THE COURT: Exhibit 8 you are referring to?

MR. ENSTROM: Exhibit 8, yes. I would like to have that received in evidence.

THE COURT: What is this all about?

MR. ENSTROM: That refers to the elementary exchange program. We want to show the staff introduced a forced busing program to the District on October 21. About a year after Proposition 1 was passed. It goes to the allegation in our complaint in intervention that the Board will be forced to consider from time to time plans involving the mandatory assignment of pupils. And it gives a history of that.

THE COURT: I don't see any harm in 8.

MRS. ROESER: No, your Honor.

MR. ENSTROM: It is part of the official record.

THE COURT: Congratulations. Eight is in evidence....

MR. ENSTROM: The last item was showing in Item 15 of the declaration that these members of Groundswell have discussed the necessity for representation of their interest. They have inquired of various attorneys as to the necessity and availability of representation; and throughout this entire period they are unable to pay attorney's fees.

THE COURT: Is that Number 9?

MR. ENSTROM: That is Number 15 in our declaration, your Honor. Item 15. We have nothing by way of an exhibit.

THE COURT: You just want to establish that fact?

MR. ENSTROM: That mainly goes to the due process.

THE COURT: The plaintiffs are impecunious — not impecunious, but are unable to pay for counsel?

MR. ENSTROM: We want to point out particularly, the real party (sic) in interest, particularly the minors in these cases, the children that are opposed to busing, are not financially able to come into these cases and be represented.

THE COURT: Very few people are.

MR. ENSTROM: And that the assumption of a legislative role by the Court denies these children of due process because they can't come in and be heard. They don't have the financial resources to do so.