Appendix — Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver

Supreme Court brief1973

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Somplaint for Permanent Injunction and Declara-

Judgment

ibits annexed to Complaint:

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4—Resolution 1524

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 5—Resolution 1531

lot on for Preliminary Injunction

Uswer of Defendants Amesse, Noel and Voorhees,

ring on Preliminary Injunction July 16-22, 1969

aa TzsTimMony

* (Mawores or HAN ON PLM ART Insuncrion

Juuy 16-22, 1969)

Maintif's’ Witnesses:

Bachel B. Noel

xs Direct

Bedireet

A. Edgar Benton

Paul O. Klite—

Direct

Voir Dire

Cross

Redirect

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—

Direct

George E. Bardwell—

Direct

151a, 191

Voir Dire

185a

193a

— Cross

Robert D. Gilberts—

Direct

227a

Cross

252a

Redirect

Defendants’ Witnesses:

Gilbert Cruter—

Direct

Voir Dire

PAGE

Richard Koeppe—

Bree 419a, 4378

den Dire’ =

orcs : 4383

mir ry Inj une tio n 8 Hs ) _

on of Court of Appealé dated August 5, 1969 . — 455a

ental Findings, Conclusions and Temporary

ee eder ee 4583

Opinion of Court of Appeals dated August 27, 1969 4593

463a

ion by 8 J. on Application for Vacating

Stay 3 — 464

inion of Court of Appeals dated September 15,

aorandum Opinion and Order 475a

Volume 2

(Amvrzs or Taian on Mearns, oF: 82

Fesrvary 2-20, 1970)

Minutes of Trial on Merits, February 2-20, 1970

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:

Paul Klite—

PAGE

Palicia Lewis—

Direct 684a

Cross 693a

Redirect 696

Recross 696a

Mildred Biddick—

Direct 697a

George E. Bardwell—’

Direct 700a, 703a, 7074, 716a, 727a,

757a, 769a, 790a, 798a

Voir Dire 702a, 707a, 715a, 726a,

755a, 767a, 786a, 791a

Cross 800a

Redirect 818a

George L. Brown, Jr.—

5 Direct 857

Direct 1469

Cross 1493a

fendants’ Witnesses:

Robert L. Hedley—

Direct 820a, 834a

Voir Dire 833a

Lois Heath Johnson— .

Direct 893a

Cross 922

Redirect 955

Recross 9586

1033a

1051a

1076a

1083a

1100a

1101a

1101a, 11185, 11293

1112, 11288

1131

1146a

1150a

1189a

1210a

1214

1239

12522

1253

PAGE

Charles Armstrong—

Direct 1254a

Cross 1289

Kenneth Oberholtzer—

Direct 1299a

Cross 1393a

Redirect 1463a

Volume 4 *

_ (Minutes or Hann on RLT, May 11-14,°9970)

Hearing on Relief, May 11-19, 1970 2 . 15160

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses: 5 iv ha

James Coleman— 525

Direct —1516a, 1526a

Voir Dire — 1520

Cross 1552a

Neal Sullivan—

| Direct 1562a

Cross 1588a

Redirect 1598a

george Bardwell— 2

ine

a Redirect 683a

William Smith— —

Direct 1688

Decision Re Plan or Remedy by District Coat.

RF N

Final Decree and Judgment : 1970a

re ees of does | 5a ad x... 19788

Decision by Court ot Appeals en Motion for Stay

sete. 1981a

near is

PAGE

ision by U. S. Supreme Court on Stay, ete . 1984

1986a

1988a

Inpex ro Exurerrs Appears iN EX RTT Votume

(Filed June 19, 1969)

In THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For tae Disrzior or CoLorapo

Civil Action No. C-1499

Wann Keys, individually and on behalf of Cuan

Kurns, a minor; Cuzistrve A. Corr, individually and

on behalf of Kars M. Cotiey and Marx A. Wuuias,

minors; Irma J. Jenninos, individually and on behalf

of Ruonpa O. Jenninos, a minor; Roszrra R. Wans,

individually and on behalf of Grecory L. Warn, a minor;

Epwarp J. Sranxs, In., individually and on behalf of

Denise Mien Sranks, a minor; Josernine Pry,

individually and on behalf of Cantos A. Perez, Sema

R. Perez and Terry J. Perez, minors; Maxie N.

Broxen, individually and on behalf of Divan L. Broxzs,

a minor; Evcensz R. Were, individually and on behalf

of Saran S. Weiner, a minor,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Sonoot Disrnior Numser Ons, Denver, Cotorapo; Tx

Boarp or Epucation, School, Disraior Numer. Ov,

Denver, Cotorapo; WLAN C. Bana, individually and

as President, Board of Education, School Distriet Num-

ber One, Denver, Colorado; Srzpuen J. Kxidnr, In,

individually and as Vice President, Board of Educa-

tion, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado;

James ©. Perrmi, Frank K. Sovurnworrn, Jonx H.

, James D. Voonnexs, In, and Racuxzt B. Nozt,

Mvidually and as members, Board of Education,

hool District Number One, Denver, Colorado; Ronnxr

Guserts, individually and as Superintendent of

schools, School District Number One, Denver, Colorado,

| 5 ee Defendants.

1 JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from main-

requiring, continuing, encouraging, and facilitat-

ration of children and faculty, on the basis of race,

her, from unequal allocation of resources, services,

es, equipment, and plant on the basis of race. Plain-

also request specific injunctive relief pertaining to

u resolutions passed and enacted by defendant Board

ueation, especially Resolutions No. 1520, 1524, and

Copies of said Resolutions are attached to this com-

Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment under

28, Section 2201 for the purpose of determining ques-

of actual controversy between the parties, to wit:

he question of whether the rules, regulations, reso-

: policies, directives, customs, practices, and usages

the defendants and each of them in denying, on account

nee, color, or ethnicity, to the minor Negro and Hispano

ffs and other Negro and Hispand children residing

‘school district, educational opportunities, advan-

and facilities afforded and available to Anglo chil-

public school age similarly situated in the school

are unconstitutional and void; as depriving said

i a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

ne 2

plaintiffs of equal protection of the law in contravention

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States.

2. The question of whether the rules, regulations, reso-

lutions, policies, directives, customs, practices, and usages

of the defendants and each of them in denying to the plain.

tiffs who attend schools substantially segregated on the

basis of race or ethnicity and other children residing in the

school district the advantages, educational benefits, intel.

lectual stimulation and practical preparation for a multi.

racial world afforded by providing an integrated education

to other children of public school age similarly situated in

the school district are unconstitutional and void as depriv.

ing said plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws in con

travention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-

tion of the United States.

O. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1343(3) and (4). This is a civil

action authorized by law and arising under Title 42,

Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Con-

stitution of the United States.

D. All individual defendants reside within the District

of Colorado; defendant School District is a body corporate

organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Colorado, CRS 4123-30-1 (1964). Venue is therefore

proper in this District under Title 28 U.S.C. Section

1391 (b) and (e).

| Wilfred Keyes, Christine A. Colley, Irma

ings, Roberta R. Wade, Edward J. Starks, Jr.,

ne Perez, Maxine N. Becker, and Eugene R.

are adults, citizens of the United States and the

of Colorado, and residents within School District

One, Denver, Colorado.

Plaintiff children who sue by their parents and next

nds, are minor children, citizens of the United States

the State of Colorado, and residents within School

st Number One, Denver, Colorado.

| Plaintiff Christi Keyes, a minor, sues by her parent

next friend, Wilfred Keyes; she will attend Hallett

atary School (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7%

no) beginning in September, 1969. They are Negro.

Plaintiff Kris M. Colley, a minor, sues by his parent

next friend, Christine A. Colley, and is a resident

u attendance area detached from the attendance area

High School by provision of Resolution No. 1520

ed hereinafter. If action is taken to implement the

n of said resolution, he will attend East High School

Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) in September,

They are Negro.

Plaintiff Mark A. Williams, a minor, sues by his

ian and next friend, Christine A. Colley, and is a

ent of an attendance area detached from the atten-

> area of Smiley Junior High School by Resolutions

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Deolaratory Judgment

No. 1520 and 1524 described hereinafter. If action is taken

to implement the recision of said resolutions, he will attend

Smiley Junior High School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro,

3.7% Hispano) in September, 1969. They are Negro.

d. Plaintiff Rhonda O. Jennings, a minor, sues by her

parent and next friend, Irma J. Jennings, and is a resident

of an attendance area detached from the attendance area

of Cole Junior High School by Resolution No. 1524. If

the recision of said resolution is implemented, she will

attend Cole Junior High School (3.8% Anglo, 72.5%

Negro, 22.2% Hispano) beginning in September, 1969.

They are Negro.

e. Plaintiff Gregory L. Wade, a minor, sues by his

parent and next friend, Roberta R. Wade, and is a resident

of an attendance area detached from Barrett Elementary

School by Resolution No. 1531 described hereinafter. ff

action is taken to implement the recision of said resolv-

tion, he will attend Barrett Elementary School (0.3%

Anglo, 96.9% Negro, 1.9%, Hispano) in September, 1969.

They are Negro.

f. Plaintiff Denise Michelle Starks, a minor, sues by

her parent and next friend, Edward J. Starks, Jr., and

is a resident of an attendance area detached from Philips

Blementary School by Resolution No. 1531. If action is

taken to implement the recision of said resolution she will

attend Philips Elementary School (55.3% Anglo, 36.6%

Negro, 5.2% Hispano) in September, 1969. They are

Negro. ; y “

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

bh. Plaintiff Sheila R. Perez, a minor, sues by her parent

‘nd next friend, Josephine ‘Perez, and will attend Baker

Junior High School (15.4% Anglo, 10.0% Negro, 73.1%

‘Hisps mo) beginning in September, 1969. They are Hispano.

. Plaintiff Terry J. Perez, a minor, sues by his parent

and next friend, Josephine Perez, and is a student at

Greenlee Elementary School (19.1% Anglo, 25.0% Negro,

45% Hispano). They are Hispano,

intiff Dinah L. Becker, a minor, sues by her

mt and next friend, Maxine N. Becker, and is a student

Merrill Junior High School (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% Negro,

> Hispano). They are Anglo.

. Plaintiff Sarah S. Weiner, a minor, sues by her

t and next friend, Eugene R. Weiner. From January

gh June, 1969, she was a participant in a voluntary

ment plan and was a student at Hallett Elementary

(10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% Hispano). She

sen informed by defendants that there may or may

be space available at said school in September, 1969,

i therefore does not know what school she can attend.

. ˙ $0: "Ailér wn beatt aaa

f of others pursuant to Rule 28(b) (1) (B), 23(b) (2)

(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

(a) The class which the plaintiffs represent is 80

numerous that joinder of all members thereof is

- impractical; said class consists of :

(i) All those school children, who by virtue of

the actions of the Board complained of in

the First Cause of Action will be attending

segregated or substantially segregated schools

and who will be forced to receive an unequal

educational opportunity beginning in Sep

tember, 1969;

(ii) All those school children, who by virtue of

the actions or omissions of the Board com-

plained of in the Second Cause of Action will

be and have been attending segregated schools

se or substantially segregated schools, and who

will be and have been receiving an unequal

educational opportunity.

(b) There are questions of fact and law common to

all members of the class represented by plaintiffs,

namely:

(i) Whether in fact the members of said class,

by virtue of the actions of the Board com-

plained of in the First Cause of Action wil

be attending segregated or substantially

segregated schools, and will be forced to

receive an unequal educational opportunity,

and, further, whether in law such actions of

the Board are unconstitutional and : void;

(ii) Whether in fact the members of said class,

by virtue of the actions or omissions of the

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

ae: Board complained of in the Second Cause of

aes Action will be and have been attending

ane segregated or substantially segregated schools

wie and will be and have been receiving an un-

Se: equal educational opportunity, and further,

ks whether in law such actions and omissions

bey of the Board are unconstitutional and void.

BG) The claims of the individual minor plaintiffs are

~~” ‘representative and typical of the class, in that

550 each such plaintiff reflects and illustrates either

hee or both of the types of deprivation complained

3 of in the First and Second Cause of Action.

(ldd) Said individual minor plaintiffs will fairly and

d dequately represent and protect the interests of

btuhe class, in that said plaintiffs and the class share

dommon objectives and purposes in presenting the

issues framed herein, and in seeking a declaration

s of their constitutional rights.

(e) The prosecution of separate actions by individual

members of the class would as a practical matter

de dispositive of the interests of other members

not parties to the adjudications, and would sub-

_ stantially impair their ability to protect their

“The parties opposing the class, i. e., the defendants

herein have acted and have also refused to act

on grounds generally applicable to the class, as

more fully appears herein in the First and Second

Cause of Action, and the final injunctive relief

and declaratory relief sought herein will apply

to the class as a whole.

10a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

(g) The questions of law or fact common to the mem-

bers of the class predominate over any questions

‘affeoting or relating only to individual members

of the class, and proceeding by way of this class

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

‘With all powers delegated to a board of education or to a

school distri by law, and is required to perform all duties

nired by law; CRS 6 123-30.3 (1964).

Defendant William C. Berge is President of the said

td of Education; defendant Stephen J. Knight, Jr., is

@ President of said Board of Education; defendants

| Defendant Robert PD. Gilberts is Superintendent of

ols of School District Number One, Denver, Colorado

einatter Superintendent“). He is the executive offi.

pot the Board of Education and is charged with the

ponsibilit ol maintaining, managing, and governing the

§ schools in the School District, in accordance with

Tules, regulations, resolutions, policies, directives, cus-

ts Practices, and usages established by defendant Board

III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Gawenat Facrvan Arzzcations

0 tion of pupil memberships in such schools. Schools

12a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

affected by said Resolution and racial composition of such

Schools in September, 1968, were: East High School

(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) ; South High

School (87.3% Anglo, 0.2% Negro, 12.2% Hispano);

George Washington High School (96.0% Anglo, 2.9%

Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Hill Junior High School (96.1%

Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano); Smiley Junior High

School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% Hispano).

B. Plaintiff Kris M. Colley, the son of plaintiff Christine

A. Colley, is a resident of an attendance area which was

detached. from the attendance area of East High School

(53.7% Anglo, 39.6% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) and assigned

to George Washington High School (96.0% Anglo, 2.9%

Negro, 0.8% Hispano) under Resolution No, 1520; if action

is taken to implement the recision of said Resolution, he

will attend East High School in September, 1969, and the

racial composition of both schools will remain substan-

tially as quoted. If Resolution 1520 is implemented the

racial composition of these schools will be: East High

School 68.0% Anglo, 25.0% Negro, 7.0% Hispano, George

Washington High School 87.0% Anglo, 12.0% Negro, 1.0%

Hispano. :

C. Defendant Board of Education on or about March

20, 1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent,

passed and enacted Resolution No. 1524, making additional

changes in the attendance areas of certain secondary schools

in the School District in order to further implement the

aforesaid Resolution No. 1520. Schools: affected by said

Resolution and facial composition of such schools in Sep

tember, 1968, were: Smiley Junior High School (23.6%

Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7% Hispano) ; Merrill Junior High

13a

e Joc ee Indunation-and

Declaratory Judgment

P . (98.2% Anglo, 0.3% Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Grant

ae ee ee

spano); Kunsmiller Junior High School (90.3% Anglo,

bd gro, 8.8% Hispano); Hill. Junior High School

% Anglo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano); Thomas Jef-

n Junior-Senior High School (99.2% Anglo, 0.3%

0, 0.2% Hispano); Hamilfon Junior High School (no

re es available at this time); Cole Junior High School

% Anglo, 72.5% Negro, 22.2% Hispano); Byers Junior

h School (92.5% Anglo, 0.6% Negro, 5.7% Hispano);

| Junior High School (75.0% Anglo, 0.3% Negro,

% Hispano); Kepner Junior High School (70.7%

zi fo, 1.7% Negro, 27.5% Hispano).

Mark A. Williams, the ward of plaintiff

: A. Colley, is a resident of an attendance area

idl = detached from the attendance area of Smiley

High School (23.6% Anglo, 71.6% Negro, 3.7%

) and assigned to Hill Junior High School (96.1%

flo, 1.5% Negro, 1.3% Hispano) under Resolution No.

4; if action is taken to implement the recision of said

ion, he will attend Smiley Junior High School in

der, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools

hain. substantially as quoted. If Resolutions No.

1524 are implemented the racial composition of

bls will be: Smiley Junior High School 72.0%.

lo anon Negro, 8.0%Hispano; Hill Junior High

ol 8: ee 17.0% Negro, 2.0% Hispano.

