing for equal rights of citizens. Rights sought to be protected here are secured by the Thirteenth Amendment and by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution, by b2 U.S.C., Section 1981 and 2000 (d) et seq, and LJ C.F.R., Sections 80.L and 181 et seq. 2. This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from refusing to re-hire plaintiff as a principal in the Pike County public schools because of his race or color. 3d i 3« Plaintiff is a Negro adult citizen of the United States and of the State of Georgia, residing in Zebulon, Pike County, Georgia, where he is currently principal of the segre gated Pike County Consolidated School* He sues on behalf of himself and all other Negro teachers and administrators, similar ly situated, pursuant to Rule 23, F.R.C.P., which group is too large to be brought before this Court* Plaintiff and other mem bers of his class share common questions of law and fact against the defendants, and seek a common relief. Adjudication of plain tiff's claim will affect the rights of other members of the class yls a vis the defendants* Plaintiff adequately represents the interest of said class. k. Defendant Daniel is a white citizen of the United States residing in Pike County, Georgia, where he is the Super intendent of Schools of Pike County, and the chief administra tive officer thereof. He holds office pursuant to the laws of the State of Georgia, subject to the authority and control of defendant Pike County Board of Education, all members of whom, on information and belief, are white. Daniel is sued individu ally and in his official capacity. Defendant Pike County Board of Education is a governmental agency of the State of Georgia, charged with the supervision and control of the schools of Pike County. 5. The defendants were sued by Negro parents and children in early fall, 1968. Williams et al. v. Daniel et al.. No. 862, this Court. A hearing was held on November 11-12, 1968, and an order entered in the case of January 16, 1969* The order, to summarize, held that the Pike County school system is illegally constituted and must be reconstituted as a unitary school system. Under the plan adopted by the Court, all schools in the system will become part of one unitary system, with certain grades to -2- 3u2 be located at each school. Defendants are to present a final plan to the Court no later than May 15, 1969, after which a hear ing and further orders are contemplated. 6 . Plaintiff Glover is presently principal of the Pike County Consolidated School, attended solely by Negroes, and serv ing grades 1 through 12. Plaintiff is highly qualified for his position. He holds a B.S. degree from Fort Valley State Teachers College, Fort Valley, Georgia, and an M.A. degree from Atlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia. He has spent his entire career in the Pike County schools, teaching social science (grades 8-12) for six years, serving as principal of East Pike elementary school for five years, and as principal of Pike County Consoli dated School since 1961. He holds an A -6 certificate. In terms of certification and experience, plaintiff is the most qualified of all present teachers and principals in Pike County. 7 . The present principal of pike County High School (at present tokenly integrated), T. H. Chambers, a member of the white race, has resigned effective the end of this school year. Despite this vacancy in administration and the fact that he is best qualified in terms of certification and experience, plain tiff was notified on April 9, 1969, that he would not be rehired by the Pike County schools for the coming school year. A copy of the letter notifying plaintiff is attached hereto as Exhibit •'A,'1 and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On information and belief, all of the present teachers and administrators in the Fike County system, save plaintiff Glover, Chambers, and two Negro teachers at Pike County Consoli dated resigning from the system for personal reasons, have been offered contracts for the 1969-70 school year. 9. The refusal of defendants to rehire plaintiff is not -3- 3u;-! caused by any deficiency on his part, or by the fact that a person of his credentials and experience is not needed by the Pike County school system. Rather, defendants have refused to rehire plaintiff because of his race, and because defendants do not wish a member of the Negro race to be placed in a supervisory position over members of the white race. This refusal to rehire is illegal and unconstitutional, under the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution, and ^2 U.S.C., Section 1981, inter alia, and contravenes the decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Fourth Circuits. It is part and parcel of the continuation of the dual school system in Pike County, Georgia. 10. Plaintiff has no other, complete, adequate, or speedy remedy at law. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that; 1. Process issue upon the defendants; 2. Upon filing of this complaint, the Court will advance the case on the docket and order a speedy hearing according to law; 3. This Court will issue a preliminary injunction pend ing final disposition of this case and a permanent injunction upon the final determination of this cause enjoining the defen dants from refusing to rehire plaintiff and members of his class because of race or color; k. This Court further enjoin the defendants preliminar ily and permanently from refusing to place plaintiff and members of his class in a position commensurate with ability and exper ience because of his race or color; -»♦- 3u4 5« This Court enjoin defendants from making or enforcing any contracts with other administrators which will have the effect of denying a position to plaintiff and members of his class be cause of race or color; 6. This Court order defendants to pay the plaintiff any salary or future salaries of which he has been deprived by their illegal acts; and 7« This Court allow plaintiff his costs herein, including a reasonable attorney's fee and grant such other relief as is meet and proper in the circumstance. HO W A. PETER E. RINDSKGPF 859i Hunter Street, N. W Atlanta, Georgia 3031*+ JACK GREENBERG CONRAD K. HARPER 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF -5- 3 u 5 iP^ont 5 6 J -8 4 8 9 PIKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAROLD T. DANIEL, Superintendent Zebulon, Georgia April 9 5 1969 Mr. D. F. Glover, Principal Pike County Consolidated School Concord, Georgia Dear Mr. Glover: This is to inform you that at a called meeting of the Pike County 3oard of Education Tuesday, April 8 you were not reelected to serve as principal in the Pike County School System for the 1969-70 year. The Board thought it would be advisable to consider all Section 12 personnel at this meet ing so that everyone would be notified in ample time to make plans and preparations for the ensuing school year. We appreciate your past efforts in the Pike County School System. Yours very truly, Pike County Schools HTD:msp c.c. Pike County Board of Education EXHIBIT "A" 3 u 0-307- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION I D. F. GLOVER, Plaintiff, I CIVIL ACTION NO, 890-vs- X HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia, and FUEDJN CUERK'S OFFICE PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, X Defendants, t 4 1S88 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Comes now the plaintiff in the above-styled civil action, and moves the Court, pursuant to Rule 42(a), F. R. C. P., to consolidate his cause of action with that already pending be fore this Court under the style of Darrell W. Williams, et al., v, Harold T. Daniel, et al., Civil Action No. 862, Newnan Division. As grounds therefor, movant shows the Court as follows s (a) Such consolidation would be for the convenience of the Court, and result in substantial savings of time and costs; (b) Williams, et al. v. Daniel, et al., No. 862, was a civil action against the same defendants as the instant action; (c) Williams v. Daniel, supra, involved a claim that the defendants were operating an illegal dual school system in Pike County, Georgia, in violation of 42 U. S. C., Section 1983, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (d) The instant case involves a claim that the same defendants, as part and parcel of the operation of their dual 308 school system,, have refused to rehire the Negro plaintiff for the coming school year, despite the fact that he is the most qualified principal in the defendants' system by virtue of his certification and experience, in violation of 42 U. S, C.,Amendments Sections 1981 and 1983, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth^ to the United States Constitution? Ce) A hearing has been held in Williams v. Daniel, supra, on November 11-12, 1968, and an order entered in the case on January 16, 1969, compelling the defendants to submit an acceptable plan for integration of their school system to this Court, Honorable Newell Edenfield, presiding, by May 15, 1969. At some date subsequent to May 15, 1969, a hearing is antici pated in Williams v. Daniel, supra; (f) This case and Williams v. Daniel, supra, involve common questions of law and fact, to-wit, the violation of the constitutional rights of Negroes by the defendants in the operation of the Pike County, Georgia public schools. (g) Should the cases not be consolidated, it is antici pated that a great deal of the matter already covered in the trial of Williams v. Daniel, supra, would have to be covered again in open court, with resulting loss of judicial time and convenience, and costs for all parties. WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, plaintiff respectfully moves that this Court order his case consolidated with that now pending sub nom., Williams v. Daniel, No. 862, Newnan Division PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W Atlanta, Georgia 30314 JACK GREENBERG CONRAD K. HARPER Suite 2030 10 Columbus Circle Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 3ua2. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F. GLOVER, Plaintiff, X l -vs- X HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia, and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants. X X X CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Motions to consolidate are within the discretion of the Court, but may be granted where there are common questions of law or fact. Rule 42(a), F. R. C. P. Consolidation may be ordered if it may tend to avoid unnecessary costs and delay. In the instant case, the Negro plaintiff has claimed that his civil rights and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated by the refusal of the defendants to rehire him as a school principal. Plaintiff claims that he is the most qualified person in the system in terms of certification and experience, and that the failure to rehire is solely because of his race. Plaintiff further alleges the refusal to rehire is part and parce L of the dual school system defendants have been operating. In the action with which consolidation is sought, Williams v, Daniel, et al.. No. 862, Newnan Division, a Negro parent, suing on bahalf of his two children and all others similarly situated, sought to enjoin the same defendants from continuing 3 1 u to maintain a dual school system based on race. Evidence was heard in November 1968, and in January 1969, an order was entered , finding the defendants to be in violation of the law through their operation of a segregated school system. Defen dants were given until May 15, 1969, to submit a plan to the Court providing for a unitary school system. Under the law of this Circuit, once a school system is found to be segregated, the District Court must enter a decree along strict lines. United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 380 F. 2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967). Included in the model decree is the following language: " (b) Dismissals. Teachers and other pro fessional staff members may not be discrimina- torily assigned, dismissed, demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or rehiring, on the ground of race or color. . .If,as a result of desegregation, there is to be a reduction in the total professional staff of the school system, the qualifications of all staff members in the system shall be evaluated in selecting the staff member to be released without consideration of race or color. A report containing any such pro posed dismissals and the reasons therefor, shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, serving copies upon opposing counsel, within five (5) days after such dismissal, demotion, etc., as proposed.” United States v. Jefferson County Board of Educa tion, 38b~F~ 2d, at 394. Plaintiff's claim herein clearly falls within the ambit covered by the proposed decree in Jefferson, to which the same defendants are to be subjected upon their submission of a desegregation plan no later than May 15. It will be a saving in time and expense to consolidate this case with that already going on and covering the same areas of law and fact. Indeed, it will be far more convenient for all parties if they litigate matters in the same court to which they have to make reports under Jefferson, -2- 3 i i Nor will consolidation work any delay in the ongoing case. Evidence has already been heard and an order formulated. That same evidence is arguably applicable herein, and, if so con sidered, will result in further savings of time and effort. WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the motion to consolidate should be granted. Respectfully submitted. F ow^ d T w o r e , f i C . PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 JACK GREENBERG CONRAD K. HARPER 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF -3 - 0 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PETER E. RINDSKOPF, of counsel for plaintiff in the above and foregoing motion to consolidate, hereby certify that I have served a copy of same upon Johnnie L. Caldwell, Esq,, , Caldwell and Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomas ton, Geor gia, attorney of record for defendants, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, addressed as above, with adequate postage affixed thereto to mail the’ same first class, This ' ^ P clay 0f May, 1969. PETER E . RINDSKOPF OF COUNSEL 313 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION l D. F. GLOVER, Plaintiff, X CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 -vs- XHAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia, and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 1 Defendants„ ...____ __ I O R D E R The above and foregoing motion to consolidate having been read and considered, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be and hereby is consolidated with Darrell Williams, et al. v. Harold T. Daniel, et al■, No» 862, Newnan Division. Dated: this _______________ day of May, 1969. "USTTE15" STATES" DISTRICT JUDGE 3 i 4 HIED IN CLERK'S OFFICE rn Ji 1969 ,L 602A, CLERK A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT bfouRT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F. GLOVER S I I Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION v HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of Schools of PIKE County, Georgia, and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, I Defendants I MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Flaintiff D. F. Glover in the above-entitled action, by his undersigned attorneys, for himself and the class he represents, moves the Court for a preliminary or permanent injunction enjoin ing and restraining the defendants and all persons in active concert and participation with them from: 1. Refusing to rehire plaintiff and mambers of his class because of race or color? 2. Refusing to place plaintiff and members of his class in positions commensurate with ability and experience because of race or color; 3 . Making or enforcing any contracts with other adminis- I trators which will have the effect of denying positions to plaintiff and members of his class because of race or color. Plaintiff requests that an order be issued directed to l defendants to show cause at a full evidentiary hearing, if any j; they have, on a day certain, why this motion for preliminary 3 1 b or permanent injunction should not be granted, and plaintiff allowed a reasonable attorney's fee as an element of his relief herein. XrtcOyUrl/ HOWARD MOORE, JK. PET p E. RINDSKOPF 859j Hunter Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 3031^ JACK GREENBERG CONRAD K. HARPER 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 3 ib IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION 0. F. GLOVER, Plaintiff, v. HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Flaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendant Super intendent and School Board have refused to re-hire him as a principal for the coming school year because of his race or color. Such state participation in racial discrimination is clearly forbidden by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education. 