He Takes on Blacks and Whites Alike - 'I've Been the Prodigal Son' Herald Profile on Howard Clement News Clipping
Press
September 25, 1977

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Mills v. Polk County, FL School Board Brief for Appellants, 1992. 837c05ca-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a9843282-4882-40d1-939e-5fa3ec8c009d/mills-v-polk-county-fl-school-board-brief-for-appellants. Accessed May 22, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF- APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO. 92-2832 HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee vs. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et a l., Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS NORRIS D. WOOLFORK, III Suite 2 1325 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 (407) 872-1205 LARRY R. JACKSON Suite 220-B 101 West Main Street P. O. Box 3668 Lakeland, Florida 33602-3668 (813) 682-3111 JULIUS L. CHAMBERS NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Appellants NO. 92-2832 MILLS v. SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY The undersigned counsel certifies that the following named persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: ALLISON ALEXANDER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action LYDIA ANN ATKINS, a minor, by REV. JOEL E. ATKINS, her father and next friend ROBERT ATKINS, a minor, by REV. JOEL E. ATKINS, his father and next friend WILLIAM STERLING ATKINS, a minor, by REV. JOEL E. ATKINS, his father and next friend HARRIET P. BAKER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action MICHAEL T. BAKER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action SANDRA LYNN BEBER, attorney for the United States of America CLARENCE A. BOSWELL, JR. , attorney for the School Board of Polk County, Florida, et al. BOSWELL, STIDHAM, PURCELL, CONNER, WILSON & BREWER, P.A. , attorneys for the School Board of Polk County, Florida, in related, removed and remanded state court action DAVID S. BRALOW, attorney for Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corporation, applicant for intervention DEBORAH L. BRYANT, a minor, by MRS. ALEX JACK BRYANT, her mother and next friend JACQUELINE G. BRYANT, a minor, by MRS. ALEX JACK BRYANT, her mother and next friend JANICE PAULETTE BURNEY, a minor, by MRS. WILLIAM BURNEY, her mother and next friend C-l of 5 NO. 92-2832 MILLS V. SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY WILLIAM BURNEY, a minor, by MRS. WILLIAM BURNEY, his mother and next friend DARLENE CARTER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action DONALD CARTER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action NORMAN J. CHACHKIN, attorney for plaintiffs JULIUS L. CHAMBERS, attorney for plaintiffs J.J. CORBETT, Member of the School Board of Polk County, Florida JOHN R. DUNNE, Assistant Attorney General, attorney for the United States of America JAMES W. EDWARDS, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action FLOURNOY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Georgia Corporation, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action ROBERT W. GENZMAN, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, attorney for United States of America BEULAH HOBBS, a minor, by HATTIE HOBBS, her mother and next friend HON. WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, United States District Judge DENNIS INGRAM, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action LARRY R. JACKSON, attorney for plaintiffs HOPE JACKSON-JINES, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action AMOS JOHNSON, a minor, by CORA JOHNSON, her mother and next friend C-2 of 5 NO. 92-2832 MILLS V. SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY FRANCES LULA JOHNSON, a minor, by CORA JOHNSON, her mother and next friend LINK JOHNSON, JR., a minor, by LINK JOHNSON, SR., his father and next friend MICHAEL KEENEY, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action THERESA A. KEENEY, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action MARGUERITE G. KENNEDY, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action MICHAEL KENNEDY, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action VERNON HARRIS KINSLER, a minor, by MRS. FRANK KINSLER, his mother and next friend LAKELAND LEDGER PUBLISHING CORPORATION, applicant for intervention LAMBERSON, ALICE, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action ARVIN J. LANGE, JR., plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action SUE LANGE, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action S. LUKER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action HON. STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, United States District Judge HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., a minor, by ALTHEA MILLS, his mother and next friend DAN MOODY, Chairman of the School Board of Polk County, Florida JOHN R. MOORE, attorney for the United States of America C-3 of 5 NO. 92-2832 MILLS V. SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Parent Company of LAKELAND LEDGER PUBLISHING CORPORATION, applicant for intervention NEAL L. O'TOOLE, attorney for interested parties PADDOCK CLUB LAKELAND, a limited partnership, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action PADDOCK CLUB LAKELAND, PHASE II, a limited partnership, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action PARENTS FOR FAIRNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY IN EDUCATION, an unincorporated association, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action CATHY RASTATTER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action TIMOTHY RASTATTER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, Florida (formerly the Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, Florida) NANCY SIMMONS, Member of the School Board of Polk County, Florida JOHN A. STEWART, Superintendent of Schools of Polk County, Florida JONATHAN D. STIDHAM, attorney for School Board of Polk County in related, removed and remanded state court action CONSTANCE LAVERNE SWANIGAN, a minor, by MRS. MILTON SWANIGAN, her mother and next friend MILTON SWANIGAN, JR., a minor, by MRS. MILTON SWANIGAN, his mother and next friend DEBORAH JOYCE SWANIGAN, a minor, by MRS. MILTON SWANIGAN, her mother and next friend GREGG D. THOMAS, attorney for Lakeland Ledger Publishing Corporation, applicant for intervention C-4 of 5 NO. 92-2832 MILLS V. SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, plaintiff-intervenor JACQUELINE UTZ, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action CARLTON M. WALKER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action MARJORIE A. WALKER, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action CLIFFORD HOBBS WEEKS, a minor by ELLA HOBBS GREENE, his guardian and next friend ANDREA WHITELEY, Member of the School Board of Polk County, Florida RUBIE WILCOX, Member of the School Board of Polk County, Florida NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS, JR., attorney for plaintiffs JOAN S. WILSON, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action ROGER E. WILSON, plaintiff in related, removed and remanded state court action NORRIS D. WOOLFORK, III, attorney for plaintiffs The class of Negro children and their parents in Polk County, Florida C-5 of 5 Statement Regarding Oral Argument This appeal is prosecuted from an order entered on the basis of stipulated facts and the agreement of all parties that a hearing in the district court was not necessary. Although only recently assigned to this case, the district judge who entered the order had previously approved a comprehensive remedial decree — jointly agreed to by all parties — and thus had some familiarity with the matter at the time the dispute arose that is the subject of this appeal. Because the panel assigned to this appeal may not have that same degree of knowledge about the case, the Court may wish to hear oral argument in the matter. i Certificate of Interested Persons ...................... C_1 Statement Regarding Oral Argument ...................... i Table of A u t h o r i t i e s ................................... iii Statement of Jurisdiction .............................. v Statement of Issues Presented for Review ............. 1 Statement of the C a s e ................................... 2 A. Background of the l i t i g a t i o n ................... 2 B. The present dispute.............................. 5 1. The agreed o r d e r .............................. 5 2. Elementary school rezoning in the Bartow area 7 3. Out-of-zone transfers ........................ 11 4. Request for judicial determination ........... 12 C. Standard of r e v i e w .............................. 15 Summary of Argument..................................... 16 ARGUMENT--- Introduction ......................................... 17 I The Elementary School Zoning Plan Adopted By The Polk County School Board Should Have Been Rejected By The District Court In Light of Available, Feasible Alternatives That Would Achieve Greater Desegregation 18 II The District Court Erred In Modifying The Agreed Order Over The Objections Of Two Of The Three Signatory P a r t i e s ........................................... 30 III Guidance From This Court Is Necessary For The Proper Conduct Of Further Proceedings In This Action; The Certainty Of Those Proceedings Prevents This Appeal From Being Rendered M o o t .......................... 34 C o n c l u s i o n ............................................. 38 Certificate of Service ................................ 38 Table of Contents _ Page - ii - Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) 15 Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969) ......................................... 28n Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, ___ U.S. ___, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991) ................... 18 Table of Authorities- Page Cases: Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970)......................................... 28n *Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ................................... 21, 23, 24n Freeman v. Pitts, ___ U.S. ___, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992) 18 Graves v. Walton County Board of Education, 686 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) 2n Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ................................. 21 *Harrington v. Colquitt County Board of Education, 460 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 915 (1972)............................................. 22 Harris v. Crenshaw County Board of Education, 968 F.2d 1090 (11th Cir. 1992) 15 *Henry v. Clarksdale Municipal Separate School District, 406 F.2d 682 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 940 (1969)......................................... 24 International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Brown, 498 U.S. ___, 112 L. Ed. 2d 991 (1991) 36 *Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 883 F.2d 945 (11th Cir. 1 9 8 9 ) ............ 25-26 Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U.S. 450 (1988)............................................. 36 Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education, 463 F.2d 732 (6th Cir.), cert, denied, 409 U.S. 1001 (1972)............................................. 2n iii Table of Authorities- Page Cases (continued): Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, 303 F. Supp. 279, supplemental findings, 303 F. Supp. 289 (D. Colo. 1969), aff'd, 445 F.2d 990 (10th Cir. 1971) , vacated and remanded on other grounds, 413 U.S. 189 (1973) 25 Lee v. Anniston City School System, 737 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1 9 8 4 ) ......................................... 15, 23 Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 616 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1980) 29 Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746 (5th Cir. 1971) 25 Lockett v. Muscogee County Board of Education, ___ F.2d ___ [No. 92-8087] (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 1992) . . . . 2n ♦Mills v. Polk County Board of Public Instruction, 575 F. 2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1978) ........................ 3n, 30 Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. Mass.), aff'd sub nom. Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975) . . 25 Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, 333 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 2964) .............................. 24 *Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, ___ U.S. ___, 116 L. Ed. 2d 867 ( 1 9 9 2 ) .................. 2, 32, 33 ♦Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ............................ 21, 22n, 23 United States v. Board of Public Instruction of Polk County, 395 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1 9 6 8 ) ............. 3 United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30 (C.C. Va. 1807) (No. 14692) ....................................... 15 United States v. CRUCIAL, 722 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir. 1983) 29 ♦United States v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 574 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 982 (1978) 30 IV Table of Authorities- Page United States v. Lawrence County School District, 799 F. 2d 1031 (5th Cir. 1986) ........................ 23 United States v. Lowndes County Board of Education, 878 F . 2d 1301 (11th Cir. 1 9 8 9 ) ........................ 22n United States v. Swift & Company, 286 U.S. 106 (1932) . 32 Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, 646 F .2d 925 (5th Cir. 1981), cert, denied, 455 U.S. 939 (1982) 29 Cases (continued): Statutes and Rules: 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a) (1) v 28 U.S.C. § 1343 ( 3 ) ..................................... v 42 U.S.C. § 1983 V Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 2 ( b ) ................................... 28n Statement of Jurisdiction This suit was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the deprivation of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiff class that were being denied by the maintenance of a racially segregated public school system. The district court accordingly has jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). This appeal was taken from the August 17, 1992 order of the district court which modified prior injunctive orders governing pupil assignment in the defendant school system, by the timely filing of a Notice of Appeal on August 20, 1992. This Court therefore has jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a) (1) . v IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF- APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NO. 92-2832 HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, vs. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al. , Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division * 1 2 BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS Statement of the Issues This appeal presents two legal issues: 1. Did the district court err in approving the plan of elementary school rezoning for the Bartow area adopted by the School Board of Polk County, which creates racially identifiable schools through systematic overcrowding of some facilities and under-utilization of other buildings? 2. Did the district court err in modifying a consent order over the objections of two signatory parties in the absence of the showing of changed circumstances required by Rufo v. Inmates o f the Suffolk County Jail, ___ U.S. ___, 116 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1992)? Statement of the Case A. Background o f the litigation This school desegregation lawsuit was filed in 1963 as a class action on behalf of black children and their parents residing in Polk County, Florida. On January 15, 1965, the district court made the following Findings of Fact: 3. The plaintiffs are minor Negro citizens and residents of Polk County, Florida, and of the United States. The suit is brought by their respective parents and next friends. 4. The suit is brought also on behalf of all other children and parents of Polk County, Florida who are similarly situated and affected by the complained of policy, custom, practice and usage. The Court finds that this suit presents a proper class action under Rule 23(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Common questions of law and fact are involved; common grievances are asserted? common relief is sought for each plaintiff and each member of the class; and the plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the class in whose behalf they sue.[1] The case followed the now familiar pattern of proceedings through freedom-of-choice and ineffective geographic zoning plans; significantly, in 1968 the former Fifth Circuit required that new 1 1Because this action was filed before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 1966 to require formal class certification by separate order, no issue with respect to its status as a class action arises. See Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board o f Education, 463 F.2d 732, 743, 748-50 (6th Cir.), cert, denied , 409 U.S. 1001 (1972); c f Lockett v. Muscogee County Board o f Education , ___ F.2d ___ [No. 92-8087] (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 1992); Graves v. Walton County Board o f Education, 686 F.2d 1135, 1139-40 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982). 2 school construction be consciously carried- out in a manner that would facilitate rather than impede the elimination of the dual system. United States v. Board o f Public Instruction o f Polk County, 395 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1968). On May 9, 1969, the district court approved a plan based on geographic zoning. This plan did not succeed in eliminating racially identifiable schools from the system. In 1977, following the United States' 1975 Motion for Further Relief, the district court approved a plan to "cluster" and reorganize the grade structures of groups of schools in the Lakeland and Haines City areas.2 Again, the existence of racially identifiable schools continued; plaintiffs and the United States suggested that this occurred in part because the school district allowed white pupils to transfer out of formerly all-black schools. In May of 1985, the school board proposed a new zoning plan that would eliminate all clustering. Following a hearing, the district court denied this request on September 18, 1985. In the spring of 1987, the board again requested that the court permit it to uncluster elementary schools in the Haines City area and operate under a geographic zoning plan. Both plaintiffs and the United States opposed the plan; after a hearing on May 29, 2The 1977 order excluded the first and second grades in Haines City schools from the desegregation process. The predecessor Fifth Circuit remanded with instructions to modify the plan to include all grades. Mills v. Polk County Board o f Public Instruction, 575 F.2d 114 6 (5 th Cir. 1978). 3 1987, the district court denied the board's motion. A period of negotiations ensued. Ultimately, the parties agreed on a new geographic zoning plan to be implemented in the Haines City area commencing in the 1989-90 school year, which was incorporated in a consent decree approved by the district court on April 15, 1988.3 That decree also required the board to prepare a new desegregation plan encompassing schools in the Lakeland area of the system. The board proposed a plan in January, 19894 that was contingent upon passage of a bond issue, which was defeated. On April 2, 1991 the board suggested a series of modifications to its original proposal.5 The United States retained an educational consultant to evaluate the proposal. On January 2, 1992, plaintiffs filed a comprehensive Motion for Further Relief,6 which alleged that implementation of prior court orders had been compromised by the wholesale allowance of transfers for pupils to attend schools outside their attendance zones and that in every area of school system operations (including school construction 3R1 - 4/15/88 Consent Decree. [Because the certified docket entries forwarded to this Court are not numbered, after consultation with the Clerk's Office, counsel is citing to the single volume of pleadings in the Record on Appeal by volume and date of docket entry and title of pleading or order. To assist the Court, appellants are reproducing the most important documents infra as an appendix to this Brief and will provide parallel citations in the form "Br. App. __a" where appropriate.] 4R1 - 1/17/89 Petition for Modification. 5R1 - 4/4/91 Amendment to Defendant's Petition. 6R1 - 1/2/92 Motion for Further Relief. 4 policies), substantial vestiges of the prior dual system remained in existence. B . The present dispute 1. The agreed order. After a period of intensive negotiations among counsel, on May 6, 1992 all parties jointly submitted to the district court a detailed proposed order,7 8 addressing the issues raised in the Motion for Further Relief and attempting to chart a course through which this litigation can be fully and finally resolved. In their Joint Motion to Enter Order, the parties noted that [a]s recited in the Introduction of the proposed Order, plaintiffs agree that upon its entry, their recently filed Motion for Further Relief shall be treated as having been withdrawn; defendants have agreed to undertake the measures described in the proposed Order; and all parties are satisfied that the provisions of the Order constitute adeguate and legally permissible means of fulfilling the School Board's obligations in this matter.[8] On June 2, 1992, the court requested counsel to eliminate ambiguities that it felt existed with respect to the parties' endorsement of the order and to respond to certain questions, which plaintiffs' counsel did in writing9 and orally at a hearing conducted before the court on June 5, 1992.10 On July 8, 1992, the 7See Rl - 5/7/92 Joint Motion to Enter Order and Proposed Order; infra Br. App. la-56a. 8R1 - 5/7/92 Joint Motion to Enter Order - 1-2; infra Br. App. la-2a. 9R1 - 6/5/92 Response of Plaintiffs to Order of June 2f 1992. 10R2 - 5-6, 25-26, 29-31, 44-46, 54-55. 5 district court adopted the parties' jointly submitted order [hereinafter referred to as the "agreed order"),11 with one minor modification to which all parties had consented at the hearing.11 12 The agreed order resolves many issues within its four corners (for example, by articulating a limited number of grounds for transfers out of a student's attendance zone). In other instances, it establishes time schedules for resolution of the remaining issues (such as redrawing attendance boundaries in specified areas of the district), committing the parties to consultation and attempts to avoid further litigation through negotiation. In the event that negotiation is unsuccessful, the agreed order provides that any party may seek judicial resolution of the dispute.13 In its ruling adopting the agreed order, the district court specified a procedure for presenting any such dispute: In addition, if an apparently intractable dispute requiring judicial resolution occurs at any time, the parties are to file, within thirty (30) days, a joint explanatory report containing a description of the disagreement, the solutions proposed by each party, the approximate court time required for any appropriate hearing to resolve the dispute, and the parties' consent to appear in court for the appropriate number of days for resolution of that dispute within sixty (60) days, including a listing of the days upon which all counsel are available. Because of the nature of this dispute and its duration, counsel are regarded as having a heightened 11R1 - 7/9/92 Order - 2-4; infra Br. App. 59a-61a. 12See R2 - 54-55. 13See, e.g., R1 - 5/7/92 Proposed Order - 36-37 f II.B. (construction) ; infra Br. App. 39a-40a. 6 responsibility to be available and prepared for resolution of problems in a prompt manner, excepting only extraordinary commitments elsewhere.1141 The present appeal arises from the parties' first experience utilizing this procedure. 2. Elementary school rezoning in the Bartow area. One of the subjects on which the agreed order required future action was the rezoning of elementary schools in the Bartow region of the school system. The order provided for the operation, beginning in 1992-93, of a magnet middle school in Bartow at the Union Academy school14 15 to serve pupils in the district's South Central administrative area16 17 and for the redrawing of elementary (now grades K-5) school zones in that area: c . Attendance zones for elementary schools in the Bartow area shall be modified effective for the 1992-93 school year to accommodate the operation o f magnet schools as provided above, to establish a middle school form o f grade organization, and to facilitate desegregation. The School Board shall present a complete written description of such attendance zones, together with projections of the resulting school enrollments, to the other parties (through counsel) no later than June 1, 1992. If either of the other parties objects to the implementation of the proposed attendance zones, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement any modifications to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court.*171 14R1 - 7/9/92 Order - 4; infra Br. App. 61a. 15R1 - 5/7/92 Proposed Order - 5 [f I.A.2.]; infra Br. App. 8a. 16R1- 5/7/92 Proposed Order - 7-8 [f I.A.3.C.]; infra Br. App. lOa-lla. 17R1 - 5/7/92 Proposed Order - 18 [f I.A.9.C.]; infra Br. App. 21a (emphasis added). 