{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_413","title":"Discipline, management report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School discipline","School management and organization","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/413"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Year: 93 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF Senior High CENTRAL 58 39 14 3 FAIR 98 62 34 17 HALL 96 32 45 12 MCCLELLA 69 22 14 1 METRO 24 3 4 2 PARKVIEW 22 4 10 1 Junior High CLOVR JR 72 44 22 7 DUNBAR 105 69 29 11 FORST HT 116 77 17 11 HENDERSN 131 75 10 2 MABEL JR 72 50 16 7 MANN M/S 52 29 23 3 PUL HT J 113 41 24 4 SOUTHWST 123 47 26 10 Elementary BALE 1 0 2 0 BASELINE 4 0 0 0 BOOKER 18 5 3 1 BRADY 8 0 0 0 CARVER 3 5 1 0 CHICOT 6 1 6 0 CLOVR EL 5 0 3 0 DODD 11 4 8 1 FAIR PRK 8 4 1 0 FORST PK 10 3 1 0 FULBRIGH 2 1 0 1 GARLAND 7 1 0 0 GEYER SP 6 5 0 0 Wednesday, July 28,1999 received AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ OM OF Total 2 0 116 0 0 211 3 0 188 0 0 106 0 0 33 0 1 38 Senior High 692 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Junior High 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 221 219 145 108 182 207 1442 3 5 27 8 9 13 8 24 13 14 4 9 11 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 93 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GIBBS 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 ISH 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 JEFFRSN 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 MABEL EL 4 4 6 0 0 0 14 MCDERMOT 8 4 3 0 0 0 15 2 MEADCLIF 17 22 2 1 0 0 MITCHELL 4 1 2 0 0 0 7 OTTER CR 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 PUL HT E 19 27 5 3 0 0 0 RIGHTSEL 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ROCKFELR 19 30 8 2 1 0 0 ROMINE 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 STEPHENS 9 2 0 0 0 0 11 TERRY 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 WAKEFIEL 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 WASHNGTN 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 WATSON 18 26 WEST HIL 10 18 4 3 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 WILSON 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 WOODRUFF 3 2 3 0 0 0 8 Elementary 378 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Grand Total noEm 2512 Page 2 of 2LllILt KUtll. M-nUUU UlblKlUI u:\u0026gt;nKU UH/cuz yH rMuc SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM WF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Drug/A 1 CLASS K 1 131 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Foul Lan 1 110 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Snnking Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Gambli ng Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Ueap Poss Exp Gang Hem 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 132 133 010 020 050 110 072 090 100 123 b 1 3 5 8 8 1 2 14 1 4 1 8 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Poss Exp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 010 110 123 072 100 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drugs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 030 062 090 100 no 132 3 1 2 3 5 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 32 18 1 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 6 8 8 1 1 6 6 2 2 3 1 6 1 8 2 4 1 1 1 2 12 1 1 4 5 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 23 1 4 1 4 2 2 1 1 5 3 1 2 6 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 14 1 4 7 8 5 1 3 5 4 1 5 2 3 1 2 2 1 64 8 2 4 1 5 1 2 2 25 6 3 1 2 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 14 1 4 1 9 2 5 1 5 5 4 1 5 2 3 1 1 70 8 2 4 2 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 30 6 3 1 2 3 1FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 001 CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Assault Dis Cond V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Ueap CLASS 12 2 2 3 3 3 010 110 072 OSO 090 2 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 11 15 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 22 49 41 90 11 2 13 12 12 2 2 6 6 1 1 108 16 124SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BH BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT LeftSchl CLASS K 1 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dishon. fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gantiling Loiter Mischief Ind Exp Dis CoixJ Paging D Alcohol2 Ass Staf V As Sf Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 010 030 050 062 090 100 no 131 132 133 010 020 030 050 070 080 100 110 123 020 071 072 000 1 10 5 21, 15 1 9 3 3 2 7 4 7 1 13 7 31 19 1 16 3 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Dishon. Fight i ng LeftSchl Ref Ruts Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Ganfcling Loiter Dis Cond Smoke 2 Forgery Atcohol2 V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 010 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 132 133 050 070 110 121 122 020 072 1 2 2 1 6 3 1 84 1 3 4 20 2 7 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 26 1 2 11 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 6 4 2 110 1 t, 6 31 4 8 4 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 1 7 3 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 3 5 It 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29 4 1 3 5 It 1 1 1 33 4 1 5 2 2 1 7 6 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 7 31 19 1 16 3 1 4 1 8 3 5 4 4 2 2 1 J 1 6 1 6 1 1 3 120 1 4 6 31 4 8 !, 1 1 2 Z 1 2 2 6 1 2 1 1 1 36 1 7 6 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 14 15 34 24 5 20 5 2 2 4 2 3 1 6 1 1 6 3 1 1 4 1 156 2 4 13 37 4 2 10 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 6SCHOOL: 002 HALL HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WH WF FROM DATE: WHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM- BF BLK TOT WM WF 6/30/93 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT 8LK TOTAL WHT TOT Pos Weap CLASS 11 3 090 SUBTOTAL 54 19 73 17 10 27 2 2 2 3 2 3 75 2 30 2 105 Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Snwking Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Theft Loiter Dis Cond Forgery Paging 0 Arson V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Weap 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Z z z 3 3 3 3 010 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 131 133 010 030 070 110 122 123 060 072 080 090 1 1 1 7 10 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 38 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 177 1 1 1 1 1 5 50 1 2 1 7 11 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 2 43 227 2 1 1 2 Z 1 2 1 1 1 14 60 1 1 1 1 4 18 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 78 1 7 1 '1 2 1 2 9 5 5 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 2 1 7 11 3 1 4 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 46 242 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 18 84 3 4 1 8 13 5 1 I, 5 1 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 3 1 1 64 326LllILt KUL^ scnuuL Uiainibi FRCW DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 003 HANN HATH/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM UF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft Dis Cond V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 062 110 030 110 072 8 10 4 1 B 8 3 16 18 7 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 5 2 1 1 16 18 7 1 1 4 5 2 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 23 19 42 1 7 5 1 12 1 1 43 1 12 20 23 9 1 1 1 55 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Theft Gambling Dis Cond Arson V As Sf 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 090 110 010 030 050 110 060 072 12 17 1 2 3 1 8 1 9 2 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 45 1 1 14 21 19 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 1 59 5 1 1 1 S 1 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 10 21 19 2 2 3 1 8 1 1 1 59 5 2 1 1 1 10 26 21 3 2 4 2 8 1 1 1 69 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Ref Det Smok i ng Foul Lan Assault Ganibling Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 062 090 100 110 010 050 110 071 072 8 2 8 1 2 1 1 t, 3 3 2 1 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 27 1 1 11 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 95 44 11 2 11 3 3 1 1 4 1 1 38 139 5 5 3 3 11 2 11 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 15 IS 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 2 39 3 2 2 15 16 2 14 3 3 5 3 1 4 1 2 54 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 32 7 39 1 1 1 1 141 39 180FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 004 METROPOLITAN VO-TECH ED CENTER SANCT IONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Dis Cond 1 1 1 2 2 2 030 050 062 010 080 110 1 3 3 1 2 1 5 3 1 1 5 3 1 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 9 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 12 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault 1 1 1 1 2 050 050 062 110 010 5 5 5 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 2 1 2 10 2 1 2 10 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 10 3 3 5 3 2 1 2 13 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Paging D 1 1 1 2 2 030 050 062 010 123 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 3 2 1 11 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 25 3 28 6 2 8 28 8 36 I I iLllILC KUVK aunuuL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 005 PARKVIEW ARTS/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Smoking Drug/A 1 Theft Poss Gun 1 1 1 1 2 3 030 062 100 131 030 080 3 8 2 1 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 3 5 9 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 12 A 16 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 4 3 8 6 13 3 1 1 1 25 Dishon. Fighting In Riot 1 1 3 010 030 120 1 1 2 2 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Mischief Paging D Ass Staf 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 062 110 010 080 123 071 5 2 1 6 2 6 2 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 10 23 5 28 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 11 1 12 2 2 2 2 32 12 44UllILt KUL^ bLMUUL U15IK1UI SCHOOL: 006 BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL OUT Of SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF U(TT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Dis Cord CLASS 01 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 3 1 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 1 4 Assault 2 010 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fight ing Assault 1 2 030 010 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Other of 1 2 2 4 062 010 020 000 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 6 3 1 1 11 1 1 6 4 1 1 12 2 2 2 2 6 4 1 1 12 2 2 8 4 1 1 14 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 Fighting Ref Ruis Drug/A 1 Assault Battery Pos Ueap 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 062 131 010 020 090 2 7 1 1 6 1 1 2 13 1 2 1 1 1 2 13 1 2 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 11 8 19 1 2 1 2 19 1 2 3 13 1 2 1 1 21 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 33 9 42 4 1 5 42 5 47SCHOOL: 014 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL WHT TOT fighting Foul Lan Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond V As Sf 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 110 OSO 100 110 072 2 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 4 4 2 4 1 7 2 2 2 6 1 9 2 1 1 2 6 1 13 2 1 1 2 6 1 13 Mischief Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf 2 2 3 3 080 110 071 072 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 Fighting Harass Dis Cond 1 1 2 030 040 110 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 1 1 5 7 1 1 5 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 1 1 10 6 16 25 1 26I I UC RWtN Otnvuu WIJIIMV FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Mischief Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Pos Weap 1 1 1 1 2 Z z 3 3 030 062 110 133 080 110 123 072 090 12 10 1 5 4 1 17 14 1 1 3 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 23 1 11 1 31. 5 1 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 7 4 1 5 3 4 1 8 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 17 14 1 1 4 2 3 1 4 2 42 2 1 10 21 16 1 1 1 3 2 5 2 52 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Battery Ind Exp Dis Cond V As Sf Ueapon Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 062 110 132 133 020 100 110 072 121 000 6 1 28 2 9 8 15 1 36 2 1 7 4 4 15 1 36 Z 7 I, CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Weap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 Z 3 3 U 030 050 062 110 131 010 110 072 090 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 2 3 44 8 9 4 1 1 2 25 93 1 3 1 1 - 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 19 10 1 5 1 1 18 48 4 63 12 12 5 2 2 1 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 3 11 1 1 2 Z Z 9 4 1 4 76 1 1 14 22 1 40 2 1 3 1 1 10 4 1 4 90 18 1 14 5 2 1 1 2 1 2 43 141 Z 5 1 20 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 3 1 1 4 5 3 8 1 1 1 18 1 14 5 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 2 51 2 1 1 9 20 1 16 6 2 2 6 3 2 2 60 23 18 9 Z7 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 170 33 203LllILt KUCK iUltUUL UlilKlUl ouanive SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE\n6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Orug/A 1 Tardies Ganibling Mischief Dis Cond forgery V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 010 030 040 050 062 110 131 133 050 080 110 122 072 1 17 1 2 22 1 7 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 55 9 2 26 2 1 17 1 26 3 2 48 3 1 24 1 1 8 8 2 2 57 1 1 112 12 1 1 3 5 3 1 5 2 2 4 17 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 26 3 2 48 3 1 24 1 1 4 1 2 117 8 3 1 5 17 1 34 3 2 51 4 1 29 1 1 4 1 2 134 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Battery Mischief Dis Cond Alcohol2 V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 090 110 131 133 010 020 080 110 020 072 090 120 000 24 2 41 1 4 1 15 1 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL 90 13 37 9 2 7 1 1 33 2 50 1 6 1 22 5 1 1 9 3 1 1 I, 2 1 1 1 1 123 18 1 10 8 1 1 10 37 1 I, 1 1 1 28 1 2 6 9 1 1 2 1 3 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 50 1 6 1 22 1 3 2 10 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 5 139 1 30 45 1 3 60 1 7 1 26 1 4 3 10 1 2 2 1 1 169 Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Bus Regs Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Battery Mischief Ind Exp 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 010 030 050 062 070 131 133 010 020 080 100 1 7 8 1 15 2 1 1 20 9 29 6 5 2 5 8 2 1 1 5 2 3 1 2 1 1 5 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 15 29 5 8 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 18 1 31 1 6 13 2 1 2 1LlliLt KUUK a^-nuuL upmivi UWOI'IIKt* SCHOOL: 007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM- EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap In Riot Gang Hcni Other of CLASS 09 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 no 071 072 090 120 123 000 1 1 12 5 17 1 1 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Other of CLASS 11 4 000 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 1 41 24 3 1 65 14 2 16 15 7 22 1 1 1 1 2 18 1 2 2 1 3 1 89 1 17 18 1 3 2 1 3 1 106 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 187 114 301 44 17 61 26 11 37 2 1 3 4 4 8 346 64 410SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UH UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Tardies Battery Dis Cond Forgery Paging D V As Sf Pos Ueap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 090 110 133 020 110 122 123 072 090 000 6 1 3 38 3 9 3 7 1 4 23 1 3 2 13 2 7 61 4 12 5 1 2 1 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Battery Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Poss Gun In Riot Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 t, 030 040 050 062 110 020 110 122 123 080 120 000 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Orug/A 1 Tardies Battery Dis Cond F-T rtnint Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 b 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 133 020 110 050 000 1 1 2 4 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 5 1 1 2 b 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 44 1 114 5 7 12 9 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13 2 7 61 4 12 5 2 8 3 2 4 2 2 127 1 3 6 1 1 12 14 2 10 67 4 13 5 2 8 3 2 5 2 2 139 3 1 6 9 1 2 2 4 9 1 4 25 1 19 44 1 1 14 2 4 1 18 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 44 1 1 4 1 1 1 18 2 2 1 34 25 1 59 19 7 26 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 64 1 28 13 1 1 62 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 92 8 1 19 1 3 2 10 1 11 3 29 2 7 2 5 1 1 3 12 2 3 1 1 5 10 3 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 2 8 10 4 1 4 11 3 29 2 2 1 1 1 1 12 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 8 10 4 1 4 2 13 11 39 6 1 16 2 5 1 1 1 1SCHOOL: 008 FAIR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT I TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL 40 24 64 26 5 31 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 145 93 238 50 19 69 13 2 15 1 6/30/93 UHT TOT BH 2 BF EXPELLED BLK TOT 2 UM UF UHT TOT BLK 66 TOTAL UHT 31 TOT 97 1 4 1 5 1 1 258 71 329SCHOOL: 012 HC CLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE\nSANCTIONS LONG TERM- OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smok i ng Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Tardies Battery Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Ueap Assembly 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 030 050 062 090 100 110 131 132 133 020 030 100 no 122 072 080 090 122 17 6 12 9 2 1 26 6 14 1 1 4 2 1 1 5 2 26 6 14 1 1 5 2 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Dis Cond Paging D Poss Gun Poss Exp 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 030 062 110 131 010 110 123 080 100 CLASS 11 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Hischief Dis Cond V As Sf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 030 062 110 131 132 080 110 072 090 CLASS 12 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 45 7 2 2 1 12 3 6 2 1 2 14 71 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 3 1 1 19 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 60 7 2 3 1 1 1 15 3 6 3 1 2 15 90 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 7 1 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 12 1 1 2 1 10 1 11 1 1 4 7 11 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 Ti 2 U 27 11 16 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 13 1 1 2 1 1 87 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 8 1 1 1 1 7 2 3 1 2 5 2 1 1 2lt 1 1 1 3 8 3 3 1 2 5 2 2 1 27 1 1 3 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 15 12 8 20 2 2 1 1 17 1 3 4 6 3 1 2 1 1 1 , 1 20 4 4 3 3 114 20 134SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE 8H BF BLK TOT UM UF little rock school DISIKICI FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Forgery CLASS 2 122 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Loi ter Dis Cond Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 110 010 020 030 070 110 123 071 072 000 32 1 18 10 2 3 21 1 1 10 9 53 2 1 28 19 2 3 4 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 53 2 1 28 19 2 4 4 1 4 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 68 44 1 112 1 8 4 1 12 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 7 1 5 1 1 1 1 119 1 1 1 12 57 2 2 32 19 2 4 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 131 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drugs 1 Tardies Assault Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Dis Cond Forgery Paging D Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 030 050 062 110 132 133 010 020 030 050 070 110 122 123 071 072 090 32 4 28 10 1 6 3 3 1 1 7 2 11 9 1 4 39 6 39 19 1 7 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 2 39 6 39 19 1 7 5 12 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Oishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 010 030 040 050 062 110 133 2 5 2 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 96 34 130 5 8 13 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 12 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 7 6 5 1 1 5 1 149 2 1 1 1 14 41 7 41 19 1 10 5 13 1 1 2 7 6 1 1 6 1 163 9 1 1 10 8 2 1 11 3 7 1 20 1 1 13 15 2 3 6 3 6 1 1 1 20 1 1 14 15 2 3 6 1 . 20 1 1 17 21 2SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERHBF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BH BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Assault Battery Gambling Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf In Riot Gang Hem CLASS 09 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 010 020 050 110 122 072 120 123 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 36 23 59 11 1 Foul Lan CLASS 12 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 200 102 302 24 14 1 1 1 1 2 1 12 38 2 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 66 1 1 2 13 2 2 2 3 1 4 1 1 79 13 9 22 1 1 10 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 335 40 375SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK 1 1 TOTAL UHT TOT 1 1 F ighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Battery Dis Cond Forgery V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 062 090 110 020 110 122 072 29 3 1 1,1, 1 2 15 1 1 19 3 7 44 4 2 63 4 9 2 1 2 1 2 2 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 4 3 4 1 1 44 4 2 63 4 9 3 6 2 1 7 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 82 46 128 11 1 12 7 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 138 1 13 46 5 2 70 4 10 4 6 1 3 151 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Ref Det Smoking Foul Lan Battery Robbery Dis Co^ V As Sf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 040 050 062 090 100 110 020 032 110 072 10 2 1 31 1 13 11 1 23 2 1 42 2 1 1 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Robbery Loiter Dis CorxJ Ass Staf In Riot Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 t, 030 040 050 062 110 131 132 010 020 032 070 110 071 120 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL 1 1 23 2 1 1,2 2 1 1 4 4 8 1 1 1 1 2 50 30 80 3 3 1 1 5 1 8 2 7 1 10 3 1 12 2 18 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 8 3 1 15 4 101 1 3 24 2 2 42 2 1 8 3 1 15 4 104 20 2 2 20 2 6 7 1 1 26 2 2 27 3 1 1 1 26 2 2 27 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 51 1 16 2 67 1 1 2 7 5 12 3 3 11 1 1 2 82 2 26 2 2 28 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 , 11 1 1 2 84FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Poss Gun CLASS 10 3 080 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 183 93 276 15 2 17 23 16 39 1 1 5 3 8 323 18 341FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 016 MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Theft Dis Cond V As Sf 1 1 1 2 2 3 030 062 110 030 110 072 17 10 3 8 5 5 25 15 8 6 3 2 1 1 2 7 5 2 1 25 15 8 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 30 18 48 12 3 15 4 1 5 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 53 7 5 2 1 1 16 32 20 10 1 5 1 69 Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Battery Theft Gambling Loiter Dis Cond Ass Staf V As Sf Poss Gm Pos Ueap Poss Exp Other of 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 030 062 090 110 131 020 030 050 070 110 071 072 080 090 100 000 12 16 1 6 15 10 2 3 1 27 26 3 9 1 6 1 1 6 1 7 6 1 1 2 2 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting Ref Ruis Ref Det Foul Lan Assault Battery Theft Ind Exp Dis Cond Paging D V As Sf Poss Gin Pos Ueap Poss Exp Gang Hem Other of 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 030 062 090 110 010 020 030 100 110 123 072 080 090 100 123 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 38 34 72 1 8 8 1 16 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 27 26 3 9 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 4 1 1 1 7 6 1 1 4 4 8 3 2 5 85 1 16 34 32 4 10 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 101 7 19 2 6 1 8 4 5 15 23 2 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 23 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 42 18 1 60 1 1 2 2 110 70 180 21 12 33 11 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 65 1 3 17 23 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 68 16 1 1 2 5 2 7 203 35 238FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Dishon. Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Tardies Mischief Dis Cond Gang Hen Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 010 030 050 062 100 110 133 080 110 123 000 31 3 25 1 11 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Bus Regs Ref Det foul Lan Drug/A 1 Theft Loiter Mischief Dis Cond Pos Ueap Gang Men 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 030 040 062 070 090 110 131 030 070 080 110 090 123 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Tardies Ganfcling Loiter Dis Cond Poss Gi*i Gang Hen Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 030 040 050 062 110 133 050 070 110 080 123 000 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 12 1 11 1 1 42 3 37 1 12 1 1 1 9 9 6 6 1 1 2 2 62 24 1 38 1 1 4 1 70 22 5 1 36 3 1 1 1 1 71 37 99 16 1 17 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 5 1 42 3 37 1 12 1 1 4 1 1 104 9 6 2 17 1 51 5 43 1 12 3 1 4 1 1 121 6 1 6 3 16 5 1 2 2 10 1 1 30 2 44 1 1 7 1 86 27 6 3 38 3 1 1 1 1 81 1 1 6 1 10 6 1 10 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 30 2 44 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 10 2 1 20 20 5 5 2 3 2 3 2 94 20 36 3 54 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 114 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 9 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 1 3 12 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 6 3 38 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 85 1 1 1 13 29 a 3 45 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 98 1 1SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 11 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 203 64 267 46 4 50 9 3 12 4 1 5 1 1 284 51 335SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERN BF BLK TOT WM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Assault Battery Theft Mischief Dis Cond Paging D Pos Weap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 030 040 050 062 110 131 010 020 030 080 110 123 090 000 25 6 4 12 8 1 9 1 9 7 2 1 34 6 5 21 15 1 1 2 7 1 2 2 4 3 1 7 1 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 60 27 1 87 16 4 20 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 2 34 6 5 22 15 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 96 7 1 5 3 4 1 21 41 7 10 25 19 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 117 Dishon. Fighting Harass LeftSchl Ref Ruis Foul Lan Drug/A 1 Tardies Assault Theft Loiter Dis Cond Forgery Paging D V As Sf Poss Gun Pos Weap Other of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 010 030 040 050 062 110 131 133 010 030 070 110 122 123 072 080 090 000 1 24 5 2 33 7 1 4 6 8 3 1 30 5 2 41 10 1 4 2 1 4 CLASS 08 SUBTOTAL Dishon. Fighting Harass 1 1 1 010 030 040 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 80 18 1 1 1 98 1 8 14 3 1 9 1 23 3 7 2 4 7 1 1 6 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 30 5 2 41 10 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 6 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 15 8 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 103 1 23 3 1 18 8 1 33 5 3 47 14 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 121 1 31 3SCHOOL: 011 SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BH DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UH UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT LeftSchl Ref Ruis Smoking Foul Lan Orug/A 1 Drugs 1 Assault Battery Theft Gambling Dis Cond Har Comm Forgery Ass Staf V As Sf Pos Ueap Poss Exp 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 050 062 100 110 131 132 010 020 030 050 110 120 122 071 072 090 100 16 6 22 2 CLASS 09 SUBTOTAL Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 10 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 2 1 1 3 11 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 22 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 1,7 19 66 12 4 16 1 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76 1 1 2 22 2 24 2 12 2 1 2 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 98 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Z 2 189 66 255 36 15 51 18 1 19 6 2 8 4 1 5 2 2 279 61 340SCHOOL: 017 BALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH ,UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruts CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruts CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 3 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 3 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 4%)bllWUL. FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 018 BRADY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM' EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH ! UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis Arson 1 3 062 060 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 062 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting Dis Cond Ass Staf 1 2 3 030 110 071 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 Dis Cond 2 no CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Assault 1 2 062 010 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 12 1 1 13 13LllILt KULK atnuuL uiaiMci FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 020 MCDERMOTT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting 1 030 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Foul Lan Dis Cond Pos Ueap 1 1 2 3 030 110 110 090 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 4 4 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 1 1 6 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Pos Ueap 1 1 3 030 062 090 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Gang Mem 1 2 2 3 062 010 020 123 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 5 14 4 4 14 4 IS ISCHOOL: 021 CARVER HATH/SCIENCE MAGNET OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Pos Ueap Other of 1 3 4 062 090 000 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting 1 030 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Pos Ueap 1 3 030 090 5 5 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 6 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 5 5 10 1 1 1 1 11 1 12FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 022 BASELINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 01 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 062 110 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4s SEsn LHILC KUCN OUntJUL. vidinivi SCHOOL: 023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Pos Ueap 1 3 030 090 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis foul Lan 1 1 1 1 030 040 062 110 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 6 2 2 1 1 2 4 8 1 1 2 4 8 1 1 2 4 8 Fighting 1 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Har Comn Other of 1 1 1 2 4 030 062 110 120 000 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 1 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 10 9 19 1 1 19 1 20SCHOOL: 024 FOREST PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Harass Ref Ruis Pos Ueap 1 1 3 040 062 090 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Other of 1 1 4 030 062 000 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 6 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 6 6 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 12 3 15 1 |1 15 1 16SCHOOL: 026 GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Assault CLASS 03 2 010 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ind Exp CLASS 04 1 2 030 100 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Assault Battery CLASS 05 2 2 010 020 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis V As Sf CLASS 06 1 1 3 030 062 072 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 9 9FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 027 GIBBS MAGNET SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2SCHOOL: 028 CHICOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCT IONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Harass Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 1 040 062 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Fighting CLASS 01 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Foul Lan Theft 1 1 2 030 110 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 4 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 1 5 Ref Ruis Dis Cond Pos Weap 1 2 3 062 110 090 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Fighting Pos Weap 1 3 030 090 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 6 6 8 6 14SCHOOL: 029 WESTERN HILLS ELEMENTARY OUT OF SCHOOL I FROM DATE\nDISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bus Regs Theft 1 2 070 030 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Theft 1 1 2 030 062 030 1 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 8 1 5 1 5 6 6 1 6 1 8 1 5 6 2 11 1 14 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 4 5 9 2 1 3 6 6 12 3 3 3 3 6 6 12 3 3 6 9 15 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 9 23 11 11 23 11 34LDILC KUUK aunUUL Ui\n\u0026gt;IKILI auopiKU C.V/ T\"* SCHOOL: 030 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOLr FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Other of CLASS 05 4 000 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 2 2 3 2 5I t uu uutivrwu M FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 031 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Ass Staf Gang Mem CLASS 04 1 1 3 3 030 062 071 123 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 fighting Foul Lan CLASS 05 1 1 030 110 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 6 3 3 1 1 7 3 10SCHOOL: 032 DODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruts 1 1 030 062 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Ref Ruis Theft Mischief 1 2 2 062 030 080 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruts 1 1 030 062 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 5 1 1 4 2 6 Fighting Ref Ruis V As Sf Other of 1 1 3 4 030 062 072 000 2 1 3 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 7 Fighting Harass Ref Ruis Theft 1 1 1 2 030 040 062 030 4 1 1 5 1 2 2 5 1 2 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 6 1 1 7 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 14 4 18 3 3 1 7 1 3 7 1 1 1 10 11 1 12 18 12 30SCHOOL: 033 MEADOWCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM- EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BLK . WHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Bus Regs 1 070 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Bus Regs Battery 1 1 2 062 070 020 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 Harass Ref Ruis Foul Lan 1 1 1 040 062 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 2 5 1 8 2 5 1 8 2 5 1 8 2 5 1 8 Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Dis Cond 1 2 2 2 062 010 080 110 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 4 1 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 1 7 Ref Ruis Assault Battery Mischief 1 2 2 2 062 010 020 080 1 1 1 2 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 6 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 20 3 23 2 1 3 23 3 26SCHOOL: 034 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF FROM DATE: UHT TOT BM DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM BF BLK TOT UM UF 6/30/93 UHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM UF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT F ighting Ref Ruis V As Sf CLASS 04 1 1 3 030 062 072 2 2 2 SUBTOTAL 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 4 Orug/A 1 Dis Cond Poss Gun CLASS 05 1 2 3 131 110 080 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 030 110 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 6 2 8 1 1 1 1 S 2 10SCHOOL: 036 ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: SANCTIONS LONG TERM OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF 6/30/93 WHT TOT BM BF EXPELLED BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK TOTAL UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis Theft CLASS 01 1 1 2 030 062 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 I, Ref Ruis Mischief Dis Cond 1 2 2 062 080 110 2 1 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 3 2 2 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 3 1 2 6 Harass Ref Ruis Mischief Ass Staf 1 1 2 3 040 062 080 071 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Z 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Dis Cond 2 110 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Har Conn 1 1 2 2 030 062 010 120 3 5 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 9 1 1 1 3 4 6 1 1 12 4 6 1 1 12 4 6 1 1 12 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Assault Dis Cond Har Cornu Pos Ueap 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 030 062 110 010 110 120 090 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 9 4 13 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 14 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 14 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 26 12 38 3 1 4 1 1 39 4 43SCHOOL: 037 GEYER SPRINGS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM- EXPELLED ---TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 01 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fighting CLASS 02 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ref Ruts CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis Other of CLASS 04 1 4 062 000 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ass Staf CLASS 05 3 071 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 06 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 5 12 12 12SCHOOL: 038 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM-- EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fighting Foul Lan Theft Mischief 1 1 2 2 030 110 030 080 3 3 3 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 1 1 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 Fighting Ref Ruis Pos Ueap 1 1 3 030 062 090 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 1 1 6 2 2 6 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 9 7 1 1 9 Fighting Ref Ruis Drugs 1 Pos Ueap 1 1 1 3 030 062 132 090 6 1 2 8 1 8 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 2 9 2 2 11 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 27 6 33 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 12 1 1 8 1 1 3 13 4 4 2 2 35 4 39FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 039 RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL ! SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 062 110 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 3 1 1 4 4FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 040 ROMINE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF. BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 2 2FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE SCHOOL: 041 STEPHENS INCENTIVE SCHOOL 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM WF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruts CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 02 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 3 4 1 1 1 4 5 1 4 5 1 4 5 Fighting Ref Ruis foul Lan CLASS 03 1 1 1 030 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 7 1 5 1 7 Bus Regs Pos Ueap CLASS 04 1 3 070 090 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Foul Lan CLASS 05 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruts CLASS 06 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 16 2 18 18 18LllILt KULK SLMUUL UlblKlLI FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 042 WASHINGTON HATH/SCIENCE MAGNET SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BLK TOT WH WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BH BF BLK TOI WM WF WHT TOT BLK WHT TOT Ref Ruis Assault Poss Exp 1 2 3 062 010 100 1 CLASS 01 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 V As Sf 3 072 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 03 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Other of 1 4 062 000 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 Other of 4 000 CLASS 07 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 1 1 9 9UillLC HULK LnUUL UlJIMbI FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 044 WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 04 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 062 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL UlblKlCI bUbMKU uu/tu/v** ruc FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 045 WOODRUFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCT IONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Ref Ruis CLASS 01 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 Pos Ueap CLASS 02 3 090 SUBTOTAL Foul Lan CLASS 04 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT WM WF WHT TOT BM BF BLK TOI UM WF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT WM WF UHT TOT BLK WHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 05 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault CLASS 06 1 1 2 030 062 010 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 3 2 5 3 3 5 3 8FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 046 HABELVALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS our OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruis CLASS K 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ueapon CLASS 02 3 121 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis CLASS 03 1 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ref Ruis Dis Cond CLASS 05 1 2 062 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 Fighting Ref Ruis Assault Mischief Ind Exp Dis Cond Pos Ueap CLASS 06 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 030 062 bio 080 100 110 090 1 2 2 3 2 SUBTOTAL SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 4 1 3 3 10 10 2 4 12 14 7 11 1 3 3 7 11 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 1 14 17 1 3 3 7 11 3 3 3 1 2 8 1 21 28ruc SCHOOL: 047 TERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/95 OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis False Al Paging D CLASS 05 1 1 2 2 030 062 060 123 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 SUBTOTAL 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 8 3 2 2 1 8 Fighting CLASS 06 1 030 SUBTOTAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Foul Lan CLASS 09 1 110 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 9 1 10 1 1 11 11 1SCHOOL: 048 FULBRIGHT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 OUT OF SCHOOL SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting CLASS 05 1 030 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Other of CLASS 06 1 1 4 030 062 000 1 1 1 SUBTOTAL 1 2 1 2 1 1 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 4SCHOOL: 049 ISH INCENTIVE SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Ref Ruts CLASS 04 1 062 SUBTOTAL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fighting Dis Cond CLASS 06 1 2 030 110 SUBTOTAL 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 7 7 7SCHOOL: 050 OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OUT OF SCHOOL OFFENCE LVL CODE BM BF BLK TOT UM UF FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 Battery 2 020 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 SANCTIONS LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting 1 030 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 Fighting Harass Assault Dis Cond 1 1 2 2 030 040 010 110 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 7 1 8 8 8FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/93 SCHOOL: 051 WAKEFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BM BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT Fighting Ref Ruis CLASS 04 1 1 030 062 SUBTOTAL 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 Ref Ruis Foul Lan CLASS 06 1 1 062 no SUBTOTAL 3 1 4 1 1 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 8 1 9 9 9FROM DATE: DISCIPLINE BY REASON CODE 8/15/92 TO DATE: 6/30/95 SCHOOL: 052 WATSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SANCTIONS OFFENCE LVL CODE BH BF OUT OF SCHOOL LONG TERM EXPELLED TOTAL Fighting CLASS 01 1 050 SUBTOTAL 1 1 BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UM UF UHT TOT BH BF BLK TOT UH UF UHT TOT BLK UHT TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fighting Ref Ruis Foul Lan Ass Staf Pos Ueap 1 1 1 5 5 030 062 110 071 090 1 7 CLASS 02 SUBTOTAL 1 1 10 2 1 5 1 9 1 1 1 13 1 9 1 1 1 13 1 9 1 1 1 15 Fighting Ref Ruts 1 1 030 062 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 4 5 Ref Ruis 1 062 CLASS 04 SUBTOTAL 2 2 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 3 Fighting LeftSchl Ref Ruis Assault Ueapon 1 1 1 2 3 030 050 062 010 121 CLASS 05 SUBTOTAL 4 1 9 1 1 16 4 1 9 1 1 16 4 1 9 1 1 16 4 1 9 1 1 16 Fighting Ref Ruis 1 1 030 062 1 CLASS 06 SUBTOTAL 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 SCHOOL SUBTOTAL 31 5 36 3 1 4 36 4 40\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_464","title":"Early childhood enrollment","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Childhood development","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood enrollment"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/464"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District J anuary 27 , 1992 KJ \u0026amp; --- OiUca 3 ' Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, please find listed below the enrollment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program, at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 1 3 2 6 10 12 0 0 0 7 13 14 8 6% 7 7% 8 6% Total 6 28 0 34 8 2% 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 g 16 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 38 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361...  - A. i. . , ? z Little Rock School District January 27, 1992 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GiViC3 Cl iCli Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring J.aines Jennings, Associate Superintendent 1 'r}^2 J for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services o Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, lease find listed below the enroll- ment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 1 3 2 6 10 1 o 0 0 0 7 13 14 3 6% 77% 8 6% Total 6 28 0 34 82% 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 o 16 1 i 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 33 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33617 r IS h '2 { f M c  s ------ 10/27/93 c (  u 17 IS 19 10 12 ^5 Ja2LL'S^PJfS a*'7 s?\n14:09:17 Uni versa! Student ID Student last name 'i^.' c\u0026gt;F' t Student f i rst name 94_Q229^MCJ5JR 950636 939845 939949 STIEL WALESZONIA WALESZONIA 939Blih MASSERY 950018 950050 940025 939949 AXELSON OMALLEY TOWNSEND MEVAWALA BAILEY 939617 MORRIS 939750 940131 939'93 940015 9 4 0 0 5 7 WINKLER GILBERT NOBLE HOLLIS THOM AS SSMT3 ^REEN\" CHRISTINE ZACHARY BRANDON WjSSST\" CHRISTOPHE PATRICK ANDREW GEORGE ARIEL \"KSHte*  LATASHA COLTON CODY CLARENCE TROY CAictON as\no g?-.^1 O r'  LAST YEAR SCHOOL LAST YEAR CLASS Ethnic Group,. Sex Current class year 1 Current school no. ( 017, jL PA P4 P4 P4 w P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 w P4 P4 P4 P4 w 3ZL 940206 939944 951404 940070 FINIGAN MARTINEZ LAY JONES 9^0107 TYGART hQ2T7 940109 93979 93 994 1 939946 940082 950209 939? 13 ^^99 9 o o o o T CLOUGH GRAY KELLEY WILLIAMS AHOPRSOH' SHOCKLEY SORKINS g pnwM B pnwM SHEENA NICOLE AMBER JENNIFER ^eSAM\"\" TIMOTHY MATTHEW kEnyatTa TERICA NIKITA NVSHIA----- SHAYLA RICKITA \"ASHLEY KEENO^!E 019 P4 P4 PU P4 T P4 P4 T4 PU P4 TT P4 P4 TT P4 01 01 01 r 01 .01. 01 01 02, \"TF 02 02 tr Q2 02 F, F M M TM M M M F \"r F M IT M M IT K 01? __________ 017 Moved out of District Moved out of District inr 017 01? 020 018 \"557 043 002\n1577 017 017 irrr a: }\u0026lt; . X ' J] a c o   (J ( I 01 01 01 01 UT 01 01 QT 02 02 DT ' 02 02 07 02 F F F F TM M T F F TF FV M K Moved out of District (Cabot) 019 019 03\u0026amp;^ WT 019 038 i-fa)l4{iLlY \u0026amp;! (.y O Assigned Ulg - ufiTnot enroll 019 019 THT 019 027*, QTcr 019 S( 67 68 59 7( 71 72 73 e 75 f r t t ( 12 13 ' IS ts N Q 10 u 1  I. n o 1 1 9 ? 9 9 5 \" Qcn1QC o ? a e f. n 940255 O OB 1 o 939700 93991? 939933 o A n n o B 950174 940054 939918 950217 939779 10/27/93 ^'ICH'\"L? WILLIAM? MnOOTC RIG Y MTCI CCM SILKWOOD CALHOUN HELMICK MURDOCH WA.IJCC TORRES E RATTON AUSTIN JACOBS CRAIG U:09: 1? Uni versa! Student ID Student last name 025 LAUREN c A e AU c A o A LAURA HARRISON JUSTIN DIRK . TIMOTHY ROBERT KYLE JOSEPH KYLE JOSEPH Student first name LAST YEAR SCHOOL 939872 939797 939950 939912 93S86? 939868 950290 939910 939839 CARVER CLOUD STRIQEL DANESHMANDI YACKETT WASHINGTON WASHINGTON \"KRE IE CONWAY PERKINS 9398S9 5KTH' 939959 940057 90 0 6 5 940089 950045 HERBERT BOZEMAN PARKER DAVIS SEAVERS 640115 JSftoAfT 9^0056 939865 939650 939901 929905 JONES THOMAS DEAN r A w A n Y 933835 PEOPLES 939870 939970 94 *^ 02 9 940054 940058 540090 94009? 940152 54 0'153 940305 95001 WHITE CALDWELL \"T'AMBD Cl_|....... MQnpc JOHNSON DAvrs...... BOYKINS DAVIS M ACKIN!RUSH MrpOTHF WILLIAM? TIMOTHY MATTHEW WILLIAM KEVIN TSES------ CLAY CLINT ALfex SHANTESA YANITRA JA2MIHe MINNELLI CHENAIDA AMBER ERICA PRECIOUS EftXiGK-------- JAMES JR ANTHONY JAMES JAMAL LONDON WICHAEL ANTHONY CORRELL wv JOHN JR ANTONIYO L'tUHIC---- TEORICK JOKEEMO PHILLIP WILLIAM TAv,A RONE 04 R4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Ph P4 Ph P4 P4 pT P4 P4 LAST YEAR CLASS b\u0026amp; P4 T5 pk P4 l\u0026lt; P4 Ph VK P4 Ph P4 P4 rti Ph P4 75 P4 P4 TC------ Ph Ph T5 P4 . P4 in\n P4 P4 Tli--- P4 Ph m\n Ph Ph 0 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 1 01 01 0 1 F T c F F m\" M M M M M M M M K 025 Wivate^cfeol *1. Moved to North Little Rock Moved to,Texa^ 020 625 025 PAGE 2 3 5 K 12 i  r n o n K ,  e Ethnic Group 01 TT 01 01 ot 01 TTT 02 02 IJT 02 02 TTT 02 02 02 02 TTT 02 02 Tfr 02 02 UT 02 02 irr 02 02 irr 02 02 Sex M TT M M TT M M TT F F T' F F -p- F F \"T\" M M JT M M TT M M TT M M TT M M R M M Current class year Current school no. 1} t1 31 31 3: U ( ( K 02? TTW 038 Qh.7  Qhl 025 025 725--------- 025 025 775 025 025 025 025 77S--------- 025 025 -------------- 026 025 -025--------- 025 025 1725--------------------- 025 025 C\n31 ti 0 St  K M S SI K 6! u SJ u M S u M N n n n c. (. C I c ! I i O ! o cI 0 9 neoo 9 ' 0 5 5 950055 950055 UUTTP \u0026lt;2 A c r T A MAUAMHIIP GANGOSO nUTi I Tp, SARAH ______________________ PA PA Pk Pfi 02 OA 05 M F M 10 93975  950936 9 3 9 7 A 7 939952 939953 939553 939709 93 9 77,0 9397A9 939955 MAAMCV HOOP.E JORDAN HERBERT BLUE CARRICK LEE JORDAN BULLOCK LINDSEV CHRISIma JEREMY SELENA SHANNON NICOLE STEVEN KENNETH DEVIN MELVIN STEVEN 1$ 025 Untold, PA PA PA PA PA PU PA PA PA PA 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 F M F F F M M M H H K ( c c c ( 12 (  43 i* 47 lQ/27/9a UzOOlt? Uni versal Student ID Student 1 sst name Student f i rst name 7 ^kQQit2 9A0039 9500A0 WHITE NANCE HASLAUER 4j96i8 iSJWJStSOtt 9A0010 939899 939820 9A0189 9518A2 MYERS CASH KOONE BEUMEL EPPERSON 939980 COLLIHS 939770 939S60 9A0037 9A0 1 99 939635 939696 939963 9A0005 950301 939533 XZAVI.ER JR LAST YEAR SCHOOL LAST YEAR CLASS Ethnic Group Sex Current class year 026 PA 035 038 0A8 021 (5^ f 026 026 Private School 026____________ 026 026 026 PAGE  3   Current school no. o , '9 20 u WILLIAMS BAKER WAYNE FLENOY jqwmson WATMRS ROSS BREWER MARTINEZ KATELYN CARA RESAN  MEAGAN HUBERT DANIEL WILLIAM MATTHEW BRITNEY CANDACE LAUREN AMANDA LARENZO RALPH DOMINIQUE SERREUL KORDARRELL OASARIS ~S. 031 02 M K 026 BERRY 3 9609 HLW6R 9528A2 9A0199 3{tQ233 9A0053 BAGGETT MC5RIER HICKS PREWIT ROBINSON 939S55 DICKERSOM 939878 9A005S 939979 93987? 9 A 0 0 A 9 CLARK FORD LEONARD WILLIAH S HCCUIN LEAH COREY ERIC TOMMY \"J'VSTIN WESLEY TIFFANY whitMey MORGAN WHITNEY CALVIN JR HARRISON GRECOP'^ 03A Pk Pk PA PA PA PA PA PA ..PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 01 01 w 01 .01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 JU. 03 F F T F ..M. M M M T F F F M M M M :K F K c 046 \u0026gt;1 Moved to Bryant 03 1 031 . 03 1 , , : (  1 031 03 1 022\n028 031 031 03 1 017 51 ULW t. a J PA w Pk Pk TT PA PA TC PA PA PA PA PA .i) l\u0026gt; 5 01 TST 01 01 UT 01 02 02 02 02 02 ft 7 F TT M M TT M F T F F M M M K 033 033 H Q3k' 03 5. . .iL, 0A8h 002 I TO5~ 03A 03A 03A 03 4 d u u 751 ra10 12 13 14 li 17 ( \u0026gt;0 90 2 1 9^000? o. n n 7 c 9U0155 950125 9 U 0 1 2 6 9U0292 93U205 9U0973 9U0137 9399U3 f M B C \" c ( u u M 9 lOl 12 IJ ' 45 ^L \u0026amp;21 hl UAUOTriM J_ C T I A GARRISON ZIMMERMAN SCHLUETER MOTLEY MUAWAD FISHER HARE WEYANO SELLS 10/27/93 U\nO3:17 Uni versa! Student IO student 1 ast name A D l_ Tn4.| A^!D^EA cvo^isy MTDAMnA ANDREA VICTORIA MEGAN CHRISTINE EVELYN HAILE BRANDY EMILY Student f i rst name'^' 03 6 LAST YEAR SCHOOL Pit PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU LAST YEAR CLASS 03 02Q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ethnic Group F F F F F F F F F Sex K K Current class year Returned to home district (NLl ') I Returned to home district (NLRSD) Returned to home district (NLRSD) -Returned to home district (NLRSD) oovlSluSz^ 006 U 036^  * .  g 036 PASE A Current school no. 8 1 3 -3C- ^39993 9396UU 939882 MANN  KIRBY LAWHON MA.RY . JOCELYN BRET 036 n PU PU PU 01 01 01 F T M K 0U7_ OUS Moved d to Janson\nsonvine 3! J7 939916 HAa5' \"ST \"Jr r c. c 9U0O69 95012U 9U0179 939992 950086 9501U8 ELLIS HIPPS PAGE STRAWN HARPER STEADMAN 9399A5 .LOCKER 950122 950099 939623 HALLENBECK JOHNSON SMITH 939636 TURNER ANDREW . STEVEN PATRICK ERIC_________ NICKOLAS KYtE .SPENCER JOSHUA JACKEE DES22ARRAY 9396U2 939652 939669 939983 939995 MAXWELL JACKSON BUCKLEY BERRY LEE 939995 COOkSeV 9U0106 9U0155 9 U 0 1 5 6 9U019U 9 U 0 2 2 2 HOLMES ELLIS ELLIS NASH MEYERS 9A0270 CASkEft 9500U1 9500U2 GLASS BERRY RakETA CLAUDIA SHAVONDA VICTORIA BRITTANY WHITNEY TAsmine KRYSTAL SHARHONOA DASHONDA SARESSA TIFFANY CEODIS TAMARA AMBER .PU. PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU W PU PU Tr PU PU TV PU PU \"Pu PU PU PU PU .QJ 01 01 01 9 5 2 3 9 '4 onwDv eu/^^TMIcrc PU 01 01 01 57 02 57 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 02 M M M M M M M M F F T F F T F F T F F 7 F F T F F K Hoved to Conway : ci Returned to home district (NLRSD)  ooBfied^ 036 oW 036 03 8: 0U3 J ill ' F Pit lioved to North Little Rock 036 THT 036 036 TST 036 036 THT 036 036 OTT 036 036 OTF 038 038 036 13 72 o o e( \u0026lt; r c ( h 1\" 4( Iz M E 1 1 030707 030700 9 A 0 0 7 Q. n e 9A 0 11 9 9 F^ 0 2 9500A3 950255 950525 9396A0 93982? \"96 025 3 939802 939927 10/27/93 CTCWAPT CM $TEVE!SON in.i 17 s MCCOY ANDERSON WATSON THOMAS CP.OOK BUTLER PAMPLIN SAILEY BAYAA MAOTTM 1'4:09: 17 L'ni versal Student ID Student last name 93933A BitOO33 951518 939930 STOOTS WILKERSON KEMP ELLIS 9388*1 I7ET 939921 939811 9398i\u0026lt;3 940302 9i.0303 PERKINS KENDLE ROSBY CLARK CLARK 939823 HOUSE 9A0125 95002A 950025 9509AU CONEY BEASLEY LONG MARSHALL 951030 SHWnr 950577 951551 ?5'2'560 9526SA 95159? 95O8A5 9A0032 9A018A \"grg'2'0'1' 950003 939665 939593 939705 9AQ035 9A 0203 WAID tnHNtCAM ARNOLD SI K E Y ALLEN KaRshall ' LEWIS SMITH -frwT------------------ HART WASHINGTON TTTTV------------- NATION BROWN -------- otnn 1 u A o\\/c V jrin Tu Afci cuceuAXi TERRANCE C ?. R L TON VOTCTOOUCO ALEX KELSEY AARON DANNY WILLIAM Of, PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 02 02 02 02 02 02 .\u0026amp; 02 02 06 M M M M M M H M M K 036 036 035 036 036 036 036 036 038 036 ! c 3 LESLIE ILIA LINA MELISSA Student first name MICHELLE 'S'umm Af^' TIFFANY BRENT TOST\"-------- HADIYAH ELISHIA , LORA LEANNA KEANNA WILFRED JR NICHOLAS lakelanC TERA ----- CHRISTOPHE CLEO T'R'Avrs---------- SHAWN BRANDON CLAY IOH--- NICHOLE TAELOR ^79^----------------- JONATHAN MICHEAL MVCHALL-------- KENDRIC JOHNNY -JR --------------- CASSANDRA Q37 LAST YEAR SCHOOL Q37 tT 039 11 0^0 PA PA PA PA 01 01 01 01 F F F F K ? Moved \u0026gt; 006 037 037 2 19 ZD 21 23 n 2\u0026lt; J LAST YEAR CLASS 'VaM^ PAGE 5 o o r* Ethni c Group Sex Current class year Current school I no. PA PA w PA _PA PA PA PA 'W PA PA PV PA TT PA PA W PA PA TF PA PA PTT PA PA PIT PA PA TF Pt^ -0- 01 rr 01 01 ST 02 02 02 02 02 757 02 02 Try ot irr 01 01 \"OT 01 01 TIT 02 02 UT 02 02 TT 02 02 TT Q 1 F T F M HZ F F F F F IT H M TT F T\" M M TT M M S F F T M M TT M M R\" c K K 037 TTST-------------- 037 037 037 ~ O2T.{^f4U 037 037 037 037 TTJT---------------- 03? 03? 0T7 0*2 yii\niRroi .Assigned Fled toTj\u0026lt; 03 5^^1 040 MW'Jb c ( ( lakefield-did not enr 035 k5F^ 039.' Trrg^------------------- 035  075n------------ 035. | 039 TTIT*------------------ 65 61 6i 6! n Z1 7? ZJ Z4i Z6^ IS Moved out of district - Crossett c. u l_I O'S OPT g Q-J PC O Qcnn 1 3 939745 940092 Q 6 n n 9 /, ^hQQ99 ShQ^QQ 950001 950095 934195 939720 940084 940085 939737 SADC'ULY KIRKWOnn TUnOMTAM M'^ATT PERKINS lYORDLOlY HARRIS E ROWN HARRISON VEASLEY 'YELLS uTrve DAVIS DAVIS TURNER htACTACCTJl MAU CATHERINE SPEl'ICER NE AH LARONDA Jasmine DESHANNA SRANOIACE E RI K_* LEWCIOUS nAooci I -PETER PAUL TONY f c c ( It 13' M H K n M II o IS r Uni versa! Student ID 952339 95297 940167 940060 940143 94023? 1? Student 1 ast name Student first name LAST YEAR SCHOOL Hoees DONALD SUMMERVILLE DAVIS PEOPLES HARRIS ?9ii00f8 BEASLEV 940039 940066 940163 saoGas 039987 939928 902fj4 MATLOCK TOLBERT EASTER BENSON MARTIN NOBLE DANIELS 9feo\u0026lt;27 RAyr 940240 950121 939647 939649 939690 939901 939921 939927 9 4 0 1 5 1 95029 950529 939669 939637 939508 030910 939920 OPPOPC SNIEGOCKI KALKBRENNER A EDINGTON MILLARD Xmers6n HALE GUTHRIE YOCQUE GEARY SHUDAK DANN BALL BOOTH HE A on W5MOTA(4 PHIL LIPS -EVELYN DAVID ERICA JASMINE BRITTANY JESSICA AHOREK  CALION JAMES CORY JR PA 1 LADONNA 942 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 PU Pk LAST YEAR CLASS P4. P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 PU P4 PU T 01 01 0 1 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 06 Ethnic Group QJ 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 F F F M F F F F F M M M M M Sex F_ M F F y F M. M M M I Current class year K X._____________ 040 040 040 040 040_______________________ 040 040 040 040 040_______________________ 040- 2 9 la PAGE Current school 6 no. 3 020 032 04 1 q?? 04 1 P18 04 r 041 04 1 o r c 4 3* SARAH MICHELLE SYDNEY CAROLZME RENEE KYLE REID ANDREW MICHAEL BRIAN HOUSTON JAME-S JOSHUA BUSTER PARKER COD.Y KEIORA CAPMEN DESTINEY VICTOeity P4 01 F 7 P4 P4 P4 W PU P4 TT P4 P4 TV Ph Ph P4 P4 TV P4 P4 TV P6 Pti 01 01 01 TT 01 01 TT 01 01 7T 01 01 *CT 01 01 TT 01 03 T7 02 02 F F F T F M TT M M IT M M V M M V M F TT F K Trrr 042 042 GTS\" i 020 i 042 042 G5T' Qh2 042. 042 04 2 iWiy It- G go 048 V 042 Tpr2-------------- 042 042 ?i( ( f C ( ,^o' M t: IS u E \u0026lt;5 h 4 p bl be Q oo n 950029 ocnno? 93 oeec 9399 1 1 o? no 1 c 939923 939929 940029 940243 950079 oc no on 950092 940290 10/27/93 cMccn TfJpMCD CMnru HEARD mvMco COUChT SMITH LUSTER u H u p u p c y ROSS JENNY LAWRENCE ROQI^ 14:09\n17 'Jni versa! Student 10 Student last name ai978tt. .BROOKS 939786 939788 939942 940193 940004 COFFMAN COFFMAN CAMPBELL SKINNER WILDER 933795 BRYANT 939632 940294 940295 939526' 939698 939775 940 1 14 OSOO* ROBERTS RAINEY RAINEY gaTlij? WASHINGTON HAMPTON W.\u0026lt;Li\u0026lt;ER GILLIAM CR''STAL DERICK rAWCOAtil E^SIE KWAME PICKV FRANK MARION ROLANDO p T r V e V HAL JAPE student first \"name CARRIE CHERRie WILLIAM LARRY LADONNA _ NATAISHA TARA TASHA Jhgel^ KENDALt STEVEN REGINALD EDWARD 044 LAST YEAR SCHOOL j(. P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 4 77^ LAST YEAR CLASS P4 P4 P4 \u0026gt;4 pit _Ptt pit P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 02 0? 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 Ethnic Group ,01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 c T M M M M M ' M M M M M  Sex _F F F F M M F F F F TT M M M M Current class year A Qt2 Q\u0026gt;t2 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 04 2 I J -OAZ.ItaJ.d PAGE 7 Current school no. .0_44_____ 044 044 044 Private school 044 044 044 Qlttt 044 044 044 :Jo IS 11 70 2t a n l:  2\n2! X - 31 K x )\u0026lt; X X  J} s X L (. ( 939961 940158 939716 939958 950096 939800 940154 939612 939956 939960 940164 940239 940288' 950072 939952 O 3 Q o c , 939799 o o 7 WRAY TYLER KERR GRADY GOODNIGHT FENTON CLEM'dNS OGBULAFOR HADLEY S T U 5 P S FACEN HARRIS CROCKETT JAMES NEWTON TgAl'IgR--------- CHIDAMBARAM CTMrtCD ^ARA MARCIA CATHERINE RACHEL JENNA MATTHEW ^ONES JASMINE AMBER LAUREN TIFFANY MARISSA kRYSTIAN CARLOS KEVIN PREETHI 045 li  P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Z ^4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 ^P4\" P4 Pit PIT Pit _____94. 'J 01 01 cyi 01 01 irr 02 02 02 02 02 15T Q2 02 sr 04 JiS_ T F F F F M z F F F F F T M M IT TT Moved out of district - Perryvill enroll 04S 045 045 d4S --------- 045 045 -------------------------------------------------------- 045 045 ------------------------------------------------------------ 030 l\\ Qlt3 X M ' iJ  K . K 91 92 U ' 65 W c 252\n045 no? k. (j \"I N? 13 c c i c (, k 4 \u0026gt;0 S3| \u0026amp;4I H\" \"o C 1 O T O 0 5 1 ij ,j 9 Q9oocn 940030 9 4 0 ^7'' 940200 950057 940020 939679 939709 939965 940215 950336 10/27/93 Jackson WAJ-TriM BUS noAOco WT I I HUDSON PHILLIPS HOOD AL5RIGH'' CHAM2 E RS HICKS MILAM GLOVER 14:09:17 Uni versa! Student IO Student last name 950059. flASSAS 940161 940235 940258 940132 940186 940229 952419 94014? nt o DAVISON BROWN RATLIFF ' tWTOOhSSr DAWSON BROWN HUTSON BAILEY PERRY nous BLACK 940195 940218 940^^^ 1 TOWNSEND PARKER 5llI^0M END 0 F SHAQUITA r Api_yM KHAY^tA RAYLE BRITTNI DONNIE FRED CORNELIUS BRITTANY JESSICA JACKLYN Student f 1 r st name SHERIEF JUSTIN TRE-Y KEVIN \"JOTIS------- SHATERRICA pOMINUftijE REGINA^ AMANDA KEVIN VSR------------ DEANTRE COURTNEY FTOAiT REPORT   * 052 LAST VEAR SCHOOL OSi It PA PA PA PA TT PA PA PA PA Pft P4 PA LAST YEAR CLASS .P4_ P4 P4 P4 'RF P4 P4 Ta\" P4 PA PA PA Tr 0 ' 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 01 01 Ethnic Group 01 01 01 01 w 02 02 \"CT 02 02 VC 02 02 TT T F F F F F F M M M F F F Sex M M H M T F F r F M TT M M TT K Current class year K Assigned to King-did not 035 OTT 035 035 575* 035 033 035 035 K -7--------------- Moved out of district 052 Current school 028 052 052 052 3 no. 052 m- 052 052 1157 052 052 IHT to 2d 21 21 23 SI N a c o ( ( ( c ri M u 1/Arkansas Deinocrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 1994 Cnnwri^ O I IttlA ROCk NOWSOapefS. IflC. Give black 4-year-olds seats, district asks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District has 129 vacant seats  onetenth the number of children on the waiting list  in its early- childhood education program for 4-year-olds. The problem, district officials explained this week in documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, is that the vacant seats in the program are reserved for white children, and the waiting list consists mostly of black children. In the court briefs, school district administrators said they had vigorously recruited white children last spring for the program, but would now like permission to release the unfilled, reserved seats to black children on the waiting list. The vacant seats represent almost 18 percent of all the seats in the free, full-day program. Since seats still remain vacant as the 1994-95 school year gets under way, the district submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities that will be provided, the legal brief said. The districts early-childhood education program is a component of its desegregation plan. The program was designed to attract both black and white children to 20 schools that have been difficult to desegregate and to prepare children for kindergarten and elementary school. The program has the capacity to serve 720 children in classes of 18 children each. So far, the district has enrolled 357 black children and 234 white children in the program. The districts goal was to racially balance each of the classes. But not enough white children signed up for all the available seats at 15 of the schools. The following elementaries had the largest number of vacancies: Badgett, 23\nBaseline, 12\nCloverdale, 14\nFranklin, 16\nGarland, 8\nMitchell, 9\nRightsell, 8\nWashington, 12\nand Watson, 12. The district has 1,120 black children and 84 white children on the waiting lists for the early- childhood program. The white children are on the waiting lists for schools that have filled all their allotted seats.SEP 61994 Otiico 01 DoiogfC-gaiion Mortorii'g IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r I  U.S- St? C1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. PLAINTfFI y. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO LRSDS MOTION TO RELEASE KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM SEATS AND OPPOSITION TO LRSDS RECRUITMENT EFFORTS The LRSD filed with the Court on or about August 25, 1994 its motion requesting release of kindergarten and four year old program seats. In response to the LRSDs motion, Joshua states first that we have qualified opposition to the conditional release of said seats for the 1994 school term only and agrees that the vacant seats should be released to eligible black students\nbut, second, the LRSD is retreating from the Plan. Therefore, Joshua prays that the Court limit its possible approval to this year only and further prays for sanctions for this reason and the others which follow. The recruitment efforts by LRSD have been misrepresented. The district simply engaged in a proforma effort to obtain or recruit white eligible pupils for the program. Moreover, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Dr. Russ Mayo, neither c:\\wp60\\lrsd.pledeveloped nor required the development of a recruitment plan which was tailored to address white enrollment in these schools. The districts non-directed efforts were therefore neither \"sustained,\" \"vigorous,\" nor \"out of the ordinary.\" Joshua prays for a hearing to establish these points on a bad faith contention against the LRSD. Furthermore, the district's plan proposes to enhance the racial imbalances in the schools as the upper grade levels become affected by the promotions. This factor will also be evidenced thereafter as the children in these schools in the form of racial percentages even higher than at present. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court set the matter for hearing and thereafter impose sanctions against the LRSD officials who are official responsible for the misrepresentations made, and for other appropriate relief. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 By: ^John ' / W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 V c:\\wp60\\lrsd.ple 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE was I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing plqs^g forwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this cz-^z^ay of September, 1994. John W. Walker T c\n\\wp60\\lrsd.ple 3CO: (%/\u0026gt;/ Little Rock School District December 6,1994 TO: From: Thru: Subject\nMEMORANDUM Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent (A received DK 1 5 iqq^ Office of Desegregit'  '\u0026gt; Filling spaces in the Rockefeller infants and Two year program 1. The capacity and number of vacancies in the infant and Two-year old program are as follows\nInfant capacity Two-year old 10 17 Current vacancies Current vacancies 1 6 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open are as follows: The infant vacancy occurred in November 1994. The Two-year old vacancies occurred in September 1994 with seven vacancies, in October we enrolled (3) two-year olds and dropped (3). In November (2) seats were filled , in December (2) seats were filled and (11) two-year olds are currently enrolled. 3. The timeline for filling vacancies is as follows: Since the program is functioning on a 12 month cycle we are continuously offering seats from the waiting list on a monthly basis. Our goal is to keep the enrollment at capacity at all times. 4. Why Infant and Two-year-old programs have been running at less than capacity is as follows: The Infant and Two-year old Caucasian capacity is maximized . The remaining seats have been consistently offered to African American families from the waiting list. The cost has been the primary reason for these families declining the seats. The Department of Human services offers assistance, but it is my understanding that the list has a two-year waiting period. 1 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)324-20005. The current placement policies and practices are as follows\nFirst preference, is given to students who live in the attendance zone and have sibling attending the school. Second, is given to students who live in the attendance zone. Third, is given to students who do not live in attendance zone but have sibling attending the school. Fourth, is staff preference. Fifth, is desegregation transfer. 6. How and when we will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement is as follows: Starting the month of December we have began to telephone parents and offer seats where vacancies exist. After the parent is called, a follow-up letter is sent to confirm the parent's response. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies are filled. Since we have started the telephone procedure we have filled the (1) infant seat and (5) two-year-old seats. These seats were filled 12/5- 12/8/94. 2z\u0026gt; February 3,1995 To: From: Thru: Subject: Little Rock School District receive^ Memorandum Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Rockefeller Early Childhood Programs FEB 8 1995 C' S J As Of January 19, 1995 the enrollment in the early childhood programs are as follows: infant (Pl) Two-year old(P2) 10 enrolled 15 enrolled Three-year old (P3) 11 enrolled 0 vacancies 2 vacancies 7 vacancies E 5 6 7 MB 5 9 4 e Students were assigned to the Two and Three-year-old programs from January 9 through January 17,1995. At the present time there are no two-year olds on the waiting list. There are no nonblack students on the Three-year-old waiting list to fill the five available seats. The two black vacancies in the Three-year program have been offered and we are waiting for a response from the parents. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-3000z Ci FiLSD U.S OIS75 uASTcRM OiST JCT COURT RiCT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION st? - 7 1995 JAMES Bv: lORiMACK, CLERK I P CLERiT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AI. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") has filed a motion and supplemental motion seeking permission to release to black students those unfilled seats in the incentive schools that the district had reserved for white kindergarten students and those unfilled seats reserved for white four-year-olds at both incentive and area schools. The LRSD stated it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts for the programs for the 1995-96 school year, and that while these recruitment efforts yielded some positive results, a large number of seats remained vacant. More--than- once. the Court has expressed its reluctance to condone releasing_ seats set aside for white students because relinquishing those seats will make desegregating the schools more difficult. especially the incentive schools. The Court has addressed the long-term effects of this course of action in previous order dated September 7, 1994 and will not repeat that a analysis here. [Doc. # 2304.] From a review of the recent record, the Court is not convinced that the district's efforts satisfy the 2 5 13requirement for recruitment that is timely, vigorous, and sustained. The Court is particularly concerned that, during the pre-school registration period early last spring. the district informed parents by means of brightly colored flyers that the availability of the four-year-old' program might be reduced during the 1995-96 school year due to projected budget cuts. As a result. parents could not be confident of their access to the program, and doubtless some were thereby dissuaded from enrolling their children. Furthermore, in this year's filings, which are virtually identical to last  motion and brief to release seats. the LRSD once again has cited its quarterly program planning and budgeting document status reports and its monthly project management tool as sources of additional recruitment documentation. In last year's Order granting the motion to release seats, the Court noted that the nature of the project management tool is such that it does not contain additional information on recruitment. Such is still the case. The data supplied through exhibits illustrates that the district will fall far short of its desegregation goals if the seats reserved for white kindergarten students in the incentive schools go to black children instead. The percentages will be 94% black at Franklirr. 100% at Garland, 100% at Mitchell, 98% at Rightsell, and 70% at Rockefeller if the current vacancies are filled with black students. The LRSD would also fall short of its racial balance goals for four-year-old assignments in 14 of the 20 schools which offer the program if seats reserved for white 2students are filled by black students. Those schools outside the range would be Badgett (81% black), Baseline (81%), Brady (61%), Chicot (67%), Cloverdale (83%), Franklin (93%), Garland (72%), King (63%), Mitchell (89%), Rightsell (83%), Rockefeller (54%), Romine (78%), Watson (78%), and Wilson (61%). Exhibits filed by the LRSD on September 7, 1995 offer information indicating the LRSD has reserved the targeted number of seats for white four-year-old students in the incentive, interdistrict. and area schools. However, the data shows that Rightsell is the only incentive school in which the district reserved half of the seats for white kindergarten students. If the number of currently empty kindergarten seats were filled with white students, in addition to those whites already enrolled. the proportions would be 53% black at Franklin, 63% at Garland, 73% at Mitchell, and 67% at Rockefeller. These numbers indicate that the district either has already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Even though the LRSD has failed to reserve all of the requisite number of seats and despite the inadequate job LRSD has done in recruiting white children for these programs, the Court recognizes that another major goal of the programs, in addition to racial integration. is to assist in increasing the achievement of black students. The parties previously have agreed that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Except for Mitchell and Rockefeller, these proportions are an improvement over those noted last year. 3Desegregation Plan, pg. 140.) Since the school year is underway, and the release of the seats will benefit black children, motion is granted. the The Court once again directs the LRSD to reserve half of all incentive school kindergarten seats for 1996-97 and subsequent school years for white children and to continue to reserve the targeted number of seats for four-year-old students in all schools with a four-year-old program. Also, the district is to remain mindful of the target racial balance in the other elementary schools so as to recruit and assign students accordingly. The Court will continue to require the LRSD to seek court permission before releasing any reserved seats in future school years. Also, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM\") is to continue closely monitoring the LRSD's recruitment of white children for the seats reserved for them in the four-year-old and kindergarten classes in the incentive schools and in the four-year-old programs at the other schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7-- day of September 1995. UNITED STATES /DISTO ISTRICT JUDGE docket aKrrjN Y 4 4n o kJ CL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Clam Black Male Black Female Total Black White Male White Female Total While Other Male Other Female Total Other Total Count Black white % Other % Min.% Black Uax.% Black Mu. Cap K 18 24 42 4 9 13 0 3 3 S8 72.4 22.4 S.2 50.0 50.0 60 s: :z. CD cn tn Ld Q O I (f) Q tn CE 00 c^ CM CM cn S) If) o ID If) CP CP P1 P2 P3 P4 TOTAl 4 2 6 2 2 4 0 0 0 10 60.0 40.0 .0 50/1 50.0 10 2 4 6 4 4 8 0 0 0 14 42.9 57.1 .0 50.0 50.0 17 5 4 9 4 3 1 1 2 18 50.0 38.9 11.1 50.0 50.0 18 13 12 25 14 9 23 0 3 3 51 49.0 45.1 5.9 50.0 50.0 54 42 46 88 28 27 55 1 7 B 151 58.3 36.4 5.3 159 (S10/17/1995 16:04 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 MEMORANDUM TO: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor FROM: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: October 17, 1995 SUBJECT\nEariy Childhood Enrollment Report/Capacity Figures Attached is the report you requested on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Program. In response to your October 12 memo to Dr. Mayo, the capacity figures we are currently using are those found on our October 2 enrollment count that you received. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. NA\npt Attachment c: Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, 10/17/1995 16:04 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01  DiRECTOR of SwdENT AssiqNMENT  UniE Rock School Dismicr \"501 ShcRMAN Link Rock, AR 72202 TdephoNE 501-5 24-2109  Fax 501J 24-2281 eo'^ss. MTl TO - 0 I - 0 / o 0 fncf^ St^EClAL INSTBUCnONS NUMBEK OF PAG^ INCLUOING COyEB 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment October 17, 1995 OCT 1 3 1995 Office of Desegrsvatiai iV'lV! J SUBJECT: Early Childhood Enrollment Report/Capacity Figures Attached is the report you requested on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Program. In response to your October 12 memo to Dr. Mayo, the capacity figures we are currently using are those found on our October 2 enrollment count that you received. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. NA:pt Attachment c: Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate SuperintendentClass K PI P2 P3 P4 TOTAL Black Male 18 4 2 5 13 42 Black Female 24 2 4 4 12 46 Total Black 42 6 6 9 25 88 White Male 4 2 4 4 14 28 White Female 9 2 4 3 9 27 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Total White 13 4 8 7 23 55 Other Male 0 0 0 1 0 1 Other Female 3 0 0 1 3 7 Total Other 3 0 0 1 3 8 Total Count 58 10 14 18 51 151 Black % 72.4 60.0 42.9 50.0 49.0 58.3 White % 22.4 40.0 57.1 38.9 45.1 36.4 Other % 5.2 .0 .0 11.1 5.9 5.3 Min.% Black 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Max.% Black 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Max. Cap. 60 10 17 18 54 159CF - 3 High School Kindergartens The Little Rock School District has maintained kindergartens in the high schools for a number of years. Originally they served a purpose by being associated with high school Child Development offerings or family life classes. As that kind of class offering has changed in the district the high school kindergartens have been used to place children that enrolled too late to get into their attendance zone school. It is time to re-examine the roll that these kindergarten sections play in the school district. The Little Rock School District has not given sufficient attention to the provisions of its Desgregation Plan Citywide Early Childhood Education Program that says it will address three objectives. (Page 9) (1) to provide parenting education for the parents of early childhood students\n(2) to provide quality child care arrangements for low income parents which stress social development and school readiness\nand (3) to provide a quality pre-school program for disadvantaged students. These objectives are not being met in the high school kindergarten setting. Further the use of these high schools as a placement of last resort shows the plan provision on page 11 calling for assistance to  disadvantaged parents in the kindergarten pre-registration process is ineffective or non-existent and the available magnet school seats indicate that the provision also on page 11 to make these parents aware of magnet opportunities in their neighborhoods is not working. The kindergartens in the elementary schools offer more than the high schools can provide. One of the advantages is the association in the building with other children. They can get a glimpse of the educational opportunities of the first grade and can begin to develop those behaviors that will make them successful. In high schools they dont get to participate in school assemblies, dont get a chance to participate in the team building activities that all the elementary schools offer and dont get the staff services that are available to their peers. There is no counseling service available, no social worker, no music teacher, no P. E. instruction, no oversight by an elementary principal, and no elementary health services. In private, elementary principals will say that they see problems that high school kindergartners have in adjusting to regular school settings. Eighty seven percent of these children are black and most come from impoverished backgrounds. The kindergarten experience for them should be a needed leg up instead of a boot. In addition, at the high school kindergartens, five out of seven classes or three of the five schools are racially isolated with all black classes. In the school system a lack of white students may result in some cases of racial isolation and the eighth circuit court tolerated some isolation in the incentive schools but these children do not have the advantages offered by incentive schools to compensate for isolation and at the beginning of these childrens school experience this isolation should not be tolerated. There appears to be adequate space available in existing class sections to accommodate the high school kindergarten children. Consideration might also be given to new sections at interdistrict and stipulation magnet schools to reduce the competition for seats at the kindergarten level and perhaps attract white parents that might otherwise opt for private school. It also would help solve the difficulty in recruiting to fill the three additional seats in first grade. (Class size standards are 20 for kindergarten and 23 for first grade so assuming all 20 kindergartners move on to first grade 3 seats are available for recruiting). A chart is attached showing potential available seats and the attendance zone schools of high school kindergartners. Significant savings could be realized by reducing the number of kindergartens offered while still keeping within standards and shifting more shidents into the magnet schools transfers the cost from the operational budget to the magnet budget where half the cost is paid by the state. District administrators might want to look into the use of the kindergarten space to be used as day care for school age mothers as an attempt to assist them in completion of their high school work.Kindergarten Enrollment School Name Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbrig ht Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Grand Total Grade K Black 12 28 42 38 43 31 35 45 29 28 22 98 32 33 29 17 23 57 49 24 37 36 12 30 37 31 33 29 42 53 44 29 31 35 26 1220 63% Ethnic White 8 14 14 33 30 29 22 13 9 11 38 9 45 6 11 17 38 38 12 31 18 1 27 28 1 21 16 49 16 25 15 10 29 11 7 702 37% K Total Grand Total Potential Available Seats In High School Kindergarten 20 42 56 71 73 60 57 58 38 39 60 107 77 39 40 34 61 95 61 55 55 37 39 58 38 52 49 78 58 78 59 39 60 46 33 1922 20 42 56 71 73 60 57 58 38 39 60 107 77 39 40 34 61 95 61 55 55 37 39 58 38 52 49 78 58 78 59 39 60 46 33 1922 0 0 4 9 7 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 6 0 5 0 5 5 3 1 2 2 8 11 2 2 2 1 1 0 14 7 109 3 2 3 5 7 1 4 2 2 10 5 5 '9 4 4 1 2 5 2 5 6 24 3 3 117 + 2 NozoneKindergarten Enrollment in High Schools Count of Studio Grade K I Ethnic K Total Name Central Fair Hall McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Grand Total Black 50 12 7 20 14 103 White 0 3 13 0 0 16 50 15 20 20 14 119Paerficus? Hore + - RECEIV^'^ FEB 1 ? 1996 Office of Desesregaiion Monitorinfl OILPS' P.kSE 1 sQffli COWS ey school l9S6/02/i2 SOfiCl: 06 raEFELLES SCSfraE SCHOOL C15SS Slack Black Other Other Total Hint HaxJ Hax Count Percent Camt Percent Count Black Black Capacity 06 06 30 2k ?5.01 i2.n 10 9 26.01 ll.n ko ko. eo.ot 3 kO.OJ 60.01 kO kO Total 260 6).rt 165 so.-n k06 F2=Screen leit F=Exit F6=Tcp line F9=Retrieee F!0=Top Fll^Bottae Ft2=Break f!k=yieK PI P2 P3 P4 Class Black 37 6 8 8 21 Total 80 ROCKEFELLER ECE ENROLLMENT As Of 2/11/96 White Total Change since last report % Black Maximum Capacity 20 57 0 65 60 4 8 9 29 70 10 16 17 50 150 0 0 -1 +2 +1 60 10 50 47 42 53 17 18 54 159Class Black K 37 P1 5 P2 9 P3 a P4 21 Total 80 ROCKEFELLER ECE ENROLLMENT As of 3/7/96 White 20 5 8 9 28 70 Total Enrollment % Black Maximum Capacity Difference (plus or minus) in total enrollment since last report 57 65 60 No change 10 17 17 49 150 50 53 47 43 53 10 17 18 54 159 No change +1 No change -1 No changePowerHouse QDIZ .'1 LPSO PAGE SCHOOL COUHIS eV SCHOOL 1 HOOL\n036 ROCKEfELLEf INCENTIVE SCHOOL Class Slack Slack Other Count Percent Count Other Percent Total Count Hin t Black i\u0026gt;^ 1 RC.'- Oilice ot Desegtegalicn Monitonna Hor? + 1996/03/O? Max i Black Hax Caoacity k Pl P2 P3 P4 SP 01 02 03 04 33 5 9 S 21 0 3? 33 25 21 64.9$ 50.0$ 52.9$ 4?.!$ 42.9$ .0$ 64.9$ ?8.6$ 56.8$ 53.8$ 20 5 5 9 28 0 20 9 19 18 35.1$ 60.0$ !i?.l$ 52.9$ 5?.l$ .0$ 35.1$ 2t.ii$ 43.2$ 46.2$ 5.' 10 1? 1? 49 0 5/ 42 44 39 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ .0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ .0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60 10 1? 18 54 0 60 60 60 60 F2=Scpeen salt F3=Exit F6=Top line F9=Setrie/e F10=Top FlbBotto ?t2=Sre3k FU=Vies PoserHous? QUIZ Hore + - OlficQ ^996 Of Di 29. .'! LRSD PACE 2  CHOOL: SCHOOL COONTS 6? SCHOOL 036 gOCKEFELLEg IHCLNTIVE SCHOOL i' 1 a c c Black Count Black Other Othff Total Percent Count Percent Count Hin J Black Hax S Black 1996/03/0? Hax Capacity 05 06 30 26 ?6.QS ?5.0S 10  25.OS 25.OS 60 32 60.01 60.OS 60.OS 60.OS 60 60 Total 250 61.9J 156 38.H POP 2=Screen e/ait =12=8reak F3=Exit Ft6=l?ie P6=Too line F9=Retrieve F10=Top FlbBottoiauz. GRADE AF AM Pl 0 1 P2 0 1 P3 1 1 P4 7 0 GRAND TOTAL\n8 3 Rockefeller October 1, 2001 BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 3 5 7 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 3 9 11 25 0 0 0 0 4 3 16 0 0 0 0 5 7 30 1 I 0 0 0 7 8 34 0 0 0 19 21 92\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_431","title":"Election zone","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/431"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR'. 'KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS For their motion, defendants O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) state: 1. The stated purpose of this lawsuit is to create new zones from which members of the LRSD Board of Education will be elected \"in accordance with the 'one man one vote' principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act\". These defendants, however. have no duty and no authority to establish or to reform the boundaries of the zones from which LRSD board members are elected. 'ChMiIcn.MTDThe complaint does not allege that these defendants had a duty or the authority to reform the election zones. 2 . LRSD has an average daily attendance in excess of twenty- four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, it is the duty of the county board of education of each county encompassing a district the size of LRSD to \"divide that school district into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors.\" Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607. 3 . The present LRSD election zones were established by court order in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, Case No. LR-C-82-866, on December 18, 1986. The plaintiffs should not be allowed to maintain a suit against these defendants which is premised upon defendants' compliance with the December 18, 1986 order of the district court. 4 . In order to resolve all issues concerning the election zones in LRSD expeditiously and in the proper forum, LRSD has filed in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. LR-C-82-866, concurrently with this motion. a motion asking the court to modify its December 18, 1986 order by either relinquishing jurisdiction of this issue so that the Board of Education of Pulaski County can establish appropriate election zones or by establishing a schedule pursuant to which the parties in that case can resolve the issue of appropriate election zones. 5. Both plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff in this case are also involved in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. LR-C-82-866 and therefore know or kihy\\Charle.MTD 2should know that the present election zones have been established by court order in that prior pending case. Further, an investigation of the facts and the law prior to the filing of this lawsuit would have shown that these defendants are not responsible for redistricting the election zones within LRSD. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted against these defendants and have raised issues which are controlled by a district court order in a prior pending lawsuit. WHEREFORE, for the reason^ set out above, the defendants pray . J \" - for an order dismissing this case with prejudice and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, ( , , O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. \"Bill Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helle Bar No. 81083 tCHLby t tea. MT D 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. Walker, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st day of July, 1992. --------------- .ristopher Heller / ) !. iaihyXChsrlca.MTO 4U 1 'W '5\nV 5X0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUS 3 1992 Office of Desegregation Moniioriuo DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR,'.-KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON-, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS The plaintiffs in this case are African-American residents of the Little Rock School District. The defendants are the Little Rock School District and the members of the Board of Education  the Little Rock School District. The stated purpose of this lawsuit is to create new zones from which members of the LRSD Board of Education will be elected \"in accordance with the 'one man - one vote' principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act.\" Complaint, p. 5. These defendants, however, have no duty and no authority to establish or to reform the boundaries of the zones from which the LRSD board members are elected. The complaint does lui(hy\\Chr\u0026gt;Bri.MTDnot allege that these defendants have the duty or the authority to reform the election zones. The present LRSD election zones were established by district court order in Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. Case No. LR-C-82-866, on December 18, 1986 . That case remains pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. A copy of the Order which established the present LRSD election zones is attached to this brief as Exhibit A. LRSD has an average daily^attendance in excess of twenty-four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, it is the duty of the county board of education of each county encompassing a district with more than twenty-four thousand students to \"divide that school district into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors.\" Ark. Coc^e Ann.  6-13-607. The complaint does not allege that any elections in LRSD have been conducted in violation of the district court order which established the election zones. Even if the issue of LRSD election zones were not controlled by a district court order in a prior pending case, the responsibility for establishing election zones would rest with the Board of Education of Pulaski County and not with the Little Rock School District or the members of its board of directors. These defendants cannot be held responsible for failing to revise election zones which they had no responsibility to revise. McGruder v. Phillips County Election Com'n.. 850 F.2d 406, 410 (Sth Cir. 1988). laihy\\Char-Bri.MTD 2Both plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff in this case are also involved in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. Case No. LR-C-82-866 and therefore know or should know that the present election zones have been established by court order in that prior pending case. See Exhibit B to this brief. This lawsuit is unnecessary and frivolous, it raises only issues that are controlled by a court order in a prior pending case, and it states no claim for which relief can be granted against these defendants. It should be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted. O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. \"Bill\" Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: _________ Shristopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. WWaallkkeerr,, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992. Christopher Hell'^r kaihy \\Char* B ri. MTD 3  'i 'i c^Z2 KxiU '} if IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1992 Cilice of Dessj.'ogation f,\n! IQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO POSTPONE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION AND TO REFORM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONES For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The present LRSD election zones were established by this court on December 18, 1986. The order which established the U a '1 \u0026gt; present zones is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. The LRSD election zones should be reformed on the basis of 1990 census information so that each zone contains a relatively equal population and in a way that does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote. 3 . LRSD has an average daily attendance in excess of twenty- four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, the responsibility to divide LRSD into zones for the purpose of electing members to the taihylLRiOVPCSSD.MTPLRSD Board of Education rests with the County Board of Education of Pulaski County. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607. 4. The election zones were originally established by this court, but there are no findings in this case concerning any voting rights violations within LRSD. The election zones are not a part of any desegregation plan and the settlement agreement contains no particular requirements concerning election zones. There is no reason that responsibility for redrawing the zones should not now be relinquished to the Board of- Education for Pulaski County pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. In the alternative, the court should establish a schedule for resolution of the LRSD election zone issue in this case. 6. The deadline for filing as a candidate for a position on the LRSD Board of Education is July 31, 1992. The court should therefore order an extension of the filing period and any necessary postponement of the LRSD school board election so that school board members can be elected from zones which have been appropriately adjusted in response to the 1990 census. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for an order relinquishing responsibility for redrawing the LRSD election zones to the Board of Education for Pulaski County, for any necessary extension of the filing period and postponement of the election so that the next school board election can be conducted 2 k*ihy\\LK5DVPCSSD.MTPwith appropriately adjusted election zones, and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 7(501) 376-2011 By:' _ Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 kihy\\LR5DVPC3SD.MTP 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Postpone Little Rock School District School Board Election and to Reform Little Rock School District Election Zones has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United states mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 zJ. Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri^opher Helled kuhyvUUOVKSSD.MTP 4 07/29/92 13:45 URIGHT,LINDSEY\u0026gt;JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 R00i I little vs.  EXHIBIT A Filed THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION IN THE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PULASKI --- district no. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al - ORDER Pursuant to the directions of conference Board tion U* OIITWCT COURT OSTCRN OHTRtCT ARMARlAt n\n..',K':=96 carc r. brents, cleric By: PLAINT 3?B^ defendants INTERVENORS the court at the pre-Trial of December 9. 1986 the Little of Directors adopted a I i SSi I I I Rock ^school District proposal for the March, 1987 elec- of school board members. Pursuant to the proposal adopted I by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, the following order is hereby entered: I I 1. The Little Rock School District at the Juno, 1986 I hearing proposed dividing the district into seven (7) school board election zones with the following populations and black compositions: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50 % black zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 - 25,295 total population\n- 25,210 total population\n- 24,844 total population\n- 25,016 total population\n- 25,107 total population\n68.90 % black 7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30 % black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10  black 2. The Court finds that the seven (7) contiguous xonas07/29/92 13:45 UR IGHT.LINDSEY,JEN 501/576-9442 NC. 464 6005 I with comparable populations comports with the pr l^iple required by the constitution. one-man onevote that the Little Rock School Distri The Court further find^ compliance with the mandate of Cts redistricting plans are 'in Act (codified amended 52 of the Voting Rights  42 U.S.C .51973) and does the right of minorities not abridge or deny ' to vote. 3. It is also the intention of I allow incumbents to the election plan to serve the -fetnainder of thei r terms. for that purpose to be In order the seven (7) 4. realized it will be zone election plan. Zone Four (4) residing within the zone. election in March, 1987. necessary to phase ip presently has four (4) incumbents Two of the incumbents will be up for i These two incumbents will gible to run for re-election. not be eli5. In March, 1987, Zones One (1) and Six (6) will be combined for the purpose of electing one school board member to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 6. In March, 1987, Zones Five (5) and Seven combined for the (7) will be the Little Rock : purpose of electing one school board School District Board of Directors. member to 7, In March, 1988, the third incumbent Four (4) will be up for election. residing in Zone This incumbent will eligible to not be I 8. run for re-election in March, 1988. Zone Two (2) presently has two (2) incumbents residing within the zone. One of the incumbents will be election in March, 1988. up for This incumbent for re-election in March, 1988. will not eligible to I ru:| 9. Zone Three (3) presently has one (1) incumbent I I i07/29/92 13:46 URIGHT.LINDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 P004 I ! I i residing within the zone. The incumbent's terra will expire in March, 1988. I' -Ti The incumbent will be eligible to run for eleJtion because re- no other incumbent presently resides in thi a zone. 10. In March of 1988, whichever zone between the two combined zones of one (1) and six (6) and five (5) and did not elect a school board member, seven {7\u0026gt; an election will be held I in that zone at this time. In other words, if the March, 1987 election provides representative from Zone One (1) an election will be held in Zone six (6) in March, 1988. If the March, 1987 election provides representation from Zone Five (5) an election will be held in Zone Seven (7) in March, 1988. By March, 1988 all seven zones will have duly elected representatives. In March, 1989 the terms of the incumbents in Zones Two (2) and Fou .r (4) will expire. The incumbents will be eligible to run for reelection since no other incumbent will reside in those zones. 11. The board member elected from a particular zone must reside within that zone\nonly the electors within a zone will be eligible to vote for candidates from that zone. 12. Howard Dieraer, the Pulaski county elections coordinator, and the. Pulaski County election commission are directed to implement the necessary voting maps, ballots and other necessary steps to insure the election of school board members ir the Little Rock School District pursuant to this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December, 1986. HBHRYz' U.S. District Judge This dccuraent entered on docket sheet in compliance with1* i I  I j I I I r 07--31z'92 11:31 UR IGHT.LINDSEY\u0026gt; JEN 501z 376-9442 NO, 4S5 P002  FILED _ (i\u0026gt;a\u0026gt;iMereoHV ::h the united states district could EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAIU1989 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CMC O Byf OBW F. II V. NO. LR-C-82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. defendants , MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS : KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS STIPULATED AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT The partiei submit the following stipulation for Court approval: The Complai\nbe amended in on filed by the \"Joshua intervenors\" herein der to: f nay 1. Ac I d Marcellus Person, Parent and Next Friend of Ameerah Person, as a party plaintiff. Aneerah Person is a black school child whi J*-----------* -------------------------s-i. a  is eligible to attend and who attends the public ' iMmw MtiiHcr I I t J I I I schools of the lulaski County Special School District, defendant herein. The parties further stipulate that Marcellus Person, j I parent and next friend of Aneerah Person, may adopt by reference i all allegations Intervenors\"\nan heretofore made in this proceeding by the \"Joshua j d I I 2. Substitute Dale Charles for Reverend Robert Willingham as Pn al Association li esident of the Little Rock Chapter of the Nation- ! or the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). I EXHIBIT BI 1 I ) 07/29/92 13:45 UR IGHT,LINDSEY,JEN 501/376-9442 Nu. 464 P002 little V3 . . EXHIBIT A FiLtD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COUR?' UA. OHTWCT eOMWT OlTWeT R-o tf.'sses carl r. brents, clerk By\ni i i CT ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIVE'\"*\" ! I I COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PULASKI --- DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al  1 INTERVENORS Pursuant conference ORDER to the directions of December 9, 1986, the of the court at the Pre-Trial Little Rock^school District Board of Directors adopted a proposal for the March, 1987 election of school board members. Pursuant to the proposal adopted I by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, the following Order is hereby entered: 1. The Little Rock School District at the June, 1986 I hearing proposed dividing the district into seven (7) school board election rones with the following populations and black compositions: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50 % black zone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90 t black Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 zone 6 - 25,210 total population\n- 24,844 total population\n- 25,016 total population\n- 25,107 total population\n7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30  black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 % black 2. The court finds that the seven (7) contiguous zones07/29/92 13: 45 UR IGHT.LINDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NG, 454 r00j I with comparable populations comports with the pr H^iple required by the one-man onevote constitution. that the Little Rock School The Court further findls compliance with the mandate of amended 52 of District's redistricting plans are in Act (codified the Voting Rights  42 U.S.C .51973) and does the right of minorities to ,vote. not abridge or deny i 3. It is also the intention allow incumbents to of the election plan to i serve the -remainder of thei for that purpose to be r terms. In order the seven (7) 4. realized it will be zone election plan. Zone Four (4) residing within the zone lotion in March, 1987, gible to\" run for S. t necessary to phase in presently has four (4) incumbents . Two of the incumbei^ts will be up for These two incumbents will not be elire- election. In March, 1987, Zones One (1) and Six combined for the (6) will be purpose of electing one the Little Rock School school board member to 6. District Board of Directo ra, In March, 1987, Zones Five (5) and Seven combined for the (7) will be the Little Rock purpose of electing one school board member to 7, School District Board of Directors. In March, 1988, the third incumbent Four (4) will be up for election. residing in Zone This incumbent will eligible to not be 8. run for re-election in March, 1988. Zone Two (2) presently has two (2) incumbents residing within the zone. One of the incumbents will be election in March, 1988. for re-election in March, This incumbent 1988. 9. Zone Throe (3) up for will not eligible to run Pr..enny one ,1, icu.b.nt 07/29/92 13:46 UR IGHT,L1NDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 P004 I t i residing within the zone. The incumbent's term will expire in March, 1988. I' -Ti The incumbent will be eligible to elec/tion because no zone. 10. run for re- I I I other incumbent presently resides in thia In Maren of 1988, whichever zone between the two combined zones of did not elect a school board member. one (1) and six (g) and five (5) and seven (7) an election will be held i in that zone at this time. election provides In other words, if the March. 1987 representative from Zone One (1) an election will be held in Zone six (6) in March, 1988. If the March, 1987 election provides representation from Zone Five (5) an election will be held in Zone Seven all seven zones will have . (7) in March, 1988. By March, 1988 ves. In March, 1989 the terms of the incumbents in Zones Two (2) and Pour (4) will expire, election since no The incumbents will be eligibl other incumbent will reside in e to run for re- those zones. 11. The board member elected from a particular zone must reside within that zone\nonly the electors within a zona will be eligible to vote for candidates from that zone. 12. Howard Dieraer, the Pulaski county elections coordinator, and the. Pulaski County election commission are directed to implement the necessary voting maps, ballots and other necessary steps to insure the election of school board members ir the Little Rock School District pursuant to this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December, 1986. HfiNRy, U.S. District Judge This dccuraent entered on docket sheet In compliance with / J Zif/// iiRECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OP JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58, FED.R.CIV.P., ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 Come the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors by and through their undersigned counsel, and move the Court to make \"an express determination that there is no just reason for delay\" in having a final judgment entered in this case regarding the statutory and constitutional voting rights claims which were the subject of tho Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 21, 1993. Plaintiffs herewith submit a brief more fully explaining the need for such an Order and Judgment. Respectfully submitted, ,1 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage,pre-paid, by regular mail, to all opposing counsel this -^O day of . k i (' \u0026lt;__________/ 1993. Mark Burnette, Bar # 880781^ECEED AUG 2 1V93 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58, FED.R.CIV.P., ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 On June 21, 1993, the Court filed a document entitled \"Memorandum Opinion and Order\" which recited the pleadings and claims of the Charles Plaintiffs, and went on to set out findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 52(a), FRCP, regarding the \"Charles\" Plaintiffs/Intervenors constitutional and statutory voting rights claims. The clerk of the court marked that Mem. Op. and Order as being \"entered on the docket sheet in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 79(a), FRCP. II The I single entry on the docket of that Mem. Op. and Order does not. however, comply with the \"Separate Document\" requirement of Rule 58. See St. Marv's Health Center v. Bowen. 821 F.2d 493, 496 (Sth Cir. 1987)(stating the separate document requirement)\nands^, Moore v. Warwick Public School Dist., 794 F.2d 322, 325 n.1 (Sth Cir. 1986)(\"We previously have stressed to the district judges that the rule is mandatory and is more than a mere formality in that it plays an important role in making a judgment final for purposes of determining when the time for filing ppst- judgment motions or notice of appeal starts to_run Id. (emphasis added)(citations ommitted). Clearly, the single Order entered by the clerk does not constitute a judgment, and does not constitute compliance with Rule 58, 1 although it does comply with Rule 79(a). Entry of a \"Judgment\" is made pursuant to Rule 58. The first sentence in Rule 58 states however that it is \"Subject to the provisions of Rule 54(b).\" The treatment of the June 21, 1993 Mem. Op. and Order is controlled by the language of Rule 54(b). This action was consolidated by the court with LRSD v. PCSSD on motion by the LRSD plaintiffs. The Court had previously made findings on voting rights issues involved in the case prior to the Charles plaintiffs entry into the case, and may well enter further orders on this issue pursuant to its continuing 1 Charles plaintiffs also point out that the Courtis June 21, 1993 Mem. Op. and Order does not comply with the definition  * \"Judgment\" because it includes a and form requirements of a recital of of the claims and is not a final appealable order. II Judgment 11 as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not contain a recital of the pleadings, a report of a master. or the record of prior proceedings. 11 Rule 54(a), FRCP\nand see. St. Marv's Health Center v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 493, 497 (Sth Cir. 1987).jurisdiction. This case is ongoing and the court has certainly not lost jurisdiction over these parties based upon one order issued on June 21, 1993. If that were the case, this Court would have long lost jurisdiction based upon other similarly entered Orders filed and stamped by clerk with the identical language i.e. \"this document entered in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 79(a). II Because the Court clearly has continuing jurisdiction in this case, Rule 54(b) imposes another requirement before an Order which deals with one issue or issues becomes a final appealable order\nspecifically: When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action ... or when multiple parties are involved ... the court may direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment^ In the absence of such determination and direction, an order or other form of decision, however designated which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. This Court has not ruled on all the rights and liabilities of all of the parties in this consolidated case, and no \"order or other form of decision, however designated. II can make the June 21, 1993 Order a final judgment until the Court makes \"an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.\" This Court has not done that yet. Plaintiffs are now seeking such an \"express determination and direction\" by motion so that the order willbecome an appealable order after entry of Judgment. Reading Rule 58 alone, and thus assuming that the Court's Mem. Op. and Order was an adjudication of all claims as to all parties such that Rule 54(b) were not controlling, then \"the clerk, unless the court otherwise orders, shall prepare, sign. and enter the judgment without awaiting any direction by the court\n\" Rule 58, FRCP. Rule 58 is explicit, and requires that \"Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a).\" The district clerk has not done so in this case. The only document recorded on the clerk's docket sheet is the Court's own Mem. Op. and Order. St. Marvs, supra, and Moore, supra. To fully comply with Rule 58 and 54(b), the Court must further direct the clerk as stated above so that a separate entry of judgment can be entered. Respectfully submitted. M^rk Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage pre-paid, by regular mail, to all opposing counsel this 30th day of July, 1993. '/J Mark Burnette, Bar # 88078. n (I n:S' TRICT COUR I i', IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 6 1993\n'a:: :-l ?jT CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET 2^. ISy: \\J . jYa PLAINTIFFS CHP. CL^ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS HRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. 4UG 1 7 WJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Office oi Dssegregalion Monitcnng ORDER Defendant, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), has moved for a one week extension of time in which to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. , on Claims that were Subject to Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993. Plaintiff has no objection to the Court granting this motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that defendant be granted a one week extension of time to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., on Claims that were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered on June 21, 1993. HONORABLE SUSAN SIGNATURE APPROVED BY: JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. U' A j THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN irtMMi lANfc '.vT!-\n\"J' II 1^ c* aNn/OR TWa) FRCP wn\\0orto\\lrW-pcM.er^ ON BY WRIGHT F.Y.I. Date: cs^Ann c/ Bill Boj Connie 53^ Horace Linda Margie Melissa Polly Return to: r TP?.: i!  COUrtV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 6 1993 /'A y: A 5, CLErK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS CEP. Gt\nX V. NO. LR\u0026lt;-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. 4UG I 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Office of DessyreQSuCii L-jni.c-ios ORDER Defendant, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD), has moved for a one week extension of time in which to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. , on Claims that were Subject to Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993. Plaintiff has no objection to the Court granting this motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that defendant be granted a one week extension of time to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., on Claims that were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered on June 21, 1993. HONORABLE SSUUSSAANN WEBBER WRIGHT SIGNATURE APPROVED BY\nJOHN C. FEJIULEY, JR. A J rwis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN lANCt: .A/TM n AND/OR 79/Af FRCP ON BY pc wi I AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 p.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CAf?, Sy. 1992 DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be 'Jr\u0026gt;r appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required a as consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the commun'ty. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the Pulaski BAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S, DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P.03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles Vj Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82'866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved: ^ohh W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CCOCMMPPLLIIAANNCCEE WWrIIHRULE 58 AND/\u0026lt;------ ON BY '9(aJ FRCP '  .^^r Heller Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Se CLARK 2000 First Comnercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 RECEIVED -i X -'5 C'STPiCT cnicr AUG 19 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION m fS92 CARJ. 5v: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDTkNTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STIPULATION The parties hereto are in agreement that it would be ( LERK Cth.-t/'' appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them. shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the Pulaski County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending lathy\\P'Electkxx.Sd further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v. Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v. PC5SD. No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ZTUDGE Approved: Ji J/ Walker IN W. WALKER, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, AR 122Q6 (506) 374-3758 document a ON - c. BY 1 L.-. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ka(l]y\\P-Elect\u0026gt;on.Sd 2 AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S, DIST. CT. LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 P, 02 EAsie, CCU/?r IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION J 71992 dale CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR,, GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER oep PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G, JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be appropriate to defer the forthcoiaing school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the PulaskiAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S, DIST, CT, LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P. 03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v. Jacovelli. No. IiR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved: John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W1 RULE 58 AND/(------ ON BY :9(a) FRCP Chri' stoph .eirx HHeelllleerr  FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Conaaercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \u0026gt;IS. WESTERN DIVISION CAR, Hy- DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the \"one man one vote\" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the PulaskiAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 county Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P. 03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v, Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved\n^ohh W.Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET W COMPLIANCE WIT^ULE 58 AND/Q^9(a) FRCP ON BBYY vV Chri's toph ^err HHeelllleerr FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Se CLARK 2000 First Comaercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 RECEIVED tUG 2 4 1993 Ottice o! Dssegregaiion Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS DALECHARLES, ET AL V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RESPONSE TO MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58 FED.R.CIV.P. ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21. 1993 Defendant, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its Response to the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rules 54(B) and 58 , Fed.R.Civ. P. , on Claims That Were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993, states: 1. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors have waived any right to request a separate entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(B) and 58 by their filing of a Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment on June 6, 1993 . It is clear from the Court's June 21, 1993 , Order that the Court intended the Order to constitute a final judgment. -1- cvaifcndleyMrud.rtniThe Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors treated the June 21, 1993, Order as a final judgment in their Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed June 6, 1993 . Moreover, in the long history of the litigation between these parties, a separate order of judgment has usually has not been entered, and the parties in earlier appeals have never raised the District Court's failure to enter a separate judgment. 2. The docket sheet for this case indicates that the parties have not before insisted upon separate judgements and have waived the requirement of a separate entry of judgment in prior appeals. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., On Claims That Were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993, be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: i^r No. 92182 Iz -2- eva \\fend ley M rad. runCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this , day of August, 1993: on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -3- evaUendfeyUrad.rtm beceiveo ^Ug 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,Office ot Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS DALECHARLES, ET AL V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS' MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58 FED.R.CIV.P. ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 In Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on facts identical to those in the present case held that the Rule 58 separate document requirement had been waived. In that case, the plaintiff, Terry Wayne Sanders, appealed from orders of the District Court granting summary judgment for Clemco Industries and Ingersoll-Rand Company and denying Sanders motion to reconsider and set aside the summary judgment order. -1- eva\\fendleyMnd2.briThe court in Sanders reached the merits of Sanders' appea1 only with regard to the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court found the appeal with regard to the order of summary judgment was untimely. Although Sanders had filed his notice of appeal with regard to the summary judgment order within thirty days after the District Court had denied his motion for reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after the order for summary judgment, and therefore, that motion did not toll the deadline for the filing of the notice of appeal of the summary judgment order. Sanders. 862 F. 2d at See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 59(e) (1993)\nFed.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4) (1993)\nSpinar v. South Dakota Board of Regents, 796 F.2d 1060, 1062 (Sth Cir. 1986). In order to preserve his right to appeal the summary judgment order, Sanders had argued that the District Court had never entered a final judgment on a separate document as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and consequently, the time period for filing of a notice of appeal had never begun. The court rejected this argument and determined \"that the parties have waived the separate document requirement.\" Sanders. 862 F.2d at 166. The court identified four factors indicating that the parties waived the separate document requirement during the course of that litigation. One factor was Sanders' motion \"for Reconsideration 164 . and to Set Aside Summary Judgment\" which referred to the District Court's order as \"the court's granting of summary judgment. 11 Likewise in the present case. on June 6, 1993 , the Charles -2- evtifendleyMndZ.briPlaintiffs/Intervenors filed a \"Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment\" referring to the Court's Order entered June 21, 1993. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors in their Brief in Support of the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment state that \"plaintiffs seek to alter the Judgment\" Brief in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, p.l. That the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors consider the Court's Order of June 21, 1993, to constitute a final judgment is further evidenced by the fact they requested to be awarded attorneys' fees as prevailing parties based on the Court's Order. See, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, p.4. Next, the court in Sanders stated that the trial court's consideration of its summary judgment order as a final judgment provided further support to the conclusion that the parties had waived the separate document requirement. In the present case, the final two paragraphs of this Court's June 21, 1993, Order read as follows: The Court finds that the Complaint should be dismissed and that the proposal adopted by PCBE on December 29, 1992 and submitted to the Court in 1983 should be accepted. and is hereby The Court adopts the plan submitted on January 6, 1993, and sets the election which was postponed from September of 1992 to coincide with the annual school election of September 21, 1993, implemented elections. and for orders that that and the future plan be school Order, June 21, 1993 , p.29. This language clearly evidences the Court's intent that its June 21, 1993 Order constitute the final -3- evaMendfeyUrad2.briX resolution of the claims set forth in the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors Complaint. The court in Sanders also found it important that the parties in prior appeals had not raised the District Court's failure to enter a separate judgment. Numerous orders of this Court have been appealed without a separate judgment having been entered or requested in accordance with Rule 58. Hence, the past history of this litigation provides further evidence that the Charles . Plaintiffs/Intervenors waived the separate document requirement of Rule 58. The court in Sanders also noted that neither party had raised the question of noncompliance with Rule 58 prior to the appeal being filed. However, this fact should not distinguish the case at hand. The acts constituting a waiver of the Rule 58 separate document requirement were complete prior to the filing of the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' present Motion. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors should not now be allowed to recover rights already waived. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors will undoubtedly emphasize language from Sanders which indicates that a finding of waiver may be inappropriate when the right of appeal may be lost. However, the Eighth Circuit in Sanders responded to this argument as follows: We recognize that if we remanded for the entry of a separate judgment, Sanders could appeal on the merits of the case, not merely on the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying reconsideration of his -4- cva\\fendlcy\\lrd2.bri4 order. As we have noted, however, when parties have proceeded in a district court and in this court on two occasions memorandum order constituted as though a as final and appealable judgment, and where the appeal is not entirely lost, we should accept appellate jurisdiction to the extent that we can. Sanders. 862 F.2d at 167. Hence, the court in Sanders recognized that by finding that Sanders had waived the Rule 58 separate document requirement he would be unable to appeal the court's summary judgment order. It noted that Sanders' right to appeal was \"not entirely lost\" because he retained the right to appeal the court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. Similarly, the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors could appeal this Court's resolution of its Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment should the Court find that they have waived the separate document requirement of Rule 58. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the Court conclude that the Rule 58 separate document requirement has been waived by the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -5- ev\\fer)dky\\Jnd2.bn I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief is Support has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of August, 1993: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L. C. Fendley, Jr. -6- evti\\fendley\\lRd2.bn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUDGMENT h filed CARL R. By: AUG 2^1993 p: I S, CLER NQSKE.ERX DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The claims of the Charles plaintiffs that the election zones for members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors violate the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution came on for trial before the Court, Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, presiding. The Court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay of entry of judgment as to these claims, which are a part of this consolidated case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)\nFed.R.Civ.P. 58. The issues having been duly tried and a decision having been duly rendered pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this matter on June 21, 1993, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Voting Rights Act claims raised in the complaint filed by the Charles plaintiffs, which was consolidated with the above-styled case, be and are hereby, denied. The Clerk is directed to enter the judgment accordingly. DATED this day of August, 1993. V.  UNITED STATES DISTRIOT JJIUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON COMPI ON_^ ULE S Ai EY (OCKET SHEET IN VOR^f^CP 1 9'5 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER ',.3 ^L'G o ^993 Sy:. :p. CLep,^ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Charles plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of June 21, 1993, and their subsequent motion requesting separate entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 58. Defendants have responded to the motions and the Charles' plaintiffs filed a reply to the Little Rock School District's response to their motion to alter or amend. The Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 21, 1993, dismissing the Charles plaintiffs' complaint challenging the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Charles plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend on July 6, 1993 but did not serve the defendants until July 9, 1993 . The defendants contend the Charles plaintiffs' motion is untimely according to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which requires that such motion must be served not later than 10 days after entry of judgment. The defendants also argue that the motion should be denied on the merits. In reply, the Charles plaintiffs assert the motion is not untimely because no final judgment has been entered. On the same day that they filed their reply to the defendants' response to the motion to alter or amend the judgment, the Charles plaintiffs filed a motion requesting separate entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 58. In response, the defendants contend the Charles plaintiffs waived the Rule 58 separate-document requirement. Having considered the motions, responses, and reply. the Court finds that the motion for separate entry of judgment should be granted and the motion to alter or amend should be denied. In support of their argument that the Rule 58 separatedocument requirement was waived, the defendants cite Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988). In Sanders, the plaintiff appealed from a Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment and an order denying his motion for reconsideration. The appeals court concluded that the parties waived the separatedocument requirement for several reasons. The court noted that neither party raised the issue of non-compliance with Rule 58 and proceeded as if the Memorandum and Order constituted a final judgment. In addition, the court pointed out that the plaintiff labeled his motion as one 11 for reconsideration and to set aside summary judgment\" and referred to the district court's action as \"granting of summary judgment.\" Next, the court stated that the trial court considered the Memorandum and Order as a final judgment when it denied plaintiff's motion to set aside summary judgment. Finally, the court noted that the parties in prior appeals in the -2- case had not raised the district court's failure to enter a separate judgment. In holding the parties waived the separate-document requirement, the Sanders court stated: \"Although we determine that the parties waived the separate-document requirement in this case, we stress that such a determination is not to be made routinely. Waiver may be entirely inappropriate, and the separate-document requirement enforced, when the right to appeal otherwise would be lost. II Sanders, 862 F.2d at 167. Defendants contend this language should not influence the Court's decision whether to enter separate entry of judgment because the Charles plaintiffs could still appeal this Court's resolution of their motion to alter or amend. In this case. No. LR-C-82-866, the Court's orders are typically in the nature of equitable decrees from which the parties may appeal without the entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 58. However, the claims adjudicated in the Charles' complaint address matters that are separate and distinct from those issues about which the Court routinely enters orders, and which the parties almost as routinely appeal, concerning the settlement plans and agreement. The Charles plaintiffs brought their voting rights claims in a separate lawsuit which the Court consolidated with LR- C-82-866. The facts here are not identical to Sanders and the Court cannot find that the parties waived the requirement for a separate document in this instance. The Court therefore determines that the Charles plaintiffs' claims have been adjudicated and that there is no just reason to -3-delay entry of judgment as to these claims. In accordance with Rule 54(b), the motion requesting separate entry of judgment is granted. In their motion to alter or amend judgment, the Charles plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in finding that the plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education did not violate 2 of the Voting Rights Act when viewed in light of the standards set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) or the standards for retrogression set out in Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F.Supp. 553 (E.D.Ark. 1991). They contend the PCBE plan is retrogressive because, applying the 65% minority population benchmark for a \"safe\" district, the number of minority districts is reduced from two \"safe\" districts to one. Additionally, the Charles plaintiff argue the Court misapplied the requirements under Thornburg. The Charles plaintiffs also ask the Court to amend its Order and find that they are the prevailing parties on their claim that the 1986 plan violated the one-man one-vote principle. They contend they are the prevailing parties on the other claims as well because as a result of their lawsuit, regardless of the disposition of the motion to amend or alter, they will be better off under the plan approved by the Court because there is less packing and there is a zone established in which they have a stronger impact as well as a clear chance that the zone will become a third majority minority zone in the future. In Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. -4-1988), the court cited with approval a Seventh Circuit case which stated\n\"'Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.'