3^7 U. S. W83. Teachers are not exempt from protective sanctions against racial discrimination because of their occupation. Johnson v. Branch.36** F.2d 177 (Wth Cir. 1966)| Shelton v. Tucker, 36^ U. S. W79. See also, Franklin v. County School Board. 360 F.2d 325 (^th Cir. 1966). These views have received the official imprimateur of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals? "Teachers and other pro fessional staff members may not be discriminatorily assigned, dismissed, demoted, or passed over for retention, promotion, or rehiring, on the grounds of race or color." United States v. 3 1 / Jg££erson.County Board of Education. 380 F.2d 385, 391+ (5th Cir. en banc 1967)(Quoting from proposed decree, emphasis added). The number of school desegregation and related cases in which pre liminary and permanent injunctions have been issued are legion. See, e. g., Steil v, Savannah-Chatham County School Board. 3 18 F. 2d ^25 (5th Cir. 1963)(Injunction granted pending appeal on the merits)„ WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, plaintiff should be given a speedy hearing on his cause. -2 - f + n 4HOWARD MOORE, JR. PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859i Hunter St., N. W. Atlanta, Ga. 3031^ JACK GREENBERG. CONRAD K. HARPER 10 Columbus Circle New York, N. Y. 10019 3'iti CERTIFICATE OF SFRVTG1? I, PETER E. RINDSKCPF, of counsel to plaintiff, herby certify that I have this --- _____ day of May, 1969, served a copy of the above and foregoing motion for preliminary and permanent injunction upon counsel for defendants, Johnnie L. Caldwell, Esq., Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as above. 3 i 9-320 FILED IN CLERK’S OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION DARRELL W. WILLIAMS and MICHAEL BRETT WILLIAMS, minors, by their father and next friend, Harold Williams, and all others similarly situated, vs, HAROLD T. DANIEL, Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia? and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION D. F„ GLOVER vs. HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia, and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION CIVIL ACTION NO. 862 CIVIL ACTION O R D E R These actions began when Darrell Williams and Michael Brett 1 | Williams, minors, through their father as next friend, filed a Iclass action in this court (Civil Action 862) seeking to desegre- jI gate the public schools of Pike County, Georgia. On January 16, j 1969 the court entered an order directing that, beginning in Sep tember, 1969, the schools be desegregated tinder a plan whereby each dual grade in the system will be consolidated into a single grade, thereby completely integrating all students, faculties, and | -1- 321 J jj related school activities. The defendant school board was further ‘ t .. i|| °lrected to file its final plan for implementing this order by !; ijl May 15, 1969. This has now been done. l! '! i| In the meantime, on May 2, 1969, Civil Action No. 890 was j ! filed by D. P. Glover against the same defendants in which he al- j leges that his civil rights have been violated in that he was and !i is a Negro principal in on© of the schools in the Pike County School System and that, solely because of his race, his contract as prin- j eipal of said school was not renewed for the 1969-70 school year. ! | These are the two cases. They relate to the same general subject matter and involve at least one common question of law and j fact, and for the reasons hereinafter stated they will be consoli- j dated. By a further pleading in the nature of a petition for leave i | to file a counterclaim, or, in the alternative, to make parties, I the defendants now recount certain events transpiring subsequent to and as a result of the failure of the defendants to renew the 1 Jj Glover contract and on the basis of these allegations seek a tem porary restraining order. Defendants allege, for example, that, beginning on April 23, and continuously since that time, certain named persons, and others, as part of a protest against the failure : of defendants to renew the Glover contract, "began, promoted, in- i |j etitutsd and directed a student boycott" against two presentlyliJ i colored (or predominantly colored) schools of the Pike County sys- jli tem. They allege that as a result of this boycott more than 90% The same or similar events have also been widely reported in the ; press in recent weeks. 3 2 2 I of the students at one school (having an enrollment of 585 students) ;j and approximately 50% of the students at the other (having an en- ji i lj rollment of 225! have continuously absented, themselves from class | ; and threaten to continue to do so indefinitely in the future. They charge further that as part of this boycott certain named persons, including John Bascorn, Willie Bolden, Robert Curtis, John Henry Butler, Virginia Smith, Douglas Britt and Johnny Willis, acting ±n j behalf of Principal Glover have led groups of boycotting students onto school grounds while classes were in ses sion, distracting students in attendance and disrupting classes? j that the same persons, or some of them, have come onto school grounds before classes began for the purpose of causing students not to attend school; that as a result of these activities, many children have left school and that others, while boycotting classes; have stormed the school while in session through a back door, after which they turned over lockers, broke out windows, beat on doors, l cursed and yelled, completely disrupting school activities. So far j ias appears, none of the persons named have any connection with the j schools in question or with these actions. I! It is as obvious as sunshine that schools cannot operate and ii !ij courts cannot adjudicate in this atmosphere. It also appears that I ! all of the issues which the colored patrons and principals of the i I Pike County School System wish to settle are either now before this J i i!j court or can be brought before it in these proceedings. And if i! !ij they are to be resolved here, it is equally apparent that they cam- ; j! not be resolved in the streets by intimidation and violence at the I i: same time. It follows that, t© protect its jurisdiction and toil : I iil I ! !I Ij i I 3 2 3 make i t s u l t i m a t e ju d g m e n ts e f f e c t i v e , t h i s c o u r t s h o u ld t a k e a c t i o n 2i f w i t h i n i t s p o w e r . it CONSOLIDATION OF THE CASES ;j W h ile som e o f t h e i s s u e s a r e d i f f e r e n t , t h e tw o c a s e s do i n - j :j v o lv e a t l e a s t o n e common and v i t a l q u e s t i o n o f la w and f a c t : T he i | e l i m i n a t i o n o f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n d e s e g r e g a t i n g t h e f a c u l t y : ,! o f t h ® P ik e C ou n ty s c h o o l s and t h e s i n c e r i t y o f t h e S c h o o l B oard ji . i i n t h i s r e g a r d i n s u b m it t in g t h e d e s e g r e g a t i o n p l a n . T he c o u r t i s ! ;! c o n v in c e d t h a t e f f i c i e n c y and j u s t i c e w i l l r e s u l t from c o n s o l i d a - ! '! t i o n o f t h e tw o a c t i o n s , s o t h a t a l l o f t h e r e l a t e d e v e n t s i n t h e i:! I d e s e g r e g a t io n p r o b le m s o f P ik e C ou n ty ca n b e d e a l t w i t h a s a c o - j ■ h e r e n t w h o le , r a t h e r th a n i n p ie c e m e a l f a s h i o n . S e e R u le 4 2 (a) o f | ' i; t h e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . The m o t io n t o c o n s o l i d a t e i !l . ; ! i s t h e r e f o r e g r a n t e d . . I I . ! - li Il! A t t h i s p o i n t , t h e c o u r t i s c o n s t r a in e d t o rem ark t h a t i t ca n s e e n o r e a s o n o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e a c t i v i t i e s c o m p la in e d o f |l o r t h e r e s u l t i n g b o y c o t t . I t w a s t h e p l a i n t i f f s t h e m s e lv e s who j in v o k e d t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s c o u r t t o r e d r e s s t h e i r a l l e g e d j :! g r i e v a n c e s . I t i s t h e i r c h i l d r e n and t h e i r r a c e w h o , b y t h e i r ;; own a c t i o n , a r e f o r e g o i n g and b e in g d e p r iv e d o f t h e e d u c a t io n t h e y n e e d and w a n t . E ven w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r i n c i p a l , G lo v e r , j !■ n© o n e h a s b e e n harm ed a s y e t , w h a te v e r r i g h t s h e h a s w i l l b e i; a d j u d i c a t e d p r o m p t ly and lo n g b e f o r e t h e n e x t s c h o o l y e a r b e g i n s , 'i I n m e a n tim e , h e c o n t i n u e s t o s e r v e a s p r i n c i p a l j u s t a s h e h a s b e f o r e . The w h o le p a t t e r n t h e r e f o r e a p p e a r s a s an e x e r c i s e i n f u t i l i t y b r o u g h t on b y t h e v e r y o n e s who h a v e t h e m o s t t o l o s e — t h e e d u c a t io n o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . -4- 324 JURISDICTION OF TOE COURT At the outset, and in the present posture of the case, the ! court had grave doubts of its jurisdiction to grant any of the injunctive relief sought by defendants, even against the most egregious of the alleged activities. Absent diversity of citizen- I ship, not here present, a United States District Court is power- j less t© act unless a federal question is presented,- and the pre- \ jvention of disorder in a public school is a state, not a federal \I question. Thus, for example, Georgia Code § 26-6913 prohibits many of the activities herein alleged by defendants: “Any person who shall wilfully interrupt or J disturb any public school . . . or any assemblage e or meeting of such school . . . either within or without the place where such school is usually held, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." This would seem to afford the defendants complete relief. However, the court has now become convinced that it has jurisdic tion over the injunctive request. First, considering the actions »as a consolidated suit, the defendants* motion can be considered a j compulsory counterclaim to the main action. So considered, no !I jurisdictional problems arise, since the main action by the plain- j tiffs clearly raises substantial federal questions, and the counter! claim arises of the same transaction or occurrence— -the desegrega- I ■ tion of the Pike County School System— which is the subject matter ji of the plaintiffs' suits. Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil* Procedure. Kelly v. Page, 335 F.2d 114 (5th Cir., 1964)? Turner v,j Goolsby, 255 F.Supp, 724, 729-730 (S.D.Ga., 1966)(three-judge court). “5“ 325 i; ]! ii i ii i! i i II !' h second and alternative ground upon which jurisdiction is premised is this court's ancillary jurisdiction. Generally, ancil-' lary jurisdiction is assumed to complete adjudication of issues raised by the main complaint, even if some of the matters could not otherwise be considered independently of the main claim. Also, however, ancillary jurisdiction will support injunctive relief on | issues as to which jurisdiction might otherwise be absent in order i to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main claim,| as to which the court has jurisdiction, Hiram Walker, Inc, v. Serr,j 277 F.Supp. 3 (E.D.Pa., 1967)? Sheridan v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 626. 191 F.Supp. 347, 353 (D.D e l 1961) as well as to effectuate and protect federal judgments. 1 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure. § 23 (Rules ed.). The situation in Pike County is volatile. The continuance of clearly coercive divisive actions in the county may change the entire situ-! Iation there and thus affect the disposition of the case or the ! judgments of the court in the pending consolidate?! action. As the j court put it in Turner v. Goolsby, supra, "plaintiffs are seeking !| relief in the same subject matter and complete relief cannot be afforded in the premises unless these hindrances to the educational process are removed." 255 F.Supp. at 730. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order may be granted if it appears that "im mediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before notice can be served and a hearing held thereon." -6- 32b The court believes that the Pike County Board of Education, and hence the patrons of the Pike County School System, will be irrep arably harmed if injunctive relief must await notice and a hearing.. The Board's primary function is to educate the children of Pike County, black and white, and to assure their orderly promotion through the school system. Yet, with only two weeks left in the j school term, these duties may irretrievably be upset, if those Negro children who should be and who wish to be attending classes j are coerced in one fashion or another not to do so. Without par- i ticipation in the remaining weeks of classes the whole plan of j desegregation may be upset, particularly if such children thereby |i became ineligible for promotion and graudation. The school system i r will be thrown into p! chaos &€ uncertainty, with parents and the j school board uncertain about the status of children in the system, j iTo wait for a hearing in such a situation would be to invite dis- i aster, and a balancing of the relative rights of those affected i and their relative prospects of injury makes the situation cry out jI for action now. See Kelly v. Page, supra at n.10. i1 The court recognizes that an ex parte temporary restraining order is not to be granted lightly— and it grants one here with heavy heart. But the rights of all citizens must be served, and extrajudicial coercion in any form cannot be substituted for judi- '• cial reason, particularly when such coercion may affect or is in- ! tended to affect cases pending before the court. I Therefore, plaintiffs, Darrell Williams and Michael Williams iand the class they represent. Plaintiff Glover and those acting in ; his behalf, including Virginia Smith, and Messrs. Willie Bolden, II 32 i John Bascom, John Henry Butler, Robert Curtis, Douglas Britt, Johnny Willis, are hereby temporarily restrained and enjoined as follows: (1) From directly or deliberately disrupting classes in progress at the Pike County High School and the Pike Consolidated High School. The seven persons last named are further restrained from entering upon the school premises of the Pike County School System for such purpose. (2) From any act of vandalism, including th,e destruc- I tion or damaging of property, on the premises of the Pike County High School or Pike Consoli dated High School or any other school of the Pike County system. (3) From inciting or inducing any parent or student, by threats, violence, intimidation or direct coercion, to violate the compulsory school at- j tendance laws of the State of Georgia as applied !i to Pike County. This does not include, however, the individual, uncoerced decision of students inot to attend classes or of parents not to send their children to school. | Nothing in this order shall prohibit orderly inarches, as- >semblies or demonstrations within a reasonable distance from the I schools in question, nor shall it prevent speeches regarding the issues involved in the Pike County school dispute, provided such !] activities are carried on at such times and in such fashion as not to interfere with the operation of said schools. j The restraining order herein granted shall become effect!vis! Monday, May, 19, 1969. -8= 32o i The court feels that the balance we have struck between legitimate First Amendment rights of speech and demonstration, and ' of racial cooperation which is, in the end, our ultimate goal as The court note* in conclusion, that in Civil Action Ho. 890 the plaintiff, Glover, has also sought a temporary restraining order; and injunction as to certain issues in his case. It appears, how- J ever, that his status as principal is presently not affected and ! will not be until the 1969-1970 school year begins. Prior to that j time the court hopes to have the issues in both of these cases disposed of. In the meantime, any of the enumerated acts of which he complains which are committed pendente lite by the defendants J will be done at their peril. His application for a temporary re~ | straining order is therefore denied, but on condition that his ! status not be changed pending further order of the court. II!it One of these cases {No. 890) is assigned to Judge Albert J. ji|j Henderson of this court. I am authorized to say that he concurs 1 in this order. t| the orderly processes of education, will benefit all segments of i; |j the Pike County community, white and black, and promote that spirit’ a nation. Kelly v. Page, supra. CONCLUSION This 17th day of May, 1969. f filsj cl NEWELL EDENFIE^p' 1 United States District Judge / 32 d FILED IN OJERK'S OFFICE M A Y 2 1 1 9 6 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION DARRELL W. WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, ‘"VS" X CIVIL ACTION NO. 862X HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., at al., Defendants. X _ — . . . . . . . . X D. F. GLOVER, Plaintiff, -V 8 - HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al., Defendants. X X X X CIVIL ACTION NOTICE OF MOTION TO5 JOHNNIE L. CALDWELL, ESQ. Caldwell & Bridges Attorneys at Law Crawley Street Thomaston, Georgia, Attorney for defendants You are hereby notified that the plaintiffs in the above civil actions intend to bring the attached motion to vacate on to be heard within two days from this date, or as soon there after as they may be heard. You are invited to respond as you see fit. Dated: this day of May, 1969. HOWARD MOORE, JR. 1 [/ ~ PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 33 u 1 'I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION DARRELL W. WILLIAMS,, et al., X Plaintiffs, X~vs~ HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc* , at al., XDefendants. X XD. F. GLOVER, XPlaintiff, • vs» X HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al., XDefendants. X MOTION TO VACATE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER _____ _ Plaintiffs in the above-consolidated civil actions move the Court to vacate the temporary restraining order entered herein without notice and hearing to plaintiffs on May 17, 1969 , on the grounds that: (a) Defendants' attorney failed to certify to the Court their efforts, if any, to give notice, and the reasons why notice should not be required? (b) Defendants failed to post a bond with their motion; (c) The counter-claim fails to state a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction; flLED IN CLERK'S OFFICE MAY 2 1 1 9 6 9 CIVIL ACTION NO. 862 CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 33 i J (d) The counter-claim fails to state a claim involving the violation of any federal rights; {£) The parties enjoined have not acted in active concert or participation with the named plaintiffs? Cg) The temporary restraining order was never and no longer is necessary for the prevention of irreparable injury to the defendants; (h) No hearing has been set down for a hearing on any preliminary injunction requested by defendants, nor was a request for the same made; and (i) The injunction is impermissably vague. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the temporary injunction be vacated, immediately, or, in the alternative, that they be given a hearing as soon as possible. (e) The temporary restraining order entered by the Court is not endorsed with the time and date of issuance; HOWA PETExx X X. X ^ X . X ^ X X V X X - X 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS -2- 332 XN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION DARRELL W. WILLIAMS, et al.„ Plaintiffs, “ V S ” HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc,, et al., Defendants. X I CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 I X BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE On Thursday, May 15, 1969, the deadline for the defendants in these cases to file their plan of desegregation, counsel for plaintiffs was notified by the Court, while on another matter not here relevant, that defendants would be in Atlanta at about 5:30 p. m., and requested counsel's presence to discuss certain matters about the Pike County situation. Counsel for defendants arrived, presented their plan for desegregation, and a "motion" asking for an injunction against certain named persons. The Court indicated its concern, doubts over its jurisdiction, and requested counsel for plaintiffs to travel to Pike County the next day to see what he could do about the on-going school boy cott. Counsel did so, and reported to the Court that the persons with whom he talked said that they had no control over the boycott, but that they were willing to issue a statement the next day to the effect that they were against violence and D. F. GLOVER, Plaintiff, “ V S™ HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al., Defendants. FILED IN OERK-S OFFICE M A Y 2 1 1 9 6 9 OAUDEM. CIVIL ACTION NO. &62 disruption; in favor of exercising their First Amendment rights; and, deplored the activities of certain local officials against members of the Negro race. The Court took the matter under advisement. On Saturday, May 17, counsel for plaintiffs was informed by counsel for defendants that they intended to present a motion to the Court within twenty minutes. Counsel for plaintiffs arrived at the court, and in due course were served with the new motion styled, "Motion for leave to file counterclaim, or, in the alternative to add parties plaintiff." The new motion was duly substituted for the motion presented on May 15, and the temporary restraining order of the Court filed on May 17, 1969. The temporary restraining order enjoins certain named persons and members of the class represented by Negro parents and children from disrupting or disturbing classes; from acts of vandalism at schools; and from inciting or inducing parents or students by threats, violence, intimidation or direct coercion from violating compulsory school attendance laws. First Amend ment activity, within a reasonable distance from the schools in question, is not prohibited. However unlawful the alleged conduct under state law of those sought to be restrained may be, such conduct does not give the defendants cause of action in a United States Court for injunctive relief. Those persons sought to be restrained are all private parties, and it is still the law that the Fourteenth Amendment and statutes enacted pursuant to it, including 42 U. S. C., §1985 (Conspiracy), apply only where there is state action. See CORE v. Clemmons, 323 F. 2d 54 (5th Cir. 1963); hucom v. Atlantic National Bank of West Palm Beach, 354 F. 2d 51 C5th Cir. 1965) . Nor is there a federal right in city, county, or school -2- 334 officials to be protected in performance of their duty. The situation is as stated in Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U. S. 651, 662 « .(Georgia] courts are open to • • *{defendants] and its laws offer redress for their injury and vindication for their rights." And, “Moreover, this unusual federal action {the counterclaim) is in an area that is essentially one of state responsibility - the preservation of public order; and there is no lack of breach of peace statutes in . . . [Georgia]." CORE v. Clemmons, supra, 323 F. 2d, at 55. ----- The proper decision would have been to deny the counter claim and refuse injunctive relief. This is not a decision where the defendants are claiming that through some state action their First Amendment rights are being violated. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479. Abstention on the counterclaim is more than proper; federal courts are not intended to act as local courts of low jurisdiction. The content of the injunction issued by the Court, moreover, shows on its face that it is not designed to protect the juris diction of the Court. The Court has merely enjoined certain persons from continuing State criminal acts. To say that the disruptive actions within Pike County must be halted to allow the Court's pending desegregation decree to be carried out is to lay all the blame on Negro citizens and ignore completely the fact that recent incidents were triggered by the failure of the white school superintendent to rehire a Negro principal. And, one might add parenthetically, plaintiffs requested the Court to exercise its affirmative jurisdiction effective as of the second semester of this school year, instead of waiting until the present time to enter a decree. The recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Carroll v . President and Commissioners of Princess Anne, ____ -3- 335 3 * -- — . ,7 Ct. 347; has direct relevance to this pro- seeding. In Carroll, an injunction was obtained against white supremacist rallies from a state court in a totally ex parte fashion. Counsel for Carroll were notified neither formally nor informally, nor was a hearing held prior to issuance of the injunction, in the instant case, counsel for plaintiffs was notified informally of the presentment of motions by the moving party, but never given any sort of hearing; nor, was counsel served with the moving petitions with any sort of advance notice so that counter-affidavits might be prepared. In the language of Carroll, there was no “opportunity to participate" for those against whom injunctive relief is sought. 89 S. Ct. at 351. The events sought to be restrained are within the ambit of the First Amendment as much as those in Carroll. The speeches in Carroll may well have presented a clear and present danger, but the Court was not thereby deterred from holding that the speakers should have been given a chance to participate in the proceedings, prior to injunction. Similarly, the marching and speaking of which the defendants herein complain are familiar tools in the efforts of Southern Blacks to free themselves from historic oppression. The command of the injunction against First Amendment activity within a "reasonable distance from the schools," or against speeches which in and of themselves "interfere with the operation of said schools," is, frankly, Carroll all over again. There are, of course, serious vagueness problems with these conditions. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229. The other points made in the motion to vacate, lettered as “a," "b," “e,“ and "f,“ are all specifically covered by Rule 65(b) and (c), F. R. C. P. On the technical or general grounds, the temporary restraining order should be vacated forthwith. 33 o4- Respectfully submitted HOWA PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PETER E. RINDSKOPF, of counsel for plaintiff in the above and foregoing pleadings, do hereby certify that I have, this day, prior to filing, served copies of the within and foregoing notice, motion, and memorandum in support thereof upon counsel of record for defendants, Johnnie L. Caldwell, Esq., Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing copies of the same in the United States Mail, with adequate postage affixed thereto, addressed as above. This ~L~t> day of May, 1969. PEfER E. RINDSKO; OF COUNSEL -5- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN D IV ISIO N F,l£D IN CLERK'S OFFICE D. F, GLOVER, Plaintiff, -VS- M A Y 2 3 1969 X CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 HAROLD T. DANIEL, etc., et al Defendants X X NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO: JOHNNIE L. CALDWELL, ESQ. CALDWELL & BRIDGES CRAWLEY STREET THOMASTON, GEORGIA, Attorney for Defendants. Please take notice that at 3:30 o'clock, p. m., on the 2nd day of June, 1969, at the Pike County Superior Court, Zebulon, Georgia, the plaintiff in the above-entitled action will take the deposition of defendant, Harold T. Daniel, Superin tendent of Schools, Zebulon, Georgia, upon oral examination pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a notary public or before some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. The oral examination will continue from day to day until completed. You are invited to attend and exa mine as you see fit. Dated: this day of May, 1969. /a t ! f i l i a l HOWARD MOORE, /jR.' ~ PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 339 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PETER E. RINDSKOPF, of counsel for plaintiff in the above case, do hereby certify that I have, this day, prior to filing, served a copy of the within and foregoing notice to take deposition upon counsel for defendant, Johnnie L, Caldwell, Esq., Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, with proper postage affixed thereto, to mail the same first class, this day of May, 1969 34U { IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEW NAN DIVISION D A R R E L L W, W ILLIAM S, e t a l. , P la in t if f s , *N CUERICS OFFICE MAT 2 9 1969 vs CIVIL ACTION NO. 862 HAROLD T. D A N IE L , e t c . , e t a l. , D efen d a n ts. D . F . G LO VER, P la in tiff , v s HAROLD T. D A N IE L , e t c . , et a l. , D efen d a n ts. CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 ANSW ER OF D E F E N D A N T S IN CASE NO. 890 IN THE ABO VE CONSO LIDATED CIVIL ACTIONS FIR ST D E F E N SE The co m p la in t f a ils to s ta te a c la im a g a in s t the d efen d an ts upon w hich r e l ie f can be gran ted . SECOND D E F E N S E D efen d an ts m ove the C ourt to d is m is s th is a c tio n a s a c la s s a c tio n on the grounds that the p e r s o n s w hom the p la in tiff p u rp orts to r e p r e s e n t as a c la s s do not in fa c t co n stitu te a s in g le c la s s , and that sa id p e r s o n s a r e not p ro p er ly and fa ir ly r e p r e se n te d b y the p la in tiff , and that a ll other N eg r o te a c h e r s and p r in c ip a ls , in d iv id u a lly , or a s a c la s s , do n ot sh a re com m on q u e stio n s of law and fa c ts , nor a re any of the p e r so n s p urp ortin g to co n stitu te the c la s s s im ila r ly s itu a ted , a ll of w h ich a p p ea rs on the fa ce of p la in tif f 's co m p la in t. 34 i THIRD DEFENSE L D efendants adm it the a lle g a tio n s contained in P aragrap h s 1 and 2 of the com p la in t. 2 . D efendants deny the a lleg a tio n s contained in P aragrap h 3 of the com p la in t, 3 . D efen dan ts adm it the a lleg a tio n s contained in P aragrap h 4 and 5 of the com p la in t, 4 . D efen dan ts e x p r e s s ly deny the a lle g a tio n s in P aragrap h 6 of the com p la in t that p la in tiff is p re se n tly h ighly q ualified for h is p o sitio n , o r , that in te r m s of c e r t if ic a tio n and ex p e r ie n c e , p la in tiff is the m o st q ualified of a ll the p resen t te a c h e r s and p r in c ip a ls in P ik e County, A ll other a lle g a tio n s in sa id P aragraph 6 are ad m itted . 5. D efen d an ts, an sw erin g P aragrap h 7 of the com p la in t, adm it that T. H. CHAMBERS has r e s ig n ed , and that p la in tiff w as n otified on A p ril 9, 1969, a s p er E xh ib it A of p la in tiff's com p la in t, that he would not be r e -h ir e d for the com in g sch o o l y e a r . A ll other a lle g a tio n s contained in sa id P aragrap h 7 a re d en ied . 6. D efendants adm it the a lleg a tio n s in P aragraph 8 of p la in tiff's com p la in t. 7 . D efendants deny a ll the a lle g a tio n s of P aragrap h 9 and 10 of p la in t if f 's com p la in t. FOURTH DEFEN SE D efendants show that the reco rd in th is ca se r e f le c ts that at the tim e of the f ilin g of p la in tiff's com p la in t, and at a ll t im e s su bsequ en t th ereto , m em b ers of the N eg ro ra ce have b een in a su p e r v iso r y cap acity over m em b ers of the White ra ce em p loyed by and attending sa id sch oo l sy s te m . D efendants fu rth er show that a m em b er of the N egro ra ce has been e lec te d to s'erve as the p rin cip a l of P ike County C onsolidated High S chool for the com ing sch o o l y ea r . 342 The P ike County School S ystem c o n s is ts of four sc h o o ls , each having a p rin cip a l. At the p resen t tim e , two p rin cip a ls are m em b ers of the White ra ce , and two p rin cip a ls are m em b ers of the N egro race. W HEREFORE, defendants dem and judgm ent that the com p lain t h ere in be d ism is se d and that they have th e ir co sts and d isb u rsem en ts of th is action . Johnnie L . C aldw ell C aldw ell and B r id g es A ttorn eys for H arold T. D aniel and P ik e County B oard of E d ucation . C ald w ell and B r id ges A ttorn eys at Law C raw ley S treet T h om aston , G eorgia 30286. 