7 Shortly after the agreed order was adoptedy18 the school district forwarded to counsel for plaintiffs and the United States information concerning the rezoning plan adopted by the school board.19 The Board's plan originated as a draft proposal prepared by the staff of the school system for consideration by an advisory citizens' committee appointed by the school board. This draft proposal was modified three times: first by the citizens' committee, then further by the Superintendent, and finally yet again by the school board.20 All of these versions of the original draft proposal were based upon the deliberate reconfiguration of previously existing attendance zones. Under the 1991-92 plan, the Bartow area's 28%- black elementary school population was assigned in a way that left Gibbons Street Elementary School, one of the all-black facilities under the dual system, more than 60% black and another school within Bartow (Stephens Elementary) 49% black. The various 1992-93 rezoning plans differed in their desegregative effectiveness and in the extent to which they would utilize existing school facilities efficiently, as the table infra p. 10 indicates. The plan adopted by the School Board was projected to create three schools in Bartow 18The agreed order projected that the Bartow rezoning would be submitted to the other parties by June 1, but the court below did not approve the order until July 8, 1992. 19See Rl - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibits "A," "C"; infra Br. App. 73a-76a, 78a. 20Id. 8 with enrollments just under 50% black — all-with substantial empty space — and three schools outside Bartow less than 15% black — all with enrollments exceeding their capacity: 9 COMPARISON OF 1991-92 ENROLLMENTS AND UTILIZATION, AND PROJECTED 1992-93 ENROLLMENTS AND UTILIZATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE ZONING PLANS, BARTOW AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Permanent Capacity 1991-92 Staff Proposal Citizens Committee Superin tendent School Board % U* %B** %U %B %U %B %U %B %U %B Bartow 480 83% 42% 84% 38% 45% 42% 63% 40% 72% 48% Stephens 675 93% 49% 66% 34% 73% 31% 66% 39% 77% 48% Floral Av. 550 108% 22% 77% 38% 79% 41% 71% 42% 78% 48% Gibbons Street 400 94% 61% 99% 35% 100% 33% 100% 33% 100% 33% Eagle Lake 575 99% 8% 106% 20% 117% 22% 111% 20% 103% 13% Highland City 400 140% 9% 127% 22% 123% 19% 156% 18% 158% 11% Alturas 350 120% 15% 116% 18% 133% 30% 142% 19% 107% 8% Total 3430 103% 28% 93% 28% 93% 28% 93% 28% 1 93% 28%~r1 *% U= % Utilization (enrollment or projected enrollment as a percentage of permanent capacity) Note: In 1991-92, schools served grades K-6; under all plans, schools serve grades K-5. **% B= % black enrollment Source: R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibits "A," "C"; infra Br. App. 73a-76a, 78a. 10 After receiving this information about the Bartow rezoning plan adopted by the School Board, plaintiffs notified the Board's counsel that the plan was unacceptable because it would perpetuate racially identifiable schools through systematic overcrowding and under-utilization of facilities.21 Attempts to resolve the dispute through negotiation were unavailing.22 3. Out-of-zone transfers. As noted above, the agreed order defines with considerable specificity the grounds upon which Polk County students may be permitted to transfer to schools outside their attendance areas.23 These provisions were to become effective for the 1992-93 school year with a single exception.24 On June 23, 1992 the school district requested that plaintiffs and plaintiff- intervenors agree to a modification of this part of the agreed order so as to continue "out-of-zone" transfers in most geographic areas of the school system for another school year.25 The other parties declined to agree to this request.26 21See R1 - 8/20/92 Response of Norman J. Chachkin to Order of August 17, 1992 - Exhibit »B"; infra Br. App. 103a-106a. 22See R1 - 8/20/92 Response of Norman J. Chachkin to Order of August 17, 1992 - Exhibit "C"; infra Br. App. 108a-109a. 23See R1 - 5/7/92 Proposed Order - 29-36 [§ I.E.]; infra Br. App. 32a-39a. 24See id. at 30 n.**; infra Br. App. at 33a n.**. 25See Rl - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibit "E"; infra Br. App. 80a-82a. 26See Rl - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - 6-7; infra Br. App. 69a-70a. 11 4. Request for judicial determination. On July-29, 1992 the parties submitted a Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues to the district court.27 This document attached, as exhibits, maps and narrative materials describing all of the plans (including the original staff proposal prepared for use by the citizens' committee) that had been transmitted to counsel for plaintiffs and the United States, as well as the district's request to extend "out-of-zone" transfers for another school year. In accordance with the requirements of the district court's July 8 order (quoted supra at 6-7) , the Report described the parties' positions: Plaintiffs and the United States have indicated to the School Board that they do not believe the plan meets the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Order that the Court has entered. They contend that the level of actual desegregation which is likely to result from implementation of this plan, as revealed in the projections prepared by the school district, is unacceptable in light of alternatives which are clearly available to the school district. . . . The School Board's position is that the plan the Board has adopted is a reasonable measure that is adequately responsive to the requirements of the Order without causing undue disruption to established patterns of school attendance.28 27R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues; infra Br. App. 64a-87a. 28R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - 3-4; infra Br. App. at 66a-67a. The Report also included a footnote in support of the position taken by the plaintiffs and the United States on the Bartow area elementary school zoning plan, which cited cases in which "a pattern of drawing zones creating over- and under-enrolled schools of substantially differing racial composition has been recognized by the federal courts as a classic (continued...) 12 It also contained information concerning dates on which counsel would be available for proceedings before the court as well as the representation, to which all counsel subscribed, that they believed the matter could appropriately be resolved on the papers without the necessity of a hearing.28 29 On August 17, 1992 the district court entered the order from which this appeal arises.30 In that order, the court recited that it had received not only the Joint Explanatory Report, but also "correspondence from [a private attorney] . . . [addressing] the plight of 34 children residing in the Waterwood Subdivision of Highlands City" as well as "numerous telephone calls and letters 28(. . .continued) method of maintaining segregation in violation of the Constitution" {id. at 3 n.2? infra Br. App. at 66a n.2). 29Id. at 7? infra Br. App. at 70a. 30Rl - 8/18/92 Order; infra Br. App. 87a-90a. On August 3, 1992 the district court had begun a trial that was anticipated to last for several weeks. In response to a request from counsel for a brief telephone conference to discuss the need for a ruling prior to the imminent commencement of the 1992-93 school year, counsel were informed that any party could submit a proposed order directly to the judge by FAX. Counsel for plaintiffs and the United States submitted such a proposed order on August 10, 1992. The district court did not make this filing a part of the record in this matter but did make reference to it in the August 17 order that he issued (see R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 3; infra Br. App. at 89a). Appellants do not believe the proposed order is relevant to this appeal but would be pleased to furnish it to this Court if it so desires; with respect to the district court's reference to it in the August 17 order, see the response of counsel for plaintiffs to that order, R1 - 8/20/92 Response of Norman J. Chachkin to Order of August 17, 1992 - 4 f 5; infra Br. App. at 94a 15. 13 from interested individuals and groups.”31- The court recognized that the parties were willing to dispense with an evidentiary hearing, and as well that the shortness of time then remaining before school was to open made such a hearing impractical.32 However, the Court commented, "[w]ithout respect to the wisdom of the decision to dispense with an evidentiary hearing, both the Court and the public are entitled to consider matters of such importance on a more contemplative basis and on a more relaxed schedule." Turning to the parties' substantive disputes, the district court made no comparison of the different zoning plans supported by the respective parties nor discussed any grounds for superseding the language of the agreed order respecting out-of-zone transfers. It simply announced that the plan adopted by the School Board should be implemented for the 1992-93 school year and that "[t]he reguest of the School Board of Polk County to modify the jointly submitted order so as to allow out-of-zone transfers granted in 1991-92 to be continued for another school year is granted.”33 The court then suggested that the parties and their counsel should have known at the time the agreed order was negotiated that they would 31R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 1; infra Br. App. 87a. None of this correspondence was made a part of the record by the district court, nor was it made available to counsel for the parties. (The letter concerning the Waterwood residents had been sent to counsel for all parties by its author.) 32R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 2; infra Br. App. 88a. 33Id. 14 deadlock over the question of rezoning elementary schools in the Bartow area,34 35 and stated that When the onset of a school year is imminent, everyone's options become limited, and in all probability, a result hastily achieved on an incomplete record is not the best result for the students of Polk County, whose interests are regarded by this Court as preeminent in this controversy.1351 This appeal followed. C . Standard o f review. In this school desegregation case, the district court's remedial order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, e.g. , Harris v. Crenshaw County Board o f Education, 968 F.2d 1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 1992); Lee v. Anniston City School System, 737 F.2d 952, 955 (11th Cir. 1984); that discretion, of course, must be "guided by sound legal principles," Albemarle Paper Company v. M oody, 422 U.S. 405, 416 (1975), citing United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 35 (C.C. Va. 1807) (No. 14692) (Marshall, C.J.) . The district court's decision to modify the agreed order as requested by the School Board, over the objection of other signatory parties, is subject to plenary review for legal error by this Court. 340n this point, see R1 - 8/20/92 Response of Norman J. Chachkin to Order of August 17, 1992 - Exhibit "D"; infra Br. App. llla-13a. 35R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 3; infra Br. App. 89a. 15 Summary o f Argument Because the Polk County school district has not eliminated all vestiges of its prior dual system to the extent practicable, it remains obligated to act affirmatively to achieve this goal, and to further the desegregation of its schools. Under applicable precedent, the district's student assignment plans must be designed to achieve the greatest amount of actual desegregation that is feasible. The district court erred, under this precedent, in approving (without stating any reason) the Bartow area elementary school rezoning plan adopted by the School Board because the plan creates racially identifiable, under-utilized black schools in Bartow and racially identifiable, over-crowded white schools outside the city, despite the existence of feasible alternative plans that would achieve greater desegregation and make more efficient use of available school capacity. Because the practicability and effectiveness of those alternatives is undisputed on this record, a remand for specific findings by the district court is unnecessary. The court below also erred in modifying a consent order over the objection of two of three signatories because the party seeking the modification failed to articulate, or to establish, any changed circumstances justifying the modification. Because proceedings under the agreed order in this case will continue for several years, this Court should provide specific guidance to the district court respecting the manner in which issues in the litigation should be considered and adjudicated. 16 ARGUMENT Introduction This appeal raises two narrow but important issues in the law of school desegregation remedies. We refer to the issues as narrow because they are presented in a context of agreement, rather than disagreement, by the parties about liability and about most other remedial matters. Indeed, the very clarity of the legal questions, and the absence of disputed factual assertions, is what led the parties to suggest to the court below that those legal questions could appropriately be resolved on the papers, without an evidentiary hearing. Instead of acknowledging their efforts to conserve judicial resources and to facilitate prompt resolution of their dispute, the district court castigated the parties and their counsel for not having foreseen that these matters would be in dispute when they negotiated the comprehensive consent order that the court had approved less than six weeks before. The court then proceeded to announce its judgment without addressing any of the legal issues raised by the parties7 filing. In so doing, we submit, the lower court committed reversible error by approving a system of pupil assignments that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny and by modifying a consent judgment over the objections of signatory parties without an adequate justification in law for so doing. 17 I The Elementary School Zoning Plan Adopted By The Polk County School Board Should Have Been Rejected By The District Court In Light Of Available, Feasible Alternatives That Would Achieve Greater Desegregation The Polk County school district has never been found to have eliminated all vestiges of prior discrimination to the extent feasible, see Board o f Education o f Oklahoma City v. D owell, ___U.S. ____, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991), or to have done so in any discrete area of its operations, see Freeman v. Pitts, ___ U.S. ___, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992). As the brief summary of the prior history of this action indicates (supra at 2-5), there have been repeated judicial rulings over a long period of years requiring new student assignment plans, or refusing to permit the dismantling of existing student assignment plans, because effective desegregation of the public schools in Polk County had not been satisfactorily achieved. It is to their credit, we suggest, that the parties (including the School Board) recognized the situation in the agreed order that they jointly submitted on May 6, 1992 and devised therein a comprehensive approach that may finally lead to full constitutional compliance, and to the ultimate dismissal of this lawsuit. Specifically with relevance to the present appeal, the parties agreed on a new pupil assignment plan in the Lakeland area, and they also agreed that similar revisions of pupil assignments throughout the rest of the school system would be required in order 18 to create middle schools across the district "and to facilitate desegregation." The agreed order provided that at the end of the 1991-92 school year, the district would present to the other parties a proposal for adjusting — beginning with the 1992-93 school year — zones for elementary schools in the Bartow area.36 In 1991-92, enrollment at the Gibbons Street Elementary School — the historically black school in Bartow — was 61% black, and at Stephens Elementary School in Bartow was 49% black, while three elementary schools outside the Bartow municipality (Highland City, Eagle Lake and Alturas) were 9%, 8% and 15% minority, respectively (see table supra at 10) .37 The School Board ultimately adopted, and the court below approved, a plan that was projected to reduce Gibbons Street's minority enrollment to 33% but also to raise the black enrollment at three other elementary schools within Bartow to 48% each, while leaving the three heavily white schools outside the city with enrollments that were less than 15% minority.38 Under this plan, each of the nearly half-black schools in Bartow would be filled to less than 80% of its permanent structural capacity, while 36The school district is divided, for administrative purposes, into five administrative regions. The elementary schools treated together in the Bartow rezoning plan are all within the South Central region; all are within a radius of approximately five to six miles of the elementary schools located within the municipality of Bartow. 37Total 1991-92 grade K-6 elementary school population in this area was 28% black. (See R1 - 7/20/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibit "C"; infra Br. App. 78a.) 38See R1 - Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibit "A" at 4; infra Br. App. 76a. 19 the three heavily white schools would each be over capacity; in the most egregious instance, Highland City Elementary School was projected to go from 9% black to 11% black but be even more overcrowded than during the previous year, going from 140% of capacity to 158% of capacity. The School Board considered but rejected available alternative plans that would have both reduced the extent of overcrowding and also more evenly balanced enrollments racially. There was no contention below that these alternatives were not educationally sound and feasible;39 there could hardly have been such an allegation, since the alternatives were developed by the district's staff or its appointed committee. Under controlling precedents of the Supreme Court and in this Circuit, the district court should have rejected the Board's plan for Bartow elementary schools. Until a school system achieves unitary status, it has an affirmative duty to eliminate the effects of its prior unconstitutional conduct. To fulfill this duty, school officials are obligated not only to avoid any official action that has the effect of perpetuating or reestablishing a dual school system, but also to render decisions that further desegregation and help to eliminate the effects of the previous dual school system. 39The district court's ruling adopting the agreed order required the parties to submit a joint explanatory report in the event of any dispute that necessitated judicial resolution. In fashioning the report that was presented to the court in this case, each party had the opportunity to include whatever description of its position that it wished. The school district made no representation that any of the alternative zoning plans for Bartow was unsound or impracticable. 20 Harris v. Crenshaw County Board o f Education , 968 F.2d 1090, 1094-95 (11th Cir. 1992)(footnote citations omitted). In fashioning remedial plans, "[t]he district judge or school authorities should make every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation," Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board o f Education, 402 U.S. 1, 26 (1971), "taking into account the practicalities of the situation," Davis v. Board o f School Commissioners o f M obile, 402 U.S. 33, 37 (1971). A school board's proposal must be disapproved "if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system," Green v. County School Board o f New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 441 (1968) (rejecting "freedom of choice") ; see also Sw ann, 402 U.S. at 27-30 ("gerrymandering" of attendance zones to achieve greater desegregation, pairing, clustering and student transportation were remedial tools within district court's equitable discretion since they were "well within the capacity of the school authority" to implement). The alternative selected by the School Board in this case projected the least change in racial composition at the schools that were identifiably white (15% black or less) in 1991-92. It also would perpetuate the simultaneous operation of overcrowded, identifiably white facilities outside Bartow and under-utilized, identifiably black schools within that municipality. (See table, 21 supra at 10.) In this part of the school district,40 then, the plan adopted by the School Board reinforces, rather than alters, the historic pattern of racially identifiable schools for black pupils in Bartow and racially identifiable schools for white pupils outside the city. In light of available alternatives that would have changed this traditional distribution, the Board's zoning plan is constitutionally inadequate. Harrington v. Colquitt County Board o f Education, 460 F.2d 193, 195-96 (5th Cir.)("In light of the history of segregation in Colquitt County, the existence of an alternative plan that eliminates the single race characteristic of the five predominantly white elementary schools outside Moultrie, and the minimal burden adoption of this plan would entail, a 'close scrutiny7 of the school board's plan reveals that it does not overcome the presumption against the 'continued existence of some schools that are all or predominately of one race'”) , cert, denied, 409 U.S. 915 (5th Cir. 1972). The Board's plan fails to meet the mandate to achieve the "greatest possible degree of actual desegregation" that was 40While district-wide racial composition is an appropriate "starting point" in fashioning a desegregation plan, Sw ann, 402 U.S. at 25, in determining whether there are still "racially identifiable schools" it is often appropriate to focus on smaller groups of schools in particular attendance zones. See United States v. Lowndes County Board o f Education , 878 F.2d 1301, 1305 text at n.8 (11th Cir. 1989). In this case the differences are not significant. Total K-5 enrollment in the group of schools covered by the plans before the district court is approximately 28% black; the analogous county wide proportion is approximately 23%. 22 enunciated by the Supreme Court in Swann and Davis. This case is distinguishable from Lee v. Anniston City School System, 737 F.2d 952 (11th Cir. 1984) — which rejected the application of the Swann and Davis rule — for several reasons. First, i n Anniston the school board had successfully implemented an acceptable and effective plan in 1975 and was not subject to any requirement that it modify student assignments to achieve desegregation. See 737 F.2d at 954. Here, at the time the agreed order was negotiated, the school district was subject to an outstanding decree requiring a new pupil assignment plan in the Lakeland area; and the parties concurred, in fashioning the order, that rezoning throughout the system — including in Bartow — was necessary "to facilitate desegregation." C f , e.g. , United States v. Lawrence County School District, 799 F.2d 1031, 1042-46 (5th Cir. 1986) (adoption of initial plan "does not exhaust the power of the court to direct elimination of vestiges of segregation that remain or become apparent only after the plan has been put into place"). Second, in Anniston the alternative plans which plaintiffs claimed would achieve "a greater degree of actual desegregation" had significant limitations. One would have required alteration of the grade structure established throughout the district by the board; the other "posed transportation and safety problems." 737 F.2d at 956. Neither of these difficulties is present in the case at bar. The alternative zoning configuration supported by plaintiffs below was fashioned by the district's own staff and is 23 entirely feasible to implement. All that the Polk County School Board told the court below is "that the plan the Board has adopted is a reasonable measure that is adequately responsive to the requirements of the [agreed] Order without causing undue disruption to established patterns of school attendance."41 That approach was long ago recognized to be inadequate performance of the affirmative duty to desegregate: Where the Board is under a compulsion to desegregate the schools (1st Brown case, 347 U.S. 483) we do not think that drawing zone lines in such a manner as to disturb the people as little as possible is a proper factor in rezoning the schools. Henry v. Clarks dale Municipal Separate School District, 406 F.2d 682, 688 (5th Cir.) (quoting Norther oss v. Board o f Education o f M em phis, 333 F.2d 661, 664 (6th Cir. 1964)), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 940 (1969) .42 Moreover, as plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor United States advised the court below,43 manipulation of school capacity and attendance boundaries in this fashion has been recognized by the federal courts as a classic method of maintaining segregation in 41R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - 4; infra Br. App. 67a. 42The Superintendent modified the Citizens Committee plan "because of his belief that Highland City is a separate community from Bartow," R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibit "A" at 3; infra Br. App. 75a. Such a justification for a less effective plan is equally unavailing. Davis v. Board o f School Commissioners o f M obile , 402 U.S. 33 (1971). 43See R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - 3 n.2; infra Br. App. 66a n.2. 24 violation of the Constitution. E.g., Morgan Vr Hennigan , 379 F. Supp. 410, 425-32 (D. Mass.), ajj'd, sub nom. Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1975); Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, 303 F. Supp. 279, 285, supplemental findings , 303 F. Supp. 289, 290, 293 (D. Colo. 1969), a j fd , 445 F.2d 990 (10th Cir. 1971), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 413 U.S. 189 (1973); cf. Lee v. Macon County Board o f Education , 448 F.2d 746, 754 (5th Cir. 1971) (closing black school would have put white school on double sessions). This Circuit addressed a similar situation, in the context of a school district subject to the affirmative remedial duty to desegregate, in Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 883 F . 