Following the second rejection of my amici / interested persons brief by Judge Egly in April, 1980, my clients and I could do no more than watch the efforts of the A.C.L.U. attorneys and associates to have him introduce busing in San Bernardino and to continue it in Los Angeles. And watch we did!

Following the recall of its president and the change in its composition, the Los Angeles board had moved, joined by Bustop, Inc., on the basis of Prop. 1, to halt forced busing there. Judge Egly denied their efforts on May 19, 1980, on the ground that such mandatory assignments were warranted by a 1970 finding of de jure segregation (which was later found erroneous). He ordered that the busing of over 80,000 pupils should proceed in the school year starting in the fall, 1980. Crawford v. Board of Education, Superior Court No. C-822,854, June 6, 1980, Daily Journal Report, p.3.

At the same time Judge Egly intervened actively and issued his own guidelines for the implementation of the fall busing, to be carried out by the board. The activities of both the L.A. board and the students were to be monitored, as shown by the following excerpts from the guidelines in the 88-page order. They were very far-reaching, as reviewed in the light of the subsequent 1982 Supreme Court affirmance of an intermediate appellate ruling that there had been no basis for such busing (Id. at following pages):

Page 75: All students in grades 1 through 9 are and shall be available for mandatory reassignment (under the guidelines) for the purposes of desegregation commencing 1980-1981....

Page 77: To provide ready access to information as to its efforts and to aid the monitoring of the court, the board is directed to construct a file for each student ("Kid