2 r Rhonda 0. ne if slain:

eee eee ee rt eee

detached from the attendance area of Cole Junior

bol (3.8% Anglo, 72.5% Negro, 22.2% Hispano)

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

and assigned to Kepner Junior High School (70.7% Anglo,

1.7% Negro, 27.5% Hispano) under Resolution No. 1524,

if action is taken to implement the recision of said Resolu-

tion, she will attend Cole Junior High School beginning in

will remain substantially as quoted: If Resolution No,

1524 is implemented the racial composition of these schools

will be: Kepner Junior High School 69.0%. Anglo, 4.0%

Negro, 27.0% Hispano, and Cole Junior High School pe

deere, ee e nber g meray

F. PPP

Maxine N. Becker, is a resident of an attendance area as-

signed to Merrill Junior High School, (98.2% Anglo, 0.3%

ccc ß

6. Defendant Board of Education on or about April l

1969, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, passed

and enacted Resolution No. 1531 making changes in the

attendance areas of certain elementary schools in the School

tion that such changes were designed to stabilize the racial

and ethnic composition of pupil mem ips in these

schools and further the integration of the Denver Public

Schools and improve educational opportunity in such

for removal of mobile classroom units from Stedman Ele-

‘mentary School, and provided transportation for pupils

previously therein to Denison, Force and Schenck Elemen-

tary Schools. The schools for which attendance areas were

changed and their racial composition as of September,

10968, were: Montclair Elementary School (92.7% Anglo,

», 3.2% Hispano); Philips Elementary School

Anglo, 36.6% Negro, 5.2% Hispano); Ashley Ele-

chool (85.8% Anglo, 6.4% Negro, 5.8% Hispano) ;

ee School (91.7% Anglo, 4.9% Negro,

jpano); Park Hill Elementary School (71.0%

27% Negro, 3.9% Hispano) ; Steck Elementary

% Anglo, 10.7% Negro, 1.0% Hispano) ; Steele

Fy School (85.0% Anglo, 6.6% Negro, 7.6%

; Whiteman Nlementary School (88.1% Anglo,

ro, 2.6% Hispano); Moore Elementary School

2 8.3% Negro, 8.9% Hispano); Montclair An-

entary School (98.1% Anglo, 1.9% Negro, 0.0%

Barrett Elementary School (0.3% Anglo, 96.9%

% Hispano) ; Carson Elementary School (90.3%

Jo Negro, 0.8% Hispano); Asbury Elementary

88.9% Anglo, 5.7% Negro, 3.9% Hispano).

aintifts Christi Keyes and Mark Keyes, the chil-

‘plaintiff Wilfred Keyes, are residents of an un-

attendance area assigned to the Hallett Elemen-

ol (10.1% Anglo, 84.4% Negro, 3.7% Hispano)

Attend said school in September, 1969.

tiff Gregory L. Wade, the son of Roberta R

—— of an attendance area detached from

o) and assigned to Carson Elementary School

lo, 6.7% Negro, 0.8% Hispano) under Resolu-

zit action is taken to ent the recision

ation, he will attend Elementary School

7 1969, and the racial composition of both

remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution

implemented the racial composition of these

163 :

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

schools will be: Barrett Elementary School, 73.0% Anglo,

24.0% Negro, 3.0% Hispano, Carson Elementary School,

780% Anglo, 20.0% Negro, 2.0% Hispano, 8

J. Plaintiff Denise Michelle Starks, the daughter of 11

ward J. Starks, Jr., is a resident of an attendance area of

Philips Eleme: School (55.3%. Anglo, 36.6% Negro,

5.2% Hispano) which was altered to become a part of the

attendance area for Palmer Elementary School (91.7%

Anglo, 4.9% Negro, 1.7% Hispano) under Resolution No,

1531; if action is taken to implement the recision of said

Resolution, she will attend Philips Elementary School in

September, 1969, and the racial composition of both schools

will remain substantially as quoted. If Resolution No.

1531 is implemented the racial composition of these schools

will be: Philips Elementary School, 70.0% Anglo, 22.0%

Negro, 8.0% Hi Palmer Elementary School 81.0%

Anglo, 15.0% Negro, 4.0% Hispano. .

K. To implement the aforesaid Resolutions No. 1520,

1524, and 1531 defendant Board of Education has required

defendant Superintendent to initiate a purchase of twenty-

seven (27) school buses. In addition the defendant Super

intendent substantially completed steps designed to imple

ment such Resolutions in September, 1969, including initis

tion of in-service training for over eight hundred (80)

of course ‘availability, pupil assignments, space assigu-

ments, transportation utilization and other actions.

i two new members were elected to seats on the

defendant Board of Education, these being defendaas

mes C amet aii eae ae Defeated in

du PPP

tio ee apa stg The victorious eandi-

efendan Perrill and Southworth, had campaigned

ans such as “Against Forced Busing!” “For Neigh-

5 Schools” nt geb elated, e. vote for ro.

Having coated ita two: nemly. elected amembere, de-

Board of Education on June 9, 1969, passed by a

-é three motions rescinding each of the three

pee I, 186 and AO

defendants are permitted to implement the mo-

rescind Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, as by

ting substitute resolutions now or hereafter

the Board, such implementation will or may en-

ication or cancellation of said presently-existing

order for twenty-seven school buses; modification

ion and destruction of all work already accom-

with 2 to prior implementation of the now-

nilarl; ..

. er decide to oe to plaints

18a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

quo is maintained; i. e., unless the contracts, schedules and

assignments already prepared to implement the now-re

seinded Resolutions are retained. If the status quo is not

maintained, the minor plaintiffs and their classes will be

d and forced to receive an unequal educational

opportunity during the school year beginning September,

1969, as is more fully detailed herein in paragraphs A

O. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 are not rein

stated and implemented, and if the motions for recision

and any substitute resolutions or motions are not declared

unconstitutional and void as depriving said minor plain.

tiffs and those similarly situated of equal protection of

the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment

of the Constitution of the United States, said plaintiffs and

those similarly situated will be irreparably harmed and

injured because they will be segregated on the basis of race

and ethnicity, and forced to attend schools which will be

segregated, and which would not be segregated if Reso-

lutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 were reinstated and imple

mented, resulting in their being forced to receive an un-

beginning September, 1969, and for subsequent years

thereafter, as is more fully stated in paragraphs A through

P herein. : :

P. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, adequate or com

plete remedy to redress the wrongs and illegal acts com-

plained of herein, other than this suit for injuncfiye relief.

Any other remedy to which plaintiffs and those similarly

situated could be entitled would be atttended by such

uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial relief,

＋

involve a multiplicity of suits, cause further ir-

dle injury, and occasion damage, vexation and in-

ien not only to plaintiffs, and those similarly situ-

Fist Oounr

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

allegation contained in the General Factual Allega-

this First Cause of Action,

‘The recision of Resolutions No. 1520, 1594 ana 1581

we the effect of encouraging private acts of racial

nation and is therefore a derogation of the minor

ai ifs rights to equal protection of the laws under the

ath Amendment of the Constitution of the United

Snoop Cour

intifts hereby incorporate by reference each and

tion Gontained in the General Factual Allega-

of this First Cause of Action.

. In rescinding Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531

4 er dant Board members were motivated by racial and

egro and Hispano plaintiffs, and the classes which

sent, view the actions of said defendants in

g these Resolutions as a significant defeat of their

to obtain equal educational opportunity and the

‘Protection of the laws for all Negro and Hispano .

ints in the School District.

20a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Tump Count

A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each oa

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allegs.

tions of this First Cause of Action.

B, Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524

and 1531, the pupil population of the schools affected

thereby were substantially segregated on the basis of race

or ethnicity.

O. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 had been

implemented the effect would have been to substantially

relieve the actual segregation of the pupil populations of

the schools affected thereby.

D. In rescinding these resolutions the defendant Board

members voting in favor of recision, and, therefore, the

defendant Board itself, were motivated by a desire to

maintain, require, and facilitate the racial and ethnic

separation which existed in the schools affected prior to

the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, and

which would have been significantly alleviated by the

Resolutions rescinded.

Fourrsa Count

A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allega-

tions of this First Cause of Action. eee

af *

B. By the recision of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and

1531 defendants Board and Board members knowingly

21a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

children whom it had previously designated

give an integrated education to schools which will

result of the Board’s action be substantially segre-

and thus resegregated such children on the basis

and ethnic origin.

very allegation contained in the General Factual Allega-

tions of this First Cause of Action.

Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524

1531, the pupil populations of the schools affected

„ and those schools with predominantly Negro or

sano populations were providing unequal educational

Opportunity due to the fact that such schools were (on the

Werage for all Denver schools) assigned less-experienced

faculty, had higher drop-out rates, were assigned and

Moeated a disproportionately large number of Negro or

nano faculty, had a disproportionately large number

bile units, and had pupil memberships derived from

lly lower economic status.

Implementation of the aforesaid Resolutions No.

), 1524 and 1531 would have resulted in substantial

Wiation of the racial and ethnic segregation in such

2 -

The benefits which would have accrued from integra-

‘ander Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 would have

22a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

' Declaratory Judgment

tional opportunity as set forth in paragraph B above, and

the recision of those resolutions therefore operates to deny

minor plaintiffs an educational opportunity equal to that

accorded students in schools the pupil population of which

are not predominantly _— or Hispano.

Summ Cour

A. e hereby mee dernde ley::veterenee cach sal

every allegation contained in the General Factual Allegs-

tions of this First Cause of Action.

B. Prior to the passage of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524

and 1531 the pupil populations of the schools affected

hopes arene, eee eee ae dae af rosy

ene

“©. If Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 bad ben

implemented the effect would have been to substantially

relieve the actual segregation of the pupil populations

of the schools thereby affected.

D. FFT ˙ phtnig mopar

existing in the affected schools prior to the passage of

Resolutions 1520, 1524 and 1531, and by assigning plaintiffs

and the class they represent to those segregated schools

to which they would have gone had Resolutions No. 1520,

1524 and 1531 never been passed, defendants have acted

to deny plaintiffs an equal educational opportunity by

implementing and effectuating a policy the effect of which

is to confine plaintiffs to schools which because of the

pie : Complaint: for Permanent Tujusction and

bes. Declaratory Judgment

on will be actually segregated on the basis of race

on age

“PRAYER von ms CAUSE OF ACTION

1 . plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and

ches similarly situated, pray as follows:

1. That defendants, and each and every of defendant

- an School District’s officers, agents, servants, em-

plwäoyees and each of them, and all other persons

in active concert or participation with them be,

(a) from in any way interfering with, modifying,

cancelling or rescinding the purchase order

for, said twenty-seven school buses;

(b) from destroying, changing or otherwise modi-

fying, in any manner whatsoever, or relocating

all those documents, contracts, schedules, or

other writings and memoranda relating or

' ‘pertaining to the implementation of Resolu-

tions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531.

5 (le) from taking any action or making any com-

_. munication to faculty, staff, parents or students

-. during the pendency of this action or before

permanent orders are igsued by this Court

which would make it impossible or substan-

tially more difficult, to proceed with the

implementation of Resolutions No. 1520, 1524

24a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

and 1531 at the start of the school year in

September, 1969, with the exception that de-

- fendants shall not otherwise during such time

be prevented from simultaneously preparing

for the implementation of alternate or addi-

tional plans concerning the matters described

herein as they so desire.

2. That. those motions passed by defendant Board

rescinding Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531,

and resolutions, policies, directives, plans and

actions passed, enacted or implemented by defen-

dants or any of them attempting to further the

purposes of said rescinding motions or to prevent

the full and complete implementation of Resolu-

tions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 be declared null and

void and of no force and effect whatsoever as a

denial of equal protection of the laws guaranteed

by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States.

3. That defendants be required to implement fully

and completely the provisions, plans and actions

outlined in Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531

beginning in September, 1969, and further that

defendants be forever enjoined from acting to

nullify, modify, delay, or deny to plaintiffs or

others similarly situated the equal educational

opportunity guaranteed to them by the Fourteenth

inane to the Constitution of * United

4 U aksidide b § 2201, ad-

judge and decree that:

25a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction ond

Declaratory Judgment

(a) The actions of defendant Board in rescinding

Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, have

denied to the minor plaintiffs who are Negro

or Hispano and other persons similarly situ-

ated, educational opportunities, advantages

and facilities equal to those afforded and

available to Anglo children in schools un-

affected by such recision, and that said actions

are unconstitutional and void, as depriving

said plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws

in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment

to the Constitution of the United States;

dc) The actions of-defendant Board in rescinding

Resolutions No/ 1520, 1524 and 1531, have

if i Plaintiffs who are Anglo,

vantages, educational benefits, intellectual

stimulation and practical preparation for a

. multiracial world afforded and available to

_ those Anglo children attending racially bal-

anced and integrated schools within the school

District, and that such actions are unconstitu-

tional and void, as depriving said plaintiffs of

equal protection of the laws in contravention

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitu-

tion of the United States.

1 recover their costs, and for such other

her relief as may to the Court appear proper.

26a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

IV. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

every allegation of the First Cause of Action herein.

B. By the following described acts, among others, defen

dants and/or their predecessors have over the years and

are at present deliberately and purposefully attempting to

create, foster and maintain racial and ethnic segregation

(1) With full knowledge of the existence of racially

and ethnically segregated residential patterns, and

with full knowledge that the superimposition

thereupon of a so-called “neighborhood school”

policy would result in significant racial and ethni

“segregation in the School District reflective of said

segregated residential patterns, said defendants

adopted and continue to maintain such a neighbor

hood school policy with the intent, purpose and

effect of creating, fostering and maintaining 18.

(2) Over a period of years and on repeated occasions :

said defendants have created, altered and enforced

certain school attendance area boundaries with the

purpose, intent and effect of creating, fostering

and maintaining racial and ethnic segregation with

in the School District. 9

(8) With the purpose, intent and effect of creating,

“Anglo children optional transfer outside of estab-

eee een eren bree vage

8 aid defendants’ existing published policies and

Fesolutions, with no apparent. purpose other than

that of encouraging’ promoting and continuing the

Nee eee

: segregation of the Anglo students from Negro

and/or Hispano students.

Wit | the purpose, intent and effect of aboiting,

_ fosteri: and maintaining racial and ethnic segre-

: .

ee transition to Are * pro-

portions of Negro and/or Hispano pupil popula-

tions, said defendants have created optional atten-

es eee actions of ead fendi have ected

ol District a significant segregation of pupils by

anicity, as evidenced by the following facts:

‘ie.

REVI

Vass

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

(1) In September, 1968, of the 63,385 Anglo students

in the public schools in the School District, 37,539,

or 69%, were in 48'schools the pupil population of

wich were over 8576 Anglo.

(2) In September, 1968, of the 13,689 Negro students

in the public schools in the School District, 8.45,

or 62%, were in 15 schools the pupil populations

ol which were over 85% Negro and/or Hispano,

(3) In September, 1968, of the 18,611 Hispano students

in the public schools in the School District, 9,300

Hispanos, or 50.2%, were in 35 schools the pupil

: populations of which were over 50% Negro and/or

Hispano.

Szoonp Court

A. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in their First Cause of Action

and subparagraphs ©(1),C(2), and (3) of the First Count

of this Second Cause of Action in so far as those subpar

graphs allege the existence in the School District of actual

segregation on the basis of race and ethnicity.

iy SSS a ees

fendants or their predecessors have allocated to those

schools in the School District whose populations are pre

dominantly Negro and/or Hispano resources substantially

eee e eee, eee e e.

mee

([ 1) eee eee e eee N

by Vind pemenneety tee ek eens

the equal protection of the laws by providing them

with physical plants, equipment, materials, sup-

8 plies and curricula inferior to that provided to

schools with predominantly Anglo student pupil

Defendants and/or their predecessors have allo-

cated and assigned a. disproportionately large num-

ber of less-experienced faculty to those schools in

the School District with predominantly Negro or

Hispano pupil populations, while at the same time

locating and assigning a disproportionately large

number of more-experienced faculty to schools

with predominantly Anglo pupil populations.

providing those schools having predominantly

and Hispano student populations with resources

to those allocated to predominantly Anglo schools,

nts and/or their predecessors have in the past and

present denying students attending those schools, in-

ig plaintiff Sarah S. Weiner and those similarly situ-

m educational opportunity unequal to that provided

t schools in the School District. en

Tam Counr

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

Wry allegation contained in their First Cause of Action,

far as they may be construed to allege an intent

of defendants and/or their predecessors to seg-

School District’s pupil population on the basis

| ty

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

B. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each and

every allegation contained in subparagraphs C(1), C(2) and

G(3) of the First Count of this Second Cause of Action, in

so far as those subparagraphs allege the existence in the

Pe. ie oe r

and et i

; 8 2

8 ‘Detenaaite ae their 8 have adopted

and ‘continue ‘to maintain a “neighborhood school” policy

‘ich effects | the assignment of students to schools accord

A geog rap ‘limitation, and results in the racial and

segregatiol e els oh a mma

at BLS ROPES MOT EDT Bg a :

b. Ey the erestion and ‘ninintenance of a achoo! systen

ag ted on the basis of race and ethnicity, defendants

edeces ors have and will continue to deny a

al opportunity to those students assigned to

‘are predominantly Negro and/or Hispano,

qual protection of the laws to such students

fs and other members of the classes which

Fovatsa Counr

ce = Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference each and

ee is

| eee originated ud

defendants. continue to administer throughout the School

Distsichvarions ee pupil eility groups e

to hereinafter as the “track systems”.

ling to ability to learn and then assigned either

BRAD Boots 7 ee! Py 2 a ee

effect of the application and administration of

ted, an educational opportunity equal to that

glo students of comparable ability and qualifica-

‘FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

82a.

