United States v. Sumter County School District No. 2

• Decision Date: 29 July 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. AC-1469.
• Citation: 232 F. Supp. 945
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SUMTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, Dan L. Reynolds, Chairman, and H. Curtis Edens, Jr., Clarence B. Phillips, Jr., W. Hazel McCoy, and Russell F. Jones, Members of the Board of Trustees of Sumter County School District No. 2, and Hugh T. Stoddard, District Superintendent of Education of Sumter County School District No. 2, Defendants.

232 F. Supp. 945

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SUMTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, Dan L. Reynolds, Chairman, and H. Curtis Edens, Jr., Clarence B. Phillips, Jr., W. Hazel McCoy, and Russell F. Jones, Members of the Board of Trustees of Sumter County School District No. 2, and Hugh T. Stoddard, District Superintendent of Education of Sumter County School District No. 2, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. AC-1469.

United States District Court E. D. South Carolina.

Heard July 14, 1964.

Decided July 29, 1964.

Terrell L. Glenn, U. S. Atty. for Eastern Dist. of South Carolina, and George E. Lewis, Asst. U. S. Atty., for Eastern Dist. of South Carolina, for plaintiff.

Shepard K. Nash and John S. Wilson, Sumter, for defendants.

HEMPHILL, Chief Judge.

Shaw Air Force Base, a defense establishment located in Sumter County, South Carolina, has, as necessary to its operation and performance, military and civilian personnel, many of whom live on the Base, which is owned by the United States of America. At the present time, approximately 970 children, of elementary and high school age, live on the Base. Under the provisions of Chapter 19, Title 20, United States Code, the United States Commissioner of Education has approved, and plaintiff has paid, grants calculating an estimated Nine Hundred Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Five and 33/100 ($910,465.33) Dollars between 1950 and today, for the construction and improvement of certain schools, recognized as being necessary and desirable for the instruction of the 970 children on Shaw Air Force Base and other children living off the Base. In the past, the three schools involved in this action, all owned and operated by Sumter County, have been available to children living on Shaw Air Force Base as well as others.

On May 11, 1964, Hugh T. Stoddard, District Superintendent of Education for School District No. 2 of Sumter County, in which he resides, directed a letter to the Commanding Officer of Shaw Air Force Base which read:

"By direction of the Board of Trustees of Sumter County School District Number Two you are herewith advised that said District does not feel that it can longer assume the responsibility for the education of the children living on Shaw Air Force Base, effective 1 July 1964.

"With concern for, and in the educational interest of said children, the Trustees are willing to negotiate a lease on a year by year basis, at a reasonable rent, for the school building adjacent to Shaw Air Force Base, known as Shaw Heights Elementary School, so that said children may be housed. The annual rental may be fixed by the Air Force. "Further, should some of the children on the Base wish to attend the schools of this District, applications might be accepted and considered in the light of space available and/or other factors, and with the stipulation that, if accepted and upon payment of tuition, they would attend the school to which assigned by the Trustees."

While this letter did not so state, the schools which were affected were Shaw Heights Elementary School, for which the school district received a grant of Two Hundred Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Nine and 18/100 ($218,939.18) Dollars, plus an additional Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty and 98/100 ($81,760.98) Dollars; Hillcrest Elementary High School located approximately five miles from the Base, for which various grants were received, and Shaw Junior High School located across from the Base for which defendants, or their predecessors had received various grants from the United States. The amount which the defendants or Sumter County contributed is disputed, but the amount, whatever it is, has no relevancy to the issue here.

On July 2, 1964, plaintiff instituted this action to enjoin defendants, their successors in office, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from failing to make the schools of Sumter County, in School District No. 2, in particular the schools in question, available to the children on and off the Base and thus avoiding the responsibility of the education of said children, and asking for a rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued pending a trial on the merits. Pursuant to the rule issued, on July 14, 1964, a hearing was had at Columbia, South Carolina, and the petition for prayer for preliminary injunction, at which hearing both parties were represented. At such hearing the record was completed and full arguments heard.

Counsel for defendants initially questioned the jurisdiction of the United States District Court to hear the cause, arguing that plaintiff could not maintain the action under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1345, as the Court was limited to such authority as is stated in Title 20 § 641, U.S.C., as amended, and Title 20, § 241(a) (b). The Court finds this contention on the part of defendants untenable. It was admitted at the hearing that a contractual obligation existed by virtue of certain assurances admittedly given by defendants, or their predecessors in office, upon receipt of the grants, that the school facilities of said district "will be available to the children for whose education contributions are provided * * * on the said terms in accordance with the laws of the state in which applicant is situated, as they are available to other children in applicant's district". These assurances were given on the eight separate occasions the school district applied for and received financial aid from the United States for school construction and/or improvement.

Title 20 U.S.C. § 641 authorizes the Commissioner of Education of the United States to withhold payments of Federal funds under his jurisdiction, from a local educational agency failing to comply with statutes or regulations applicable, or which diverts or improperly uses the funds. A hearing is contemplated and provided for.

Subsection (b) of § 641 reads as follows:

"The final refusal of the Commissioner to approve part or all of any application under this chapter, and the Commissioner's final action under subsection (a) of this section, shall be subject to judicial review on the record, in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the local educational agency is located, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Sept. 23, 1950, c. 995, § 11, as added Aug. 12, 1958, Pub.L. 85-620, Title I, § 101, 72 Stat. 554." Title 20 U.S.C. § 241 provides:

"(a) In the case of children who reside on Federal property —

"(1) if no tax revenues of the State or any political subdivision thereof may be expended for the free public education of such children; or

"(2) if it is the judgment of the Commissioner, after he has consulted with the appropriate State educational agency, that no local educational agency is able to provide suitable free public education for such children.

the Commissioner shall make such arrangements (other than arrangements with respect to the acquisition of land, the erection of facilities, interest, or debt service) as may be necessary to provide free public education for such children. Such arrangements to provide free public education may also be made for children of members of the Armed Forces on active duty, if the schools in which free public education is usually provided for such children are made unavailable to them as a result of official action by State or local governmental authority and it is the judgment of the Commissioner, after he has consulted with the appropriate State educational agency, that no local educational agency is able to provide suitable free public education for such children. To the maximum extent practicable, the local educational agency, or the head of the Federal department or agency, with which any arrangement is made under this section, shall take such action as may be necessary to ensure that the education provided pursuant to such arrangement is comparable to free public education provided for children in comparable communities in the State, or, in the case of education provided under this section outside the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, comparable to free public education provided for children in the District of Columbia. For the purpose of providing such comparable education, personnel may be employed without regard to the civil-service or classification laws. In any case where education was being provided on January 1, 1955, or thereafter under an arrangement made under this subsection for children residing on an Army, Navy (including the Marine Corps), or Air Force installation, it shall be presumed, for the purposes of this subsection, that no local educational agency is able to provide suitable free public education for the children residing on such installation, until the Commissioner and the Secretary of the military department concerned jointly determine, after consultation with the appropriate State educational agency, that a local educational agency is able to do so.

"Education of children in adjacent areas

"(b) In any case in which the Commissioner makes such arrangements for the provision of free public education in facilities situated on Federal property, he may also make arrangements for providing free public education in such facilities for children residing in any area adjacent to such property with a parent who, during some portion of the fiscal year in which such education is provided, was employed on such property, but only if the Commissioner determines after consultation with the appropriate State educational agency (1) that the provision of such education is appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter, (2) that no local educational agency is able to provide suitable free public education for such children, and (3) in any case where in the judgment of the Commissioner the need for the provision of such education will not be temporary in duration, that the local educational agency of the school district in which such children

...