343 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHNNIE L. CALDW ELL* of c o u n se l fo r d efen d an ts h e r e in , do h ereb y c e r t ify that I have se r v e d a cop y of the w ith in and fo r e g o in ganswer* aastiea? upon the p la in tiffs by d ep o sit in g a cop y of the sa m e in the U nited S ta tes M ail, a d d r esse d to H oward M oore, J r . and P e te r E . R indskopf, 859 1/2 Hunter S tr ee t, N . W ., A tlan ta , G e o rg ia , 30314, c o u n se l of re co r d for the p la in tiff. T h is <3 ? f f i d ay of M ay, 1969 344 m u IK C m ' S CFF1CE JUU 4 - 1969 B̂ y ozAt clerk x UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T Oeputy Clerl NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 D» F„ GLOVER VERSUS HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia, and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION O R D E R The above styled action for injunctive relief has been filed with the court. It appears that a full hearing will be re quired to dispose of the important issues which have been raised before the court. Therefore, the respondents are ordered to show cause , ,, y, C X C * before this court/?on the V 3-'**/ day of June, 1969, at _p’clock ,M., why the relief which petitioner requests should not be granted. So ordered this the 4th day of June, 1969. !ge, United States ̂ DistrictJudge, United States^District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 345 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION FILED IN CLERK’S OfFICf D. F . G ROVER, P la in tiff vs HARO IF* T. D A N IE L , In d iv id u a lly and as S u p erin ten d en t of S ch o o ls o f P ike County, G e o r g ia , and PIKE COUNTY BOARD O F EDUCATIO N, D efen d an ts JUN 6-1969 INTERROGA TORIES TO: M r, P c te r E , R indskopf 859 1 /2 H unter S tr e e t , N . W. A tlan ta , G eorg ia 30514 The d efen d an ts re q u e s t that the p la in tiff , D , F , G L O V ER , a n sw e r under oath, in a cco rd a n ce w ith Rule 33 of the F e d e r a l R u les of C iv il P r o c e d u r e , the fo llow in g in te r r o g a to r ie s : L State the fa c ts upon w h ich you contend th e , "defendants have r e fu se d to r e -h ir e p la in tiff b eca u se of h is r a c e" , a s a lle g e d in you r c o m p la in t. 2. G ive the n a m es and a d d r e s s e s of a ll p e r s o n s having k n ow led ge of the a n sw ers s e t fo r th in In te rr o g a to r y N o. 1 a b o v e . 3. State the fa c ts upon w hich you contend that, "defendants do n ot w ish a m em ber of the N eg ro R ace to be p laced in a s u p e r v is o r y p o s it io n o v e r m e m b e r s of the W hite R ace 4 . State the n a m es and a d d r e s s e s of a ll p e r s o n s having k now ledge of the a n sw ers s e t forth in In terro g a to ry N o . 3. 5 . To your k now ledge, in form ation or b e lie f , a r e th e re any "books, d o cu m en ts w ritin g s , or other tan g ib le th in gs" w hich e v id e n c e any fa c t or c ir c u m sta n c e upon w hich your a lle g a tio n s s e t fo r th in In te r r o g a to r ie s N o s . 1 and 3 ab ove a re b a se d ? 6C If so , p le a se d e sc r ib e each su ch "books, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other tan g ib le th in gs" giving: fa) The nature or fo rm of each su ch ." b ook s, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other tangib le things"; (b) S ub ject and con ten ts of each su ch ,rbooks, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other tan g ib le things"; (c) The p re se n t lo ca tio n and the nam e of the p erso n having cu stod y , co n tro l or p o s s e s s io n of each su ch "books, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other tangib le th in gs" . 7 , W ill you v o lu n ta r ily produce su ch "books, d ocu m en ts, w r it in g s , or other tan g ib le th in gs" and p erm it it to in sp ectio n or copying b y the d e fe is la n ts? T h is 5th day of June, 1969. C a ld w ell and B r id g es A ttorn eys for D efendants C raw ley S tr ee t T h om aston , G eorg ia 30286 I, JOHNNIE L. CALDW ELL, of cou n sel fo r defendants h ere in , do h ereb y c e r t ify that I have se rv e d a cop y of the w ithin and fo reg o in g in te r r o g a to r ie s upon the p la in tiff by d ep o sitin g a cop y of the sa m e in the United S ta tes M ail, a d d ressed to M r, P e te r E , R indskopf, 859 1 /2 H unter S tr ee t, N . W, A tlanta , G eo rg ia 30314, co u n se l of reco rd for the p la in tiff. T h is 5th day of June, 1969. Johnnie L . C ald w ell IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F . GLOVER, P la in tiff vs CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Superintendent of S ch ools of P ike County, G e o r g ia , and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, D efendants MOTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES HIED IN CLERK'S OfFICE J U N 9 - 1 9 6 9 The defendants h ere in m ove the Court for an O rder and show s to the Court the fo llow in g facts: 1. On the 5th day of June, 1969, defendants h ere in serv ed plaintiff w ith in te rr o g a to r ie s pursuant to Rule 33 of the F ed er a l R ules of C iv il P roced u re , a copy of sa id in te rr o g a to r ie s is h ereto attached, m arked E xhib it I. 2 . D efendants further show that on the 4th day of June, 1969, they w ere in form ed by telephone that the above captioned c a se was se t for tr ia l on the 23rd day of June, 1969. 3. D efendants show that b ecau se tr ia l of th is c a se is im m inent, the tim e for an sw ering sa id in te rr o g a to r ie s should b e sh orten ed requiring the p l a i n t i f f to an sw er said in te rr o g a to r ie s w ithin eight (8) days fro m the s e r v ic e th ereo f. W HEREFORE, defendants pray that an O rder is s u e pursuant to Rule 33, F ed er a l R ules of C iv il P roced u re , requiring the p lain tiff to an sw er said in te rr o g a to r ie s so that he m ay se rv e an sw ers to said in te rr o g a to r ie s w ithin eight (8) days of s e r v ic e upon h im . Signed: Johnnie L. C aldw ell C aldw ell and B rid ges A ttorn eys for D efendants C raw ley S treet T hom aston , G eorg ia 30286 348-3Sb IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D„ F„ GLOVER, P la in tiff vs . C IVIL ACTIO N NO. 890 HAROLD T. D ANIEL, In d iv idu ally and a s S uperintendent of S ch oo ls of P ik e County, G eo rg ia , and PIKE COUNTY BOARD O F EDUCATION, D efendants MEMORANDUM IN SU PPO R T OF MOTION TO SHORTEN THE TIME FO R ANSW ERING INTERROGATORIES M otions to e n la r g e or sh o rten the tim e fo r a n sw er in g in te r r o g a to r ie s are w ith in the d is c r e t io n of the C ourt and m ay be gran ted on m otion , n o tic e and fo r good cau se show n. Rule 33, F . R. C, P . W here c a s e is about to go to tr ia l , the C ourt o rd er ed a n sw e r s (to in te r r o g a to r ie s ) to be se r v e d w ith in f iv e (5) d a y s . W iltsop v . B a ld w in , 1 F . R . D . 169, In the in sta n t c a s e , d efen dan ts w er e a d v ised on June 4, 1969, by the C ourt, that th is c a s e w as s e t fo r tr ia l on the 23rd d ay of June, 1969, at 10:00 A. M. U nd er the R u les , R ule 33, F , R, C, P . , p la in tiff is a llo w ed f if te e n (15) d ays in w hich to s e r v e a n sw e r s on d efen d an ts; h o w ev er , th ree (3) d ays is added to the t im e if s e r v ic e on the op p osite party is n ud e by m a il. Rule 6, F . R. C. P . In te r r o g a to r ie s w e r e se r v e d by m a il on the p la in tiff , by the d efen d a n ts. D efen dan ts contend that r e sp o n s iv e a n sw e r s to in te r r o g a to r ie s w ould m ore c le a r ly d efin e the is s u e s and fa c ts in d isp u te , th e re b y r e su lt in g in su b sta n tia l sa v in g s of tim e and c o s t s . P la in tiff w ill not be req u ired , u n le ss the C ourt sh o r te n s the t im e , to a n sw er sa id in te r r o g a to r ie s b efo re the date of tr ia l , and the b en e fit of sa id a n sw e r s w ill be lo s t to the d efen d an ts. W H EREFO RE, for a ll of the fo r e g o in g , d efen d an ts r e s p e c tfu l ly m ove that th is Court o rd er the p la in tiff to an sw er sa id in te r r o g a to r ie s w ith in e ig h t (8) d ays fr o m the date of s e r v ic e . R e sp e c tfu lly su b m itted Fohnnie L . C a ld w e ll 'C a ld w e ll and B r id g e s A tto rn ey s fo r D efen d an ts C ra w le y S tr e e t T h o m a sto n , G e o rg ia 30286 351 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F. GLOVER ) ) )VSs ) ) ) HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually, ) and as Superintendent of ) PIKE COUNTY SCHOOLS, ET AL ) __________ ) Atlanta, Georgia; CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 890 % Q%- 1 O'A/ " QfO , ’ 2A- "'A* '■'i /0,0- 'r June 11, 1969 B E F O R E : Honorable NEWELL EDENFIELD, Judge APPEARANCES OF COUNSELS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Peter E, Rindskopf 8592- Hunter Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Johnnie Caldwell Thomaston, Georgia 35,1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 JUNE 11, 1969 - 0 - THE COURT; Well, gentlemen, I thought it might be well for us to sort of get together here in advance and discuss the disposition of this case and the Gainesville Case, which is at least somewhat similar. As you probably have been advised, I think these cases, ought to be tried on the merits* I don't see much use during the summer recess for any temporary hearing. I mean, looks to me like we might as well go ahead and dispose of them for once and for all. And it should be done in time for the school board and everybody else to make and to know their arrangements for the coming school year. As you know, these cases are, the two that are now before the Court, have been sort of half-way between two judges. The Pike County Desegregation Case which we are now dealing with was assigned to me. The Glover case which is now a matter before us is assigned to Judge Henderson. But they are inter-related because the decree in the — incidentally, has that been, have you gotten a copy of the decree I handed down in your case? MR. CALDWELL; Yes, sir. THE COURT: It involves, of course, discrimination in the employment or discharge of faculty members. So, any decision in the Glover Case would be inter-related with what 354 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 happened in the, my case. So, Judge Henderson and I decided we’ll just, I don’t think there’s any such thing as a two-judge court -- MR. RINDSKOPF: It will be my first experience with one, THE COURT: What's that? MR, RINDSKOPF: It will be my first experience with one. THE COURT: Well, we had one in the Atlanta School Case, Judge Sloan and Judge Hooper sat together the first time we ever had one. I don't remember who signed the order. I don't remember whether Judge Sloan signed it or whether Judge Hooper signed it. I don't — CLERK: I think Judge Hooper signed it finally. THE COURT: Anyway, we’re going to give you the benefi of two heads instead of one, for whatever it's \srorth. Whoever the case is assigned to may sign it. Now, the only time he and I can get together within the foreseeable future, because of other commitments, is the 23rd and 24th of this month. And in the absence of a strong showing to the contrary, we're going to try these cases on the merits, both of them, one following the other, and enter a final order. Now is there any objection to that procedure? MR. RINDSKOPF: No. No, sir. 3 5 b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 MR. CALDWELL: We have no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: You had something about some discovery yoi. wanted in advance of answer time, or something. I got a letter — didn't I get a letter from you, or was it the Gainesville MR. CALDWELL: We sent you a copy of the motion and the notice that we would ask for it this morning,, There are some questions, and they're very short, but we have asked that you shorten the time to eight days so that we would have them in time. THE COURT: To present at the hearing? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: How about that, Mr. Rindskopf? MR. RINDSKOPF: I don't object to that. THE COURT: All right. MR. RINDSKOPF: At the same time, I would like to -- THE COURT: All right, MR. RINDSKOPF: — complete our discovery. THE COURT: All right. MR. RINDSKOPF: By taking the deposition of the Chairman of the Board of Education. Maybe we could just pick a date while we’re here? MR. CALDWELL: We have no objection, if we can just know when it's going to be. MR. RINDSKOPF: I know you're going to be busy. MR. CALDWELL: This is the only thing that bothers me 3 5 b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 The Legislature convenes tomorrow morning. THE COURT: How long is it going to be there? MR. CALDWELL: I can't answer you that. THE COURT: It may be out day after tomorrow. MR. CALDWELL: It very well could. THE COURT: From what I hear. MR. CALDWELL: I couldn’t make a statement to that. However, -- THE COURT: I realize that. I understand that, and that is grounds for a continuance. But I don't think these cases ought to be continued. MR. CALDWELLs I don't want it continued if I can possibly work out a — THE COURT: Why don't you do this, you're not in session on Saturday, why don't you plan to take his deposition on Saturday? MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. THE COURT: I know you'll be out on Saturday, Johnny. MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And it may be that he can get excused or that they'll send this business to some committee that he's not a member of and he can, you all can get together and do it any other time, of course, — MR. CALDWELL: Pete, I would like to sort of see what the sentiment is over there tomorrow, and then I really think 35 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 that if we are over there beyond next Tuesday, we'll be there for some several days. MR. RINDSKOPF: All right. Well, let me check with the THE COURT; At any rate, -- MR. RINDSKOPF: -- with you tomorrow. THE COURT: -- why don't you all agree you'll respond you served him interrogatories, didn't you? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. You respond to his interrogate by this week-end. Today's Wednesday, and take the deposition of the Superintendent on Saturday, if you can't do it by agreement before then. MR, CALDWELL: Not of the superintendent. We've already done that. He said Chairman of the Board. MR. RINDSKOPF: Chairman of the Board. THE COURT: All right. Whoever it is. I thought it was the Superintendent. All right. That gets that part of it out of the way. Now, let me ask, what stipulations can be made to shorten the evidence in this matter, getting down to the, to the real issue involved, which I judge to be whether or not Mr. Glover was fired for racial reasons or for cause or for some reason other than race. For example, let me ask you some questions. Can it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 be stipulated what the rules are for, for example, does Georgia have a tenure for teachers? MR. RINDSKOPF: No. MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. MR. RINDSKOPF: Not in that county --no county. THE COURT: All right. What criteria exist, if any do exist, for the hiring, renewing or discharging, renewing of contracts or the discharging of teachers? Is there any writing, any criteria in writing or is there any oral policy? MR. CALDWELL: I'm sure there's an oral policy, but I am not at all sure, Your Honor, that it is in writing. I would have to go back to the minutes of way back in the system to check it. I have not done so, but I could. I can tell you what has been stated by the ~~ THE COURT: Well, isn't that going to be a backdrop against which this thing has to be tried, as to what the state criteria -- isn't that going to be something we might well be interested in? MR. CALDWELL: Well, we have an order, Your Honor, that says what the criteria will be. THE COURT: You mean the decree I entered? MR. CALDWELL: Yes. THE COURT: I think in general that's what it has to be. l ! VJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 But for example, suppose you didn't follow your own criteria, if you have some, I don't, I don't know whether you have any or not? MR. CALDWELL: Well, I know that -- THE COURT: Another question is who, who is in charge of hiring and firing teachers? The County Board of Education or the State Board, or the Superintendent, or whose function is it? MR. CALDWELL: The Code Section recites that the superintendent shall make recommendations to the Board, and the Board shall take such action as they see fit, based on the recommendation of the superintendent. Do you agree with that, Pete? MR. RINDSKOFF: Right. I expect the Board will turn out to be a rubber stamp. THE COURT: I understand that, but -- MR. RINDSKOPF: But it's at the county level. THE COURT: At the county level? MR. RINDSKOPF: Right. THE COURT: Well, at least we can get that much stipulated so we don't have to get Into who has the author tty. I assume your suit is addressed against the county officials, and, therefore, there's no dispute about that. All right. Now, how long is it going to take to try this case? 3 6 u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, it seems to me that this is basically a two-witness case, on the one hand, Mr. Glover: and on the other hand, the superintendent. And, based on the depositions we took, we deposed both of them, and, in two and a half to three hours. I would think that the direct examinations probably wouldn't be more than an hour. I would think that we could probably try it in two-thirds of a day. THE COURT: In a day or less? MR. RINDSKOPF: I think so. MR. CALDWELL: I think we could try it in a day. MR. RINDSKOPF: No more than a day. THE COURT: All right. Is the ultimate, basic issue going to be, Was this man discharged, or, not re-employed because of race? Is that going to be the issue in the case, the only issue? MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, that seems to me to be the central issue. There might be another issue, if it turns out that he was not rehired for no cause whatsoever. We may have to amend to bring in that. It- seems to me -- THE COURT: Well, there are some decisions in this area. There's no question here, for example, of reduction of faculty, is there? .i vj i MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 THE COURT: Many of the cases in this area have involved a reduction in faculty. MR. CALDWELL: I know of none. Do you know of any, Mr. Rindskopf? THE COURT: It's not a question of who has got to go? MR. RINDSKOPF: No, it1s not that question. THE COURT: There's been no reduction? MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. THE COURT; This is a straight question of whether they fired him, failed to re-employ him because of race or for some justifiable reason. All right. Has his successor been chosen? MR. CALDWELL: Been elected, and we recite that in the answer and in the depositions, the superintendent test ifie that he had been elected. MR. RINDSKOPF: But not signed to a contract. MR. CALDWELL: But not signed to a contract. THE COURT; In other words, you've tentatively selected his successor, subject to the outcome of this case: MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. He was elected at a regular meeting of the Board of Education for that purpose, and he was in a school system at that time, and he requested that he be given until at the end of school to sign his contract. THE COURT: Well, if he were fired for race, I would have to enter an order re-instating the other man, wouldn't It 3 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 MR. CALDWELL: I would have to assume you would do that, but, Your Honor, this Board of Education cannot pass up the opportunity to get a qualified — THE COURT: Well, I'm not -- MR. CALDWELL: -- principal. THE COURT: -- criticizing what you've done, but what I'm saying is whether he actually takes office, as far as this principalship is concerned, you don't need both of them? MR. CALDWELL: No, sir. But we'd be bound by our contract to the other man, I'm sure, under state law. THE COURT: Well, the cases seem to be rather clear that if he were discharged for cause, I mean for racial reasons he's entitled to a mandatory injunction reinstating him. I haven't found any cases on this subject in the Fifth Circuit. There should be some. I haven't really resears it. But there were some cases from the Fourth Circuit -- MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: -- out of the Carolinas, Tennessee and Missouri -- that's what, the Seventh Circuit? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: The Fourth and Seventh Circuit seem to have had more of the cases than have any other circuits. Thers are at least a half dozen cases from those circuits. And that seems to be what they lay down. But if there is a finding that he was discharged beca: 3 b 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 of race, then he's entitled to a mandatory Injunction ordering his reinstatement,, All right. Is there any other preliminary matter that we need to thrash out? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. We have one, Your Honor, that we contend that the pleadings on its face shows it’s not a class action. THE COURT: Well, now, let's get into that, because this is involved in both these cases. What's the need for a class action in these suits? MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, I think the class action relates back to the decree that's been entered in the case which runs to the class of teachers. THE COURT: Well, aren't, isn't that tweedle dee and tweedle dum, for this reason, whether there's a decree or not, it's very clearly the law that to discharge somebody for racial reasons is unconstitutional. It may also violate a court order. But it can't be done, whether it's because it's violating a court order or because it's violating the Constitu So -- and you're going to have to try each one of these cases, if other cases arise, on their merits whether it's tried as a contempt under the decree or whether it's tried as a constitutional question, aren't you, because, all, all the teachers who are fired may very well not fall in the same clas 3 6 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 Some of them may have been, the evidence may disclose that one of them was fired for -- MR. RINDSKOPF: Outside of the class. THE COURT: -- murder, kidnapping, child beating, I don't know what all, somebody else may have been fired patently because of race, but each would, each one of them to .would have/stand or fall on its own bottom. And it just strik me that in this area, I see little need for a, I don't know. there is the question outstanding, whatever you want to call it, as far as the firing is concerned, its intent, and if he's fired for racial reasons, it'll violate the Constitution and it'll also violate the order. Although, of course, there couldn't be any contempt here because there wasn't any order in existence at the time the renewal or failure to renew took place. But it seems to me like that we are biting off an unnecessary chunk when we undertake to make a class action out of this thing. We've got one man, he was either fired for racial reasons or for some other justifiable reason, and the answer is just as plain as the palm of your hand: If he were fired for racial reasons, it's illegal. If he were fired for some other reason, it's not. And I don't see how any other people somewhere else under some other circumstances, under a different set of facts, are concerned. 365 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ____________________ ________________ _ _ lb____ MR, RINDSKOPF: Well, speaking practically in this case, the class so far is Glover. I'll certainly admit that. There's no doubt about that. As far as I know, all the other cases in this area have gone off as class actions, in the various circuits. THE COURT: Well, some of them have, but the only thing they did, they didn't, or the only thing the class actio: did was invoke a Jefferson-type decree to prevent discriminate didn't it? They didn't undertake to adjudicate that every conceivable Negro who was displaced was thereby entitled to reinstatement? MR. RINDSKOPF: No, sir. THE COURT: Which would be one of the features of a class action, wouldn't it? If I had a class action, for example, in a securities transaction, and I enter a judgment for the Plaintiff in this class action, every holder of one of those securities within the reach of my judgment can come in and cash in on it, can't he? And on the contrary, if I hold against him, he's barred. That's the very nature — MR. RINDSKOPF: That's right. THE COURT: -- of a class action. Well, how can you enter a decree, how can I treat thi as a class action and enter a decree which would determine in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 advance whether some other person was or was not ~~ to be a class action, they’ve all got to be just alike. M R . RINDSKOPF; Similar l'y situated. THE COURT: You allege common questions of law and fact. It seems to me like you may have some common questions of law, but I don't think you have any common questions of fact at all, necessarily. MR. RINDSKOPF: Well, necessarily, if they don't fail in the common question of fact, then they're not in the class, then. THE COURT: Well, I say we're arguing tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. The outcome Is going to be the same, whatever you call it. MR. RINDSKOPF; I am in agreement with the Court on that, THE COURT: That matter addresses itself to me, anyway MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. THE COURT: What we'll do, we'll try the case and I'll determine, I'll let it proceed and treat it as a class action or not, and if anybody disagrees with what I rule, you can let the Fifth Circuit settle it. MR. CALDWELL: Your Honor, would it not require different evidence if it were a class action from the evidence that would be required if it's going to be an individual, Mr. Glover's case? 367 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 TIE COURT: Well, we’re going to try Mr. Glover’s case and that’s the very reason I don’t think there's any class action involved. MR. CALDWELL: Well, it will necessitate me bringing in a number of witnesses that I don't have to have in Mr. Glover's case, if we're going to say there are others similarly situated. THE COURT; Well now, you mean others in the Pike County System? MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir, because I don't know whether to expect Mr. Rindskopf to bring in twelve other teachers or two other teachers or nineteen other teachers, and I'll have to subpoena witnesses that will, that I can use in defense of this very thing, whereas, if we're talking about trying the Glover Case only, as an individual, then only the evidence that applies to Mr. Glover's particular situation is involved. THE COURT: Well, I don't think Mr. Rindskopf disagree; with that, I mean, I don’t know how you contemplate -- you don't have any witnesses concerning the other members of that class? MR. RINDSKOPF: At the present time, there's no evidence that other members of the class have been treated -- MR. CALDWELL: Well, we contend -- THE COURT: Well, at any rate, for this trial, we're going to try Mr. Glover's case, and when it comes to what kind ,1b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 of decree we enter, I may hear you all on that. But we're not going to try anything but Mr. Glover at the minute, at least, that's my present disposition. We may get a split in this two-bank court. I don't know. MR. CALDWELL: Of course, Paragraph 8 of his complaint says that all other teachers, save only three, one of them hav:.r resigned, the other two for personal reasons, resigning, have been offered contracts. All others — THE COURT: Well, that again militates, it seems to me, toward a holding that this is not a class action. And I'm not going to treat it as such for the time being. Looks to me like it's just like everyone of these other cases. They may call them class actions, or whatever you call them, but in North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, wherever the question has come up, certain named teachers said they were fired for racial reasons, and they entered a judgment, they may have called it a class action, it ordered them either to reinstate these teachers or that they didn't have to reinstate them. Sometimes they did have some they had to reinstate and some they didn't. But it didn't purport to deal with any other person except in general, enter a Jefferson-type decree, that they shall not discriminate, and that's already been done. MR. RINDSKOPF: Right. This case is a little differed than the ordinary teacher case. THE COURT: All right, sir. 3 b j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 MR. RINDSKOPF: Because we just now have our decree. THE COURT: At this hearing, at any rate, you can forget any other members of the class. MR. CALDV/ELL: Other than Mr. Glover? THE COURT: That's right. MR. CALDWELLi All right, sir. THE COURT: All right. What else is there to be discussed? Is there anything that would -- now, do you all want to put up live witnesses? I assume you do? MR. RINDSKOPF: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right. If that's going — MR. CALDV/ELL: We've got the depositions. Pete, we've got the depositions of both sides — MR. RINDSKOPF; Well, -- MR. CALDV/ELL: And we111 have the interrogatories. THE COURT: If it's not going to be too long, -- MR. CALDV/ELL: Would you rather have it live? THE COURT: -- I rather have it oral. MR. CALDWELL: Suits us. We have no objection to thae. THE COURT: For the reason, something may, with all respect to the genius of counsel involved, something may occur to me I want to ask them about that you all overlook, or somethi may come up that their deposition doesn't contain, and I, it slows things down if you're going to have a long trial on an interlocutory hearing to do it by oral testimony; but is there r% . ‘ ,> . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any objection, in the first place, that we try this thing finally and forever on the 23rd? MR. RINDSKOPF: No objection. MR. CALDWELL: We have no objection to that. THE COURT: All right. This is a final trial, and on the final trial you ordinarily do use oral testimony. All right. That means -- who's going to produce thesis witnesses? What witnesses do you want particularly produced? I assume you'll have Glover here? MR. RINDSKOPF: Glover. THE COURT: And what witnesses, what witness -- you want to cross examine some of the Defendants? MR. RINDSKOPF: Cross examine the superintendent, and probably the head of the Board of Education. THE COURT: Chairman of the Board? All right. Can we stipulate without going to all this foldera of subpoenas that you'll have both of them here? MR. CALDWELL: We'll have both of them here. THE COURT: All right. Is there anybody you want him to produce? MR. CALDWELL: At this moment I don't know of anybody other than Glover. MR. RINDSKOPF: I probably intend to produce one or two character witnesses. THE COURT: That's all right. I'm not saying you --— -.............. ..... ..19___ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 can't, but what I'm trying to do is to keep each one of you from having to run to the Clerk's office and get a marshal to serve subpoenas. We might as well stipulate now he will have the superintendent and the county chairman, and you will have Glover present, and if either one of you wants to bring somebody else, why, that's fine. The main thing I'm interested in, each one of you decide which witnesses you want to bring, but do either one of you have any witnesses you want the other one to bring? MR, CALDWELL: You're not saying, Your Honor, we're precluded from subpoenaing other witnesses -- THE COURT: No. MR. CALDWELL: -- if we think, when we leave here, I don't know of any, but -- THE COURT: You want, you may bring any witnesses who know anything about it, and so may he. But I'm trying to save each side from subpoenaing witnesses from the other side. MR. CALDWELL: At this moment, I can say I don't know of anybody other than Glover from your side that — THE COURT: And right at the moment he knows of nobody, save the superintendent and the chairman of the board, MR. RINDSKOPF: From their side. THE COURT: All right. And if either one finds out the other one has somebody you want, you all notify them and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 agree, or get a subpoena, whatever you want to do. Of course, the traditional way would be the subpoena. Normally we would have a pretrial order and each one would say who he was going to have present. But we're sort of cutti. this short and getting to the issue in a hurry. All right. Is there anything else we can do this morning? MR. RINDSKOPF: I think that's about it, Your Honor. MR. CALDWELL; I don't know of anything else. THE COURT; Well, all right. You all go ahead and get your discovery or your depositions or whatever you call it done by, I don't know, I said this week-end, and I said that primarily because I know you'll be out of the Legislature on Saturday. MR. CALDWELL; Yes, sir. I will. THE COURT; But you all work it out among yourselves, and if you have any trouble, so that -- I don't anticipate any, both of you have been very cooperative, and I'm sure you will continue to be -- but if you should run into any trouble, let me know because it's going to be awfully difficult to find any other date we can try these cases. CLERK: Judge, we might just, we have set it on the calendar, this case is first, so we might just discuss whether we try this one on the 23rd or the 24th. I don't see any other -- ‘3 7 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 THE COURT: I think we ought to take them in the order in which they were filed. CLERK: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And this is the oldest case, isn't it? CLERK: That's the way it was set on the calendar. THE COURT: Doesn't make any difference, if counsel in the cases want to agree on some other order. I have no other, I mean that's just a rule of thumb, CLERK: All right, sir. MR. CALDWELL: The only reason I would ever suggest a different date, Your Honor, would be that if on the 23rd a crucial argument was coming up over in the Legislature, and I, of course, would like to swap days. But — THE COURT: I assume we can work that out, everything else being equal. Looks to me like it's a toss-up which you try first. And, therefore, if there's some justifiable reason for reversing the order, I would be inclined to do it, but just at the outset, it looks to me like the oldest case ought to be tried first. MR. CALDWELL: I agree. THE COURT: And if for some reason that's inconvenient or if you all can agree to some other order of business, we'll do it that way. MR. CALDWELL: Well, I could just as well be in bad shape on the 2̂ -th at this point, over there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 THE COURT: Yeah. MR. CALDWELL: I mean over there, if we're going to be in session, -- THE COURT: You may be just as anxious to try it the 23rd as you might be the 24th. MR. CALDWELL: Yes, sir. If I find out somewhere down the line there's going to be a crucial vote on the 23rd, I would like permission to come to you and to the Court and to the lawyers in the other case and say, "Gentlemen," — THE COURT: I'll try to accommodate either side as far as those matters are concerned. All right, gentlemen. I don't know of anything else. If anything does come up, let me know, and let nothing stand in the way of disposing of It as rapidly as we can. MR. CALDWELL: What do you want to do about Saturday? You want us to set it up for Saturday or wait until tomorrow, or what do you want? MR. RINDSKOPF; This is off the record. I don't see any reason for this to be on the record. -0- (Whereupon, a discussion was held among Court and counsex off the record as per above.) -0- THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. Thank you for com:.. -0- (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10:$0 A. M.)