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

time for implementation of such program for the

beginning of the school year commencing on ot

about September 1, 1970, a comprehensive plan

for the School District as a whole, and for each

school therein where such condition exists, whieh

will effectively: g

(i) Remove the segregation and separation of

school children by race and ethnicity within

and among such schools;

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school ain

regardless of race or ethnicity, and regardless

of the school which such child attends, an

equal educational opportunity;

.. ee ee

nently enjoined and restrained :

(i) From any further creation, alteration or

enforcement of any boundaries for any school

attendance area that is intended to or does

in fact discriminate on the basis of race or

ethnicity as between school children within

the District. 3

(ii) From any further creation or enforcement

of optional areas or zones or permissive pol-

jeies Which are intended to or do in fact dis

criminate on the basis of race or ethnicity as

between school children within the District as

to the right of optional transfer” autside of

established school attendance areds;

; ae (ai) From any further utilization or adoption of

policies regarding the assignment of ma

33a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

or staff which are intended to or do in fact

-| assign faculty and staff to schools on the

basis of race or ethnicity, thereby furthering

and solidifying the racial and ethnic char-

acter of such schools.

adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants

in purposefully and knowingly creating and main-

_ taining the segregation and separation by race

and ethnicity of the school children within the

District are unconstitutional and void, as depriv-

’ “ing plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, of

-» equal protection of the laws in contravention of

the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States.

ader the Second Count of this Second Cause of

(a) That defendants and each of them be permanently

“enjoined and restrained from directly or indi-

rectly continuing, maintaining, requiring, pro-

moting or encouraging through their rules, regu-

~ lations, resolutions, policies, directives, customs,

practices and usages the unequal allocation of

resourees which is intended to or does in fact

‘discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity as

between school children within the District.

That defendants be required to submit to this

Court, within a time which is both reasonable

and certain, and which would allow sufficient time

34a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

for implementation.of such plan by the beginning

of the school year commencing in September,

1970, a comprehensive plan for the School Distriet

as a whole, and for each school therein where

such conditions exist, which will effectively:

(i) Remove any existing disparity in the re

sources allocated to such schools; and

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child,

regardless of race or ethnicity, and regard.

less of the school which such child attends,

an equal opportunity to attend schools which

from the standpoint of facilities, faculty and

staff, are in fact equal or as nearly so as is

practical and feasible under the circum-

stances.

(o) That defendants and each of them be permanently

enjoined and restrained:

(i) From (adopting or continuing any policy

which is intended to or in fact does result

in an unequal allocation of such resources

as physical plant equipment, materials, sup

schools on the basis of race or ethnicity, or

which discriminates on the basis of race or

ethnicity as between school children within

the District.

(ii) From any further policy regarding the assign

ment of faculty or staff which is intended

to or does in fact assign less-experienced or

35a

_ Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

Declaratory Judgment

* Nese-quelified faculty or staff to schools which

2 5 tween schools within the District with the effect

of allocating inferior resources to those schools

which are predominately Negro and/or Hispano

2 a:

in their racial or ethnic composition, are uncon-

stitutional and void as depriving plaintiffs and

those persons similarly situated of equal protec-

e of the Four.

teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States.

) That defendants, and each of them, be perma-

nently enjoined and restrained from directly or

b) That defendants be required to submit to this

burt within a time which is both reasonable

and certain, and which would allow sufficient time

for implementation of such program for the begin-

36a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

' Declaratory Judgment

ning of the school year commencing on or abont

September 1, 1970, a comprehensive plan for the

School District as a whole, and for each school

therein where such condition exists, which vil

effectively : b

(i) Remove the segregation and separation of

school children by race and ethnicity within

and among such schools;

(ii) Afford and ensure to every school child

regardless of race or ethnicity, and regardless

of the school which such child attends, an

equal educational opportunity ;

(e) That defendants, and each of them, be permanently

enjoined and restrained from any further creation,

alteration or enforcement of any boundaries for

any schoo] attendance area that is intended to or

does in fact discriminate on the basis of race or

ethnicity as between school children within the

(d) That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

adjudge and decree that the actions of defendants

which resulted in the actual segregation and sep

aration by race and ethnicity of the school children

within the District are unconstitutional and void,

as depriving said plaintiffs, and those similarly

situated, of equal protection of the laws in contr

vention of the Fourteenth Amendment N. the Con

stitution of the United States. a

4. In the alternative, under the Third Count of this

Second Cause of Action, that defendants be required!

37a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction ond

Declaratory Judgment

o this Court, within a time which is both reasonable

ain, and which would allow sufficient time for im-

ion by the beginning of the school year commenc-

eptember, 1970, a comprehensive plan for the School

as a whole, and for each school therein where such

mn exists, which will effectively :

Mitigate, to the greatest extent possible and feasi-

dle under the circumstances, the segregation and

_ separation of school children by race and ethnicity

within and among said schools;

(5 Minimize, to the greatest extent possible and feasi-

dle under the circumstances, the adverse effects

upon equal educational opportunity caused by the

- Segregation which remains.

Jnder the Fourth Count of this Second Cause of

1) That defendants, and each of them, be permanently

_ enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly

continuing, maintaining or applying the existing

track system or any other ability grouping, test or

_ device which is either intended to or does in fact

" discriminate between pupils on the basis of race

or ethnicity or which is either intended to or does

in fact accord Negro and Hispano students an edu-

ational opportunity unequal to that accorded

Anglo students of comparable abilities and qualifi-

cations. <i

That the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201

creating, applying and administering the exist-

38a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

_ Declaratory Judgment

ing “track systems” which both in fact discrimi.

nates against Negro and Hispano students and

denies said students an educational opportunity

equal to that accorded Anglo students of compar.

able abilities and qualifications are unconstitutional

and void, as depriving plaintiffs, and those simi-

larly situated, of equal protection of the laws in

contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United States.

B. FC eh Wik Gch othe

and further relief as may to the Court appear proper.

Banwzs & Jensen

pet By /s/ Cn S. Banyzs

Craig S. Barnes

2430 South University Blvd,

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel.: 744-6455

/s/ Gorpos G. Grenvrze

Gordon G. Greiner

500 Equitable Building, .

Denver, Colorado 80202

Tel.: 292-9200

Jack GREENBERG,

James M. Naszarr, III,

Cowzap K. Harper, .

10 Columbus Circle*

New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ee,

40a 0

Complaint. for: Permanent Injunction ond

- Declaratory Judgment

Of Counsel:

Susan G. Barnes, Esq.,

7000 West 14th Avenue,

Denver, Colorado 80215

Robert T. Connery, Esq.,

500 Equitable Building,

Denver, Colorado 80202

Harold A. Haddon, Esq.,

American National Bank Building,

Denver, Colorado 80202

William H. Lewis, Esq.,

1839 York Street

Denver, Colorado 80206

Robert Bruce Miller, Esq.,

3216 Arapahoe Avenue,

Boulder, Colorado 80302

Gail E. Oppenneer, Esq.,

Western Federal Savings Building,

Denver, Colorado 80202

James W. Schroeder, Esq.,

1700 Broadway,

Denver, Colorado 80202

Lawrence W. Treece, Esq.,

500 Equitable Building, 12

Denver, Colorado 80202

4la

_ Complaint for Permanent Injunction and

het RG Declaratory Judgment

sR. Wms, being duly sworn, deposes and says

one of the plaintiffs in the within action; that he

d the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents

; that the same is true to his own knowledge, except

atters therein stated to be alleged on information and

and that as to those, he believes them to be true.

/s/ Evanre R. Wenvrze

bse: ibed and sworn to before me this 19th day of June,

Say Manaarert P. Apperson

Notary Public

My commission expires:

May 22, 1972

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3

by the Board of Education

on January 30, 1969

Wauenzas, pursuant to the Resolution of this Board of

Education passed on May 16, 1968, and numbered 1490,

in response to the subsequent specific direction of this

Board of Education, and in accordance with Article VIII,

Section 2 of the By Laws of this Board, the Superintendent

of this School’ District has proposed certain changes in

the boundaries of the attendance areas of certain secondary

schools of this School District, which changes are one of

the steps désigned to improve educational opportunity

in the public schools of this District by revising and there

after stabilizing the racial and ethnic composition of pupil

memberships in such schools;

Wenns, this Board of Education did receive said

proposals of the Superintendent for study and action and

did order that the citizens of this School District be given

an opportunity to express their views on said proposals

at a public hearing; and 8

Wauennas, this Board of Education, having heard the

views of the citizens of this School District on the Pre

posed changes in attendance areas and boundaries ; having

considered traffic patterns, distances, housing patterns,

building capacities, optimum pupil memberships for

43a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

rent policies of the Board of Education regarding

bvision of transportation for pupils; and having

ise informed itself on the questions presented by

i proposals, Fines that, because of the housing

in the City and County of Denver, East High

id Smiley Junior High School contain growing

s of pupils of racial and ethnic minorities; that a

on of such numbers is desirable as one of the steps

rove educational opportunity in such schools; and

e in the attendance areas as proposed by

J dent are consistent with the foregoing and

nafte F set forth herein, will reasonably accomplish

reduction and theréafter stabilize the racial and

Composition of pupil memberships in these schools;

ee are in the public interest.

e by the Bont of Rduce-

School District No. 1 in the City and County of

and State of Colorado that, effective as of the

2 school in September of 1969, the boundaries

te areas of the following sscondary schools

1 e ca part of the Sours Hox Somoo, attendance

ae the: ihteresetiom of thie Union Pacific

44a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

West on Hast 32nd Avenue to Fillmore Street

North of Fillmore Street to Bast 40th Avenue, West

on Bast 40th Avenue to Clayton Street, and North

on Clayton Street to the point of beginning. .

2. The following described area shall be detached from

the Sourn Hien Scxoor attendance area and shall

become a part of the East Hen School, attendance

ares.

Beginning at the intersection of Logan Street and

the centerline of Cherry Creek, thence: South-

easterly along the centerline of Cherry Creek to

Alameda Avenue, West along Alameda Avenue to

South Logan Street, and North on Logan Street t

the point of beginning.

3. The following described area shall be detached from

the Gronen Wasnincron Hicn Sooo. attendance

“area and shall become a part of the Sours Hin

Sono, attendance area.

ee Beginning at the intersection of South Colorado

Boulevard and East Arizona Avenue, thence: East

on Arizona Avenue to South Dahlia Street, South

„ North.

West along the City Limits to Colorado and

Southern Railroad tracks, W. y ‘along the Col-

orado and Southern Railroad tracks to South

Colorado Boulevard, and North on South Colorado

4 eee TN Ow NTS

: ad

45a 3

Hahibit Annexed to Complaint

become a part of the Gronan Wasmorom

Soxoon attendance area. |

aud Ivanhoe Street, thence: East on East Colfax

Avenue to Jasmine Street, South on Jasmine Street

East 6th Avenue, West on East 6th Avenue to

Jolorado Boulevard, South on Colorado Boulevard

o Hast Alameda Avenue, West on Hast Alameda

nue to the centerline of Cherry Creek, North-

erly along the centerline of Cherry Creek to

Street, North on Steele Street to Last 7th

ae, Hast on East 7th Avenue to Colorado

vard, North on Colorado Boulevard to East

venue, Hast on Hast str Avenue to Grape

st on East 14th Avenue to Holly Street, North

if.

46a

Exhibit Amnexed to Complaint

on Holly Street to East Colfax Avenue, and East

on East Colfax Avenue to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from

the Hn Junior Hien School. attendance area and

shall become a part of the Smuzy Junior His

at the intersection of East Colfax Avenue

and Kearney Street, thence: East on Hast Colfax

Avenue to Yosemite Street, South on Yosemite

Street and Yosemite Street extended to East Ist

Avenue extended, West on Bast Ist Avenue ex

tended and East Ist Avenue to the west boundary

“the United States Air Force Reservation, North

‘on the west boundary of the United States Air

Force Reservation to the north boundary of the

United States Air Force Reservation, Hast on the

north boundary of the United States Air Fores

Reservation to Quebec Street, North on Quebee

Street to Hast 6th Avenue, West on Hast 6th Avenue

to Kearney Street, and North on Kearney Street

deo the point of beginning.

‘The area known as Montbello which was annexed to

se the City and County of Denver by Ordinance No.

202, Series of 1965, of the Ordinances of the City

and County of Denver and State of Colorado, shal

remain in the East Hien Sonoon subdistrict and in

the Sunar Junior Hien SohoOO. subdistrict.

ey ghee references to city sted

47a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

_ #2 18 FURTHER RESOLVED that, consistent with the fore-

“goin the Superintendent is hereby directed to make the

lowing recommendations by March 10, 1969, for con-

tior and action by this Board at its regular March

„To recommend further changes in the boundaries

Smiley Junior High School attendance area which

detach therefrom attendance areas sufficient in size

de approximately 850 pupils who would otherwise

Smiley Junior High School and designate such

led areas as attendance areas for other junior high

| within this School District, all effective with the

ing of school in September, 1969.

To recommend whether or not each area so detached

the Smiley Junior High School attendance area shall

continue as part of its present senior high school atten-

dime area or be designated as part of the attendance

another senior high school within this School

T0 make such other recommendations as he shall

Necessary or desirable in order to carry out the

of this resolution.

48a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

ee ee

mim Ann.

1. ms ronrern mmsotvap that those pupils entering thi

senior year of high school in September of 1969, and who

reside in the senior high school attendance areas changed

by this resolution shall have the option of attending the

senior high school of the attendance area in which they

continue to reside or the senior high school which they

attended at the close of the 1968-1969 school year, which

option shall be exercised in accordance with procedures

prescribed by the Superintendent of this School District,

3 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4

_ Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

(Resolution No. 1524)

Approved by the Board of

| Education March 20, 1969

this Board of Education by its Resolution

1520 and passed on January 30, 1969, directed

erintendent of this School District to make certain

ndations for consideration and action by this

nas, in accordance with said Resolution 1520 and

VIII, Section 2, of the By Laws of this Board, the

Superintendent has recommended changes in the boundaries

the attendance areas of Certain of the secondary schools

| School District; and

was, this Board of Education has considered the

endations of the Superintendent, finds them in ac-

th the purposes and intent of said Resolution No.

20, and finds that such changes are in the public interest;

Now Tumnevons, Ir Is RuSOL vnn by the Board of Educa-

m of School District No. 1 in the City and County of Den-

nd State of Colorado that the boundaries of the at-

o areas of the following junior high schools in this

school District be, and they are hereby, changed as herein-

ter specifically provided; that on and after. the opening

if school in September of 1969 all 7th, 8th and 9th grade

om time to time residing in such changed attendance

e hereby assigned to the junior high school of such

attendance areas as follows:

following described area shall be detached from

Junior Hien School. attendance area and as here-

provided shall become a part of MunnnI. Junior

50a

Exhibit Annezed to Complaint

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pasify

Railroad tracks and Clayton Street, thence: Easterly

along the Railroad tracks to Dahlia Street, South u

Dahlia Street to Hast 35th Avenue, West on East 350

Avenue to Cherry Street; South on Cherry Street b

East 30th Avenue, West on East 30th Avenue u

Colorado Boulevard, North on Colorado Boulevard u

East 32nd Avenue, West on East 32nd Avenue to Fil.

more Street, North on Fillmore Street to East 4h

Avenue, West on East 40th Avenue to Clayton Street

and North on Clayton Street to the point of beginning

2. The following described area shall be detached fron

Smitzy Junion Hien School, attendance area and as her

inabove provided shall become a part of Grant Juma

Han School., attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of the Union Pacific Rail

road tracks and Dahlia Street, thence: Easterly along

the Railroad tracks to Forest Street, South on Forest

Street to Thrill Place, West on Thrill Place to Dahlia

Street, and North on Dahlia Street to the point of

beginning.

3. The following described area shall be detached fron

Smuzy Juror Hicu School attendance area and as bert

inabove provided shall become a part of Byers Juxion Hun

Scuoon attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 35th Avenue ani

Cherry Street, thence: East on East 35th Avenue

Dahlia Street, South on Dahlia Street to Thrill Place,

East on Thrill Place to Forest Street, South pn Forest

Street to East 28th Avenue, West on 28th Avenue t

Dexter Street, North on Dexter Street to East 00

5la

Exhibit A unered to Complaint

nue West on East 30th Ave to Cherry Street,

North on Cherry Street to the point of beginning ing.

following described area shall be detached from

non Hig Scxoou attendance area and as here-

wided shall become a part of KuvsAnJ n Juwion

ing at the intersection of the Union Pacific Rail-

acks and Forest Street, thence: Southeasterly

the railroad tracks to Ivanhoe Street

h on Ivanhoe Street extended and Ivanhoe Street

st 29th Avenue, West on East 29th Avenue to

Street, and North on Forest Street to the point

following described area shall be detached from

#vustor Hien Scuoor attendance area and as here-

ve provided shall become a part of Hux Junior Hion

leginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 70

ranhoe Street extended, thence: East along Inter-

Hig y 70 to Locust Street extended, South on

t Street extended and Locust Street to East 29th

e, West on East 29th Avenue to Ivanhoe Street,

orth on Ivanhoe Street and Ivanhoe Street ex-

ded to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from

providec shall become a part of Hammon Junior

joxoot for 7th and 8th grade pupils and Tomas

* Juxron-SRNI0 Hion Scxoor for 9th grade pupils

wein from time to time.

52a

Exhibit Annered to Complaint

Beginning at the intersection of Interstate Highway 7)

and Locust Street extended, thence: Easterly aloy

Interstate Highway 70 to Syracuse Street extendel

South along Syracuse Street extended and Syracmse

Street to East 26th Avenue, West along East 26th Ave

nue to Locust Street, and North on Locust Street ani

Locust Street extended to the point of beginning.

7. The following described area shall be detached fron

Cote Junior Hon School, attendance area and shall be

come a part of Su Junior Hie School attendance area

Beginning at the intersection of Hast 54th Avenue and

the Burlington Railroad tracks, thence: East on Hast

54th Avenue to Colorado Boulevard, South on Colorad

Boulevard to Vasquez Boulevard, Southwest on Vas

quez Boulevard to Hast 46th Avenue, West on Last

46th Avenue to the Burlington Railroad tracks, and

Northeast along the Burlington Railroad tracks to th

point of beginning.

