# Appendix — Lansing Board of Education v. National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2726%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 434 U.S. 997 ## Text EE ET Supreme Court, U. S. FILED Volume Il, Pages 185 to 404. |) = (OCT 20 1977 ET JR., CLERK IN THE | SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1977 No. ay A a 600 LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION, a Body Corporate; and Members of the LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION; viz, VERNON D. EBERSOLE, CLARE D. HARRINGTON, MICHAEL F. WALSH, RAY A. HANNULA, JOAN HESS, J. C. WILLIAMS, BRUCE ANGELL, JOSEPH E. HOBRLA and MAX D. SHUNK, Petitioners, VS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Lansing Branch; CYNTHIA TAYLOR, JUDITH TAYLOR and ANDREA TAYLOR, by Their Father and Next Friend, JAMES R. TAYLOR; MELINDA LEA HEDLEY, CHRISTINE MICHELE HEDLEY, DOUGLAS JOHN HEDLEY and DANIEL JOSEPH HEDLEY, by Their Mother and Next Friend, JOAN L. HEDLEY; PETER MILLER and ELIZABETH MILLER, by Their Father and Next Friend, CHARLES MILLER; FRANK J. PENNONI and JAMES PENNONI, by Their Mother and Next Friend, KATHLEEN PENNONI; and DAVID KRON and LISA KRON, by Their Father and Next Friend, WALTER V. KRON, Respondents. APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit FRED C. NEWMAN 510 Stoddard Building Lansing, Michigan 48933 Attorney for Petitioners St. Lonis |.aw Printing Co.. Inc.. 812 Olive Street 63101 314-231-4477 ee IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1977 LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION, a Body Corporate; and Members of the LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION; viz, VERNON D. EBERSOLE, CLARE D. HARRINGTON, MICHAEL F. WALSH, RAY A. HANNULA, JOAN HESS, J. C. WILLIAMS, BRUCE ANGELL, JOSEPH £. HOBRLA and MAX D. SHUNK, Petitioners, VS. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, Lansing Branch; CYNTHIA TAYLOR, JUDITH TAYLOR and ANDREA TAYLOR, by Their Father and Next Friend, JAMES R. TAYLOR; MELINDA LEA HEDLEY, CHRISTINE MICHELE HEDLEY, DOUGLAS JOHN HEDLEY and DANIEL JOSEPH HEDLEY, by Their Mother and Next Friend, JOAN L. HEDLEY; PETER MILLER and ELIZASETY MILLER, by Their Father and Next Friend, CHARLES MILLER; FRANK J. PENNONI and JAMES PENNONI, by Their Mother and Next Friend, KATHLEEN PENNONI; and DAVID KRON and LISA KRON, by Their Father and Next Friend, WALTER V. KRON, Respondents. APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit CONTENTS OF APPENDIX Volume I Court Opinions: August 10, 1973, District Court opinion and prelimi- Se SN kh 6 Ser eRe eee eee hee ee October 3, 1973, Court of Appeals opinion denying PT eT eee yee re rer eo December 19, 1975, District Court opinion re liability and continuing cluster plan December 19, 1975, District Court order enjoining de- fendants from giving force to resolutions of 2-1-73, that cluster plan remain in effect until ordered dif- ferently, that Lansing Board of Education submit by 3-1-76 plans to remedy constitutional violations; con- ference and hearing to be held 3-4-76 ........... July 26, 1977, Court of Appeals opinion affirming Dis- trict Court judgment entered December 19, 1975... Volume Il Testimony, Excerpts From: PE ED gcd dubebseunusdéetaenuene nee ee ic clan suen eb dhe seeeneare Se es SPE shu an beaweieeuscauaneeueeed a EI, So Soaks + oanad novos Mekteke seen Davis, George T., Jr. Ebersole, Vernon ee se oe 2 oe oe oe ee oe Oe eS oe oe he a hy a a oe ee Page 4] 44 159 161 198 ili I SE ads cevcaue Veen ssenesaseeee sees 261 SS EE US hed eee cv cursnceneseraduasennnes 273 i re oka cae bo ee Ree 275 Re STE ky koh ob CEASE OOS RRAS OES OuN OR OD 291 PI ED DU osc ces ccccaccend eves eckenees 292 PS, CIE oo cc ccccsecscesenctevussadien 295 OS PPT rete 296 5 SOT TT Terr Tere Tee Tee 299 ES ere wor irene ye 314 Lo ak oe eens as 326 Exhibits: Boundary Change Resolution of March 28, 1957, af- Gecting Déain Givest Gooes ... nce cc ccccccces 328 Boundary Change Resolution of July 8, 1957, Affecting Michigan, Verlinden and Kalamazoo School Areas.. 331 Elementary School Enrollments History ............ 332 Ethnic Count Reports: ee gE a ss, ala eal ira ad tots wick ore oh 350 SS EE a ok ou hou nas wae ce Roce e 363 Ethnic Count Without Clusters or One Way Busing. . 395 Excerpts: Foreword of the 1972 Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Education Opportunity Report ............ 373 ge Ar ee 374 1965 Citizens’ Advisory Committee Report ........ 374 Proceedings on Proposed Stipulations ............ 378 iv Report to Lansing Board of Education Relating to Impact of the Cluster Program on Reading and DEE SED cau beceaddeeeseetesncsusane 379 Extract from Report to Human Relations Committee. . 382 History of Development of Lansing School District ... 387 Kalamazoo Elementary School History .......... .. 389 Lincoln School Closing Resolution ................ 390 POD WE EGCRMONS 2... ccc ccc cccccccccceces 393 Negro Enrollments at Main, Michigan, Lincoln and EY £ i606 6 o0b05 i bu ndewnedes beck euky 394 Phasing Out of Kalamazoo and Michigan Avenue I 6c vu tas kdes ceeeseesesensasse 395 Record of School Site Sizes, Building Construction, Ad- dition and Modernization ..................... 397 River Island Census Tracts 1970 ................. 400 River Island Elementary School Attendance Areas.... 401 ee I PD oc ea cccccccsecccecsans 402 Verlinden Non-Resident Pupils ................... 404 — 185 — EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF *[602] KATHRYN BOUCHER, called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testi- fied as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Davis: Q. State your full name and address for the record, please. A. Kathryn A. Boucher, 1414 Lorraine, Lansing. Q. Mrs. Boucher, have you had in the past any association with Lansing Board of Education? A. Yes, I was a member of the Board from July 1965 until recalled in November, 1972. Q. And you indicate that you were recalled in °72? A. Yes. Q. Did there come a time, Mrs. Boucher, when you took a position with respect to the closing of Lincoln and Kalamazoo Street Schools? A. Yes. Q. Can you indicate what that position was? A. I believe that I supported the closing of both of those facilities. Q. In retrospect, Mrs. Boucher, do you believe that that had a discriminatory effect? [603] A. What would you like me to answer? Q. Do you have an opinion with respect to the closing of those schools? A. In regard to discrimination? Q. Yes. A. As to ther or not it was discriminatory, yes, I think they were both discriminatory by definition. At least by mine, but I believe that that was the way that we felt was— the way to go at the time that we did it, on advice of community members, and probably on [604] our own feelings as to what the community would accept. But it certainly was discrimina- * Numbers appearing in brackets in text indicate page numbers of original stenographic transcript of testimony. — 186 — tory, because we were suggesting that young children of a par- ticular ethnic background be transported to another facility, and that’s discriminatory, because they are the only ones that were there. Did we know what—-I knew what I was doing. I don't _know—I can’t speak for anybody else. Did I think it was dis- criminatory? Yes, I did. Did I think it was important to do it at that time? Yes, I did. But I think I recognized that it was discriminatory at the time, too. * * o * * * * [606] Q. Directing your attention to transfer policy, did you know, have an opinion as to whether or not the transfer policy was being misused while you were on the Board? A. While I was on the Board? Q. Yes. A. Yes, I think—yes. Q. When did you become first aware that it was being mis- used? A. I served on a Citizens’ Committee for Lansing Schools. I think it was called a School Needs Committee, and from 1959 to 1961, and one of the recommendations of that Committee, coming from the Committee that I chaired, the sub-Committee that I chaired was that the transfer policy be eliminated because we felt that it was being misused at that time. Q. And that was in 1961, did you say? A. Correct. Mr. Davis: I have no further questions. Your witness. Cross-Examination of Kathryn Boucher By Mr. Newman: Q. Now when you say the transfer policy was being misused, do you apply that to—or, I will withdraw that. The transfer policy was open to anyone, was it not? [607] A. Correct. = Ee Q. And it was used by anyone who felt they had a need and went to a doctor or a psychiatrist to——— A. Doctor, I believe, it was at that point, Mr. Newman. Q. Later on a psychiatrist? A. Which was rescinded. Q. All right. But let’s do it one at a time. A. Yes. Q. First of all, it was a doctor? A. Correct. Q. Then it was a doctor or psychiatrist? A. 1 was not a member of the Board when the original policy was adopted. Q. You were a member in 1967 when it was amended to require a psychiatrist’s evaluation? A. Right, but it was adopted —I am not even sure when it was adopted. Maybe you can tell me. Q. Yes. January 1967. A. Was that the original—which one was adopted then? Q. That was the one that you were a member of. A. The psychiatrist? Q. Yes. A. What one for a doctor, what one was—or, was that a doctor? Q. Well I assume that was back in 1961. [608] A. No, I don’t think so. We suggested that a psychiatrist be used in 1961 as opposed to a doctor, because we believed the policy was be- ing abused by suggesting—having only a doctor make the recommendation. So that it must have been, and my recollec- tion really is not very good, that a—it was possible to transfer youngsters with a doctor’s recommendation in 1961, and we recommended that a psychiatrist be used as opposed to a medi- cal doctor. Then evidently it was in 1967 by the time the Board was willing to make that change, if that is what it says. Q. And then in June of 1967 the Board rescinded the re- quirement that it be made by a psychiatrist? A. Yes. Q. Were you on the Board in 1967? A. Yes, I was. — 188 — Q. Now are you stating that the transfer policy was misused on the basis of medical knowledge? A. On the basis of medical knowledge it was misused? Q. Are you stating that on the basis of medical knowledge? A. Certainly not. On the basis of practical application as to what was happening. Q. Well, did you ever have an investigation made to find out whether or not the certificate signed by the doctor was valid or invalid? A. I believe that the District [609] Q. No, no. Did you? A. No, certainly not. Absolutely not. Q. And the Board did not, either, did it? A. The Board, as a matter of policy, accepted the recommendation of the medical doctor, because that was the policy of the Board, and my Committee originally suggested they use a psychiatrist, be- cause they believed that a medical doctor was not sufficient to make this kind of a recommendation. That was our opinion and that’s what we recommended. “~ Q. Without any expert testimony whatsoever, isn’t that true? A. I don’t know what you would consider to be expert testi- mony. Q. Did you have any testimony or did you have any infor- mation from a doctor or a psychiatrist that any one of the cer- tificates that had been presented was invalid? A. I don’t think so, no. I don’t believe we did. That was based on our knowl- edge of what the kinds of youngsters that were being transferred and what we considered to be an abuse of transfer. Q. Without having explored to find out whether the medical certificate was valid, isn’t that true? A. Right, we felt that if it were necessary Q. All right. That’s—— A. If a youngster was being trans- ferred on a medical certifi- [610] cate and we needed a stronger EE oOooooooeoeeeeeeeee| — 189 — one than a medical doctor, because it was generally an emo- tional need, we felt that a medical doctor would have difficulty in establishing emotional need, a psychiatrist ought to. Q. Without ever having checked with any doctor to find out, isn't that true? A. Not on an official basis, correct. Q. Nor on an unofficial basis? A. I didn’t say that. Q. Did you ever check with a doctor who had written one of these certificates? A. Not specifically on specific youngsters, no. Q. You are aware of the fact that Caucasians and Negroes were both permitted to present certificates, are you not? A. Right. Q. And you are aware of the fact that by numbers, at least, there were more of the blacks who were using transfers than Caucasians for the years that you were on the Board, isn’t that true? A. So it seems. Q. Now you have testified today that you personally felt that closing Lincoln Street School and bussing the children out was discriminatory? A. Yes, I do. Q. And you felt that at the time? [611] A. Yes, sir. Q. But you never had that recorded in the minutes, did you? A. Well, I think Q. I did not ask you A. I really don’t know. I did not request things to be recorded in the minutes or not. I voted. It says there I supported it, and I say here I support it. You ask me why I suppoited it, and I am suggesting why. Q. I didn’t ask you why. I asked you if the minutes re- flected any statement by you that you thought this was a dis- criminatory action. A. I don't believe so. Does it say that I say is isn’t a discriminatory action? + * + * * > > —_— ws {612] Q. You were aware of the fact that the black community supported the closing of Lincoln School, were you not? A. Yes, I was, absolutely. Q. And received commendatory letters from members of the black community? A. Yes, sir, absolutely. Q. Including the President of the Lansing—or, the Lincoln School PTA? A. I wouldn't be surprised. It was accepted, no question. Q. Well, it was requested? A. What are you saying? Who requested it? Q. The black community people requested it? A. No, I don’t believe Q. Some of them did? A. I don’t believe that is exactly accurate, Mr. Newman. Q. Do you know anyone besides Dorothy Durham (Spelled phonetically) who was opposed to it? A. I didn’t know Dorothy Durham was. I can’t identify at this point who was supportive and who was not. I remember at the time that there were mem- bers of the black community who did not support closing of the school. It was not economically feasible to continue that school. The attendance area was shrinking. That was one rea- son. The black community did support the closing of the school, [613] there is absolutely no question about it. The ques- tion to me was not did the black community support closing of the school or not; the question to me was did I think it was discriminatory, and I did. I still do, so—— Q. But at least on the record there is no reflection of your expression of that opinion, is there? A. I really can’t tell you, because I haven't read the minutes. You are telling me there wasn’t; I believe you. Q. Well, thank you. A. You are welcome. Mr. Newman: That is all I have. — 191 — Mr. Davis: Nothing further. The Court: Kathryn Boucher. The Witness: Thank you. The Court: Just a minute. The Witness: Oh, you have got some questions? The Court: Yes. The Witness: All righty. The Court: When you made your decision to close the schools or to transfer students out from the dominant black schools, you could foresee the consequence of that act, couldn’t you? The Witness: Yes, I could. The Court: So at the time you made your [614] judgment to do precisely what you did, you knew what the results would be? The Witness: I can’t say I knew precisely, but generally, yes, I think it was with the knowledge of that. The Court: And at that time you intended that kind of an act? The Witness: That? Yes, I felt that it was a The Court: A transfer? The Witness: A temporary kind of thing. You don’t want my usual speech, I am sure, Judge, on the subject of The Court: If you have a written copy, why you can show it to me. The Witness: No, I don’t have a written copy, but I am sure there are members in the Court here that have heard it. I felt it was transitory, and I always felt it was a temporary kind of thing that eventually the community atmosphere would develop that would allow and encourage natural integration in neighbor- — 192 — hoods. And that this was a step, it was acceptable in the black community, it was acceptable in the white community, and that’s not to say that either accepted it completely. They didn't. You would be surprised if they did. They [615] didn’t. But it was working, and so it was good. The Court: All right. * + . . * * > EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF HORTENSE G. CANADY 161] Q. Did there come a time, Mrs. Canady, in which you became aware that there were in fact recall petitions suggesting a recall of certain board members? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me when you first became aware of their existence? A. Early in April. * * . > o > 2 [75] Q. Let me ask you, perhaps, a more difficult question, Mrs. Canady: You were aware, I believe you testified, of the recall petitions in the spring of this year; is this correct? A. That is correct. Q. And this was before the adoption of the plan, is this cor- rect? A. Yes. — 193 — [14] HORTENSE G. CANADY, called as a witness by the Plaintiffs, being first duly sworn, testi- fied as follows and hearing on Preliminary Injunction: Direct Examination By Mr. Davis: Q. Would you state your name and address, please? A. Hor- tense G. Canady, 3808 West Holmes Road, Lansing, Michigan. Q. Now, Mrs. Canady, did you have an opportunity to serve on the Lansing Board of Education? A. I did, yes. Q. And were you on that Board of Education in June of 1972? A. In June of °72, yes, I was. Q. And did there come a time at which the Board of Educa- tion adopted a cluster plan? [15] A. Yes. = * * * * > {19] Q. Mrs. Canady, did you have an opportunity to serve on the Education Committee for the NAACP? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you have occasion during the years 1963 through 65 to engage in a study concerning integration or segregation in the Lansing schools? A. Yes, quite—in a variety of areas. EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [339] DR. I, CARL CANDOLI, called as a witness by the Board of Education, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Will you state your name in full? A. I. Carl Candoli. — 194 — ~ Q. And you previously testified in this case, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your position with Lansing School District is what? A. Sometimes I wonder. I am sorry. Superintendent of Schools. Q. And how long have you been Superintendent of Schools? A. Four years and four months. Q. And were you Superintendent when the so-called “Cluster Plan” was adopted? A. I was. Q. And you continued to be Superintendent since then? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, I would like to ask you a few questions concern- ing some of the individuals employed by the Lansing School District, and particularly with reference to the matter of race. In Lansing School District are there deputy [340] Superin- tendents? A. There are, two. Q. And who are they? A. Dr. Matthew Prophet and Dr. Robert Chamberlain. Q. Now are these—are they co-equals? A. Yes, I would say so. Q. And would you state what their color is? A. Dr. Prophet is black, Dr. Chamberlain is white. Q. Now is the hierarchy, is one above the other? A. Yes, I would say that Dr. Prophet is more immediate heir, h-e-i-r. Q. Oh, I thought you said “error.” A. No. Well, in some instances that holds true. Q. You told me the other day he is smarter than you are? A. That's a fact. That's why he is Deputy. The Court: Well, maybe he is considered as the first Vice Presideni, and Dr. Chamberlain as the second Vice President. — 195 — The Witness: That is a fair analysis, yes. Q. And who is the Director of elemetary education in Lansing School District? A. Mrs. Eva Evans. Q. And is she black or white? A. She is black. [341] Q. And who is the School Board attorney? A. Mr. Stuart Dunnings. Q. And is he black or white? A. He is black. Q. Now, we are concerned in this litigation about the ele- mentary schools in Lansing School District. Do you happen to know how many principals of the elementary schools come from the minority ethnic groups? A. It is either 10 or 11 out of 48. Q. Are there 48 schools? A. That's right. Q. And are some of those elementary principals from the black race? A. 8 or 9. I am sorry, I would have to check my records on that. Q. And are some from the Spanish surname? A. There are two Chicanos. Q. Now were you acquainted—I will withdraw that. You are acquainted with the Board members who adopted the Cluster Pian June 29, 1972, are you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you recall the names of the five who voted in favor of the Cluster Plan? A. I do. Q. And who were they? [342] A. Mr. Rosa, who testified the day before yesterday. Mr. Beers, Mrs. Boucher, Mrs. Nuss- dorfer, and Mrs. Canady. Q. And were any of the five whom you have named black? A. Yes. Mrs. Canady is black. o o * e * * J Q. Now from having reviewed—lI will withdraw that ques- tion. Have you had occasion to review Board minutes and — 196 — “Board records pertaining to Board membership prior to the time you came to this school? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were in court the other day when Mr. Rosa testified? A. I was, yes. Q. And he indicated he had been a Board member for 17 years? A. Yes. Q. From the records, from having reviewed the records, do you know of any other Board members who have served that [343] long? A. Oh, yes. Mr. Rosa and Mrs. Nussdorfer and Mr. Ebersole, I believe, were the three that had the 17- or 18- year tenure, although Mr. Walsh, who left the Board as I was coming onto the Board, I believe he was replaced by Mr. Michael Walsh, had had at least 12, perhaps longer, of service to the Board, and Mr. Beers and Mrs. Boucher, I think, were in their second term at the time of the recall. Q. Now on the basis of having reviewed Board minutes and Board records concerning the activities of the Board mem- bers whom you have named, have you ever found anything to indicate that those Board members acted or failed to act for purposes of discriminating against any ethnic group in Lans- ing School District? A. No. I think Mr. Rosa covered that very, very well, and I support what he said when he said that ther&were no overt acts of deliberate discrimination on the part of the previous Boards. I also agree with his statement, how- ever, that all of us at one time or another commit uncon- sciously certain acts that must be called to our attention that do in fact cause severe damage. So I would support Mr. Rosa’s testimony 100 percent. I don’t think that the Board has ever deliberately and systematically set out to do a bad deed. I do think, however, as Mr. Rosa said, that there have been occa- sions when all of us, [344] myself included, have either— well, I prefer to say “subconsciously” reacted in a manner other than the appropriate manner. * * ? e * * e ili = _ [373] Redirect Examination of Dr. I. Carl Candoli By Mr. Newman: Q. Dr. Candoli, with regard to the Clusters known as 4 and 5 in the proposed plan which you recommended to the Board of Education on October 9, 1975, you relied upon cer- tain or you employed certain guidelines as to your definition of a minority school, did you not? [374] A. Yes, sir. Q. And what were those definitions or what were those guidelines that you relied upon? A. They were the guidelines that we utilized four years ago as we developed the original Cluster, and the guideline then—and we held that—was that any school that was over 45 percent minority was considered a racially imbalanced school. Q. And what was the 10 percent? A. Oh, the 10 percent was the minimum range. The range of suitability, as we utilized it four years ago, was the 10 to 45 percent range, and that was derived from a number of papers that have—lI don't know as they have been published, but they were, the Department of Education, Michigan Department of Education guidelines that were predicated on a plus or minus 20 percent factor from the minority population of the School District, and they were adjusted from there for our own purpose. Q. Now, how many schools—— The Court: What was that number? The Witness: The State Department had some preliminary publications that have never really been distributed, but the figure The Court: On a 10 to 20 basis. The Witness: No, it was plus or minus [375] 20 percent from the actual percentage of minority students in the school system. And in the case of Lansing, for example, at the time we went into this it was 25 percent minority. Plus or minus, it — 198 — would have been from 5 to 45. My own very real concern suggests that with the 5 percent distribution there isn’t sufficient support system for a youngster to make it at all, and we felt that 10 percent was a more acceptable figure for us. Q. Were these guidelines also found in any of the Federal programs? A. Some of the Federal HEW guidelines allude to that, yes, sir. Q. 10 to 45 percent? A. No. Plus or minus 20 percent over the actual percentage figure of minorities in a school system. Q. Would you give an example to illustrate? A. Okay. Suppose Grand Rapids, which is about 28 percent minority, were directed to desegregate. The guidelines might be from % percent to 48 percent would be an acceptable range of schools with desegregated student enrollment, and anything outside of those guidelines would be either unbalanced majority or un- balanced minority. EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [454] DEWARD A. CLARK, called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Will you state your name in full, please? A. Deward Clark, Deward A. Clark. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Clark? A. I live in Lansing, Michigan. — 199 — Q. And how long have you been a resident of Lansing, Michigan? A. Since 1940. Q. And are you married? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you have children? A. Yes, two. [455] Q. Are they grown? A. Yes. Q. Now, are you employed at the present time? A. No, I am retired from the Lansing School District. Q. When were you first associated with the Lansing District? A. 1940. Q. And what was the nature of your association? A. I was a teacher at Walter French Junior High School. Q. What did you teach? A. I taught Social Studies the first year, and the next year Science, General Science. Q. And where did you obtain your degrees? A. My B.A. Degree was Battlecreek College; Master's Degree, Michigan State University. [457] Q. How long were you the Assistant Director in the Pupil Personnel? A. Up until 1961. I became Assistant Direc- tor of Teacher Personnel. Q. And how long did you remain in that position? A. Until I retired. I became the next year the Director and Assistant Superintendent in Personnel, and then retired in 1974. Q. Now, when you were director of Teacher Personnel, what were your duties? A. The main duty at that time was the re- cruitment of teachers and placement on all levels, and also all the other employees. [458] The Court: What, may I have the dates again? The Witness: That was 1961 to °74. I was Director from 62 on. = Q. What was the policy that you were obligated to observe in employing personnel for Lansing School District? A. The policy we worked under was to employ the best possible teacher we could for the position in mind. We were given those—the rationale for positions came from principals, and we went out and tried to recruit people that they needed for given jobs. This was on all levels. As you know, during the °60’s, especially the first two-thirds of the ‘60’s, teachers were extremely hard to get, and we re- cruited all universities and colleges. We recruited all universi- ties and colleges in Michigan, and then the Big Ten. We also were obligated at that time through requests of the Board of Education and the Principals on their special needs to try our best to recruit minorities. Q. And how did you go about trying to recruit minorities? A. We went to Fisk University. Q. Where is Fisk University? A. Fisk is in Nashville, Ten- nessee. We went to Hampton Institute in Virginia. We went to Howard University in Washington, D.C. Later in the 60’s we employed a black [459] consultant in personnel, Margaret Groves, and she took charge with Mark Burkholder of minority recruitment. We extended the recruitment then to the Atlanta Complex which is about five colleges; also Tuscaloosa in Ala- bama, and had, I would say, quite a bit of success in recruiting minorities. Later on we went into the Chicano territory, and we re- cruited form Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, the colleges there; San Marcos, just north of San Antonio; and Kingsville, the big State College; The Pan American College in Edinburg, Texas. Also Arizina, New Mexico, and California. Q. Did you participate in any of these searches for teachers? A. Yes, I did. Originally I went to the first colleges I named, and then after we hired Margaret, she took over and did that type of recruiting. And I did start—I went out and set the pace — 201 — in Arizona, Texas, Mexico—or. New Mexico and California, and then Mark Burkholder followed. Q. Now when was Mrs. Groves employed? A. I don't have the exact date in mind. I have been retired two years, so you see what's happening. I think in about—she has been with us for six or seven years. Q. Is Mrs. Groves still employed by Lansing Schools? A. She is, yes. [460] Q. In what position? A. She is consultant in personnel. Q. And you mentioned that minority teachers were recruited at Fisk University or Fisk College? A. Fisk, Hampton Institute, yes. Q. Now are these black schools? A. Yes. Q. And originally who visited those schools? A. I went the first time, and then Margaret took over. * * * * * * x [462] Q. Now, how were teachers assigned to elementary schools in Lansing School District? A. Elementary schools at that time Q. What time are you talking about? A. I am talking in the 60’s and the first part of the °70’s. Elementary principals, I am sure you understand, don’t work the full year and they are not there during the summer months. While the principals were there and the recruiting that we did in the spring, they were given the opportunity to interview applicants that we were able to send to them, and they would make their final decision to the personnel office indicating which one of the applicants they wanted. They would tell the personnel office what to look for when we went South or when we [463] went to any of the other universities and what their needs were early in the spring, if possible. Many times it wasn't possible because openings deveioped even after they left on their vacation. — 202 — So the personnel office went out and recruited for openings then. We might have had a hundred elementary teachers to hire, and we would hire those teachers. Many of those then were not interviewed by principals, so the Director of Elemen- tary Education, with the help later when we had Margaret Groves, with her help and help from her staff, which are help- ing teachers, and these are teachers that are superior teachers that work with teachers. They are on her staff. They would sit down and Q. Whose staff? A. It was Grace Vanworth at the time, Director of Elementary Ed, her staff helping teachers. They would sit down and make the assignments trying to relate the background, the kind of teacher we had with the job that was open, and we would make the assignments then from the per- sonnel office. Q. Now Mrs. Evans is Director of Elementary Education in Lansing School District, is she not now? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you remember when Mrs. Evans joined Lansing School [464] District as a teacher, or do you not? A. I don't recall the exact date, but I certainly remember Mrs. Evans, yes. Q. And why it is you remember Mrs. Evans? A. Because she is an outstanding teacher. Q. And she has progressed through the Lansing School Dis- trict, is that correct? A. That's correct. She is Assistant Prin- cipal at C. W. Otto Junior High School. Q. She was or is? A. She was, yes, sir. Q. And then she became Director of Elementary Education? A. Right. Q. Now during the time you have been connected with the Personnel Office of Lansing School District, has there ever been any complaint from anyone about the number of minority en eee Weners — 203 — teachers assigned in minority schools? A. I personally do not recall any complaint directly from parents, nor from principals. Q. And has there been any complaint from the Spanish sur- named people about the assignment of Spanish surnamed teach- ers to schools where there are substantial number of Spanish sur- named children? A. No. The only complaint coming from the Chicano committee—they have a committee representing the community [465] that works with the Board of Education— was that we couldn't get enough. Q. They wanted more assigned? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know of anyone who has ever discriminated against any minority teacher in the matter of employment or assignment of duties in Lansing School District? A. Well, would you rephrase that? Do I know whether anyone was discrim- inated against on purpose? Q. Yes, on purpose? A. Or intent? Q. Yes. A. No. * * . * * - * [466] Q. All right. How are the assistant principals and prin- cipals selected in Lansing School District? A. Assistant prin- cipals and principals are selected by a personnel committee. They first make application to the Personnel Office, and I don’t believe in the last couple of years that has changed. They make their application. There is a Personnel Committee. On the Personnel Committee, for example, if it is an assistant prin- cipal, sits the principal of that given school where the vacancy exists. Also the Director of Personnel and the Director of Sec- ondary Education, if it is secondary, or elementary, if it is ele- mentary, and a given number of community people generally are on these committees. Q. What do you mean community people? A. I mean peo- ple that are representative of a given community. While this may be a PTA person, it may have nothing to do with PTA, but somebody that’s been active and inteersted in education — i from that community. If it’s a position—well, the last one I can recall, there were three community people, two of them were black and there was one white. We have had Chicanos on the Committee also. Q. And they participate in the selection? [467] A. In the final selection, yes, sir. And that recommendation then goes to the Superintendent of Schools, who in turn will recommend to the Board of Education. Mr. Newman: You may cross-examine. Cross-Examination of Deward A. Clark By Mr. Davis: Q. Did I understand you correct, Mr. Clark, to indicate that you have been directly involved in teacher personnel since 1961? A. Yes, sir. Q. And can you indicate what the situation was that you found in 1961 in terms of employment of minorities, numbers? A. Yes. Of minority, we had very few minority at the begin- ning of 1961. Q. Can you indicate—you have an affirmative action pol- icy, do you not, with respect to minority teachers and staff? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know when that policy went into effect? A. The exact date, I would say perhaps four years ago. Q. Would I be correct in assuming then there was not an affirmative action program for teachers and staff prior to 1971? A. You might be correct in saying there wasn’t a written pol- icy, but there certainly was in the Personnel Office and from the oral statements of the Board of Education, [468] I con- sidered it an affirmative action policy. That’s why way before the written policy we were out on the road recruiting from the various colleges that I indicated. . er See eee wary ey ee - —— seve — 205 — And just one more thing. As I said, there were very few at the beginning of 1960 and there was a gradual, not as big as we wanted, but a gradual increase in the employment and the percentage, the ratio of minorities to non-minorities. Q. Were you also in charge of assigning those teachers that were hired? A. I did not assign them directly. The secon- dary principals interviewed for secondary, the elementary prin- cipals, insofar as possible, interviewed for elementary. Those that couldn't, they were out on vacation and so forth, that as- signment came from the Director of Elementary Ed working with the consultant in Personnel and her staff making final assignments. Q. Well, who had the final say, if anyone, in terms of as- signment? Did you have a veto power at all? A. If we did, it was never used. I wasn’t aware we had a veto power over a principal, and the principal has the final say, period. Q. Well, that about in terms of assigning principals, who had the final say in that regard? A. I believe I spelled out the way principals were hired. [469] They were hired by a Per- sonnel Committee. No one person. However, if you check the policy of the Board of Education, the Superintendent has an actual veto on hiring, because it says he has full charge of hir- ing. And I was working through the Superintendent in terms of hiring. Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you first took over these duties in 1961, were there any black principals? A. 1961? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Do you recall when the first black principal was hired? A. I don’t recall the exact date, sir. Q. Do you recall who it was? A. As a principal? Q. Yes. A. It could have been Cal Anderson. —=— = Q. Let me ask you a different question: Do you recall what school this black principal went to? A. Well Cal Anderson was an Assistant Principal at West Junior High School. Q. All right. Elementary School principal? A. Elementary school perhaps was Olivia Letts. Q. And where was she assigned? A. I don’t know whether she was Cedar Street or where at that [470] time. Q. Isn't it a fact she was assigned to Lincoln Street School? A. Could be. Q. You don’t recall? A. Not exactly, no. Q. Isn't it a fact as Personnel Director. A. That probably was before my time Q. Isn't it also a fact when you took office or took the Di- rector of Teacher Personnel Office in 1961, that Lincoln was a black school? A. Yes, it was. Q. Referring now, for the Court’s benefit and co-counsel’s benefit, to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21, directing your attention to Page 167 The Court: What is Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 21, do you have that? “Report to the Human Relations Committee.” By Mr. Davis: Q. Now you indicated you had at least some responsibility in the assignment of teachers, is that correct? A. In the way I indicated, yes, an indirect. Q. This chart on page 167 purports to show the number of minorities at the various elementary schools, do you see this? [471] A. Yes. The Court: What chart is that, what page? Mr. Davis: 167. It is towards the very end. The Court: All right. = _ Q. It purports to show the number of minority, adminis- trators and teachers and librarians, for the year 1963-64, is that correct? A. Yes. The Court: Can you indicate by virtue of that chart which schools seem to have a minority principal, which would be in the second column there under “Administration”? The Witness: Here on the first page it indicates Lincoln, one. On the second page it indicates Walnut, one. The Court: This was in 63 then? Mr. Davis: °63, that’s correct. By Mr. Davis: Q. Now in terms of teachers, which would be in the second column from your right, can you indicate which schools have the minority or have minority teachers in excess of one? A. In excess of one, there was Lincoln had 3, Allen had 3. [472] Q. All right. Lincoln had 3 of 7, is that correct? A. Three of 7. Q. Plus the administrator? A. Yes. Q. And—— A. Allen had 3 of 26. Q. Now before we go further, isn’t a fact that in that pe-iod of time, 1963-64, that Allen was becoming heavily minority? A. Well, it was becoming heavily minority, but it didn’t happen all at once. It was a slow process. Q. But it was one of those schools that had the most minority students in it, was it not? A. Well, I couldn’t say. I don’t have those figures in my fingertips. Mr. Davis: I direct the Court’s attention to page 9 of this Exhibit, which shows the minority count for Allen. Q. Now I would ask you to tell me whether I am correct that they had 149 minorities out of 516? A. You are asking me? — 208 — Q. Yes. A. That's what this chart says, yes. Q. Okay. Directing your attention then back to Page 167, can you indicate the next school that has more than one [473] minority teacher? A. Michigan Avenue. Q. And that was a black school, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And the next one? I think we skipped one here. Do you see this school here, Main, can you tell me what they had in minority teachers? A. You told me in excess. They had 1. Q. In excess of 1, they had 1. That is Lincoln. And Michi- gan, correct? A. And Michigan, but Main was one. How- ever —— The Court: So Lincoln had 3, Main 1? The Witness: Yes. The Court: And Michigan 3? The Witness: Michigan 3, yes. The Court: Out of 13 in Michigan and—— The Witness: 26 in Allen. The Court: 26 in Allen? The Witness: Yes. The Court. All right. By Mr. Davis: Q. Were you aware of the fact that the predominately mi- nority schools tended to have the most black teachers when you took your position? A. Yes, I was perfectly aware of that, and the Board at the [474] time in our discussions had discussed with me the situation and the possibility—not “possibility,” but what we should do was to hire minority teachers and make sure from thereon that we were not loading them into an all-black school. I remember at a meeting with some of the representa- tives of NAACP, at that time there was a gentleman, a minister, —- dll — I MB ks — 209 — | believe it was, had got up, and we explained to him that our philosophy was, and would be from there on when we recruited, to try to scatter the minority teachers. We had little difficulty when we came to the Chicanos, because the Chicanos had a spe- cific need, a language need, and the scattering of them didn’t make good sense, because we were trying to hire minorities there that spoke Spanish and could help the youngsters on the early grade level, so there would be no doubt some concentration there, and that made sense to have it there. But we did go into the idea of spreading the teachers about. The minister made the point that afterall, the white people should have the chance of associating with the black people. We felt at the time that the black teachers should be in the white community as well as in the black community. Q. In light of that stated policy that you indicate you adopted when you took over, let me ask you about some [475] particular schools. First of all, about Michigan. We indicated, I believe, that Michigan had three teachers. A. Yes. Q. At that time? A. Yes. Q. And you adopted a policy of not assigning black teachers to just black schools, is that correct? A. This is what we tried to do, yes. Q. You were not present yesterday when Mr. Semrau testified, were you? A. No, I was not. Q. Well, let me indicate what his testimony was and ask you if that is your recollection. He indicated— (To Mr. Newman) And correct me if | am wrong, Counsel— that in 1968-69 there were 3 of 14 minority teachers. He indi- cated in the next year, 1969-70, that it had got up to 4 of 13. Do you recall an extra teacher being added to Michigan after this policy? A. No, but with federal programs going on, this could well have happened. — 210— Q. He indicates in the next year 1970-71 there were 5 of 13. A. Now I don't know the reason for that, but I am pretty sure it came through Federal funds and funding, especially [476] for that school. If we could hire a minority that seemed to have more than the white at that period, we would put her there. Q. I didn’t quite understand that? A. If we could hire a minority that seemed to have a better background for that given position at that time, she no doubt was put over at Mr. Semrau’s school in Michigan Avenue. Q. Do you recall that happening? A. No. I say specifically I don’t recall who was put there or why. My opinion is it was related to Federal funds and Federal programs. Q. But you do know that it is a fact that after you took over your position, that the percentage of minority teachers at Michi- gan did in fact increase? A. Yes. However, let me say some- thing: The ratio was 3 to 7, as I noticed there. Did the ratio increase so much? Because you had a total staff of 14, you are talking the ratio of minority against, so let’s talk in ratios there. Q. My figures indicate 3 of 14 in 1968-69, and it went up to 5 of 13 in 1971-72. A. However, the first figure you gave me was 3 of 7. That’s what I am referring to. Q. That was Lincoln, Lincoln School had 3 of 7. I am re- ferring to Michigan Avenue? [477] A. Okay. Q. Well, was there anything done in moving to Lincoln Street School after your policy of not loading up teachers at one school, was there anything done about transferring some of the minority teachers from Lincoln, which had 3 of 7 plus the principal? A. This I don’t know. The Director of Elementary