_________ C. >"/' u.3 i ») - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA I, James G. Pugh, Official Court Reporter of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia do hereby certify that the foregoing 23 pages contain a true transcript of proceedings had before the said court held in the City of Atlanta, Georgia, in the matter therein stated. In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand on this JAMES G. PUGH / Official Court Reporter Northern District of Georgia *> t f> MUD IN ClfRK'S OFFICE J U N 2 0 1 9 6 9 CLAUDE/^ _ IN THE LNITED STATES DISTRICT COUftg FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA _________NSWNAN DIVISION Do F. GLOVER, 1 Plaintiff, I CIVIL ACTION V o I NO. 890 HAROLD T. DANIEL, et al s Defendants. I . 1 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Comes now D. F . GLOVER, plaintiff in the above styled civil action, and answers the interrogatories served upon him in accordance with Rule 33, F. R« C. P. as followss «> 1. Plaintiff is highly qualified to be a principal in the rike County system in terms of education, experience, certifi cation, and competence. Plaintiff is more qualified than any other teacher or administrator in the system save one principal who is retiring, and the superintendent who is not competing for « principal's job. There are no non-racial reasons of any substance for not re-hiring the plaintiff. Plaintiff has heard the deposition of defendant Daniel, and after hearing the same, believes that the reasons espoused by said defendant are so trivial and spurious as to be sham. 2. The most intimate knowledge of why plaintiff was not re-hired lies with the defendants. Plaintiff's qualifications are known to all in the system, and especially the Superintend ent and those teachers who have served under him. Names of those especially acquainted with plaintiff are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 3 7 1 3- Flaintiff's qualifications are such that he ought rightfully have the post of principal of the high school in the newly integrated system. Thus, the action of the defen dants speaks for itself. Additionally, the action of the de fendants in replacing a blacic principal with a white one, at the last Pike school in the fall of the 1968-69 school year, until protests by the black community, is evidence of the views of defendants. W. Same answer as number two. Hone at this time, 6 and 7. Not applicable. Dated: this day of June, 1969. r4i\T\.U ilUUuu j w PETER E. RINDSKCPF' 859& Hunter Street, N.W. Atlanta. Georgia 3031*+ ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT "A" 1. Harold Williams, Zebulon, Georgia; 2. Anthony Alexander, Zebulon, Georgia; 3. Mrs. Louise Batts, Fort Valley, Georgia; *+. Hallie Durr, Atlanta, Georgia; 5. Mrs. Ruby Barrow, Griffin, Georgia; 6. Dr. Lawrence Boyd, Atlanta, Georgia; 7- Miss Rebecca Dairis, Atlanta, Georgia; 8. Mrs. Susie Martin, Concord, Georgia; 9. Mrs. Geneva Mangham, Zebulon, Georgia; 10. Mrs. Elnora Collins, Zebulon, Georgia. 37 j COUNTY OF J P - Z i- Personally appeared before the undersigned authority duly authorized by law to administer oaths, D. F. GLOVER who after being duly sworn, deposes and says that__ he is the plaintiff ____ in the above and foregoing answers and that the facts alleged therein are STATE OF GEORGIA true. Subscribed and sworn to before me / U - K t , 19 .this / day of 0 * 4 NOTARY PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PETER E. RXND3K0PF, Hereby certify that I have this 18th day of June, 1969, served a copy of the above and foregoing answers to interrogatories upon courfsel for defendants, Johnnie L. Caldwell, Esq., Caldwell i. Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing the same in the United States mail, addressed as above, postage prepaid. 3 *3 I X FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE AUG?* 1968 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfeyi NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F . GLOVER ) ) CIVIL ACTION) vs. ) )) HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually ) and as Superintendent of Schools) of Pike County, Georgia; and ) NO. 8 9 0 PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ) O R D E R This case was tried by the court without a jury on a single issue; Whether the failure to rehire the plaintiff as principal of the Pike County schools for the 1969-70 school year was or was not for racial reasons in violation of his civil rights. The court concludes that plaintiff, having the burden of proof, has not proved his case. The evidence, at best, shows no more than deep-seated suspicions on plaintiffs part, unsupported by the record and in some areas shown to be without foundation. The evidence also discloses an attitude and course of conduct on the part of plaintiff which sufficiently demonstrates to this court that the recent orders of the court requiring desegregation of the Pike County schools can never be carried out with any hope of har mony so long as plaintiff remains the central bone of contention within the Pike County system. Finally, in the opinion of the court, there were valid nonracial reasons justifying plaintiff's discharge. - i - In the main, plaintiff sought to prove his case by the tes timony of the defendant Superintendent and other teachers in the school. In fact the only testimony he gave himself bearing directly on the question as to why he thought his discharge was racially i motivated was to the effect that he had given 19 years of good ser- ; vice, that he was professionally trained, and that he could think of no other reason for his discharge other than race. He did tes tify that the Superintendent told him he talked too much at prin cipals' meetings and that on one occasion, after his discharge and when the County Board met to reconsider its action, one Board member said he wouldn't vote to rehire plaintiff because none of the white folks wanted him. At about the same time, however, the same Board voted to hire another Negro principal in his place. The defendant Superintendent testified that plaintiff’s con tract was not renewed because his continued employment was "not in the best interest of the school" and because of his "lack of coop eration." He cites six instances or occurrences as justifying these conclusions. We will discuss them presently, after a brief history of the school difficulties in Pike County. The school population and faculty of the Pike County system are both about evenly divided between the races. Prior to the 1968- 69 school year the schools were operated on a segregated basis. Beginning with that year a rather substantial step was taken to integrate the first grade, but elsewhere integration was only token. Prior to *68-’69 the schools had four principals, two of whom were white and two black. At the beginning of the ’68-‘69 school year one of the Negro principals resigned to take a job elsewhere, and t -2- 3d3 when the County Board undertook to replace him with a white lady, the Negro students boycotted the school. As a result, the white lady resigned two weeks later— and was replaced by a Negro. There after, a suit to desegregate the schools was filed in this court (No. 862) and after a hearing in November of 1968, the schools were ordered to completely desegregate by combining all grades not later than the '69-'70 school year. A final Jefferson-type decree was entered to that effect in January, 1969. In the meantime, however, the County Board had declined to renew plaintiff's contract as prin cipal and the present action was filed. It thus appears that while the issues in this case and in the desegregation suit are not the same, they are completely interrelated. Against this background we go to the events leading up to plaintiff's discharge or, more precisely, to the failure to renew his contract for the '69-'70 school year. The defendant Superintendent relies on six occurrences as showing "lack of cooperation" on the part of plaintiff and as dem onstrating that the renewal of plaintiff's contract was "not in the best interest of the school"s First, defendant says that the plaintiff failed to cooperate by refusing to hold fire drills as re quired by accrediting regulations and state law; Second, that he was careless in failing to secure school buildings at night so that burglaries resulted; Third, that plaintiff failed to attend a series of regional meetings conducted at Griffin, Georgia, by the State University and by a national testing i -3- 3»4 service,, at which meeting desegregation plans were discussed; Fourth, that plaintiff failed to cooperate and, in effect, made impossible the giving of certain achievement tests to be used in connection with the proposed desegregation; Fifth, that plaintiff defied the Superintendent and the School Board in connection with their decision to replace a resigned Negro principal with a white principal, thereby causing a student boycott, and Sixth, that plaintiff violated school regula tions and made principals' meetings impossible by refusing to abide by a school decision as to the text boohs to be used. In delineating the testimony about these charges, the court will deal with them in something like their chronological order and not necessarily in the order of their importance. THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL WHO RESIGNED At the beginning of the 1968-69 school year one of the Negro principals in the County voluntarily resigned to take a better job with another system. Under the practice followed in Pike County the appointment of new principals was made by the School Board on the recommendation of the defendant County School Superintendent. At a teachers1 meeting shortly after the resignation of the prin cipal (Frazier), his letter of resignation was read by Defendant Daniel. In the letter Principal Frazier not only tendered his resignation but recommended two persons as his successors, one of whom was the wife of plaintiffs The defendant, however, and later the County Board, did not follow this recommendation, but instead announced the appointment of a Mrs. Elkins as successor to Princi pal Frazier. Mrs. Elkins was a white teacher in the system and though she was not then acting as a principal, she had previously had experience as a principal. Upon this announcement being made, plaintiff gained the floor at the meeting and announced that he "could not go along with this appointment", his reason being that the resigning Negro principal should be replaced by another Negro. According to the witnesses, the words, attitude, demeanor and tone of the plaintiff at the time of his announcement were intemperate, accusatory and demanding. As one teacher testified: "Now, I've been around school a pretty good while and I've never, just never seen a principal talk to a Superintendent in a manner, not exactly what he said, but in the manner of which it was conducted. I'm just not used to that tone of voice or anything else, from a prin cipal talking to a Superintendent." Going back to the plaintiff's actual remarks, he further stated that the Negro community had not been consulted in the choice of this principal, that they would not stand for it, and that the Board would hear from them later. The defendant and the other teachers listened to his remarks, but the Board nevertheless appointed Mrs. Elkins. Shortly thereafter, on September 10th, the Negro students in plaintiff's school absen ted themselves from class and began a strike or boycott against the school which lasted for approximately eight days.1 During 1 It is of collateral interest, though perhaps not of probative value here, that after plaintiff's contract was not renewed another protest, boycott by black students ensued just before 3ob -5- this period, meetings were held, demands and counter-demands were made, and in general the situation became so bad until two weeks later the newly appointed white principal resigned and was replaced by a Negro principal. Plaintiff testified that the boycott was brought about, by the appointment of a white principal. In his tes timony plaintiff does not state his connection with the boycott, but from all the circumstances the court is constrained to find, and does find, that he either instigated or encouraged it. For example, when interrogated by the court as to whether a boycott was the proper means of redressing such a grievance, plaintiff testi fied, "I would agree that this ought not to be done, but when you get into a situation where you can't deal with the people who are responsible, it might cause this type of thing to happen." It was shortly after this episode that the desegregation suit was filed. THE BURGLARIES During October and November, 1968, plaintiff's school was burglarized on three occasions, and certain televisions and type writers were taken. The school in question was in a rural area and from time to time before and after these burglaries the defen dant Superintendent had been advised by the Sheriff that he had found the school building unlocked or the windows open on his pa trols. Based on these circumstances, the defendant concludes that (Cont'd.) the end of the 68-'69 school year (May, 1969) and a majority of the black students remained out of school for the final 29 days of school. (See pp. 290-293 of the record.) This led this court to issue an injunction against plaintiff and cer tain others acting in his behalf against certain acts being com mitted on or near school property. 