8. The following described area shall be detached from

Hut Juxion Hie SoHo. attendance area and shall become

a part of the attendance areas of Huron JuxiOR Hinz

Soxnoon and Tuomas Jerrerson J union-Sentor HIER SH

effective as of the opening of school in September of 196,

and thereafter all 7th and 8th grade pupils from time t

time residing therein shall attend Hammton Junior Hus

School.: all 9th grade pupils from time to time residing

therein shall attend Tuomas Jerrzezrson Junion-Senioz Hus

Beginning at the intersection of East Kentucky Avenu

and the centerline of Cherry Creek, thencd: Easterly @

along East Kentucky Avenue and East Kentucky Ave

53a „

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

ext d to the east side of South Dayton Street,

or on South Dayton Streot to Hast Alameda Avenue,

sasterly on East Alameda Avenue to South

a Street, South on South Havana Street to the

ighline Canal, Southeasterly along the Highline

to South Fulton Street, South along South Ful-

at to the boundary line of the City and County

aver as it now exists, Hast along said boundary

South Geneva Street, North along South Geneva

to the said boundary line of the City and County

aver, East along said boundary line to South

a Street, South on South Havana Street to East

sippi Avenue, West on East Mississippi Avenue

including the Cunningham School Site) to the

r Road, Westerly along the said boundary line of

and County of Denver to South Quebec Street,

th on South Quebec Street to South Quebec Way,

; on South Quebec Way to East Louisiana

ane, West on East Louisiana Avenue to South

sc Street, South on South Quebec Street to East

ida Avenue, West on East Florida Avenue to the

ne of Cherry Creek, and Northwest along the

line of Cherry Creek to the point of beginning.

. Juston Hic School, attendance area and shall

de part of the attendance areas of Hammton Junior

zoo. and Tuomas Jerrerson Junion-Sznion Hicu

tive ae of the opening of school in September

daft .

54a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Begining atthe interscotion of East Florida A

and South Monaco Boulevard, thence: East a

Florida Avenue to South Quebec Street, South on

Queboe Street along the Gity Limits to Hast Yale 5

nue, West on Hast Tale Avenue to South Kean

Street, North on South Kearney Street to tho o en

line of the Highline Canal, Northwesterly a 5

centerline of the Highline Canal to the intersection,

East Diff Avenue and South Ivanhoe Street e: tent

North along South Ivanhoe Street extended and 2

hoe Street to East Evans Avenue, East along I

Evans Avenue to South Kearney Street extended

North along South Kearney Street extended ax

FPV

Jewell Avenue to South Leyden Street, North ale

South Leyden Street to Hast Mexico Avene

along East Mexico Avenue to South Monaco Bow

and North along South Monaco Boulevard to the ps

of beginning. is

Ir Is Funraer Resonvep that, the attendance area

Hamutow Joon Hien Scxoox for all 7th and 8th gra

pupils shall be the attendance area of THomas Jr

Jumion-Sznton Han Sonor, as of September 1968, 4

those p e N en me pra. Sectio

Numbered 6,8, and 9.

his i dees e Met “thay e rea. 0

THomas Jerrenson Juntor-Sextor Hiox Soxoor for all f

grade pupils shall consist of the attendance area | 7

THomas Jurrzxson Junror-Srenton Hrn School. as 0

e 2906, and those eee 1

foregoing Sections Numbered 6, 8, and 9. 1

56a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

Ir Is Ponta Resouvzn that, on and after the opening

of school in September 1969 the boundaries of the atte

dance areas for the following junior high schools in this

School District be, and they are hereby, changed as follows:

A. The following described area shall be detached fron

Cote Jux Hin Soxnoor attendance area and shall becom

a part of Brzzs Juxion Hicx School attendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 35th Avenue ani

York Street, thence: South on York Street to East dri

Avenue, West on East 33rd Avenue to the alley between

High Street and Williams Street, North along the alley

between High Street and Williams Street to East 35th

Avenue, and Hast along Hast 35th Avenue to the point

of beginning.

B. The following described area shall be detached fron

Corn Jux Han School attendance area and shall be

come a part of Kuns Ann Junior Han School, attendane

area.

Beginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and

York Street, thence: Hast along Hast 34th Avenue to

Elizabeth Street, South on Elizabeth Street to Hast

28th Avenue, East on East 28th Avenue to Steele

Street, South on Steele Street to Hast 26th Avenne,

West on Hast 26th Avenue to York Street, and North

on York Street to the point of beginning.

©. The following described area shall be detached from

Corn Junion Hien Soho, attendance area and shall be

come a part of Rune, Jusion Han Sonoor gttendane

area. i

ee e en Pillumore Bictet te Tnst Bind

East on East 32nd Avenue to Steele Street,

Steele Street to Hast 31st Avenue, West on

Avenue to Elizabeth Street, and North on

at the intersection of East 31st Avenue and

33 East on East 31st Avenue to

PTT

Plaintiffe’ Exhibit §

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

(Resolution No. 1531)

~ Wuenrzas, pursuant to the Resolution of this Board of

Education passed on May 16, 1969, and numbered 1490, n

response to the subsequent specific direction of this Board

of Education, and in accordance with Article VIII, Section

2 of the By Laws of this Board, the Superintendent of this

School District has made a proposal for stabilization of

memberships of elementary schools in Northeast Denver

and for further integration of the Denver Public Schools

which proposal suggests, among other things, certam

changes in the boundaries of the attendance areas of cer-

tain elementary schools of this School District as one of

the steps designed to improve educational opportunity in

the public schools of this District;

Wuenzas, this Board of Education did receive said pro

posal of the Superintendent for study and action and did

order that the citizens of this School District be given n

opportunity to express their views on said proposal at pub-

lic hearings set for that purpose; and

Wuenzss, this Board of Education, having heard the

views of the citizens of this School District on the said pro

posal of the Superintendent; having considered racial and

ethnic composition of pupil memberships in the elementary

schools of this District, traffic patterns, distances, housing

patterns, school building capacities, optimum pupil mem-

berships for the schools concerned, pupil achievement data,

potential quality of the instructional program, the need for

providing transportation to pupils and the cost thereof;

availability of time and staff to develop programs, com

municate with parents and children, and to orient the per

sonnel involved; and having otherwise informed itself on

- Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

stions presented by the said proposal, Fixps that,

se of the housing patterns in the City and County of

r, certain elementary schools in Northeast Denver

growing numbers of pupils of racial and ethnic

; that a reduction of such numbers is desirable

the steps to improve educational opportunity in

Is; and that the proposal of the Superintendent

ent with the foregoing and, as hereinafter set

reasonably accomplish such reduction and there-

ybilize the racial and ethnic composition of pupil

in these schools and further the integration

er Public Schools; and that the adoption of the

sal is in the, public interest;

EREFOR (it Biases by’ tlie’ Roki of Witasa:

b School District No. 1 in the City and County of

nd State of Colorado that the Superintendent is

lrected to develop plans in accordance with the concept of

mentary School Complex as generally outlined in

eport heretofore received by this Board of Education

enti’ — acapnetg and to initiate

Exhibit Aunered to Complaint

Complex 1 Complex 2

Park Hill Cowell

Philips Eagleton

Steck Edison

Teller f Fairview

Whiteman | Newlon

Perry

Ir Is Funruer Resonven that, effective as of the opening

of school in September 1969, the boundaries of the atte

dance areas of the following elementary schools in this

School District be, and they are hereby, changed as follows:

The following — aren shall be detached fron

the Monr cLam Exemenrany Scxoon area and shall becom

E ScHoon area:

Beginning at the intersection of Kast 16th Avenue ani

Kearney Street, thence; Bast along Hast 16th Avene

to Monaco Parkway, North on Monaco Parkway u

Batavia Place, Hast on Batavia Place to Oneida Street,

South on Oneida Street to Hast Colfax Avenue, West

on Bast Colfax Avenue to Kearney Street, and North

en aay eue tothe ‘point of beginning.

‘The following described area shall be detached: fron

the Punirs Ela TAN Scuoon area and shall becomes

part of the Asp Examentany Scxoot, area:

Beginning at the intersection of East 29th Avene

and Oneida Street, thence; East on Hast 29th Avenue

to the alley between Olive and Pontiac Streets, South

along the alley between Olive and Pontigo Streets to

ast 26th Avenue, West along East 26th* Avenue to

| Oneida Street, and North along Oneida Street to b.

point of beginning.

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

eee menue respi avr ede reteer deen e

at the intersection of East 26th ‘Avenue

eee ere gate ee eee ee

West on East 23rd Avenue to

CC wieidl’catat ane,

we, PPP

0 . i hotbap eieniel

gi Buacmrsiny Sener ares and shall become 8

0 ‘at the intersection of Bast 26th Avenne and

Boulevard, — East on Hast ie Av-

64a

Exhibit Anneced to Complaint

The following described area shall be detached from the

Pan ELAuNTART ScHoon attendance area and shall he

come a part of the Panis HAI rAAT School atten

Beginning at the intersection of East Louisiana Aven

and South Oneida Street, thence; East on East Lo

isiana Avenue to South Quebec Street, South on South

Quebec Street to East Florida Avenue, West on Kast

Florida Avenue to South Oneida Street, and North en

South Oneida Street to the point of beginning.

The following described area shall be detached from the

Warreman, Moone, Mowrotam, axp Mowrouarm Awwex Ep

MN TAE ScHoors attendance areas and shall become a part

of the Bazzerr Exemenrany Sonoon attendance area.

All of Lowry Air Force Base, east of Quebec Street

within the limits of the City and County of Denver.

The following described area shall be detached from the

Banserr Exuemenrary School. attendance area and shal

become a part of the Monrotam Exementany Soxoon at

tendance area.

Beginning at the intersection of Bast 32nd Avene

and Steele Street, thence; East along Hast 32nd A.

enue to Jackson Street, South on Jackson Street to

East 3ist Avenue, West on East 31st Avenue to Gar-

field Street, South on Garfield Street to East dit

Avenue, West on East 30th Avenue to Monroe Street,

South on Monroe Street to Hast 29th Avenue, Hast a

East 29th Avenue to Garfield Street, South on Garfdl

Street to Hast 28th Avenue, West on East 28th Aven

to Cook Street, North on Cook Street to East 20

65a

Exhibit Annexed to Complaint

mue, West on Hast 29th Avenue to Steele Street,

orth on Steele Street to the point of beginning.

1 : described area shalll be detached from the

of the Wurreman Exemenrary Sonoor at-

ginning at the intersection of East 34th Avenue and

le Street, thence; Hast on East 34th Avenue to

roe Street, South on Monroe Street to East 32nd

me, West on Hast 32nd Avenue to Steele Street,

orth on Steele Street to the point of beginning.

wing described area shall be detached from the

eee ee

T! tinnate tinndance

ng at the intersection of East 36th Avenue

| d Jackson Street, thence; East on Hast 36th Avenue

lorado Boulevard, South on Colorado Boulevard

north boundary of the Clayton College property,

on the north boundary of the Clayton College

operty to Jackson Street, and North on Jackson

ing desoribed area shall be detached from the

Scroon attendance area and shall

ng at the intersection of East 29th Avenue

dle Street, thence; Hast on East 29th Avenue

Street, South on Cook Street to East 28th

South on Monroe Street to Hast 26th Avenue, ¥

East 26th Avenue to Steele Street, and North o1

‘Street to the en en beginning.

eee Rast om Auen el

Garfield Street, thence; East on Hast 36th Avemue h

Jackson Street, South on Jackson Street to the nord

boundary of the Clayton College property, West u

the north boundary of the Clayton College property

to Monroe Street, North on Monroe Street to Eat

35th Avenue, East on East 35th Avenue to Gars

ree nat, Harte ae Gerbeet: Strat > See

beginning.

eee

i sens re that the Superintendent is &

rected to take steps to establish pre-primary ed N

programs in the schools of the North-Central portion i

the District in September 1969, 3

report “Planning Quality Education.”

Ir 18 FuRTHER RESOLVED that the 1 14

rected to develop and institute plans and programs to mak

Hallett Elementary School a demonstration integrate

school as of September 1969, by use of voluntary transfer

of pupils with transportation provided by the District.

Ir 1s FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent is d

rected to continue the present practices of transportin

pupils from Stedman Elementary School to relieve over

crowding at that school, and to obtain the reduction of 1

number of pupils attending the Stedman Elementary Schod

necessary to permit removal of mobile classroom wit

from that school by providing transportation for such pr

pils to Denison, Force, and Schenck Elementary Schools.

Ir 1s FURTHER RESOLVED that the present practice of tram

porting pupils from Smith Elementary School to Aleott

Asbury, Doull, Force, McKinley, Moore, Slavens, and Steel

Elementary Schools be continaed.

Ir 1s FURTHER nEsoiven that, for the purpose of impror

ing education and furthering of integration the schools

included in Elementary School Complex 5 as described 1

the report “Planning Quality Education” that such school

be grouped for cooperative planning with the elementary

schools of other elementary school complexes, as follow, ar

with such other or different schools as the Superintenden

2 eee F. T. A. representatives and

— that such planning eom-

plementa F

by the Superintendent within the limitations

Schools Grouped With

Complex 5 Schools

Bradley

Pitts

and each and every of the defendant School

officers, agents, servants, employees and each of

all other persons in active concert or participa-

them be, preliminarily during the pendency of

ion and permanently thereafter, restrained and

from in any way interfering with, modifying, can-

pine or rescinding the purchase order for said

pe ty-seven school buses;

(b) from destroying, changing or otherwise modifying

in any manner whatsoever, or relocating those

documents, contracts, schedules, or other writings

and memoranda relating or pertaining to the im-

13520, 1524, and 1531 at the start of the school year

in September, 1969, with the exception that de-

_ fendants shall not otherwise during such time be

prevented from simultaneously Preparing for the

implementation of alternate or additional plans

concerning the matters described herein as they

80 desire.

72a

Motion * nee Injunction

As grounds therefor plaintiffs incorporate herein by

reference the allegations contained in their Complaint an

further allege that certain of the defendants have bea

directed to and are in fact implementing the recision of

Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, and the substitar

Resolutions therefor, and in addition have been direeted

to review the school bus purchase contract; that unles

plaintiffs are granted praliminary relief, said implemen

tation and review by the defendants may destroy, alter,

modify, revoke or otherwise irreparably injure or prevent

reinstatement and implementation of Resolutions No, 15%,

1524 and 1531. Plaintiffs will thereby sustain immediat

and irreparable injury and damage for which they har

no adequate remedy at law. This motion will be made ani

based upon the pleadings, records and proceeding herein

Barnes & JENSEN

By /s/ Craic S. Banwes

Craig S. Barnes

Denver, Colorado 80210

2430 South University Nd.

Tel.: 744-6455

/s/ Gorpon G. Gum

Gordon G. Greiner

500 Equitable Building,

Denver, Colorado 80202

Tel.: 292-9200

Attorneys For Plaintiff's

PPT

and James D. Voorhees, Ir.

Cuea Ju 16, 1969)

Now defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel

ames D. Voorhees, Jr., individually and as members,

f Education, School District Number One, Denver

o, and for answer to plaintiff's Complaint aümit,

d state: * f

nit the allegations of Article I. Jurisdiction.

Aamit the allegations of Article II. Parties,

1 to the First Canse of Action:

E Admit the General Factual allegations of the First

A: Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A.

®. Answering paragraph B, deny that these answering

tendant Board members participated in the recission of

solutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 and state that their

in voting against recission were motivated by the edu-

l needs of the children of Denver. Further answer-

se answering defendants are not advised as to the

ion of those defendant Board members voting to

caer

— of eo John H. Amesse, Rachel B. 9

and James D. eee Ir. *

rescind Resolutions No, 1520, 1524 and 1531 in s0 ach

but that said Board members have stated repeatedly ty

these defendants that they so acted because of a manda

from the people of the City of Denver requiring said de.

fendants so to act, and in order to restore the confidenn

Fp Pam Mean eee e

a bond issue may be passed.

C. Admit the allegations of paragraph C.

4. As to the Third Count:

A. Admit the allegations referred to in paragraph A and

the allegations of paragraphs B and C, except that thee

answering defendants allege that the pupil populations of

East High School, Phillips Elementary School and Park

Hill Elementary School were not, prior to the passage of

Resolutions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531, substantially segre

gated on the basis of race and ethnicity, but that the pupil

populations of said schools, without the and im-

plementation of said resolutions, would inevitably and pre

dictably have become segregated on the basis of race and

ethnicity.

B. Answering paragraph D of the Third Count, ‘these

answering defendants are not advised as to the motivation

of those defendant Board members voting in favor of re

cission except as reflected in their statements quoted herein

in answer to paragraph B of the Second Count. Further

answering, admit that racial and ethnic separation existing

in the schools affected prior to the passage of Resolutions

No, 1520, 1524 and 1531 would have been sigrtificantly al

leviated by the implementation of such resolutions.

of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel

; and James D. Voorhees, Ir.

mit the allegations of the Fourth Count, except that

swering defendants deny that they acted as alleged

t the allegations referred to in paragraph A and

ations of paragraphs. O and D.

wen ing paragraph B, admit that the pupil popula-

he schools affected by Resolutions No. 1520, 1524

were, or were inevitably becoming, segregated on

of such teachers is viewed by the students

irmation and reinforcement of the separate and

i racial or ethnic character of such schools.

to the Sixth Count, admit the allegations

ethnicity

pupil populations of such schools without the

implementation of said resblutions would in-

and predictably have become segregated on the

and ethnicity,

76a

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noe

and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

8. F

Action, these answering defendants state:

(A) The increasing urbanization of American society has

produced educational problems for big city public school

systems (including Denver) unique to this time and place

and not subject to solution by traditional educational pat

terns of staffing, of attendance, of curriculum, and of facil-

ity needs. These inadequacies in urban public education are

generally not recognized, or if recognized, are not accepted

by the majority population.