2d 945 (11th Cir. 1989). In that case, the trial court had relinquished jurisdiction after concluding that all vestiges of the dual system had been eliminated. This Court held that the district court's finding was clearly erroneous, reviewing (among other factors) the relationship between facility utilization and racial composition: Since 1972, without court approval, the Board has used portable buildings and leased additional space to accommodate overcrowding at some schools. Other schools were underpopulated. No studies were conducted to assess the potential impact of these practices on the school system's racial imbalances. Segregation in the district as a whole has increased since 1972. In that year, eight schools had majority black populations; in 1985, twenty-seven schools fell into that category. Appellant asserts that the district's use of portable classrooms and leasing of 25 additional classroom space were partially responsible for this increased segregation. It is unnecessary for us to make a determination as to the actual effect of these practices, however, in light of the board's concession that no studies were conducted to assess their potential impact on the system's racial imbalances. The Board's failure to consider the objective of desegregation in its efforts to alleviate overcrowding violates its affirmative duty to desegregate. Pitts v. Freeman, 755 F.2d 1423, 1427 (11th Cir. 1985). Jacksonville Branch, N A A C P, 883 F.2d at 949, 952-53. Here, the actual effect of differential utilization of facilities is known: the alternative plans with the least overcrowding of facilities also result in the most desegregation. Under such circumstances, the School Board's preference for a less effective alternative cannot be sustained. The district court did not explain the basis for its ruling approving the Board's plan, except to suggest that the parties should have foreseen the controversy when they negotiated the agreed order and that "both the Court and the public are entitled to consider matters of such importance on a more contemplative basis and on a more relaxed schedule."44 While we can understand the court's disappointment, we respectfully suggest that it cannot justify the court's acceptance of an unconstitutional plan. The timing problem facing the court below was not entirely attributable to the parties. The underlying agreed order, which set the stage for the rezoning, was submitted on May 6, 1992. The district court took no action on the parties' joint motion to enter 44R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 2; infra Br. App. 88a. 26 that order until June 1, 1992, when it scheduled a hearing June 5, 1992.45 46 At the conclusion of that hearing, the court appeared to indicate that it would approve the order promptly: THE COURT: . . .Mr. Chachkin, we won't do anything until the close of business Tuesday. And if in the interim you have any — you either decide you don't want to make changes or whatever, just give us a call, and I'll do something shortly after Tuesday. And so that all will be on notice, whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not, if I become dissatisfied with the progress that's being made and if I become dissatisfied with the record that is established by the parties in resolving these issues, you will see more of me than every six months because we're going to get this job done in this case which bears the date 1963. And we're going to get it done, I think, sooner than any of you might suppose, or, at least, we're going to exhaust considerable energy and patience trying to do that.1461 However, the court did not approve the order until more than a month later, July 8, 1992.47 The School Board then took action on the Bartow rezoning, its decision was communicated to the other parties, and the disputes that were submitted to the district court arose. The parties' counsel cooperated in assembling relevant information without formal discovery and presented the district court on July 29, 1992 with a Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues, which included a comprehensive set of factual attachments. 45R1 - Docket Entries - 16. 46R2 - 55, 56-57. 47R1 - 7/9/92 Order; infra Br. App. 58a-63a. 27 The Joint Explanatory Report indicated the -parties' shared belief that an evidentiary hearing would not be necessary. Although the district court was informed that Polk County schools were scheduled to open for the 1992-93 school year on August 20, the court neither scheduled a hearing48 before it nor referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation.49 Counsel for all parties offered to participate in a telephone conference with the Court but were informed only that the Court would accept proposed orders FAXed to its office. Ultimately, the district court waited until August 17 — three days before school was to open — and then entered the order from which this appeal was taken, approving the Board's plan and modifying the agreed order over the objections of signatory parties, all without any legal analysis or reasoning whatsoever. Even if there were circumstances in which shortness of time justifies maintenance of the status quo a n te ,50 that was not the situation here. Establishment of Union Academy as a magnet school and creation of middle schools necessitated restructuring of elementary schools to serve only grades K-5 and re-drawing of zone lines; therefore, alteration of the status quo ante would necessarily 48The order appealed from implies that the district court may have disagreed with the position of counsel for the parties that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. 49See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 50But see Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 (1970); Alexander v. Holmes County Board o f Education , 396 U.S. 19 (1969). 28 occur. Moreover, while it is of course- appropriate that the district court have broad discretion to control its docket, we respectfully submit that docket control or scheduling difficulties cannot justify announcement of a judgment unsupported by any factual findings or legal analysis, thus substantially disabling effective review by an appellate court. See, e.g., United States v. C RU C IAL, 722 F. 2d 1182, 1188-89 (5th Cir. 1983) (district court "made no findings at all with regard to the efficacy of the plan it adopted; nor did it make comparative findings . . . therefore, we have no basis for evaluating the degree to which the plan adopted was 'reasonably related to the ultimate objective7 of desegregation7") (citation omitted) ; Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board, 646 F.2d 925, 940-41 (5th Cir. 1981)(district court's failure to make factual findings evaluating alternative plans and giving "specific reasons for their rejection" required remand) , cert, denied , 455 U.S. 939 (1982); Lee v. Macon County Board o f Education , 616 F.2d 805, 808-09 (5th Cir. 1980)("The court's decision, however, does not detail sufficient factual findings for us to ascertain whether the plan reached the maximum desegregation permitted by local conditions"). Because the Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues contains detailed information about the results projected under each of the plans, and because there is no issue as to feasibility, a remand to the district court is unnecessary in the case at bar; this Court can properly determine on the record that it was error 29 to approve the School Board's plan. United -States v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 574 F.2d 804, 813 n.20 (5th Cir.)("Nor are we required to send the case back to the District Court for findings of fact that . . . seem to us to be obvious"), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 982 (1978); Mills v. Polk County Board o f Public Instruction, 575 F.2d 1146, 1147 (5th Cir. 1978)("The district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law state no reason for excluding the first and second grades from the desegregation plan, and none can be gleaned from the record"). It should do so and reverse the judgment below. II The District Court Erred In Modifying The Agreed Order Over The Objections Of Two Of The Three Signatory Parties The agreed order submitted by all parties establishes clear guidelines and limited grounds for students to transfer out of the schools serving the attendance zones within which they reside. Except for a footnote explicitly "grandfathering" transfers granted in 1991-92 to rising high school seniors,51 the new restrictions on transfers were to be effective in the 1992-93 school year, like other provisions of the agreed order which did not contain any language postponing or limiting their effectiveness.52 51R1 - 5/7/92 Proposed Order - 30 n.**; infra Br. App. 33a n.**. 52The school district recognized that the transfer restrictions of the agreed order were applicable in the 1992-93 school year. (continued...) 30 After the hearing conducted by the district court on the agreed proposed order,52 53 and while the order was under submission, the School Board requested the other parties to consent to "grandfather” more than 1100 out-of-zone transfers from the 1991-92 school year.54 55 Both private plaintiffs and the United States declined to agree to this modification of the consent order: The position of these parties is that the school district agreed in the proposed Order to correct now the policy of liberal transfers that had contributed significantly to the failure of earlier desegregation efforts in this case, and that there are no changed circumstances which warrant relaxation of that reguirement. The plaintiffs and the United States also believe that modification of the requirement for enforcement of attendance zones is particularly unwise at the commencement of implementing the Order, especially in light of the unacceptable zoning proposal adopted by the Board for the Bartow area.1551 The school district, for its part, did not identify any changed circumstances to justify its request that the agreed order be modified, but simply stated that it would prefer to continue the transfers: The School Board believes that a one-year exception to the zone enforcement requirements for pupils who had already been granted out-of-zone transfers in prior years, and effective only for those areas of the school system whose rezoning is being deferred under the Order until the 1993-94 school year, has virtually no impact 52 (.. . continued) See R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibit "E"; infra Br. App. 80a-82a. 53R2. 54R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - Exhibit "E"; infra Br. App. 80a-82a. 55R1 - 7/29/92 Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues - 6-7; infra Br. App. 69a-70a (emphasis in original). 31 upon desegregation and will meaningfully increase public acceptance of the desegregation Order and thus enhance the chances for its successful implementation.1561 On this record, the district court's ruling allowing continuation of the transfers in the present school year amounted to a modification of the consent order over the objections of two of its three signatory parties and was clear error. The standards applicable to the Board's request were clarified by the Supreme Court just this past Term in Rufo v. Inmates o f the Suffolk County Jail, ___ U.S. ___, 116 L. Ed. 2d 867 (1992). In that decision, the Court abandoned, at least "in the context of institutional reform litigation," ___U.S. at ____, 116 L. Ed. 2d at 885, the rigid "grievous wrong" standard of United States v. Swift & Company, 286 U.S. 106 (1932) and held that modification of consent decrees in such cases might be appropriate even if a change in facts were not both "'unforeseen and unforeseeable,'" id. at ___, 116 L. Ed. 2d at 887. Nevertheless, the Court stopped well short of authorizing modification at will. Indeed, the decision makes quite clear that a governmental entity seeking to be relieved of obligations that it undertook in a consent decree must demonstrate changed circumstances that make compliance with its obligations substantially more onerous, if not impossible, and that the modification sought is consistent with the overall purpose of the decree. The 56 56Id. at 7; infra Br. App. at 70a. 32 essence of the standard established by the Court is captured in the following sentences from its opinion, which are not limited in their applicability to the case at bar by the factual context of the Rufo litigation: . . . Rule 60(b) (5) provides that a party may obtain relief from a court order when "it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application," not when it is no longer convenient to live with the terms of a consent decree. Accordingly, a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. . . . Modification of a consent decree may be warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially more onerous. . . . Ordinarily, however, modification should not be granted where a party relies upon events that actually were anticipated at the time it entered into a decree. Of course, a modification must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation. . . . To conclude, we hold that the Swift "grievous wrong" standard does not apply to requests to modify consent decrees stemming from institutional reform litigation. Under the flexible standards we adopt today, a party seeking modification of a consent decree must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id. at ___-__, 116 L. Ed.-2d at 886-92. The modification made by the district court was completely unwarranted under these standards. There was not even the articulation, by the school district — much less a showing — of "a significant change in facts or law [that] warrant[ed] revision 33 of the decree," nor did the district court make any findings that this was the case. Its judgment must, therefore, be reversed. Ill Guidance From This Court Is Necessary For The Proper Conduct Of Further Proceedings In This Action; The Certainty Of Those Proceedings Prevents This Appeal From Being Rendered Moot This appeal has been expedited on appellants' unopposed motion, which advanced two reasons for accelerating its scheduling and submission: the certainty of further proceedings in this action that will be materially affected by the Court's ruling on the issues raised on this appeal, and the possibility of mootness as the end of the current school year approaches. We wish to touch briefly upon each of these concerns. Mootness. As to the elementary school rezoning issue, the question of mootness arises only because of the particular language used by the district court in its order of August 17. Although it required that Bartow area elementary schools be rezoned "to facilitate desegregation" "effective for the 1992-93 school year,"57 nothing in the agreed order suggests that the parties intended that rezoning to be temporary. The district court, however, ruled that "[t]he rezoning plan adopted by the School 57See excerpt from agreed order quoted supra at 7 text at n.17. 34 Board of Polk County . . . shall remain in force as adopted by the School Board for the 1992-93 school year."58 59 If the court meant by that language either that it expected the school district to adopt a new rezoning plan to become effective in 1993-94, or that the court intended to reconsider the sufficiency of the plan during the present school year, it did not clearly so indicate. In any event, if one makes the assumption that the court below intended its ruling to be applicable only to the 1992-93 school year, this merely underscores the need for review by this Court despite the possibility of mootness. Nothing prevents the issuance of another ruling on school assignment plans covering only a single school year, similar to the order from which this appeal is taken, and this case thus constitutes a classic situation in which the legal errors below are "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Similarly, while the modification of the agreed order made by the district court respecting student transfers applies by its terms only to the current school year, nothing restrains the school district from requesting, during the summer of 1993 — or the 58R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 2; infra Br. App. 88a. 59We reiterate what we said in the Motion to Expedite Appeal: Appellants believe that the timing and content of appropriate relief, should this Court agree with their position on this appeal, will depend upon a consideration of the equities as they exist at the time a decision is rendered, and that such consideration of the equities may properly be made the responsibility of the district court upon a remand. 35 district court from approving — another one-year extension of out- of-zone transfers. If the district court were to grant such a request over the objection of the other parties, another appeal would be likely. Thus, even if the 1992-93 school year ends while this appeal is under submission, we submit that it should be decided under the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine and not be dismissed. See, e.g. , International Organization o f Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Brown, 498 U.S. ___, ___ , 112 L. Ed. 2d 991, 1001 (1991)(challenge to union rule restricting pre-convention membership mailings by candidates for union office not mooted by completion of election that was original subject of litigation since plaintiff "has run for office before and may well do so again"); Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 487 U.S. 450, 457 (1988)(challenge to statute authorizing school districts to charge fees for pupil transportation not mooted by payment of fees for bus service after unfavorable ruling below since decision "would certainly relieve [plaintiffs]" from future assessments for bus service" and since age of children and presence of younger siblings in family demonstrated "ongoing and concrete nature of the controversy"). Continuing proceedings. The agreed order requires additional school rezoning this year and in the future. For the reasons that appellants have set forth above, we believe that the district court made substantial errors of constitutional dimension in approving the 1992-93 Bartow area elementary school plan and in modifying the 36 provisions of the order concerning student transfers. Those substantive errors were compounded by the court's complete failure to provide any rationale for its decisionmaking. Appellants have great concern that, absent guidance from this Court, the continuing proceedings required by the agreed order will be subject to similar errors in the future. With great respect, we suggest that there may be a particular need for that guidance in this instance because the district judge only recently took office and may be unfamiliar with the long history of school desegregation matters in this Circuit and in the predecessor Fifth Circuit. We are further concerned by the court's references to extra-judicial calls and letters concerning the subject matter of the litigation;60 these were not made a part of the record or their contents shared with counsel for the parties, and their impact (if any) upon the decision-making process is not known. For these reasons, we believe that this appeal will not be rendered moot even if it cannot be decided before the end of the 1992-93 school year (although an earlier decision will be of the greatest assistance to the parties and the court below) and that the Court should provide specific guidance to govern the district court in any proceedings upon remand. 60R1 - 8/18/92 Order - 1; infra Br. App. 87a. 37 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the guidance provided by this Court. Respectfully submitted, NORRIS D. WOOLFORK, III Suite 2 1325 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 (407) 872-1205 101 West Main Street P. O. Box 3668 Lakeland, Florida 33602-3668 (813) 682-3111 JULIUS L. CHAMBERS NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Appellants Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this /]£&)day of November, 1992, I served two (2) copies of the foregoing Brief for Appellants upon the following counsel for the appellees, by prepaid Federal Express next-day delivery service, addressed as follows: C. A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 David L. Flynn, Esq. Appellate Section, Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 5740 Washington, D.C. 20004 38 A P P E N D I X A P P E N D I X CONTENTS Page Joint Motion to Enter Order and Proposed Order, filed May 7, 1992 ....................................... la Substitute signature page for Proposed Order, tendered June 5, 1992 in open court ................... 57a Order approving Proposed Order, dated July 8, 1992 and filed July 9, 1992 ............................ 58a Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues, with exhibits, filed July 29, 1992 .................... 64a Order of August 17, 1992, filed August 18, 1992 (order appealed from) ............................. 87a Response of Norman J. Chachkin to Order of August 17, 1992, with exhibits, filed August 20, 1992 ................................................. 91a FILED 5/7/92 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, -vs- CASE NO. 63-150 Civ.-T-H SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. / JOINT MOTION TO ENTER ORDER Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Intervenor and Defendants, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully move that the Court enter the accompanying Order, which they have each signed indicating their acceptance of the form and contents of the document. As recited in the Introduction section of the proposed Order, plaintiffs agree that upon its entry, their recently filed Motion for Further Relief shall be treated as having been withdrawn; defendants have agreed to undertake the measures described in the proposed Order; and all parties are satisfied that the provisions of the Order constitute adequate and legally permissible means of fulfilling the School Board's obligations in this matter. Lakeland, Florida 33801 (813) 534-2430 (813) 682-3111 Attorney for DefendantJULIUS L. CHAMBERS NAPOLEON B. WILLIAMS JOHN R. DUNNE NORMAN J . CHACHKIN Assistant Attorney General 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, New York 10013 New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Educational Opportunities Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 65958 Washington, D.C. 20035-5958 (202) 514-2192 ROBERT W. GENZMAN United States Attorney Attorneys for United States, Plaintiff-Intervenor 2 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this ( 0 day of May, 1992, I served copies of the foregoing Joint Motion to Enter Order upon counsel for the parties, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: C. A. Boswell, Jr. Larry R. Jackson School Board of Polk County Suite 220-B 1915 South Floral Avenue 101 West Main Stret Bartow, Florida 33830 Lakeland, Florida 33801 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, -vs- CASE NO. 63-150 Civ.-T-H SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. / ORDER Introduction On April 15, 1988, the Court entered a Consent Order providing for the modification of earlier decrees in this litigation with respect to student assignment in the Haines City area. In that Consent Order, the Court recognized the need for similar adjustments of pupil assignment in the Lakeland area and the defendant School Board agreed to file proposals for such adjustments by (December 31, 1988. On January 13, 1989 (time having 'been extended), the Board proposed a series of changes contingent upon the passage of a bond issue. Plaintiff-intervenor United States of America responded, questioning the sufficiency of the proposals. No hearing was conducted, however, because the bond issue was rejected by the voters of Polk County. Since that time, the School Board has undertaken to devise a new pupil assignment proposal for the Lakeland area, in part through the appointment of a bi-racial committee appointed by the Superintendent for this purpose. The Board has opened several new elementary schools in the Lakeland area, construction of which was made possible by an alternative financing mechanism approved by the Supreme Court of Florida (certificates of participation) . In addition, plaintiffs recently filed a Motion for Further Relief in this action, seeking to have the Court require additional remedial steps affecting pupil assignments throughout the Polk County school system and encompassing a broad range of subject matter as to which, plaintiffs contend, vestiges of prior discrimination remain. The parties to this lawsuit have conferred for the purpose of resolving pending issues that have been raised in this matter on a consensual basis and avoiding the necessity for contested proceedings before the Court. Although the School Board denies the allegations of the Motion for Further Relief filed by plaintiffs, it is committed to the operation of a fully desegregated and nondiscriminatory school system 2 and believes that the plan for the Lakeland area which was developed with the assistance of the Superintendent's biracial committee, and the other steps which it has proposed to take in the remainder of the school system, is the best mechanism for achieving this end. In the course of their negotiations, the parties have discussed a variety of concerns about various aspects of the school board's proposals. Plaintiffs have put forward a number of alternative desegregation measures that differ markedly from the School Board's proposals. Without modifying its position that the plans which it devised are appropriate to satisfy any obligations which it has under the Constitution, and bearing in mind the substantial costs in time and resources that would be necessarily expended, as well as the potential disruption of the educational process that might be occasioned if this matter was litigated before the Court, the School Board has agreed to undertake the measures described herein. For the same reasons, without abandoning their belief that other alternatives would have been more effective and more equitable means of achieving the complete desegregation of the school system that is required by the Constitution, plaintiffs have agreed that when this Order is entered, their Motion for Further Relief shall be treated as having been withdrawn. Finally, the United States is satisfied that the measures 3 described herein constitute adequate and legally permissible means of fulfilling the School Board's obligations in this matter and will, if successfully implemented, eliminate the vestiges of the prior dual school system in Polk County, Florida. The Court having considered the submission of the parties and reviewed the entire record in this cause, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the prior Orders of this Court are modified as provided herein, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the contents which follow: I . Pupil Assignment A. Effective for the 1992-93 school year, the following modifications in pupil assignments shall be implemented: 1. Establishment o f magnet elementary schools. Lincoln Avenue Elementary School and Rochelle Elementary School shall be converted to dedicated magnet (voluntary enrollment) schools. Rochelle Elementary School shall offer a performing and fine arts emphasis in addition to the regular curriculum for pupils in grades K-5. Lincoln Avenue Elementary School shall offer a traditional school (basic academic) emphasis in addition to the regular curriculum for pupils in grades K-5. Self- 4 contained programs for gifted students shall not be placed at the magnet elementary schools. 