Education would have charge of that. Q. Well, let’s direct your attention to apother school. Main, I believe "63-64, according to Page 167 of the chart, had one teacher, is that correct? A. Right. —211— Q. You do know for a fact that that number increased? A. Right, and I do know for a fact that the PTA and the people at Main Street School called it one of the best faculties of the District. Q. But the fact is that there was a deliberate effort made, was there not, to put more minority teachers at Main Street School? A. I don’t know whether it was deliberate or not and what rationale the Director of Elementary Education had at that time. I know that her rationale came from the request of the principal, and his request usually came from the request of the Community. So that’s all I can go on there. And my under- standing was that the Community was [478] exceedingly pleased with the staff of Main Street School. Q. Well, is it your understanding that was the reason why minority teachers were placed in minority schools? A. I think the reason for placing any teachers is to get the best success we can get for the children of that given community. If it happened to be a minority, that’s where the minority went. * * * * * . a [481] Q. Can you indicate for 1967-68 what the percentage was of minority students? A. The percentage of minority stu- dents was 14 percent. Q. And the percentage for minority staff? A. Was 3.8. Q. And these are contained in the bottom two lines? A. Yes. Q. Of this Exhibit, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the number of teachers, elementary teachers in "67-68 was 39, is that correct? A. Yes. 39 black, 21 secondary black, and there were 4 black [482] administrators. The Court: What, 39? The Witness: Yes, 39 black elementary teachers in 67, and there are 21 secondary and 4 black administrators. By Mr. Davis: — 212 — Q. And then in '68-69 it looks like there is one less black elementary teacher, 38, is that correct? A. That's right. Q. And those numbers are reflected all the way across for each year up to 1972, correct? A. Yes. Q. I refer you to four pages later. It should be page 39. This chart purports to show, does it not, faculty assignment by race? A. This, I am not acquainted with this chart, but this is what it looks like, yes. What date is this? Q. This is as of——-— A. This shows 8% percent minority teachers. Q. This is 1972, January 27, 1972. A. I see. The Court: Now what schedule? Let’s see if we are on the same—— The Witness: 35. The Court: ——track here. [483] The Witness: Well, this only goes through °71, but in ‘71 we had 9.2 percent minority staff. The Court’ Where are the dates on these charts? Mr. Davis: That’s at the beginning of the entire volume, your Honor. The Court: Oh, I see. The Witness: And in "72 I am sure we had more than 9 percent, yet this only shows 8. By Mr. Davis: Q. Now Section 4 indicates the names of schools with no minority teachers. From your recollection, would that be cor- rect in 1972, as you remember? A. Yes, or I couldn't say spe- cifically, but I wouldn't question it. It looks all right to me. As I recall, the year I left in "74 there weren’t any schools without minority teachers. — 213 — Q. Before referring to the next chart, just to make sure that this is within your area of experience and expertise, the assign- ment of teachers around the School District after they were hired, was this within your duties? A. The recruitment was in—within my duties, and the assignment, insofar as, a con- sultant from my office served with the Director and the Princi- pals in the assignment. As I explained before, the Principals generally [484] had the say on which teacher they wanted. The Director of Elementary Ed worked with her staff and a member of my staff in making summer assignments. Q. Would you have been aware in your professional respon- sibilities of the experience of the teachers at the various schools? A. I would if it were brought specifically to my attention for a given reason, but as these assignments were made, the Direc- tor of Elementary Ed certainly was aware of experience. Q. Do you recall being made aware or having it brought to your attention that minority schools had the most experienced teachers, do you recall that ever being brought to your atten- tion? A. No. Q. Do you recall whether or not that was true or not? A. I don’t know whether that was so. Q. Directing your attention—and you may not know the answer; just say so—to two pages later in this volume. Mr. Davis: Your Honor, it should be Page 41. The Court: The pages just aren't numbered. Mr. Davis: I know. This one. Q. It purports to show the years of experience to various [485] schools. Would you be aware of whether any of these figures were correct or incorrect? A. No, I am not aware whether they would be or not. Q. I see. Very well. Well, when you determined or found out that even after your policy minority teachers were still being —214— assigned to minority schools, being Main and Michigan, did you bring this to anyone’s attention, the School Board, indicat- ing that this was contrary to your policy? A. No. * iad s * * * * EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [198] GEORGE T. DAVIS, JR., called as a witness by the defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Your name is George T. Davis, Junior? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what is your residence address? A. 526 South Chestnut Street. Q. Lansing, Michigan? A. Lansing, Michigan. Q. How long have you lived in Lansing, Michigan? A. 28 years. [199] Q. And what is your age? A. 28. Q. Now, did you attend school in Lansing? A. Yes, I at- tended Kalamazoo, Western, and Sexton. * > s * e * * [200] Q. And you are black yourself? A. (Witness nodding). Q. I mean, the record has to show that. A. Yes. Q. I can tell it. A. Yes. * . a as 7 * * [201] Q. Now, what elementary school did you attend in Lansing School District? A. Kalamazoo Street School. Q. And at the time you went there to the Kalamazoo Street School, about what was the division of the races? A. At that -_ — 215 — time I lived on the north side of the Main Street, 838 West Main Street, and on the south side of the Main Street, on the other side of the street, most of the kids went to—all of the kids went to Lincoln and I went to Kalamazoo Street, because I lived on the other side of the street. Q. Now, do you know about what the percentage of blacks [202] was and the percentage of the whites was at Kalamazoo when you attended Kalamazoo? A. At that time it must have been around about—I would say around about under 10 percent. Q. The number of black students would be about under 10 percent? A. Yes. Q. And the bulk were whites? A. Yes, sir. * s * * * * + EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [488] VERNON EBERSOLE, called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Please state your name in full? A. Vernon D. Ebersole. * * * * * * * [488] Q. Are you a member of the Board of Education of Lansing School District? [489] A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you had any other connection or association with Lansing School District other than as a Board member? A. Yes, sir. Q. What? A. I was a teacher. - * . * * * * — 216— Q. What did you teach? A. Music. [490] Q. And by that, what do you mean? A. Band, orchestra, choir, glee clubs. Q. When you taught, were there any minority students in your classes or courses or organization? A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you first become a member of the Board of Education? A. July 1, 1955. Q. How did you happen to seek membership on the Board of Education? A. Prior to that there was a Citizens’ Committee that had been organized, and I served on that committee, and that stirred up interest in the workings of the Board of Educa- tion, so the following year I ran for the Board of Education and was elected. Q. And how long have you served? A. Since 1955, 21 years. [498] By Mr. Newman: Q. Mr. Ebersole, are you familiar with some of the sites of the elementary schools in Lansing School District? A. Yes, sir. Q. And with regard to the matter of site size, are you able to make any general statement that applies with regard to the site size and the time that it was acquired, the site was acquired? A. That is within my term on the Board. [499] The Court: You are referring now to the—— Mr. Newman: If the Court please, I will hand Mr. Ebersole Defendants’ Exhibit 18 Q. and ask you if you recognize this as a history of an account of the site size in Lansing School District? A. Yes, I do. Q. With regard to the matter of site size, what can be said as to the size relative to the time the site was acquired? A. Well, prior to my being on the board, and just glancing down this list, —~4——__—_-_—___.4— — 217 — the original site sizes were considerably smaller than they are today, very much smaller. Q. Now after you were on the Board and after annexations took place, can you say whether or not there was any increase in the site size of elementary schools? A. Yes, there was. Q. Will you state to the Court whether or not with regard to annexations that took place the annexed school district had ac- quired sites before annexation occurred? A. Many had. Q. And after Lansing School District had grown with the annexations, did the School District itself procure some sites? A. Yes, they did. Q. And with regard to the sites that were procured by Lansing [500] School District, will you state whether or not there was a tendency to increase the size of the sites? A. Wherever possible, yes, sir. Q. And how were these sites procured by Lansing School District while you were on the Board? A. Through purchase. Q. And was there ever any indication of exchange, that you might recall? A. There could have been one or two where we had a piece of land that we figured out was not adaptable to a school site and a realtor had the land that would fit into the picture, and he and the Board would arrange a swap of those pieces of land, yes. Q. Now where you procured sites by purchase, will you state whether or not those sites were in developed areas or undevel- oped areas? A. They were, by and large, in undeveloped areas. [501] Q. And with regard to the purchase price for sites in undeveloped areas, will you state to the Court what the price would be relative to purchase of land in a developed area? A. In relation to—— rr eemeaeaeeeems nemee ee emr nes me — 218 — Q. Yes. If you have to buy sites where there is a built-up area with houses or buildings on it, how does that compare with the purchase of sites that I guess are undeveloped? A. The developed areas of course are much higher. Q. Now are you familiar with—I know your testimony, but are you familiar with Beekman Center? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that an elementary school? A. No, sir. Q. What kind of a school is it? A. It is for the mentally retarded, primarily. Q. Now was that a school facility that was developed after you were on the Board of Education? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall the purchase of land for that center? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you recall how many acres was procured? [502] A. Approximately 50 acres. Q. And do you recall the price? A. I think it was around a thousand dollars an acre. The Court: Is that site on this schedule, Beekmea? The Witness: No, sir, it is not. Mr. Newman: Your Honor, on Deefndants’ Exhibit 17 Beek- man Center is recorded 56 acres. The Court: All right. By Mr. Newman: Q. While you have been on the Board of Education, has the Board of Education purchased land to expand the sites of some of the elementary schools, some of the older elementary schools? A. Yes sir. Q. Has the Board of Education also purchased land for the Vivian Riddle School? A. Yes, sir. — 219 — Q. And do you recall what the purchase price was in general with regard to sites for Vivian Riddle School? A. They run between $350,000 and $400,000. Q. The total? A. The total. Q. Do you.remmber how many sites there were? A. There were approximately 33 or 34. [503] Q. And were those parcels that were purchased for the Vivian Riddle School located in a built-up area or an undevel- oped area? A. In a built-up area. Q. Now, will you state for the Court what your view of bus- sing of school children is? A. My view of school bussing is that we should have no bussing of youngsters except where the matter of distance and/or safety. Q. And what was your position before you became a Board member? A. The same. Q. With regard to bussing? A. The same. Q. What is your position now? A. That is my position now. Q. Do you recall that a time came when mobile units were employed in Lansing School District to house children? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember about when that was? A. It was around 1960 to ’61, in that year, the early 60's. Q. That’s when it began? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why were mobile units employed? A. Because of the overcrowding of the schools. [504] Q. And were they employed throughout the School Dis- trict where necessary? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did a time come when some of the parents of stu- dents at Main Street objected to the use of mobile units there? A. Yes, sir. = = Q. And do you recall what was eventually done with regard to the matter of using mobile units at Main Street? A. Well, a mobile unit was put in there. Q. All right. How long—do you remember how long mobile units stayed at Main Street? A. No. Mr. Newman: This is Defendants’ Exhibit 16. The Court: Maybe we better take a ten-minute recess for the convenience of all. (At 11:06 a.m. a recess was taken.) By Mr. Newman: Q. Mr. Ebersole, do you have before you a copy of De- fendants Exhibit 16? A. Yes, sir. Q. And will you observe the column headed “1962?” A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you see the names of any elementary schools in that column? [S05] A. Yes, sir. Q. What are they? A. Wainright, Main, Cavanaugh. . * * * . * > [505] Q. In 1962, what was the racial composition again of the elementary school? A. It was predominantly white. Q. And what was the racial composition The Court: What was the answer? The Witness: Wainright. The Court: Wainright? The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: In 1962? [506] The Witness: Yes, sir. The Court: And the question is what was the racial ~ : =" Sexton High School plot, and there are no youngsters or houses within that area. Q. Well A. So that the first street would be—and I think it is McPhearson (to the Court) here, we are talking about this. You have got it upside down for me. Here it is. Right here. This is Main, this is Michigan, this is Michigan area here. There is nothing in here. This would be the first street that would have any houses on, and then on the east side of the street only, so that even the youngsters here would have farther [539] to go to Michigan than here— or, to Main rather than they would to Michigan. Now, do you want me to spell that out for the record? The Court: Were you getting that? The Reporter: I was taking it down, Judge. The Court: You did take it down? The Reporter: Yes. The Court: All right. The Witness: Is that clear enough? The Court: Yes. By Mr. Davis: Q. In 1957 a committee was appointed to investigate, among other things, the boundary lines between Main and Verlinden and Michigan, were they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were on the Board when this Committee was appointed? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this Committee studied the situation and came back with recommendations, did they not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did this Committee, after its study and evaluation in 1957, come back and recommend that in fact the Main —— 968 Street School boundary line should be changed? A. I don't recall. Q. Let me refresh your recollection, sir. [540] The Court: What report is that? Mr. Davis: This is contained in your pretrial statement, the minutes of March 28, 1957. The Witness: Here. The Court: Counsel, the Exhibit number of that? Mr. Davis: That is the pretrial statement, our agreed stipu- lations of fact. I am referring to these minutes. Q. Can you indicate your conditions by reading the second and third—well, read the first three paragraphs of that, to refresh your recollection. Could you read it out loud, please. A. Surely. “It was moved by Rosa, seconded by Ebersole that the following resolution concerning the Main Street School area be adopted: “Whereas, the number of Negro children attending the Main Street Elementary School has been increasing materially in recent years until at the opening of school in September of °56 the school was slightly overcrowded and the enrollment con- sisted of 62 Negroes———” Q. That is percent, isn’t it, sir? A. “62 percent, which over- crowding was soon eliminated and the percentage of Negroes reduced to 55 percent by adjustments to school boundaries, and [541] “Whereas, the Board of Education considered that the trend of an increasing ratio of Negro to white enrollment at the Michigan Street School could develop into complete segre- gation, a situation not conducive to satisfactory race relations, and “Whereas, after the Board had unsuccessfully sought a means of reversing the trend towards a segregated Main Street +a oe —-+~»-——— = School, it appointed a committee in response to a request by parents from the area to analyze the conditions and recom- mend corrective measures.” Shall I go ahead? Q. Yes, I want you to read the first recommendation be- cause you indicated you weren't clear. A. “Whereas, the Com- mittee recommended that the Board of Education, number one, adjust further the school boundaries to reduce the Negro-to- White ratio.” Q. Thank you. Then the Committee you appointed in 1957 did in fact recommend the boundaries be changed? A. Ac- cording to the record I just read, the answer is yes. Q. Well, do you recall that the record indicates that you seconded that resolution? A. Yes, sir, it is on the record. Q. Now, did you in fact follow their recommendation? A. No. Q. And the reason was distance? [542] A. I would like to refresh my memory as I did. Q. I refer you to the second page of that resolution, and to the third paragraph. A. “Whereas, after thorough study of the recommendations, the Board of Education has concluded that the first recommendations cannot accomplish any mate- rial results unless some children travel unreasonably long dis- tances.” Q. Thank you. Then do you now recall that the reason the boundaries were not changed was because of distances? A. That’s what the record says, sir. Q. Now I am going to ask you to look at the map before you and look at the southern boundary line of Verlinden and the area immediately north of that. A. Yes, sir. Q. Now that area was white, was it not? A. Yes, sir. =" Mr. Davis: Does the Court see the area I am referring to? The Court: Verlinden? Mr. Davis: The southern portion of Verlinden. The Court: Down here? Mr. Davis: This area right here. The Court: Which is Michigan? Mr. Davis: No, in the Verlinden area. [543] The Court: I mean Michigan Avenue? Mr. Davis: Right. Between Michigan and Ottowa. Q. And you indicate that area was white? A. Yes, sir. Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Ebersole: Isn’t it a fact upon pressure from the community you in fact took that area, which was white, from the Michigan attendance zone and made it a part of Verlinden? A. I don’t recall. Mr. Davis: For the Court's benefit, I refer to Answers to Interrogatories, Answer to Interrogatory number 1B. It is on the Answers to Interrogatories. This is a separate document. The Court: Is that it? Mr. Davis: No, it is a thick document. It is Answers to Interrogatories. (Discussion was had off the record at the bench.) Mr. Davis: I am referring to this answer there. The Court: I will read it. “The area between the City limits on the west and Jenison Avenue on the east and between Michigan Avenue on the south and Ottowa Street extended from the City limits on the north [544] shall be removed from the Michigan Avenue School area and added to the Verlinden School area.” All right. — By Mr. Davis: Q. Again I ask you, Mr. Ebersole, isn’t it a fact in 1957 you took an area that was composed of white children, took it from Michigan Avenue and put it into Verlinden? A. If that is the record, the answer is yes. The Court: I read that for the purpose of relieving this wit- ness of the burden of reading it. The Witness: Thank you. Q. And I believe you testified, Mr. Ebersole, that you were in favor of the neighborhood concept, school concept? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that your feeling in rejecting the various proposals to change school boundary lines was in part premised upon that belief, that children should attend their closest school? A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, did you not in fact second the motion to phase out Kalamazoo Street School? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you realize at that time for that entire attendance area those children would not be able to attend their neigh- borhood school? A. Yes, sir. {545}; The Court: Was a consequence of that action by the Board transferring Michigan—portions of Michigan’ to Verlin- den, that those students transferred by the change of the bound- ary would be going to a school other than its neighborhood school? The Witness: No, sir. The Court: All right. What was the consequence of it? The Witness: The real consequence was to relieve the over- crowding of Michigan Avenue at the time. That was the rea- son for the transfer. By Mr. Davis: — Q. Mr. Ebersole, did you realize as a member of the Board that the transfer policy existing within the District was being used by white students to leave predominantly black schools and to go to predominantly white schools? A. The policy you are talking about is what? Q. Using the special transfers to leave Main Street School, Michigan Street School, and to go to Verlinden, did you rec- ognize that? A. Yes, I do. A physician’s statement, you are speaking about? Q. Yes. But did you recognize the fact that that was being misused by those children? A. No, sir. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Do you recall receiving a [546] report from the Committee on school needs in 1961? A. No, I don’t remember, but we probably did. Q. Do you recall that in 1961 a report condemned the practice of the misuse of these special transfers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall in 1964 a report of the Human Relations-— a report to the Human Relations Committee that again con- demned this practice? A. I wouldn’t deny it. Q. Do you recail the 1966 Citizens’ Advisory Committee again condemning that practice? A. Yes, sir. Q. Directing your attention to the placement of mobile units at Main Street School, you recall that? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the reason was that that school was overcrowded? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was consideration given at that time in light of the over- crowding, the changing of boundaries? A. No, sir. Q. No studies or anything were made to see that that would work? A. No, I didn’t say that. Studies were made, and the other schools had as many youngsters as they could take care of at that time. T EE eeeoO —" [547] QO. Would that have been true with Verlinden Street School? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you indicate or explain to me why those years be- tween 1962 and ‘65 Verlinden was overcrowded that the School District permitted these transfers in numbers of 25 to 30 of non-resident people into Verlinden, if it was overcrowded? Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I would have to object that this is a misstatement. The figure would reflect the non-residents in Verlinden does not reflect a transfer of 25 to 30 a year or any other figure. Mr. Davis: Your Honor, I will refer to Plaintiff's Exhibit 21, a report to the Human Relations Committee, which does not talk about non-residents but talks about transfers. I refer to Page—I believe it is on 154. The Court: Is this the Human Relations Committee Report? The Witness: That's correct. Mr. Davis: That's correct. The Court: 154? Mr. Davis: Yes, Page 154. The Court: All right. By Mr. Davis: Q. The chart on this Exhibit being page 154, Plaintiff's [548] Exhibit 21, shows, does it not, that there were 25 trans- fers into Verlinden in ‘62-63, and 35 transfers into Verlinden in 63-64, does it not? The Court: I can’t see—do I have the right one? (Discussion was had at the bench between Mr. Davis and the Court out of the Reporter's hearing and off the record.) The Court: All right. — 250 — Q. It reflects in "62-63 25 transferred in, and in °63-64 33 transferred in, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Again then I ask you, do you have an explanation why if Verlinden was overcrowded such a high number of transfers were permitted into that school? A. I don’t recall that I said Verlinden was overcrowded. What I said was that Verlinden has enough students. There is a difference between having enough students and overcrowding, and bringing these folks in did not overcrowd the school, per se, during either of those two years. Q. But there was not enough additional room for any change of boundaries, is that correct? A. That’s right, any significant, change, yes, sir. The Court: If I haven't requested it, I would like, and I think it is important that I do have, [549] a list of every change of boundary, at least from 1948 to the present time, in the School District, including the annexations. All right. Mr. Davis: I would indicate to the Court that one of our interrogatories asked for all school boundaries, and contained in the Answers to Interrogatories are all the school boundary changes that the Board has indicated to the Plaintiffs. The Court: Is this from 1948? Mr. Davis: If I can find my interrogatory, | can—— Mr. Newman: I think actually you requested boundary line changes to certain schools, and we furnished that information. The Court: It is necessary that I have all boundary line changes, particularly within that range of time. Mr. Newman: Well, and I assume it is in order that we pre- pare them? The Court: Yes. re — 251 — Mr. Newman: I would like to state this, your Honor: I don’t believe the pleadings made any issue of boundary lines. The only information that we were requested to furnish on boundary lines are in the areas where the minority schools are located, and we have [550] furnished that. The Court: Mr. Newman, the Court has to have that infor- mation in this case, and I direct the School Board to furnish it to the Court. Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I am not being disrespectful. The Court: Yes, I know you are not, but I just want to make sure that the order is understood. Mr. Newman: All right. Now, your Honor, I have to give you the unfortunate fact that the Board of Education will not be able to provide very complete information, because when boundary line changes are made, sometimes apparently this was done, in all case I would guess it was done, without any record being made as to what the boundary line was prior to the change. All you have is the new boundary line, and in some cases we have not been able to find, particularly, you know, this is true with reference to the information Mr. Davis asked, we did not find the original boundary lines for the school attendance areas about which he inquired. We gleaned from the minutes the changes that were recorded, but in some cases there was no record available or discoverable as to what the boundary lines were before. Now as to what brought this about, I don’t know. i assume there was a period of time when they [551] simply weren't keep- ing records, I don’t know. The Court: Boundary line changes are an ingredient or is an ingredient which is considered as a major factor in cases of this kind. Mr. Newman: Well, again, I just want the record to show that we have some practical problems. We are not trying to — 252 — evade or avoid. Good heavens, we spent probably, I don't know, a hundred hours going through the minutes searching for the information Mr. Davis asked for. The Court: I know it is a heavy burden preparing for and trying these cases, and I am well aware of it. Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I am not complaining. I am just explaining what has happened, and I don’t want anyone to think we didn’t search and didn't look. The Court: I acknowledge that that is what you are doing. Mr. Newman: I guess I am complaining, but I am not being obnoxious. The Court: I recognize both. By Mr. Davis: Q. In that same vain, Mr. Ebersole, well, let me ask you: Was there a time that Main Street School was immediately [552] adjacent to Verlinden? A. You mean the boundary lines? Q. Yes. A. I don’t recall. Q. Do you know what the boundary lines for Main Street School were prior to 1956? A. No, sir. Q. Mr. Ebersole, you have testified about the composition of the Citizens’ Committee in 1966. A. Yes, sir. Q. And you pointed out who a number of those members were. Let me ask you this: Did you have confidence in that Committee? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you think they would do a fine and thorough job? A. Yes, sir. Q. When they recommended an end—when they recom- mended boundary line changes, was there any particular reason why you did not accept that part of their proposal? A. Mr. ee — 253 — Davis, as I recall, I believe our resolution that we just read from a few minutes ago outlined the reason why. Q. All right. That was in 1957. I am now referring to 1966: would the reason have been the same? A. No, I don't recall. [553] Q. Now I don't want to be argumentative at all. A. Neither do I. Q. I understand in ‘57 you couldn't change the boundary lines because of distance? A. Right. Q. But °67 you took an action that would send all of the children from Kalamazoo for a much longer distance, bussing them out; I wonder if you can reconcile those two views? A. I think so. In °57 the issue of bussing hadn't even entered into the picture as far as the Lansing School System was concerned. The only busses we had at that time was the one school bus that we had inherited with the Everett Elementary School. Q. By 1967 you had busses and your philosophy was dif- ferent about——— A. Yes, sir. Q. Transporting them by bus then? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. Then from "67 up until "72 you voted against bussing children, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And can you reconcile those two views, how in "67 it was all right to bus, at least the blacks out, but in ‘72 it was again not all right? [554] A. Perhaps I made a mistake in ‘67. Q. Well, did you take any act to end this one-way bussing after you had found you had made a mistake? A. As an in- dividual? Q. As a Board member. A. No. Q. Do you recall the Board member that served with you in 1971? A. Yes. Q. In your opinion, were they good Board members? A. Yes. — 254 — Q. Again directing your attention to mobile units, Defend- ants’ Exhibit 16 concerning mobile unit locations indicates that in 1972 and °73 mobile units were placed at Verlinden, is that what you recall? A. Yes. Q. Isn't it a fact—was the reason that Verlinden was be- coming overcrowded? A. Yes. Q. Isn't it a fact in "72-73 when Verlinden was becoming overcrowded, that Main Street School was showing a lot of vacancies, was uncrowded? A. Not that I recall, no. Q. I now refer to the Ethnic Count report for 1972, for 1973, the fourth Friday count, I can give you an Exhibit [555] Number on that. Mr. Newman: What Exhibit Number? Mr. Davis: Part of the year 72-73. Okay. That would be Exhibits 63 and 72. Q. And ask you, Mr. Ebersole, if you will indicate the num- ber of students at Main for those two years? A. °72, 283. 73, 232. Q. All right. The enrollment was decreasing, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And it was far under capacity, was it not? A. Yes. Q. Then the question again that I asked you, at the time that you put mobile units at Verlinden because it was over- crowded, was during the same period of time that Main was showing a lot of vacancies? A. Well, Mr. Davis, there is more that goes into it than just spaces for youngsters. Q. I know, but my question to you is, at the time you put mobile units there A. The answer is yes. Q. is yes. there was space available in Main? A. The answer | — 255 — The Court: He said the answer is yes. Mr. Davis: Thank you. Q. Directing your attention to the October 9th, 1975 Board [556] of Education meeting, can you indicate to the Court how you voted on the Administration’s proposed plan? A. You will have to fill me in a little more than that, Mr. Davis. Q. Do you recall the time when Dr. Candoli presented a plan to the Board of Education calling for an addition to Cluster II, plus the additions to Clusters IV and V? A. Oh, yes. Q. Can you indicate how you voted at that time? A. I voted no. Q. Can you indicate to the Court why? A. Yes. I was opposed to going along on the full program as Dr. Candoli outlined it, because of the fact that Clusters IV and V had not been presented to the community or the communities which would be involved in this, and I feel very strongly that they should have the opportunity of discussing and knowing just what is involved in forming these two new Clusters. Q. Would it be your position then that the Board should not take any action in this regard unless the community says it is okay? A. No. Q. Would the attitudes of the community affect your de- cision as to whether or not you supported or didn’t support it? A. No. [557] Q. Then if the attitudes of the community would not make a difference in your decision, why then postpone it until the community tells you what their attitudes are? A. Well, let's reverse that. I didn’t say what the attitudes of the community were. I said so you could have the opportunity of having the community know what is involved in the Cluster Program so that they could be educated into what is involved and how they would enter into the whole picture. — 256 — Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not we should add Clusters IV and V? A. Yes. Q. What is that opinion? A. No. Q. And are there any other reasons for your opinion other than the community has not had an opportunity to know? A. I think I have expressed that, that I think we should have the neighborhood school concept. Q. What would be your view, Mr. Ebersole, as to who should fill this new facility, who should attend it? A. Well, Mr. Davis, since we are under an injunction from the Court not to build the building, I think this is an irrelevant question at this time. The Court: It is relevant at this time. It would assist the Court in making a judgment [558] that it has to make in the case. Q. Do you recall the question? The Court: You were not enjoined from testifying. You were just enjoined from continuing with construction. So there is no injunction by this Court limiting your testimony. The Witness: By the same token, you enjoined us to present a plan to you for the operation of this school. The Court: The Court has to make a ruling before that school operates. The Witness: Right. The Court: And it has to know what your intentions are, what your plans for that school are. The Court is concerned about no plan at all. The Witness: Which we didn’t have. The Court: And the building underway making way. The Witness: Right. i — The Court: With the intervening time between the last session and this Court and the convening of the present session of the Court, the time in which the Court was of the opinion that you would be working on plans, which the Court could evaluate, so your—the question which counsel has asked may be asked, and [559] I request you to answer it. The Witness: All right. I am ready. The Court: Thank you. Q. Do you recall the question? A. Would you want to re- state it again, sir? Q. Certainly. In your mind who would attend the Vivian Riddle School? A. My basic thought is the youngsters in the neighborhood. Q. And would that include the children from the Lincoln and the Kalamazoo Street area? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you believe this with the recognition that if your plan went through or your hopes went through, that this school would be overwhelmingly black? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you supported the site location and the plan for this school with that in mind? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis: I have no further questions. Redirect Examination of Vernon D. Ebersole By Mr. Newman: Q. Mr. Ebersole;-with regard to the matter of bussing black children from Lansing School District, were you present at the meeting when the first bussing program was installed from Main to Walnut? [560] A. I don’t think I was. Q. And with regard to the second program at Lincoln Street, or, Lincoln School, how did you vote on phasing out Lincoln — 258 — and transferring students by bus out of that attendance area? A. I voted yes. Q. You voted what? On Lincoln, I am talking about. A. On Lincoln, no, I voted no. Q. Now in 1969 when the vote was with regard to Kala- mazoo, why did you vote then at that time, in favor of bussing the children out from that attendance area? A. The school was losing their population over a period of time for the reasons | gave, the State Complex, the 1-496 Complex, to the point where it was getting uneconomical to operate it with the number of youngsters that would be attending. The situation worked out at Lincoln apparently had been satisfactory, and this was the best solution for this situation at that time. Q. Now you were asked questions about use of special trans- fers. Was the use of the so-called medical transfer solely for the benefit of whites? A. No, sir. Q. Was it available without restriction to anybody in the School District? A. Yes, sir. [561] Q. Do you know whether or not blacks as well as whites used this program? A. They did. Q. Now are you acquainted with Stuart Dunnings, Jr.? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is he black or white? A. He is black. Q. Is he the attorney for the Lansing School District? A. He is. Q. Do you know whether or not he actually presented medical certificates for the transfer of some of his children? A. He did. Q. And if anyone else presented such a statement from a doctor, regardless of whether the person presenting it was black or white or brown, would you feel it should be given considera- tion? A. Yes, sir. ooo — 259 — Q. Now you were asked apparently spaces becoming avail- able in Main Street for 1972 and '73, and it was—you indicated it appeared to be that there were spaces becoming available. Do . you recall any structural changes made at Main Street that affected the number of class rooms that were there, by either increasing or decreasing them? A. No, I don't. [562] Q. If the number of classrooms had been reduced, then this figure as to the number of pupils that could be accom- modated would also be reduced, would it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. You don’t recall whether that happened? A. No. Q. Mr. Ebersole, I will inquire whether you recall if when Mr. Hubbell and his associates conducted the survey in 1973, if residents in the area of Main, Kalamazoo, Lincoln, and Michigan were asked what they thought—what use they thought should be made of the School that was to be built on the west side of Lansing? A. Yes, I recall. Q. And do you recall what the response of the largest single number was? Mr. Davis: Your Honor, at this point I am going to object. I think the question calls for him to answer questions that more appropriately would be asked of Mr. Hubbell. I point out that his report is in evidence, and it seems as he is asking the witness what Hubbell said. I object strenuously. The Court: Do you have the Hubbell reports? Mr. Newman: Yes, I do, your Honor. The Court: I am talking to the Clerk [563] of the Court. Mr. Newman: Well, your Honor, it is Defendants’ Exhibit 20. The Witness: No, it is the one prior to that. Mr. Newman: No, no. It is the 1973, Defendants’ Exhibit 20. — 260 — The Court: I have the Exhibit, counsel. Mr. Newman: Sir? The Court: I have the Exhibit now. By Mr. Newman: . Q. I invite your attention to question number 12. Will you read the question, please? A. “In about two years a new school will be built on the west side to replace the Michigan Avenue School. Who do you think should go there?” Q. And what was the first choice? A. “Neighborhood area school children.” Q. And does this Exhibit also reflect the average among all of the school areas, as well as there is an average, and then the figures for each individual school area, attendance area? A. Yes. Q. And what do they show? A. The average is 49 percent. Main, 42 percent. Michigan [564] Avenue, 52 percent. Kala- mazoo, 53 percent. Lincoln, 83 percent. Mr. Newman: That is all I have. Mr. Davis: Just one question, your Honor. Recross-Examination of Vernon D. Ebersole By Mr. Davis: Q. You were asked concerning what had happened to the capacity of Main Street School, whether it had been reduced, et cetera. Do you recall that? Mr. Davis: I refer the Court to Plaintiff's Exhibit 36, which is a 1971 Facility Planning Study. Q. And just ask you to indicate to the Court what the capacity was of Main in 1971? A. 330. — 261 — Mr. Davis: All right. Thank you. I have no further ques- tions. Mr. Newman: I have no further questions of Mr. Ebersole. your Honor. The Court: You may stand down. Thank you very much, Mr. Ebersole. (Witness excused.) * * * * * * * EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF RAY HANNULA [320] called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Will you state your name in full? A. Ray Albert Han- nula. * * * * o > > Q. How long have you lived in Lansing? A. All of my life. Q. Are you a married man? A. Yes. Q. Have you had any children? A. Yes. [321] Q. How many? A. Three. Q. And what schools have they attended in Lansing School District? A. I have had a daughter attend Grand River Ave- nue School, an elementary school; Wainright, Dwight Rich, and Harry Hill; a son attended Wainright, Dwight Rich, and is currently in Harry Hill. The daughter is graduated from Harry Hill. — 262 — I have another son who is in special education who has at- tended a variety of schools in the District. * * * * * * * Q. Now are you also connected with Lansing School Dis- trict? A. Yes, I am. Q. In what capacity? A. As a member of the Board of Education. Q. And how long have you been a member of the Board of Education? A. Since July of 1971. Q. And were you elected or appointed? [322] A. Elected. Q. Have you held any office? A. Yes. Q. What office? A. That of Secretary, and I am currently serving as Vice President. Q. Now did a time come when the Board of Education of Lansing School District considered a program to change the racial composition of some of the elementary schools? A. Yes. Q. And when did that take place? A. This was approxi- mately two and a-half to three years ago, as I recall, shortly after I got on the Board. Q. And did a time come when a plan was devised and the Board of Education voted on it, a so-called “Cluster Plan”? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what that was? A. Again, that was approximately two to two and a-half years ago. Q. And were you present at the time the Board voted upon the adoption or the rejection of the Cluster Plan? A. I was not. Q. And where were you when the vote was taken? A. I was attending a convention in New York City, and the [323] meet- ing was a specially called meeting, June 29th. — 263 — Q. In connection with your employment or what? A. Yes, in connection with my employment. Q. And a special meeting was called June 29, 1972? A. Yes. Q. By the Board of Education? A. Yes. Q. Now, had you made your position with regard to the Cluster Plan known to the other members of the Board of Edu- cation? A. Yes. Q. What was your position? A. I was opposed to it. Q. And why were you opposed to it? A. Basically I felt that I represented the voters of the Lansing School District, and it was my opinion that 80 percent of them were opposed to this. I did try to encourage my fellow members to, rather than adopt it immediately, take a year, and if in fact this was the thing, the type of thing we should do, to attempt to convince the public, who I felt was unalterably opposed to it, that this was the way we shouid go, sell the idea. Q. Were you concerned about any phase of the plan or the opcration of the plan as far as transportation of students was concerned? [324] A. Yes. I guess I be'ieve in neighborhood schools. I live in my present address for approximately fourteen years, and the prime reason for moving there was to get closer to an elementary school when my children started attending. | mentioned that the daughter had attended Grand River Avenue School for a short time. I think it was approximately one month. We were situated on the street 918 Maryland, some eleven blocks from that school, and my wife and I didn’t want her to walk. So we did move. We moved across town away from basically the area that both of us had grown up in where our family and friends were, and moved completely across town to a new area just to get close to an elementary school, and we are currently one and a half blocks from Wainwright School. Q. And how long ago was it you moved? A. Oh, it is ap- proximately fourteen years. — 264 — Q. Now will you state whether or not you have any minority neighbors in the area in which you reside?. A. Yes, I do. I have a black man that lives the first house south of me, a black family directly across the street. I would—and it is a guess—I would guess it would be—Churchill Downs area is at least 10 percent minority. — Q. Now, in arriving at the opinion you did about the adop- tion of the Cluster Plan, were you motivated by [325] racial considerations? A. No. Q. Were there any considerations other than what you thought the people of the community's reaction would be, plus your feeling about bussing? A. I suspect there was some con- sideration of cost. It would seem to me that the monies that we were planning to—had proposed to be spent for bussing, lunches, et cetera, might better be spent for additional staff, aides, et cetera, within the existing neighborhood schools. Q. And do you know approximately what the additional cost for the operation of these Clusters? A. I understand it is slightly over $100,000 per year continuing cost for the existing Clusters, $150,000, somewhere in that neighborhood. Q. Now, did a time come when there was a recall election? A. Yes. Q. And was a new Board elected? A. Yes. Q. And did a time come when the Cluster Program resolu- tion was reconsidered by the new Board—or, I will withdraw that. How many new members were elected to the Board? A. Five. Q. And do you recall what the vote was about the adoption [326] of the Cluster Plan to begin with? A. It was five to three. Q. Five in favor and t! .ee against? A. Three against, yes. Q. And after the recall election, were the five that voted in favor of the Plan replaced? A. Yes. — 265 — Q. And did the Board subsequently rescind the Cluster Resolution? A. Yes. Q. How did you vote on that? A. I voted for rescission. Q. And will you state whether or not this was consistent with your position before the resolution was originally adopted? A. It was. Q. Were you racially motivated in the vote you cast? A. I was not. Mr. Newman: You may cross-examine. Cross-Examination of Ray Hannula By Mr. Davis: Q. Mr. Hannula, how long have you been on the Board of Education? A. Approximately four years. Q. Were you on the Board at a time in 1970 when the [327] Citizens’ Advisory Committee made their report to the Board? A. Relative to desegregation of the elementary schools? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And were you aware of the—or, did they make you aware of the analysis and investigation they had done prior to submitting this report? A. Yes. Q. And were you aware they had been stud) '»g this for a period of approximately a year? A. Yes. Q. Were you aware they had all of the census figures, the school enrollment figures, the projection figures at their dis- posal? A. Yes. Q. And they came back, did they not, and made three al- ternative proposals? A. Yes. Q. And each one of these three alternative proposals in- volved much more wide-scale bussing than the one finally adopted, isn’t that correct? A. That's true. — 266 — Q. One of their proposals would have involved all of the elementary schools in the Lansing School District, is [328] that true? A. That's my recollection. Q. Another one would invoive approximately 25 of the ele- mentary schools? A. I think it was approximately half, which would be 25. Q. And instead the Board of Education adopted, did they not, a much less expensive plan? A. That's true. Q. I believe you stated on direct examination that your sug- gestion was that—or, you were telling the other Board members they ought to wait another year, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And what was the purpose of this extra year you wanted to wait? A. Well, we had a number of public hearings on the three plans that were suggested by the ad hoc committee, and we were getting quite a bit of input from the community at those hearings, and we were getting—I am sure individually I was—getting input from friends, foes, et cetera. My impres- sion was that 75 to 80 percent of the community were violently opposed to this plan. Q. And that was your reason for opposing it, was it not, was public pressure? A. Well, I wouldn’t—yes, I guess you could call it that. I didn’t feel it as a pressure. I felt it as a respon- [329] sibility to the voters who elected me. Q. All right. But it was not any flaw or problem you found with the plan? A. I wasn’t sure of the educational benefits that would be derived from the plan, and I was also aware of the pressure from the public for the bussing of the lower elementary students or younger ones. Q. K through 2? A. Yes, and K through 6, if you will. Q. Were you concerned that the Cluster Plan may have an adverse effect upon the achievement of students involved? A. =— No, but I didn’t necessarily believe it would have a positive effect, either. Q. Were you concerned that bussing would have a negative effect on achievement level? A. No. Q. So your main concern then was simply the public didn’t want it? A. That, plus the question in my mind as to the edu- cational benefits of it, and the cost. Q. Did you have any other fears or concerns when you voted to rescind the Cluster Plan that I haven't asked you about? A. No. Q. We have covered them—public opinion, cost, and whether [330] or not there was any benefit to it, would that be a fair statement? A. Yes. Mr. Newman: I think he included bussing. The Court: Pardon? Mr. Newman: I believe that Mr. Hannula said his concern about bussing was another reason. I am sure that was inadvert- ently overlooked. But when a summary is asked, I think every- thing should be included. Mr. Davis: Well, let me——— The Court: Well, Mr. Newman, let’s get things straight now; you have an opportunity to rehabilitate your client, or your witness, on redirect, and instead of—if he omits something, you can furnish the omission without interfering with the cross- examination. . Mr. Newman: Your Honor, I apologize. I intended to state an objection. That would embrace my objection, that he had given four things, not just three. I agree that I didn’t follow the proper procedure. I am sorry. I will observe it the next time and state an objection rather than an observation. The Court: Fine. Thank you. — 268 — By Mr. Davis: Q. Did you have a concern about bussing itself? [331] A. Yes. I think that is the concern that I felt that the public had, basically. a Q. I am talking about your concerns. Did you have a con- cern as « Board member about bussing? A. Yes. Q. And what was this concern? A. The concern was that I feel that people move into an area, and basically one of the prime reasons they move where they are is to locate next to elementary schools, which is why I moved, and I felt that a person who is selecting a home in a particular area to be next to a school ought not be subjected to having his child bussed away from that school that he purposely located next *o. Q. Is that concern that you have equally applicable to black families as to white? A. Yes. Q. And can I ask you where was this concern when your Board bussed blacks from Lincoln up to Kendon? A. Well, in this instance I wasn’t on the Board at the time that was done. I believe that the Lincoln School was demolished, torn down to make room for Oldsmobile’s expansion, and the children were bussed out of that attendance area to an available school. I personally may have chosen a closer school. Q. Well, where was this concern when the Board bussed the [332] blacks from Kalamazoo to eight or ten outlying districts? A. Again the same thing is true. It was a decision reached be- fore I was on the Board. Q. Well, what about the bussing of a certain portion of the Main Street students out? That School remained open, did it not? A. Yes, and that was in effect at the time I was elected to the Board. Q. Well, did you personally make any move to rescind any of these plans? A. No. — 269 — Q. Why? A. Well, at the time 1 came on the Board the whole question of the desegregation of the elementary schools was under consideration. I felt that the policies and practices that were in effect were those that should be kept until we could reach some type of decision regarding these. Q. Well. at the time of the rescission weren't we talking about a plan that was in effect? A. We were talking about the Cluster Plan, not the other portion of the bussing. Q. But in 1973 when you voted for rescission, the bussing for the Cluster Plan was already in operation, was it not? A. That’s true. [333] Q. Just as the bussing in the Main Street attendance area to the outlying districts was in effect? A. I am not sure that under the Cluster Plan students from Main Street bussed other than to Cluster Schools. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Do you know what the effect, or did you know what the effect of the rescission would be when you voted to rescind that plan? A. In my estimation, it would have eliminated the clusters and left the bussing of Kalamazoo Street attendance area children and perhaps Main Street and whatever else was involved back to what it had been before the imposition of the clusters. Q. In other words, and correct me if I am wrong, it would have stopped the bussing of white children, but the bussing of black children would have continued? A. That’s true, I would think. Q. And you knew the effect of that rescission would be to send black children, who were then attending desegregated schools, back to segregated schools? A. No, those that are bussed out of Kalamazoo are going to predominantly majority student schools. Q. Well, talking about the children from Main that under the Cluster Plan were bussed to desegregated schools, you knew — the effect of that rescission would be to send those children back to segregated Main Street School? [334] A. Yes. Q. The same is true of that effect in terms of both black children and Michigan Avenue School? A. Yes. Q. You knew the. rescission would be taking them out of desegregated schools and sending them back to Michigan? A. Yes. Q. I assume the rest of the Board knew of this effect? A. I am sure they did. Q. Were you present at a Board of Education meeting October 9th when the new Cluster Plan was presented? A. I was. Q. And were you informed by the staff or the administration that there were certain schools within a district not involved in the cluster that were becoming segregated? A. Yes. Q. Were you informed that a plan had been devised to eliminate this? A. Yes. Q. And was that plan explained to you? A. It was. Q. Did that explanation contain facts and figures in terms of projected enrollment under the plan? A. Yes, I believe it did. Q. And were you told that as to Cluster Two, the only [335] effective way to desegregate that facility was to add two more schools to it? A. Per this plan, yes. Q. And can you tell the Court after that explanation what your vote was? A. I was opposed to it. Q. Why? A. Because again it was an expansion of the Cluster Plan that was in existence that we are forced to continue by an injunction, and I still feel that the community is opposed to this Cluster bussing. Q. Then is it your position that you will be opposed to any desegregation plan as long as it is your feeling that the com- am BE a munity doesn't want it? A. No. It would depend on what was involved. I can bluesky a number of types of things that perhaps would accomplish desegregation in the community. Quite frankly, I don’t know how we would go about it. I think if there were a way that the School Board would encourage open hous- ing, integrated neighborhoods, I would support it 100 percent. I think this is the natural way for people to live together, and to select the portion of town they wish to live in and the school that their children should attend. Q. And that’s the only sort of proposal that you will go along with, one that encourages open housing, et cetera? [336] A. No, I didn’t say that. I said I could imagine that as one possible solution. Q. Do any other solutions come to mind, other than sug- gesting that the residential patterns be changed? A. Not at this point in time. Q. Well, do you believe changing of school district boundary lines would help? A. Yes. Q. Do you have school district boundary line changes in mind? A. None have been recommended by the Administra- tion, but perhaps that might be another way. Q. Well, do you think if I showed you a school district map you could indicate some boundary lines that may have an effect? A. No, because I am not 100 percent assured of the distribution of the minority-majority people in a particular school attendance area, but perhaps gerrymandering could be done for integration. Q. I see. So while you voted no on the Cluster II, you did not have any alternatives in mind? A. No, I did not. Q. And the proposal was made, was it not. to add Clusters 4 and 5? A. Yes. Q. And you voted no on that? [337] A. Yes. = Q. I assume for the same reason? A. Yes. Q. The public didn't want it? A. Yes. Mr. Davis: No further questions. Mr. Newman: I have no further questions. The Court: Did you ever take into consideration any of the Constitutional obligations placed upon you as a Board member by the Constitution of the State of Michigan? The Witness: Yes. The Court: Did you read that section of the Constitution of the State of Michigan on discrimination? The Witness: No, I don’t think I have. The Court: You have never read them? The Witness: But I am aware of the contents. The Court: So in your calculation of what you do, you didn’t take into consideration the Constitutional provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitutional provisions of the State of Michigan? The Witness: I feel that I have. I feel [338] that this School District has never acted consciously to deprive any body of people their Constitutional rights, their equal rights. I strongly favor integrated schools. I live in an integrated neigh- borhood myself. I think it is good. I think it is good for the children, I think it is good for the adults. I do feel that I was elected to office to represent the public as well as uphold the Constitution of the State of Michigan. I think I have done that. The Court: All right. Mr. Davis: Nothing further. . * . * > > + i a a =— EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [233] NED S. HUBBELL, called as a witness by the defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Mr. Hubbell, will you please state your name? A. Ned S. Hubbell. Q. And where do you live? A. In Port Huron, Michigan, 1004 Hollis Street. [234] Q. What is your age, sir? A. 46. Q. And