\" The Court finds that the Charles plaintiffs' motion attempts to re-argue issues already decided by this Court and to raise issues that could have been made at trial. Therefore, it will be denied.* IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Charles plaintiffs' motion for separate entry of judgment [doc. # 1924] is granted. Their motion to amend or alter [doc. # 1885] is hereby denied. DATED this 'day of August, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JI X.'JMENT c.NTF ON DOCKET SH' M JUDGE W Pi ,1 02^- ON  UY ' The Charles plaintiffs may renew their argument that they are the prevailing parties when they submit a motion for attorneys fees. -5-'Ot t  \u0026lt;  recesved SEP 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 0 1 1993 CARL R.BRENTS, CLERK 8z:. R.,BREN7 DlEE PP. .CCLLEERRKlC-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Clerk is hereby directed to substitute the attached pages. nos. 20, 23, 24, and 26, for the corresponding pages in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this matter on June 21, 1993 as Document No. 1853. The Court directs this action in order to more appropriately cite Thornburg V. Gingles in subsequent references in the opinion. DATED this day of August, 1993. 1 UNITED STAATTEESS DISTRICT' JJUUEDGE rms DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET kN COMPLIANCE WITH P ON tE AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ev r' W'W..  been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a violation are unresponsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous. Id. at 45. 9. Consideration of the Senate factors in determining whether a violation of 2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (Sth Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged runoff provision makes the political processes not tl equally open to participation\" by blacks in that blacks have \"less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. II It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. Id. at 1386-87. See also, Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 232 (federal courts have felt the need to make findings concerning the Senate factors whether or not they have any relevance to the issues at hand). An evaluation of the Senate factors adds little to the -20-to give a remedy solely on the latter basis.\" Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 237. Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the PCBE. 11. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which the Charles plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE than under the 1986 districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three \"necessary preconditions\" to a finding that a districting scheme impairs minority voters' ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. 7\" '' - - - If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive, politically cohesive, it If the minority group is not cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it  in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member district impedes its ability to elect representation. representatives of its chosen Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These \"necessary preconditions\" will -23-be discussed in turn.^ 12. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether the Charles plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. They must constitute more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton, 687 F.Supp. 1361, 1363 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nA guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the registration, minorities. well-documented and 5% for pattern low voter of low turnout voter among See also Fletcher v. Golder, 959 F.2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact that one or more zones with at least 65% minority population may be created. The Charles plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts should be created. The zones they propose, however, all fall below the 65% guideline. The Charles plaintiffs' proposed Zone 1 is 64.7% black, but it encompasses an area of declining black population and has an initial population variance of -4.5%. The other two proposed majority black zones are 61.7% and 64% black. The minority group is apparently not sufficiently large and ^Thc Court follows the Gingles preconditions but notes that Gingles addressed alleged voting rights violations in the context of a multi-member structure. In Growe, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Gingles preconditions apply in challenges to single-member districts. -24-In fact, racial polarization may not be shown where, in six of ten races with a black candidate facing a white candidate head to head, the black candidate won. 14. In general, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful review of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable, supra. This Court also concludes that racially polarized voting does not exist in Little Rock. The Court is mindful of Mr. Lynch's testimony that many factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether \"bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J., concurring). It also \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group. might be able to attract greater white support in future elections.\" Id. The Charles plaintiffs have not set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success, i.e. the candidates' platforms and policies, their ability as speakers. their II track records\" in the community. their name recognition, their financial support, were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F. Supp at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). -26-SEP-'3-92 THU 10:44 U.S, DIST. CT, LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 P, 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SE^-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT by- V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO POSTPONE ELECTION For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) state: 1. Members of PCBE are elected both at large and from zones from within the boundaries of the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. PCBE elections normally coincide with the  wc- r (? regularly scheduled school elections each year. 2. The only PCBE election scheduled for 1992 is in Zone 5, a zone situated entirely within the boundaries of LRSD. The regularly scheduled school elections in LRSD have been postponed by the court. The PCBE . Zone 5 election remains scheduled for September 15, 1992. 3. The incumbent in PCBE Zone 5, Mr. E. Grainger Williams, is unopposed for reelection. He will continue to serve Zone 5 whether or not an election is held on September 15, 1992.SEP- 3-92 THU 10:45 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 4. LRSD will be required to pay the cost of the PCBE Zone 5 election. There will be no significant additional cost to LRSD if the PCBE Zone 5 election is held at the same time as the LRSD Board of Education election. There will be a significant cost to LRSD if the PCBE election is held as scheduled. The PCBE election should be rescheduled to coincide with the LRSD Board of Education election to avoid a waste of money which will be better spent for education and implementation of LRSD's desegregation plan. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education pray for an order postponing the Pulaski County Board of Education Zone S election until the time of the Little Rock School District 1992 Board of Education election. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 PULASKI county BOARD OF EDUCATION PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY Pulaski County Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 By: L:a.ra\nr?y Vahght kidyVP-PoiipcBB.Eieciiqa 2 SEP- 3-92 THU 10:45 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 - \\ I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Postpone Election has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the united states mail on this 1st day of September, 1992\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg  Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026gt; Christopher Heller 3 F\u0026gt; W.w: V T? C,\"- ii ILse Laan FILED U.S. DISJ-RlCT COURT r .r.n , ni/**! e nu'iMOAe SEP 9 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 04 1992 CARL R. liritft Office of Desesregation Mcnitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW.tlERK INTIFFS V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE 'fJOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the PCBE Zone 5 election currently scheduled for September 15, 1992, is hereby postponed until the time of the LRSD 1992 Board of Education election. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :OMPU, ON WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BYRECEIVED RLP.0 SEP 1 0 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cj Office of Desegregation Moni'^rjfigTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 09 1992 im WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO POSTPONE ELECTION The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education have moved to delay the election for Pulaski County School Board Election Zone 5 until such time as the Court determines Little Rock School Board Elections. The Joshua Intervenors have no objections to an Order granting the requested delay herein. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 Joli: Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the following, by placing same in U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 9th day September, 1992: of Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldq. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Larry Vauqht Pulaski County Attorney Pulaski County Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 ohn W. Walker Jobreceived FILED u e oisrnici COURT eastern OISTRIAT ARKANSAS Office OCT 1 1992 of Desegregation Monitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 24 1992 CARji Ry^ftENTS, CLERK DEP. CLeSt DALE CHARLES, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, ET AL. DEFENDANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending in both of the above-named cases are motions to consolidate. The motions are granted. The Clerk is directed to close LR-C-92-476 and to transfer any pleadings that are not duplicates to LR-C-82-866. Any further pleadings in LR-C-92-476 should be filed in LR-C-82-866. 1 On August 18,1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order in LR-C-92-476, postponing the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") until further orders of the Court. The Court also granted the motion of the LRSD and the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"County Board\") to postpone the County Board's Zone 5 election. Upon review of the pleadings filed in both cases concerning the matter of rezoning. the Court The motions to dismiss filed in former Case No. LR-C-92-476 (Doc. HH 3, 11, and 12) arc moot, the case having been consolidated with LR-C-82-866. 0 determines that it is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD election zones. By law, the County Board is charged with the responsibility of dividing the LRSD into zones for the purpose of electing members to that District's Board of Directors. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991). The County Board will determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the \"one mafi* - one vote\" principle, and if they are, will rezone the LRSD accordingly. 3 Should the County Board find it necessary to redraw the zones, the Court asks it to be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones. A IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of September, 1992. UMITOD STATES DISTRICT , JUDGE TMis 00! ON \u0026gt; 1/-C WiTi i Ri 0 ON DOCKET SHENIN 79{a) FRCP BY.______ i: In responseto the LRSDs motion for joinder (Doc. # 1664), the County Board entered an appearancein LR-C-82-866 for the limited purpoic of complying with the orders of this Court to rezone the LRSD. The Court finds this appearance is appropriate and the motion for joinder is granted. in December 1986, the Court approved a proposal adopted by the LRSD dividing the district into seven election zones. Those zones have remained unchanged under the 1986 order of the Court. -2-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 869 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0869 September 30, 1993 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St, Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT PULASKI COUNTY vs. Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 8/24/93 Judgment filed 8/24/93 Amended Notice of Appeal Sincerely, Carl R. Brents, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Lois Lambert-Court ReporterFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COWF'* district Arkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,SFP ? ? 1995 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL By: PT.ATNTTFFS DEP. CLERK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHLA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Judgment of the Court entered herein on August 24, 1993 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respectfully submitted. No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed. postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 22nd day of September, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT UOURT p., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' - WESTERN DIVISION ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, As next Friend of Minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua\nSARA MATTHEWS\nAs Next Friend of KHAYYAM DAVIS\nALEXA ARMSTRONG\ntARLOS ARMSTRONG\nALVIN HUDSON\nTATIA HUDSON\nMRS. HILTON TAYLOR, As Next Friend of HILTON TAYLOR, JR., PARSHA TAYLOR and BRIAN TAYLOR\nREV. JOHN M. MILES, As Next Friend of JANICE MILES and DERRICK MILES\nNAACP\nand ROBERT WILLINGHAM, Next Friend of TONYA WILLINGHAM INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, JOHN RIGGS, III, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and in their Official Capacities\nTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER 4 19 8 4 WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs, Dale Charles, et al. and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Judgment of the Court entered herein on August 24, 1993 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Appellants will request the transcript from the Court Reporter and make arrangements for payment therefor within five (5) days. z-n Respectful/ly submitted ) John alker Bar No. 64046 jo: 17, . WALKER, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ___ day of September, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Johhnn^z^. Walker COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNT PULASKI Pulaski County ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 SOUTH BROADWAY Lime ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-377-6285 501-377-6282 FAX RECEfVEo CITIES ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE LITTLE ROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE UNINCORPORATED AREA 600 SQUARE MILES MILITARY BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON October 20, 1993 OCr 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation c Docket Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Eight Circuit No.: 93-3469 Dear Clerk: Nelwyn Davis and I recently filed f\u0026lt;^on!toring entries of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the Pulaski County Board of Education, an appellee. We received notice from you that the Board was not listed as an appellee. Since the Board is the body that created the zones that are being attacked, and since we defended them in the District Court, I hereby request that the Pulaski County Board of Education be added as a party appellee and be allowed to participate in the appeal. sincerely, Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney LDV:sd cc: All Counsel of Record COUNTPULASW CITIES ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE LITTLEROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLEROCK SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE UNINCORPORATED AREA 600 SOUARE MILES MILITARY BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON Pulaski County COUNH ATTORNEY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 SOUTH BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-377-6285 501-377-6282 FAX ED October 20, 1993 OCT 2 J 1993 Of'ics of Desi Docket Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Eight Circuit No-: 93-3469 Dear Clerk: Nelwyn Davis and I recently filed Mcnircring entries of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the Pulaski County Board of Education, an appellee. We received notice from you that the Board was not listed as an appellee. Since the Board is the body that created the zones that are being attacked, and since we defended them in the District Court, I hereby request that the Pulaski County Board of Education be added as a party appellee and be allowed to participate in the appeal. Sincerely, Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney LDV:sd cc: All Counsel of Record RECEIVED JiN 2 8 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION TO EXPAND PAGE LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS' BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion to Expand the Page Limit for Appellants' Brief, state as follows: 1. Because the three above-referenced appeals have been consolidated, the 50-page limit may be inadequate to permit the Appellants to adequately brief the issues on appeal. 2. A maximum limit of 75 pages would be sufficient. WHEREFORE, Appellants pray that the page limit be increased to / 75 pages. Respectfully submitted. r / / I. DaVid SchoenDAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 \\) I / I J' --- David SchoenRECEIVIE?D JAW y 8 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL SCH. DIST. V. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. JOSHUA V. LORENE APPEAL ] FOR FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEFS The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Briefs, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Briefs in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on January 27, 1994 . 2. Due to the press of business in counsels' office. an additional extension of time of two weeks is necessary in which to file the briefs for the Appellants. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through Febiuary 10, Respectfully submitted, 1994.c- ( s. David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / ( } -  David Schoen UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECE!VFS| lO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. FEB 1 1994 PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK Office of Desegre^. SCHOOL DIST. iioring NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE THIRD MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Brief, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals is due on February 10, 1994. This court has previously granted the appellants two extensions. 2. The Appellants Brief is prepared at the office of John W. Walker, one of the counsel for the appellants. A fire at said counsel's office caused the office to be without heat and electricity for a period of one week, created confusion as to the location of documents, and has necessitated noisy and distracting repairs which continue to the present. Such conditions have substantially interfered with completion of the brief.3. The appellants' brief is substantially completed as of the date of this motion, but additional time is needed to prepare the appendix, and to copy, bind and mail the brief and appendix. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through February 15, Respectfully submitted. 1994. David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed. postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J__ David Schoen L Z)ii't'fr-f Clt,t-1~ ^i-lt-f-i IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIV* No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 No. FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT FEB 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Mori,iu,...a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE BRIEF OPT OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Little Rock School District is an Appellant in Case 93-3592 and an Appellee in the other two of these consolidated cases. 2. LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors both appealed the district court's order of September 27, 1993. LRSD expected to join Joshua's brief in Case No. 93-3592. 3. Upon reviewing Joshua's brief, LRSD determined that its position is somewhat different than that of the Joshua Intervenors and that it would be necessary to file a separate brief. 4 . LRSD has prepared its brief as expeditiously as possible and requests that the clerk file its brief out of time. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD moves for permission to file the attached brief out of time. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201(501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Roc: School District B \u0026gt;a: J^topher Heller 4no. 81083 CERTIFICATE T SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Permission to File Brief Out of Time been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of February, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Chri fer Heller ! IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cifioa cf Dcsegr\nC.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School..............................38 Conclusion 50 iR J i=i rXTTJ q IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cifico cf Dcsegr .uCil LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg, 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affiraed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1^PH 2 2 'W IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Oliico oS No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellees, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), for their motion to re-open and supplement the record state\n1. This appeal concerns the alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973 (Supp. 1993). Appellants, the \"Charles Plaintiffs,\" contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE violates Section 2. A trial was conducted on April 13 and 14, 1993. The district court by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 1993, held that the Charles Plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of Section 2. On August 24, 1993, the district court entered judgment dismissing the Charles Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint from which the Charles Plaintiffs appeal. 2. On September 21, 1993, LRSD elections where conducted under the PCBE plan. In that election, a black candidate was elected from a majority white zone, and a white candidate was elected from a majority black zone. T. Kevin O'Malley, who is white, received a majority of the vote and defeated two black opponents in the LRSD Zone 2 election, and Linda Poindexter, who is black, defeated a white candidate in the LRSD Zone 5 election. Zone 2 is 59.4% black, and Zone 5 is 19.1% black. Certified copies of the election results are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must establish racially polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 25, 50-51 (1986). The results of the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections provide further support for the district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from racially polarized voting. 4. At trial, LRSD entered into evidence without objection by the Charles Plaintiffs certified copies of election results from past LRSD election. WHEREFORE, LRSD and PCBE move that the record in this matter be re-opened and supplemented to include the results from the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Rock School District By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 \u0026lt;CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Re-Open and to Supplement the Record has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Nelwyn Davis Pulaski County Attorney 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Pulaski County Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulaski County on September 21, 1993, i i } SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 5 \"D C LINDA PONDEXTER 191 \u0026lt;/)O co CZ5 m re JIM GONZALES 160 um 47 STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI cn WE, VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF s: lER, 1993. CHAIRMA MEMBER ^MfeMl^ER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME. A NOTARY PUBUC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. zM KES I s ( ! I I X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FILS 93SEP 30 PM |: 13 The Pulaski County Election Commission heaiby certifies the Election held in PulasH^County^PY COUHTY CLERK on September 21, 1993, PULASKI COUNTY. ARK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS uO to I 23 T. KEVIN OMALLEY 3'^ DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI WE VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .\nVOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF S\n, 1993. cha: MEMBER o 3:r IMMX 0 MEWB^  SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND AFORESAID, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION E: I 38t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 '::n ' w J 93 SEP 30 PH n 13 The PulesU County Election Commission hearty certifies the Election held in PulgM Cju^^l^ on September 21, 1993, COUHTY CLERK PULASKI CCJHTY. AR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS T. KEVIN OMALLEY DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE -lire vATTPTiM MCDTIARY MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AWU uctM , PuaSKI county ELECTioN CO^SSION 7u?akkac nN THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .\nVOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMB 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. :S OUR HANDS AS WITNESS Ab CH? OF SEPTEMK^, 1993. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH 5 chai: MEMBER . \\ , member SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. aforesaid, iX^IRES tfflTARY PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION E: 3eo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ..... xsonVwC' \"3 CiViCQ Ct FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellees, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), for their motion to re-open and supplement the record state: 1. This appeal concerns the alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973 (Supp. 1993). Appellants, the \"Charles Plaintiffs,\" contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE violates Section 2. A trial was conducted on April 13 and 14, 1993. The district court by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 1993, held that the Charles Plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of Section 2. On August 24, 1993, the district court entered judgment dismissing the Charles Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint from which the Charles Plaintiffs appeal. 2. On September 21, 1993, LRSD elections where conducted under the PCBE plan. In that election, a black candidate was elected from a majority white zone, and a white candidate was elected from a majority black zone. T. Kevin O'Malley, who is white, received a majority of the vote and defeated two blackopponents in the LRSD Zone 2 election, and Linda Poindexter, who is black, defeated a white candidate in the LRSD Zone 5 election. Zone 2 is 59.4% black, and Zone 5 is 19.1% black. Certified copies of the election results are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must establish racially polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 25, 50-51 (1986). The results of the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections provide further support for the district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from racially polarized voting. 4. At trial, LRSD entered into evidence without objection by the Charles Plaintiffs certified copies of election results from past LRSD election. WHEREFORE, LRSD and PCBE move that the record in this matter be re-opened and supplemented to include the results from the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Rock School District By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 \u0026lt; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Re-Open and to Supplement the Record has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Nelwyn Davis Pulaski County Attorney 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller !/ t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Pulaski County Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulaski County on September 21, 1993, I I } SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 5 \"D c: LINDA PONDEXTER 191 t/\u0026gt;O xO co GO m TS JIM GONZALES 160  Cot/'  u C STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI cn WE, VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF s: ER, 1993. CH ER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND .AFORESAID, IN THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. j s4 ITARY PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION i/9tr r I The Pulaski County little rock school district PI V 5 n 'r 93 SEP 30 Pf\nH 13 Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulasla^County[_p on September 21, 1993, COUNTY CLERK PULASKI COUNTY. ARK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 c co co EMMETT WILLIS cn2 T. KEVIN OMALLEY 3^ o I DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI czrjco 231-- tm \u0026gt; \u0026gt; cn cn WE VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .\nVOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF S: ., 1993. cha: MEMBER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND AFORESAID, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. PUBUC, MY COMMISSIOONN EElXPIRES 7 38 The Pulaski County LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I? V 1  93 SEP 20 PH H 13 Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in P^^^^Couji^lEY on September 21, 1993, COUHT-Y CLERK PULASKI COUNTY. AR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS T. KEVIN OMALLEY r S' DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI WE, VAUGHN LOWSE Wn^S^^^ PULASKI COUNTY rT .PmON COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, day do find and hereby certify the abstract of . ARKANSAS ON THIS 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER VOTES CAST IN THE 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. S OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH cha: septPeEmM: B^, 11999933. .N MEMBER z M:^EfeR SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBUC, FOR AND ^V^rHIN THE COUNTY AND aforesaid, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. Jbhjjr PUBUC, MY COMMISSION E\niXI^IRES 3 /''A Co/Y Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TOBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3472 (501) 375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashvill* Office *11 Music Circle South Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 April 26, 1994 RECEIVED Ms. Mary Loida Deputy Clerk United States Court of Appeal U.S. COURT \u0026amp; CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 APR 2 8 tW OfJics of Desegregatioi! Moiiiiuiuig\nRE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appeal Nos. 93-3469 and 93-3594 Dear Ms. Loida: In response to your inquiry, neither the North Little Rock School District nor the Pulaski County Special School District intended to enter an appearance as an appellee in the above referenced appeals which involve respectively the election of members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District (No. 93-3469) and the closing of Ish Elementary School in the LRSD (No. 93-3594). Rather, it was our mutual intent only to enter an appearance and file a brief in Case No. 93-3592 which involves the District Court's order of September 27, 1993 ruling out the old Stephens Elementary School site as a potential location for construction of a new Stephens interdistrict school. Please be advised that I have been authorized by the attorney for the PCSSD, Sam Jones, to communicate to the Court the position of the Pulaski County Special School District. I hope this resolves any confusion regarding the appearance of the PCSSD or NLRSD in the above referenced appeals, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have any questions. SWJ:le Very truly yours. cc: Sam Jones Christopher Heller John Walker Ann Brown Richard Roachell James Smith Elizabeth Boyter Jerry Malone JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. 667 Betty Jo Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of April, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ^rk Burnette M^r' SiLR School Board OKs new election zones As the filing date nears, officials hope redrawn districts will be in place by Sept. 18 BY CHRISTOPHER SPENCER , ' ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board adopted new election zone boundaries Thursday night, but theres some doubt as to whether the new zones will be in place be-i fore the Sept. 18 School Board elections.  Were operating on the assumption that this process will be complete, based on what our lawyers have told us, Superintendent Ken James said. Redrawing the districts seven election zones is needed so the zones will mirror the demographic data from the 2000 Census, said Clay Fendley, the school districts attorney. Earlier this week, Sandy Dyer, Pulaski County election coordinator, expressed alarm about changing the election zones so close to the Aug. 6 filing date for candidates. I think it will be a very tight squeeze for us to effect all the changes that would be necessary to accomplish a redistricting project six weeks out from a fullblown [School Board] election, Dyer said Tuesday. James told the board he felt the process would work out. During a School Board meeting Thursday night, board member Baker Kurrus questioned Fendley on the status of the by the adoption of the new zones, change. School district officials plan to We have an upcoming elec- contact the Pulaski County Election, I know because Im running. tion Commission today to discuss Do we anticipate these zones be-ing used for the election? Kur- __ _  rus asked. proved the first of three election The election commission is zone plans prepared by the staff responsible for approval. I dont of Metroplan, a council of local know if they anticipate these governments in central Arkansas, changes, Fendley said. in the plan, population loss in Kurrus is an incumbent board 2one 1  the easternmost zone  member running for re-election jg balanced with westward ex-in Zone 4, which encompasses northwest Little Rock. He has become a certified candidate with a petition signed by at least 20 people in his zone, but some of those signatures might be invalidated implementation of the new zones. The board unanimously ap- In pansion. The zone will now take in the Capitol View and Stifft Station neighborhoods. Four of the seven zones will See ZONES, Page 4B Zones  Continued from Page IB be comprised of a majority black population with three majority white zones. The current zone boundaries allow for two majority black zones. Arkansas law requires school districts with black or Hispanic populations of 10 percent or greater to have zoned elections. The plan also calls for the Robinwood and Foxcroft neighborhoods, now in Zone 4, to become part of Zone 3, represented by board member Judy Magness. James said after the meeting that it became apparent soon after he took office in mid-June that the rezoning project, initially begun in April, had become stymied somewhere between the School Board administration and the mayors office. We hit the ground running with this, James said. This needs to be done as soon as possible. Information for this article was contributed by Cynthia Howell of the Arkansas Revised Little Rock School Board Election Zones Little Rock School Board has revised the boundaries of its election zones to make the populations in each of the zones approximately equal based on 2000 U.S. Census data. Population has shifted out of east 3 2 7 6 Little Rock, making it necessary to expand the area encompassed in Zone 1, which set off a \\ chain reaction in the other zones. 1 POPULATION ZOIE Tinu PERCENTAGE 1 3 5 1 24,926 25,994 25,715 26,206 WHTE 22.7% 90.2 71.4 41.3 BUCK 75.1 % 6.7 22.3 ,, 53.5  SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 2001  Gamine told to study census data, need to redraw LR election zones BY CYNTHIA HOWELL before the candidate filing dates ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE fop the September 2001 school The release of 2000 Census fig- board election. The filing dead- ures means the Little Rock School line is usually in early August. Board election zones may need Sv The seven Little Rock School Board members are elected solely some adjustments. ____________ School Board members this voters who live in the zone week directed Superintendent Les they are running. Gamine and his staff to review the population numbers in each zone to determine whether the zone boundary lines need to be changed to make the populations in each area about the same. There are no at-large positions on i the Little Rock board. The 1992 Little Rock School Board election was delayed a year and combined with the 1993 election after civil rights lawyer John Walker sued in federal court to Early reports from the census show that there has been an in- -------- ------------- .. crease in population in the west- equalize the populations in the ern part of the city and a decline zones. He also asked in the lawsuit in piirts of the citys core. that the zone boundanes be re- Camine said an effort would be drawn so that three of the zones made to complete the review and would have majority black popula- make any necessary recommenda- t----------------------- tions for changes to the board well ed at the time. tions instead of the two that exist-o CM lf\u0026gt; CM Dyer also noted that the filing  deadline for School Board candi- J~ dates is Aug. 6, less than two weeks away, and that the zoning changes could affect who is eligi-oping the boundary proposals. ble to run for two open board seats Walker represented the Nation- in September. .................   ' She said board candidate Bak- Board  Continued from Page 1B Joshua intervenors, before devel- Current Little Rock School District election zones tween Markham Street and Kanis the zones had majority-black popRoad. ulations and five were predomi- D al Association (or the Advance-  ment of Colored People in a 1992 er Kurrus has already become a lawsuit to force changes in the certified candidate on the basis of boundary lines that existed at the a petition signed by at least 20 peo-time. The NAACP had said the pie in his zone. zones should be redrawn on the The candidacy could become basis of updated 1990 population invalid if the zones change and the figures and should in.c..l.u..d..e.. ..t.h ree petition signers no longer live in majority-black election zones instead of two. Kumis zone, she said. Kumis is an incumbent board The lawsuit, which was ulti- m---e-m---b-e--r- r-u--n--n ing for reelection in mately decided by the Sth U.S. Cir- Zone 4, which encompasses north- -cuit Court of Appeals, resulted in west Little Rock. A' one-year delay in what should -A--c-c--o-r-d--i-n-g- to each of the three ive been the 1992 School Board Metroplan proposals, the Robin-lection. News that the School Board is wood and Foxcroft neighborhoods north of Cantrell Road, now in ^7 The Little Rock School Board is considering changes to current School Board election boundaries so that the population in each of the seven zones will be approximately the same. iJbnsidering zone changes for the Zone 4, would become part of Zone , elec.t.i.o..n.. .a..l.a..r..m...e..d.- S an,d y_ D yer, P_u - J 2one 3 is represented on the 'iaski County election coordinator. V I think it will be a very tight ^ueeze for us to effect ^1 the board by Judy Magness. Arkansas law requires school districts that have black or His- Ranges that would be necessary panic populations of 10 percent or Id accomplish a redistricting pro- greater based on the 2000 Census ject six weeks out from a fullblown [school board] election, to have zoned elections. Those new or redrawn zones were sup-ecutive director, said in a letter to Little Rock Superintendent Ken James last week that east Little Rock has lost population over the past decade. As a result, boundaries for Zone 1 which is the school districts eastern most zone  would be expanded westward into the Capitol View or even Stifft Station neighborhoods, setting off a chain reaction of boundary she said Tuesday night posed to be in place by the middle Dyer said neither she nor the of last month. But the law specifi- Pulaski County Election Commis- cally exempts from its require-sion had been approached about ments those school districts such . the possibility of zone changes for as Little Rock that are operating changes tn the other election the election although she believed under federal court desegregation \" \" the Election Commission would orders. have to approve such changes. I Jim McKenzie, Metroplans ex-zones. Zone 2, which encompasses central Little Rock and is repre- Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sented by board member Mike Daugherty, would lose some of its eastern territory to Zone 1. But the western border of Zone 2 would move from Mississippi Street and Boyle Park to Interstate 430 in ail three Metroplan proposals. In two of the three proposals.\nZone 2 would take in the area  north of Markham Street and  south of Rodney Parham Road all I the way to 1-430. In the third proposal, Zone 2 5 would remain south of Markham  Street but extend west to 1-430 be-op \u0026lt;g3 g gc -gS-S si  1 o Ila'S g.-2gg^=l c tfl  mOO*35 a Q Ow Cc/j3 O Besides Kurrus Zone 4 seat, nantly white. The demographic Daughertys Zone 2 seat is the only changes occurred over time in board seat up for election this Zones 8 and 7, which are in south year. Daugherty has not yet filed central and southwestern Little with the Pulaski County clerks of- Rock. The other majority-black flee for re-election but has said he -   -  intends to by the filing deadline. As another example of the changes, the southern border of Zone 5 and the northern border of Zone 7 may be tweaked. In two of the proposals, Zone 5 would take in territory east of Stagecoach Road, almost to Chicot Road, which is contrary to the current zone makeup. zones are 1 and 2. Zones 3,4 and 5 remain predominantly white. The zone populations would range from a low of 24243 to a high of 26,438 depending bn the zone and which of the three plans is selected. Metroplan attempted to balance the populations within an accepted range of plus or minus 5 percent of the average. In each of the three Metroplan The Little Rock district ha.s. .o-p-proposals, four of the seven board erated for about 15 years with a zones would be made up of major- single-member election zone sys-ity black populations and three tent School Board members are would have majority white popula- elected by voters in the zones in tions. When the zones were last re-which they reside. There are no citywide or at-large School Board drawn in the early 1990s, two of positions in Little Rock. 2^ '2.2'2^ I? i.ri.Hri.So 2o *5  (Q g w ojS a i 2 o fl T1 \u0026gt; a \" *9 -n 5 -2 -5 S \u0026lt;3 .. o Ty3 COQ ? MCB b S fl O G fo C3 G W} yoot-'  tfl S fi r* . 2*2 .fl zM cii G -\"M S ^11^ g ^9 W flj  o o .S2-2$SS-2 s g o 73 g a-s I = is I  la \" 0-2 \"S '9  g'-ri'^P g c a SmS -2 - G Q.S 2-5^  y y O 2 d g-G  y G fa \u0026gt;,00 S gy 'aoSG'-\nxs-fi o UnagSea OGyu^ C .2g^x3 -Hy.Otz3s onO.gP coiSyooiao wSSisy 430 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;-.4) 'O --.g' 2 2 w S yni bc Sep Q gyj eg \u0026lt;U t- s .2 -\" e ri 9 if\nS \u0026lt;u a\u0026gt;  2 vi ^5 . o U3 5-. o G g U2 cn c fl \u0026lt;u C \"3 rH O  2 - .99 o OJ CO iX33 Xy5 oO. \u0026lt;O.- QOO .S Si 'o,2i Sis y aj5 S u U O-C gro 6^0 2\n2yfMyOyoo5i ri .G-O S - 2 SS-'s y g g.2 jfl\u0026gt;- G rti a o j3 ts .-^95 S  3 Jh U ^=2 S S \u0026lt;u co 2 S  X3 O 4} - ri g S ri  ffll 2 ..5S3 owt  u G I So^So-hsIs- Saigas! I ssi G .Ss 'isS2  uSuT tSn3 'afl j- . Q) CQ  g S3 cn -ri Si s a-i CQ o 2 cUo. a3 3S iSG' Cco ? 9?   .2 O O M V\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_429","title":"Election zone","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School board members","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/429"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFrom the desk of Debbie Crownoverr MR. CECIL BAILEY, PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT (dou nli^ tf^oarcl Education ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 Ai\" DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover \u0026gt; MEMO TO: Members, Pulaski County lard of Education RECEIVED FROM: DATE: Ids. Debbie Crovmover,^Secretary December 21, 1992 DEC 2 2 1992 SUBJECT: Minutes of 12/15/92 2nd Quarterly Meeting Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enclosed, please find the following: 1. 2. Minutes from the 12/15/92 regular second quarterly meeting Copy of Order to Pulaski County Treasurer concerning CD investment Please review the minutes and let me know if you feel changes need to be made prior to the next meeting. Special Called Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 29, I MMZ- ar I ( Ml p M T-n -Pl ____________________ z\u0026lt;,  1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the 3rd floor conferenc: room, 201 So. Broadway, L.R. ihis meeting was scheduled for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal from those presented, to formally present to Judge Susan Webber Wright for her consider- atim to set the new boundaries of the Little Rock School District school board member election zones. Please let me know in advance of this meeting if you will be unable MEIRRY CHRISTMAS to you all, and I'll see you on the 29th. to attend. cc: Larry Vaught, P.C. Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD John Walker, Attorney Jim McKenzie, Metroplan 7DATE 12/15 2nd Qtr. County Board 09 of Education _________________IP ________________________________ KINO or MIKTIWa ,T.Mr,_Cccil Iki.i.ley, ITe.y. 201 So. Broadway, Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR PAGE_ 1 Mr. Cecil Bailey__ Dr. George.McCrary, Klember -Vice Pxcs.___ MKM ahskn , None Mr. Thnnwff RTOfrp.hton (part) Mr. Grainger Mi 11 jams. Member Dr. Martin Zolde.s.sy, Member__ OTHEnS PRESENT. Mr, T .A i Mr. Chris Heller SD --Cynthia. Howell.,. Ark^Democrat^Gazext. Dehhip \" . others: Crnwnnvpr, RnarH .Spprpt-flry __ See attached sign-in sheet INDEX NOTATIONS MINUTES Board of Education met, for its regular second quarterly meet- ing of the 1992/93 school year, on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, at 1:00 o.m. in the 3rd floor conference room of the Pulaski County Administration Bldg. All members were present to conduct business and Mr. President, called the meeting to order. Cecil Bailey, the Board Minutes of the 9/15 regular first quarterly meeting and of the 10/6 and 11/6 special called meetings were previously mailed to each Board Member for Copies of the minutes from the 11/30 and 12/7 public hearings ers for review. review. . ---------od were in their fold- Mr. Bailey asked for a motion to accept the minutes Mr. Williams so moved to ... - seconded the motion. --------- as approved. approve the minutes of all five meetings. Mr. Broughton It was voted and passed unanimously. Call to Order Minutes approved: 9/15, 10/6 11/6, 11/3 12/7/92 After some discussion Mr. Bailey asked for\n1 as to the current balances in the County Common School Fund, a motion to approve the distribution of the 2nd quarter allotment of State Apportionment money to the school districts. . ,, J --  ....... Ms. Crownover An Board the budgeted $3.00 per ADM had been reduced by the State Dent .s9 Qft Fiflr AHM ____________________T______T __________ . . , _ . - H  no r- pel nyu naa oeen reouced by the State Dept, to $2.98 per ADM for the current school year. She said she would adjust to balance with the actual distribution at the June, 1993 distribution. State App. allocation $41,935.50 distribute the $41,935.50 to the schools as soon as the allotment is received from the state funds.   ... Mr. Broughton seconded the motion. It was voted and approved. Next, feUey asked for a motion to approve the distribution of $2.00 per ADM AT* Sill K / H (Ml T mm ny-,,n__________r'i_____. ... . or $111,828.00 from the County Common School Fund to the school districts, was asked whether or not the funds were available before the end of the Crownover said that a little over $6,000.00 would still be the distribution. It year. Ms. seconded the motion. -----  in the account after Mr. Williams moved to distribute the money now. Mr. Broughton :. It was voted and unanimously approved. The prepared financial statement (as of 11/31/92) showed Cf. ZT ------------------------------- 3 current balance of \u0026lt;17 O9A County Common School Fund (with today's distributions), and _^7_^026.88 in the Special limd County Board of Education. These two accounts will cashed CD's plus interest at the end of December\n$300,000.00 and $200,000.00 respectively. ------------------ These two accounts will Mr. Bailey discussed with the Board the status of the $500,000.00 invested into CD s. The County Treasurer is to cash them in and deposit the funds plus interest into the proper accounts at maturity. After some discussion, Mr. Broughton steo- npH Tn na Proc 4 z-1 f- S v-.  n____ . i . . __ ped in as President in order for Mr. Bailey to make a motion, invest $500,000.00 as follows: He moved to re- $300,000.00 from the County Comnon School Fund $200,000.00 from the Special Fund, County Board of Education invested, by the Pulaski County Treasurer, Pat Tedford for the PiJaski County Board of Education, in 90-day CD's or T-Bills, whichever would yield the highest interest. \u0026gt;-- At maturity, the Treasurer is to deposit the ^oi^ts invested and interest earned back into the respective accounts. Ul'l I I 1 mmi-i X. 1 * Williams seconded the motion. Mr. It was voted and approved and Mr. Bailey resumed his position as President for the duration of the meeting. Cnty. Cmn. School Fnd $111,828.0( Financial statement Reinvest $500,000.0(DATE, 12/15 i_92 PAGE. 2 BIND OP MIKTIND PNiaiDINO OPPICBR OTHERS PRESENTi. INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Mr. Bailey then asked Ms. Crownover to report on the GED testing for 1992. With statistics in through 12/9/92, the following figures were noted for this test center (#0601): the GED testing for 1992 Total pre-tested---------------------- (31% of those 284 scheduled) Total taking actual test--------- Total passing actual test------- 87 75 47 or 63% Total falling actual test---------------------------28 or 37% The Board discussed the \"no-shows\" of those scheduled to take the laxoL-Lioocu une nu-snows oi tnose scneOuled pre-test. Ms. Crownover said it is quite a problem in scheduling, because of limited testing days and limited seating space. F''-     - - * day to make up for the no-shows. up on She said she already over-books\" each pre-test She felt one reason some don't bother to show their scheduled day is because Arkansas doesn't charge for any part of the testing, so they don't have anything to lose when they don't show up. All those who are scheduled for the actual test have already taken and passed the 1 fsTw x* 1.1 !_ uAiXV4. die pre test so 1UU% of them show up. No action was required by the Board on this subject. The next item on the agenda was for the Board to discuss the current Little Rock School District election zone lawsuit. Tlie Board had said, in the last public hearing, that they would not be making a decision on which proposal to present IlinOQ ClIC'OT-i LTnkkr, T.7w-4 *- _ _ __1 ~ Judge Susan Webber Wright, at this regular meeting. to Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, reminded the Board that all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, had agreed to the 1986 Federal Court order assigned the current LRSD election zone boundaries. The zones, at that time comported with the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Heller informed the Board that, even though the Board discussed allowing Mr. Walker more time to prepare a compromise proposal, the LRSD was not interested in any compromise that would be based on rac Mr. Heller asked the Board to pick one of Metroplan's proposals and present it to Judge Wright as quickly as possible, so the postponed election could be reschedule He said that April and May of 1993 would be a crutial time for LRSD because of budgeting, so they would like to have the election as soon as possible. that GED test update LRSD election zone discussion Vaught/ Heller on rac :. 1. Mr. Vaught warned the Board that if they make race a factor in their choice t\" nmr r.fi 1 1 .J . ii. they will run the risk of Judge Wright telling them they did not do what she askec. Since there has been no prior finding of discrimination with regard to the school] election, race should not be considered, just the one-man/one-vote concept. Mr. Vaught told the Board Judge Wright would probably hold a hearing after the proposal was presented to her, and that, at that time, Mr. Walker could submit hi' proposal to her if he wished to do so. Mr. Heller said he felt Judge Wright woulc expedite her ruling so the election could be underway. After more discussion, the Board President set a Special Called meeting for Tues. December 29, 1992, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal of new election zones to present to Judge Wright. Mr. Bailey will meet with Mr. Nagel prior to that date and get copies of any compromised changes in Mr. Walker's proposal, to the Board members prior to the 12/29 meeting. Special Called meeting 12/29 to choose proposalDATE 12/15 .9^ HINO or UKIYIM4 M PAGE. HRvatoiNO orrictn 3 J OTHER* PRESENTt INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Next, Ms. Crownover told the Board she would have 1992 Code of Ethics forms pared for each member to review and sign, at the 12/29 meeting. preparea tor As soon as they sign their forms, Ms. Crownover will notarize their signature and file the forms with the County Clerk after January 1, 1993 and before January 31, 1993. Code of Ethics After the Special Called meeting of 12/29/92, the next regular third quarterly meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. There being no other business to discuss, Mr. Broughton made a motion to adjourn tthhee mmeeeettiinngg.. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary December 21, 1992 Date Next reg. meeting 3/16/93 f^ufaiLi Cdoun iSoaJ of ^ducation MR. CECIL BAILEY. PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING  201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 MEMO DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover TO: Members, Pulaski County Board of Education FROM: Ms. Debbie Cro\\mover\u0026lt; Secretary SUBJECT: DATE: Minutes of the 12/29/92 Special Called Meeting/ Code of Ethics/ Metroplan-4 Proposal Submitted to Judge Wright January 6, 1993 Enclosed is your copy of the minutes from the Special Called Meeting of 9Q Tom. Please review them and let me know if you see any changes that need to be made. December 29, 1992. Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, has subnitted the proposal to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright this 6th day of January, 1993. .(See attached) Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter, informed as to the Board's next step. I will keep you Also enclosed is your copy of your recorded Code of Ethics form. T copy of this with your records in this office should you ever need another I also have a copy. cc: minutes only Mr. Larry Vaught, Pulaski County Attorney Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD Mr. Jolin Walker, Attorney \\/llrs. Ann Brown, ODM Mr. Jim McKenzie, Metroplan RECESVED JAN 8 1993 Office of Desegregation MonitoringDATE. 12/29/ ,a_92 Special Called 201 So. Broadway Suite 300 Meeting, County _________ Bd. of Education L.R., AR 72201 KINO OP HCKTIN4 \"1 MEMBER* rREENTMr. Cecil Bailey^ Prp tfc, Thomas Broughton Vice Pre: Dr. George McCrary, Member __Mr. Grai nger Wi11i aws_________ Dr. Martin Zoldessy--------- .q .q WHCNC HILO MEMBERS ABSENT_______ PAGE___L Mr. Cecil Bailey PNiaiDiNO OPFicin Mr. Tarry Vaught, Attorney,? Mr. John Walker, At-tnmpy ___________ iir. Chris Heller. Attorney, LRSD______ Mrs, Ann Brown, PPM OTHERS PRESENT] Cyiitliia ifowell\nAik. DeiiiucraL-Gazetcs Channel 4-Eyewitness News Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary OTHERS: ~ ' See attached MINUTES pie Pulaski County Board of Education met in a Special Called Meeting. Tuesdav December 29, 1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the office boardroom. The purpose of the mating was for the Board to make their decision on which presented proposal of  uiicj-x UCI.XOXUU uii wiixcn presenceu proposal, new election zones for the Little Rock School District, to present to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright. All members were present to conduct business, called the meeting to order. Mr. Bailey, the Board President, Mr. Bailey gave the Board some extra time to study a new proposal (Walker-4) that was received earlier that morning. The new Walker-4 proposal had 3 predominantly INDEX NOTATIONS Call to Order black zones, 4 predominently white zones, all incumbents were within the boundarie\nof a separate zone, and the geographically. zones were numbered similarly to the current zones. Mr. Bailey then read the Federal court mandates ordered by Judge Wright rir. Ddrxey Luen leau cne reoerai .Judge Wright. He also _ listed the criteria the Board set for Metroplan when they were requested to studv m irronf' TDCH a1 _________3 ____i_____ t f \\ ' the current LRSD election zones and submit a proposal(s) if the current found to be out of compliance with the one-man/one-vote concept. ones were A discussion followed about the various proposals that were submitted. If Pro- Summary Federal Court Orde \u0026amp; eight proposals posal Walker 4 or any one of the four Metroplan proposals is chosen, the reschedul id l^ction would be for zones 2 \u0026amp; 4 only, as would have been the case had the repula  L992 election for the LRSD not been postponed. Mr. Thomas Broughton made a motion for the Board to submit the Walker-4 proposal to Judge Wright for approval. Mr. Bailey asked for a second to the motion, was made\nthe motion died. Walker-4 motion die None Mr. Grainger Williams made a motion for the Board to submit both Walker-4 and 1 Metroplan-4 proposals to Judge Wright. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion. The Boan asked Mr. Vaught if presenting two proposals to Judge Wright would be acceptable , practice. Mr. Vaught said the order was somewhat unusual because there weren't i many guidelines added. He said there was nothing in the Order that would point to the fact that Judge Wright anticipated more than one proposal would be submitted to her\nhowever, neither was that action prohibited. would be a call for the Board to make. Mr. Broughton said he felt strongly that the Board should make their decision and present only one proposal, even if it was not one he favored, because he felt that was the Board's job and that the Board should not ask Judge Wright to make up their minds for them. Walker-4 \u0026amp; Metro.-4 combomotion fai. Mr. Vaught said it A vote' was called. The motion failed 3 to 2. Williams and Dr. McCrary, voting voted no to break the tie. Voting for the motion was Mr. no was Dr. Zoldessy and Mr. Broughton. Mr. Baileyi DATE. 12/29/ ,9_92 PAGE_ 2 I KIND OF MEETINa MCMDCRS FRE8CNT WHERE HELD MEMSCRS ABSENT _ FRESiOINO OFFICER OTHERS PRESENTi Special Called Ifeeting, Pulaski County Board of Education (continued) Dr. Zoldessy then made a motion to present the Metroplan-4 proposal to Judge Wright. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 1. Voting were Dr. Zoldessy, Mr. Williams and Dr. McCrary. Mr. Broughton cast the no vote. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Vaught to prepare the necessary documents to present to Judge Wright. Mr. McKenzie said metroplan would draw up a packet of their proposal-4 to present to Judge Wright. As soon as Mr. Vaught gets the material from Metroplan, he and Mr. Bailey will meet to go over the presentation material. Mr. Bailey reminded the Board to review their Code of Ethics form, which were in their folders, and sign them, if approved, and submit to Ms. Crownover. She will notarize them and file them with the Pulaski County Clerk after January 1, 1993, and before January 31, 1993. The President asked for a motion to adjourn. Dr. Zoldessy so moved, seconded by Mr. Broughton. It was voted and approved and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary Date January 5, 1993 INDEX NOTATIONS ietroplan-4 notion aasses Code of Ethics. JAN-,7-93 THU 14:35 PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P.Ol * { IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS !/ WESTERN DIVISION FILED H. Ow-ur InT\nau I.TTiI.?: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT : i! O', JAN ! 3 : L H. bUL-N i o, CI. lPi'K PLAINTIFF V NO.\nLR-C-82-866 PUI.ASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al. I S' DEFENDANT,S MI^S. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOl^S KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS KJLASKI._CQUNTY board of EDUCATION'S PLAN FOR KL'MCTION.. ZONES__TN THE ijlTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST'RTCT The Pulaski County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607\n1. The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to \"determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the 'one man - one vote' principle. and if they are [to] I\nrezone the Little Rock School District accordingly.\" 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zone vary from 0.59' Ct to 3.G4% from the ideal. WHjKREFORE , the Pulaski County Board of Education has compliedJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this case. Respectfully Submitted,  S-L larry d? I VAUGHU PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 72201 Arkansa\nBar No. 79129 SBRJTFICATE of srrviqe copy of the f^regoi^ng ^d^ocumeirt hT\u0026lt;-^be^^ correct to Mr. Christopher Viler Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol Lit?? 2000 First MMrr.. John Walker, .ioi-m w XrT ^pitol, Little Rock, AR 72201 and AR John walker, oJnO HthHiWa. .W.AAL_K_E_R__ _dpa ya ' 1771 Rock, 72206 on thiis P.A. Larry o. Vauglit Analysis of Little Rock School Board Election Zdhel Pulaski County Board of Education METKOFLAN January 1993METROPLAN. A COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS January 5, 1993 Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Pulaski County Board of Education Room 300, Pulaski County Administration Bldg. 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bailey: At the request of Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines, Metroplan has assisted the Pulaski County Board of Education in analyzing the election districts of the Little Rock School Board. Enclosed is our final report. The current election districts were analyzed and six of the seven were foimd to be out of compliance with the \"one man, one vote\" standard of plus or minus five percent from the mean. The current districts are mapped over a base of election precincts and a summary table is provided herein. In addition, we have included two maps of the alternative alignment the Board selected, as well as a summary table for that alternative. The first map is over a street base and the second map is over the voting precinct base. Both maps show the proposed zones in color and the existing boundaries with a heavy black line so that it is easy to identify the changes. It has been a pleasure working with the Board and with your very competent staff. If Metroplan may be of further assistance in this matter, pleasure feel free to call on us. Sincerely yours, im Ix^utive Director McKenzie Heritage West Building  201 East Markham  Suite 450  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 372-3300 Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 20,901 Population Variance -3,910 Percent Variance -15.76% Total White Population 3,194 Total Black Population 17,629 Percent Black Pop. 84.35% Total Other Population 78 Percent Other Pop. 0.37% 20/15 24,989 31,057 30,810 22,382 23,120 173,674 24811 -4,396 -17.72% 4,906 15,306 74.97% 203 0.99% 178 6,246 5,999 -2/29 -1,691 0.72% 22,107 2,529 10.12% 353 1.41% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 28,967 22,974 15,582 15,159 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,550 7,346 6,390 7,688 58/38 I -  4.99% 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.65% 540 490 410 273 2,347 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35%Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 25,533 Population Variance 722 Percent Variance 2.91% 25,764 24,578 24,216 24/56 24,663 24/64 173,674 24,811 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 3.84% -0,94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% Total White Total Black Percent Total Other Percent Population 5,018 Population 20,380 Black Pop. 79.82% Population 135 Other Pop. 0.53% 10,084 15,300 59.39% 380 1.47% 23,161 22,518 19,325 15,550 17,233 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,112 1,239 4,681 8,767 6,959 58/38 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% 305 459 450 346 272 2,347 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35%JAN- 7-93 THU 14:35 - PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO, 5013776009 P. 01 U' S' i ^1? I R ' is L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i-xyir.-\u0026lt;i?i s\n'.'.: 4!- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS WESTERN DIVISION\nau I ': j I i,.TTrr.,e rock school district CAi-ft n.E\u0026gt;nLi\\ M I 3, Ci..L-F(|( PLAlNTlFF NO.\nLR-C-82-8b6 OCP.Ci\n-: 7K PUJASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 1., et al. I I DEFENDANT,S MRS. LORENE JOSilL'A, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS I'-HI^^..CQyiflY . BOARD OF EilUCATION 'S PI,AN FOR I'.MCT.1.ON.. ZONEg_JW THE I,ITTLE_ ROCK SCllOQT. DISl'RTCT The Pulasxi County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the J Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. 1. Code Ann. 6-13-607: The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to H determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the ' one man one vote' principle. and if they are [to] rezone che Little Rock School District accordingly. H 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zones vary from 0.59% to 3.84% from the ideal. WHEREJORE, the Pulaski County Board of Education has complin 1 I IJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this Case. Respectfully Submitted, ) LAK ay D. VAUGHuT PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 Suite 400 72201 Arkansas Bar No. 79129 QERTXFIQATE QF_SERVice I, Larry D, Vaught, dvj iierer copyjjf the foregoing document ha\ntt . Christopher Heller, do hereby certify that to Mr. Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Mr. John Walker, JOHN W. WALKER P A AR 72206 on thi.s day of Janua , - a true and correct been served by regular U.S Friday, eldredge \u0026amp; clark, Rock, AR ma i 1 2000 First 72201 and  ^^23 Broadway, Little Rock, day of January, 1993, Larry DD. Valuigghhtt P. 03 AUTOMATIC COVER SHEET DATE\nJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 TO\nFAX It\n93710100 FROM I I PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX #\n5013776009 03 PAGES WERE SENT (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE) B* X X )K i * :tt [ * * DATE START SENDER JAN- 1 14:31 5013776009 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TIME PAGES TYPE P.Ol JAN- 7-93 THU 14:33 NOTE 1'36\" 3 RECEIVE OK X X % )K X )K XiSsi J Submitted: January 10, 1995 Before RICHARD S. Filed: June 5, 1995 ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Senior Circuit RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Two appeals' involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case. African- American voters^ appeal the District Court's^ order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  2, as amended. 42 U.S.C.  1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School, both cases. 1994 , order We affirm in I. We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and initially. three appeals were consolidated. In the third case, the Joshua Intervenors appealed the District Court's order of September 27, 1994, rejecting the present site of Stephens School as a possible location of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. That appeal has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. _______ Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. Little 1, No. 93-3592 (Sth Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (per curiam). Diane Davis, ^Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey Jackson, and Raymond Frazier, are African-American residents of Little Rock who live within the Little Rock School District. ................... We shall refer to these parties as \"Charles.\" The Hon. Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. -7-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT o\\^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:, i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT _ 1TE?.?J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EB 1 2 1993 .ENTS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 24, 1992, the Court ordered the Pulaski County Board of Education to determine whether the election zones in the Little Rock School District were out of compliance with the principle of II one man one vote\" and to redraw the zones if A 0^ necessary to comply with that principle. On January 6, 1993, the Pulaski County Board of Education, after determining that the zones were out of compliance. filed a plan for election zones in the Little Rock School District. Should any party have objections to the plan. those objections, along with citations of authority, must be filed no later than February 26, 1993. Any responses to objections must be filed no later than March 18, 1993. Should the Court determine that a hearing is necessary in this matter, it will be held Monday, March 29, 1993. SO ORDERED this /day of February, 1993. I I* ti jN r o T SHEET IN HD/OR ^(s) FRCP r.: JUDGE 1 FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McjfiiiOf'fHJ OHtoa of Desegfeeal'O LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. W. Walker I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J' ^^hW^ LG. WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURN EITE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Alsu admittol In Practice in (.eorKia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 February 19, 1993 Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Vaught: Enclosed please find a received FEB 2 2 1993 Of?ico of Desegregation MonitOiHig copy of Plaintiff's Opposition to Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion for Approval of Election Zones which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All counsel of Record Linda Meiissa Poiiy Margie Return to: 5* FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C!!iC3 Ct CeseG^scar-cn ilV* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KlIIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. n W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 4 JoS hn W. LO. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou^^^i?A(d'?s^c^^ EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3y:. h. 6 7953 tJn.JPLAINTIFF ' \u0026lt;j Z I ~ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. mar 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Ottice of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS, RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE COURT'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1993 (THE ORDER WAS APPARENTLY ENTERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1993) The Court has entered an Order which was entered on the docket February 16, 1993, requiring the parties to list any objections which they may have to the submission filed on January 6, 1993 by the defendant Pulaski County Board of Education. The plaintiffs submit the following objections to the plan. 1. The plan does establish seven districts of legally acceptable size. In that respect, plaintiffs have prevailed in causing the defendants to adapt and otherwise redraw the school election zones. 2. The January 6, 1993 submission does not address the voting rights issues raised by the lawsuit. 3. On information and belief, the County Board of Education acknowledged that it would redraw a different plan had it not felt limited by the Court's Order simply to redraw the lines in accordance with the \"one man-one vote\" principle. The County Board has failed to provide the Court with sufficient basis for a determining the voting rights issues.4 . The County Board of Education was divided along racial lines on the propriety of submitting an alternative which addressed the voting rights issues. 5. The only plan which addressed the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue was those developed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted herewith as Exhibit \"A. II 6. The plan submitted by the County Board of Education does not take into account the concept of \"packing, II nor demographic changes which have reduced the percentage of white population in the school' district in the last decade, nor the fact that African American citizens do not have in this racially polarized community an opportunity to elect sufficient number of representives of a their choice. 7. The Pulaski County School District, which has a much lower African-American population ratio than the Little Rock School District, has a plan which provides for two majority-minority districts each approximately 57% minority. North Little Rock is likewise situated and as a result of a voting rights action before this Court, three of the seven board members'therein are of the minority race. Little Rock, as plaintiff in the case against the County, et al., (and is still a plaintiff in part of this action) can surely provide and seek no less minority representation than the Pulaski County Board of Education, which was the defendant that Little Rock sued for, among other things, the right of broader minority representation on the school board. The authority of the voting rights relief is the Voting Rights Act itself, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (j) as amended, Thornburgh v. 8.Jingles, 478 US 30 (1986)\nHarvell v. Ladd, 958 F2d 226\nWilliains V, City of Texarkana, FSupp , USDC, W.D. of Ark, decided February 19, 1993\nSmith v. Clinton, 687 FSupp 1310 (ED Ark 1988), Aff'd 488 US 988 (1988) . These cases are but few in a litany which require full relief for minority citizens in voting rights cases. The Court has not ruled upon the Motions to Dismiss herein. WHEREFORE, objections considered, the plaintiffs respectfully request that: 1. The Court overrule the Motions to Dismiss\nThe Court require the defendants to answer the Complaint herein\nThe Court require the defendants to develop appropriate plans which address the voting rights issues raised by plaintiffs or. in the alternative, show cause v/hy the plans submitted by the plaintiffs are inapposite to relieve the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue raised by the plaintiffs\nRespectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJe Rock, AR 72206 By: (50, ^4-3758 y ihn^W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 9. 2. 3. fCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel. ,ay of February, 1993.-2 6 n ) 7 3 4 1 VV poa .'S_7LlO I ?3CZO ^133 G 'l^07(7 I 3 L(2 3 O i^3^o I 8o~J /29 2 I27\u0026lt;^ z. B 7, ^4, 7 6 I -.1 2 0 So 'S-~! iSZ^l Z(,.O 3s43S 33,6 P' Z V ! 313 788 3 4 \"? 4\u0026lt; 4^3 3S\u0026amp; 23 47 z4'Z'5g\u0026gt; i-7 ,-3. -0.^. -'?.3 Z. X Z .^C' * '^. - 3 Z3e3^ - 3.? Z\u0026amp;Z^zr +3'.? I -7 34 7.4- sREU 1 W95 OUtoe oi DesegfeS^**'^'^  filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^STErnSCT^^^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \u0026gt;'hkansas mar 2 9 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARLh. twitwrb, CLERK By:------------------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The motions to dismiss filed by the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education in the matter of the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are denied. The Court hereby orders the defendants to respond to plaintiffs' amended complaint by Friday, April 2, 1993. DATED this 29th day of March, 1993. united states district jui JUDGEFILED US. 0131- i\u0026gt;'. iiiuar EASTERN OTSt,-CT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 1 2 1993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL a. CLERK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. CE?. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength, and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. 2. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended, are adversely affected by the present and proposed plan for electing school board members. The adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which aresufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date], 3. The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote.\" 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. \"that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court. It The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit. 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7, 1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33% His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect. for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. 19. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The II ideal II zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote. It They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2). Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens, approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.s. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form, content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey a Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments, and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words, the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9% were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 . The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34 . There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent ('M) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates. PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 See to . 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic), the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record, Little Rock has a long history of electing two African American persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28 of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case. no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. 42. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but, by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears. however. to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this purpose by statute. (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 1544. The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants. the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges a greater voice in governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts - now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the \"packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to (the percentage opportunity to ensure elect blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rybicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs. does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand. has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval, or otherwise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs' plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5 o figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs'. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53 . It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within forty- five (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will serve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 3 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CTU^NON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS I. TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have challenged the redistricting plan for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), claiming it violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court ordered the Pulaski County Board ofEducation to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement when judged by 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme. Plaintiff's allegations that the old plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot. Growe V, Emison. 61 U.S.L.W. 4163, 4167 (February 23, 1993). In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting scheme violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that they will have less opportunity under the plan just adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). In order to prevail on their constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their burden with regard to both their  2 and constitutional claims. The relief sought must be denied. 2II, DUTY OF COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Before discussing whether the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE violates the Voting Rights Act, it should be noted that the PCBE was not required by the Act to create the maximum number of majority-minority districts. The Voting Rights Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The court in Turner explained\nCongress did not intend to provide minority voters with 'maximum feasible minority voting strength.' Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 2789 (O'Conner, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is fl you shall not harm\" rather than II you shall help.\" Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 241 (E.D.Ark. 1989)(Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Consequently, the contention in Plaintiffs' complaint that the Voting Rights Act required the County Board to create another majority-minority district should be rejected. This Court may not substitute its judgement for that of the County Board. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Growe. 61 U.S.L.W. at 4167-68\nsee also 3Voinovich v. Quilter. 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (March 2, 1993). Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has noted that, \"the federal district court is precluded from substituting even what it considers to be an objectively superior plan for an otherwise constitutionally and legally valid plan that has been proposed and enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit.\" Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 151 (5th Cir. 1985). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 585, 589 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. Finally, this Court should recognize as a legitimate consideration the County Board's attempt to maintain to the extent possible the prior boundary lines of the districts. See. 6^3,., Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury. 635 F.2d 1151, 1162 (5th Cir. 1981). A new districting plan which tracks as closely as possible the prior plan decreases voter confusion and apathy. Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 146 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985). Preservation of existing boundary lines is a legitimate goal of the County Board. The plan approved in Turner was based upon an express preference for II a plan which departs as little as possible\" from the previous court-approved plan. Turner. 784 F. Supp. at 556. III. VOTING RIGHTS ACT The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to enfranchise blacks in the south by tearing down obstacles to 4registration and voting. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 227 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1992). Subsection (b) of the Act describes how a violation of the proscription contained in subsection (a) is established: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992) (emphasis in original). In interpreting the language of  2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to prevail on a  2 claim a plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom. supra, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a a 5violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or\" for the word \"and.\" Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner. 784 F.Supp at 574 n. 20. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether plaintiff will \"less opportunity\" to participate: \"Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immedicately before the impostion or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The Senate has identified a number of factors which II may\" * * * be relevant to a  2 claim: 1. 4. The history of voting related discrimination in the State or political subdivision\n2 . The extent to which voting in the elections in the State or political subdivision is racially polarized\n3 . The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance to opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting\nThe exclusion of members of the minority group from the candidate slating process\n65. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n6. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns\nand. 7. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). In addition, the Senate Report notes that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State's or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous may have probative value. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 45. The Senate, in enumerating these factors, recognized that they may not be relevant in all  2 cases. Id. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining whether a violation of  2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged run-off provision makes the political processes not \"equally open to participation\" by blacks in that blacks have \"less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.\" It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the 7Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. ' truth is that focusing on some of those The factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. 686 F.Supp. at 1387. See also, Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 232. Likewise, in the case at hand, an evaluation of the Senate Report factors adds little to the inquiry of whether, under the new districting scheme adopted by the County Board for the LRSD Board of Directors, Plaintiff's have \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.\" 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992). Consequently, an extensive discussion of each factor is not justified. Factors will be discussed where relevant to the issue being analyzed. A. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. The first question in analyzing a  2 claim is whether the challenged standard, practice or procedure results in the plaintiff having \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs must prove that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board results in their having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the prior districting plan. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1375. In this regard. Plaintiffs may look to Senate Report factor 8number five concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384. See al^, Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by Blacks.\"). This argument is based on the assumption that the young, poor and uneducated do not participate in the political process in the same proportions as the old, rich and educated. Plaintiffs may argue that the minority group has the former characteristics in greater proportion than the majority group. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1385. Even so, consideration of the residual effects of past discrimination provides no insight into the issue of whether the districting scheme adopted by the County Board provides the Plaintiffs less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan. Regardless of where the district lines are drawn, the Plaintiffs will have the same socioeconomic status. If the lines were drawn as the Plaintiffs request, would their opportunity \"to participate\" be any 9different? Clearly not. It is not the line drawing by the County Board which \"results\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity\nrather, it is the diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238. Therefore, because Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the County Board, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. B. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which Plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the County Board than under the former districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three 11 necessary preconditions\" for a districting scheme to impair minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, is not, as would be the case in a If it substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citations omitted]. Third, the minority 10must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it  in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates the submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These \"necessary preconditions\" will be discussed in turn. 1. Geographically Compact. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs must be more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the Court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with additional 5% to offset the fact that an minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, in order to create a \"safe\" minority district, the district must have at least 65% minority population. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs are arguing that three majority black districts should be created. However, as the 11Plaintiffs own proposal reveals, three \"safe\" majority black districts cannot be created. Plaintiffs may argue that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white \"crossover\" votes, but this argument by Plaintiffs only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer racially polarized voting, another \"necessary precondition\". Hence, either way, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. 2 . Politically Cohesive. To establish political cohesiveness. Plaintiffs must come forward with proof with regard to the voting patterns in each individual district. The Supreme Court warned in Ginqles that \"courts must not rely on data aggregated from all the challenged districts in concluding that racially polarized voting exists in each district.\" Ginales, 478 U.S. at 59. Even the Senate factor on racially polarized voting directs the inquiry to voting behavior of the particular \"State or political subdivision\" at issue. See Senate Report Factor No. 2, supra. In addition, Plaintiffs should be reguired to show that districting plan adopted by the County Board is drawn in such a way that it has resulted in the packing or fragmenting of prior existing cohesive black groups. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 196. If the plan adopted by the PCBE in no way decreases or curtails the effectiveness of black participation by packing or fragmenting prior existing cohesive black groups, the PCBE's plan does not \"result\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity to elect 12representatives of their choice. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act. 3. White Bloc Voting. In general, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Gingles. 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful contemplation of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable v. Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Ark 1980). This Court should take judicial notice of the findings of fact in Leadership Roundtable. In the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's evidence of white bloc voting, the Court should consider evidence that factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether \"bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates.\" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (0,Conner, J., Concurring). It also \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections.\" Id. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success (i.e., the candidates' platforms and policies. their ability as speakers, their \"track records\" in the community, their name recognition, and their financial support. 13etc.) were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). 4. Vote Dilution. If the Court should find that Plaintiffs have satisfied the \"necessary preconditions\" discussed above, the Plaintiffs still have the burden of proving that under the districting plan adopted by the County Board they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting scheme. Plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts could have, and therefore should have, been created by the County Board. In the terminology of  2, Plaintiffs claim vote dilution due to \"packing\", i.e. blacks were packed into two districts with overwhelming black majorities preventing a third majority black district. However, a comparison of the districting plan adopted by the County Board with the prior plan reveals that more \"packing\" existed under the prior plan.' Moreover, the prior plan, when adopted by Judge Woods and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, had greater \"packing\" than the plan adopted by the County Board. In fact, if Plaintiffs' concern is \"packing\". 'Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82\" ' ----------* * '   Q, and 59.39% black population. ^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Judge Woods' finding that his plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights 141 they are better off under the plan adopted by the County Board than they have ever been since the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected by single-member districts. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any vote dilution resulting from the districting scheme adopted by the County Board, and consequently. they will be unable to show they have less opportunity under the County Board districting plan to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting plan. C. Conclusion. Plaintiffs will be unable to prove either element of a Voting Rights Act claim. The PCBE plan does not result in less opportunity to participate in the political process based on the socioeconomic effects of past discrimination because these socioeconomic factors are present regardless of where the district lines are drawn. Plaintiffs cannot establish the \"necessary preconditions\" in order to show less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Moreover, even if they could make such a showing, the Plaintiffs claim fails because the districting scheme adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the prior plan currently has and than the prior plan had when it was adopted by Judge Woods in 1986 and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. For all the above reasons, the relief sought by Plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act should be denied. Act was not appealed, and remains the law of the case. 15IV. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS In order to establish that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board is unconstitutional, Plaintiff must prove that the plan was adopted with the purposeful intent by the members of the County Board to discriminate against Plaintiffs. City of Mobile V. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). It is impossible to speculate what evidence of discriminatory intent Plaintiffs will bring forward because none exists. It will suffice to say that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any constitutional violations. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Pendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 16 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Trial Brief has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same on this 12th day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) 17 u. jLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 J 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action. which is part of the a. SRENTS, CLERK ---- OHP. Cli PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS continuing case concerning the desegregation of the school districts of Pulaski County, Arkansas, plaintiffs challenge the existing zones used to elect members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as well as the new zones adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1992), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that the present plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and dilutes minority voting strength, and that the new plan packs the black voting age population into two zones even though blacks are numerically large and geographically compact to constitute a third majority black zone. This case was tried to the Court on April 13 and 14, 1993. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The named plaintiffs, Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hevey Jackson, Diane Davis, and Raymond Frazier (\"Charles plaintiffs\"), are black adult residents of the Little Rock School District. The Charles plaintiffs' amended complaint has been consolidated with Case No. LR-C-82-866, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. The Charles plaintiffs bring this action 2. to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school elections for the purpose of electing school directors. also an action to ensure that This is such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district refomned into single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows of African American descent the seven (7) citizens opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representation of their choice. Defendants are the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the members of the Board of Directors of the LRSD, the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), and the members of the PCBE. 3. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991), the PCBE has the responsibility to divide school districts which have an average daily attendance in excess of 24,000 students into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors. 4. The present LRSD election zones were established by order of the court on December 18, 1986, after certain areas of the Pulaski County Special School District were annexed to the LRSD. Followingthe annexation, the LRSD presented a proposal for zone elections to Judge Henry Woods. That proposal was the subject of a December 9, 1986 pretrial conference. LRSD Exhibit 1. On December 10, 1986, the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the zone proposal. Charles Exhibit 36. The zones adopted in 1986 had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 Census data: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 black. In adopting the above zones in 1986, the court found that the \"seven (7) contiguous zones with comparable populations comports with the one-man one-vote principle required by the constitution\" and that \"the Little Rock School District's redistricting plans are in compliance with the mandate of 2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C. 1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" See document 719\nCharles Exhibit 13. 5. After the filing of this complaint, all the parties agreed that the 1986 plan was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote principle when judged by the 1990 census figures. The Court postponed the September 1992 school board elections and directed the PCBE to determine whether the zones were out of compliance with -3-the one-man one-vote principle and to redraw the lines if necessary.' 6. The PCBE, through the Pulaski County judge, commissioned the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (\"Metroplan\") , a governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area, to address the issue and to devise a remedial plan if necessary. The PCBE instructed Metroplan to examine the one-man one-vote issue and draw three or four alternate plans, keeping the zones compact and contiguous and as close to the present zones as possible in order to support stability in the LRSD. 7. The PCBE determined that the 1986 plan should be used as the starting point for any new plan. It did not instruct Metroplan on the voting rights issue because it understood that the 1986 plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 8. Mr. Jim McKenzie, executive director of Metroplan, contacted Mr. James R. Lynch, a senior research specialist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Arkansas Institute of Government, and requested additional criteria that should be considered in rezoning cases. Mr. Lynch provided him with a two-page summary which Mr. McKenzie used in developing the alternative plans presented to the PCBE. The factors listed by Mr. Lynch were: adherence to the one- man onevote doctrine\navoidance of diluting minority political expression\ncompact and contiguous districts\nrecognizable district 'The Court also postponed the PCBE Zone 5 election. -4-boundaries\nand use of existing political boundaries. Charles Exhibit 24. 9. The Metroplan staff drafted four proposed zoning plans and Mr. McKenzie reviewed the plans to see if they met Mr. Lynch's criteria. Mr. McKenzie presented the proposals to the PCBE at a public meeting on November 6, 1992. The PCBE then held two public hearings on November 30, 1992 and December 7, 1992 to answer questions about the plan revisions. Charles Exhibits 9 and 10. 10. During the public hearings, the issue of a third majority black district was raised. Mr. John W. Nagel, Jr. presented a plan he had drawn up for the Charles plaintiffs which included three majority black districts. Mr. McKenzie testified that Metroplan could have drawn a plan with three majority black zones but the criteria of compactness and minimum change in present zones would have been sacrificed. 11. On December 29, 1992, at a specially called meeting, the PCBE selected Metroplan's Proposal No. 4 as its plan for bringing the present zones into compliance. The vote was three to one, with the three white members voting for Proposal No. 4 and the one black member voting against it. Charles Exhibit 12. 12. Mr. McKenzie testified that Proposal No. 4 looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals. In Proposal No. 4, the areas of the City of Little Rock ^The Charles plaintiffs argue that the PCBE did not legally adopt Metroplans Proposal No. 4 but merely voted to submit it to the Court, thereby abandoning its duty to adopt a plan. The Court Ends that the PCBE adopted Proposal No. 4 pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. -5-that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have positive variance. a 13. On February 16, 1993, the PCBE submitted its approved plan to the Court, and the Charles plaintiffs filed objections to the plan. 14. There was no racially discriminatory motive. intent. or purpose involved in the adoption by the PCBE of the districting plan at issue in this case. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence from which this Court can conclude that the plan adopted by the PCBE was the result of purposeful racial discrimination. The PCBE adopted its plan after two public hearings at which the merits of the various plans before the PCBE were discussed. The plan eventually adopted by the PCBE was drawn according to generally accepted criteria provided by the Charles plaintiffs' expert in this case, Mr, Lynch. 15. The City of Little Rock is approximately 65% white and 34% black. Charles Exhibit 25. The voting age population of the City of Little Rock is approximately 70% white and 29% black. Charles Exhibit 26. coterminous. The City of Little Rock and the LRSD are nearly The significant exceptions are the Granite Mountain area, which is a predominantly black area within the City of Little Rock but not within the LRSD, and Cammack Village, a predominantly white area which is within the LRSD but not within the City of Little Rock. 16. The plan adopted by the PCBE has the following characteristics: -6-Zone 1 - 25,533 total population\n79.82% black\nZone 2 - 25,764 total population\n59.39% black\nZone 3 - 24,578 total population\n4.52% black\nZone 4 - 24,216 total population\n5.12% black\nZone 5 - 24,456 total population\n19.14% black\nZone 6 - 24,663 total population\n35.55% black\nZone 7 - 24,464 total population\n28.45% black. See Attachment A. 17. The plan presented by the Charles plaintiffs has the following characteristics: Zone 1 - 23,704 total population\n64.7% black\nZone 2 - 24,870 total population\n64.0% black\nZone 3 - 24,230 total population\n5.3% black\nZone 4 - 25,380 total population\n5.1% black\nZone 5 - 23,839 total population\n8.7% black\nZone 6 - 25,635 total population\n61.7% black\nZone 7 - 26,016 total population\n25.8% black. See Attachment B. 18. The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous. 19. There are no significant barriers to participation in the political process in the LRSD. In order to run for the LRSD Board The Court notes that the plan filed as Plaintiffs Exhibit A with the Charles plaintiffs \"Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court s Order of February 16, 1993,\" (doc. #1762) has the same boundary lines as Attachment B but some of the zones are numbered differently. (See Attachment C.) -7-of Directors, a candidate is required to gather twenty signatures on a petition. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-111 (Michie 1991) . There is no filing fee. There was no testimony that there exist any legal barriers to participation in the political process by black candidates. 20. No evidence was presented to show that black citizens have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch, expert witness for the Charles plaintiffs, testified that the opportunity for black citizens to participate in the political process is the same under the present plan and the plan adopted by the PCBE. 21. Black citizens do not have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch testified that the opportunity for black citizens to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the plan adopted by the PCBE and the present plan. 22. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court referred to factors listed in the Senate Judiciary Committee report accompanying the 1982 amendments to 2 of the Voting Rights Act as being relevant to a 2 claim. The Court makes the following findings in accordance with those factors: A. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process. -8-While the Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of a history of official discrimination, the Court will take judicial notice that there has been a history of official discrimination in voting. Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196, 210 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence, other than demographic information which shows socio-economic differences between blacks and whites, that the history of official discrimination in Arkansas has resulted in black citizens having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the plan proposed by the PCBE. This demographic evidence does not prove or disprove that the district lines drawn in 1986 or 1992 resulted in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The history of official discrimination is remote in time to the preparation of the PCBE plan and will therefore be given little weight. B. The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized. The evidence presented by the Charles plaintiffs tends to indicate that black voters constitute a politically cohesive unit. Mr. Lynch showed that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates. He presented evidence of a correlation between black voting age population and the percentage of votes received by black candidates. The Charles plaintiffs failed to prove that white bloc voting normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus -9-any white cross-over vote for black candidates. The evidence was insufficient to show that white voters tend to group together to defeat black candidates. The evidence indicates that black candidates have achieved considerable success against white candidates. Charles Exhibits 32 and 33 show ten elections (nine at large\none zone) since 1986 in which black candidates opposed white candidates. In six of those elections, the black candidate was successful. Only two of the elections involved the LRSD. In both the at-large 1986 LRSD race and the LRSD Zone 2 1989 race, the black candidate defeated the white candidate. In the 1988 race for municipal judgeship in the City of Little Rock, the black candidate was successful. The black candidates were also a successful in three of the seven at-large elections for a position on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Charles Exhibit 35 shows the results of twenty-five elections between 1962 and 1992 in which black candidates sought positions on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. The black candidates were successful in ten of those elections. The Court finds that there does not exist in Little Rock a sufficient white bloc vote to usually defeat the candidate preferred by minority voters. Although there was some evidence that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate, the Court finds that legally significant racially polarized voting does not exist in the City of Little Rock or the LRSD. -10-C. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. There is no evidence that the LRSD has adopted any practice or procedure that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. The State of Arkansas has adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to school district elections. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-121 (Michie 1991). There is no evidence that the majority vote requirement has had any impact on the success or failure of any black candidate in a school district election. D. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process. The process of slating plays no part in races for the LRSD Board of Directors. Nominations are not made by committee or convention. Anyone who wants to run simply files as an individual in the election. There is no filing fee. A petition signed by twenty qualified registered voters is sufficient to get a candidate on the ballot. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mr. Thomas Broughton, both of whom are black and have been elected to the LRSD Board of Directors, testified that there are no impediments to ballot access. Mr. Lynch testified that the \"white power structure\" throws its support to certain candidates. This does not constitute slating as that term has been used by the courts in considering the Senate factors. See, e.g. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 212. -11-E. The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Census data, which indicates that in the City of Little Rock blacks are poorer, less educated, have fewer vehicles, and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population, convinces the Court that minorities in the Little Rock area have suffered the disadvantages of past discrimination. Charles Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. These socio-economic factors have an impact upon the ability of blacks to participate effectively in the political process. For example, while blacks comprise 34% of the population of Little Rock, they comprise only 29% of the voting age population. Mr. Lynch testified that blacks also suffer lower voter registration and lower voter turnout among registered voters than whites. F. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of overt or subtle racial appeals in LRSD election campaigns. Mr. Bill Hamilton testified that in 1973 he actively supported a white school board candidate, Lucy Abraham, and that in 1983 he received wide support from the white community. G. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. The Charles plaintiffs presented evidence of only two LRSD elections. Black candidates won them both. They presented evidence on one election for the position of municipal judge, and -12-that race was won by a black. As noted above under subparagraph B, the plaintiffs presented evidence of twenty-five elections for the position of Little Rock City Board of Directors from 1962 to 1992 in which black candidates participated. Black candidates won ten of the twenty-five races in which one or more blacks participated. Charles Exhibit 35. LRSD Exhibit 2 shows that in 1983 two black candidates ran at-large races for positions on the LRSD Board of Directors, each opposing a white candidate. Black candidates Bill Hamilton and Katherine Mitchell received 70% and 34% of the vote, respectively. According to LRSD Exhibit 5, Mr. Hamilton received 82% of the vote against white candidate Frederick Lee in the 1989 LRSD Zone 2 election. LRSD Exhibit 4 shows that white candidate Charles Young defeated black candidate Lawrence Hampton in the 1987 Zone 6 race by a slim margin, 250 to 218 votes. Zone 6 was then a 72% white zone. The percentage of black representation for at least the last ten years on both the LRSD Board of Directors and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors has been 28.5% compared with a citywide black population of 34% and a black voting age population of 28%. Mr. Hamilton testified that it only takes about 300 votes to win an election within the present LRSD election zones. His testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5. The minimum black population in an election zone in the plan adopted by the PCBE is 1,112. PCBE Exhibit 1, p. 2. The five most heavily black zones range from 4,681 to 20,380 black population. There exists in at -13-least five of the zones adopted by the PCBE, if not all of them, sufficient black population from which to draw the number of votes usually necessary to elect a black candidate to the LRSD Board of Directors. H. Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group. Mr. Dale Charles, president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP, testified that he had raised several issues at LRSD board meetings and had received no written response from the Board. However, there was no testimony that the Board usually provides a written response or that whites who presented issues to the Board received written responses. Mr. Charles admitted that he had never sought to discuss any LRSD issue with his zone representative, who is white. because he assumed his representative would be a antagonistic to him. Mr. Charles further testified that he had made presentations to the Board on several occasions. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Hamilton testified generally that the Board was not as responsive as it could be to some issues of concern to the black community, but that any two members of the Board could call a public meeting to discuss any issue of concern to those two members. Board member Patricia Gee testified that she lives in a racially mixed neighborhood (her zone is presently 28.55% black) and that she works as hard to resolve issues brought to her by black constituents as she does to resolve issues brought to her by white constituents. -14-I. Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of prerequisite to voting, procedure is tenuous. such or voting standard. qualification, practice or The Court finds that the adoption by the PCBE of the election zones prepared by Metroplan is not a practice that can be described as \"tenuous.\" The starting point for the development of the plan adopted by the PCBE was a plan adopted by the court in 1986 which the court found to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Charles plaintiffs claim the 1986 redistricting plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. They also challenge the redistricting plan for the LRSD Board of Directors adopted by the PCBE, claiming it violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This Court ordered the PCBE to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan into compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement when judged by the 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme, the plaintiffs' allegations that -15-the 1986 plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot/ See Grove v. Emison, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993). 2. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the PCBE. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 1149, 1157, 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513, 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (1993). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F. Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting plan adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. 3 . In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting plan violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must prove that they will have less opportunity under the plan adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner, 784 F. Supp. at 589. In order to prevail on their constitutional claim, the plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs ^The issue of whether the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel preclude the Charles plaintiffs from challenging the 1986 plan was raised during these proceedings. The Court finds it unnecessary to address the issue because it determines that challenges to the 1986 plan are arguably moot but, as noted below, the Court will give effect to the 1986 plan as the law of the case. -16- have not met their burden as to either their 2 claim or their constitutional claim. 4. The PCBE is not required by the Voting Rights Act to create the maximum number of majority black districts. The Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. The Turner court explained: Congress did not intend to provide minority voters with the \"maximum feasible minority voting strength.\" Singles, 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S. Ct. at 2789 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is II you shall not harm\" rather than \"you shall help.\" Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 241 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Thus, the Voting Rights Act does not require the PCBE to create another majority black district. 5. In Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 2 05, the court discussed vote dilution claims in the single-member district context. It stated: If lines are drawn that limit the number of majorityblack single-member districts, and reasonably compact and contiguous majority-black districts could have been drawn, and if racial cohesiveness in voting is so great that, as a practical matter, black voters' preferences for black candidates are frustrated by this system of apportionment, the outlines of a Section 2 theory are made out. Whether such a claim will succeed depends on the particular factual context. including all of the factors that Thornburg^ Smith, and the legislative history of Section 2 say are relevant. -17-6. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as amended in 1982, provides: (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) [of this title], as provided in subsection (b) [of this section]. 7. A violation of subsection (a) of this section is if, based upon the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members (b) established if. have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is circumstance which may be considered: Provided, one That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. It is clear that in order to prevail on their 2 claim. plaintiffs must prove both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. * * * It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or II for the word \"and. II Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. -18-Chisom, 501 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. at 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 574 n.2O. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether a plaintiff will have \"less opportunity\" to participate: (I Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. 8. As previously noted, the Senate has identified a number of factors which may be relevant to a 2 claim: 1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process\n2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivisions is racially polarized\n3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large electi\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_449","title":"Election zone","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/449"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 1 e F P 0 M J 0 H H W . tU W L K E P P . TO 6 214 7 P . 0 2 received SEP 1 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEVEN ZONE PLAN Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitoring ZONE 1 367 intersects Interstate Begin at the point where Hwy. 3Q, Follow the Little Rock School District's southern boundary east to the Arkansas River then follow the river northwest to the drainage ditch under Cantrell Road at Gill Street thence west along straight l_..c Street a line intersecting the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Deaf then west to the end of Lee Avenue then follow a straight imaginary line due north to Fairfax At Fairfax Terrace go west to Martin Street Terrace. thence north on Martin to I, west on I to Midland, south on Midland to H, west on H to Oak, Kavanaugh, west on Kavanaugh to Walnut, south on Oak to south on Walnut to west Markham, east on West Markham to Elm, south on Elm to Interstate 630, east on 630 to Brown Street, south on Brown to 14th, east on 14th to Cross, south on Cross to Wright Avenue, east on Wright Avenue to Ringo, south on Ringo to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty creek south to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek southwest to Interstate 30. ZONE 2 Begin at the intersection of Fouche Creek and Interstate 30 follow Fouche northwest to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty Creek north to Ringo, Ringo north to Wright Avenue, Wright Avenue west to Cross, Cross north to 14th, 14th west to Brown, Brown south to 22nd, 22nd west to Pine, Pine south to Asher, Asher southwest to 29th, 29th west to Washington, Washington north to 28th, 28th west to Adams, Adams north to 24th, 24th west to Filmore, Filraore north to 19th, 19th west to University Avenue, University south to 53rd Street, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen Drive east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, said boundary south to Rosemore, Rossmore southeast to Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, Tracks southeast to Koerner, Koerner east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to Interstate 30, 30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena Drive, from there follow an imaginary line due south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale Cutoff, Mabelvale Cutoff west to Chicot, Chicot south to the school district and also city limits boudary line, follow this boundary line northeast around a private airfield to the point of origin.0 1 1 F. 2 4 F R 0 M I 0 H n W . 1.1 P L K E P P . A . TO 2 14 7 P . 0 3 ZONE 3 Begin at the intersection Follow Brown street north of Brown and 22nd Street. to 1-630, 630 west to West Jonesboro, west Jonesboro south to I2t\nn, 12th west to University, University north to 630 west to Mississippi, Mississippi south to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Kanis, Kanis west to Shackleford, West 12th, 630, Shackleford south to Panther Branch Creek, then follow an imaginary line due south to the northern end of Talley Road, then follow an imaginary line due west to west 44th street, 44th street east to Weldon, Weldon south to 46th, at 46th follow an imaginary line due south to Colonel Glenn, follow Colonel Glenn east to Barrow, follow Barrow north to 28th, 28th east to Boyle Park Road, Boyle Park southeast to Rock Creek, Rock Creek south then east to Colonel Glenn, Colonel Glenn east to University, University north to 19th, 19th east to Filmore, Filmore south to 24th, 24th east to Adams, Adams south to 28th, 28th east to Washington, Washington south to 29th, 29th east to Asher, Asher east to Pine, Pine north to 22nd, 22nd east to the point of origin. ZONE 4 Begin at the Intersection of Scott Hamilton and 1-30. Follow 1-30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena then follow on imaginary line south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale, Mabelvale west to Chicot, Chicot south to school district boundary, school district boundary southwest, then west, then around the Alexartder City limits. then north. east. then north southeast to 1-430, to McHenry then east. Creek, then north, then 430 south to Fouche Creek, McHenry Creek Fouche Creek northeast to University, University south to 53rd, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, Benny Craig Park boundary south to Rosemore, Rosemore south to U.P. Railroad, Railroad south to Hoener, Hoener east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to the point of origin. ZONE 5 Begin at a point where McHenry Creek inters^ts the western most boundary of the school district. this boundary north to west Marldiam. Follow At this point follow an imaginary line north to Loyola Drive. At this point turn east on imaginary line to Napa Valley Drive, Napa Valley north to Hinson Road, Hinson east to an Green Mountain, Green Mountain south to Rainwood,I I f f I C? Cl ?  I 1 i t F P 0 M J 0 H N 1.4 . W H L IC E P P . H . TO Rainwood east to Grassy Flat Creek, 2 14? P . 0 -I Grassy Flat Creek east to 1-430, 430 north to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Grassy Flat Creek, Grassy Flat Creek generally east to Reservoir Road, Reservoir north to the southern boundary of Reservoir Park, go east along the southern boundary of Reservoir Park to Windy Drive. Follow an imaginary line south at the intersection of Windy Drive and the southern boundary of Reservoir Park Follow Grassy Flat Creek south to to Grassy Flat creek. an imaginary point due east of Arrow Ridge Court. Go east along this imaginary line to Gillett Drive, north on Gillett to Leewood, east on Leewood to Mississippi, south on to Mississippi to Rodney Parham, south on Rodney Parkham Kanis, west on Kanis to Shackleford, south on Shackleford to at Panther Branch creek. Panther Branch Creek follow an imaginary line due south to the northern tip of Talley Road, at this point turn east, follow an imaginary line to the interesection of west Romine Road and 44th. Follow 44th east to Weldon and go south on Weldon to 46th, at this point. follow an imaginary line south to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn Road to Barrow Road, turn north on Barrow Road to 28th street, follow 28th east to Boyle Park Road, go south on Boyle Park Road to Rock Creek, follow Rock Creek south and then east to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn to University, then south on University to Fouche Creek, follow Fouche Creek generally southwest to Interstate 430, go north on 430 to McHenry Creek, then follow McHenry Creek west to the point of origin. ZONE 6 Begin at the intersection of the western school district boundary line and west Markham. Follow the boudary line generally northwest turning to the east along the Little Maumelle River, follow the Little Maumelle River to the Arkansas River, follow J imerson the Arkansas River to Jimerson Creek, Creek south to Keightley, follow Keightley south to Hwy. 10, follow Hwy. 10 west to the eastern boundary of Reservoir Park, follow this boundary south then east then south then west to Reservoir Road, follow Reservoir Road to stoney Flat Creek, follow Stoney Flat Creek southwest to Rodney Parham Road, follow Rodney Parham northwest to 1-430, 430 south to Stoney Flat Creek, Stoney Flat northwest to Rainwood Drive, follow Rainwood west to Green Mountain, Green Mountain north to Hinson Road, Hinson Road west to Nappa Valley, Nappa Valley south to Mara Lynn Road. At this point follow an imaginary line west to Loyola Drive, at this point follow an imaginary line south to the point of origin.1 1 F P 0 N J 0 H H 14 . M H L K E P P . w . TO 2 14 7 P . y 5 I ZONE 7 Begin at the intersection of Jimerson Creek and the Arkansas River, follow Jimerson Creek south to Keightley, 10, go west on Hwy, part south to the southetn^bo^^^^^^^^^^^ EeBe--t PatK^, 2 imaginary line south east along the an Windy Drive, at this point follow +-O fitonev Flat Creek, follow Stoney to Stoney Flat Creek Flat Creek south to imaginary point follow an due west of Lyric Lane, : Lane and Gillett an pon\"-  imaqinary line from this point to Lyric follow Leewood Drive, follow Gillett north to Leewood, to Mississippi, follow Mississippi south to ' ?S!oi%?0 eaVt i?Sni\nKy\nfollow university south to 12th street, follow 12th street east to West Jonesboro West Jonesboro north to 1-630, follow I 630 e^st follow Elm Street north to Markham, follow to Elm Street, follow L-...------ Markham west to Walnut, follow Walnut north to Kavanaugh, follow Oak north to H, follow Kavanaugh east to Oak, follow H east to Midland, follow Midland north to I Street, follow I east to Martin Street, follow Fairfax Terrace east to follow Martin south to Fairfax Terrace, Luxxv^ --- -- line perpendicular to the east end of Lee an imaginary line perpendicular to tne ease enu Street, follow this imaginary line south to the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Blind, follow the northern boundary of the School for the Blind to the eastern boundary of the School for the Blind, at this point follow an imaginary line east to Cantrell Road and follow Cantrell Road to the Gill Street at this at this point, bUi btreei Bridge, follow the drainage ditch under the Gill Street Bridge to the Arkansas River, northwest to the point of origin. follow the Arkansas River I 7 0 T w L P . ? 5 1a PT c?  