(B) Unmet, these new urban educational problems result

in inevitable and substantially irreversible educational in

equality for a large and increasing number of America

urban children, a high proportion of whom are from racial

or ethnic minorities and/or are the products of the sub

culture of urban poverty. In Denver the fact of such in

equality is demonstrated by differences between and among

schools in standard achievement scores, the incidence of

dropouts, differences as to individual course offerings, the

quality of teaching and numbers of faculty transfers, school

discipline, the degree of motivation and achievement in

students, and other observable factors.

by educational and learning disabilities caused by race,

ethnicity and/or poverty in any school reduces, and may

substantially eliminate, the effect in such school of ay

known remedial or compensatory programs which are ec

nomically feasible.

, Ne

recommendation of its Superintendent of Schools as being

77a

‘Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel

and James D. Voorhees, Ir.

aal educational opportunity for many children.

utions No. 1520, 1524 and 1531 were adopted

ide publicity, public hearings (including tele-

entations), neighborhood meetings and wide-

rtunity for interested and concerned citizens

Comments communicated to defendant Board

in public meetings and to these defendants

„ and privately, were in general favorable to

onal purpose and intent of said resolutions, but

of them for non-educational reasons, aniong

Jn one hand, that the resolutions represented only

i token approach to the problems of the School

District, and on the other, that some alleged con-

itutionally protected right of parents to select

the school their children should attend was threat-

at in individual cases the resolutions might re

in inconvenience to individual citizens.

‘hat the resolutions did not reflect the will of the

ority of the people of the School District and

being imposed upon the majority by a vocal

dangerous minority as a sociological experi-

t the resolutions represented an interference (

eos at mee N

e ene e

n OD — 0

aren a mption on the part of many citi

9 n

1 1 r 25

Answer of Defendants John EH. Amesse, Rachel Bod

and James D. Voorhees, Jr. 4

tional opportunity now offered to a large number ‘tes

nority — ethnic children in the Denver Publi

ause e of 3. except that no recovery of cot

ited against these defendants.

—

s As to the First Count: Pee

A Incorporate — by reference their answer to th

irst „these answering defendants: a

. * eee jghborhox

defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Noel

2 and James D. Voorhees, Jr.

tion within the School District but deny that

ted with respect to said boundaries with the

e and intent of creating, fostering and main-

racial and ethnie segregation within the

that historically from time to time optional

2 areas have been established for various

within the School District but deny that

optional attendance areas are or at any time

e in contravention of the defendant. Board of

ucation’s existing published policies and resolu-

ns; deny that these answering defendants par-

d in the establishment of any optional at-

area; and deny that any optional attend-

areas were applicable only to Anglo children.

time to time been created for certain

are 5

Ae e es dende Jane E. Aae Michel B: tad

schools undergoing transition to gradually inerem

ang eee her Hk and/or Hispano pupil

r eahtiahienahish-ainy aplhae

| the result alleged, that is, the retention and confine

ment of Negro and/or Hispano pupils to schools of

CCVVVVVV

; c Aamit the allegations of paragraph O of the Fim

Count.

2 Kis tei eee

X. Incorporate by reference their answer to the First

Cause of Action and their answer to paragraph C of the

First Count of the Second Cause of Action.

B. Answering paragraph B:

3.1. JV

at and Hispano attendance areas may have physical

plants, equipment and curricula inferior to some

schools with predominantly Anglo student pupil

populations but deny that all predominantly Negro

and Hispano schools have physical plants and

equipment inferior to that provided to schools with

predominantly Anglo. student pupil population

and deny that to their knowledge inferior mate

ee ee eee eee © eels

nantly Negro and Hispano schools.

2. .

le by reference their answer to paragraph

st Count of this Second Canse of Action.

he allegations of paragraph C.

the allegations of paragraph D.

the Fourth Count:

te by reference their answer to the First

el 5 ‘

84a

Answer of Defendants John H. Amesse, Rachel B. Nn

and James D. N Ir.

D. Answering paragraph D, admit that under certain

circumstances the application and administration of sy;

tems of ability grouping may result in the denial to stu-

dents subject thereto of an educational opportunity eqnal

to that offered to other students but deny that such ability

grouping will always afford an unequal educational oppor.

tunity as between the minor Negro and Hispano plaintiffs

anit Angle students e nee sbility:and qualification

- Waenerore, having fully answered the Second Cause of

Action these defendants pray that the relief prayed for in

plaintiffs’ Prayer for Second Cause of Action be granted,

except that should the Court order that any comprehensive

plan be submitted as prayed in paragraph A 1.(b) and/ér

paragraph A 3.(b) thereof, these defendants suggest that

any such plan should be educationally sound and should be

implemented within a time schedule fixed by the Court,

and except that no recovery of costs be adjudicated against

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ramm. B. Nom.

Rachel B. Noel

7s, Jonn H. Amussze

John H. Amesse

/s/ James D. Voonnezzs, Jz.

James D. Voorhees, Jr.

(Addresses of the Answering Defendants omitted)

(Certificate of Service omitted)

Noms a witness called by and on behalf of

having been first duly sworn was examined and

Court: Give us your name and address,

Witness: Rachel B. Noel, 2601 Adams.

oel, you are one of the Defendants in this case!

a member of the Board of Education of

riet Number 11 A. Yes.

long have you been a member of the Board

aeation? A. I was elected to the Board in

‘was your current address? A. 2601 Adams.

long have you lived at that address, Mrs. Noel?

a moved there in approximately 19581 A.

Mrs. Noel, did you have any children going

y schools of the Denver School District?

during the course of your residence or during

of their progress through elementary school

change made in the school of their at-

My daughter was in second grade when

meee ® ae ene .

i Ret ees ea

sho went to Park Hill and she nitended second, third g

fourth grades, but when she went to fifth grade Barrett

education at Barrett.“

0 Barrett opened in 19607 4 156 Re

@. Do you recall approzimataly what the racial com

erer eee ementa:

88a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiff Direct

the Black community: but:throughout the city: that the dey

that school opened it would be a segregated school.

Q. Mrs. Noel, did that concern lead to any affirmative

action by the Board in 19621 A. The Board of Education

appointed a special committee on equality of education

in November I believe of 1962.

Qs it not a tact, Mr, Nod, that you served on tx

committee! A. I was a member of that committee

. Now how long approximately did the committee de

liberate? ae nie e oe apr sees. phones’ 8: 10k

Sieg ia eee

Q. What sort of responsibilities were given to this special

committee? [30] A. The committee was asked to look

throughout the school system concerning equality of edu

en renee ore

ethnic factors.

‘ eee Mire: Noel, while

the committee was deliberating, did the Board of Educa

tion formulate any new policy with respect to the racial

characteristics of the schools? A. This policy 5100 was

formulated by the Board after the recommendations to the ©

Does policy 5100 set forth in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1

which you now have in front of you— A. Yes.

. Was policy 5100 passed by the Board at the request

of this epoca eee e

J. ä

eee e

ee | 4mtuoduotion of Plaintiffe’ Exhibit 1.. rg

a Be rt i Th

sal ried nd you can drew wp Dt

. eter dlipinsion cake

attention, Mrs. Noel, to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit

en deliberations did the com-

to any Kind of conclusion as to whether or

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiff s—Direct

~The’ Court: Well, that’s different. You go sha

. inn you going to have er sum it apt

‘ ‘Mr. Greiner: a

. Oraig: I do object, Your Honor. I object to

| the witness just reading back what the reports

The Court: May I take a look at it?

Mx. Craig: e 1 think counsét cin paid

— an yo

i. ‘The Court: That’s better, I think. Why don’t you

ale eee eee

the conclusions that you wish to bring forward!

Ur. Greiner: men

Mes, Nea, direting your attention to Page 6 un.

dissecans anisdbiibiat eh. denctehl-adviaiianel anaaie

. e- Deiat ot pepregstion:in tha school)

A. Yes, it did.

conclusion? A. That there was in Denver real possibility

of unequal educational opportunity because of the exis-

within the city.

Q. Now during the course of its deliberations, Mrs.

Noel, did the committee consider the Board’s—the School

Board’s boundary policies? 1831 A. Yes, it did.

. Were those policies then in writing? A. They were

Board as to whether or not those policies should be re-

duced to writing? A. Yes, it did.

Dia had tities eee pe Page AS

it, did the committee reach any conclusions as

a of: eee, whether the: cause of

aay fie Geld neg die eine hie,

e eee

N point is, if the testimony para-

. eee have

e Court: Wall, we fill sin what it's landing to.

have the question in mind, Mrs. Noelt [34]

[look at this that the statement in 1954, the

Supreme Court stated that sogregated edu.

tly unequal education. And that there

tho tity Bar sock eee While the Court

tance was concerned with segregation estab-

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

. wen: itl

neue cena oe ee

pages ogee

. to-Page:D-29 of thie eli

. ab-ithe:-dectien, did-the Onitaiale

have occasion to examine the Board’s policy regarding the

assignment of minority teachers? A. Yes, it did.

Q. What conclusions did the committee reach regarding

these policies of the Board? A. The committee felt be-

cause of the great and high proportion of minority teach.

ers and in minority schools that’ there was a policy of

assigning them to schools that had high [35] percentages

of minority population. And there is a table—or there

should be—that shows this very definite—

Q. That's at Page 36 in the appendix of the exhibitt

A Yes, I think it is.

Q. And that shows the concentration of minority teach.

ers in minority schools? A. Right.

ere e the’ oil

mittee, did it make any recommendations to the Board“

A. Yes, it did. The committee recommended that the

Board of Education should establish—this is the first

recommendation in this group—and enforce a policy that

requested teachers of minority background, that they wil

be assigned throughout the system.

Q. Was that recommendation accepted by the Board!

A. I don’t believe that that is a part of the policy in

regard to teachers—teacher assignments today. However,

this was a recommendation.

Q. Mrs. Noel, Pd like to call your attention to Plain

tiffs’ Exhibit 26. This I don’t believe has been stipulated

Se ee Sih LS Wi Sen ie oes ae

6 e of assignment, 1617(a). 3

— 1617 (a). Now, can you tell bun

— ‘Your Honor, at this point I just want

rrapt to state that this is a poliey—this policy

in Exhibit 20 which we believe we

this was the policy on teacher assignment

stence when your committee made this con-

‘the assignment of minority teachers! A.

this report was issued in 1964.

: has been no change in policy 1617(a) since

of your report? A. Not to my knowledge.

oes I take it then, Your Honor, that

6 will be received?

oe ee ae

ry 3 stipulate to these individually if

oe ek eM

s. —

ee what sane the Board took

VVV

‘there should be built new school? A. Well, to the nen

concern of the Board of Education in regard to building

ee er eee b eee,

tion to Hallett School. i

oo" an elementa school! Th hee th dene.

ony edie: ee ee ee renee ae Sein te

alter 1 became a member of the Board.

. And that was in- A In 1965.

Q. In May! eee

Now again, what was the concern about building m

addition to Hallett School? A. The Superintendent bai

. d that eight classrooms should be added to

n s and I felt that this

er e er eee ed oppose i aw

Qe Now “kt Bint time in 1965. was ‘Hallett a predomi

nantly a Negro school! [38] A. Hallett was becoming—

er ergs aid ag igh |

| | 7 by, 2

' oar dag ota A. Yes.

2 Di that concern lead to the formation of another

stad} d dest A. The concern about Hallett—there

was also a request for additions to Stedman. There was

a realization of overcrowdedness at both Hallett and Sted-

man, atid in addition, Smith Schools. And the fact that

they were predominantly segregated and all of this I

think We discussions about what to do led to te

e 92

7 ee ene

‘you what's den reosived int evidences

bit 21, Mrs. Noel, that is the report of this

ch os cee ame os “A. Yes.

isory Council! ee

and additions in northeast Denver.

age is policies the Board had in this re-

del, through that report, Exhibit 21, how did

FFF.

one Reis Hig ee

question again. Tt isn’t t clear that Mrs. Noel

a member of that Council, and again the report

ea for itself. —

Court: True. But, am I going to have to

gary ‘Eventually I suppose I am, but as

id it he’s just going’ to call attention to

mm of the Council, is that correct?

rt Witmer oat ore aT wader i

baal

96a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Direct

attention to consideration of 101 the ethnic ani

if deg Aletha e abil Ne ee ee, com

eee eee,

schools and the fact that the continuation of the

neighborhood schools has resulted in the concentra.

tion and reduction of this concentration, should be

Se ee .

r Noe, during the period of 19—

The Court; Well, what happened? What hap

pened to Hallett?

The Witness: The additions were built to Hallett

And, I voted against it.

The Court: Go ahead.

Q. During the period 1960, Mrs. Noel, Gad tay

what in general has been the trend of racial composition

in northeast Denver? A. The schools are becoming more

segregated.

Q. Can you think of some example, and Pm referring

you now to Page 7 of the report where there is detailed

some of the rather dramatic changes that occurred at such

schools as Stedman, Hallett and Barrett? A. This refers

to the rapid change in the student population, rapid racial

change composition of the student population at Stedman

and at Stedman, in 1960, there were four percent Negroes

in the total student population.

[41] C. At Stedman? A. Yes. In 1966 the pupil pop

ulation was then 89 percent, Black.

ee He HO A. My guess is

was les than one perent ad a October,

1 pe a at Hallett was about 75 percent

won ta that inthe 20 pre

VPV

ons in regard to cultural and arts programs.

about this time was the Board considering pro-

issue to the electorate in Denvert A. Yes.

spect to that bond issue was there a proposal

i heel aight have served to relieve some

ation in the schools? [42] A. Yes as a part

proposal there was presented to the electorate

‘the fall of 1967, in the middle of the school

visioned in the proposal would have allevi-

the- segregation in the schools in northeast

e middle ‘schools would have drawn their stu-

Ste es Beaty sc cee

98a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiſte Direct

eee

Mrs. Noel, was that in the fall of 19671 A. Yes, 1967,

. Was there any other affirmative. step between {he

fall of 1967 and the spring of 1968 taken by the Bari bh

es ea lca reg A. There was om.

inued | from parents in northeast Denver par

i about the need for [43] relief for tht

r High that students from Smiley could be bused

be ee Sade ce e

nne Hamilton A

-Q. ppd ane thetoninnte.de err

Smiley? A. No, this was one-way busing into the new

junior high school. It would have relieved the overcrowi-

ay A tien bat Pat pein wooed: have xempained Hap

“wae.

0 So as late n 1967 and 1968 the Board had still 50

built new junior high school to serve northeast Denver!

A. No.

r Boall>

ceive proposals from the Division of Planning and Engi-

Speen Herron Witte venbeettd tie Tegedion, of: eth ie

schools? A. Yes.

e Bani, 22 and 28 examples of such propa

A. Yes.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, these exhibits have ie

been stipulated into evidence. "oe

The Court: Very well. |

B. Noel—f domes

which eee eee eee ee

rd with respect to this problem! A. I

mi there were two events: one was the

the resolution in regard to a plan for inte-

that event to me as a member of the School

ink is of great importance because I felt that

person in a policy making position, as well as

voir this country, ‘needed: to see that

t .

meaningful. And this direction to the Su-

iin’ wader 40: ee en Un Thr en

rt. — Part two is clarified in

d to those points, Mys. Noel; did 1490

; e meee

ae Re

‘

＋

became the Board's fi

objectives of e e eee eee,

olution in this regard, by a vote of five to two. Then the

ee ee ee

0. That was in May of 19681. A. Right. ö 5

Vor between May 1968 and the fall of 1968 that was

the period during which Dr. Gilberts was developing the

plan which he had been directed to propose? A. Right,

‘that was merely a report of an overall pro-

integration of Denver schools? A. It was

* 7 ‘

0 it then in November of 1968 the Superintendent

ected by the Board to come up with a more specific

alt A. I was not present at that November meet-

88 I recall the minutes, the Superintendent was

“and it was in régard to what was going to happen

uary that would need to be approved by the Board.

t o his plan only some parts of it were to take

in the second semester and it was in this regard

was asked to bring in these more specifics,

irs. Noel, with respect to the minutes of the meet-

the Board of Education, are minutes taken at

ire they then prepared and in written form?

handing you what has been marked for identifi-

xhibits 28, 29 and 32 and ask you if you can

understand why the Defendants can’t

icate [48] their own minutes, Your Honor,

rie

9 last night. We haven't looked at them but

102a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffo— Direct

certainly they may go in as authentic. Wee

it admissible here.

The Court: dt e Exhibits 28, 29 and

are received.

: spt Her“ me other one T bine wis

Your Honor.

The Court: And 32.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 28, 29, 30 and

! 82 were received in evidence.)

Q. Mrs. Noel, was the policy of the school board with

respect to school attendance area boundaries reduced to

writing? A. Yes.

. And is that policy reflected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 231

A. Yes, in 33.

. 38. Pardon me.

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, again we ois

troduce Exhibit 33 which is in effect the neighbor

hood school policy of the district.