2. Establishment o f magnet middle schools. Union Academy in Bartow shall be converted to a dedicated magnet middle school serving grades 6-8. In addition, Rochelle Elementary School shall house, in its current facilities on an initial and temporary basis, a magnet performing and fine arts enrollment in grades 6-8, and Jesse Keen Elementary School shall house, in its current facilities on an initial and temporary basis, a magnet traditional school (basic academic) enrollment in grades 6-8. 3. Selection o f magnet school participants. The Lincoln Avenue magnet school is intended to enroll a total student population of 650. The Rochelle magnet school is intended to enroll a total student population of 650 in grades K-5 and 150 in grades 6-8. The Union Academy magnet school is intended to enroll a total student population of 350. The Jesse Keen magnet school is intended to enroll a total student population of 200 in grades 6-8. Admission to the programs is voluntary but shall be controlled to achieve the desegregation of these facilities and to preserve the desegregation of other schools in the system. - 5 - a. Admission to magnet schools. Applicants shall be admitted to the magnet schools in accordance with the procedures described herein so as to achieve an enrollment that is 37% black at Lincoln Avenue and Rochelle Elementary Schools and at Jesse Keen and Rochelle Middle Schools, or between 20% black and 40% black if there are not enough applicants to attain that goal; and to achieve an enrollment at other magnet schools that is 30% black, plus-or-minus ten percentage points. If the number of applications for admission to a magnet school from one racial group exceeds the number of such students who may be enrolled in the school consistent with this goal, then applicants from that racial group shall be selected to receive offers of admission through a lottery-type process, subject to the limited neighborhood priority established in the following subsection. b. Limited neighborhood priority. Black applicants residing within the former (1991-92) attendance area of Rochelle Elementary School shall have first priority for up to 200 seats at the Rochelle elementary magnet school (grades K- 5) and for up to 45 seats at the Rochelle magnet middle school (grades 6-8); similarly, black applicants residing within the former (1991-92) attendance area of Lincoln 6 Avenue Elementary School shall have first priority for up to 200 seats at the Lincoln elementary magnet school (grades K-5) and for up to 60 seats at the Jesse Keen magnet middle school (grades 6-8). Other-race applicants residing within the former attendance area of Rochelle shall have first priority for up to 325 seats at the Rochelle elementary magnet school (grades K-5) and for up to 75 seats at the Rochelle magnet middle school (grades 6-8) ; similarly, other-race applicants residing within the former (1991-92) attendance area of Lincoln Avenue Elementary School shall have first priority for up to 200 seats at the Lincoln Avenue elementary magnet school (grades K-5) and for up to 100 seats at the Jesse Keen magnet middle school (grades 6-8). c. Admission controls. All pupils residing in the Northwest or Southwest administrative areas of the Polk County school system who are enrolled in a grade served by the Rochelle, Lincoln Avenue or Jesse Keen magnet schools shall be eligible to apply for admission to the schools. All pupils residing in the South Central administrative area of the Polk County school system who are enrolled in grades 6-8 shall be entitled to apply for admission to the Union Academy magnet middle school. The number of applicants to magnet schools residing in any 7 particular attendance zone who are admitted will be limited to avoid a significant reduction in the level of desegregation at the school[s] serving that zone. tentatively identified for admission to magnet schools in order of their ranking as determined by a lottery. The final decision on admission will take into account the cumulative effect, upon the racial composition of a sending school, of admitting to [a] magnet school[s] all applicants from the attendance zone of the sending school. Admission of students from each individual sending school shall be limited to avoid causing the racial composition of sending school's enrollment to fall outside the range from ten percentage points above to ten percentage points below ("plus-or-minus ten percentage points") the system-wide pupil enrollment at the grade level (elementary, middle, and high school) served by the school. e. N o prerequisites for admission. There shall be no academic, behavioral or subjective (e.g., teacher recommendations, personal interviews) requirements for admission to the magnet schools. Pupils who are offered admission to a magnet school may be required to sign a written commitment to the philosophy or rules of the d. Approval o f applicants. Applicants shall be 8 school (and shall be informed clearly of the consequences of failure to adhere to those rules); if the commitment is refused, the offer of admission shall be withdrawn, f. Continuation o f magnet school enrollment. Pupils who were enrolled in a magnet school during the previous school year shall be entitled to admission in the following school year if the school serves their grade and will be encouraged to remain in the magnet program until completion of the highest grade level offered at the school. Pupils admitted to a magnet school will be required to remain in the school for at least one academic year, (i) subject to the authority of the Superintendent to administratively assign a student to a different placement in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct adopted by the School Board of Polk County, and (ii) subject to the same standards governing voluntarily requested changes in enrollment that are applicable to pupils in all other schools in the system. Discipline policies, standards, and penalties for failure to adhere to them, shall be equivalent at magnet schools to those at other, non-magnet schools within the Polk County system. The School Board shall provide written notice to the other parties of any school rules or disciplinary provisions not contained in the district 9 wide Student Code of Conduct which are to be applicable to [a] magnet school[s], at least thirty days in advance of the date on which such provisions are intended to become effective. If either of the other parties objects, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement any such provision[sj to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. g. Harrison Performing Arts Center program. The Harrison Performing Arts Center is an alternative high school (grades 9-12) program for the arts serving the entire Polk County School District. The provisions of subparagraphs e. and f above shall be applied to newly entering classes at the Harrison Center commencing with the class entering in the 1992-93 school year, except that applicants to the Harrison program shall be required to audition or present a portfolio of works in order to establish a sufficient level of proficiency to benefit from the advanced training provided in the program. The parties recognize that black students are currently underrepresented in the Harrison Performing Arts Center program and the school district shall exert its best efforts commencing in the 1992-93 school year to recruit 10 and substantially increase enrollment of black students in the program. If the racial composition of the 1995-96 entering class at the Harrison Center (the first entering class which shall have had the opportunity to enroll in the Rochelle performing arts magnet middle school for grades 6, 7 and 8) does not fall within the range established in subparagraph a. for the magnet schools, the parties shall consult and confer concerning the need for and the nature of appropriate additional provisions governing the operation of the Harrison Center program. Should agreement not be reached, any party may seek such relief from the Court as is appropriate. 4 . Changes in Magnet School Programs or Enrollments. The School Board agrees that the establishment of magnet schools will not be the occasion for nor lead to the closing of school facilities that are located in minority communities or were formerly operated as all-black schools; the Board is committed to the equitable location of school facilities in all communities within Polk County. The Board therefore agrees that: a. No magnet school shall be closed because of low enrollment. After each year of operation, the parties shall review the extent to which each magnet school has met the enrollment goals contained herein, including the 11 extent to which the full capacity of each magnet school is being utilized. If the enrollment and full utilization goals have not been achieved by the beginning of the third year of operation of the magnet school, the parties shall consult and confer to reach agreement on the return of the school to operation as a fully desegregated attendance-zoned or clustered facility. Any changes in utilization will be submitted to the Court for approval. b. No school facility that was formerly operated as an all-black school in Polk County shall be closed or converted to a use different from that specified in this Order without prior notice to and consultation with the other parties. The School Board shall provide written notice of any such proposed closing or conversion to the other parties (through counsel) at least sixty days in advance of the anticipated effective date for such closing or conversion. If either of the other parties objects, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement the closing or conversion to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. 5. Transportation o f magnet school students. Transportation will be provided for students who are enrolled in magnet schools on the same basis as transportation is provided for students in non-magnet schools in the Polk County system. (Pursuant to Florida law, the school district is required to provide transportation for any student living more than two miles from the school that he or she attends and for any student living less than two miles from the school that he or she attends when there are extreme unsafe conditions.) 6. Eligibility and transportation for extra-curricular activities. All students who attend magnet schools, whose school assignment is changed as a result of the opening of the magnet schools or the revision of attendance zones under this Order, or who exercise majority-to-minority transfers as provided in this Order, shall be fully eligible to participate in extra curricular activities at the schools they attend, without being subject to any waiting period. In addition, the school district shall take steps to facilitate participation in after-school extra-curricular activities by pupils who are transported to school at the district's expense. When Jenkins Senior High School opens in the 1993-94 school year the district shall provide school bus transportation home as needed by pupils participating in after-school activities. For the 1992-93 school year, the district shall provide such 13 assistance to students as is feasible utilizing the facilities of the Lakeland or Polk County public transit systems (through such means as special contractual agreements, pre-paid fares, etc.) as may be available. During the 1992-93 school year the district shall also undertake a comprehensive survey of extra curricular participation, focusing particularly upon students who receive transportation to their assigned schools at district expense, in order to determine the extent of need for assistance to facilitate access to after-school activities as well as the feasibility and cost of providing such assistance. The results of this study (including a description of efforts made in the Lakeland area, as provided above, in the 1992-93 school year) shall be provided to the other parties, through counsel, no later than March 1, 1993. Thereafter, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to reach agreement on steps to be taken in the future to insure access to extra curricular activity participation for transported pupils. If agreement cannot be reached, any party may seek such relief from the Court as is appropriate. 7. Magnet School applications process. Applications for admission to magnet schools must be postmarked and received during a designated period, of at least three weeks' duration, of the school year preceding the year for which admission to the school is sought. The applications period shall be - 14 - announced and publicized by the School Board sufficiently in advance to ensure that all parents and students have an opportunity to submit timely applications; application forms for magnet schools shall be made freely available at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the applications period and shall be submitted by delivery or mailing to a clearly specified address. 8 . Enhancements to magnet schools. a. Capital improvements. The School Board shall enhance and improve the Lincoln Avenue and Rochelle facilities to accommodate the magnet programs they will house and to preserve and enhance their use as community institutions. The Board shall expend a minimum of $1 million for capital improvements at the two facilities, including the construction of enhanced science instructional facilities and creation of an additional computer laboratory at Lincoln, and construction of performance, rehearsal and workshop areas for the arts at Rochelle. The Board shall expend (of this amount) a minimum of $200,000 for new equipment (including computer equipment) at the two schools. These capital improvements shall be completed as early as possible and in no event later than the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. 15 b. Adult and Community Education program . Commencing with the 1992-93 school year, the School Board shall implement an adult and community education plan serving the Rochelle and Lincoln Avenue areas. Elements of this program shall include, at a minimum, the establishment of a dedicated room for community use at one, or if possible, both schools; and the creation of a new and additional full-time administrative position (equivalent or higher in rank to an assistant principal) of community/school coordinator, based at one of the two schools, who shall be responsible for developing and implementing a wide range of activities utilizing the resources available through the school system and in the community (including volunteer, business, civic organization and other governmental agency resources) to meet the educational, job training, recreational and human needs of community residents of all ages, including the families of students attending the schools. The adult and community education plan shall be developed and presented to the other parties for their review within sixty days after entry of this Order. 9 . Revision o f attendance zones. In order to accommodate the operation of magnet schools as provided above, to establish a middle school form of grade organization, and to facilitate 16 desegregation within Polk County schools, attendance zones shall be modified as follows in the 1992-93 school year: a. Attendance zones for elementary schools serving grades K-5 within the Northwest and Southwest administrative areas of the school system shall be modified effective for the 1992-93 school year as indicated on the map appended hereto as Exhibit "A." Elementary-grade pupils residing in areas not assigned to specific schools on that map (and who do not attend a magnet school in 1992-93 or succeeding years) shall be afforded a controlled choice of school as provided in Exhibit "A-l" hereto. b. Attendance zones for middle schools, to serve grades 6-9 within the Northwest and Southwest administrative areas of the school system shall be modified effective for the 1992-93 school year as indicated on the map appended hereto as Exhibit "B."‘ Middle school pupils residing in areas not assigned to specific schools on that map (and who do not attend a magnet school in 1992-93 or succeeding years) shall be afforded a controlled choice of school as provided in ‘Pupils entering the ninth grade in the 1992-93 school year shall be afforded an option to remain in the middle school they attended in the 1991-92 school year if they would be assigned to a different middle school according to the attendance zones on Exhibit "B." 17 Exhibit "A-2" hereto. (Upon completion of construction of the Jenkins High School [anticipated to open for the 1993-94 school year], middle schools shall serve grades 6-8 . ) c. Attendance zones for elementary schools in the Bartow area shall be modified effective for the 1992-93 school year to accommodate the operation of magnet schools as provided above, to establish a middle school form of grade organization, and to facilitate desegregation. The School Board shall present a complete written description of such attendance zones, together with projections of the resulting school enrollments, to the other parties (through counsel) no later than June 1, 1992. If either of the other parties objects to the implementation of the proposed attendance zones, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement any modifications to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. d. Pupils in grade 6 residing within the attendance area of Sikes Elementary School shall enroll in Mulberry Middle School. 18 B. Effective for the 1993-94 school year, the following additional modifications in pupil assignments shall be implemented: 1. Establishment o f magnet schools. a. Winter Haven area. Jewett Middle School shall be converted to a magnet middle school to which all pupils in grades 6-8 residing in the North Central administrative area of the Polk County school system shall be eligible to apply for admission. The provisions of paragraphs I.A.3. through I.A.7. above, insofar as they are not limited in their applicability to schools specifically named therein, shall apply to the operation of the Jewett magnet middle school. b. Haines City area. An elementary school in the Haines City area other than Bethune Elementary School shall be converted to a magnet elementary school to which pupils residing in the Loughman, Davenport, Dundee and Lake Hamilton areas shall be eligible to apply for admission. The provisions of paragraphs I.A.3. through I.A.7. above, insofar as they are not limited in their applicability to schools specifically named therein, shall apply to the operation of this magnet elementary school. Attendance zones for the remaining elementary schools (grades K-5), 19 including Bethune Elementary School, shall be redrawn as provided below. The School Board shall present a complete written description of its plans for these additional magnet schools, together with projections of their impact upon enrollments at all affected schools, to the other parties (through counsel) no later than March 1, 1993. If either of the other parties objects within thirty days to the implementation of the plans, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement any portion of the plans to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. 2. Grade restructuring o f Jewett Elementary School. Jewett Elementary School, presently a sixth-grade center, shall serve pupils in grades K-5 with an attendance zone established as provided below. 3 . Revision o f attendance zones. In order to accommodate the operation of magnet schools as provided above, to establish a middle school form of grade organization, to take account of the completion of additional school construction and to facilitate desegregation by eliminating racially disproportionate school enrollments within the Polk County - 20 - zones for elementary and middle schools in the North Central administrative area of the Polk County school system; (b) zones for elementary schools in the East administrative area of the Polk County school system; (c) zones for schools in the Frostproof area; (d) zones for schools in the Mulberry area; (e) zones for elementary schools in the Lake Wales area; and (f) zones for high schools in the Lakeland area. The School Board shall present a complete written description of proposed modifications, together with projections of their impact upon the enrollment at all affected schools, to the other parties (through counsel) no later than March 1, 1993. If either of the other parties objects to the implementation of any of the proposed modifications, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement any modifications to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. C. Future changes. The School Board shall expand its magnet school program in the Northwest and Southwest administrative areas of the district and make future zone changes as follows: school system, the following attendance zones will require modification effective with the 1993-94 school year: (a) - 21 - 1. The Board shall construct permanent facilities for housing the performing and fine arts magnet middle school at the Rochelle campus and shall seek to complete such construction by the opening of the 1994-95 school year. 2. The Board shall construct or renovate permanent facilities for housing a magnet middle school with a traditional (basic academic) emphasis to replace the Jesse Keen magnet school on a permanent basis, which shall be located within the area bounded on the south by West Ariana Street and North Crystal Lake Drive (and the imaginary line connecting them) , on the west by Wabash Avenue, on the east by East Lake Parker Drive and an imaginary line extended south from its intersection with Canal Avenue to North Crystal Lake Drive, and on the north by Bella Vista Street (and the imaginary line connecting West Bella Vista Street to East Bella Vista Street). 3. Until the permanent magnet middle school facilities have been provided, the School Board shall not construct any additional middle schools or expand the capacity of existing middle schools serving the Northwest or Southwest administrative areas of the district. 4. As the enrollment and full utilization goals set forth above for the Rochelle and Lincoln Avenue Elementary 22 magnet schools are achieved, the School Board shall convert two additional elementary facilities, one north of the area described in the preceding paragraph and one south of the area, to magnet elementary schools. Unless the goals for Rochelle and Lincoln have not been attained, one additional magnet elementary school shall be opened in the 1994-95 school year and the second additional magnet elementary school shall be opened in the 1995-96 school year. The School Board shall also provide opportunities for students in the secondary grades to continue in magnet programs having the emphases or themes of these additional magnet elementary schools. 5. The provisions of paragraphs I.A.3. through I.A.7. above, insofar as they are not limited in their applicability to schools specifically named therein, shall apply to the operation of the additional magnet schools described above. 6. The School Board shall present a complete written description of its plans for these additional magnet schools, together with projections of their impact upon enrollments at all affected schools, no later than March 1 preceding the school year in which the additional magnet school[s] will begin operation. If either of the other parties objects within thirty days to the implementation of the plans, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School 23 Board shall not implement any portion of the plans to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. 7. Any construction or renovation necessary for or associated with the implementation of these additional magnet schools shall be subject to the requirements of § II. (School Construction) , below. 8. The School Board shall provide written notice to the other parties (through counsel) of future proposed changes in attendance boundaries, together with projections of their impact upon enrollment at affected schools, at least sixty days in advance of their implementation. If either of the other parties objects within thirty days to the effectuation of any of the proposed changes, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. Should agreement not be reached, the School Board shall not implement changes in attendance boundaries to which objection has been made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. If there is no objection or if the parties reach agreement after consultation, a description of the boundary modifications and their projected impact upon school enrollments shall be included in the next joint report submitted to the Court pursuant to § X of this Order. 