Pl p 1 /r63i 62,6 8 \" (S, 4 Z IS71 8 ^L3 3 ) :r (9 7^ -z4/^7 ' 3, 7 4- :8 8'=^o 'Z I, 8 2 00 I o 2 -S(^ o\u0026lt;? ^Z.o 373 2 4-39d - 6 2 4^-r4 i- o, 7 Io 3 S 4.0 2, 47o f 2 r \"^46 S'Siiz 3X I 11-74^T' I S'a IIReport to the Pulaski County Board of Education on Little Rock School Board Election Zones Metroplan November 4, 1992SUMMARY TABLES  Existing Boundaries  Proposals 1 through 4 ' yMl ^4Va^(^2. \" H (uu) 1 w - c r% |W O/ik \"Iv, i(^ y-OJlCURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES CEIectdIst 1 2 j4 5 1 TotSD Totpop 20901 20415 24989 31057' 30810 22382 23120 173674 PopVor -3910 -4396 178 6246 5999 -2429 -1691 0 7oVar -15.76% -17.72% 0.72% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 0.00% White 3194 4906 22107 28967 22974 15582 15159 112889 Ideal 24811 LRSD.XLS Block 17629 15306 2529 1550 7346 6390 7688 58438 %BP 84.35% 74.97% 10.12% 4.997o 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.657o Other 78 203 353 540 490 410 273 2347 7.OP 0.37% 0.99% 1.41% 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35% PROPOSAL#! Electdlstl 1 2 4 5 _6 7 TotSD Totpop 23710 24509 25229 25380 25319 24705 24822 173674 PopVor -1101 -302 418 569 508 -106 11 0 %Var -4.44% -1.22% 1.69%' 2.30% 2.05% -0.43% 0.05% 0.00% White 5201 7163 23772 23620 18978 16674 17481 112889 Block 18408 17097 1092 1296 5891 7585 7069 58438 %BP 77.64% 69.76% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 30.70% 28.48% 33.65% Other 101 249 365 464 450 446 272 2347 7oOP 0.43% 1.02% 1.45% 1.83% 1.78% 1.81% 1.10% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #2 Electdlstl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Tot pop 25431 24479 25229 25380 25319 23714 24122 173674 PopVor 620 -332 418 569 508 -1097 -689 0 %Var 2.50% -1.34% 1.69% 2.30% 2.05%' -4.42% -2.78% 0.00% White 5321 7837 23772 23620 18978 14757 18604 112889 Block 20007 16320 1092 1296 5891 8592 5240 58438 /oBP 66.67% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 36.23% 21.72% 33.65% Other 103 322 365 464 450 365 278 2347 %OP 0.41% 1.32% 1.45% 1.837o 1.7Q% 1.54% 1.15% 1.35% Page 1LRSD.XLS Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #3 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 24397 25091 23691 25339 25501 24122 173674 PopVar 722 -414 280 -1120 528 690 -689 0 %Var 2.917o -1.67% 1.13% -4.51% 2.13% 2.78% -2.78% 0.00% White 5018 9083 23646 22201 18908 15429 18604 112889 Black 20380 14973 1116 1064 5979 9686 5240 58438 %BP 79.82% 61.37% 4.45% 4.49% 23.60% 37.98% 21.72% 33.65% Other 135 341 329 426 452 386 278 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.40% 1.31% 1.80% 1.78% 1.51% 1.15% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #4 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 25764 24578 24216 24456 24663 24464 173674 PopVar 722 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 0 7oVar 2.91% 3.84% -0.94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% 0.00% White 5018 10084 23161 22518 19325 15550 17233 112889 Black 20380 15300 1112 1239 4681 8767 6959 58438 7oBP 79.82% 59.39% 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% Other 135 380 305 459 450 346 272 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.47% 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35% Ideal 24811 Page 2n 725B-O CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Record _______ _______72 ______ 53 ______ ______ _______W _______ _______55 _______7_^ 79 7^ _______ 58 _______7^ 46 ______ ______ ______64 102 ______ ______ 54 49 ______50 44 57 _____13 _____12 _____15 _____12 34 24 33 40 vpdlst 557K 567J 657H 6671 687D-O 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997A 4751 476J-a 486K-a 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 687C 687D 687J 2461 246J-a 246K 246L 3751 3751-0 475B 475H 475H-b 4751-0 total jx\u0026gt;p _______277 2406 609 3724 _______ 357 2579 _______112 2786 1546 _________0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 276 522 321 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 609 1400 __ 3274 1426 _______252 261 1058 1686 736 680 white pop ___1^ 22 52 1065 ___0 ___5 81 34 193 13 0 12 1071 584 25 36 998 260 487 90 320 75 1486 494 296 280 120 606 1390 3136 1352 243 261 982 1635 677 649 blackjsop ________276 2377 ________556 2637 ________ ________ 2489 77 2583 _______1532 __________0 489 458 _______1855 ________ 1087 ________ 11 _________28 ________ ________ _______1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 __________0 __________3 111 _________ __________4 __________0 _________ 15 48 13 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 100.00% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 3.99% 5.36% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.00% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 0.89% 6.52% 1.91% VP.XLS other_pop 0 7 1 22 ________0 0 9 1 10 1 ________0 0 7 ________16 1 3 57 ________5 _________7 16 35 ________2 _______ 5 15 13 2 ________3 1 _______ _________1_ ________5 ________0 ________9 36 11 18 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.81% 1.34% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 0.12% 0.49% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 1.98% 0.00%' 0.85% 2.14% 1.49% 2.65% celdist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 _3 3 20901 -3910 -15.76% 20415 -4396 -17.72% 3194 4906 17629 15306 84.35% 78 0.37% 74.97% 203 0.99% Page 1VP.XLS 30 35 27 103 41 29 105 42 100 43 1 2 3 28 4 10 5 12 9 14 18 \u0026amp; 19 6 32 7 16 23 31 86 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476F 476G 476G-a 676E 687D-b 687F 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246D 246E 246H 2461-a 246J 246L-a 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 475B-a 475H-a 1251 135G 245G-a 335E '335J 355C 355D 355F |355G 355H 1974 1565 1747 866 2628 1004 1880 329 100 1514 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 1757 4222 828 182 1323 7 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 1267 313 2365 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1914 1506 1625 623 1675 749 1700 174 57' 1153 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 1717 3837 825 182 1218 7 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 1085 313 2232 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 23 40 107 240 912 216 124 149 41 349 0 460 138 232 24 28 14 282 0 0 89 0 1 22 57 43 9 151 0 119 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 34.70% 21.51% 6.60% 45.29% 41.00% 23.05% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 0.80% 6.68% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.00% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 11.92% 0.00% 5.03%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26%| 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 37 19 15 3 41 39 6 12 0 139 41 38 26 18 26 103 3 0 16 0 0 33 5 42 19 31 0 14 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 38 36 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 1.56% 3.88% 2.98% 1.82% 2.00% 0.79% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 1.48% 2.44% 0.36% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.45% 0.00% 0.59% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63%, 2.41% 2.50%' 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 24989 178 0.72% 22107 2529 10.12% 353 1.41% Page 2 31057 6246 25.18% 28967 1550 4.99% 540 1.74%VP.XLS 21 71 52 59 65 59 93 101 101 94 70 68 11 81 92 69 88 84 91 82 87 99 85 ' 80 90 100 95 18 91 83 98 96 356B-a 535D 555A 565B 565C 725A 725B 726E-a 726K-a 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 7171 726F 756G 757H _ 956F 957G 725B-O 726D 726E 726J 726K 166C 816B 817C 817D 826A I 784 313 3533 1787 3435 785 550 _____0 4 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 1103 3143 3852 1837' 1402 573\n___24 926 3227 4007 2073 ____24 4011 3999 1846 2983 173674 704 266 1391 672 868 543 545 0 4 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 959 2773 2723 1130 619 369 ____23 530 2361 3465 1536 _____8 2611 1749 903 1973 112889 ___ 44 2092 1094 2543 239 ____3 0 ___g ___g 127 410 1422 242 446 607 128 321 1084 670 737 196 ___g 385 842 492 507 ___16 1342 2205 925 974 58438 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 74.03% 30.45% 0.55% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 11.60% 10.21% 28.14% 36.47% 52.57% 34.21% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% 12.28% 24.46% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 50.11% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 21 24 3 2 0 ___0 ___0 9 46 56 18 21 59 16 49 45 37 46 ___8 ___1_ 11 24 50 30 ___0 58 45 __18 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.70% 0.38% 0.36% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 1.45% 1.56% 1.17% 2.01% 3.28% 1.407o 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 0.98% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 _5 6 6 6 6 _6 _6 6 _6 _6 6 7 J_ 1 1_ 1 7 J_ 1 1 1 30810 5999 24.18% 22974 7346 23.84% 490 1.59% 24811 Page 3 22382 -2429 -9.79% 15582 6390 28.55% 410 1.83% 23120 -1691 -6.81% 173674 15159 112889 76881 33.25% 58438 273 2347 1.18%VP.XLS Proposal #1 Record ______103 75 ______ ______ ______ 53 ______ 42 51 100 ______ ______ ____ ______ _______ _______ _______ 7^ _______ _______ _______73 46 ____ 41 ______ M ______ ______ ______ M ______ ______ M ______ 57 _______ 5 _______ 9 ______ 13 14 vpdist 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J-a 687K 691Q 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 4751 476F 476J-a 486K-a 565B 567J-a 587L 686A 687B' 687C 687D 687J 246D 246H '2461 '2461-a' total_pop I 1 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 357 2579 112 2786 1546 ___ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 522 1787 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 1757 828 609 182 white_pop ________ 1 _________22 52 1065 174 0 _________ 1153 5 ______ 81 34 193 _________ 13 0 _________ 12 _______1071 ________584 ________ 25 ________ 36 _______ 998 1675 _______ 487 672 ________320 75 1486 494 ________296 280 120 1717 825 606 182 black_pop ________ 276 2377 ________ 2637 149 287 _________ 41_ ________ ________ 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 1855 ________ 1087 ________ 912 ______ n 28 1094 ________ 613 1462 _ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 _________ 14 __________ 0 0 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% other_pop 3 07 1 22 6 ________ 0 ________ 2 _____ 12 ________ 0 ________ 91 10 _________1_ 0 ________ 0 ________ 7_ 16 ______ 1 ________ 3 _______ 41 ________ 5 7 _______ 35 2 _______ 5 _____ 15 13 2 _______ ________ 3 ________ 3 0 %OP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0,00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #Dh//0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58%' 0.12% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49% 0.00% eldistl 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 11 2 1 111 1 1 1 2 2 222 2 22 2 22 2 23 23 23710 -1101 -4.44% 5201 18408 77.64% 101 0.43% Page 4 24509 -302 -1.22% 7163 17097 69.76% 249 1.02% i B  B  VP.XLS 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 105 12 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-a 475B__ 475B-O 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-a 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-O 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A ~ 355H-a 356B 475A 135G ' 245G-a '335E 335J 355C '355D 355F '355G '355H 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 \u0026amp;9 3 111 61 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 2821 22 57 43 __ 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 0.21%' 3.39%' 4.70%' 0.00% 1.59%' 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 16 7 27' 7 __o' 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 37 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 1 34 39 72 84 38 36 1.21% 0.50% 0.82%' 0.49% 0.00%' 1.98%' 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 1 3 3' 3' 2 2 3' 3 33 3 _3 2 2 2 2 24 4 4444 4444 4 4 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 25229 418 1.69%' 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 5 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 69 102 88 84 91 82 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 78 97 83 96 356B-O 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 5661-a  7171 726F 726F-a 156G 156G-Q 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 726K 726K-a 766C 816B 817C 826A 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 321 1103 1778 1365 3581 271 1837 2002 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 4007 2073 4 24 4011 3843 2983 173674' 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 90 959 1637 1136 2527 196 1130 1002 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1650 1973 112889 65 44 2092 2543 ____ 0 127 410 1422 242 446 607 215 128 113 208 1010 74 670 980 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 492 507 0 16 1342 2150 974' 58438' 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 66.98% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 48.95% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 55.95% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 24 09 46 56 18 21 59 16 16 28 21 44 1 37 20 46 8 14 321 11 24 0 50 30 0 0 58 43 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00%, 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 4.98% 1.45% 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.00% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.12% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 6 6 66 6 6 6 666 66 66 6677777 77 777 17 1 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 I Page 6 24705 -106 -0.43% 16674 7585 30.70% 446 1.81% 24822 11 0.05% 17481 7069 28.48% 272 1.10% 173674 112889 58438 2347 3 S S VP.XLS I Proposal #2 Record 103 ______ ______ 72^ ______ 56 ______ 53 42 51 100 ______ ______ ______ ______ W 45 55 _______7_^ 7^ 76 ______ ______ M 7^ ______ ______ 47 ______ !_ 62 ______ M ______ ______ 69 102 ______ ______ ______ 54 ______ 49 ______ M 44 _______ 5 9 vpdlst 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-Q 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C 967D A15\\ A,76? A76^-a 486K-a 565B 5661 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 6Q7C 687D 246D 246H total_pop 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 _______ 522 1787 1370 321 _______ 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 .. white_pop ________ 1 22 ________ 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 ________120 _________ 5 ________ 8i 34 193 _________13 0 12 _______1071 _______ ________ 25 ________ 998 _______1^ 260 _______ 487 672 704 _________90 320 75 1486 _______ _______ 296 280 _______1717 825 black_pop ________ 276 _______ 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 ________ 287 _________ 41_ ________W 1599 ________ 352 2489 77 2583 _______ 1532 o' 489 ________ 1855 ________ 574 1087 ________ 912 11 _________ 28 _______ 1094 607 215 ________ _______ 1462 _______ 1922 4060 2770 1943 _________ 14 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 44.31% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% olher_pop ________ 3 07 1 22 6 0 ________ 2 _______ 12 2 ________ 0 ________ 9 1 10 1 ________ 0 0 ________ 7 16 ________ 1_ ________ 3 67 41 5 7 21 59 16 35 2 46 ________ 5 _______ 15 13 _______ 26 3 7oOP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.167o 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 4.31% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 1222 22 22 2 2 22 22 3 3 25431 620 2.50% 24479 -332 -1.34% 5321 7837 20007 16320 78.67% 103 0.41% 66.67% 322 1.32% Page 7 VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 1051 2 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 2461 2461-0 246J ,246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 4758-0 475H 475H-O 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468  246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 3568 475A 135G 245G-O 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148' 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 282 __ 1_ 22 67 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4,90% 1.94% 0.55%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 27 7 0 5 0 9 31 36 0 11 18 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 1030 33 5 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 77 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2,50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 33 33 3 33 333 3 3 3 33 3 3 44444 444 4444 55 5 55 5 5 25229 418 1.69% 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 8 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 26 38 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90| 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 355H 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 726J 726K 726K-a 166\u0026lt;Z 816B 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 ____ 926 3227 0 1778 1365 4007 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903' 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 144 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239' ____ 3 0 385 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00%, 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32%! 20.99% 11.60%' 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 55.14% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 __ 8 14 32 1 11 24 0 28 21 50 30 00 58 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 5 55 5 5 5 6 66 66 6 6 6 6 66 66 67 77 77 7 Tj 7| 7 7 7 1 1 J 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 Page 9 23714 -1097 -4.42% 14757 8592 36.23% 365 1.54% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347  n 725B-fl I VP.XLS Proposal #3 Record 75 72 67 56 53 42 ____ 51 100 43 57 ______ 63 45 55 74 79 ______ 76 66 ______ 58 ______ 73 46 38 ______ 41 29 ______ 64 69 102 ______ 54 49 50 44 _______ 59 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657 H 6671 676E 687D-O 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G, 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C. 967D  355H 4751 476F 476G 476J-a 486K-a 5661 5661-a 5871 686A 687 B 687C 687D 246D 246H total pop -+ - 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1669 1738 2628 1004 276 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 white pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 5 81 34 193 __ 13 0 __ 12^ 1071 584 25 36 1489 998 1675 749 260 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 280 1717 825 black_pop 276 2377 613 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 489 ________ 458 1855, 574' 1087 144 683 912 216 11 28 607 215 _______ 1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 14 0 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 8.63% 39.30% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% otherjaop 0 7 35 1 22 6 0 2 12 2 0 91 10 1 0 07 16 1 3 _______ _______ 57 41 39 5 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 13 26 3 7oOP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62%, 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00%i 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 2.16% 3.28% 1.56% 3.88% 1.81% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist3 11 1 1 111 11 1 1 11 1111111 12 22 222 2222 22 2 3 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 10 24397 -414 -1.67% 9083 14973 61.37% 341 1.40% VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 475B-a .7,  ' 40 30 35 27 103 10512 34 10 12 19 6 32 1 16 37 28 36 59 48 20 22 25 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 735E 135J 245A 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 135G 245G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 1689 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 ~ 313 611 649 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 1419 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 40 107 240 124 0 460 138 24 28 282 1 22 57 43 9 25 232 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 13.74% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 21 1 0 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 ?,1 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 38 7 34 39 37 12 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 2.25% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 11 25091 280 1.13% 23646 1116 4.45% 329 1.31% 23691 -1120 -4.51% 22201 1064 4.49% 426 1.80% VP.XLS 26 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 59 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565B 565E 566G 5661-1 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 1255 726K 726K-a 155C 816B 826A 2801 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 1787 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 1778' 1365 40071 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 672 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1094 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 61.22% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47%' 55.14% 50.11% 52.57%, 34.21%| 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 21 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 46 8 14 3 2 1 11 24 0 28 21 50, 30 0 0 58 36 2347 1.36% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.18% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 55 5 55 6 6 66 66 66 666 666 6 77 7 77 77 7 77 1 1 17 1 25339 528 2.13% 18908 5979 23.60% 452 1.78% 24811 Page 12 25501 690 2.78% 15429 9686 37.98% 386 1.51% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347 71 72SB-O VP.XLS Proposal #4 Record _______75 72 ______ 56 M ______ ______ 51 100 43 57 ______ ______ ______ 55 W _______ _______7 ______ ______ 58 _______7^ ______ 46 106 103 ______ 47 107 ______ 1_ 29 ______ ______ ______ M ______ 69 102 ______ 54 ______ 49 50 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997/\\ 3751-0 475H-b 4751 4751-0 476E 476G 476J-O 486K 486K-O 5661 5661-0 587L 686A 687B 687C tOtQljX?P 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 _________ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 261 _______ 736 1738 680 2628 1004 276 1359 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 whife pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 ___5 81 34 193 13 ___0 12 1071 584 25 36 261 677 998 649 1675 749 260 903 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 blackjx\u0026gt;p 276 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 ________ 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 574 _______ 1087 __________ 0 48 6\u0026amp;3 13 912 ________ 226 __________2i 410 _________ ________ ________ 215 1462 iW 4060 2770 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29%' 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 0.00% 6.52% 39.30% 1.91% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 30.17% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% otherjaop 07 35 1 22 6 02 12 2 091 10 10 07 16 1 ________ 3 0 11 57 18 41 39 ________ 5 46 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 0.00% 1.49%' 3.28% 2.65% 1.56%' 3.88%' 1.81%' 3.38% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% eldist4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 11 1 11 11 12 2 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 13 . Q Q   = VP.XLS KL i. L' r. J\nI I Si K r. 'p, b it k* I 5 \u0026amp;IK4UllbK\u0026gt;UiS 44 59 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 32 34 24 23 33 31 30 35 27 68 10512 3 4 10 12 19 67 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 687D 246D 246H 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 355H-a 3751 4758 4758-0 475H 475H-a 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468 246C 246E 275F 355A 3568 475A 135G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 2236 1757 828 609 182 1323 1400 3274 14267 1164 252 1058 1267 1686 313 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 280 1717 825 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 1102 243 982 1085 1635 313 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 1943 14 0 0 0 89 3 111 67 0 57 4 67 151 15 0 23 40 107 240 124 ___0 460 138 232 24 28 282 1 22 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4,70% 0.00% 4.90% 1.59% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 13 26 3 3 0 16 7 7.1 1 05 59 31 36 0 37 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 38 18 103 0 33 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49%' 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00%' 0.43% 1.98%, 0.85%' 2.45%, 2.14% 0.00% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 2 3 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 333 3 333 34 44 4 44 444 44 55 55 5. 5 5 7^1(:A 3.84% 10084 15300 59.39% 380 1.47% nm Page 14 24578 -233 -0.94% 23161 1112 4.52% 305 1,24% 24216 -595 -2.40% 22518 1239 5.12% 459 1.90% VP.XLS 26 ^38 21 71 52 59 89 94 70 65 77 81 92 88 84 108 91 82 98 Q7 99 86 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 109 78 97 83 96 355G 355H 356B-O 535D 555A 565B 725A 526 476J 565C 565E 566G 566H 7171 726F 726 F-g 756G 757 H 817D 956F 957G 1251 725B 725B-O 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 72(:,y. 726K-a 756G-O 766C 816B 817C 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533' 1787 785 45 564 3435 3045 1964 2125 1103 1778 1365 3581 1837 1846 1402 573 2365 550 24 926 3227 ___0 4007 2073 ____4 271 ___24' 4011 ~3999 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 672 543 ____ 428 868 1567 1704 1658 959 1637 1136 2527 1130 903 619 369 2232 545 ____ 530 2361 _____0 3465 1536 4 196 _____8 2611 1749 1973 112889 198 144 ___ 44 2092 1094 239 ____0 127 2543 1422 242 446 128 113 208 1010 670 925 737 196 119 ____3 0 385 842 ____0 492 507 ____0 74 ___16 1342 2205 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 30.45% 0.00% 22.52%' 74.03%, 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 36.47% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 27.31% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 21 3 0 9 24 56 18 21 16 28 21 44 37 18 46 8 14 2 1 11 24 0 50 30 0 1 0 58 45 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.38% 0.00% 1.60% 0.70% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99%' 1.45%' 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 2.01% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 J 1 24456 -355 -1.43% 19325 4681 19.14% 450 1.84% 24811 Page 15 24663 -148 -0.59% 15550 8767 35.55% 346 1.40% 24464 -347 -1.40% 173674 17233 6959 28.45% 272 1.11% 112889 58438 23474^ RECBVi^O APR 2 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office Of Desegrecafon Moniiomig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE JOSHUA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO LRSD'S MOTION TO REOPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellants, Lorene Joshua, et al., for their response in opposition to LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record state: 1. LRSD has submitted documents to this panel which are potentially prejudicial to the Joshua intervenor's appeal which is based upon the facts as they existed before the trial court. If the documents they submitted were an accurate portrayal of the facts which occurred after the trial of this matter, it would not be so offensive to the procedures of this court and fairness to the appellants. Such is not the case. 2. The alleged election results fail to inform the court of salient facts\nfacts which could not be developed at trialbecause they had not occurred, and facts which the district court was never informed of or ruled on. For instance, the alleged white candidate \"Gonzales \" was a write in candidate, not a registered candidate. His or her alleged defeat by the black candidate, the only candidate to file for the position. is neither surprising or inconsistent with racially polarized voting. In fact, if a white write in candidate can garner nearly 50% of the vote once the majority white voters discover that the only candidate to file is black, then Joshua would submit that that is evidence of a highly motivated racially polarized voting block. As to the other race in which the black candidate was allegedly defeated by a white candidate in a majority black district, Joshua would point out that the vote count in that race was surrounded by a great deal of controversy. One of the black candidates was initially declared the winner. It was later alleged that the vote counts were reversed and that the white candidate garnered the votes initially attributed to the black candidate. The reason that the challenge came so quickly was that most of the original vote attributed to the black candidate came from known white precincts. The white candidate could not believe he lost in the white areas. So he asked for a recount. LRSD has provided nothing but total vote counts. Where is the precinct analysis to show the actual correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate? If the LRSD wants this Court to consider these subsequent races. it should ask for a fair presentation of additional factsand let each side present its witnesses. But that, as LRSD knows, is not the function of an appellate court. Rather, LRSD deliberately sought to prejudice this panel with these allegations of race neutral elections knowing that supplementation of the record at this stage was inappropriate. Judge Wright did not consider either of these elections and neither should this court. Unfortunately, the damage is done. 2. The record on appeal is limited by the Rule 10(a), Fed.R.App.P. , to \"the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the district court.\" Rule 10(e) allows modification and supplementation of the record under very limited circumstances: If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 3. There are no provisions under the rules for submitting evidence which a party discovers after trial, or which occurs after trial as LRSD proposes to the court. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays the Court will deny LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record. Respectfully submitted. J'\u0026amp;hn W. Walker Mark Burnette Bar No. 64046 Bar No. 88078UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEh^ MAY 9 1994 ci Dssegregaiion Sontori.f\ng NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted,Jo! Ma: W. Walker ____________ Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No, 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esg. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esg. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker ( U). i'UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 Bar No. 64046 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702pprc 8 y MAY 2 4 1994 REPLY INTRODUCTION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LRSD errs when it claims, \"In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13, n. 7. The Charles Plaintiffs raised the \"packing\" and \"dispersion\" arguments in both Plaintiffs' Trial Brief, p. 1-2, and Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 7-8, 15 25-2 6, presented to the Court below at trial. These documents are submitted to this Court in the Addendum to this Reply Brief to clarify that the record below was made on these arguments. LRSD cites Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993) as though only the Charles Plaintiffs' proposed plan \"demands close judicial scrutiny,\" because \"[t]he Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of the LRSD elections zones to create a third majority black zone.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13-4. Close judicial scrutiny is required, but it is because the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and LRSD have II given the racial make-up of the LRSD election zones paramount consideration since at least 1986 when LRSD proposed racially gerrymandered districts approved by Judge Woods. Race has been considered by all the parties in devising their respective alternative election zones. If race had not already been a factor in the PCBE plan - as LRSD might like for this Court to assume in light of its reference to \"the goal of a political system in which race no long matters,\" then close judicial I scrutiny would not be required. But here, race was foremost on the SSRSSBSminds of LRSD in 1986 when it proposed the single member zones approved by Judge Woods. It is precisely that race conscious plan that plaintiffs challenged in this case. Race was foremost on the minds of the \"Metroplan\" staff hired by the PCBE to devise new election zones - the only variable that is reported in the four plans submitted by Metroplan to PCBE was the racial characteristics of the zones. It is precisely because race was such major consideration in PCBE and LRSD's a deliberations and planning that makes close scrutiny of their plans necessary. That is especially true now that the district court has condoned a plan that is retrogressive on minority voting strength relative even to the 1986 plan that plaintiffs originally challenged in this case. I. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR A \"SUFFICIENTLY LARGE\" MINORITY DISTRICT? The LRSD and the district court ascribe to a \"Catch 22\" standard for what constitutes \"sufficiently large and a geographically compact [minority] to constitute a majority in three LRSD elections zones.\" When it is the Charles Plaintiffs' burden, the district court and LRSD apply a standard of a minimum of 65% minority majority, \"otherwise, the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 16-7. As both amended  2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the \"totality of circumstances\" and to determine, based \"upon a searching practical evaluation of the 'past and present reality' [] whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. This deteraination is peculiarly dependent upon thefacts of each case.\" Thornbugh v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2781, 92 L.Ed2 64 (1986). The district Court did not make a searching practical evaluation when it held plaintiffs to a 65% minimum minority population standard. It noted, in fact, that \"one of the zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE has a black population under 65%\" and. \"It is possible that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white 'crossover' votes, but this argument only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer from racially polarized voting, another necessary precondition for a successful voting rights claim.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order. P. 25 (emphasis added). The Court's analysis ignores the reality and importance of white cross-over voting even in situations where legally significant racially polarized voting exists because legally significant racially polarized voting is a matter of degree not absolutes: \"[I]n general a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 56, 106 S.Ct. at 2770 (emphasis added). To say that white crossover votes \"only goes to show\" that plaintiffs cannot prove legally significant racially polarized voting is erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's recognition of its presence among otherwise disenfranchised minority voters. The Court cannot hold the existing alliances with the few white voters who do not vote with the white bloc vote inthe LRSD against the Plaintiffs without recognizing that their presence also lowers the threshold for establishing a viable minority district. Hence, the existence and reliance on some white crossover voting also \"goes to show\" that a less than 65% minority population in a district may still be a viable minority majority district in the face of otherwise racially polarized voting. No testimony or evidence was presented at trial to dispute Charles Plaintiffs' proof that racially polarized white bloc voting is the norm among LRSD voters. The statistical evidence of the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate was overwhelming despite the district court's unsubstantiated belief to the contrary. Mr. Lynch's use of correlation coefficients and r- sguare are regression analyses. They are accepted statistical methods without further analysis, see Solomon v. Liberty County Florida. 899 F.2d 1012, 1020, although here, many of the precincts Mr. Lynch relied upon were homogeneous precincts with sufficiently high correlation coefficients to provide the confirmation that the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate did constitute racial voting in numerous elections over time. His uncontroverted testimony was that there was political cohesion among minority voters and that there was white bloc voting. Mr. Lynch's expertise and opinion was not based solely on statistics however. He is a recognized expert on local government and local elections due to his academic and professional backgroundand his constant participation in local electoral politics. He, more than anyone in this community, knows the voting blocs, patterns and practices in Little Rock. His experience can indeed form the basis for many of the elements of Plaintiff's voting rights claims. Sierra v. El Paso Independent School District. 591 F.Supp. 802 (W.D.Tex. 1983)(Even more persuasive to the court than the testimony of the expert witness, however, was the testimony of the practical politicians who are thoroughly familiar with voting behavior in El Paso County.\") In addition. numerous other politician witnesses testified to the racially polarized voting patterns in Little Rock elections in this case. No one testified to the contrary. Clearly, central Arkansas minority voters have been successful in single member district with less than a 65% majority and the district court should not hold them to a higher standard while giving the PCBE and LRSD the benefit of a lesser standard. However, if a 65% standard is adopted for plaintiffs, defendants should be held to the same standard or the Court will be condoning retrogression of minority voting rights. The 1986 Court Order establishing racially specified election zones is an admission that prior to the adoption of single member districts, the LRSD minority voters had suffered voting rights violations. If not, there would have been no justification for LRSD's use of a race conscious remedy at that point. If a 65% standard is applied, then PCBE's 59% district, which the Court adopted, falls short of the standard and results in retrogression relative to the 1986 plan which was adopted to remedy prior votingrights inequities. The Charles Plaintiffs' alternative plan, with three minority majority districts ranging from 61.7 to 64.7% black population, would provide over 81% of the minority voters a voice on the LRSD board of directors. Far less opportunity to participate in the electoral process and elect representatives of their choice results from the adoption of only two minority districts as approved by the court because less of the minority population is contained in them\nmoreover, in two other zones which the Court adopted, substantial numbers of minority voters will continue to be submerged in 65 and 72% white zones. II. THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE 1986 ORDER, AND THEREFORE, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY OT THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION DISTRICTS By Order of April 17, 1989, Joshua Intervenors represent the class of \"all past, present and future African-American or black public school age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians.\" That Order was entered for the express purpose of approving the settlement then submitted to the court. LRSD Appendix, p. 1. Nothing in the settlement dealt with voting districts. That order, and the Stipulation adding Dale Charles in a representative capacity on March 1, 1889, obviously occurred after the 1986 Order adopting the election zones anyway. At no stage in the LRSD v. PCSSD litigation did Joshua Intervenors purport to represent the class of minority voters in the LRSD. The focus of the Joshua Intervenors has always been the rights of the minorityschool children, not their parents or guardian voting rights. Any representation that Joshua had in the case in 1986 would have been limited to protecting school age children and their parents and that representation does not cover all minority voters because it does not include minority voters who do not have school age children, \"past present or future. I in Pulaski County. What of the voting rights of minority voters with no children? Even if Joshua represented some voters' voting rights. which Joshua have never purported to do, they could never be held to have represented the class of minority voters explicitly excluded by the April 1989 Order. Only the Charles Plaintiffs, by a separate complaint filed on August 12, 1992, have purported to represent the class of minority voters in LRSD. It is absurd to hold all minority voters to an Order entered while they were not parties nor were they represented, and which was drafted and approved by the defendants named in their complaint. The law of the case doctrine simply does not apply to non-parties. It is not meant to restrain non-parties from asserting their rights as the district court has imposed it. The law of the case doctrine is intended to apply \"at subsequent stages of the same case.\" Memorandum and Opinion p. 27. The district court should not be allowed to hold non-parties to a standard set by these defendants simply by consolidating their 1992 action with a pending 1982 case. That, however. is what the district court has done. The whole purpose of the doctrine is to avoid \"re-litigation\" of issues\nbut here, no voting rights issues were ever litigated because no one had asserted a voting rightsclaim in 1986. As stated previously, the very need for the 1986 Order confirms that a voting rights violation existed prior to 1986. If one assumes that the 1986 Order was a necessary remedy to some violation, then it follows that elections prior to 1986 would have constituted voting rights violations. The fact of pre-1986 voting rights violations would be the case notwithstanding the district court's contrary findings in 1993 that there was no racially polarized voting or political cohesiveness among minorities, etc. Needless to say, at least in 1986, LRSD believed that a voting rights violation must have existed prior to 1986, or it would not have made race conscious decisions about the lines it was proposing to Judge Woods. If it did make race conscious decisions absent a voting rights violation, then the lines proposed at that time should be suspect on that basis. Re\ni^e^t JO^N 4? 3/23 - Litt\nectfull submitted WALKER, 1/Broadway bmrtted,\n\u0026gt; \u0026gt; i, P.A. I little Rock, Ar 72206 (501) 374-3758CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing Brief has been hand delivered to the counsel of record listed below on this day of May, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Elizabeth Boyter, Esq. Arkansas Dept..of Education Little Rock, AR 72201 #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Jerry Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 72201 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 ---------------7^^' John X. Walker f:\\W\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8THC:\\U\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8TH ADDENDUMIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS* TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Defendants and the Court have recognized and conceded that the 1986 LRSD single member districts are out of compliance with the one-person one-vote requirement. A corrective plan must be adopted for that purpose in any event. Plaintiffs' will therefore focus on their allegation that the plan in current use, as well as the plan submitted to the court by the Pulaski County Board of Education, result in a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Courts have recognized two general methods by which minority group voting strength may be diluted: \"Dilution of racial minority voting strength may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minorityof voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority, [citations omitted].\" Thornburgh v. Singles. 478 U.S. 30, ___, n.ll, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764, n. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d. 25 (1986)(The latter version of dilution is commonly called \"packing.\") \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% - 70% (the percentage considered necessary to ensure blacks a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice) may evidence \"packing.\" Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984)\nand see. Rybicki v. State Board of Elections of the State of Illinois. 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). Plaintiffs claim that both forms of dilution are at work under the current system, and alternatively, will continue under the plan submitted by the PCBE\ni.e., black voters are split up in several majority white zones to the extent that their votes are an ineffective minority in those zoned elections 33%, 28.5%, and 23.8% black population in zones 5, 6, and 7, respectively\nand they are overly concentrated in the two minority wards - 84.35% in the current zone 1, and 74.97% in zone 2. In the PCBE's recent submission to the court, zone 1 still retains a packed 79.82% majority black district in zone 1, and minority voters still dispersed in large pockets in zones 5, 6, and 7. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Proof Required to Demonstrate a Section 2 Violation: The seminal case for analysis of vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In Ginqles. the Court set out a three part test, and its rationale, which plaintiffs must meet to prove their case: First the demonstrate minority that group must be able to it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district. If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voter's inability to elect its candidates. [footnote omitted] [citations omitted].. . Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive. If the it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citation omitted] Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it- in the absence of special circumstances, the minority candidate running unopposed. such as see. infra, at 57, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's omitted] preferred candidate. [citations In establishing this last circumstance. the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives. 478 U.S. 50-1, 106 S.Ct. 2767, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-7. Besides \"running unopposed,\" the Supreme Court referred to other \"special circumstances\" affecting the third precondition. such as, \"incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting [to] explain minority electoral success in a polarized context.\" Id. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2770. It cautioned that \"[t]his list of special circumstances is illustrative, not exclusive.\" Id. at 57, n.26. 106 S.Ct. 2770. The Senate Report expressly states that election of a few minority candidates does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote dilution. noting that if it did. the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [ 2] by manipulating the election of a safe minority candidate.\" Id., 106s.ct. at 2779. And in a footnote, the Court quoted Zimmer v. McKeithen. 485 F.2d. 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) with approval\n\"...Such success might. on occasion. be attributable to the work of politicians. who. apprehending that the support of black a candidate would be politically expedient, campaign to insure his election.\" Id., 106 S.ct. at 2780. The appointment of a black board member is comparable to campaigning for that person because in subsequent elections, he gains the benefit of incumbency. a special circumstance which can explain his success. In Gingles, the Court went on to assess the sustained electoral successes in North Carolina House District 23 under the standards it had announced: 1 In some situations, it may be possible for  2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representative, but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections\nthey failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consecfuentlv, we believe that the District Court erred as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enioved in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District. Id. at ___, 106 S.ct. 2780 (emphasis added). The \"evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections,\" which the court refers to, was the fact that each black candidate ran essentially unopposed. See. Gingles V. 1 House District 23 was a three member district in which a black person had been elected in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. Holding one seat was essentially proportional representation for black voters in the district.Edmiston. 