3d/ -6- plaintiff failed to cooperate in keeping the building secure. Plain tiff's contention with regard to the burglaries was that they had a terrific turnover of janitors at the school and that this resulted from the fact that they were underpaid. There had been at least one burglary in another school during the year and conceding that plaintiff was careless in not making sure that the windows and doors of the school building were closed and locked overnight, this, stand ing alone, would hardly justify plaintiff's discharge after 19 years of service. THE FAILURE TO HOLD FIRE DRILLS According to the testimony, state law requires eight fire drills in a school year, whereas the Accreditation Board requires one per month, or nine. During October of 1968, a Fire Marshal went to the plaintiff's school, at which time, according to the testimony of the defendant Superintendent, Mr. Glover admitted to the Fire Marshal that he had not had a fire drill during that school year. The Fire Marshal also reported to the Superintendent that on his visit to the plaintiff's school he asked plaintiff to hold a fire drill at that time, to which plaintiff responded that he was "too busy" and "had too many activities going on at the time", and for that reason the fire drill was not held. Plaintiff testified that he complied with the fire drill requirements but that he may have told the Fire Marshal that he had not had one for that month. He denies that he ever told the Fire Marshal that he was too busy and says that when the Marshal asked him about holding fire drill that day, he pointed out to the Marshal that the students at that time were on their lunch hour and that was not a proper time to hold a fire drill. Again the court finds that the plaintiff was guilty of some negligence or carelessness in connection with fire drills, but again the court does not consider this a controlling factor leading to the failure to renew the plaintiff's contract. THE DESEGREGATION MEETINGS AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS Between October of 1968 and May of 1969 the University of Georgia held a series of regional meetings in anticipation of school desegregation. At these meetings talks were given by University professors on bow to teach disadvantaged children, teacher-pupil ratios were considered, the original desegregation order of this court in November and tbe final order in January were also dis cussed, as well as teacher transfers between schools. Notices of these meetings were sent out by the State University to all of the principals in the Pike County system. The defendant did not spe cifically direct plaintiff to attend these meetings. Plaintiff's teachers, however, and all the other principals did attend but plaintiff did not. At these meetings one of the things being considered in fur therance of the anticipated desegregation was the best method of remedial teaching for those students who were behind their grade in one or more subjects. In this regard one of the assistant prin cipals, who worked with the fourth, fifth and sixth grades, proposed that (in his grades at least) the County go to a "non-grade" system. Under this system, which is apparently widely used around the coun try, a child would not be designated as being in the "sixth grade” but as being in the "sixth year." Upon reporting to school, all children in the "sixth year" would be permanently assigned to the same "home room" but would not necessarily be doing the same work in every subject. Instead, each child, as to each subject, would be assigned to work with a group whose skills and achievement were comparable to his own. Thus, as between two children in the same “home room" in what had formerly been the fifth grade, one child might be doing fourth grade work in math and sixth grade work in reading, while the other was doing fourth grade work in reading and sixth grade work in math, the object being to teach each child to the extent of his capacity and in keeping with his achievement in each subject without having to "flunk" him in the fifth grade for being behind in part of his work. Provision was to also be made for remedial teaching to bring up those who were behind. To institute this system it was obviously necessary to ascertain and establish the skill and achievement level of each student in each subject at the time the system was to go into effect. The proposal was discussed at faculty meetings and with par ents, and a series of tests were obtained from the California Test ing Bureau to be given to the (then) third, fourth and fifth grades in all schools, white and black. The tests were to be given by a team consisting of four teachers, two black and two white, and were to be graded by a machine. The colored children in the third, fourth and fifth grades were under the supervision of the plaintiff, and when the tests were sent to his school to be given to his students, the students made the tests impossible by refusing to complete them, mutilating 33U the test papers,, furnishing no answers, or erasing what they had written. Plaintiff admits that he is opposed to tests, and when he was told that his students were not taking the tests he made no effort whatsoever to see that they were taken or to encourage his students to take them. He testified that he was against testing because he thought that standardized tests were racially biased and that the parents had told their children not to take them because they thought the tests were intended to resegregate their children. He also stated that he entertained the same view. As he says, "Black people were not brought in on the planning for the tests and we were suspicious of the purpose." He further testified that notice of the tests "also made us suspicious because white teachers participated in giving them in black schools." Finally, as he says "I decided not to do anything because I felt I had been left out of the total planning and maybe I shouldn't interfere . . . 1 am op posed to testing." The court again is constrained to find, and does find, from all the circumstances, that plaintiff deliberately absented himself from the Griffin meetings which it was important that he attend, and that by deliberate action or non-action he sabotaged the tests. The court further finds not a scintilla of evidence to support his suspicions that racial motives were involved and further finds that if he had attended the meetings he would have known better. The court concludes that plaintiff's attitude and conduct with respect to these two charges, even if they stood alone, were sufficient to justify the defendant and the Board in not renewing his contract. At the time of the tests the desegregation order of this court had - 10- been entered and if plaintiff's suspicions had later proved correct he had only to bring the matter to the attention of the court. THE SELECTION OF TEXTBOOKS Standing alone, this charge might be just another bagatelle. However, it does shed light on plaintiff's contentious attitude and suspicious disposition. At a faculty meeting to select first grade textbooks for the following year the teachers voted to continue with a series published by the American Book Company. Apparently this vote was influenced in part by motives of economy since the system already had a number of these books on hand. Again plaintiff took the floor and protested this decision, insisting that the sys tem adopt a "multi-ethnic" series in which the pictures showed children of both races. In Georgia the textbooks to be used are : selected from a list approved by the State Board of Education, and i at that time there were no "multi-ethnic" books on the list. This ‘ was explained to plaintiff and assurances were given that when and if a "multi-ethnic" series became available they would be made available, at least insofar as plaintiff's students were concerned. Plaintiff, however, was adamant and according to defendant and some of the teachers, plaintiff's attitude and remarks broke up the meet ing. In fact there was testimony that as a result no further fac ulty meetings were held. Later in the year a "multi-ethnic" edition did become available in the American Book Company series and copies were supplied to plaintiff. The schools now use some "multi-ethnic" books, the defendant testified he had no objection to them, and one teacher testified that when the system is completely integrated he didn't see how they could get by without them. -11- CONCLUSION In view of its findings the court might well decide this case on the ground that the failure to re-employ plaintiff was justified. The court is of this opinion. But that is not the precise question presented. What the court does conclude is that plaintiff has not shown that his discharge was for racial reasons. Nor is this con clusion altered by the fact that plaintiff's actions and attitudes may have been provoked by his suspicions, sincerely entertained, that racial bias was being practiced elsewhere. Such practices, if they exist, will have to be litigated in some other proceeding, brought for that purpose. The question here is whether racial bias was practiced or shown as to him. In the opinion of the court it was not. In school matters and among teachers, white or black, the County School Superintendent is "boss"; and while a teacher undoubtedly has the right to disagree with the boss and even to tell him off, it has nothing to do with race to say that he does so at his peril. Unquestionably, the First Amendment gives a teacher the right to speak his mind; but it does not give him the right to disrupt a school or to choose its principals or to sabo tage its programs. See Tinker v. Des Moines School District. 393 U.S. 503, 507, et seq. The court concludes that it was plaintiff's action in these areas, and not racial bias, that brought about the termination of his contract. The prayers of plaintiff's petition are therefore DENIED. In the interest of future school and community harmony, however, it is ORDERED that plaintiff's former position be filled with a Negro principal, either by promotion within the present Negro fac- 3 3 3-12- ulty or otherwise. FURTHER ORDERED that if no suitable Negro prin cipal can be found for the *69— '70 school year, no white principal be employed for the position except on an interim basis until a suitable Negro principal can be-located. IT IS SO ORDERED. This 7th day of August, 1969. NEWELL EDENFIEL6' U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e -13- 3 a 4 'tet p ' AuG j 0/> %/ b. ' IN THE U N ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '** FOR THE NORTHERN- DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEW NAN DIVISION D , F , GLOVER, 1 P la in tiff , I v. I HAROLD T , DANIEL e tc , , e t aL , , 1 D efen d an ts, 1 CIVIL ACTION NO. 8 9 0 NOTICE OF MOTION TO: JOHNNIE L . CALDW ELL, ESQ. C ald w ell and B r id g es C raw ley S tree t T h om aston , G eorg ia , A ttorn ey for D efen d an ts. You a r e h ereb y n o tified that p la in tiff w ill b rin g the attached m otion to am end on for h earin g upon the b r ie fs w ithin ten d ays of th is d ate , a s provid ed by lo c a l ru le s o f C ourt. You a re in v ited to resp ond a s d eem ed ap p rop r ia te . Dated: th is 15th day o f A ugu st, 1969 . HOWARD MOORE, ffR. ’ PE T E R E . RINDSKOPF 859 1 /2 Hunter S tree t, N . W. A tlanta , G eorgia 30314 3a5 IN TH E UN ITED S T A T E S DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEW NAN DIVISION * D . F . GLOVER, 1 P la in tiff , 1 v . 1 HAROLD T . DANIEL, e t c , , efc a l. , 1 D efen d an ts. 1 CIVIL ACTION NO. 8 9 0 MOTION TO AM END AND SU P P L E M E N T FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW P u rsu an t to R ule 52 (b), F .R . C .P . , p la in tiff m o v e s the cou rt to am end and su pp lem ent i t s fin d in gs of fa ct, c o n c lu s io n s of law , and jud gm ent h e r e to fo r e f ile d , in the fo llow in g p a r tic u la r s: I . FA C T S P la in tiff u r g e s the cou rt to find ing th e fo llow in g su p p lem en ta l fa c ts: 1« Subsequent to the t r ia l o f th e c a s e , p la in tiff m oved th e C ourt for le a v e to am end h is com p la in t to co n fo rm to th e e v id e n c e by adding two p aragrap h s, w hich p aragrap h s c la im e d that the r e fu sa l of d efen d an ts to r e h ir e p la in tiff:(a) v io la ted the due p r o c e s s c la u se of the F ou rteen th A m en d m en t, in that it w as a r b itr a r y , c a p r ic io u s , and b a sed upon no stand ard s; and (b), that the r e fu sa l o f d efen dan ts to re h ir e p la in tiff w as b a sed w h o lly or in p art upon the fact that he e x e r c is e d h is r ig h ts o f fr e e sp ee ch at m e e tin g s c a lle d by the d efen d an ts, w hich r e fu sa l to re h ir e a cc o rd in g ly v io la te d the F ir s t A m endm ent, U nited S ta tes C on stitu tion . 2 , The Court m ade no ru ling upon p la in tif f 's m otion for lea v e to am end p rior to is su in g its o rd er of A u gu st 7 , 1969. 3db V 3. T he in ju n ction is s u e d by th e C ourt during the sc h o o l b o y co tt c o n t r o v e r s y in the S pring o f 1969 did not run a g a in s t p la in tif f n or w a s an in ju n c t ion sou gh t a g a in s t h im by th e d efen d a n ts, foo tn o te 1 to th e O rd er o f the C ourt o f A u g u st 7, 1969, not w ith sta n d in g . 4 . D efen d a n ts ad du ced no e v id e n c e b e fo r e th e C ourt in th e c o n tr o v e r sy le a d in g to th e in ju n ction , by a ffid a v it o r o th e r w is e , to in d ica te that th o se who w e r e en jo in ed fr o m c e r ta in a c t s w e r e r e q u e s te d , u rg ed , or in any w ay e n co u ra g ed by th e p la in tiff to so a c t , fo o tn o te 1 to th e O rd er of th e C ourt of A u gu st 7, 1969, not w ith sta n d in g . 5 . The b o y co tt in S e p te m b e r , 1968 of E a s t P ik e E le m e n ta r y S ch o o l w as e n te r e d in to by p u p ils fr o m p la in tif f 's sc h o o l on ly on one day; and, that atten d an ce w a s b ack to a p p r o x im a te ly n o r m a l on th e n ex t and fo llo w in g d a y s . 6 . T he stu d en ts who did m o s t o f th e b o y co ttin g d uring S ep te m b er , 1968, w e r e fr o m the s c h o o l(E a s t P ik e E lem en ta ry ) at w h ich the w hite p r in c ip a l had b een ap p oin ted to r e j ia c e the B la ck p r in c ip a l who r e s ig n e d , 7. W hen in te r r o g a te d by th e C ourt a s to w h eth er su ch a b o y co tt w ould be the b e tte r p art o f w isd o m , p la in tif f t e s t i f ie d , "I w ould n ot c o n s id e r it being the b e tte r p a rt of w isd o m . " 8. D efen dan t D a n ie l d id not h old any o f p la in t if f 's r e a l or im a g in ed " a c tiv it ie s" in su pp ort o r e n co u ra g e m en t o f th e b o y co tt in S e p te m b e r , 1968, a g a in st h im as a r e a so n fo r r e fu s in g to re c o m m e n d that h e b e r e h ir e d . 9. P la in tiff m ade a s g r e a t an e ffo r t to end the b o y co tt in S ep te m b er , 1968, a s o th e r s and w a s c r i t ic iz e d by d efen d an t D a n ie l for a tten d in g m ee tin g s b etw een p r o te s t in g p a ren ts and the B oard of E d u ca tio n . 10. N e ith er the a lle g e d " b u r g la r ie s" n or " lack of f ir e d r il ls " a t t r i buted to p la in tiff by d efen dan t D a n ie l r e p r e s e n t la c k o f co o p e r a tio n . 11. N eith er th e a lle g e d " b u r g la r ie s" n or " lack of f ir e d r il ls " a t t r i buted to p la in tiff by d efen d an t D a n ie l a r e grou n ds upon w h ich r e fu s a l to r e h ire can be w h o lly or p a r t ia lly ju s t if ie d . -2- 397 12. P la in tiff w as not in v ited to attend the d ese g re g a tio n m ee tin g s in G riffin by defendant D an ie l. H ow ever, D an iel did in v ite w hite p r in c ip a ls to attend . 13. T estin g w as a s u n su cc ess fu l at M r s. M ille r 's sc h o o l (E a st P ik e E lem en tary ) a s at p la in tiff's , but she w as reh ired for the com in g y e a r . 14. M r s . M ille r did not attend the d e se g re g a tio n s e s s io n s in G riffin w hich p la in tiff did not attend, but she w as reh ired for the com in g y e a r . 15. B lack p aren ts at E a st P ik e E lem en ta ry w alked out of a PT A m eetin g w here w hite a s s is ta n t p rin cip a l Cook attem p ted to con v in ce them of the e ff ica c y of te s t in g . P la in tiff did not a r r iv e at the m eetin g u ntil a fter the walkout o cc u r re d . D efendants did not show p la in tiff ca u sed the walkout or in fluenced the attitude of the p a ren ts . 16. The co n tro v e rsy over the accep tan ce of m u ltie th n ic textb ook s w as r e so lv e d in favor of th e ir u se on ly at p la in tiff's a ll B lack sch o o l. 1*7« P la in tiff 's conduct in the m u ltie th n ic co n tro v e rsy w as not ab u sive or d iso r d e r ly . 18. P la in tiff 's conduct in the m u ltieth n ic co n tro v e rsy is not a ground upon w hich re fu sa l to r e h ire p la in tiff can be w holly or p a rtia lly ju s t if ie d . 19. in te r m s of ce r tif ic a tio n and e x p er ie n c e , p la in tiff w as the m o st q u alified of th o se in the sy s te m reh ired for p r in c ip a lsh ip s in 1 9 69 -70 . 20. D efendants in troduced no te stim o n y to show that p la in tiff cau sed the S ep tem b er, 1968 b oycott. 21 . D efendants r e ly upon p la in tiff's sta tem en ts at a m eetin g in A ugust, 1968, in w hich defendant D an iel announced the h ir in g of M r s . E ld er as p rin cip a l of E a st P ik e E lem en ta ry w holly or p a rtia lly as grounds for th e ir r e fu sa l to r e h ire p la in tiff. 22 . P la in tiff 's conduct at the m eetin g in A ugust, 1968, co n s is te d only of sp eech which w as not ab u sive or d iso r d e r ly . -3 - 338 23c D efen d an ts h a v e no w r itte n or e s ta b lis h e d sta n d a rd s to d e te r m in e who is to be r e h ir e d or n o t. E a ch c a s e i s hand led by d efen d an t D a n ie l upon a c o m p le te ly ad h oc b a s is . 24 . D urin g h is ten u r e a s p r in c ip a l at tw o s c h o o ls in th e P ik e County sy s te m , p la in tif f in c r e a s e d a v e r a g e d a ily a tten d a n ce and sc h o o l lu nch p a r t i c ip a tio n s ig n if ic a n t ly . U . CONCLUSIONS C o n s is te n tly w ith th e am en d ed fin d in g s of fa c t , th e fo llo w in g c o n c lu s io n s of law sh ould b e reach ed : 1. D efen d a n ts' r e lia n c e upon p la in t if f 's sp e e c h a s a ground for r e f u s ing to r e h ir e h im v io la te s the F ir s t A m en d m en t, U n ited S ta te s C on stitu tion , a s m ad e a p p lica b le to the s ta te s th rough th e F o u rteen th A m en d m en t. 2. D efen d a n ts' r e lia n c e upon th e p la in t if f 's n o n -a tten d a n ce at the G riffin d e se g r e g a tio n m e e tin g s a s grou n ds for r e fu s in g to r e h ir e i s a r b itr a r y and c a p r ic io u s , in that th e r e w e r e n u m ero u s o th er B la ck fa cu lty and s ta ff who did not a tten d . A s su ch , the a c t io n s of the d efen d an ts v io la te the due p r o c e s s and equal p r o te c tio n c la u s e s o f th e F o u rteen th A m en d m en t. 3. D efen d an ts' r e lia n c e upon th e fa ilu r e o f p u p ils a t p la in t if f 's sc h o o l to p r o p e r ly take the C a lifo rn ia t e s t s i s a r b itr a r y and c a p r ic io u s , in that th e r e w er e o th er B lack fa cu lty and s ta ff w ho w e r e u nab le to p rod u ce s u c c e s - ful te s t in g r e s u lt s . A s su ch , th e a c tio n s o f the d efen d an ts v io la te th e due p r o c e s s and equal p ro tec tio n c la u s e s of the F o u rteen th A m en d m en t. III. JUDG M ENT C o n sis te n tly w ith the ab ove fin d in gs of fa ct and c o n c lu s io n s of law , jud gm ent sh ould be am en d ed a s fo llo w s: 1. Ju dgm en t i s h ere b y am en d ed in fa v o r o f p la in tiff , and p r a y e r s of p la in tiff sh a ll be gran ted . -4- 399 Respectfully submitted, HOWARD M OORE,JR ’ P E T E R E . RINDSKOPF 859 1 /2 H unter S tr e e t, N . W. A tlan ta , G eorg ia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PL A IN T IF F -5- 400 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE NO RTH ERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEW NAN DIVISION D . F . GLOVER, P la in tiff , HAROLD T . D A N IE L , e tc . , e t a l . , D e fen d a n ts . CIVIL ACTION N O . 