Franklin v. Quitman County Board of Education, DC 679.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. DC 679.,DC 679.
• Citation: 288 F. Supp. 509
• Parties: Hull Hopson Richardson FRANKLIN et al. v. The QUITMAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

288 F. Supp. 509

Hull Hopson Richardson FRANKLIN et al. v. The QUITMAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

No. DC 679.

United States District Court N. D. Mississippi, Delta Division.

July 29, 1968.

Iris Brest, Jackson, Miss., Louis R. Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Ney M. Gore, Jr., Partee L. Denton, Marks, Miss., John E. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Miss., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KEADY, Chief Judge.

This case, in its present posture, relates to construction of new school facilities in Quitman County, Mississippi. By Section VII of a plan of desegregation for the 1967-68 school year ordered by this court on August 29, 1967, the County Board of Education was required to locate and construct any new school "with the objective of eradicating the vestiges of the dual system". On October 13, 1967, the Board filed a report proposing to abolish four high schools within the district located at Sledge, Crowder, Marks and Lambert, to construct a high school attendance center near Marks, said to be the center of the district's school population, and to obtain funds for such purpose by requesting the qualified voters of the school district to approve a bond issue, and also by requesting a grant from the State Educational Finance Commission. No order approving this plan was entered by the court, nor was formal objection thereto immediately made.

On November 7, 1967, the County Board of Education adopted a resolution reciting that it was necessary to borrow funds in an amount not exceeding $500,000 for the purpose of "erecting school buildings and related facilities and purchasing land therefor" and requesting the Board of Supervisors of Quitman County to call an election of the qualified voters of the district to determine whether or not such bonds might be approved. The Board's resolution also recited that an estimate of the total cost of construction, including land purchase, was $775,000, of which $275,000 would be paid by grant from the State Educational Finance Commission and the balance to be paid from the proceeds of the bond issue. On November 10, 1967, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution adjudicating the essential legal requirements and ordering the calling of a special election. Neither of the resolutions adopted by the County Board of Education or the County Board of Supervisors, nor the proposal submitted to the voters limited the question to the acquisition of land for, and construction of, a county-wide high school; rather they were each cast in general terms for erecting, repairing and equipping school buildings and related facilities, including the purchase of land therefor.

On December 12, 1967, an election was held. More than three-fifths of the qualified electors voting in the election voted in favor of the bond issue, and the Election Commissioners so certified to the Board of Supervisors. On January 2, 1968, the Board of Supervisors adopted an order finding all jurisdictional facts required by law and directing the issuance of bonds of $500,000 on behalf of Quitman County School District. On January 2, 1968, The County Board of Education applied to State Educational Finance Commission for a grant of $275,000, which was approved in due course. On January 22, 1968, the County Board of Education executed a sixty day option contract for the purchase of a proposed site for a new school, to be constructed as a county-wide high school.

On February 15, 1968, the County Board of Education filed its motion in this court requesting formal approval of the proposed construction of the new high school attendance center, and plans and specifications were exhibited therewith.

On February 21, 1968, plaintiff, for the first time, expressed their formal opposition to the proposed construction by filing written objection in this court, asserting that the construction of a county-wide new high school attendance center would perpetuate a segregated school system in that the new high school would be attended predominantly by white pupils while the all-Negro Quitman County High School, also at Marks, would continue indefinitely as a Negro school, and specifically the proposed location of the new high school, if it were to operate under a freedom-of-choice pupil attendance plan, would preserve, if not actually increase, segregation within the district. On March 22, 1968, the school site option expired, with the Board of Education having taken no action to exercise or extend it. On March 23, 1968, the Educational Finance Commission was notified that the site option had expired, and on March 26, 1968, it revoked its $275,000 grant. On April 1, 1968, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution rescinding and revoking its prior resolution for the issuance of bonds. This action was not requested in any manner by the Board of Education, nor was it advised that the Board of Supervisors intended to rescind the bond issue.

On May 7, 1968, plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint adding as defendants the Board of Supervisors of Quitman County, the Mississippi State Educational Finance Commission, sued as a "state agency", and T. H. Naylor, Jr., individually and as Executive Secretary of the State Educational Finance Commission. By this pleading plaintiffs urged that the Board of Supervisors be required to issue and sell bonds in accordance with its resolution of January 12, 1968, and that the Educational Finance Commission be required to reinstate its grant so as to permit the construction of "a consolidated secondary school" in Quitman County. Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction to order the Board of Supervisors to refrain from invalidating or delaying the issuance of school bonds and to require it to issue and sell the bonds in accordance with its prior order, and that Educational Finance Commission be enjoined from taking any action to prevent the grant of $275,000 to Quitman County School Board and to withhold approval and issuance of all other grants, loans or advances until the grant first be made to Quitman County. On May 17, 1968, the County Board of Education filed its motion to dismiss as moot all motions dealing with proposed construction of a high school attendance center for the reason that the option upon the proposed school site acquired by it had lapsed and the site was no longer available, and also because of the actions of the Board of Supervisors of Quitman County in rescinding the $500,000 bond issue and of the State Educational Finance Commission in withdrawing the $275,000. Quitman County Board of Supervisors answered, admitting the facts as to the school bond financing and its rescission of the bond issue. On May 27, 1968, plaintiffs filed another motion to require, insofar as relates to school construction, newly added defendants, State Educational Finance Commission and T. H. Naylor, Jr., to assist the County Board of Education in the preparation of a new survey of educational needs and long range plans designed to eliminate a segregated school system.

Upon a hearing, Thomas H. Naylor, Jr. was dismissed as a party defendant, and the court required the joinder of the individual members of the State Educational Finance Commission as defendants, on the ground that they were the parties subject to suit and State Educational Finance Commission possessed no suable corporate capacity. On June 19, 1968, the members of the State Educational Finance Commission, thus joined, filed their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, final action on which was deferred after an evidentiary hearing on July 12, 1968. At the same time the court overruled a motion by plaintiffs to amend their complaint to sue on behalf of all Negro school children in the state, the court concluding that, in view of the posture of the case from its beginning, the litigation should be confined to the school children and school facilities of the Quitman County School District.

There converge upon the court at this time rulings upon the following motions: (1) motion of County Board of Education for dismissal on the ground that the issues presented are moot; (2) motion of members of the State Educational Finance Commission to dismiss for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted; and (3) motion of plaintiffs for injunctive relief for specific school construction or such alternative relief as might be proper.

The essential facts are largely stipulated and many have been incorporated in the recital heretofore made. After the bond election had carried and the Board of Supervisors approved the bond issue, the County Board of Education obtained an option upon 25 acres of land adjacent to the city limits of Marks as a site. The purchase price was $47,550 to be paid in cash upon delivery of deed and $2,500 was paid as consideration for the option. In case of exercise of the option this sum was to be applied against the purchase price. The option was allowed to expire within 60 days from its date and it did not provide any method of extension. The County Board of Education made an effort to get the option extended but the landowner was agreeable to an extension only if paid at a rate of $42 for each day of the extension, with such daily payments to be applied to the purchase price. Later, and before any of the motions could be heard, the land was planted to crops and is presently unavailable. Upon being advised that the proposed site for the new school was no longer available, the Educational Finance Commission cancelled its grant of $275,000 and proceeded to honor applications pending by other school districts whose demands far exceeded funds then available. However, this was a temporary situation only and by the time of the hearing before this court on July 12, 1968, the Commission had available funds sufficient for it to honor the school construction credit due Quitman County. In fact, this credit, calculated in accordance with a statutory formula,¹ is now increased to...