what is your educational background? A. I have a Bachelor’s Degree from Northwestern University, and a Master's Degree from Wayne State University, and some additional gradu- ate work at some three other universities. Q. And are you engaged in a business or occupation? A. I have my own consulting firm for the past 8 years, a professional firm that specializes largely in educational school-community relations and opinion research. Q. And have you conducted surveys in connection with your work? A. Yes. Particularly an increased number in the last two or three school years. This school year alone, the one just completed, we have conducted opinion polls for nine school district opinion polls in this year. About 25 school districts, I believe, in the last two and a half to three years. Q. Have you conducted any opinion polls for the Lansing School District? A. We conducted initially in the spring an opinion poll [235] conducted on behalf of the Lansing Schools, utilizing voluntary interviewers, and more recently, conducted a specific opinion poll of a part of the Lansing School area, as recently as the first week of July. ao SPO oe Q. Now, what was the request that was made to you rela- tive to the conducting of this survey? A. We were asked if we could systematically poll the opinions of school parents in an area of the School District that comprised four attendance areas, elementary [236] school attendance areas. I believe just two schools were operative in those areas. They were the Main School area, Michigan School area, Kalamazoo and Lincoln School area. [246] We asked them who did they think should attend the new Michigan Avenue School when it was built and completed on the west side. Nearly half of them, 49 percent said that ir should be neighborhood area children. About one-fourth, 29 percent, suggested the new school be an integrated school. Another 16 percent said it should be open to all students. * € * * * * > [255] Q. And by ethnic group, 67 percent of the whites thought it should be a neighborhood area school? A. Yes, sir, that is correct. Q. 49 percent of the blacks thought it should be a neighbor- hood area school? A. That is correct. * * * . * * * Testimony at Trial [185] A. Our firm was retained by the Lansing School Dis- trict in [186] September of 1974 to conduct one part of an evaluation that they were undertaking later that year of the Cluster Plan. The Board instructed us to—as part of that evalu- ation, to conduct an opinion research project designed to seek opinions from those directly affected by the Cluster Plan. [198] The major drawback of the Cluster Plan, according to Lansing elementary teachers and support staff members, is that — it takes children away from their neighborhood schools through busing. * * * * 7 > * [199] About one-fourth of the present and former Cluster par- ents felt the plan had had—has had a negative effect on their children. But as the next transparency shows, the majority of present Cluster parents and nearly half of those who did have children in the Cluster schools last year feel the plan has had no effect on their youngster. * * * * * * > EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [295] JOHN LEWIS, JR., called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Will you please state your name in full? A. John Lewis, Jr. Q. And did you receive a subpoena that required your pres- ence in court today? A. I did. Q. And are you here in response to that subpoena, are you not? A. I am. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Lewis? A. 1520 West Lenawee, Lansing, Michigan. Q. And what is your age? A. 41. Q. Are you a married man? A. I am. Q. And did you have any children? A. Yes. [296] Q. How many? A. Four. = Q. And have they attended the Lansing School System schools? A. They have. Q. And did you attend a college or a university? A. I did. Q. And what was that? A. Michigan State University. Q. Where are you employed, Mr. Lewis? A. Oldsmobile. Q. And what is the nature of your employment? A. I am in the Labor Relations Department. I am a representative. Q. And did your children attend any elementary school in the Lansing School District? The Court: You say—pardon me. You say you are a rep- resentative. Are you a representative [297] of the Oldsmobile people or a representative of the Union? The Witness: I am on the Labor Relations staff at Oldsmobile representing Oldsmobile management. The Court: All right. Thank you. Q. Did your children attend elementary school in Lansing? A. They did. Q. And what school did they attend? A. Main Street. Q. And was there a time when there was a principal at— well, I will withdraw that. For the record, because the Re- porter just takes down words, would you state whether you are black or white? A. Black. Q. And while your children were in elementary school, were you acquainted with any principal at that school? A. Yes, I was. Q. And how many principals did you know there? A. Two Q. And who were they? A. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Keyes. Q. Now have you been a member of any parent-teacher’s as- sociation? A. Yes. an $97 Q. What parent-teachers’ association? [298] A. Main Street PTA and several other PTA units at some of the other schools. Q. And do you know about how long Mr. Hayes served as a principal at Main Street School? A. Not exactly. I would imagine that’s going back quite a ways. I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe eight to ten years, I think. Q. Now did you hold any office in the Main Street Parent- Teachers’ Association? A. I was President of the Main Street PTA. Q. Were you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Stuart A. Nolan? A. Yes. Q. Did he hold any office in the Main Street Parent-Teach- ers’ Association? A. I believe he was either Father Vice—he was the Vice President. Q. Now did a time come in the year 1966 when you and | Mr. Noland on behalf of the Main Street Parent-Teachers’ As- sociation wrote a letter to Dr. Manning concerning J. E. Hayes? A. Yes. Q. And would you state for the record whether Stuart Nolan was black or white? A. He was black. [299] Q. And would you state for the record whether J. E. Hayes was black or white? A. He was white. Q. Now what was the reason you wrote to Doctor—or, | will withdraw that. Do you recall what Mr. Manning’s position was in Lansing School District? A. I believe he was the Super- intendent. | Q. And do you recall the reason for having written to Dr. Manning on behalf of the Main Street Parent-Teachers’ As- sociation? A. I think so. I think that was at a time that Mr. Hayes, we were about to lose our principal, who we thought very highly of, and we did as a PTA send a letter to the Board of an $98 . * Q. Well, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the people were opposed to bussing, were they not, before the Cluster Plan was adopted? A. Yes, sir. e * * . * * Q. And you are also aware that in July of 1973 when the question was put to the citizens in Main, Michigan, Kala- mazoo, and Lincoln attendance areas, the question was put to them, “In about two years a new school will be built on the west side to replace the Michigan Avenue School. Who do you think should go there?” The first choice was “neighborhood area school children,” by, on the average of those four areas, 49 percent; are you aware of that? A. Yes, sir, I heard it here in court. Q. And the next figure was integrated, 29 percent; and the next was open school to all, 16 percent. A. I take your word for the figures. I have never seen that survey. That was a — 296 — survey done. I didn’t know about it until I heard about it here in court. Not this time, but the last time in court. Q. This is the survey, and the question I sead to you appears here, and the response, and the percentage, all, Main, [621] Michigan, Kalamazoo, Lincoln; right? A. Yes, those are the figures you quoted. Q. So this, the people who lived in the black area also longed for a neighborhood school, did they not? A. I am aware that they want a school in their area. Mr. Newman: That is all, thank you. Mr. Davis: Nothing further. EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD L. REMICK Q. Now with regard to the Vivian Riddle School—by the way, how did Vivian Riddle School get the name “Vivian Riddle”? A. It was named after a teacher who has—who is deceased at that particular time, a teacher at Everett High School, an outstanding teacher. Also the family was quite a well-known family in the west side area; for that fact, the City of Lansing, the Riddle family. The name “Vivian Riddle,” of course, is after the teacher. Q. And Vivian Riddle was a black teacher? A. Yes. Q. Now in connection with the development of the Vivian Riddle School, has the City of Lansing undertaken, com- mitted itself to a development in that area? A. Yes, directly south of the property, which we currently own, which is Wash- tenaw Street, there is what is known as “Kingsley Place Develop- ment” by the City. That extends from Vivian Riddle Court on z — po the east side to [86] Kalamazoo on the south, Huron on the west and Washtenaw on the north. Our particular area, as we are developing it and acquiring property, would be the Washtenaw, Huron, Allegan, and Vivian Riddle Court. Now the site development plans would call for contiguous units, so there would be an overlap. We could use part of it as an elementary area, part of the Kingsley play area, part of the park area, and they could also use part of the elementary site area for recreational activities. Q. And will the school, the Lansing School Board acquire ad- ditional land in that area for the school? A. We are in the process of acquiring, well, what is known or was known as Phase I and Phase II; Phase I, the area between Washtenaw and Chelsea, and Phase II is that area between Chelsea and Allegan. Q. And what is the contemplated use of that space? A. Basically on the west portion, about the west third of the site between Washtenaw and Chelsea will be the building. The area to the east of that, the balance of that particular area will be used as playground area. To the north of the building between Chelsea and Allegan is to be parking area for staff and for visitors, whatever. To the east of that particular area then again [87] would be part of the play area. Q. Now you indicated that originally several years ago when this program was under consideration, that Model Cities was involved, is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. And what do you mean by “Model Cities”? A. Model Cities, currently known as Community Development Act, but it was the—well, primarily a funded group to the City by the Federal Government under HUD, and also partly under HEW, HUD being Housing and Urban Development Act, HEW being the Health, Education, and Welfare. There were monies al- located to the City of Lansing, and these were programmed for various uses, socioeconomic uses by the City. — 298 — Target areas, which would cover part of the east side, the River Island, part of the River Island area, and an area down near Harley Franks’ Elementary School—Hill School were in- cluded in the Model Cities areas, and funds were appropriated by the policy board of the Model Cities, and then approved by Council and Mayor. Various projects were developed. Of those, one was the Kingsley Place Development. Q. Now in connection with the initiation of this program and its progress in developing over the years, have citizens been involved? [88] A. Very definitely, yes. Q. And citizens from the West side area? A. Yes. Q. And specifically black citizens? A. Yes. Q. Have discussions and meetings taken place with the people who will be affected by this development? A. Yes, sir, there has been. Q. And have you found that the black citizens who were involved were interested in having a school in that area? A. Yes, they were. Q. And the City project that will be there with the park and the community building? A. They were also interested in that. In fact, there were specific advisory committees set un for Kingsley Place, and that was one of the requirements of the grant, that there be citizen involvement in the immediate area, and also the-—well, the total Model Cities areas as designated. a — 299 — EXCERPTS FROM TESTIMONY OF [59] CLARENCE H. ROSA, called as a witness by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: Direct Examination By Mr. Newman: Q. Will you please state your name in full? A. Clarence H. Rosa. * * * * > sd . Q. And in the years past, what has your employment been? A. Till five years ago I was Deputy Director for the State Build- ing Division. Q. For the State of Michigan, of course? A. Yes. Q. And at the present time you are a widower, are you not? A. Lam. Q. You do have three children who are practically all grown, and two of them are married, are they not? A. That’s correct. [60] Q. And did they all attend the Lansing schools? A. They did. Q. Now, have you been a member of the Board of Education of Lansing School District? A. I have. Q. Do you recall when you first became a member? A. 1957. Q. And how long did you serve? A. Until I was recalled in 1972. Q. And during that period of some fifteen or sixteen years, did you hold any offices? A. I was President of the Board, I think on three different occasions. Q. And did you hold other offices, too, from time to time? A. I may have been Vice President. I am not sure. — 300 — Q. Now how long have you ben a resident of the City of Lansing, Michigan? A. I am a native of Lansing. Q. Did you attend school in Lansing? A. I did. Q. What schools did -you attend? A. Moores Park, West Junior, Walter French, Lansing High School, Lansing Central High School. Q. Was it Lansing High School before it was Lansing Cen- tral? A. There was only one high school in Lansing when I entered, [61] and it was then called “Lansing High School.” Q. Now during the period of time that you served on the School Board, did you have questions concerning problems of construction, problems concerning overcrowding, problems con- cerning annexations? A. We did. Q. And while you were a member of the School Board, did the School Board endeavor to involve citizens who would be affected by decisions of the Board of Education participate in discussion groups or furnishing information or becoming in- volved before the Board decisions were made? A. We did. * . * a - * * Q. Were you aware of the area known as the River Island Area while you were in school? A. Yes. Q. And that has been described generally as an area, the west boundary of which is Clare Street connecting the Grand River as it makes a U-turn through the City of [62] Lansing? A. Yes. Q. Over the years that you have lived in Lansing, have you noticed the population makeup, the ethnic makeup change in that area? A. In the West—in the Island Area? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And with regard to that area, are you able to describe some of the uses that are made of [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2726%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.