8 9 0 B R IE F IN SU P P O R T OF M OTION TO AM END AND S U P P L E M E N T FINDING S OF F A C T AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R u le 52(b), F . R . C . P . , s p e c if ic a l ly p r o v id e s fo r su ch a m o tio n w ith in ten d ays of en try of ju d g m en t. T he C o u r t's o r d e r d en y in g p la in t if f 's r e q u e s t for in ju n ctive r e l ie f w as e n te r e d on A u gu st 7 . 1969 . T h is m o tio n is s u b m it ted on A u gu st 15, 1969, and is th e r e fo r e t im e ly u nd er th e R u le s . I. FA C T S F o r the co n v e n ie n c e o f the C ourt, p la in tif f w ill not r e in u m e r a te ea ch of the fa c ts h e w is h e s th e C ourt to find , but w ill s im p ly s e t out th e n um ber of the re q u este d fa ct and the p ag in a tion in the r e c o r d to su p p ort p la in t if f 's con ten tion . E la b o ra tio n w ill be m ad e on ly w h e r e n e c e s s a r y . (1) and (2) P la in t if f m a ile d h is m o tio n to am en d the p le a d in g s to c o n form to the ev id e n c e on June 24, 1 9 6 9 , sen d in g an o r ig in a l and tw o c o p ie s to the Court and se r v in g a cop y upon c o u n se l for d e fen d a n ts . N o ru lin g h as1/ yet been r e c e iv e d . Cf. T r , 2. (3) and (4) The in ju n ction e n ter ed by the C ourt in the c o n tr o v e r sy during the Spring o f 1969 sp ea k s for i t s e l f . It d o e s not run a g a in s t the U T r. r e fe r s to the tr a n sc r ip t o f the June 23 h e a r in g . p la in tiff by n am e. N one of the a ffid a v its in trodu ced by d efen dan ts im p lica te the p la in tiff in the turbu len t e v e n ts in P ik e County a fter h is n o n -re h ir in g . No a ctio n w as ev e r taken on the m o tio n s of th o se en jo ined by the Court to hold a h earin g and d is s o lv e the in junction p r io r to it s ex p ira tio n a fter ten d a y s. P la in tiff h e r e in did not so m ove for h e w as not en jo in ed , (5) TR* 109, 147=50, (6) TR, 109, 1 4 7 -5 0 , {7) TR. 149. (8) D a n ie l w as a sk ed for h is r e a so n s on c r o s s -e x a m in a tio n and gave the fo llow in g a s the r e a so n s for not reh ir in g G lover: f ir e d r il l s (TR. 46); b u r g a la r ie s (TR . 54); not attend ing d e se g r e g a tio n m e e tin g s (TR, 64); F a ilu re of te s t in g at h is sc h o o l (TR . 71); b eh av ior at m eetin g announcing se le c tio n of M r s . E ld er (T R . 85); m u ltie th n ic textbook c o n tr o v e r sy (TR, 89); engaging in c iv il r ig h ts a c t iv it ie s during sch o o l h ou rs by m ee tin g w ith p aren ts and sc h o o l board a ttorn ey d uring S ep tem b er , 1968 b oycott (TR, 107). D an iel d ec lin ed to g iv e any o ther r e a so n s . (TR. I l l , 114) (9) TR. 107-109; 1 4 7 -1 5 1 . (10) and (11) Cf. T e stim o n y of D an iel a t TR. 62, w h ere he c la im s that C h am b ers, a w hite p r in c ip a l, coop era ted w ith h im in stopping b u r g la r ie s at h is sch o o l, but r e fu se s to adm it that G lover coop era ted in s im ila r fash ion w hen the sam e b u r g a la r ie s c e a se d at P ik e County C on so lid a ted . E ach of th e se grounds is so far rem oved from ju st if ic a t io n for fa ilin g to r e h ire as to be im p ro p er ly "accum m ulated" a g a in st p la in tiff. (12) TR. 65, 130, 1 6 0 -61 , 2 7 5 -6 . (13) TR. 8 4 -5 , 247 . (14) TR. 242. (15) TR. 248. (16) TR. 103, 226. (17) TR. 91. -2- 4 u 2 (18) The C ourt's d isp o s itio n of th is is s u e d oes not find w hether p la in t if f 's conduct in the m u ltie th n ic c o n tro v e rsy w as grounds v e l non for refusin g to r e h ire , and only that the co n tro v e rsy sh ed s som e ligh t on p la in tiff 's a t t i tude and d isp o s itio n . (O rder, 11) The Court should r e so lv e w hether th is i s an is s u e upon w hich defendants can r e ly . P la in tiff su bm its that re lia n ce upon o n e 's attitude and d isp o s itio n would not he co n s is te n t w ith due p r o c e s s . (19) TR. 2 9 -3 0 , 4 3 -4 , 115 -6 . 4, (20) S ee n o s . 3 , /and 8, su p ra . (21) TR. 85, 8 7 -8 . (22) TR. 88. (23) TR. I l l (24) TR. 1 1 7 -1 2 1 . CONCLUSIONS E ach of the co n c lu sio n s w hich p la in tiff re q u ests the Court draw from the am ended find ings o f fa ct, and th o se find ings that the Court h as a lread y m ade flow lo g ic a lly th e r e fr o m . The ev id en ce is c le a r and con vin cin g that, perh ap s out of p erso n a l antipathy, defendant D aniel applied vague, in defin ite and n o n -e x is te n t stand ard s to ce r ta in conduct of the p la in tiff so a s to re fu se to re h ir e h im . But, during the sam e sch oo l y ea r , other te a c h e r s and sta ff who w ere o ffered new c o n tra c ts , w ere im p lica ted in the id en tica l a c t iv it ie s and fa ilu r e s w hich the Superintendent now c la im s count so h ea v ily aga in st the p la in tiff. It i s e qually c le a r from the te stim o n y that defendants r e lie d w holly or in p art upon ce r ta in pure sp eech in w hich the p la in tiff engaged at v ariou s m e e tin g s . Such r e lia n c e upon sp eech is forbidden. Bond v. F loyd , 385 U. S. 116; P ic k e r in g v. Board of E d ucation , 391 U .S . 563. P a r tia l r e lia n ce in fr e e sp eech a r e a s is a s con stitu tion a lly bad a s to ta l r e lia n c e . S tree t v . N ew Y ork, 394 U .S . 576. -3- 4u3 JUDGMENT for the plaintiff should accordingly follow. / i M y j HOWARD M O O R E /J R . ~ P E T E R E . R1NDSKOPF 859 1 /2 H unter S tr e e t , N . W. A tlan ta , G eo rg ia 30314 A TT O R N E Y S FO R P L A IN T IF F -4- 404 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Is PETER E c RINDSKOPF, of counsel for the plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing notice, motion and brief, upon JOHNNIE L. CALDWELL, Caldwell & Bridges, Crawley Street, Thomaston, Georgia, by depositing copies of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as above. PttKt IN CLERK'S OFFICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION Nnv 2 5 1969 D. F. GLOVER CIVIL ACTION HAROLD T . DANIEL, Individually ) and as Superintendent of Schools) of Pike County, Georgia; and ) PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ) NO. 8 9 0 O R D E R Plaintiff Glover has filed a motion to amend and supplement the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment heretofore filed in the above-styled case. The court finds that each of the findings proposed by plaintiff is either not supported by the rec- 1/ . ->/ord, is not relevant to the issues raised by this case, — or is contrary to the weight of the evidence as viewed by the court. Accordingly, the motion to amend is DENIED. This > 4^ day of November, 1969. As to Proposed Facts 1 and 2, court records reveal that no motion for leave to amend was ever filed. As to Proposed Facts 3 and 4, the record shows that the restraining order was entered in consolidated Civil Actions Nos. 862 (Williams v. Daniel) and 890 (Glover v. Daniel) and ran against all plaintiffs. 2/” S.q., Proposed Facts 7, 8, 12, 21, and 24. NEWELL EDENFIELD United States District Judge y 4 o b IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA NEWNAN DIVISION D. F. GLOVER,, Plaintiff, „vs« HAROLD T. DANIEL, Individually and as Supremitendent of Schools of Pike County, Georgia? and PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEAL CIVIL ACTION NO. 890 RUD SN CIERK'S OFFICE D E C 1 9 1 9 6 9 D. F, GLOVER, plaintiff in the above case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the order of this Court denying his request for injunctive relief, filed August 7, 1969, and from the order of this Court denying his motion to amend and supplement the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, filed November 25, 1969. Let the Clerk send up the entire record in the case. Dated% this f f l/ t day of December, 1969. HOWARD MOORE, JR. 1 ~ PETER E. RINDSKOPF 859 1/2 Hunter St., N. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30314 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF FIUD in CLERK'S OFFICE 1H THE UNITED TTAIEI DISTRICT COTRT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA JAN — 1970 NEW N A N DIVISION COST BOND ON APPEAL KNOT ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That «a U. t . Glover_________ as Principal and United States Fire Inc., C&>. sureties,, are held and firmly bound unto Clerk, United States District Court in the full and just sum of TWO HUNDRED FIFTY AND HOA00 DOLLARS ($250.00) to be paid to the said Clerk av assigns; to which payment well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, and administrators, jointly and severally, by these presents. Sealed with our seals and. dated this the 22nd day of December,.1969. VHEREAS, lately at a trial in the IETITED STATES DISTRICT COIRT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA in a proceeding pending in said Court, between D. F. Glover as plaintiff and Harold T. Daniel, et al. ______ as defendants *n -- 1 Action Mo. 890 , . a judgment was rendered against the said plaintiff and the said plaintiff having filed notice of appeal in the Clerk's Office of the said Court to reverse the said judgment in the aforesaid proceeding. NCW THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the said shall pay all costs if the appeal is dismissed or the judgment affirmed or such costs as the UNITED STATE'S COTRT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT may is modified or in any other event; then this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain In full force and effect; waiving all homestead and exemption laws of the United States and of the State of Georgia and all other States. b. F. Glover shall prosecute the said appeal to effect and award against the said D. F. Glover if the judgment Filed in Clerk's Office D. F. Glover, plaintiff 4 0 8 POWER OF ATTORNEY U nited S ta te s Fire Insurance Company Kossm o f f ic e t n ew yo u * . n . y K N O W ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the U nited States Fire Insurance Company, a corporation of the State of New York, by James J, Meyers e Sr .Vice President, and John K. Stewart , Assistant Secretary, in pur suance of authority granted by Article IV of the By-Laws of said Corporation, which reads as follows: Article IV. E xecution of I n s t il m e n t s . “The Chairman of the Board, President, or any Vice-President in conjunction widi the Secretary, or any Secretary, if more than one shall be appointed by the Board, or an Assistant Secretary, shall have power on behalf of the Corporation . . . . . (a) to execute, affix the corporate seal to, acknowledge, verify and deliver any contracts, obligations, instruments and documents whatsoever in connection with its business including, without limiting the foregoing, any bonds, guarantees, under takings, recognisances, stipulations, policies of insurance, deeds, leases, mortgages, releases, satisfactions and agency agree- (b) t© appoint, in writing, m (a), including affixing the seal of the Corporation.” one or more persons for any or all of the purposes mentioned in the preceding paragraph does Hereby nominate, constitute *nd appoint Harold B. Gunby of Atlanta, Georgia its true and lawful agent and Attorney in-Fact to make, execute, rail and deliver, for, and on it* behalf a, surety, and a. it* act and deed: Any and all bonds and undertakings , . ,he execlltion of such bonds or undertakings in pursuance of these presents, shall be as binding upon said Corporation, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposeŝ as if they had been duly executed and acknowledgedpurposes,' ' I offic_ ___tat issued August 3, 1967. hv the regularly ejected officers of the Corporation at its office in New York City, in their own proper person*. This Power of Attorney revokes that issued to Harold B. Gurib/ of Atlanta, Georgia, dated The above mentioned Assistant Secretary dots hereby certify that the foregoing it a true copy of Article IV, of the By- Laws of said Corporation, and is now in force. In W itness W hereof, the said Vice-President and Assistant Secretary have hereunto subscribed their names and affixed the Corporate Seal of the said U nited States Fire Insurance Company, this 9 th .. ____day o f „ _____________ , A.D. 19.69 A ss is ta n t S ec re ta ryC. Stewart Srwfii or New York I City or New York 1 - On this 9 t h day of July , A.D. 19 before the subscriber, a Notary' Puttie Of th* State of New York, in and for the City of New York, duly commissioned and qualified, came the above-named VkO-Pneasdent and Assistant Secretary of the U nited States F ire I nsurance Company, to me personally known to be the individuals and officers described in and who executed the preceding instrument, and they each acknowledged the execution of the tame, and being by me duly sworn, severally and each for himself deposeth and saith. that they are the said officers of the Company afore said and that the seal affixed to the preceding instrument is the Corporate Seal of said Company, and that the said Corporate Seal and their signatures as such officers were duly affixed and subscribed to the said instrument by the authority and direction of the said Company. I n T estimony W hereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal at the City of New York, the day and year firat above wntten. ^ £ f j [ s f a l j 0 ̂ johnW FALJ $t«tc d York. hVy$4-78Qjjltltfld sri King* County C«r. Filud tn Now York County £jip«ru March 30, 197^ Notary Public e3EP« Ernest E. Smith Assistant do hereby certify that the attached Power of Attorney dated------Harold B. Gunby_______________ is a true and correct copy and that same has been in full force and ef|ect__since the date of this certificate: and I do further certify that the said. _an<L Jlaoxgla- in behalf of £ e c r e ^ r ^ o f the U nited S tates F ixe I nsuja^ ce Com pany , ..... A t l a n ;fiect since tbe date ....... ...James J . Meyersthereof and is in full force and effect on ■John. K .a... S.tgWft£.fc. who executed^he attached Power of AtS?h£y^S*Vicc-President and Assistant Secretary respectively were on the date of the execution of the attached Power of Attorney the duly elected Vice-Pesident and Assistant Secretary of the U nited S tates Fire Insurance Com pany; and I do further certify that the following resolution has been duly adopted by the Board of Direc tors of U nited S tates F ire Insurance Company and is now in force: Resolved, that the signature of any Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Corporation certifying as to the execution, force and effect of validly executed Powers of Attorney of the Corporation, may be printed facsimile, lithographed or otherwise produced upon the instrument. In T estimony W hereof. I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the corporate seai of the said Company, this —------------------- ------- -——,—-day of—.—.—----- ------------------- - . - - . 19___ FM.20J.20.1J! 12/50 'Erne s Sift! Assistant Secretary 409 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA )) ss * NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA ) I, Claude L. Geza, Clerk of the United States District Court in and for the Northern District of Georgia, do hereby certify that the foregoing and attached ij.09 pages contain the original and ©omplete record on appeal ( except depositions ) in the natter oft B® F. GLOVER VS 5 HAROLD T. DANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUPERINTENDENT OP SCHOOLS OP PIKE COUNTY, GEORGIA AND THE PIKE COUNTY BOARD OP EDUCATION, as filed in the Clerk's Office of the said District Court at Newnan, Georgia. IN TEATIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto subscribe m j name and affix the seal of the said District Court at Nevn&n, Georgia, this 26th day of January, 1970 Claude L. Goza, Clerk Griffith Deputy Clerk 4 1 0