24 of the Polk County School Board that all students attending the public schools are required to attend the school serving (at their grade level) the attendance area within which they actually reside, unless a student has been admitted to a magnet school, been administratively reassigned pursuant to the Student Code of Conduct, or has requested and been granted a transfer in accordance with the provisions of this Order and the regulations of the School Board. The school district may verify that the student is actually living at the address by sending a representative to visit the residence which the student, parent, guardian, or other adult has represented is his or her home. 1. Address verification. The school system shall use objective and reliable methods to verify student addresses, both during pre-registration or registration periods and in making unannounced checks of student addresses from time to time. In particular, the school district shall (a) investigate all reported changes in address which would alter the residential school attendance zone of a student, (b) request the cooperation of the judiciary in denying guardianship requests or change of custody requests where the purpose is to create a legal residence in a specific school zone, and (c) require documentation of a judicial custody D. Enforcement o f attendance zones; address verification. It is the policy 25 determination in the event that a student's residence changes as a result of dissolution of the parents' marriage. (The School Board shall appropriately modify Section 4, f XI.A. and f XI.A.1. of the Student Code of Conduct, Policy Number 6Gx53- 8.016, adopted June 11, 1991, to conform to this Order.) 2. Residence documentation. When an adult seeks to register a student entering a school in the Polk County district for the first time or re-entering the system after interrupted attendance, or notifies the school system of a change in residence that would alter the student's school attendance, verification of the student's actual physical residence with the adult shall be submitted by providing either (a) the student's birth certificate establishing that the student is a child of the adult registering the child, (b) the complaint or petition for, and a court order declaring, that the adult registering the child is the legal guardian of the student, or (c) if the adult' is neither the parent nor the legal guardian of the student, evidence of the student's actual physical residence with the adult registering the child (which shall be accepted only as prima facie evidence of residence subject to - 26 - physical verification by the school district's staff) and documents verifying the residence of the adult with whom the student resides from at least two of the following categories: (i) property tax records, mortgage documents or deeds; (ii) apartment or home lease, or current utility bill; (iii) voter precinct or voter registration documents; or (iv) documentation of participation in a governmental benefit program. If a student's parents are divorced, the parent with whom the student resides shall be required to furnish a copy of the complaint or petition for, and the court decree awarding custody of the student to him or her. A student registering alone and who does not identify a parent, guardian or other adult with whom he or she resides shall be referred to the juvenile court or the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 3. Changes o f custody. Where an adult other than a parent has been awarded custody of or appointed guardian of a student and one or both of the student's parents reside within the - 27 - Polk County school district, actual physical residence with the custodian or guardian shall serve as the basis of the student's assignment only where the appointment or award was made on the basis of a determination of risk to the child by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or the juvenile court; voluntary requests for changes in custody or guardianship by parents residing elsewhere in the school district shall not be effective for this purpose but the student will be considered to reside with the parent[s]. 4. School Board policy and procedures. The School Board shall adopt such regulations, policies and procedures as may be necessary to implement the letter and spirit of the provisions of this Order regarding enforcement of attendance zones and address verification. The School Board shall provide copies of such regulations, policies and procedures to the other parties (through counsel) within one hundred twenty days of the approval of this Order, and the other parties shall notify the Board within thirty days whether there is any objection to any of the provisions. If either of the other parties raises an objection, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences and, if unsuccessful, they may petition the Court for appropriate relief to implement this Order fully. E. Transfers. In order to comply with its obligations under the decrees of this Court, to utilize facilities efficiently, and to further effective educational planning, the School Board shall adopt and implement a policy defining and limiting the availability of transfers to schools that serve areas outside the attendance zone within which a student resides. That policy shall provide for the following: 1. Inter-district transfers. Inter-district reassignments are governed by Sections 230.23(4)(d) and 230.23(4)(m)(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Section 230.3(4)(d) allows the parent or guardian of regular education students to reguest an inter district reassignment if there is an annual resolution by the Polk County School Board and the school board of the affected district[s] setting out the terms and conditions for which such reassignments may be permitted. Section 230.23 (4) (m) (2) applies to exceptional education students and requires cooperative agreements between districts allowing for reassignments where necessary to provide appropriate educational placements. The Polk County School Board will not approve inter-district reassignments under these provisions which impede desegregation within either the Polk County school district or any other school district. 29 2. Intra-district transfers. Intra-district transfers shall be granted only if justified on non-discriminatory educational or other grounds and, except for majority-to-minority transfers, only if there is space available in the school to which transfer is sought. Except for magnet school attendance, intra-district transfers shall be granted for a period of one school year only and renewal shall not be automatic but shall reguire re-application.** Transfers shall be limited to the following grounds: a. Magnet school attendance. When a student is admitted to a magnet school, the student will be treated as having been granted a transfer from the school serving the attendance zone within which he or she resides to the magnet school during the period of the student's attendance at the magnet school. b. Exceptional student placement. When a student is determined, in accordance with the Special Programs and Procedures for Exceptional Students adopted by the Polk County School Board, to require an educational placement in a school other than the one serving the attendance area of his or her residence, the student will be treated "Pupils entering the 12th grade in the 1992-93 school year who were granted a transfer out of their attendance zone high school for the 1991-92 school year shall be afforded an option to remain in the high school they attended in the 1991- 92 school year if they so desire. 30 as having been granted a transfer from the school serving that attendance area to the school of placement. c. Course availability. Transfers for the purpose of enrolling in specific courses not offered at a student's attendance area high school are not generally available in the Polk County school system. The school district agrees that if fifteen or more pupils at a high school express a desire to enroll in a course not currently available at the school, the district shall make the course of study available to the students at that high school, either by reassigning faculty or by assigning an itinerant (part-time) instructor to teach the course at the school. Where fewer than fifteen pupils seek a specific course, the school district shall seek to meet the demand at the attendance area high school, if possible, or through other means (such as offering the course among more than one school jointly at a common location to which students would be transported as necessary). If no other means is feasible, the school district may grant a transfer for this purpose, subject to the availability of capacity at the receiving school and to the condition that such transfer not significantly alter the racial composition of the sending or receiving schools. Any such transfer shall be effective only for the period of time during which the student is actually enrolled in the course[s] unavailable at the attendance area high school. The school district shall also retain records, centrally aggregated, indicating for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years the number of requests for courses unavailable at students' attendance area high schools, showing the home high school, the race of the student seeking the course, the identity of the course, the high school at which the course was available, and the disposition of each such request, and shall make such records available to the other parties after March 1, 1993 and March 1, 1994, respectively. The parties shall confer and consult concerning additional steps, if any, that are required to ensure the availability of curricular opportunities to students in Polk County high schools on a nondiscriminatory and equitable basis. If agreement cannot be reached, any party may seek such relief from the Court as is appropriate. d. Majority-to-minority transfer. A student who is of the same race as the majority of pupils enrolled in the school serving his or her attendance area may transfer to a school serving the same grade level in which pupils of the student's race are in the minority and the school district shall provide transportation for the transfer. - 32 - A student may request a transfer from the school serving his or her attendance area to another school even if the above "majority-to-minority" conditions are not met, so long as (a) the reassignment, if granted, will bring both the sending and receiving schools closer to the system- wide enrollment proportions at that grade level; (b) there is space available in the receiving school; and (c) the student or parent is able to provide his or her own transportation. e. District employees. During the 1992-93 school year, employees of the Polk County school system shall be permitted to transfer and enroll their children at the school buildings to which the employees are assigned. There shall be no other special transfer privilege available for children of school district employees. The School Board shall retain records indicating the number of pupils, by race, grade, school of attendance and school to which the student would otherwise have been assigned, and shall provide this information in writing to the other parties (through counsel) no later than March 1, 1993. Thereafter, the parties shall consult and confer to reach agreement on whether special transfer privileges for employees' children should be continued, modified, or eliminated in future school years. If 33 agreement cannot be reached, the School Board shall not offer any special transfer privileges after the 1992-93 school year without first obtaining the approval of the Court. f. Hardship. Students who objectively demonstrate that extreme hardship would result from being required to attend the school serving the attendance zone in which they reside may be granted a transfer to attend another school under the following conditions only: i. Availability of day care will not be considered as a basis for a hardship. ii. If a hardship transfer is requested for medical reasons, the parent or guardian must present testimony from the treating physician at an evidentiary hearing, stating the specific medical reasons that are related to factors at the attendance-area school which require the reassignment. (The hearing shall be conducted by an administrator designated by the School Board, who shall make a recommendation respecting the transfer request to the Board; the parent or guardian may request that the hearing be private.) Proximity to the treating physician's office location will not alone justify a reassignment 34 unless the medical problem is of sufficient severity to qualify the student for exceptional education within the meaning of P.L. 94-142, as amended. iii. If a hardship transfer is requested for emotional or psychiatric reasons, the parent or guardian must present testimony from the treating qualified psychologist or psychiatrist at an evidentiary hearing, explaining why reassignment is necessary to resolve factors at the attendance-area school that contribute to the student's problems. (The hearing shall be conducted by an administrator designated by the School Board, who shall make a recommendation respecting the transfer request to the Board; the parent or guardian may request that the hearing be private.) At the beginning of each semester, the treating psychologist, psychiatrist or physician must provide a written update of the student's progress and need, if any, to continue the reassignment. The school system shall retain records, centrally aggregated, indicating, for each school year, the number and types of transfers requested to and from each school, by race of student, the name and address of the physician, psychologist or psychiatrist (if any) supporting the request, and the - 35 - disposition of each such request, and shall make such records available to the other parties for inspection upon reasonable notice. A. Defendants recognize their continuing obligation, pursuant to the prior Orders of this Court, to undertake school construction, expansion and renovation in a manner that facilitates the desegregation of the Polk County school system and the elimination of any remaining vestiges of prior discrimination. B. Defendants shall provide written notice of proposed school construction, expansion, addition, or substantial renovation or remodeling projects which change the size, capacity or grade structure of a building to the other parties (through counsel) at least sixty days in advance of acquiring property for new facilities or of accepting bids for construction work. Such notice shall include information indicating how the construction, renovation or remodeling is consistent with and facilitates the desegregation process in the school system. If either of the other parties has an objection to any construction, renovation or remodeling project, they shall inform defendants (through counsel) of the objection within thirty days of receiving such notice. 1 1 . School Construction 36 Thereafter, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. If agreement cannot be reached, the school system shall not undertake the construction, renovation or remodeling to which objection was made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. C. Construction projects presently under way that are not subject to the notice and consultation requirements of the preceding paragraph include (1) a new elementary school (capacity of 500 pupils) in Loughman; (2) a new elementary school (capacity 500 pupils) in Frostproof; (3) an eight- classroom addition at Jesse Keen Elementary School in Lakeland; (4) a new high school in Lakeland; (5) a three- classroom addition at Oscar Pope Elementary School in Lakeland; (6) a seven-classroom addition at Crystal Lake Elementary School in Lakeland; (7) a ten-classroom addition at Dundee Elementary School; (8) a four-classroom addition at Hillcrest Elementary School in Lake Wales; and (9) a new facility to house the Polk County Opportunity Center, to contain fifteen classrooms and to be located adjacent to the Travis Vo-Tech School. D. Defendants shall also provide the other parties with information concerning the utilization of portable and temporary buildings leased or owned by the school district. Within sixty days from entry of this Order the School Board 37 will furnish counsel for the other parties with a listing of all portable and temporary buildings currently in use within the district, identifying the classroom capacity of the buildings, the school or other site at which they are currently located, and a brief description of current usage (e.g., regular classroom, special education or Chapter 1 pull out program; storage, etc.). Thereafter, no later than sixty days prior to the opening of each school year the School Board shall provide written notice to the other parties (through counsel) of planned modifications in the location or use of portable or temporary buildings (including acquisition of additional such buildings) for the coming school year. If either of the other parties has an objection to the use or location of temporary or portable buildings they shall inform defendants (through counsel) of the objection within thirty days of receiving the information. Thereafter, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences, and if agreement cannot be reached, the School Board shall not make the changes to which objection was made without first obtaining the approval of the Court. The School Board shall also promptly notify the other parties in writing (through counsel) of any exigent or emergency changes in the location or use of such buildings during the school year. 38 III. Faculty and Staff A. Assignment. The School Board recognizes its obligation to assign faculty (including assignments of principals and assistant principals) and both instructional and non- instructional staff so that all schools (including the Performing Arts Center program and other magnet schools) are not racially identifiable ("in no case will the racial composition of a staff indicate that a school is intended for Negro students or white students." See Pitts v. Freeman, 887 F.2d 1438, 1447-48 (llth Cir. 1989), rev''d and remanded on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 60 U.S.L.W. 4286 (U.S. March 31, 1992)). The parties recognize that substantial deviations from this goal currently exist, and that due to the construction of new facilities, the implementation of the middle school form of grade organization, and the modification of attendance zones required by this Order, as well as these current imbalances, changes in faculty and staff assignments will be necessary in the 1992-93 and 1993-94 school years. The School Board agrees to make the necessary changes to meet its obligation each year, utilizing the following techniques: 1. Consideration in filling vacancies. The School Board has revised its employment procedures to require centralized referral of qualified applicants to the school principal or - 39 - other school system employee who conducts interviews and makes the initial hiring recommendation. The Board agrees that no qualified applicant shall be excluded from referral because of race; but the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel shall make affirmative efforts to include in the group of applicants referred for interviews, at any school in which a vacancy occurs, qualified individuals of the racial group, if any, that is underrepresented to such a degree that the school is (or is in danger of becoming) racially identifiable. In addition, school principals and other employees who conduct interviews and make initial hiring recommendations will be advised, at the time applicants are referred, of any such underrepresentation and will be encouraged to consider this factor, along with other factors, in making the initial hiring recommendation. 2. Voluntary transfers. If the system is unable through the process of filling vacancies, to meet its obligation to maintain faculty (including assignments of principals and assistant principals) and both instructional and non- instructional staff assignments that do not result in racially identifiable schools, the School Board shall encourage faculty and staff members to transfer voluntarily to other schools in order to assist the school district in fulfilling that obligation. 40 3. Involuntary assignment. If use of the methods previously described does not suffice, the School Board shall as a last resort make involuntary transfers of faculty or staff in order to avoid the operation of racially identifiable schools. B. Hiring and recruitment. The School Board shall implement affirmative, non-discriminatory steps designed to increase the number of black faculty and staff who are recruited and hired. For example, the district shall inform the placement offices and education departments of all historically black colleges in the States of Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana that offer programs of teacher training of all vacancies for professional employment in the system. 1. Workforce utilization analysis. The Assistant Superintendent for Personnel shall annually conduct a workforce utilization analysis for each school and workplace site (e.g., area administrative office) and for the school district as a whole to determine the number and proportion of employees of various racial and ethnic origin in each of the following categories: (a) officials, administrators and managers; (b) principals, assistant principals, school deans, etc.; (c) full-time classroom teachers; (d) professional staff assigned to special instructional programs (e.g., exceptional student education, 41 gifted educational programs); (e) other professional staff; and (f) non-professional staff. 2. Labor market analysis. The Assistant Superintendent for Personnel shall periodically (and in no event less than every three years) prepare or update a labor market analysis estimating the potential number of persons of different racial and ethnic origin available in the relevant labor market area for the various categories of employment within the school system. (The parties recognize that the relevant labor market varies in geographical area; for example, the school district would be expected to recruit administrators and teachers from a much broader area than cafeteria workers.) For professional employees, including managerial and administrative employees, the analysis shall include estimates for the southeastern United States and graduating classes at appropriate institutions of higher education in that area in the latest year for which such figures are available. For all other employees the analysis shall include estimates for the Polk County labor market area. 3. Applicant flow data. The Assistant Superintendent for Personnel shall annually prepare an analysis of applicant flow for the preceding school year, indicating by category of employee the number of individuals of different racial and 42 ethnic origin (a) who were individually contacted by a representative of the school system for the purpose of recruitment; (b) who applied for a vacant position or positions in the school system following such recruitment contact; (c) who applied for a vacant position or positions in the school system without such recruitment contact; (d) who were referred by the central office for an interview by the school system employee making the initial hiring recommendation; (e) who received an initial hiring recommendation following an interview; (f) who were subseguently recommended for hiring by the Superintendent; (g) who were hired by the School Board; and (h) who accepted employment with the school system. 4. Comparative analysis. The Assistant Superintendent for Personnel shall annually prepare a report for the School Board comparing the labor market availability of black persons in the various job categories with the most recent applicant flow data and with current workforce utilization within the system. The report shall include specific recommendations for affirmative, non-discriminatory steps (such as targeted advertising of vacancies, intensive recruitment and outreach, cooperative orientation and training programs with institutions of higher education, etc.) to be implemented to eliminate underrepresentation of gualified black persons in 43 any job category compared to their availability in the labor markets specified above. The report shall be made available to the other parties for inspection upon reasonable notice. C. Promotions. The School Board recognizes its obligation to implement a fully non-discriminatory system of advancement and promotion of its employees as well as the educational desirability of having a multi-racial workforce throughout all categories of employment. In making promotion decisions among qualified applicants, the staff and Board will consider, among other factors, the results of the annual workforce analyses. D. Staffing o f magnet schools. When existing school facilities are converted to use as magnet schools, the policy of the Polk County School Board with respect to staffing is to treat the former school as being closed and the magnet school as a newly constructed facility which is being opened, subject to the following provisions: 1. Retention o f employment. No employee who was assigned to the former school shall be terminated from employment with the system solely as a result of the conversion. Rather (absent some other justification for a change in employment status), all employees who were assigned to the former school will be offered positions that are equivalent (in areas such as rank and salary) to the positions they held at the former school. 44 2. Selection o f magnet school s ta ff. All positions to be filled at the magnet school will be advertised (including any special criteria established by the district for magnet school staff). Employees assigned to the former school prior to its conversion to a magnet shall be eligible to apply for positions at the magnet school. Selection among applicants for magnet school positions shall be made on a nondiscriminatory basis but one factor in the selection decision will be the system's commitment to having an integrated faculty and staff at magnet schools, as at other schools in the system. 