Mr. Creighton: That, Your Honor, is part of

| MAE en Previonaly agreed ts. That may en

The Court: We will receive it.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 33 was received

in evidence.)

[49] C. Then finally, Mca Weelt With tiie ‘giving of toe

instructions to the Superintendent is that the event then

which began the process which ultimately led to resolv-

tions 1520, 1524 and 1531? A. That's en

Mr. Greiner: Thank you, Urs Noel Your witnes.

r e sit direct examination you

to your daughter’s educational experience in

nn men Schools, A.

Where did she later go? A» To East.

ut, Sen ior High School A. Yes.

And ha 13 3 graduated from Bast! A. Ves.

f ay been admitted to college? £50] A. Right.

Wee is she— A. She attends Smith

a e graduated from Smith? A. No, she was a

n last year.

vould you give us your general impression of her

nic achievements there at Smith? A. Well—

A gona bad or poor or—. A. It was good.

e t had been better.

tic N

and Colorado Boulevard. To your knowledge,

ool been built? A. No.

sity! A. Well, Jesse Hamilton has been

on is Jesse Hamilton a e 1521 A. I

n w the exact address; East Dartmouth and

104a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintif o Redirect

The Court: I beg your pardon? Where!

The Witness: Hast Dartmouth. I don’t know

what the crossing street is. Rie. ae

east Denver.

Q. Seti adi ppc ina i u W %

cess of building or planning another new junior high

schoo in southeast Denver A. Also in southeast Denver,

yes.

build any new Junior high schools in northeast Denver!

A. Present plans!

. Yes. A. Not to my knowledge.

Do you know if there are present plans to utiliz

excess capacity in these new junior high schools to relieve

some of the junior high schools in northeast Denver!

A. Yes.

. * * . * 2

[54 ene

Q. Mrs. Noel, you testified that in your opinion there

was a trend in northeast Denver toward more segrega-

tion in the schools ‘and Hallett Elementary School in

particular. Can you tell us whether or not it was true

that at the same time there was a parallel change in the

racial. composition of the residential area of that part

of the city? A. Right.

561 „

Redirect Examination by Mr. Greiner: :

e A e

what is a segregated school. Some of the indicia of 8

| schools have for example higher drop out

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, Tm going to object to

555 . 1

N as answer the questions, Mrs. Noel. Do they

less experienced teachers? A. By and large

| experiencet A. I think this is correct.

eee ee

it that your daughter’s example is not

happens to minority children in this

A. I would say the percentages are different.

all reflected in the drop out rate for minority

H ackt A. The pereeptages aro higher in the

— who sonsinees, wen, it

— wen! seis

y compromises on languaget A. Yes, in the

106a

Rachel B. Noel—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

this report is, a result of these discussions of the com-

plete and so that all points of view were considered. And

in the acceptance of the wording, in many cases thers

was a feeling by some that it should be stronger wording

or 1581 weaker and a more séceptable word W 9 was

used.

Q. Now, Mrs. al with regard to the addition a

Hallett, I believe you said that your quarrel with that de-

cision was it kept those children in a segregated school,

A. Yes, and it made more space for segregation.

Q. Does the same effect, the same confinement effect

obtain when mobile units are brought into a segregated

school? A. Les.

. Also with respect to new additions that are being

? in the Park Hill area, is there not now the

building of a new addition to the new Park Hill Elementar

School! A. Tes.

. So that is another case, another instance where there

has been some additional construction! A. Yes.

Q. With respect to the mobile units in northeast Denver

school, is it fair to say, Mrs. ‘Noel, that there are more

nobile units in that area than in any other area of the

eityt A. Yes. 8

Q. Do you have any idea en how W are

being used there A. Not really. I think there are twelve

now at Stedman. Not Stedman, T mean Smith.

1891 C. Smith is predominantly Black? A. About 99

pereent Black. T

| rr e

W e Bae such as Ashley, for example! i

Tm not aware of them.

hn wos tA. Tht bog

Pm not certain of that date.

me on the school, board in 1965,

e of this trend ! A. Les.

‘school board make any changes in its policies

awareness of this trend? A. Well, the

“ning eee eee

and I think up to thirty

imax e ee * g

t ah erate Te! el 905

* 1 3 * = .

i RO

i e eee en Fah}

1088

4 Laber Benton—for' Platte

n 55

A. Dean Bewror, ee ep: e bale

plants, having fst been duly sworn, was examined a

einten us follows: re

Direct Boaminationby Mr. Bornes: sa

Aas wala My name ie A. Hager Benton,

“Bact Bitest, Denver, Colorado.

By Mr. Bornes: :

Q Mr. ear ee

Education of School District No. 1, a defendant in this ae

tion? A. I was.

. Win you give the dates during which you were a

member? A. T was elected in May, 1961 and served until

PG rahi te bas Hadid hid iting he

scribed by Mrs. Noel in the previous testimony? A. I was.

. And you were on the Board in the Fall of 1968 [62]

when Dr. Gilberts, the superintendent, presented his plans

in response to 14907 A. Tes.

O The date of that presentation was approximately Oe

tober 10, 19881 A. That's correct.

eee eee Sees nee

presentation! ;

The Court: Wut youmesnt bia they approv

ii or what— 5

VVV!

tirety? A. Dr. Gilberts presented his plan not for en-

f tiny tines, as Soe eee

5 100

dy by the Board of Education and by the com-

— .

a —.

‘te Spring ‘semester of dh to alleviate not

but also the intensified segregation

anior High. School, In response to that re-

ooncern of the citizenry of that area, I sug-

? eee, bee ee eee een

sorted to Hill Junior High School, Merrill

h School and perhaps some others. So the ef-

Gilera indicted he woul consider this ar

ee ere euer 5

110a

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiff s—Direct

1 Silt e ee l e Bead et G |

High School be built at 32nd and Colorado and the Smiley

problem, as it were, vas a [64] matter of constant concern,

ee ee

through the present period, really. é 1

/..

citizenry concern throughout this period? A. Yes, there

was constant evidence. of concern on the part of the citizens

in the community with the need for the Board of Educa

tion to take action to deal with intensifying segregation at

ee ye

%ͥͤĩ]%]ẽ?l! ‘ital: Winagta: Yy the Malle

about this problem since 19621: What do you mean by that!

A. By that I mean that the matter was constantly befor

the Board for its consideration, It represented a difficult

question for the Board which the Board of Education had

not previously had to consider and the debate which e

curred I would say was a constant debate. That isn’t to

say it occurred on every occasion when the Board of

Education was either in formal or informal session, but it

continued to be one of the dominant elements of the Board's

activity during that period to debate. The debate was not

only constant; it was of an interesting characteristic in

that it ranged all the way from fairly mild dialog to very

er Se en

the Board. VV

Q. Were we e e e ee of ican

discussed in those meetings? [65] A. The educational dis

advantage of segregated education were always urged by

members—certain members of the Board as g basis for

mene ee ee eee eee,

ally, and therefore the debate often involved

on of the disadvantages of segregated schools.

of Smiley Junior High Schoolt A. I can’t

rs¢ the precise percentages but it’s my recol-

it the outset of this consideration Smiley was

y Anglo in its pupil composition. But it was

a progressive ‘rate by significant percentages

the point where it has now achieved which I

L bo be perhaps 70 percent Black in its composi-

na # this dus e progressive rate of change from

ie ipa nels te povdemninantiy: minority school.

et interest from the citizenry? A. Yes. 1

ul i be fair to say that a common presentation at

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiff s—Direct

ing of the school district’ of the problem. Following!

that, and certain limited steps taken by the Board in re

sponse to that report, I think the creation of the advisory

council was a continuing effort to improve the quality of

insight which the Board of Education had with respect to

these questions. Now specifically in my view, one of the

most significant steps that the Board took as a result of

this important study that it was engaged in was the policy

which had been previously testified by Mrs. Noel which

precluded additional school construction in northeast

Denver, This was important because it stated as a matter

of public policy of this community that we would not create

additional capacity in that [67] area with the increasing

racial segregation of the neighborhood for increased segre-

gated education.

In Smiley Junior High School itself, by November

Ast, 1968, state if you recall the approximate racial com-

position. A. I would think it would have been approx-

imately 70 percent Black and perhaps four or five percent

FCC

EFF — sf Oia Solel

and the citizenry over the years described, Smiley had

still become substantially segregated? A. That’s correct

The Boards had really been as I have indicated in the form

of continuing study, continuing education, continuing infor-

mation rather than specific: concrete tangible steps that

would lead to an alleviation of the condition. 5

. And your suggestion of November 21st was a specific

tangible step to alleviate that condition? A. That’s correct.

Following the receipt of your suggestion by the super-

intendent, what were the next steps taken by the district

and the superintendent concerning Smiley Junior High

School? A. It was my understanding that Dr. Gilberts

1138

rer i in a careful evaluation; not just

ic Thad made for his consideration, but of

m, I hand you what have been marked as

bit enen ee e

awn

2 — ee har tif g dn

f „ e og Sl e That’s

; een e, of thie roiminary identifenton

Fee, If you want him

4. Bdgar Benton—for Plaintiffs—Direct 1

r with incidental num i

other schools, 3

e e e en 1 bee eee

held among members of the Board and the superintendent

and the administrative staff in which the details of this

resolution were considered and evaluated and my recollee.

present its views with respect to these matters.

Q. Following the presentation that is contained in 1520

were there further presentations made to the Board con

cerning junior high schools and elementary schools! A

Yes, there were two other resolutions of importance here;

one was resolution 1524 which I believe represented a fur

ther m of resolution 1520, and resolution

Tron 1631 which related to certain elementary schools.

. Resolution’ 1524 was with regard to implementatin

in the junior high schools? A. That’s correct. 25

2. So that a discussion began beginning in January of

eer ni ‘the contents uf these resolutions present

there were also publie hearings concerning resolutions 152

and 1881 A, Take whee: pani hearings relating to both

i recall. And ee ot Tee

b GT an ese e

High School? A. It does. 3 ae

ae dene ga

b 4. Tt da.

"A. Wel, Smiley 1. think was. the

4 01 level because of the fact that

an eee, diane Ae ee eee eee

ark Hill Aan dend Ant an l modes within che

5 1164

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiff s—Direct

limits of physical and personal capability of drawing thon

schools into the comprehensive solution of rate

schooling in Denver, Barrett was included because it was

geographically contiguous to the Park Hill area which ws

a matter of principal focus and it was a small school which

did not pose the more serious problems of money and per-

sonnel that would have been perhaps eee

F 2

C Were Barrett and Smiley the only segregated sci

in the system? A. NO. a

bee pe ear eg cg rer e- Hergen ,

— the-echoot district? A. Clearly not.

Q. Was it a drastic step forward in your judgment! 1

It was not a drastic step forward: It was in the discussion

relating to resolution 1531 that I urged that Gilpin School,

which is located substantially further to the west of Barrett,

in near the so-called Five Points Area of Denver—that

that school be included because of its location in the heart

of the ghetto, as it were. I felt that Dr. Gilberts’ recom-

mendation was not only not drastic but was not fully ade-

CCC

munity.

. Now, were there supporting documents that te Tn.

superintendent presented which implemented or described

the implementation of resolutions 1520, 1524 and 15311 A.

My recollection is that there were such documents.

— contained ix Plaintiff's Exhibit ¢-A'smt

5-A?. A. That's correct. .

Q. And the resolutions themselves are Plaintiffs Bx

hibits 3, 4 and 51 A. Correct.

. You have stated that there. were 88 Sentinal

Can you give an idea of the scope of the contribution of the

public to the Board’s consideration? A. The public hear.

1681 even though ‘traditionally it would not

W e such as educational and psychological

nomic factors considered and offered for considera-

1183

A. Edgar Benton—for Plaintiſfo Direct

2. Were the resolutions eventually passed! A. The te

olutions were eventually passed. I might say I did not

create the impression in my testimony that there wasn

opposing testimony at these hearings. There were individ.

uals who opposed the resolutions and there were also rep.

resentatives for the most part of neighborhood organi-

tions [75] from southeast and southwest Denver. But, the

nn were:adoptedby.the Board of Hdncation inal

three cases I believe by a vote of five to two.

u were you voting with the majority? 41

a member of the majority?

n e an,

with regard to Smiley and Barrett? A. The objective was

the creation and maintenance of equal educational oppor-

tunity for the children involved. They were founded upon

the superintendent’s recommendations. They were based

upon his professional judgment that they were reasonable.

capabilities of the district and they were designed to reduce

the concentration of minority children in those schools so

that the program could be improved and the quality of el

ueation could be raised.

J e e ot: tease; vchocla Mais

been changed? A. The racial composition of Barrett

School would have been changed from approximately 100

percent Black to approximately 80 percent Anglo effective

September, 1969, and at Smiley—TI believe these figures are

changed from about 70 to 75 percent minority to approx-

imately 10:40. 75 percent. Anglo, in: September, 1969.

761 C. What was the general objective behind these

resolutions with regard.to East High School and Philips

Elementary School and Park Hill School! A. Let me

8 7

Beg

5 r be: presented to the Board, that is

abil “ot neighborhoods through the

d education where it existed. Now,

inc with respect to Park Hill and Philips, but

of the resolution would have been to reduce the

ns ar ake bad

er of Anglo. At Bast High School, which I be-

y is approximately 40 percent Black, ‘there

Aer este, Fü iesdbe

would have been in September, 1969, a reduction

Q. What was the objective of the Board with regard to

Stedman Elementary School? A. Stedman Elementary

School I believe would have been affected by the resolution

primarily through the elimination of certain mobile units

and the transportation of children from Stedman to cer-

tain Anglo schools I believe primarily in southwest Dep.

ver. So the effect of the resolution I believe that Stedman

would not have been to improve the racial balance par-

ticularly but to reduce the population at Stedman and I

might say as I indicated earlier in my testimony [78]

the schools directly affected by the resolutions were those

that had been indicated. The incidental effect of this

resolution if it were to be implemented would have been

to have integrated a substantial number of additional

schools in other parts of the city which are presently near

100 percent Anglo: In other words the schools would have

heh eee ee mans eee e ee

been carried out. |

2. en tor tha ene

tain. these objectives? A. Primarily the modification of

attendance area boundaries and the use of transportation,

. , men,

distriet.

Q. Now, Mr. Benton, I direst your stiles to Plan

tiff's Exhibit 0-3 and ask you to state whether the Board

specifies their considerations and the conclusions with re-

gard to educational. purposes that were to be achieved by

these resolutions? A. Yes, I would say this is reflected

in the resolution. These resolutions were all based as 1

I believe you testified that there was a trend

f these schools at least toward increasing segre-

as you used the term? A. Yes.

‘there also a parallel change in the racial com-

th o neighborhoods of these schools at the same

ee herd wee eee the neigh’

ald ieee eee eee 1827

1 » change in the composition of the schools was

of the change in the neighborhood? A. Well it

of more than that. It was a result of rigid

the so-called neighborhood school policy which

ne policy of alleviating in the schools the impact

ug segregation in the neighborhood. It wasn’t

ne ofthe nihbnroodsagreaton that ro

ble > but cause it to be e to education

eing. —

bee as on of tho ürgess of Wees éeckutions

‘of schools us en instrument in creating social

A. Edgar Benton —for Plaintiffs Cross

Do you see as one of the purposes of the resolution

as it relates to the role of the school, as using the school

as an instrument for social change in the community! A

Well, this question raises I think a very fundamental issue

and that is what is the purpose of education. I take it that

one of the essential purposes of education, public and pri-

vate, is to have an impact upon humanity in the form of

the individual who is involved in the formal process of

education. So that what he learns or does not learn in

school ought to have a significant bearing on what he does

or does not do; what he thinks or does not think; what he

believes or does not believe, as a citizen and as an adult

So that to create and maintain an effective program of

education in the schools, so that true equality of educa-

tional opportunity exists for the development of the poten-

tial of all people who are subjected to the process of educa-

tion, ought to have—must have a beneficial impact on the

community; on society. If it doesn’t have, then the game

isn’t worth the candle. And that we are engaged in a

massive and irresponsible expenditure of public resources

that perhaps could be better put elsewhere. So there isa

distinct relationship between what you are able to do in

the schools and what ultimately you are able to do with

mankind. Now, Pm not sure that’s responsive to your [84]

The Court: Pm not either.

The Witness: If not, I apologize.

5 Does that answer your question!“

Mr. Craig: Pm not sure it is either, Your Honor,

but I think it is—it has touched on it.

The Court: I gather from your question chat you

N %%%FFͤoTTVT... ions sing. onl

ee,

change, generally. nen

128a

Benton for Plaintiffs—Redirect

ig ig: That's essential what I asked him:

rt: In other words, it is just part of an

1 believe I did, Your Honor, but if

ion L-comments are indicated, 7d be glad to—

e Court: I don't care.

Witness: ra be glad to ccommodate the

* 110 1 eve the wur-, philosophy on

in W ea tes Dr Gilberts, upon

eee eee

i and this enabled not only

nunity for the first time to

12⁴

abs 8 very ‘olent-jelgineat so 'te’the debitionéting ‘ad

Se ee ee

Ta we el Ac ec ac ee

. en eee by & beet Se ata

1861 A. You mean in general terms?

Q. Yes. r A wiki vidliee ts

CCC

by them in other communities.

Q. Keeping in mind the awareness of the Board of the

deterioration of the school we have been considering, what

was the effect of the choice of their policy for the assign-

ment of students? A. Well, this policy as I understood from

Dr. Gilberts’ recommendation was among alternatives per-

haps that might have been selected.

