Response to the Metropolitan School District Reorganization Plan Submitted by the State Board of Education

    STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

L eon  S. C ohan  
Deputy Attorney General

F R A N K  J. KELLEY
A T T O R N E Y  G E N E R A L

LANSING 
4 8 9 1 3

March 3, 1972

Mr. Frederick W. Johnson, Clerk 
United States District Court 
133 U.S. Courthouse 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Re: Bradley v Milliken, No. 35257

Enclosed please.find Response to the Metropolitan
School District Reorganization Plan Submitted by the State 
Board of Education in the above entitled cause with Certificate 
of Service attached for filing.

Enc.
cc: Messrs. Louis R. Lucas

and William E. Caldwell 
Mr E. Winther McCroom 
Mr. Nathaniel R. Jones 
Messrs. J. Harold Flannery, 

Paul R. Dimond and 
Robert Pressman 

Messrs. Jack Greenberg and 
Norman J. Chachkin 

Mr. George T. Roumell, Jr. 
Mr. Theodore Sachs 
Mr. Alexander B. Ritchie 
Hon. . Stephen J.; Roth

D e a r  S i r :

Very truly yours
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT- OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

vs. Plaintiffs,

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

and
Defenaants,

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 231, 
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Intervening Defendant,and
DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Intervening Defendants.

No. 35257

"D T P  C1 Th k~\ "M  a  T7' m  m  T m  t> it i—\ m  i - »  y  t * m  «  > t  T
u. ^  a .-uxJ I'U-J -L a L Wi. V J J X  x n n  U  V U t / W U  L l U i l t l U i

REORGANIZATION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE STATE .
____________BOARD OF EDUCATION_____________ _

This Court having found that the Detroit School District 
is a de jure segregated school district by actions and nonactions 
of the state defendants and the.state defendants having filed their 
appeal from such decision, now come William G. Milliken, Governor of 
the State of Michigan, and Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the 
State of Michigan, defendants in the above entitled cause, and file 
the following claim of legal infirmities and questions raised as to 
the implementation of the Metropolitan School District Reorganization 
Plan, hereinafter referred to as Plan 3> and respectfully represent 
to the Court as follows: '

1. The United States Supreme Court has unanimously held 
ln Swann v Charlotte Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 US 1, 31 
(1971), that neither school authorities nor district courts are 
constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the 
racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to



desegregate has been aer.nmpH shad and racial discrimination through 
official action is eliminated from the: system. Yet Plan 3 contemplates 
continuous intervention by school authorities and the district court 
since the boundaries of the 6 new regional educational districts 
which are sought to be created by order of this court are subject to 
change if the demographic patterns change in that the remaining 50 
school districts "within the Detroit Metropolitan educational area" 
are subject to dissolution, depending upon movement of the people and 
the ratio of racial composition of schools within the IOZ. Thus, it 
would appear that for the foreseeable future this court would have . 
to monitor the demographic movement of the people in Wayne, Oakland 
and Macomb county areas, and the boundaries of the 6 IOZ districts 
would be subject to change until theiroutermost boundaries would be 
coterminous with county lines. "" ■

2. Plan 3 proposes that 36 school districts be dissolved 
to form portions of 6 new IOZ regional educational districts. There
i R nn nr>nvi sinn in Mi nhi (ran Taw fnn anr-h fii ssnlnti nn rrP "?£n saHonl- ^  ' • ' ' — > '

districts and for the formation of the IOZ regional educational 
districts without approval of the school electors of the affected
districts. See appropriate provisions of 1955 PA 269, MCLA 340.1
' ' .et seq; MSA 15.3001 et seq. Moreover, Plan 3 contemplates the 

possible dissolution of the remaining school districts depending 
upon the remaining 50 districts within the DMEA 3-county area and 
depending upon moving of people and racial balance of schools within 
the 6 IOZ districts. There is no provision in Michigan law for such 
dissolution of districts without the vote of school electors. ,•

3. Plan 3 contemplates the continued existence of boards 
of education of the 50 school districts not included within the IOZ 
districts, except that the boards of education thereof will no longer 
have power to tax, allocate funds and determine other important decisions 
affecting their respective school districts. There is no provision in 
Michigan law that would remove from such 50 school districts some of 
their important powers. Only the Michigan legislature can do this 
under Michigan law.

- 2-



4.. Plan 3 contemplates that the precise definition of 
powers and duties of the Authority, the IOZ educational districts 
and the local school counsels shall be set forth in guidelines 
prepared by the State Board of Education. The State Board of 
Education is without lawful power to define powers and duties of 
Michigan school districts'. This power is reposed in the Michigan 
legislature. School District of the City of Lansing v State Board 
of Education, 367 Mich 591^^^e^Lling v Livonia Board of Education, 
382 Mich 620 (1969).