3. Reduction in fo rce. If the conversion to magnet schools results in a reduction in force in any job category or categories within the school district, that reduction in force shall be governed by the principles applicable to desegregation-related reductions in force as announced in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969) and its progeny. E. Other changes required by implementation o f decree. No professional or non-instructional staff member shall be terminated from employment with the system nor be subjected to a loss of rank or salary solely as a result of any other changes in assignment, utilization, etc. resulting from implementation of - 45 - this decree or of specific measures adopted by the School Board to comply with the provisions of this decree or other outstanding Orders of the Court in this case. If actions taken to comply with this decree or other outstanding Orders of the Court result in a reduction in force in any job category or categories within the school district, that reduction in force shall be governed by the principles announced in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1969) and its progeny. A. The School Board is currently revising its student selection procedures for the gifted program pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code § 6A-6.03019(2)(b). B. The parties recognize that under the procedures in effect for the gifted program in prior years, black students were underrepresented in gifted educational programs in Polk County compared to their proportion of system-wide enrollment and few black professional employees have been assigned to these programs. The Board agrees that effectuation of the new student selection procedures should be accompanied by affirmative efforts to identify, recruit and place eligible minority students in gifted programs, and that this is particularly critical for full-time gifted programs that may IV. Gifted Program 46 be offered at specific schools in order to avoid within-school isolation or segregation. The Board further agrees that minority student participation in gifted programs will be enhanced by increasing the number of qualified minority professional employees assigned to these programs and will undertake affirmative recruitment and other steps to accomplish this increase. C. When drafting of the new student selection procedures has been completed, they will be furnished to the other parties (through counsel); if there is any objection, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences. D. The School Board shall maintain data (for a period of at least five years) reflecting, for each school year, the number of pupils, by race, who are (1) evaluated by school personnel, (2) identified, and (3) placed in (a) full-time and (b) part- time gifted programs and shall make those data available for inspection by the other parties upon reasonable notice. A. The parties recognize that black students in Polk County have disproportionately been identified and placed in classes for the Educable Mentally Handicapped compared to their - 47 - V. Special Education proportion of system-wide enrollment, that white students are underrepresented in these classes and somewhat disproportionately identified as having Specific Learning Disabilities, and that few black professional employees have been assigned to the district's exceptional student education programs. B. The School Board is committed to accurate, non- discriminatory assessment, identification and placement of exceptional students and is particularly concerned about the placement of minority pupils in special education classes. The parties have agreed to continue to evaluate the district's program, to exchange information, and to consider modifications of the Board's Special Programs and Procedures for Exceptional Students that may be appropriate (for example, to identify assessment or evaluation instruments particularly suited for use with minority students). Further, the School Board will undertake affirmative recruitment and other steps to increase the number of minority professional employees assigned to exceptional student education programs. C. The School Board shall maintain data (for a period of at least five years) reflecting, for each school year, the number of pupils, by race, who are (1) screened by school personnel, (2) referred for evaluation by school personnel, (3) identified, and (4) placed in each category of special 48 education program operated by the school system and shall make those data available for inspection by the other parties upon reasonable notice. A. The parties recognize that successful desegregation of the Polk County schools requires the fair and nondiscriminatory administration of discipline policies embodied in the Student Code of Conduct, and that a greater proportion of black pupils have been subjected to disciplinary actions than their proportion of system-wide enrollment. B. In order more fully to analyze the administration of the Student Code of Conduct and to determine whether modifications are appropriate, the parties agree that the School Board shall retain data (for a period of at least five years), centrally aggregated, indicating for each school year, the number of pupils, by race, who are subjected to disciplinary action. These data shall be organized by school and type of disciplinary sanction (e.g., corporal punishment, in-school suspension, work detail, alternative education placement, out- of-school suspension, expulsion) and shall include a narrative description or categorical identification of the specific conduct which gave rise to the disciplinary action and the identity of the staff member at the school who referred the VI. Student Discipline 49 pupil for disciplinary action or who administered the disciplinary sanction if there was no referral. Within sixty days after the entry of this Order, the school district shall provide the other parties (through counsel) for their review with a written description of the categories of offenses or conduct, and the range of penalties therefor, by which the data will be organized. The school district shall make data for the 1992-93 school year available to the other parties promptly after they have been compiled, and thereafter the parties shall consult and confer with respect to the need for any procedural or substantive modifications to assure nondiscriminatory treatment of all students. C. The School Board further agrees that it shall retain at each school (for a period of at least five years) the data described in the preceding paragraph concerning individual disciplinary actions at that school. School principals shall be instructed periodically to review those data to determine whether there are any patterns of substantial over-referral (especially of black pupils) or non-equivalent sanctions for similar offenses that indicate the necessity for counselling and assistance to the staff member. 50 VII. Condition o f Facilities The parties are examining data on recent years7 capital expenditures including at formerly all-black schools and schools located in predominantly black residential areas. The parties agree to confer and consult with respect to the need, if any, for further expenditures to assure that all buildings are maintained and renovated at the same level consistent with their age, structural limitations, etc. VIII. Seth McKeel Junior High School The school district shall conduct a comprehensive study of the present condition of the facilities, program and staffing at Seth McKeel Junior High (Middle) School and shall present to the other parties, through counsel, no later than March 1, 1993 a plan for such enhancements to be placed at the school (which may include special programs or thematic emphases), as will ensure that educational opportunities for students at this school are equal to those available at other middle schools in the system. Implementation of such a plan shall commence in the 1993-94 school year. If either of the other parties objects within thirty days to the contents of the plan, the parties shall consult and confer in an effort to resolve their differences; if agreement cannot be reached, any party may seek such relief from the Court as is appropriate. 51 IX. In-Service Training A. The School Board shall conduct pre-service and in-service training to familiarize all staff with the design of the magnet schools, magnet program goals and activities, school/community relations aspects of magnet programs, and overall implementation and evaluation of magnet schools. B. The School Board shall conduct pre-service and in-service training for staff on a district-wide basis in human relations and instructional strategies that are particularly suitable for diverse student populations, and shall consult the Southeastern Desegregation Assistance Center funded under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for assistance in undertaking this training. C. The school district is also committed to the development throughout the system of a multi-cultural curriculum and appropriate supportive activities for staff members to assist them in implementing that curriculum. X. Periodic Consultation and Reporting to Court The parties, through counsel, shall meet and confer at least annually (between May 15 and June 30) to review the status of implementation of the provisions of this Order and the information produced or maintained thereunder and shall - 52 - jointly report to the Court by July 15 respecting any modifications of the Order which appear necessary or appropriate to achieve its purposes. The reporting requirements of prior decrees and Orders entered by the Court in this action shall also remain in effect. United States District Judge Approved as to form: /s/ Larry R. Jackson Attorney for Plaintiffs /s/ C.A. 3oswell. Jr. Attorney for Defendants /s/ Sandra Lynn Beber____ Attorney for United States 53 jointly report to the Court by July 15 respecting any modifications of the Order which appear necessary or appropriate to achieve its purposes. The reporting requirements of prior decrees and Orders entered by the Court in this action shall also remain in effect. United States District Judge The parties, by their undersigned counsel, assent to the entry of this Order and to all of the terms and recitations contained therein. /s/ Larry R. Jackson Attorney for Plaintiffs /s/ C .A. Boswell, Jr. Attorney for Defendants /s/ Sandra Lynn Beber Attorney for United States - 53 - SUBSTITUTE SIGNATURE PAGE TENDERED AT 6/5/92 _____________ HEARING, SEE R2 - 53-54__________ IO 72A ev. 8/82) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 92 JUL - 9 AM ?■* CO TAMPA DIVISION lLE/:” L' - i - . , u . i . - ’ T ' < " ■ T • n v itu Z . j i - j i . i rT\wpf -| — .. HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, -vs- CASE NO. 63-150-CIV-T-23 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. ./ ORDER This action is before the Court pursuant to a "Motion for Further Relief" filed by the plaintiffs on January 2, 1992. The "Motion for Further Relief" is the most recent submission by the plaintiffs in this case, which now rapidly approaches its thirtieth year of pendency in this Court. The "Motion for Further Relief" has resulted in a stipulation among counsel for the plaintiffs; the School Board of Polk County, Florida, and other defendants; and the United States of America, acting through the Department of Justice. The stipulation assumes the form of a proposed order, which the parties jointly request this Court enter as the order of this Court. This Court has carefully evaluated the parties' proposed order and, on June 5, 1992, conducted a hearing for the purpose of further exploring the meaning and application of the proposed order. Additionally, the Court has reviewed in detail the (g) voluminous record compiled in this case since 1963, including data compilations, maps, charts, legal memoranda, and other matters that evidence the progress of this action. Finally, the Court has received, read, and remains mindful of correspondence received from citizens of Polk County, who have expressed a variety of under standable concerns and reservations about the plans for the school system to which their children are assigned. With the exceptions enumerated below, the Court today adopts the parties' proposed order, which has been carefully and skill fully drafted, revised, and explained by Larry R. Jackson and Norman J. Chachkin, who serve as principal counsel for the plain tiffs; Sandra L. Beber, who represents the Department of Justice of the United States of America; and Clarence A. Boswell, counsel for the defendants. The Court is respectful of the skill, dili gence, and persistence displayed by all counsel in their effort to achieve a workable accommodation with respect to a perplexing prob lem involving legal and social policy, the expenditure of public funds, the logistics of administering a large and evolving educa tional institution and its component parts, and the inevitable disputes and conflicts that accompany a matter that touches a county's children, their education, their careers, and the doings of their everyday lives. Accordingly, the Court ADJUDGES: 1. Subject to the terms of paragraphs 2 through 4 below, the Court adopts as an order of this Court the proposed order submitted to this Court and inscribed with this representation: "The parties, by their undersigned counsel, assent to the entry of 2 this order and to all of the terms and recitations contained therein." The Court retains jurisdiction in this action to enforce this order and the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the establishment of a unitary school system in Polk County, Florida. Requests for further relief or for enforcement of the order may occur by motion from time to time. Pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, the order of this Court shall be regarded by all authorities as preemptive of any contrary policy, rule, or the like, which might limit, prevent, or impede its full implementation. 2. The Court retains jurisdiction to assess fees and costs upon the submission of an appropriate motion, supporting authority, and documentary evidence in support of any material factual allegations pertinent to determination of an appropriate award. The Court orders the parties to determine whether appropriate fees and costs are susceptible of award by stipulation. Absent a stipu lation, the Court orders the parties to submit appropriate papers specifying the factual and legal issues to be resolved as a neces- sary precedent to the award of fees and costs. Any fee for services with respect to or arising from the plaintiffs' January 2, 1992, "Motion for Further Relief" should occur within sixty (60) days. 3. The parties are required to meet no less frequently than once during each six (6) months beginning July l, 1992, and there after until relieved of this obligation by the Court. Further, the Par"ties are to file in this case a notice of their intent to meet, 0 72A ev. 8/82) -3- including a statement that the meeting will be attended by authorized representatives of each of the three distinctive parties. Further, within thirty (30) days after any meeting that occurred pursuant to the notice contemplated by the preceding sentence, the parties shall file an explanatory report concerning the meeting and including especially any areas of apparently intractable disagreement that may require resort to this Court for resolution. In addition, if an apparently intractable dispute requiring judicial resolution occurs at any time, the parties are to file, within thirty (30) days, a joint explanatory report containing a description of the disagreement, the solutions proposed by each party, the approximate court time required for any appropriate hearing to resolve the dispute, and the parties' consent to appear in court for the appropriate number of days for resolution of that dispute within sixty (60) days, including a listing of the days upon which all counsel are available. Because of the nature of this dispute and its duration, counsel are regarded as having a heightened responsibility to be available and prepared for resolution of problems in a prompt manner, excepting only extraordinary commitments elsewhere. 4. On page twenty-eight, in the third sentence of paragraph four entitled "School Board Policy and Procedures," the words "and spirit" are stricken, a correction to which counsel for all parties expressed agreement on June 5, 1992. (Transcript at 54) The Court again notes the pendency of this action for thirty years. It is the constitutional obligation of this Court to assure the establishment of a unitary school system for Polk County, Florida. The Court expresses its resolve that this constitutional obligation achieve fulfillment in the foreseeable future. In that respect, the Court intends to more carefully monitor the progress of the rather elaborate mechanism today adopted by this Court for implementation by Polk County. At the June 5, 1992, hearing, all counsel on behalf of their clients expressed extraordinary optimism that unitary status could be achieved, notwithstanding a healthy supply of difficult problems, in the foreseeable future, perhaps (according to the United States and Polk County) upon the satis factory implementation of the order adopted by this Court today pursuant to the parties' consent. One thing is certain: fsupervision of the Polk County school system by this Court should not endure permanently. Applicable decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States neither require nor encourage the perpetual substitution of the federal judiciary for local school boards as the authority responsible for supervising the day-to-day task of educating children and young adults. If the parties cannot achieve a unitary school system at the present level of federal super vision, this Court will reluctantly but inevitably assume a heightened role of supervision in order to assure compliance with constitutional mandates at the earliest practical date. Similarly, the Court will assume a heightened level of observation to determine that no party makes unreasonable demands or erects unreasonable barriers, which serve only to prolong dispute and delay the accomplishment of both a unitary school system and the -5- consequent discharge of federal supervision in deference to supervision by local elected officials. . ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on Ju]/' , 1992. Steven D. Merryday United States District Judge » (0 72A lev. 8/82) - 6- FILED 7/29/92 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, -vs- CASE NO. 63-150 Civ.-T-H SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. -t----------------------- / JOINT EXPLANATORY REPORT OF DISPUTED ISSUES rursuant to paragraph (3) of the Order of this Court entered July 8, 1992, adopting the proposed Order jointly submitted by the parties, this explanatory report is submitted to advise the Court of issues that have arisen in the course of implementing that Order which will require resolution by the Court. There are two such issues: (a) Bartow area elementary school zones for 1992—93; and (b) enforcement of attendance zones for 1992—93 throughout the school system. A. Bartow rezoning In paragraph I.A.9.C. of the Order (p. 18), the parties recognized that elementary school zones in the Bartow area would have to be reconfigured for the 1992-93 school year, for two reasons: (a) to accommodate the transition to a middle school form of grade organization, under which 6th grades would be transferred from elementary schools to middle schools including the newly opened Union Academy magnet middle school, and (b) to achieve desegregation. (In the 1991—92 school year, Gibbons Street Elementary School in Bartow, a formerly all-black facility, had a 61% black enrollment, while Highland City Elementary and Eagle Lake Elementary Schools — part of the same administrative area established by the school district for operational purposes — were 9% black and 8% bla<pk, respectively.) Accordingly, paragraph I.A.9.C. of the Order as submitted by the parties required the district to submit proposed rezoning plans to the other parties by June 1, 1992.1 Promptly after this Court's approval of the Order on July 8, 1992, the school district submitted to counsel for the other parties a rezoning plan for Bartow area elementary schools that had been adopted by the School Board of Polk County. This plan is described in the Memorandum to counsel for plaintiffs and the United States from Assistant Superintendent Bill Davies dated July 14, 1992, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". (A map indicating * :This timeline was of course extended by necessity pending the Court's approval of the Order. - 2 - the location of the schools and zones is appended as Exhibit "B. ") Plaintiffs and the United States have indicated to the School Board that they do not believe the plan meets the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Order that the Court has entered. They contend that the level of actual desegregation which is likely to result from implementation of this plan, as revealed in the projections prepared by the school district, is unacceptable in light of the alternatives which are clearly available to the school district. In particular, they note that under the proposal adopted by the School Board, some elementary schools would have substantially higher minority student enrollments and be very substantially under capacity (especially Bartow Elementary and Floral Avenue Elementary Schools) while other facilities would be significantly overcrowded with low minority enrollments (especially Highland City Elementary School — more than 50% over its capacity — and Alturas and Eagle Lake Elementary Schools).2 2Plaintiffs and the United States contend that a pattern of drawing zones creating over- and under-enrolled schools of substantially differing racial composition has been recognized by the federal courts as a classic method of maintaining segregation in violation of the Constitution. E . g . , Morgan v . H ennigan , 379 F. Supp. 410, 425-27 (D. Mass.), a f f ' d s u b nom. Morgan v . K e r r i g a n , 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir. 1974), c e r t , d e n i e d , 421 U.S. 963 (1975); K e y e s v . S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. 1, (continued...) 3 The School Board's position is that the plan the Board has adopted is a reasonable measure that is adequately responsive to the requirements of the Order without causing undue disruption to established patterns of school attendance. The parties have cooperated in producing information in lieu of formal discovery and in defining the issues to be presented to this Court. Specifically, plaintiffs requested production of materials that were made available to the Citizens Committee appointed by the School Board as part of the process of fashioning its proposal for rezoning of elementary schools in Bartow. These materials included an alternative zoning configuration prepared by the staff for consideration by the Committee that would achieve better results than either the plan recommended by the Committee or the plan adopted by the School Board. This zoning alternative, including projected results, is described in the Memorandum to counsel for plaintiffs and the United States appended hereto as Exhibit "C" (along with a map of the zones attached as Exhibit "D"). 2 2(...continued) D e n v e r , 303 F. Supp. 279, 285, s u p p l e m e n t a l f i n d i n g s , 303 F. Supp. 289, 290, 293 (D. Colo. 1969), a f f ' d , 445 F.2d 990 (10th Cir. 1971), v a c a t e d and r em a n d ed on o t h e r g r o u n d s , 413 U.S. 189 (1973); c f . Lee v . Macon C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , 448 F.2d 746, 754 (5th Cir. 1971)(closing black school would have put white school on double sessions). 4 Plaintiffs and the United States would point out to the Court that even under this alternative, Stephens Elementary School would be more than 200 pupils u n d er its capacity and Floral Avenue would be more than 100 students un der its capacity, while Highland City Elementary School would be more than 100 students over its capacity and Alturas and Eagle Lake Elementary Schools both over capacity. Plaintiffs and the United States contend that a more effective plan can be devised. However, in light of the short time remaining before school opens for the 1992—93 school year, they are prepared to accept, for the coming school year, the school system staff plan presented to the Citizens Committee with only the modification described in Assistant Superintendent Davies' memorandum, involving the transfer of 34 additional white pupils from the Highland City zone to either Stephens or Floral Avenue Elementary School. Plaintiffs and the United States submit that the Court should order such modifications to be made and the resulting zoning configuration for Bartow area elementary schools implemented by the School Board for the 1992-93 school year, requiring that further modifications be developed for implementation in the 1993-94 school year that will eliminate overcrowding and under-utilzation of elementary school facilities in the Bartow area. 5 B. A t t e n d a n c e z o n e e n f o r c e m e n t Sections I.D. and I.E. of the jointly submitted Order (pp. 25-36) require strict enforcement of attendance zones by the Polk County Public Schools commencing with the 1992-93 school year, subject only to delineated grounds for transfers (§ I.E.) and specified exceptions for pupils entering the ninth and twelfth grades (5 I.A.9.b. n.* [p. 17], II.E.2. n.