Q. Let me clarify my question. What was the effect of

the choice of the neighborhood school policy by the Board

on the deterioration that you described? A. Pm sorry. Well,

my view was that—and I think this was the view shared

by the majority of the Board, by the members of the Board

—that the adherence to the neighborhood school policy

without modification and without any attempt to intervene

in this process of changing neighborhood, therefore, impact

upon the schools was to maintain and perpetuate the decline

in education and the absence of true educational oppor-

tunity—equality of opportunities.

Q. Is there any statute requiring the Board to adopt the

neighborhood school policy? [87] A. Pm aware of none.

Mr. Barnes: I have no further questions.

Mr, Craig: No further questions. 3

eee a ac ee

(Witness excused.) —

The Court: We will take our noon recess now a ad

resume at two o’clock. ; 75

oe become at 19:25 po, and

J globe seé ees we should have this difi-

here today. I think the lawyers ought to speak

body. It’s not an administrative tribunal. We

iy ethos sat po We will not

on e e

My wife will intercept them at home and

b If they contain any threats, of course, to

iterference of the adminjstration of justice, we

deal with them when the case is over.

Poi D. Klite~for Plaintiffe—Direct

del to submit proposed findings of facts and conclu.

7 erga We have prepared on behalf of Plain-

, tiffs, ings of fact and I would

at thi

8 J Greiner: ae at wine wil v. Paul

See

te 3 4 N $3 N

—

7 Fim |

. 5 3 ed by and en behalf of

e eee eee

testified as follows:

e e ben by Mr Greiner:

oe The Court: Give us your name and address,

; The Witness : ‘Paul D. Elite. My address is 1434

ite bie Street...

The Court: „ũn... inet: natal

e en ane 5

by ie rot

%%% („

prepared certain exhibits. for presentation in this

case? A. Yes, I have. lige ee

1 Bit frst eet sour ef to whats bom

markec s Pla tiffs’ Exhibit 7. This is one of the ex-

hibits, the authenticity of which ig admitted. And I wonder

if you a. just briefly describe for us what Plaintiffs’

ari 7 and the overlays attached thereto illustrate with

respect to the effect of these resolutions upon first of all

ee emt te Bs are Be sien =

0 N. go

127a

Paul D. Klite—for Plointiffs—Direct

128a 5

Paul D. CTlite for Plaintiffs Dir '

MAY ee ee those eee re bela

bused back to Hast High? eee A. That:

J)/%)%)) „„

rlay? A. Yes, they are. In this area there are

students, and in this area 249. And in effect removing

from East, approximately 390 students. To Hast, would

come 195 students from George Washington and 172 stu-

dents from South, a total of approximately 367 pupils

And then 100 switched to South from George Washington,

Q. Now while I still have you on your feet, Doctor,

wity don't ‘we Sousidor Mxbibit 6 which T believe pertain

to the junior high schools.

Dr. Klite calling your attention first to Exhibit 8, weil

ia: ibaa ee 46 denied én that exhibit? A. This

is a 1967 boundary map of the junior high boundaries,

In blue are listed the names of the schools affected by

Resolution 1520 and 1524. Ten of the junior high schools

are so affected. It looks like this is 11 of the junior high

schools so affected. The first overlay shows the main

: 0. That's Exhibit 841 A. Yes, that’s correct. In green

are depicted areas 1921 that will be detached from the

Smiley Junior High School boundary and changed to be

part of the boundaries of other junior high schools across

the city. These are color coded on this overlay in green,

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffe—Direct

ransported are listed. In yellow, is listed an

+ the present boundaries of Smiley Junior

tached to other schools across the city. These

in green was in the Barrett boundary, was detached from

Barrett area and sent to five other predominantly

nglo schools across the city. This is depicted by. the

rows showing students to Moors 42; students to Mont-

ir; 100; to Whiteman, to Carson, and to Ashley; a total

lightly more than 300 students than detached from

100

Paul D. Tlite for Plaintiffo Direct

the Barrett area. Brought to the Barrett area was an

area containing 225 students in the Lowry Air Force Base

area who had been going to Montclair and Whiteman,

FAA

Schools and the Anglos sent to Barrett would have been

balanced by Negroes sent from Barrett into those other

receiving schools? 1941 A. Well, two sending areas; one,

the Moore School area and the other, the Lowry Air

Force Base area. Exhibit 9B shows a second aspect of

Resolution 1531. This is the busing of students from Sted-

man Elementary School to three schools in southwest Den-

Sas renee ee ee, eee They would receive

and 30 pupils respectively. .

VVV A.

That's correct.

d ie are being bused. back instead! A. That's

1717

Do you recall what the racial composition of Stedman

was prior to these resolutions! A. Stedman is greater

than 95 percent Negro.

ere pes

tion changed? A. Not appreciably, no.

. So this was to relieve overcrowding! A. This was

eee units. tron

Stedman. There are approximately 235 I believe or some-

where in that neighborhood students presently being bused

from Stedman because of overcrowdness. This is an ad-

ditional busing of 120 students from Stedman. |

The next exhibit overlay 90, shows additional Sspects

of Resolution 1531 pertaining to elementary schools. This

13la

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiff Direct

( depicts mie steps that are being taken to £95]

lize the membership in the Park Hill and Philips

tary School district. In Park Hill School for exam-

‘depicted in yellow, 70 students will be detached

ark Hill area and put in the Steele attendance area.

this small yellow, spots to the Steck area.

are Negro students? A. We don’t know the

or ethnic makeup of the students to be bused.

b n purposes, however, these students have

dered to be Negro A block by block census is

ailable to know the exact racial and ethnic member-

ee In the Philips area depicted in

an area to be detached to Palmer containing 50 stu-

4 “fn red here is an area detached to Ashley contain-

* ig 30 students. Two other changes are in the Philips

“area, an area north of Colfax from Montclair is detached

to Philip and an area in southeast Denver that had had

@hildren transported to Palmer is now moved to the Philips

“ares . the 50 students detached to Palmer.

Thank — 25 Doctor. 1 think von can return to the

ite, ‘turning your attention first to the effect of

oi upon the senior high school schools which

wre depicted in Exhibit C, ‘as I understood your testi-

ny the principal high school to be affected was Bast

een £961 A. Bast en Schoo! fs the ren of

Q. Callin g your attention to Plaintiffs’ Hixhibit 70, does

N exhibit reflect what the racial composition at East

E A. That is

It shows that East High-School would have ap-

mately 25 percent Negro population under Resolu-

920.

132a x

Paul D. Klite for Plaintiffs—Direct—Voir Dire

Now turning your attention to what's been marked

for identification as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 7D does that ex

Bast High will be under the recision of 1520? A. Yes, it

Mr. Greiner: Your Honor, this was one of the

exhibits I believe which counsel had some question

concerning.

N Would von wish to examine on voir dire or I oan

establish a foundation for it.

Mr, Creighton: I think if you will let me ask a

couple of questions, you will understand our prob-

lem with this.

Mr. Greiner: I know what your problem is.

Voir Dire Examination by Mr. Creighton:

Q. Mr. Klite, what figures do you—how do you arrive

at your figures on what you call post recision proportion!

A. Since there would be no boundary changes we have as-

sumed that the racial and ethnic composition of those three

tor high schools would be what it was in 1968,

J. So that when you say post recision or after recision,

you're using last year’s figures? A. That's correct.

Q. Are you taking into account the alternative planning

the School District made under Resolution 1533? A. We

have not until a few days ago had the figures of the numbers

of students who had volunteered to be transported. There-

e e eee ee Capen reer,

Ur. Creighton: ‘Your Honor, so long as it’s un-

_ derstood by the Court that post recision Gata here

really represents last year’s racial figures and pro-

portions, this may go in.

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffe—Direct

Mr. Greiner: I think I might also—it might also

time, Your Honor, to note that this same fac-

—— is present with regard to Plaintiffs’

| 8D and 9E. And these then would be intro-

hana with the same understanding.

Mr. Creighton: With that understanding they may

‘introduced, Your Honor.

The Court: Very well. ‘What's the number of that

Mr. Greiner: 7D.

And then, there is 70 and then there is 8D and

_ (Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 70, 7D, 8D,

8 and 9E were received in evidence.) —

Examination by Mr. Greiner (Continued) :

Calling your e Dr. Klite, to Plaintiffs’ Ex-

L , that exhibit does purport to show what the racial

on of East High School will be is Resolution 1520

deat A. Yes.

Q. W at is shown there A. It shows that Last High

hoo CW

beh

134

oent if the resolution is rescinded and it is close to 30 per-

dent in 1969 with implementation of the resolution. I

might add that the school district projects that by 1971

nee e School

ne: Re Shows ene

1993 Dr. Elite, this thon was one of the:stabilizing moves

as described by Mr. Benton in his testimony this mor.

ing! A. Yes, it was and I think that can best be demon-

strated with Table Exhibit 7F which shows the percent

Anglo enrollment at the three subject senior high schools

from 1963 to 1968. In 1963 Hast High School was 83 per-

cent Anglo. It was in 1968 54 percent Anglo, showing a

marked decrease in the number of Anglo students at that

school. The racial and ethnic composition of the other two

subject high schools was more stable.

Q. This then demonstrates that Hast High School is a

school in transitiont

ert: sia Your Honor. That’s

~The Court: Sustained n can draw that

ies ion next, Dr. Klite, to the effect

n .

the primary nla lege ge a

t 18 corres 8C shows the ten

and racial com-

1358

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

s to project what the racial composition of Smiley

ded? A. Exhibit 8D shows that without implementa-

of the Resolution 1520 and 24 as projected from the

nyse Smiley would be 24 percent Anglo and

: eee eee ies tei

i be just to completely reverse the racial composition

that's at Smiley, is that correct? A. That's correct.

lustrates that change? A. Yes, Exhibit 8E, which again

depic erent ne eer ee

abject. junior high schools. In red under implementa-

ot Resolutions 1520 and 24 and in yellow without im-

tation of these resolutions. One can see that the

ning aner is the red bars. Cole [101] is affected in

essentially unaffected in terms of its percent Negro

30 by the resolutions. Smiley is the school with

en rivera agro r

t Anglo in 1968. By 1968 it was 24 percent Anglo.

1363

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiff s—Direct

percent Anglo in 1968. The other junior high schools have

— — E UR engines the petiog

six years from which data is available.

e eee

Resolution 1531 upon the subject elementary schools, have

tion of those elementary schools under Resolution 1531?

A. Exhibit 9D lists the number and percent Anglo and

Negro and Hispano enrollment for the 17 subject junior

high [102] schools. And it shows that under Resolution

. Pardon me. Did you say junior high? A. —subject

elementary schools. Excuse me. Under the Resolution 1531

each of these schools with the exception of Stedman would

have between 70 and 85 percent Anglo enrollment. Sted-

man would have five percent Anglo enrollment. Stedman,

BF Spall, fo: She eee eau whids Negro: sebadle: were

ii Aan:

Q. That's one-way busing for een e A. Tes.

Q. Doetor, as I recall Mr. Benton’s testimony, it was the

primary focus of 1531—that was up on Barrett. Could

you tell us what the racial composition of Barrett would

be under Resolution 1531? A. Barrett would be 73 percent

Anglo, 24 percent Negro, and three percent Hispano. -

. Now Mr. Benton also testified that there was to be

some stabilization at two of the other elementary schools.

Could you identify those for us? A. Park Hill and Sted-

derbe, be ip r Uses pg; wouls ‘be 7

percent Anglo and Philips 70 percent Anglo.

. Doctor, you also prepared an exhibit which 75

ports — the effect. of the resolutions agon the

: on of the subject elementary schools!

C1081 A. Yeo, bm which shows thet Barrett woul

137a

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

the 70 percent under the resolution; that Park Hill

have 71 percent Anglo instead of 79 as under the

would be either ten or 11 that would have greater

percent Anglo enrollment.

Now, Doctor, have yon also similarly prepared an ex-

depicting the differences before and after the resolu-

at the subject schools! A. Yes, Exhibit 9F which

s the percent Negro and Hispano enrollment at the

17 e apie e e eee ee dt e te

0 Stedman not being appreciably affected by these

ne major effect being at Barrett School which would

e eee,

Anglo 33 and Philips which would change from a 30

. | Tah e ee e e 838 minority

e ee eee, e

Erhibits 97 and 98, have you also had occasion [104]

Prepare a composite table showing certain data for all

‘the schools of the school districtt A. Yes.

O. Of what was the source of the data? A. Are you

rring to these two exhibits? ?

es. A. These are copies of the estimated ethnic

ution of pupils for all of the schools in the school

oe eer os

So these then are tables that have been prepared by

bol district? A. That is correct.

Wenns

138a

Paul D. Klite—for Plaintiffs—Direct

‘elie, Greiner: e eee, eee ent

Mx. Creighton: No objection.

>» The Court: ‘What are db erbat nitibers?

Mx. Greiner: That's 97 and 98, Your Honor.

5 Tie e They will be received.

Gene Pai nate 7 an 6 wn

___ Feceived in evidence.)

aa lds ny Dr. Kite, have you also prepared

a table that shows the change of the ethnic composition of

mentary schools from 1963 to 1968. It shows that Barrett

School was two percent Anglo in 1963 and in 1968 it was

zero percent Anglo. Under Resolution 1531 it would be 73

percent Anglo. It also shows that Stedman was a predom-

inantly Negro and Hispano school in 1963 and has remained

50. It also shows that the Anglo population of Park Hill

and Philips, which was 98 and 97 percent, respectively, in

1963, has ec to 71 percent for Park Hill and 55 per-

eent for Philips by 1968. ‘The other schools are relatively

stable on this chart

i Ar Ort _We havo no farther question ofthe

witness, Your Honor.

8 a forthe record, we do eder each of these e

r. Creighton: I wonder, Mr. Greiner, if you

_gonl just list the exhibits you have just offered for

sie enden fer my ,

755 S ee site EPH

139

Paul: D. Klite- for Plaintiff s—Oross

Mr. Greiner: Yes. The exhibits are the following:

7, TA, C, D, E, and F; see 082 om sa ag

cane Dee if

CWuereupon, Plaintiffs’ Hriübits 7, 7A, 70, fn,

"Te, TR, 8, 8A, BB, 80, 8D, 8H, SH, 9, 9A, 9B,

90, 9D, 9E, 9F, 91, 97 and 98 were received

in evidence)

ition. from time to time, we Feary Pi

ra on school district 1 A. That's correct.

1 d as of what date were these school district figures

von were speaking to the racial compositions in the

rious schools at the time 1520, 24 and 31 were passed!

on e ee: ante for: Son, 4800-44 908, eee

ul L of April 1969 and the review volume which is called

2 XX think it shouldbe Ait, for May of 196, and sup-

| een

140a

Paul D. Tlite for Plaintiff s Cross

. Are there mileage scales on your map, Dr. Clyde!

A. That map has a scale of 2.7 inches equals 1 mile.

Q. You're looking at 9-C, are you not? A. That's right.

Q. Do all of the larger maps have that same scale!

.. b

with a little patience, I think but have you measured off

mileages or distances in terms of miles as between any

of the schools where you're drawing arrows here! [108]

would it not? A. An estimate of it, yes.

mous with last year’s ethnic data, not only with respect

to those three exhibits; but is it fair to say, Doctor, that

year’s figures! A. That is correct. The changes that

might occur within a given school year from population

changes reflect the 1969 attendance. We have no way of

knowing—I have no way of knowing at the present time.

Q. Did you make any inquiry into the school district’s

methodology in making its projections and determinations

of these ethnic figures? A. Well, we assumed, for ex-

_ ample, if I may give you an example—

: Al right. What did you assume, Doctor? A. That

Se pi Roe eee

1 referring to your high’ school ‘exhibit, and 1

weil it for this colloquy, but you understand, Dr.

„ that it’s only in the case of the high school stu-

ing is provided? A. Well, the review of May 1969

. 875 pupils will be transported at the Senior high

el. Now, 875 turned out to be the total number moved

ong those boundary changes.

Q. East High School boundary changes? A. Yes, sir.

gh school boundary changes. And, they're listed in the

eie [publication of the Denver Public Schools as being

asportec VF

4 ‘Mr. Greiner: We do have Exhibits 10 and 11,

which are what he is referring to.

Mx. Creighton: Tes, let's put them in at this

point, Mr. Greiner.

The Court: All right. They are received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 10 and 11

ea e e

ak eee ben td

a area busing to Sonth. Is there any other bus-

Mr. Creighton: You may examine. nee

Mr. Greiner: . would

/ eee e ian es ee Exhibits: 10 and 11

which have been authenticated by the defendant.

i ere, eee tot ae ene

2 AF 7 .

GAGS ve “Mr: Grsightons No, = 1 indiated efor, they

if shel may be admitted. N

The Court: me, will be received

Redinect’ Eeowination.by-Mr,.Osemers,- 4g |

O. Did you state, Dootor, a hss d Profen ten by ths

School Distriet as to what the expected racial 11111 com-

position of Smiley would be? A. Les, I did.

e e eee t yeart A. It’s published in

e review. T don't ll whether it was 1969 or 71 or

; “If L could see a copy of that exhibit I could tell you

“estimate for 19—for , is

A he torah A180

eee ee eee eee

that is not reflected in these exhibits. A. Yes.

| Wat was the result of that projection? A. Their

estimate for Mast in the Mxhibit 10 is 68 pereent Anglo

in 1969 an 1 Anglo in 1971. This later figure

was in error and is corrected in Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11

whieh ‘shows ‘the 1971 racial composition at Bast to be

estimated at 73° percent Anglo

tr drei ‘Feferenioe ie the’ — raised on . cross

e e wont ee

i in these exhibits? A. No, they were not.