5. Plan 3 would propose that the State Board of Education 
appoint a 3 member DMEA Authority for the purpose of levying taxes 
and allocating funds within the 3-county area and, among others, 
with power to modify the IOZ boundaries. It is respectfully 
submitted that federal courts may only order state officials to 
exercise such powers as they possess under state law. Bradley v
Sohnnl  Rnnr>rt o f  thP Hi t-.v n f  Rir>hmnnH <=, 1 1?1 i t ?  f l Q 7 n l  . Hlh^

State Board of Education is without power to appoint members of a 
board of education in Michigan. Under certain circumstances the 
power to fill vacancies in the office of member of a board of 
education is vested by the legislature in the intermediate board 
of education. 1955 PA 269, § 495, MCLA 340.495; MSA 15.3495.

6. Plan 3 would propose that the Authority succeed to all 
contracts and assume all debts of school districts abolished under 
the plan. If the Authority would have any taxing power it would be 
by virtue of an order of the court since there is no provision in 
Michigan law for the establishment of such an Authority and 
consequently there is no grant of power to such a body to impose 
taxes. As to bonded indebtedness of any of the dissolved school

3-



districts, such contractual' debts are protected by US Const
art I, § 10, and the Michigan Constitution against impairment, art 1, §10.
Tax levy would have to be made within the area of each of the
dissolved districts to meet the bonded debt obligations of the
respective dissolved districts.

7. Plan 3 proposes that the DMEA Authority levy taxes 
within the 3-county area at the highest rate levied by any board 
of education within such area. Const 1963, art 9, § 6 imposes a 
tax limitation of 15 mills on each dollar of assessed valuation.
Such limitation may be increased to an aggregate not to exceed 
50 mills if approved by a majority of the electors voting on the 
question. Also, art 9, § 3 requires that taxes levied on real 
and tangible personal property be uniform. Unless the electors 
of the DMEA Authority approved a tax limitation increase as provided 
in Const 1963, art 9, § 6, the DMEA Authority could, at most, only

V jr iix (/11C -jl. m

voter.approval there would 
levy taxes at the highest 
within the 3-county area.

-  '  '  • ■* -  * -  —  —  '  1 -  -  ^  „  —  -f*  r -  • -  n  T -
XXilJX VU VXOil I Xil vuo auo W i. OUOii

be no lawful power in the Authority to 
rate prevailing in any school district

8, Plan 3 would vest power in the Authority to provide 
transportation for the DMEA. Presumably as ordered by the court 
the Authority would purchase school buses or contract for the same 
in order to move children within the IOZ districts. The Authority 
would not possess any power under Michigan law to borrow money to 
pay for any equipment in the absence of appropriate legislation or 
appropriate order of this court, which would be a final order.

9. Plan 3 would authorize the Authority to bond and engage 
in construction of school buildings. Since there is no statutory 
authority for such body, presumably this would be done pursuant

- 4-



to the district court's order. . Until the.district court order 
became final, such bonds would not be marketable if they would 
be marketable even then. Bonds of school districts cannot be 
marketed in the absence of legal opinion of bond counsel which 
must certify the absence of pending litigation affecting the 
marketability of the bonds and the lawful authority of the 
school district to issue bonds and to levy taxes for payment of 
the same.

10. The school districts within the DMEA have 
existing collective bargaining agreements with their teachers 
and other employees containing extensive and diverse provisions 
covering wages, hours and working conditions. Further, these 
school districts have individual contracts with many school 
administrators. These contracts are protected by US Const,
art I, § 10, and the Michigan Constitution, art 1, § 10. against 
impairment. In addition, the tenure teachers in the IOZ districts 
would lose their tenure status and be placed on probation pursuant 
to MCLA 38.92; MSA 15.1992. "

11. Plan 3 contemplates that the Pontiac school district 
will be one of the districts losing such taxing, bonding and other 
important powers. That school district is not within the juris­
diction of this court but rather within the jurisdiction of 
District Judge Keith by virtue of his decision in Davis v School 
District of Pontiac, 309 F Supp 73^ (1970), aff'd in 4-43 F2d 573, 
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (1971). This court is without 
jurisdiction to remove any of the powers of the Board of Education

- 5-



Wherefore, said State defendants formally object as aforesaid
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Gerald F. Young 
Assistant Attorneys General

Business Address:
7 Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Dated: March 3, 1972