** [p. 30]) . The School Board has requested that plaintiffs and the United States agree to a further one-year exception for all pupils previously granted out-of-zone transfers who will atteynd schools other than those in Lakeland and Bartow (where attendance zones are being reconfigured for the 1992-93 school year) . The total number of such transfers is in excess of 1000 (see letter from Assistant Superintendent Davies to counsel for the plaintiffs and United States dated June 23, 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit "E"). The school district has produced data indicating that most of these transfers would not have a significant racial impact during the 1992-93 school year, except at Wilson Elementary School in Lake Wales (see tables included in Mr. Davies' July 14, 1992 Memorandum, attached hereto as Exhibit "F") . However, plaintiffs and the United States have declined to agree to such a modification. The position of these parties is that the school district agreed in the proposed - 6 - Order to correct now the policy of liberal transfers that had contributed significantly to the failure of earlier desegregation efforts in this case, and that there are no changed circumstances which warrant relaxation of that requirement. The plaintiffs and the United States also believe that modification of the requirement for enforcement of attendance zones is particularly unwise at the commencement of implementing the Order, especially in light of the unacceptable zoning proposal adopted by the Board for the Bartow area. fThe School Board believes that a one-year exception to the zone enforcement requirements for pupils who had already been granted out-of-zone transfers in prior years, and effective only for those areas of the school system whose rezoning is being deferred under the Order until the 1993-94 school year, has virtually no impact upon desegregation and will meaningfully increase public acceptance of the desegregation Order and thus enhance the chances for its successful implementation. Conclusion The parties respectfully submit these two issues to this Court for resolution. They believe that these matters may properly be resolved by the Court on the papers and exhibits submitted herewith but are prepared to present testimony of 7 the Superintendent and other witnesses at a hearing if the Court so desires. Counsel estimate that such a hearing should not exceed a half day. Should the Court wish to schedule a hearing, counsel respectfully advise the Court that they are generally available on any dates beginning August 3, 1992 except for the following commitments that were already scheduled prior to the time these matters arose and which cannot readily be rescheduled: August 6, 1992 — deposition of Dr. Larry Winecoff f in connection with Lee County school desegregation case September 28—29, 1992 — Rosh Hoshanah religious holiday (counsel for the United States unavailable). October 1-2, 1992 — New York counsel for plaintiffs will be out of the country. In addition, New York counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for the United States in this matter are also involved in B l a l o c k & U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Lee C o u n t y S c h o o l B o a r d, No. 64-168-Civ- FtM—K, in which proceedings before this Court in connection with a school board motion for approval of modifications to existing Orders may also be scheduled during the time period described above. (Depositions in connection with that matter are being taken in Fort Myers, Florida during the week of July 27, 1992.) These counsel are also involved in a number of 8 other school desegregation lawsuits in various states and federal judicial districts and will promptly advise this Court, through its law clerk, of any conflicts that may arise between the submission of this pleading and the time that a hearing before this Court is scheduled. /s/ Larry R. Jackson LARRY R . JACKSON Suite 220-B 101 West Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 (813*) 682-3111 JULIUS L. CHAMBERS NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 99 Hudson Street, 16th fl. New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendants Respectfully submitted, JOHN R. DUNNE Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division /s/ Sandra Lvnn Beber JOHN R. MOORE SANDRA LYNN BEBER Attorneys Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-2192 ROBERT W. GENZMAN United States Attorney Attorneys for United States oCHOOL B oard of f olk C ounty P.0. BOX 391 • 1915 SOUTH FLORAL AVE. • BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830 813-534-2111 • Suncom 541-2111 • (FAX) 813-534-2360 JO H N A S T E W A R T EXHIBIT A S up erin ten d e n t o f S chools July 14,1992 C A B O S W E LL . JR S choo l B oard A ttorney CHAIRMAN D A N M O O D Y n is m iC T 2 MEMORANDUM N A N C Y S IM M O N S D is in iC T 1 J . J . C O R B E T T TO: Sandra Beber UISIRICT 1 R U B IE W IL C O X Norm an Chachkin DISTRICT a A N D R E A W H IT E L E Y Larry Jackson DISTRICT 5 ^ FROM: Bill DaviesVXssistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Management Systems Bartow Desegregation Plans We w ould like to have your decision on the plan as early as possible. Teacher units, portable classrooms, and budgets cannot be allocated until we know the distribution of students. Teachers will report on August 14. I’nlk County Schools - 1 iin ci/uol opportunity institution for education ond employment There are three proposals on the Bartow elementary desegregation plan. Bartow has seven schools in the area. Four schools are located in Bartow: 1) Gibbons Street (the formerly all-black school), 2) Bartow, 3) Floral Avenue, and 4) J.E . Stephens. These schools are outside the city: 1) Highland City; 2) Eagle Lake, and 3) A lturas. There is also a b lack com m unity, Gordonville/Gordon Heights, located north of the city containing 223 K-6 students. These students currently attend J.E . Stephens (153), Alturas (66), and Highland City (5). The proposals are as follows: I. Citizens Committee The Citizens Committee recommending desegregating Gibbons Street and also racially balancing the remaining six schools as well. This including 150 students from J.E. Stephens to Eagle Lake and Alturas and moving 127 mostly white studen ts, residing so u th of 540A, from Highland City to J.E . Stephens (approximately 5 miles a t the farthest point). The purpose of the Highland City move w as to balance enrollments between the two schools. The plan Is as follows: Seating Capacity 1991-92 Current (K-6) 1992-93 Proposed (K-5) School Building Enrollm ent % Black E nrollm ent % Black Bartow 480 397 42% 216 42% Floral Avenue 550 594 22% 432 41% Gibbons Street 400 377 61% 401 33% Alturas 350 420 15% 465 30% Highland City 400 561 9% 491 19% Stephens 675 625 49% 490 ' 31% Eagle Lake 575 569 8% 672 22% Total 3430 3543 3167“ M 2 A -72 / 1 2 II. Superintendent The Superintendent rejected the Citizens Committee plan and did not recommend moving the Highland City city studen ts to J.E . S tephens. The S uperin tenden t recommended th is because of h is belief th a t H ighland City is a sep ara te com m unity from B artow . His recommendation was as follows: Seating 1991-92 This Capacity Current Proposal School Building Enrollment % Black Enrollment % Black Bartow 480 397 42% 303 40% Floral Avenue 550 594 22% 389 42% Gibbons Street 400 377 61% 400 33% Alturas* 350 420 15% 496 19% Highland City* 400 561 9% 623 18% Stephens 675 625 49% 446 39% Eagle Lake* 575 569 8% 639 20% Total 3430 3543 3296** •Share in 223 students from Gordonville/Gordon Heights. ••Includes out-of-zone transferred students back in their zoned schools. III. School Board The School Board rejected the Superintendent’s Plan. Acknowledging th a t Gordonville/Gordon Heights studen ts had historically attended school in Bartow, they approved a freedom of choice plan for these studen ts in three Bartow schools—J.E . Stephens, Floral Avenue, and Bartow; and three area schools—Eagle Lake, Alturas, and Highland City. The Gordonville/Gordon Heights s tuden ts will be perm itted in the Bartow schools as long as the racial balance of these schools does not exceed 48% black. The plan presented on the following page shows the three Bartow schools with 48% black because the staff believes th a t is where they will choose to attend. M 2 A -7 2 /2 3 Plan Approved by School Board: ---- -------------- • Seating 1991-92 1992-93 Capacity Current Propo sed School Building Enrollm ent % Black Enrollm ent % Black Rartnw 480 397 42% 345 48% Floral Avenue 550 594 22% 429 48% nihbnns Street 400 377 61% 400 33% Alhiras 350 420 15% 375 8% Highland CitV 400 561 9% 632 11% Rfpnhpns 675 625 49% 525 48% Pndlp T .aIcp 575 569 8% 590 13% Total 3430 3543 3296 M 2 A -7 2 /3 4 EXHIBIT "B" TO JOINT EXPLANATORY REPORT OMITTED (MAP) IN PRINTING EXHIBIT C IX): Sandra Beber Norman Chachkin Larry Jackson FROM: Bill Davies, Assistant Superintendent - Management Systems SUBJECT: Bartow Desegregation Plan (Staff) The following plan was used as a basis for the committee plan forwarded to you last week. It was prepared by the staff and had the following objectives: 1. Desegregate Gibbons Street 2. Equalize racial balances In Bartow to the extent practicable Note: Bartow schools are 33% Black. All seven schools are 28% Black. The racial balances In this plan range between 18% to 38%. 3. Equalize transportation for desegregation purposes between Black and White communities to the extent practicable. The plan distributes 223 K-5 students In Gordonville/Gordon Heights to Eagle Lake (79), Alluras (72), and Highland City (72). If more students need to be taken from Highland City, would recommend Waterwood, where there are 34 students (White) located at the end of 540A on the east sloe of U.S. 98. If you have questions call me at 813-534-0693. Seating Capacity 1991-92 Current (K-6) 1992-93 Proposed (K-5) School Building Enrollm ent % Black Enrollm ent % Black Bartow 480 397 42% 403 38% Floral Avenue 550 594 22% 426 38% Gibbons Street 400 3 77 61% 394 35% Alturas 350 420 • 15% 405 18% '• Highland City 400 561 9% 508 22% Stephens 675 625 49% 448 34% Eagle Lake 575 569 8% 607 20% Total 3430 3543 28% 3191 28% M 2 A -7 7 /2 EXHIBIT "D" TO JOINT EXPLANATORY REPORT (MAP) OMITTED IN PRINTING EXHIBIT E S chool B oard o f -P olk C ounty P.0. BOX 391 • 1915 SOUTH FLORAL AVE. • BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830 813-534-2111 • Suncom 541-2111 • (FAX) 813-534-2360 Ju n e 23, 1992 Norman J . Chachkin, Esq. Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 Sandra Lynn Beber, Esq. Educational Opportunities Litigation Section Civil Rights Division US Department of Justice 10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20064 R U B IE W IL C O X f district Larry R. Jackson, Esq. A N D R E A W H IT E L E Y 101 West Main Street msiRicT Lakeland, FL 33801 Re: Mills v. Polk County School Board No. 63-150 Civ. - TH (M:D. Fla) Dear Colleagues: I have conferred with Mr. Boswell on the attached letter and he is aware of the contents. The Consent Decree imposes restrictions on out-of-zone transfers w ith the exception of m agnet schools, exceptional s tu d en t placement, course availability, district employees to the school in which they are assigned, and hardship (physical or emotional, bu t not day care (pages 30-34). The Polk County School Board is requesting approval to permit out- of-zone transfers in selected communities for 1992-93 school year only. The communities and number of current out-of-zone transfers is as follows: JO H N A S T E W A R T S u p erin ten d e n t o f Schools C .A B O S W E LL . JR S choo l B oard A ttorn e y CHAIRM AN D A N M O O D Y DISTRICT ? N A N C Y S IM M O N S DISTRICT 1 J . J C O R B E T T DISTRICT 3 Communitv Schools Transfers Aubumdale 5 182 Winter Haven 10 387 Frostproof 3 202 Lake Wales 7 267 Polk County Schools - Lake Alfred 1 54 an equal opportunity Ft. Meade 4 17 institution for education and employment Mulberry 4 56 M 2 A -6 1 /1 1 The rationale for this request is as follows: 1. These com m unities have not been engaged in school desegregation activities in recent years as have Lakeland, Bartow, and Haines City. Therefore, the citizens have not had the benefit of the publicity connected with desegregation including the prohibition on out-of-zone transfers. 2. Many of these transferred students may change schools three times in three years if required to attend the zoned school, i.e., transferred school in 1991-92, zoned school in 1992-93, and changed school from a desegregation change in 1993-94. 3. Approving child care and other transfers for 1992-93 will enable the School Board to advise each person that this will be the final year for such a transfer and provide a year for them to make other arrangem ents. I suggest on the attached page, amended language to page 30 of the Consent Decree. I will call each of you next week regarding your position on this m atter. P ursuant to your approval, we will be pleased to forward the change to Judge Merryday for his approval. Sincerely, Bill Davies Assistant Superintendent Management Systems xc: John A. Stewart C.A. Boswell, Jr. M 2 A -6 1 /2 2 Amendment to page 30 2. Intra-district transfers. Intra-district transfers shall be granted only if justified on non-discriminatoiy educational or other grounds and, except for majority-to-minority transfers, only if there is space available in the school to which the transfer is sought. [There will be two specific exceptions to this prohibition for the 1992-93 school year as follows: 1. Students attending srhnol in Winter Haven. Aubumdale, Lake Wales. Frostproof, Rahsnn Park. Ft. Meade. Mulberry, and Lake Alfred who have an approved transfer in 1991-92. and continue to be eligible under those same conditions in 1992-93. shall be granted approved transfers. 2. Students entering the 12th grade in the 1992-93 scliool year who were granted a transfer out of their attendance zone high school for the 1991-92 school year shall be afforded an option to remain in the high school they attended in the 1991-92 school year if they so desire.] (Item 2 is the footnote at the bottom of page 30.) Expect for magnet school attendance, intra-district transfers shall be... M 2 A - 6 5 / 1 3 EXHIBIT F S chool B oard of "Polk C ounty P.0. BOX 391 • 1915 SOUTH FLORAL AVE. • BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830 813-534-2111 • Suncom 541-2111 • (FAX) 813-534-2360 July 14, 1992 JO H N A S T E W A R T S u p erin te n d e n t o t S chools C .A. B O S W E LL . JR S chool B oard A ttorn e y CHAIRM AN D A N M O O D Y DISTRICT 2 N A N C Y S IM M O N S D IS T R IC T 1 J . J . C O R B E T T DISTRICT 3 R U B IE W IL C O X DISTRICT 4 A N D R E A W H IT E L E Y DISTRICT 5 Norman J . Chachkin, Esq. Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10013 Sandra Lynn Beber, Esq. Educational Opportunities Litigation Section Civil Rights Division US Department of Justice n o th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20064 Larry R. Jackson, Esq. 101 West Main Street Lakeland, FL 33801 Re: Mills v. Polk County School Board No. 63-150 Civ. - TH (M:D. Fla) Dear Colleagues: Pursuant to your request, the following chart presents the racial balance of the schools tha t we requested approval to permit out-of zone transfers for the 1992-93 school year only. The attached chart shows the racial balance of the school with in /o u t transfers and the racial balance of the schools without the transfers. Columns 1, 3, and 5 show the enrollment and racial balance with the transfers. Columns 2, 4, and 6 show the schools without transfers. You will note th a t the racial balance of the schools is not substantially affected with the exception of Janie Howard Wilson in Haines City 37% to 43% black. This waiver will be approved for one year only. Thank you for your consideration of this request. ’oik County Schools -M 2A-75/I n equal opportunity istitulion for education nd employment South Central Area (South Winter Haven, Ft. Meade) S ch ool W hite Black Percent With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers Alturas Elem. 350 376 60 60 14.63 13.76 Bartow Elem. 216 182 165 147 43.31 44.68 Bartow Jr. 460 465 210 211 31.34 31.21 Bartow Sr. 606 615 285 282 31.97 31.44 Eagle Lake Elem. 511 517 43 45 7.76 8.01 Floral Ave. Elem. 459 378 130 121 22.07 24.25 *Ft. Meade Jr.-Sr. 351 343 106 106 23.19 23.61 *Ft. Meade Middle 187 187 50 49 21.10 20.76 Gibbons St. Elem. 150 208 238 235 61.34 53.05 Highland City Elem. 508 556 49 57 8.80 9.30 *Lake Shipp Elem. 798 802 38 44 4.55 5.20 *Lewis Elem. 484 485 119 121 19.73 22.16 ^Riverside Elem. 180 179 69 68 27.71 27.53 *Snively Elem. 428 420 9 9 2.06 2.10 Stephens Elem. 319 333 300 284 48.47 46.03 Union Academy 272 271 118 116 30.26 29.97 *Wahneta Elem. 568 562 2 2 0.35 0.35 * Review only checked schools; remaining schools no transfers due to Bartow desegregation plan. M2A-55/ 1 North Central Area (Winter Haven, Aubumdale, Lake Alfred) U> School W hite Black Percent With Transfers W ithout T ransfers With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers With Transfers W ithout T ransfers Auburndale Central Elem. 337 319 108 101 24.27 24.04 A ubum dale Sr. 1355 1323 217 214 13.80 13.92 Boswell Elem. 555 512 46 45 7.65 8.08 Brigham Elem. 379 391 481 462 55.93 54.16 Caldwell Elem. 571 567 63 64 9.94 10.14 Denison Jr. 686 648 138 130 16.75 16.71 Elbert Elem. 481 486 348 367 41.98 43.02 Garden Grove Elem. 777 780 80 86 9.33 9.93 Garner Elem. 369 365 314 299 45.97 45.03 Inwood Elem. 332 322 122 132 26.87 29.07 Jewett Elem. 143 150 112 112 43.92 42.75 Jewett Jr. 484 496 145 146 23.05 22.74 Lake Alfred Elem. 436 405 198 191 31.23 32.05 Lena Vista Elem. 756 767 79 84 9.47 9.87 Stambaugh Middle 1145 1106 169 168 12.86 13.19 Westwood Jr. 473 515 96 102 16.87 16.53 Winter Haven Sr. 1332 1349 287 290 17.73 17.69 M2A-55/2 East Area ( H a in e s C i t y , L a k e W a le s , B a b s o n P a r k , F r o s t p r o o f ) School W hite Black Percent With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers With T ransfers W ithout T ransfers Alta Vista Elem. 365 362 124 123 25.36 25.36 Babson Park Elem. 414 381 37 32 8.20 7.75 Bethune Elem. 244 264 382 381 61.02 59.07 Boone Middle 502 501 193 196 27.77 28.12 Davenport Elem. 882 870 244 248 21.67 22.18 Dundee Elem. 513 527 173 176 25.22 25.04 Eastside Elem. 585 585 231 231 28.31 28.31 Frostproof Elem. 852 850 129 129 13.15 13.18 Frostproof Jr.-Sr. 546 431 92 87 14.42 16.80 Haines City Sr. 858 872 420 420 32.86 32.51 Hillcrest Elem. 400 356 225 228 36.00 39.04 J.H. Wilson Elem. 324 420 246 245 43.16 36.84 Jenkins Elem. 357 356 184 181 34.01 33.71 Lake Wales Sr. 744 817 361 365 32.67 30.88 McLaughlin Middle 754 798 324 326 30.06 29.00 Polk Ave. Elem. 279 249 200 190 41.75 43.28 Spook Hill Elem. 385 386 125 128 24.51 24.90 M2A-55/3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA V? AUG i 0 AH TAMPA DIVISION HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, -vs- — CASE NO. 63-150-CIV-T-23 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., * * ORDER This action is before the Court pursuant to a "Joint Explanatory Report of Disputed Issues" filed on July 29, 1992. The report discusses issues involving (1) the Bartow area elementary school zones for 1992-93 and (2) the enforcement of attendance zones for 1992-93 throughout the school system. The Court also received correspondence from Neal L. O'Toole of Frost & O'Toole, P.A., on behalf of the Waterwood Home Owner's Association of Polk County, in which correspondence counsel addressed the plight of 34 children residing in the Waterwood Subdivision of Highlands City. The Court has received numerous telephone calls and letters from interested individuals and groups. The conclusion to the joint explanatory report, signed by authorized representatives of all parties, states that "[The parties] believe that these matters may properly be resolved by the Court on the papers and exhibits submitted herewith . . . ." In short, the parties neither request a hearing nor submit evidence other than the stipulated fact statements contained in the joint explanatory report. Of course, the Court is unaware of the evidence that an evidentiary hearing might reveal, but for the purpose of this order, the Court accepts the parties agreement to dispense with both a hearing and the development of a detailed evi dentiary record. The imminent resumption of school attendance also suggests that conduct of an evidentiary proceeding is impractical. Without respect to the wisdom of the decision to dispense with an evidentiary hearing, both the Court and the public are entitled to consider matters of such importance on a more contemplative basis and on*a more relaxed schedule. With respect to the issues submitted to the Court in the joint explanatory report, the Court ADJUDGES as follows: 1. The rezoning plan adopted by the School Board of Polk County, Florida, and described in the memorandum of July 14, 1992, from Assistant Superintendent Bill Davies and attached to the joint explanatory report as Exhibits A and B shall remain in force as adopted by the School Board for the 1992-93 school year. 2. The request of the School Board of Polk County to modify the jointly submitted order so as to allow out—of—zone transfers granted in 1991-92 to be continued for another school year is granted. 3. During the proceedings that resulted in entry of this Court's order of July 8, 1992, the parties repeatedly assured the Court of their mutual good faith, full disclosure, optimism with 2 respect to the potential for settlement of- foreseeable disputes, and their personal and institutional commitment to resolving issues pursuant to the July 8, 1992, order by sensible, flexible, and reasoned discussion. Obviously, within only days after entry of the July 8, 1992, order, the parties deadlocked in controversy over an issue that, assuming the bona fides of the parties' earlier representations, should have been apparent to all concerned. Based on the record, the Court is unable to determine whether or how this stalemate occurred and who, if anyone, is at fault. However, one thing is certain. When the onset of a school year is imminent, everyone's options become limited, and in all probability, a result hastily achieved on an incomplete record is not the best result for the students of Polk County, whose interests are regarded by this Court as preeminent in this controversy. The Court views with absolutely no amusement the observation included in the plaintiff's proposed order that "The parties plaintiff and defendant take positions that are polar opposites, leaving the Court with a difficult responsibility." This circumstance should not recur. In that respect, the deputy clerk is instructed to set this case for a one-half day status conference not later than November 1, 1992, and to command the presence of both counsel and repre sentatives of each party for the purpose of exploring the prepara tion and implementation of a schedule for decision making and review. If no mutually agreeable date is available, the deputy clerk shall secure the attendance of necessary parties by Court process. No continuance will be granted. Leaving these matters -3- for determination until the last moment is"unwise and impractical and leaves the public with the justifiable suspicion that the welfare of the students of Polk County, Florida, is being attended with something less than the heightened level of attention and consideration to which it is due. This Court will not countenance activity by counsel or the parties that lends credence to that perception and will invoke its supervisory authority and its punitive power if necessary. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on ~ ‘ . even D. Merr^ States Distr: Steven D . Merir} United States Distr; 'Judge -4- FILED 8 / 2 0 / 9 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION HERMAN HENRY MILLS, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, -vs- CASE NO. 63-150-CIV-T-23 THE SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., n RESPONSE OF NORMAN J. CHACHKIN TO ORDER OF AUGUST 17. 1992 Norman J. Chachkin, one of counsel for plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter, respectfully submits this Response to the order entered by this Court on August 17, 1992. (This Response is submitted only on behalf of undersigned counsel individually.) 1. The Court has instructed the Deputy Clerk to schedule a half-day status conference in this matter between now and November 1, 1992. Undersigned counsel respectfully advises the Court that he is available, as of the present time, for such a conference on any date between now and November 1, with the exception of the period from October 1 to October 16, 1992. Undersigned counsel will be out .of the United States from the evening of October 1 to the morning of October 17, 19921 and respectfully requests that the conference not be set during that time period. 2. With respect to the subject matter of the conference, undersigned counsel respectfully represents that it may be of assistance to the Court to be apprised of steps previously taken by counsel concerning implementation of the jointly submitted order in a timely fashion. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of a letter sent by the undersigned to counsel for the School Board, with copies to other counsel, on July 14, 1992, concerning required meetings, notice, and consultation under the jointly submitted order. 3. Undersigned counsel respectfully submits to the Court that the August 17 order is fairly subject to being interpreted as an expression of criticism by the Court directed toward the conduct of counsel for the parties in this action. Because counsel are officers of the Court and have substantial ethical responsibilities to facilitate the administration of justice, such an interpretation of the order is of grave concern to undersigned counsel. To the extent that it is possible for the undersigned to provide the Court with relevant information concerning the conduct of counsel in 1Counsel was required to make arrangements for this trip in the Fall of 1991 and has held tickets for the necessary air flights as well as reservations for accommodations for approximately ten months. this matter, therefore, he seeks to do so through this Response. 