counterparts in San Diego were facing a similar fate in the Carlin case.

The Carlin Court initially approved an integration plan without mandatory busing as a component, but had ordered the board to submit to the court on or before June 8, 1979, its determination of the effectiveness of the "all voluntary" plan, at which time the plaintiffs were expected to ask the court to order busing based upon the 1976 Crawford ruling.

The unsuccessful efforts of the opponents of busing in the Crawford case were very much in mind on May 12, 1979, when I started preparation of the intervention papers of the Groundswell people in San Diego. There were some factors in our favor — the San Diego board of education had undoubtedly taken notice of the deep opposition by Groundswell and others to busing since its 1977 meetings with parents described by Lester as presenting busing to constituents as coming, and "to just accept it." It presented, and was supporting, an integration plan without a busing component to the court, in contrast to the busing plan prepared and being supported by the Los Angeles board.

Nevertheless, I was aware of the transformation from its initial opposition to busing before the 1976 Crawford decision by the Los Angeles board: first, to a failure to challenge that decision in the Supreme Court; second, to the proposal of a busing plan; and, finally, to opposition to the right of the Bustop group to oppose it. See Bustop v. Superior Court, 69 C.A.3d 66,69 (Apr., 1977). I also faced the adverse ruling by the Bird Court in the fall of 1978, as noted above, in effect approving the busing then proceeding in Los Angeles by overruling a stay by an unanimous intermediate appellate court.

It was thus unrealistic for the Groundswell people to rely alone upon the posture of the San Diego board at that time to ultimately avoid busing in view of the changes of position by its Los Angeles counterpart, following its initial effort to prevent busing. Then, too, the board was facing the special ability of the Carlin plaintiffs' A.C.L.U.-affiliated counsel to draw upon their successful experience in Crawford I in appealing to the Bird Court any plan which did not include a busing segment.

Our papers, then, had to be prepared with a view (1) of raising issues beyond those raised by the Los Angeles board before the 1976 Crawford Court, and (2) of raising them by Groundswell parents and