“And in fat we ave gone back i September of 168

iso .

i sens te tows schools, Doetor, ‘does

1968 date tend to understate the ieee

in hes schools after rescisiont A. It very

144

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaiatiffs Direct

Direct beraten Mr. Barnes:

E James D. Voorhees, Jr, 170 Down.

uus Street, Denver, Colorado.

By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Mr. ‘Voorhees, are you presently a member of the

of Education and a defendant in this case? A. I

am.

", When del sun €204 comme om. the Board of Education!

A. After the election in May of 1965.

. Prior to that time did you serve in any capacity for

the Board of Education? A. I was on and for a time was

chairman of a special study committee investigating qual-

ity of education opportunity in public schools.

Q. And that’s the report of that special study [114]

Committee—that’s what has been identified as Plaintiffs’

Exhibit. 20 in this canse, J think. Is that this report? A.

Yes, itis.

Q. Mr. Voorhees, have you had a change in position with

regard to the question of equal education opportunity in

segregated schools? hae et, Were eee

change.

Ces this evolution occarred during the time joe

‘were on the Board? A. Yes, it has.

Q. Were you one of the members on the Board who

voted in favor of the integration resolutions which are

the subject of this discussion! A. I was.

JJ ͤ 110

to in this evolution? Does your vote represent where you

changed to in this evolution? A. Yes, I think that would

be a fair statement.

10 es ea, ts Sectors thak iota veltdioniling

eee A. Well, at some point, and I couldn't

yas wrong in the manner in which the educational

hment was treating, and the result that it was

from this group of children that we are now talk-

out, and I would include as well the children who

e considered as the product of a subculture of

as vou know there is an ane of, between

e point: it became quite spparent tb me laat ung

that were available to the children of the

rima y Anglo and middle class which makes up

e of course, of the students in the school.

eee ee eee

ent as compared to other schools where these

of the kind of rn concerning achievement

t scores to which you refer! A. It is.

1460

rr Sender: Maia sst

. Mr. Voorhees, is the composition of the School Board

the same today ag it was at the time the integration reals.

tions were passed? A. No, it is not.

. What brought about that change? A. An election

held di: ‘May mad of Win yous Whichi resulted in two bes

members, Mr. Southworth and Mr. Perrill, dan ne

to the Board. f '

d Might that have been May 201 A: May 20. Excuse

me.

n dean judgment what were the foca subjects at

fete: ie nne

‘The. Court: Oh, brother.

Do you object to that question?

Mr. Craig: Yes, I do, Your Honor. I don’t think

this is a proper question to ask of a lay witness,

The Court: Sustained. -

Q. Following the election, did the School Board hold

conferences, with regard to actions on these resolutions!

A. It held at least one at which I was present and [117]

I think it may have held another one in which I was present.

My calendar shows two such conferences. And then there

was a third conference which—at which I was not present.

Q. Was there any in-depth discussion of the educational

benefits of these resolutions at the conferences you at-

tended? A. No, there was not.

. Was there any in-depth discussion of the educational

benefits that would accrue from the rescission of these

resolutions? A. No, there was not.

Q. Did the Superintendent take a stand with regard to

the rescission of these resolutions? A. It is my recollec-

CC ˙ 1

1473

es D. Voorhees, Jr. for Plaintiffe—Direct

sission; that he did feel they were sound and ed-

Uõy- th: the resolution were sound and were ed-

3 viable and were a step forward in solving some

of this district.

r was fhe reason that was given for the rescis-

these resolution? A. As I remember, the then

ty, the new majority of the Board indicated that

‘received a mandafe from the voters of the peo-

le to restore [118] the confidence of the people of

eee ee ee

‘Did the Board then meet on June 9, 1969, and take

— ee resolution? A. Yes,

‘What did it dot A. It rescinded the three resolu-

1520, 1594 and 1531.

Did it do that by motion or by resolution? A. It

t by motion and resolution on each separate resolu.

Q. Was a subsequent resolution then offered? A. Yes.

hink there were several that won a substitute resolution

tified as 1533 was offered. And then it seems to me

re were two or three others having to do with volun-

Y pr and individual schools. ü

Q. Ae you what has been marked as Plaintifte Bx.

64 and ask you if that is the Resolution 15331 A.

N 8 to be it.

Mr. Babson: hte’ has ase Ben vtipulated to as

to its authenticity, Your Honor.

The Court: Very well.

148a

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6A was te

ceived in evidence.) |

oe %%% 0b tentenes Whacrted exsinet-the ten

passage of Resolution 15331 A. Yes.

Q. What was the vote on that resolution? „

Q. The Court has heard previous testimony concerning

the passage of 1490, Mr. Voorhees, I think, before you

i here. Are you familiar with that resolution! 4.

Q. How did you vote on that resolution! A. I voted

for that resolution.

Q. Does Resolution 1533 act, in your judgment, to ac

complish the aducational objectives of Resolution 1490!

A. I can’t see how it does, no

Q. Mr. Voorhees, have you filed an answer to this cause!

A. Well, yes, Mrs. Noel and Dr. Amesse and I filed an

answer today.

Q. For the purpose simply of identifying to the Court

the position taken to that answer, can you state what your

prayer ist A. Our prayer as to the first count is that

the relief requested be granted. Our prayer as to the

second count—

Q. Just as to the first count is all. That will do.

11201 Mr. Barnes: Your Honor, Plaintiffs’ Ex

hibit 6 is on the—is the official publication of the

Board and the minutes of the meeting of June 9,

1969, and it has been admitted as to its authenticity.

We would like to offer it at this time.

The Court: Do you have any objection! «

Mr. Craig: May I examine that exhibit?

149a

mes D. Voorhees, Jr. for Plaintiffs—Direct —

The Court: Surely.

Mr. Craig: No objection, Your Honor.

The Court: It will be received.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 was received

in evidence.) 8

i Voorhece; wes the content of Resolutiot'1583 dis

sd in conferences prior to June 9, 19691 ee Soar

we at which I was present.

When was the first occasion that you saw Resolution

| A, It was at our places in the form in which it

3 enacted when the meeting opened.

4 Q. ‘Were there subsequently public hearings to discuss

th content of that resolution! A. No, except at Board

meetings. It was a public meeting.

resolution! [121] A. By Board members. I have

lection which the minutes would perhaps confirm

a request was made that persons present be permitted

discuss it before it was voted on, and it’s my recollec-

that that was not permitted,

Approximately how many people testified at tha time

srning this resolution? A. From the public? I don’t

BV any public presentation was made before the mo-

was called for a vote.

Mr. Barnes: No further question of this witness,

Tour Honor.

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, may I suggest we have

eben, an e ee ee 61 is ny t6 Set our

cross-examination?

The Court: vr well. Let me know when you're

150a

James D. Voorhees, Jr.—for Plaintiffs—Direct

ccc

resumed at 3:27 p. m.)

Mr. Craig: Your Honor, we have no questions of

Mr. Barnes: I would like to direct one more ques-

tion to the witness, if I may.

‘The Court: You may.

By Mr. Barnes:

. Mr. Voorhees, I believe you £122] testified earlier

about your opinion as to the effectiveness of Resolution

1533 to achieve the intended results of Resolution 1490,

Would you state, please, why you think Resolution 1533

is inadequate to achieve the goals of 14907 A. Well, ba-

ee ea: and it seemed

to me that the possibilities of achieving any kind of sta-

bilization, particularly in a school that is as troubled as

Smiley, for example, or maybe Bast, maybe Barrett, or

maybe any of those resegregated elementary schools of

Park Hill on a voluntary basis was nil. I thought of that

resolution as a sort of a sop to the community and I didn’t

pS ere cage pane even in that category.

Mr. Barnes: Thank you. I have no further ques-

tions of this witness, Your Honor.

The Court: Well, the thrust of it was to seek

ee SOON AE, a wey SNe te tino!

The Witness: am aoe Honor, that’s about what

if says.

The Court: But it said aside all of these boundary

changes that had been adopted. r

The Witness: They bad already been bet aside.

This 1533, as I remember it, was in lieu of the

here in question.

The Court: 1 take it that it would depend upon

on that, which I think is an absolute impossibility,

and I don't think people are going to volunteer

ents—to a school that is not going to be an integrated

school when their child arrives. It would also, of

course, have required the making of room in those

oleae eee

Mr. Barnes: We have no further questions.

v W Aaeee: 2 *

sess

mB. Banbwaiz, a-witnees called ou behalf of plain-

—

The Court: ‘What is your occupation!

N Tue Witness: Jam a mathematician and statisti-

152a

George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiff s—Direct

The Court: Where do you work?

The Smear ey of een ate

By Mr. Barnes:

Q. Dr. en Sasi le £125] occasion to make a

study of population movement and property values in the

Park Hill area of Denver? A. Yes, I have.

Q. I show you what has been identified as Plaintiffs’ Ex-

co oa age pn «alive peg me Big ver ag Mie,

the stipulation went.

Mr. Creighton: No, it was not. It was in your

series submitted to us last night, but we have had

ams ie lock at this, Tour Honor, and we have no

objection to its going in.

The Court: May I see it, please.

This was prepared by the Community Relations

Committee of the City and County of Denver?

The Witness: Yes, that’s right, sir. I served asa

consultant to the Commission on Community Rela-

tions.

The Court: You prepared it for that agency?

The Witness: I did.

The Court: And it’s dated April 1966

The Witness: That’s right, sir.

Mr. Barnes: I am not going to ask him questions

from this, Your Honor, but it indicates a study in

the background— _

The Court: Vien Sock. wah ͤ cued ik, in Gnd

right?

Mr. Barnes: It indicates a background fnowledge

£126] to which Dr. Bardwell will testify. —

: ‘George l. Bordiecll-jor Plaiatife--Direet

~The Court: Maybe his testimony will spare me the

burden of reading the whole thing, or, point up the

era :

r. Barnes:

Dr. Bardwell, I hand you what has been identified as

tiffs’ Exhibit 92 and ask you if you have had occasion

spare a table which.purports to show the assignment

obationary teachers and teachers with no previous

or Public School experience, and teachers with ten or

years’ Denver Public School experience.as they relate

subject elementary schools.

Mr. Creighton: What number was that, please?

The Witness: Excuse me. It’s of senior high

schools. ö

The Court: This is the assignment of teachers

with reference to their previous experience? Is that

what you are talking about?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Your Honor.

‘What is the source of the information contained in

table? A. This table was compiled from a set of IBM

outs that were supplied to us by the Division of Per-

Services of the Denver Public Schools.

What does the table purport to show? [127] A.

tiffs’ Exhibit 92 shows the three senior high schools

ot to Resolution 1520, East, George Washington, and

1. It shows the percentage of the total teachers at

‘schools who have probationary status, no previous

‘Public Schools school experience, and the propor-

154a

tion of teachers with ten or more years of Denver Public

sen bueatanerocnte :

130] see

By Mr. Barnes:

‘Q. Dr: Bardwell, what does Exhibit 92 show with regard

to the percent of probationary teachers at East High

School, George Washington, and South A. It shows in

the year 1968 that the percentage of probationary teachers

at East of 34 percent, which was double that at George

Washington and also at South.

Q. Does it show with regard to the percent of those

11311 teachers with no previous Denver Public Schools

experience in those three schools? A. It shows a pattern

very similar to that indicated for probationary teachers by

which 17 percent of the 128 teachers at East had no pre-

vious Denver Public School experience, and that percentage

is almost double that at Geo Washington and more

than double that at South =

Q. Mr. Bardwell, I hand yo what's been identified as

Plaintiffe’ Exhibit 93 and ask you what that purports to

show. A. This exhibit is similar to the preceding exhibit

showing probationary teachers as a percent of teachers

with no previous Denver Public School experience—as a

percent, and teachers with ten or more years’ Denver

Public School experience for the Junior High Schools

under Resolutions 1520 and 1524.

What is the source of the information of that data!

. The source for thia is identical to that of the, previons

2 ³˙ Rew hr al entitled, The

pend fears of nee in Denver Public. Schools,

| ers, by School, Division of Personnel Ser-

_ George E. Bardwell—for Plaintiff Direct

Mr. Barnes: erte gene fegen NE Ex-

. Creighton: Same cbjetion as to Number 92

or, Bardwell, ae is the auen of *

rs that are at Cole Junior High School shown on your

le? A. The percentage of probationary: teachers is 66

How does that compare with Hill Junior High School?

ill Junior High School has 34 percent probationary

rs. Therefore, by simple calculation, Cole has double

—.... ͤ0öö tt Gove EIR:

Nearly double? A. (No answer.)

Durning your attention to Smiley Junior High School,

at is the percent of probationary teachers shown there?

Here, the figure is very similar to that at Cole in which

reent of the 98 teachers at Smiley are on probationary

hose same schools for the columns you have list ad for

or more experience? 11331 A. Yes, they are.

For example, what does the table show with racand t

ers of ten or more years experience at Hill and at

5 Junier High School? A. Here, the comparison is

more dramatic, In the case of Smiley we have 7 per-

it of the teachers having 10 or more years of Denver

“a PP

ö — 8

d teachers at Hill than at Smiley.

. Bardwell, I hand you what has been identified

PI Exhibit 94 and ask you what that purports to

+ is Sh dae similar to the preceding two ex-

156a

hibite, 92 and 98, showing the probationary teachers with no

previous Denver Public School experience and teachers

with ten or more years of Denver Public School experience;

the experience expressed as a percent for those elementary

schools that are affected by Resolution 1531 for 1968.

2. ‘What is the source of that exhibit? A. The source is

identical to that of the preceding two exhibits, the IBM

printouts which are a study of the years of experience of

paar Public School teachers.

Mr. 8 g 8 1 ‘offer Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 94, Your

Honor.

C1842 Mr, Oreiguton: Same objection.

“The Court: Overruled.

(Whereupon, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 92, 93 and 94

‘were received in evidence.)

2. Die den would you ake at rene ths des

parison by way of example of two schools on that table,

Palmer and Philips, all the way through. A. Turning our

attention first to Palmer, we have a total number of teach-

ers of 16. ‘The proportion or percentage of probationary

teachers at Palmer is 13 percent. At Philips, we have 26

teachers. The proportion of probationary teachers at Phil-

ips is 58 percent. This means that at Palmer, compared’ to

Philips, we have roughly four times the percentage of pro-

bationary teachers at Philips than we do at Palmer. For

those teachers that have no previous Denver Public School

experience, Palmer has 6 percent. Philips, on the other

hand, has 27 percent, which means again that we have about

4 times the percentage of teachers at Philips that “a

previous DPS experience as compared to that at Palmer

e tor thasé een Wie 88e den or Muro years

of experience at Palmer we have 75 percent of those teach-

157a

ge E. Bardwell—for Plaimtiffs—Direct

‘so-called experienced group. On the other hand,

eee eee eee

Exhibit 96 and ask you what that purports to

A. Exhibit 96 is a distribution by race and eth-

/ . ies, peasant se

t ee dee, pense h Nee e ener g

or September 28, 1968.

What is the sonree of the information oontained in

what’s the source of that table? A. The source of

lary schools? ee tat about 88 porn

atary teachers are Negro.

t does the exhibit show to be the Negro percent of

chers in that school? A. At Barrett, 52.6 percent of the

hers are [137] Negro.

. A ‘compared to an average distribution of 8.5 per-

{1 A. As compared to an average distribution forall

ntary schools in the district of 8.5 percent.

What does the exhibit show With regard to Stedman

lt A. With regard to Stedman, 21.1 percent of the

are Negro compared to 8.5 percent for the district

1588

George E. Bardwell-for Plaintiff s—Direct

. Dr. Bardwell, Plaintiffs’: Exhibit: No. 26 has already

been offered and received, and I would like to show it to

vou, Dr. Bardwell. Will you look at it to refresh your

memory as to what Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 26 is. A. It's Den-

ver Public Schools Policy, 1,617 A, dealing with the change

of assignment for employees. And the policies thereof.

. What does it show with regard to the control by the

School District of Denver of teacher assignments? A. It

shows. here that a request for change of assignment cannot

always. be granted because the employee is not qualified

for the existing vacancy nor the transfer from the present

school or department would not serve the best interests

of nmelde :

. Wust does it show with: regard to the relevancy of

11381 eee in the ee teachers?

Mr. Creighton ag Honor, if this. staal is

going to interpret ‘policy, I will object. If he is go-

_ing to read certain portions to highlight them, I sup-

Pose it is all right.” Is this what you are doing?

Mr. Barnes: Pm not even going to ask him to

esd that; ‘just state in general what the policy—

The Court: Well, he may answer.

Mr. Creighton: I object.

A bene eee with regs Wo thin eit ber.

is that seniority is a factor in transfer of à teacher and

that that transfer should be taken—should take cognizance

eee eee ans ol a teacher in considering

transfer.

. Dr. Bardwell, what daes he policy 15A show as to

the ‘possibility for’ changes in teacher assignment. on the

enre u the enrollment of a school is changing!

A. Tt permiite’a consideration of transfer of teachers, when

iment — when there is a change of enrollment;

here may be a transition perhaps in the school itself.

Bardwell, I direct your attention again to Plain-

20 and ask you to look at page D13 and state

ding reflected there is of the special [139] com-

-what it was abo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.