4. With respect to the efforts of counsel to find a negotiated settlement of the Bartow elementary school rezoning question, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a July 15, 1992 letter from counsel for plaintiffs to counsel for the Board, which analyzed what plaintiffs7 counsel believe are the legal deficiencies of the plan adopted by the Board but sought a negotiated compromise, concluding: After you have ascertained your clients7 reaction to this response, we shall of course be jpleased to discuss these issues further with you in the hope of finding a way to resolve them without returning to the District Court at this early stage of implementing the Court order. Additionally, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a July 17, 1992 letter from the undersigned to counsel for the Board, memorializing a telephone conversation of that date which conveyed to the undersigned the understanding "that the School Board remains committed to the rezoning plan that it passed and we are therefore at an impasse on the issue, so that it will have to be taken before the Court." The letter requested counsel's cooperation in facilitating informal discovery "so that we may rapidly get to the point where we can submit a joint explanatory report of our disagreement to the Court 112 • • • • 2The resulting document, Exhibit "C" to the Joint Explanatory Report, is undated; however, materials in (continued...) 3 5. Undersigned counsel was the primary drafter of the proposed order submitted to the Court on behalf of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor on August 10, 1992 and which contains the statement that "The parties plaintiff and defendant take positions that are polar opposites, leaving the Court with a difficult responsibility." The language was not intended to be satiric or humorous but to refer to the School Board's adherence to a plan which, in the view of undersigned counsel, utilizes classic segregative techniques of pupil assignment. The decretal language of the proposed order would have granted the relief sought by plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor. The balance of the proposed order was drafted by the undersigned based on his guess about the view that the Court might have of the controversy. It may have been presumptuous for counsel to have made this attempt; at the time of drafting, counsel believed that it would be of assistance to the Court. In any event, if the language of the proposed order was offensive or irritating to the Court in any way, undersigned counsel respectfully apologizes to the Court. 6. With respect to the Court's observation (at p. 3 of the order) that "assuming the bona fides of the parties' earlier representations, [the likelihood of disagreement over 2( ••.continued) M m eonTu!y IsT T m ? ^ f t " that ̂ was receivedthe process7 of drafti n n A h th* informati°n was evaluated, for the Join; p / n i S securing approval from all counsel court went for«ard 4 ry ReP°rt that Was E m i t t e d to the the rezoning plan in Bartow] should have been apparent to all concerned [when the jointly submitted order was negotiated]," undersigned counsel respectfully refers the Court to his affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit "D." Respectfully submitted, NORMAN J. CHAC 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, New York 10013 (212) 219-1900 5 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 19th day of August, 1992 I served a copy of the foregoing Response of Norman J . Chachkin to Order of August 17, 1992 upon counsel for the parties hereto, by prepaid Federal Express next-day delivery service, addressed as follows: Larry R. Jackson, Esg. Suite 220-B 101 West Main Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 C. A. Boswell, Jr., Esg. 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Sandra Lynn Beber, Esg. Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice Room 7736 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Norman J./ Chachkin 6 i / VIA TELEFACSIMILE EXHIBIT "A" July 14, 1992 C. A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. c/o Polk County Public Schools 1915 South Floral Avenue P. 0. Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33830 Re: Mills & United States v. School Board of Polk County No. 63-150-Civ-T-23 fM.D. Fla.) Dear Bubba: Now that the Order has been approved by the Court, I have gone through^ it to isolate upcoming dates by which information is to be provided, etc. I thought it would be useful to put these dates down in a letter so that each of us has a convenient reminder of what is coming up. I understand that there are two immediate pressing matters, in addition: first, consideration of the proposed attendance zones in the Bartow area; and second, the school board's request for a modification of the transfer provisions contained in the Order, at least for the upcoming school year. As soon as I receive the Bartow materials I will consult with Larry Jackson and we will respond quickly. (In the Order, we had set a date of June 1, 1992 for presentation of the Bartow zoning plans, of course not anticipating that the Court would delay approving the Order until July 8.) We will likewise respond promptly on the transfer request as soon as we have the racial impact information that I requested Bill Davies to provide. Beyond those issues, I note the following dates of significance under the Order: August 7, 1992 - This is the date by which, under Local Rule 4.18, an application for attorneys' fees is to be submitted. While the Order can be read to extend that time to sixty days from July 8, it is somewhat ambiguous. Whatever the state of our negotiations on the fee issue by August 7, it would be plaintiffs' intention at least to file a bare-bones, protective application with the Court, indicating that documentation and memoranda would be subsequently submitted if negotiations are unsuccessful. It seems appropriate to me to defer commencement of discussions on the fee matter until we have finished dealing with the more pressing questions of Bartow zoning and the transfer NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 100 request. However, this is a matter which Larry Jackson and I will be ready to discuss with you at your convenience. September 6, 1992 - According to I 2 of the Court's Order, resolution of the fee issues "should occur" by this date. In addition, pursuant to J II.D. (p. 37) of the Order, the district is to provide other counsel by this date with a listing of currently utilized portable and temporary buildings indicating their locations and usage for the 1992-93 school year. November 5, 1992 - Under f I.D.4. (p. 28) of the Order, the district is to adopt regulations, policies and procedures to implement the attendance provisions of the Order by this date. March 1, 1993 - I.A.6. (p. 14) of the Order calls for the presentation of the results of the study of extra-curricular participation by this date. In addition, f I.B.l.b. (p. 20) of the Order requires that detailed descriptions of the planned operation of magnet schools in Winter Haven and Haines City be produced at this time, and f I.B.3. (p. 21) calls for presentation of the district's rezoning proposals for remaining areas of the system by this date. 5 I.E.2.3 (p. 33) also requires the district to produce data concerning the exercise of the transfer option for school district employees at this time, and f VIII (p. 51) calls for development of the plan for enhancing Seth McKeel Middle School. After March 1, 1993 - Under f I.E.2.C. (p. 32) of the Order, data on exercise of the option for "course availability" transfers is to be presented to the other parties after March 1, 1993 and March 1, 1994. After March 1, 1994 - Under f I.E.2.C. (p. 32) of the Order, data on exercise of the option for "course availability" transfers is to be presented to the other parties after March 1, 1993 and March 1, 1994. March 1, 199? - Under fl.c.6. (p. 23) of the Order, plans for the operation of additional Lakeland elementary magnet schools are to be presented by March 1 of the year preceding the school year in which each will open. Unspecified date - f IV.C. (p. 47) of the Order requires the district to present to the other parties the new criteria for identification of candidates for and selection of students for admission to gifted programs when the drafting process has been completed. Advance notification - Numerous provisions of the Order require advance notification with respect to specific information. In some instances, the requirements are triggered only by school C . A . Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 14, 1992 Page 2 NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 1001i a. system proposals to make a change in current methods of operation. In other instances, there is an annual reporting requirement. A listing of these provisions follows: Disciplinary rules - f I.A.3.f. (p. 9) of the Order requires 30-day advance notice of any rules or disciplinary policies not contained in the Student Code of Conduct which are to be applicable to any of the magnet schools. In light of the imminent opening of school in the county, if there are any such provisions that will be applicable at Union Academy, Lincoln Avenue or Rochelle for the 1992-93 school year, this information should be provided to the other parties immediately. In addition, 5 I.A.3.g. (p. 10) of the Order makes this provision applicable to the Harrison Performing Arts Center. Formerly black schools - f I.A.4.b. (p. 12) of the Order requires 60-day advance notice of any proposed closing or conversion to other uses of formerly black schools. Future zoning changes - 5 I.C.8. (p. 24) directs 60-day advance notice of future zoning changes. Construction or site acquisition - f II.B. (p. 36) of the Order requires 60-day advance notice prior to acquiring property on which a school facility will be located or prior to accepting bids for construction. Portable buildings - f II. D. (p. 38) of the Order requires notice at least 60 days prior to the commencement of each school year (after the 1992-93 year) of proposed changes in the location or use of portable buildings. There are two final matters that I should mention. First, your memorandum to me and Sandy of April 29, 1992 indicating that the necessary modification of the original plan adopted by the School Board to move the line between Griffin and Winston elementary schools would be "advertised for Board adoption at the earliest possible date." If the Board has not yet ratified this change so that it can be implemented in the current school year, this of course should be accomplished as soon as possible. We would like to request confirmation that this has been done, whenever it occurs. Second, the Court's Order requires us to meet at least twice yearly, it is apparent from the listing above that there will be a great deal to discuss after March 1, 1993. It would seem advisable, therefore, to have at least one meeting prior to that time, at which counsel could review the initial enrollments for the 1992-93 school year and discuss such other matters as have arisen C. A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 14, 1992 Page 3 NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 100 or as to which action is anticipated to be necessary. Sandy has indicated to me that she will likely be unavailable in December. I will be out of the country from October 1 to October 14. It may make sense to think about a meeting in November, therefore. It is a possibility that I simply wished to raise at this time so that we can all be thinking about it. I encourage you to review the Order independently in case I have missed anything. I hope that putting the information down in one place is helpful to all of us. C.A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 14, 1992 Page 4 Sincerely, Norman J. Chachkin encs. cc: Sandra Lynn Beber, Esq. (by FAX) Larry R. Jackson, Esq. (by FAX) NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013 i / Harrp iCL Jfad&on ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 220-B 101 WEST MAIN STREET LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33801 TELEPHONE: (813) 682-3111 VIA TELEFACSIMILE July 15, 1992 C. A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. c/o School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Re: Mills & United States v. School Board of Polk County, Florida No. 63-150 Civ.-T-H____________________ Dear Mr. Boswell: As counsel for the plaintiff class in the above-captioend lawsuit, we have received and reviewed the materials which Bill Davies transmitted to us relating to (a) the School Board's proposal for rezoning elementary schools in the Bartow area for the 1992-93 school year, and (b) the system's proposal to modify the provisions of the recently entered Court Order to allow students in areas of the system outside Lakeland and Bartow, who were previously transferred to schools other than those which serve the attendance zones within which they reside, to remain in those schools for one additional year. As the parties embark upon the first stages of implementing the comprehensive approach to desegregation of this school system that we so recently agreed to, it is disconcerting to be presented with proposals that appear to be so fundamentally in conflict with the purposes and provisions of the Court Order. Frankly, these proposals cause us to wonder whether the School Board, the Superintendent and staff are seeking in good faith to carry out the Court Order or are, in the judge's words, "maki[ng] unreasonable demands or erect[ing] unreasonable barriers, which serve only to prolong dispute and delay the accomplishment of both a unitary school system and the consequent discharge of federal supervision.” We hope that these doubts prove to be wrong but at the present time, we are very troubled. EXHIBIT "B" All parties recognized in the Court Order (pp. 16-18) that [i]n order to accommodate the operation of magnet schools as provided above, to establish a middle school form of grade organization, and to facilitate desegregation within Polk County schools, attendance zones shall be modified as follows in the 1992-93 school year: C.A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 15, 1992 Page 2 c. Attendance zones for elementary schools in the Bartow area shall be modified effective for the 1992-93 school year to accommodate the operation of magnet schools as provided above, to establish a middle school form of grade organization, and to facilitate desegregation. Rezoning of schools in and around Bartow is necessary because the sixth grade is being removed from elementary schools and transferred to middle schools, including the new Union Academy magnet middle school, and to further desegregation. As the figures provided to us indicate, in the current school year Gibbons Street Elementary School in Bartow had a 61% Black enrollment and Stephens Elementary School a 49% Black enrollment while Highland City Elemenmtary School and Eagle Lake Elementary School were only 9% and 8% Black, respectively. Significantly, elementary schools in the Bartow area were not only substantially disproportionate in their racial composition but many were substantially over- or under-capacity, especially Highland City. This combination has been recognized by the federal courts as a classic technique for maintaining segregation. In light of these commitments in the Court Order (accepted and approved by the School Board) and the facts to which we have just alluded, it is extremely disappointing to be presented with a plan for Bartow area elementary schools, adopted by the Board, which would substantially continue the pattern of maintaining schools of substantially varying racial composition and substantially varying utilization of the facility. Indeed, the plan which has been proposed by the School Board adds to these problems a flat-out refusal to assume the legal responsibility for assigning students in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution and the Court Order. Instead, the Board proposes to put the burdens of achieving desegregation once again on Black students and their parents by incorporating a limited "freedom of choice" option for pupils residing in the "Gordonville/Gordon Heights" area. That option is limited to school selections that would not cause the enrollment of any facility to exceed 48% Black; white pupils in the immediate Highland City area, on the other hand, will be accommodated by placing additional portable buildings at the already overcrowded site. Under the Board's plan, Highland City Elementary would both exceed its rated capacity by more than 50% and also continue to have the smallest Black enrollment of any facility in this part of the school system, an enrollment that is not substantially different (in racial composition) from its present enrollment. We cannot approve the proposal passed by the School Board. Whether "Gordonville/Gordon Heights students had historically attended school in Bartow" or not is irrelevant to the Board's obligation to develop a rezoning proposal that meets the goals of the Court Order. It is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that the failure of the Board's desegregation efforts over the past decade is related largely to attempts to retain historical attendance patterns irrespective of their contribution to maintaining the racial jldentifiability of schools. The proposal recommended by the Superintendent is also unacceptable to plaintiffs. It proposes the same overcrowding and minimal improvement in desegregation at Highland City, on grounds ("Highland City is a separate community from Bartow") that are legally and morally unacceptable as limitations upon desegregation. You will recall plaintiffs' insistence in their Motion for Further Relief on an approach to desegregation in the Polk County school system that is not piecemeal. No less is required by the law. E.q.. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. 402 U.S. 33 (1971)(interstate highway could not be used as barrier to reassignments for purposes of desegregation in consolidated city- county system). The proposal originally made by the Citizens Committee is the closest, among the three plans that you have sent to us, to being acceptable. However, we are compelled to note that it, too, fails to make use of available capacity in the school system for the purpose of maximizing desegregation and avoiding unnecessary overcrowding, which is educationally undesirable. Specifically, this plan would maintain Highland City Elementary School with the lowest level of desegregation of schools in the area while continuing to operate it nearly 25% over capacity; in addition, Eagle Lake and Alturas Elementary Schools would see their enrollment ratios improved by the one-way busing of Black students from Stephens, even though this would put the school substantially over its rated capacity. The number of white students now attending Highland City Elementary who would be reassigned would be limited, leaving that school overcrowded, while white students now attending Stephens apparently would not be reassigned despite the substantial under-utilization at Bartow and Floral Avenue. We believe that further adjustments to the Citizens Committee plan are required in order to produce an acceptable plan. C.A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 15, 1992 Page 3 With respect to the proposed one-year extension of out-of-zone transfers, we are not in a position to agree to any continuation of exceptions to the enforcement of the desegregation plan that the school system is supposed to be implementing at this time. Perpetuating more than a thousand out-of-zone transfers for another year is, like the Board's proposal of a resegregative zoning plan in Bartow, totally inconsistent with the approach to which the parties agreed in the Court Order. At least until we have been able to resolve the question of elementary school rezoning in Bartow, therefore, we see no point in extensive discussions about the transfer request. C.A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 15, 1992 Page 4 After you have ascertained your clients' reaction to this response, we shall of course be pleased to discuss these issues further with you in the hope of finding a way to resolve them without returning to the District Court at this early stage of implementing the Court Order. ‘ Sincerely yours, f VIA TELEFACSIMILE EXHIBIT "C" July 17, 1992 C. A. Boswell, Jr., Esq. c/o School Board of Polk County 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 Re: Mills & United States v. School Board of Polk County, Florida No. 63-150 Civ.-T-H (M.D. Fla.)______ Dear Mr. Boswell: This will acknowledge our telephone conversation this morning, in which you reported to me your clients' position with respect to the Bartow rezoning and out-of-zone transfer issues that were the subject of Larry Jackson's July 15, 1992 letter to you. My understanding is that the School Board remains committed to the rezoning plan that it passed and we are therefore at an impasse on the issue, so that it will have to be taken before the Court. Plaintiffs sincerely regret that matters have come to this point. However, as Larry's letter indicated, the Bartow area zoning proposal that the Board has adopted does not, in our view, comport with the obligations of the Board under the Constitution or the Court Order; if we have to have the matter resolved by the Court, we must do so. Given the short time remaining before school opens, I hope that we can conduct any necessary discovery by agreement rather than through formal filing of pleadings, so that we may rapidly get to the point where we can submit a joint explanatory report of our disagreement to the Court as required by paragraph (3) of Judge Merryday's Order approving the proposed order which all parties submitted in this case. Specifically, I would request that the district produce copies of any additional or alternative Bartow area elementary attendance zone configurations that were prepared by the staff and/or were considered by the Citizens Committee. In addition, if the Citizens Committee was given any demographic data showing elementary school population in the areas served by the schools involved (whether tabular or in the form of an EcoTran-generated map, etc.) we would like to see that as well. Although I have not spoken with Ms. Beber as I write this letter, I feel certain that the United States would also wish to see copies of this information. NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 • NEW YORK, N.Y. 100 If you would prefer me to file a formal Request for Production of Documents or there is some other problem with this request, please let me know. C . A . Boswell, Jr., Esq. July 17, 1992 Page Two Very truly yours, /c cc: Larry R. Jackson, Esq. Sandra Lynn Beber, Esq. NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013 r / STATE OF NEW YORK : ss. COUNTY OF NEW YORK : NORMAN J. CHACHKIN, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law and one of counsel for plaintiffs in the case of Mills and United States v. School Board of Polk County, Florida, No. 63-l50-Civ.-T-23 pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. 2. I was an active participant, along with other counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the United States and the School Board of Polk County, in a series of negotiating discussions during the spring of 1992 which led to the joint submission by all parties of a proposed Order in that li^i9 ation, which was adopted (as modified in one respect) as the order of the Court on July 8, 1992. 3. During the negotiations among counsel for the parties, the question of whether to include, in the jointly submitted order, specific provisions describing how elementary schools in the Bartow area were to be rezoned for the 1992-93 school year was discussed. The school system representatives suggested that the involvement of a citizens' advisory committee in the Lakeland area had been beneficial and that the same procedure was anticipated to work well in Bartow; for this reason, it was proposed that final details of Bartow EXHIBIT "D" rezoning should be postponed until after the jointly submitted order were approved and such a committee could be assembled. This approach was ultimately taken in the jointly submitted order. 4. At no time during the negotiations, and specifically during consideration of the Bartow rezoning issue, did undersigned counsel contemplate or imagine that substantial changes in an advisory committee recommendation for the Bartow area would be made by either the Superintendent or the School Board. With the benefit of hindsight, undersigned counsel is now of the view that it would have been preferable to have settled the issue in the jointly submitted order. During the negotiations, however, undersigned counsel utilized his best efforts, knowledge and experience in evaluating the possibility of a serious dispute arising on this issue and concluded that it was not likely. 5. I believe that all of the other counsel involved in the negotiations also believed and anticipated, in complete good faith, that the matter of a Bartow rezoning plan would not provoke the major dispute that has in fact occurred. I am not aware of any plan or effort on the part of any participant in the discussions to postpone resolution of difficult issues for the future with the expectation that they would be insoluble and would lead with certainty to contested judicial proceedings. The provisions for such proceedings that were 2 included in the jointly submitted order were intended as safeguards, not as crutches. 6. After this Court adopted the jointly submitted order on July 8, 1992, counsel for the parties confronted the Bartow rezoning problem and did seek to resolve it through negotiations. It is my firm belief, based upon my contacts with other counsel involved on that subject, that all counsel made a serious effort to foster such negotiations, and that this matter was presented to the Court in the Joint Explanatory Report because counsel faithfully carried out their* obligation to represent the wishes and decisions of their principals. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and Sworn to before me : belief. this 19th day : My commission expires: 3