Motion and Order to Enroll as Counsel of Record
Public Court Documents
October 14, 1997

5 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Letter to Judge Roth from Porter, 1972. d4744b75-53e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/dede4abd-267c-4f8c-b544-8cbee4e7fdd8/letter-to-judge-roth-from-porter. Accessed August 27, 2025.
Copied!
<fc • r"Y, JOHN W. PORTER Superintendent of Public Instruction STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPA!#MENT OF EDUCATION Lansing, Michigan 48902 July 29, 1972 Tiie Honorable Stephen J. Roth United States District Court Federal Building 600 Church Street. . Flint, Michigan STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION EDWIN L. NOVAK, O.D. President MICHAEL J. DEE it Vice President DR, GORTON RIETHMILLER Secretary THOMAS J. BRENNAN Treasurer MARILYN JEAN KELLY ANNETTA MILLER DR. CHARLES E. MORTON JAMES F. O'NEIL GOV. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN F.x-OUlcio Dear Judge Roth: I am submitting the two attached documents in compliance with your order of June 14, 1972, directing me to examine and make recommendations, con sistent with the principles established in Part II of your order, for appropriate interim and final arrangements for the (1) financial, (2) administrative and governance, and (3) contractual and personnel arrange ments for the operation of the-schools within the desegregation area. The first document contains my examination and recommendations for interim arrangements. The second document contains my examination and recommen dations for final arrangements. I have conducted the examination and prepared the recommendations as I was ordered to do by the Court, and it is my judgment that the two documents constitute an appropriate response to that order. However, as one who took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Michigan, I am deeply troubled by the possible abrogation of Michigan constitutional and statutory law that arises in light of my interpretation of the stipulations outlined in the Court's order, and which stipulations I was ordered to follow in conducting the examination and preparing the recommendations. As Superintendent of Public Instruction, I also judge it my responsibility to once again bring to the Court's attention the difficulties and complex ities inherent in any desegregation effort involving multiple school districts. If the Court's initial order is sustained, then I judge that the recommendations proposed for interim arrangements stand a reasonable chance for initial success in implementing an effective desegregation plan. However, it is my considered judgment that sufficient experience with the proposed interim arrangements must accrue before definitive conclusions can be drawn as to whether or not. such arrangements hold promise of success for the long-term. Therefore, in the event that the Court's original order is sustained, I strongly urge the Court to consider a • phasing-in of the proposed final arrangements. This would allow a period longer than one year for accruing the evidence necessary to determine the viability of extending, for the long-term, the cooperative arrangements outlined in the interim recommendations. 2 July 29, 1972The Honorable Stephen ho tfi If the Court's original order is sustained, I will be prepared to offer matcrials which discuss certain possibilities as to the substance and con figuration of in-service training in the desegregation area. As you will note in the two attached reports, my recommendation is that the responsi bility for in-service training should lie with the local districts during the interim period and ultimately with the proposed area-wide authority for the period of full implementation. JWP/mw attachments cc; Governor William Milliken Attorney General Frank J. Kelley Dr. Edwin Novak, President, State Board of Education Counsels of Record Members of Panel -