590 F. Supp. 345, 370 (E.D.N.C. 1984)(\"Black candidate Spaulding ran uncontested in the general election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and the general election was, for all practical purposes, unopposed.\" Id.) However, there was no evidence in the record to explain the success of black candidates in 1972, 1974, and 1976. Had all of the elections been uncontested, the Court presumably would have affirmed the lower court on House District No. 23 as well. It is clear that the Court identified at least three \"special circumstances\" that may satisfactorily demonstrate that sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives: incumbency, uncontested elections and the utilization of bullet voting. Clearly there are more though. In addition to the three Gingles factors discussed above, the legislative history of  2 enumerated several other objective factors to guide courts in analyzing whether there is a violation of minority voting rights under  2: (1) The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote. or democratic process\notherwise to participate in the voting in the (2) the extent to which elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized\n(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti- single shot practices provisions. or other voting or procedures that may enhance opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of theminority group have been denied access to that process\n(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinders their participate effectively in ability to the political process\n(6) whether the political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals\nmembers of (7) the extent the minority group to have which been elected to public office in the jurisdiction (8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group and (9) whether the policy underlying the sate or political subdivisions' use of such voting qualifications, prerequisite to voting, standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. S.Rep. No. 417, at 28-9, H.R.Rep.No. 227, at 30, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. \u0026amp; Ad. News at 206-7. In light of these extensive factual underpinnings in vote dilution claims, this Circuit has adopted a stringent requirement for factual and legal reasoning from the lower courts to make its appellate review possible: Because the resolution of a voting dilution claim requires close analysis of unusually complex factual patterns, and because the decision in such a case has the potential for serious interference with state functions, we have strictly adhered to the Rule 52 (a) requirements in voting dilution cases and have required district courts to explain with particularity the reasoning and the subsidiary factual reasoning. conclusions underlying their Buckanaqa v. Sisseton Ind. School District. No. 54-5, South Dakota. 804 F.2d 469, 472 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Velasquez v. Citv of Abilene. 725 F.2d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 1984). B. Where the Parties Stand on Remedial Plans\nIf the court finds either a violation of the constitutionalEfl one-person one-vote requirement or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, then the court ordinarily must give the responsible legislative body an opportunity to adopt a remedial plan for future elections. Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). The desire to give \"the appropriate legislative body the first opportunity to devise an acceptable remedial plan\" is traceable to Supreme Court precedent in state legislative reapportionment cases but that deference may be lost or ignored by the \"appropriate governmental agency\": \"reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and [] judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.\" Id. at 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). A court owes no deference, however, if the responsible legislative body fails to act according to its legal authority, or acts without legal authority. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 96 S.Ct. 1083 (1976). In Wise V. Lipscomb. 437 U.S. 535, 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 411, 420-1, 98 S.Ct. 2493 (1978), Justice White explained summarized the distinction in two cases\n\"In [East Carroll Parish! the District Court instructed the East Carroll police reapportionment plans. jury and school boards to file arrangements which the court adopted. They both submitted multi-member We held that the District Court erred in approving a multi-member plan because \"when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly invalid state legislation, single member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances, [citation omitted]. In reaching this conclusion, however, we emphasized that the bodies which submitted the plans did not reapportion themselves and. furthermore. could purport to not evenlegally do so under federal law because state legislation providing them with such powers had been disapproved by the Attorney General of the United States under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under these circtimstances, it was concluded that the mere act of submitting a plan was not the eguivalent of a legislative act of reapportionment performed in accordance with the political process of the community in guestion. 437 U.S. at 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 420 (White, J.). The situation facing this Court is most like that in East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall and can be thoroughly distinguished from Wise v. Lipscomb. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) has the authority to adopt a plan, but has explicitly refused to do so. It has passed a motion merely to \"submit\" one possible plan to this Court for this Court to approve for implementation and order its adoption. (See \"Minutes of the December 29, 1992 PCSB Meeting Plaintiff's Exhibit And see Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion For Approval of Election Zones. and Pulaski County Board of Education's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court's Order of February 16, 1993 at 2, paragraph 8\n\"The Board of Education is not an adversary in this proceeding. It is a party only because Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-607 gives it responsibility to create election zones. That authority was overridden by this Court in 1986, and this Court has the final authority at this time.\") Consequently, PCBE has abandoned its duty and authority to this Court. Plaintiffs do not agree with the PCBE's interpretation that this Court has \"overridden\" its authority, but can only accept its current position as stated in these pleadings that it is not asserting any authority to adopt any plan. The PCSB does notpurport to have reapportioned the LRSD through any legislative authorization. In keeping with this position, PCBE defendants passed no resolutions to indicate that the PCBE adopted this proposed plan. They claim to act merely as agents of the Court, not within their statutory capacities in submitting this proposal. Nevertheless, there are clear statutory methods by which the PCBE, or the LRSD for that matter, could have adopted a legitimate \"legislative\" proposal. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 and -630,2 respectively. But neither has chosen to do adopt a plan even after this Court's September Order directing the PCBE to do so. These are the only ways by which the defendants may legislate an alternative to the current electoral mechanism which plaintiffs allege violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Having failed to produce a validly approved legislative plan. the PCBE's plan can only be viewed as a recommendation of the individual members of the board. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles. 918 F.2d 763, 776 (9th Cir.) cert, denied. Ill S.Ct. 681 (1990)(\"[T]he plan that the Board submitted to the district court could not, under the County's charter, have been considered a Board Redistricting plan, because only three members voted in favor of 2 Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-630 states: \"The board of directors of any school district [] authority to provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the vote Fof the board] that a portion of the board shall be elected by zone, at-large, or a combination thereof... Every such resolution adopted by the board of directors of such district shall adopt a plan of election for members of the board of directors which will cause the selection procedure to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.\"it, not the four required for such matters.\" Id.) Here, the board refused to even adopt the plan according to the statutory authority which this Court cited to indicate that it \"is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD zones.\" Thus it does not claim to have adopted a plan at all, but as submits one for the court to adopt. Consequently, PCSB's December 29, 1992, proposal gains legal effect only if this Court orders the implementation of that particular plan through its equitable authority. East Carroll Parish, supra. The Court should evaluate the 1986 zones under the totality of the circumstances because that is only plan currently in effect in LRSD. If it finds a voting rights violation under that plan, then the question is whether the court will have fully remedied the violation if it adopts the PCBE's plan. Plaintiffs submit that that plan will not remedy the current voting rights violations. See Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 217 (E.D.Ark. 1989): We know, and have found in this opinion, how many [single member districts with a majority black voting age population] can be created, and we also know that their lines can be drawn so as to make them compact and conti' therefore, a sort of presumption that an OUS. There is, Id. II. contain that number of majority black districts. Ian adopted should The law as Applied to the Facts A. The Minority Population is Geographically Concentrated Such That Drawn that Out of Seven Single Member Districts Can be e Majority Black. The plaintiffs will established that black minority voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute amajority in three out of seven single member districts in LRSD. Plaintiffs' demographer, will testify that an alternative districting plan which he drafted based upon 1990 census data creates three districts in which the minority population makes up 64.7%, 64.0 Q, s and 61.7 majorities, respectively. The 1990 census shows that the black voting age population (BVAP) in these districts would be only about 4% lower than the black percentage of the total population. This alternative plan clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs met the first of the three factors the Supreme Court identified in Thornburgh v. Ginqles. Plaintiffs point out that this plan is merely meant to persuade the Court that such districts are feasible. The PCBE would have to draft the actual boundaries of the wards if the court finds a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Of course. the PCBE could agree to accept the plaintiffs construction or a variation thereof. B. Minority Political Cohesiveness and the Usual Defeat of the Minority Preferred Candidates The other two Gingles factors are subsumed in Senate Factors 2 and 7, and will be discussed together. Evidence of racially polarized voting is the linchpin of a section 2 vote dilution claim and is relevant to establish two of the three elements set forth in the Gingles decision - political cohesiveness, and ability of white majority to usually defeat the black preferred candidate. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2769. The second condition required under Gingles. proof that the minority group is politically cohesive, will be amply demonstrated by Mr. Lynch's analysis of voting results in local elections overa period of the last eight years. \"A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate is one way of proving political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim [citation omitted] and consequently establishes minority bloc voting within the context of  2.\" Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2769-70. Plaintiffs will present statistical analysis of election results for Little Rock City Board elections and LRSD elections in which a black candidate ran against a white candidate.^ Numerous courts have recognized the importance and relevance of \"exogenous\" elections when polarized voting cannot sufficiently be shown with the elections in the particular forum being challenged. See, Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. Westwego. 872 F.2d 1201, 1207-10 (5th Cir. 1989)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir 1987). The Little Rock City Board of Directors elections are particularly relevant elections in this case because these elections are local in nature, they encompass nearly the identical voters who make up the school district electorate, and they confirm the racially polarized voting data obtained in the two school board elections that were appropriate to analyze. Without exception, elections in Little Rock, Arkansas, are characterized by racially polarized voting. Voting in the City of 3 Although it is the minority's preferred candidate that is at issue, none of the courts, including the Supreme Court in Gingles. considered \"whites only\" elections. Therefore, white versus white elections were not analyzed by the plaintiffs in this case, nor should they have been. East Jefferson Coalition v. Jefferson Parish. 691 F.Supp. 991, 1000 (E.D.La. 1988) citing. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1310, (E.D. Ark 1988).Little Rock Board of Directors races, as well as relevant LRSD races, is extremely racially polarized. In all but one election for which precinct data was available (1986 to present), a statistically significant correlation exists between the support for the black candidate in a precinct group and the percentage of the voting age population in the precinct that is black. The higher the percentage of black voting age population. the higher the vote percent for the black candidate. The analogous correlation exists in the white precincts, indicating white block voting. The higher the white percentage of the voting age population, the higher the vote for the white candidate. Lynch's analysis, a bivariate regression analysis, provides the same detailed statistical basis for a finding of political cohesion that the Supreme Court and other courts have relied upon. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2768 and 2771\nSee also, Campos v. Citv of Baytown, Texas. 840 F.2d 1240, 1245-6, \u0026amp; n.9, aff en banc, 849 F.2d (5th Cir. 1988)(\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from .52 to .90, with a mean of .76, and \"r-squared\" ranged from .27 to 81, with a mean of .61.)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d at 499-500, n.7 and 8. The degree of polarization as measured by the \"r\" and \"r-square\" presented for the City of Little Rock and LRSD board of directors elections (\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from ___ to , and \"r-squared\" values range from to ) is comparable to that shown in Gingles and Campos. Because of the high degree of bloc voting by black voters in city and school board elections over an extended period of time.the plaintiffs will have established that the black minority is politically cohesive. This evidence will successfully establish the second of the three Gingles preconditions. The plaintiffs will also meet their burden of proof in establishing the third Gingles condition: \"that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it - in the absence of soecial circumstances. such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, 92 L.Ed.2d, 51, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.\" Proof of white bloc voting was equally as strong as black bloc voting. The correlation coefficients and precinct data are overwhelming. Absent special circumstances. only the black candidates that have run in majority black wards have been successful. For instance, Lottie Shackelford, a black city board member. was able to win in city board races, but she was first appointed by an all white board. In elections since then, she has also had the benefit of being an incumbent or running unopposed. The election of black candidates from majority black school district wards are also \"special circumstances\" which explain why these elections are not accurate reflections of the minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice in LRSD elections. C. Other Relevant Senate Factors 1. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touches the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process\nSince reconstruction, official discrimination has ranged from total disenfranchisement of black voters - to whites only primaries- to poll taxes\nall were designed to severely limit black voting rights. Perkins v. City of West Helena. 675 F.2d. 201, 211 (Sth Cir) aff'd mem.. 459 U.S., 801, 103 S.Ct. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982). As the courts have held, these facts need not be proven anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F. Supp. 196, 204 (E.D.Ark.) aff'd mem.. ___U.S. ____, 109 S.Ct. 548 L.Ed.2d 576 (1988) (\"We do not believe that this history of discrimination, which affects the exercise of the right to vote in all elections under state law, must be proved anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act.\" Id. quoting. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). Therefore, this court should take judicial notice that there is history of racial discrimination in the electoral process in Arkansas which a necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process even today. Id.\nsee also. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). 11. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n\" Legislation from the 1987 Arkansas General Assembly established a majority vote requirement for all school board elections thereafter. Acts 1987, No 845,  1,2, Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (1991 Cum. Supp.) See generally. Jeffers v. Clinton. 740 F.Supp. 585, 594 (E.D.Ark. 1990)(Three Judge panel opinion finding that \"inference of racial motivation is inescapable,\" in that Arkansas municipal run-off statutes from 1975, 1983, and 1989 were directly responsive to black successes in plurality elections andthat \"this series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity.\" Id. at 595 (Arnold, Richard, J. writing for the majority)). Although a majority vote requirement is not a per se violation of section 2, the potential for dilutive effects is increased when the three Gingles factors exist, as they do here. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2767. 111. The extent to which the membership of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n\" The history of discrimination in education and employment is well known to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the South, and Arkansas in particular. As a hangover of this history. black per capita income in Pulaski County in 1990 was roughly 50% of the per capita income for whites. Disparities in educational achievements are well known to this Couirt, and are traceable to historic discrimination in the public education provided by the LRSD. Poverty rates and income levels in every category also show the present day effects of the history of discrimination on these socio-economic indicia. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits - ___.) \"Courts have recognized that political participation by minorities tends to be depressed where the minority group members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2776 (citations omitted). The \"hangover from this history necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process.\" 687 F.Supp. at 1317.CONCLUSION Analyzing the totality of circumstances in LRSD reveals that the political realities do not afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice as are afforded white voters. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L^ 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength. and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr. , Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended. are adversely affected by the 2 . present and proposed plan for electing school board members, adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which are The4 sufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date]. 3 . The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for I the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County , School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote. 11 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. II that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court.\" The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit.\" 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7,^1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33 g, *0  His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect, for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights 19. allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The \"ideal\" zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote.\" They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2) . Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens. approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are a incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form. content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments. and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words. the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9 were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from % these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34. There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent (73%) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates, PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 to . 9 See Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic) , the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record. Little Rock has a long history of electing two African Tkmerican persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28% of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case, no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but. by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members 42. have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears, however, to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this puirpose by statute, (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 15The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants, the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no 44 . standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore^ on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges greater voice in a governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the II packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to opportunity to (the ensure elect percentage blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rvbicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs, does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand, has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval. or otheiswise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5% figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53. It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within fortyfive (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will seirve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21fl W8M K'* \u0026lt;M  e ft , * c. 1994 ii--5ijA: c,  4. {994  Ottfce of Desagfegatiof MonilorU^ Office Of Desegresaiicn Moniitjjiiig UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT fl NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 11 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. w ^aiia ra W 41IM 1994 NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office of Desegregation Moniloriag a APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE II APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No, 64046 II JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 0 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 flUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *r\" NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. RECBIVPD NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. Jlih! 2 I99X NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office (rf Desegregation Monitoring 41 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE H REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 n DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 ] Il RECEIVED JUN 2 1994 ngiat C^sagrfi^jation Moniioiing 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 4 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA 4 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE 4 APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX 4 4 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 4 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 4 4 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SUNDAY, AUGUST 23,1992 1 Around Arkansas U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SU- san Webber Wright on Monday Sept\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1082","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1082"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 343-389\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1094","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1094"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 281-342\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_434","title":"Finances","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Finances"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/434"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTable 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS SETTLEMENT LOAN PROCEEDS 12,559,250 3,000,000- 8,356,778 3,000,000 8,637,482 6,000,000 TOTAL REVENUE 15,559,250 11,356,778 14,637,482 EXPENSES: RUN BUS SYSTEM ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION AREA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ART AVIATION AND TRANSPORTAT BADGETT THEME BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CURRICULUM AUDIT DATA PROCESSING DEBT SERVICE DIVISION OF SCHOOLS DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD DUNBAR ENGLISH ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS SPEC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MA EXTRACURRICULAR COSTS FOREIGN LANGUAGE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM GRANTS PROCUREMENT OFFIC HEARING OFFICER c f''\" HOMEWORK CENTERS HUMAN RELATIONS H.I.P.P.Y. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS INFORMATION SYSTEM JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURIN LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL MATH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY PROG METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR MINORITY RECRUITER MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM MUSIC OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 22,300 308,373 48,739 474,100 85,800 28,920 2,363,885 600,000- 800,000 75,000 400,000 22,300 15,000 50,000 292,854 50,000 75,000 942,481 43,800 400,000 399,000 45,920 618,000 800,000 77,250 500,000 22,300 1,700,000 25,000 301,640 24,806 1,442,481 35,800 420,000 300,000 39,920 c t: / PAL r PARENT CENTERS PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARKVIEW SCIENCE PLANT SERVICES -POSITIVE STUDENT DISCIPL PRECOLLEGE TESTS 21,190 431,313 144,805 15,000 120,000 11,190 556,313 208,156 360,000 27,000 110,493 40,279 143,000 9,510 470,302 3,750,834 48,755 37,133 293,340 40,000 149,149 50,000 220,645 2,894,240 200,000 848,000 370,800 10,000 19,000 25,000 110,493 42,696 500 9,510 588,520 2,750,184 20,000 51,680 215,580 310,940 15,000 50,000 200,000 120,000 11,190 681,313 45,000 42,400 153,624 50,000 233,884 2,126,067 . 250,000 893,000 381,924 12,125 25,000 110,493 45,257 9,510 623,831 2,848,154 25,000 54,781 113,225 329,597 15,000 50,000 /Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 READING ROMINE SAFETY SCIENCE SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE PR SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIAL WORKERS/COUNSELOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMER SCHOOL UNIVERSITY LAB SCHOOL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WASHINGTON 113,120 35,000 9,750 102,490 317,297 80,000 800 113,120 50,000 800,000 15,750 300,000 15,575 200,000 82,940 386,335 90,000 17,000 113,120 50,000 824,000 10,875 318,000 14,225 300,000 107,940 409,515 200,000 185,000 155,000 TOTAL EXPENS 10,086,683 16,161,516 18,260,247 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 5,472,567 (4,804,738) (3,622,765) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (5,500,000) (27,433) (4,832,171) ENDING FUND BALANCE (27,433) (4,832,171) (8,454,936)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 310 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 18, 1992 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Pat Kumpuris SUBJECT: SPECIAL BOARD MEETING After the Board Committee meeting Thursday, received FEB 1 9 Office of Desegregation Monitoring we will convene a special meeting to conduct an employee hearing and to consider approval of a Resolution Authorizing Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes. I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution. cc: Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHT^M STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 20, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: J im V Ivey, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: SUBJECT: Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent^!)^ Resolution Approving the Issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes Attached is a resolution approving the issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 necessary to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the District through June 30, 1992. This issuance is the second year of the program that began in 1991, at which time the Board approved a similar issuance. It is recommended that the Board approve the resolution as submitted and direct the administration to proceed with necessary documents. execution of theRESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION PROMISSORY NOTES IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000,000\nAND PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors (\"Board\") of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (\"LRSD\") that: Section 1. Recitals. The Board finds and determines that: (a) LRSD will not have sufficient cash receipts during the remainder of the school year ending June 30, 1992 (\"Fiscal Year 1992\") to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the school system for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1992. (b) It is necessary and in the best interest of LRSD that funds to supplement cash receipts in order to pay expenses for Fiscal Year 1992 be borrowed pursuant to 6-20-402, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. (c) Stephens Inc. has proposed to underwrite tax-exempt tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes (\"Notes\") of LRSD in order to provide additional funds for payment of expenses for Fiscal Year 1992. Section 2. Approval of Issuance of Notes. The issuance of Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 is approved. Section 3. Negotiation of Terms\nFinal Authorization. The Superintendent of Schools and her designees are authorized to negotiate with Stephens Inc. concerning the terms of the Notes and the terms of their sale, and to make recommendations to the Board. The terms of the Notes and of their sale shall be subject to the approval of this Board. Section 4. repealed to the extent of the conflict. All resolutions in conflict herewith are Section 5. Effective Date. full force and effect from and after its adoption. This resolution shall be inCERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special) meeting of the Board held on the (regular or 1992 . The Resolution appears minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. in the day of of f icial meeting the duly elected (or appointed), At the time of the gualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Ave, Nay, Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this day of 1992. (SEAL) SecretaryOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 3, 1992 To: Judge Wright From: Subject: Brown Follow-up on LRSD Budgeting Process Last week. Bob Morgan and I met with our consultants from the Arkansas Financial Group to discuss the next steps regarding the LRSDs finances and budgeting process. Ive talked this over briefly with Greg, too. Heres our thinking along with some suggestions for what you may wish to include in an order: 1. The attached addition to the LRSD May Submission wasnt discussed during the hearing. This \"note\", added in two places in the LRSD plan (after page 132 and page 286), states that the cost figures origin^y submitted with the LRSD desegregation plan are outdated and that \"revised cost figures will be provided in a separate desegregation budget.\" To date, no revised figures have been received here and Greg isnt aware of any that have been filed with the Court. As a first step, LRSD should be given a period of time (30 days is probably reasonable) to submit these revised cost figures. Since LRSD high-handedly stressed in court that the budget ODM was discussing wasnt even prepared for the settlement plan, they set themselves up for the obvious: where is their budget for the plan they are now following? Its certainly interestingand chagrining-to note that the LRSD budget (the one which wasnt prepared for the settlement plan) had to have been prepared after the December 12, 1990 order was issued by the Circuit Court. They really have no excuse for having run for over a calendar year on two separate school year budgets that evidently bear no relationship to the plan theyve been ordered to follow. Unless LRSD submits a budget that is based upon the settlement plan they are required to implement and we are required to monitor, we will not be able to effectively carry out our monitoring duties. The budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\neach budget component should be referenced to plan page numbers and be reflected on the implementation timelines which are contained in the plan.January 3, 1992 Page Two 2. Not only should the LRSD be required to submit a 1991-92 budget for the settlement plan, they also should have to submit a long range budget projection on a per annum basis for the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (PCSSD has such a projection so it certainly can be done. An examples attached.) This budget shouldnt be for \"Code 13\" (the desegregation budget\") alone since the district maintains that settlement monies must be supplemented with \"regular\" budget funds in order to fulfill the desegregation obligations. So, in order to paint the whole picture of the districts financial planning in relation to the entire desegregation plan, theyll need to identify whats over and above Code 13. There should also be a long range revenues projection covering the same period of time. It should include anticipated revenues not only from the settlement monies and Ioan, but also show state and millage revenues and any other money sources as well. This projection should enable the district to predict when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any necessary millage should be indicated along with the date when it needs to kick m. To force them to do these budget and revenue projections is really in their best interest: unless they soon have a rendezvous with reality and see when they are going to run out of money, it will be too late to prevent the enormous shortfall that is, at this point, inevitable. 3. Since the LRSD has stated that a major portion of desegregation costs has been expended for \"start up\", its reasonable to ask them to specifically identify (a) which costs are start up and (b) when these start up costs will terminate. The fact is that new expenditures for personnel, not program or facility start up costs, account for the bulk of financial outlay. Ill be in California at my parents Golden Wedding Anniversary celebration beginning January 8 and will return on the 14th. Ill talk with you before I leave and when I get back. Polly will know where to reach me if you should need me while Im on the west coastI PLEASE NOTE\nTwo areas of information contained in the \"Implementation Timeline\" for this section sxibmitted with the original LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan have been omitted from this timeline submitted May 1, 1991. These are heading information found above the columnar timeline which listed the plan date and the person, division and prcgram/area responsible, and a \"cost\" column in the timeline. The information that was in the heading area is - now either out of date or is repeated in a column in the timeline. outdated. The cost figures previously provided are Revised cost figures will be provided in a iseparate desegregation budget. The columnar heading \"Completion Date\" has been changed to \"Ending Date.\" For the sake of clarity, all timeline headings have been changed to LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline.\" I5Z/ //I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ,T(i C CONTINGENCY REVENUES\nPROPERTY TAXES OTHER LOCAL REVENUE COUNTY REVENUE MIN. FOUND. PROG. AID TRANSPORTATION AID ST. DESEG. SETTLEMENT OTHER STATE AID UNRESTRICTED FED. AID NON-REV.A TRANSF. REC. TOTAL RECEIPTS TOTAL REC. \u0026amp; CONT. EXPENDITURES\nSALARY FD. EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE TEACHER SALARIES ADMIN. SALARIES OTHER SAL. FD. EXP. TOTAL SAL. FD. EXP. OPERATION EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE SALARIES: OTHER OPERATION EXP. TOTAL OPERATION EXr' ALL SALARIES\nDEBT EXPENSE: TOTAL DEBT EXP. CUR. NEW DESEG COST NEW DEBT TOTAL NEVVDESEG_EXP. I of AL FXPffjSES CONIINGENCY I) 1909-1990 ($1,576,291) SWITCH .OIOM $24,003,281 $2,900,911 $80,551 $36,103,754 $2,910,418 $4,000,000 $1,756,845 $1,592,873 $501,287 $73,849,920 $72,273,629 3.50% $34,744,905 $3,916,830 $3,260,457 $41,922,192 3.50% $9,262,038 $12,992,868 $22,255,706 $47,924,573 $5,591,688 $69,769,586 $2,5()4.()4,3 PULASKI COUNTY special SCHOOL DISTRICT LONG RANGE BUDGET PROJECTIONS E F G II I J K 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-199C $2,504,043 $2,464,501 $16,269 ($2,686,894) ($5,227,820) ($6,396,037) $21,757,960 $3,169,317 $80,801 $37,423,541 $3,251,781 $4,500,000 $2,701,773 $1,086,128 $379,165 $74,350,467 $76,854,510 2.00% $36,871,144 $4,561,235 $3,148,830 $44,581,209 PRE AUDIT 2.00% $9,932,471 $14,451,800 $24,384,271 $51,364,850 $5,424,529 $74739(LO()9 $2,464,501 $21,995,000 $2,682,000 $79,000 $42,535,873 $3,345,000 $5,200,000 $2,868,451 $1,010,000 $280,000 $79,995,324 $82,459,825 13.05% $41,405,290 $5,644,377 $3,511,000 $50,560,667 5.00% $10,878,767 $15,568,197 $26,446,964 $57,928,434 $5,435,925 _______ $0 $82,4471,55(1 $16,269 $22,654,850 $23,334,496 $24,034,530 $24,755,566 12/07/91 1996-1997 ($9,381,269) ASSUMPTIONS GROWTH RATE\n00:01 L % RAISE 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 $2,557,191 $81,370 $43,811,949 $3,445,350 $5,200,000 $2,954,505 $1,000,000 $288,400 $81,993,615 $82,009,885 $2,594,377 $83,811 $45,126,308 $3,548,711 $5,200,000 $3,043,140 _$_1,000,000 $297,052 $84,227,894 $81,541,000 _$2,180JG1 $85,325^ $46,480,097 $3,655,172 $5,200,000 $3,134,434 _$ 1,000,000  $305?964 $06,076,603 $00,84(L863 $2,207,750 $88,915 $47,874,500 $3,764,827 $2,700,000 $3,228,467 $1,000,000 \" ~$31s7i'4'2 $85,93M60' $79,539,131 GTHRATE* L.R.DUT GROWTH RATE\nGROWTH RATE: GROWTH RATE: ACTUAL PAYM T GROWTH RATE: NOGROWril GROwfiinATE: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 7 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0014 8 9 10 11 12 J 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 $41,835,290 $5,734,377 $3,616,330 $51,185,997 $42,265,290 $5,824,377 $3,724,820 $51,814,487 $42,695,290 $5,914,377 $3,836,564 $52,446,232 $43,125,290 $6,004,377 $3,951,661 $53,081,329 $430,000 PER YR. STEP $90,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RAfr? \" T 3.00% 20 21 22* 23 24 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25 $11,198,767 $16,035,243 $27,234,009 $58,768,434 $11,518,767 $16,516,300 $28,035,067 $59,600,434 $11,038,767 $17^11.789 $207050^56 '$6074487434' $12,158,767 $17,522,143 $29,680,909' $61,200,434 $320,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RATE\n3.00% 26 27' 28 $5,026,772 $5,069,266 $3,898,113 $3,908,162 STEP  RAISE FROM SCHEDULE 29 30 31 $500,000 $75(L000' ~$L2M,OOO $n4\n096^779 ($2,686,1194) $1,200,000 $G50,000 _$M50^_ T()G7G(LO2O '($5,227\n020) $1,400,000 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;55'0,000 $2,O5oT66o $87,244,901 ($6,396,037) $1,600,000 '$2r2\"503Tdd $n892()',466 ($9,381,269) 32 EST. NEW DBT/VOTED MILLS 33 34 35 36LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 1, 1992 Deceived JUN 1 1992 , Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Office of Desegregalicn Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. A Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, (Jim Ivey 'J^anager of Suppdjr' t Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpdLRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of 2 . 3 . 4. 5. Monitoring (ODM). Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the Tri- District Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD Desegregation Plan, is committed to the programs of the precise commitments of funds. these figures should not be viewed as It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. a 3% annual increase in these costs. Consequently, they have asked us to use We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. have also used a factor of 1 non-salary costs. We for inflationary increases in The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Although this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. shown as a line item entitled II These reductions are 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will further reductions or increased revenues are not found. occur if We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993 . be found. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1.5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program discussion. #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires 7. 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13. 14. cost of programs In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so' here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. Court desires. We can provide information on federal funds if the Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. of this is planned for. second-lien issues. The 1993-94 reduction We believe most Any additional will be covered with in Programs, equipment. equipment. reflects the program completion #10, Academic Support of payments for PAL Some funding is added for replacement of this The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of information, broken out. tracking them exceeds the value of the The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, revised budgets if the Court desires. we can submit Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. B. C. D. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992- 93 1993-94 1994 - 95 1995- 96 1996 - 97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTERESTON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 3,900,000 140,000 400,000 224,667 420,850 300,000 85,000 39,088,120 21,736,595 3,500,000 140,000 365,000 225,000 461,000 300,000 85,000 40,093,227 25,253,744 3,805,000 141,400 368,650 227,250 484,050 309,000 86,700 45,616,117 25,996,645 3,819,150 142,814 372,337 229,523 508,253 318,270 88,434 47,086,512 26,766,307 3,933,725 144,242 376,060 231,818 533,665 327,818 90,203 48,506,276 27,518,335 4,051,736 145,685 379,820 234,136 560,348 337,653 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 28,118,907 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,419 1,474,485 629,752 147,050 3,000 2,983,190 874,311 1,798,665 624,119 28,118,907 8,926,606 28,759,387 8,094,112 29,419,081 6,042,591 30,102,462 3,829,942 30,862,449 683,125 TOTAL 49,864,380 73,419 1,500,000 675,000 147,050 3,000 3,100,000 875,000 2,490,900 653,094 73,419 1,545,000 742,500 154,403 3,000 3,348,000 918,750 3,248,910 672,687 73,419 1,591,350 816,750 162,123 3,000 3,615,840 964,688 3,760,540 692,867 73,419 1,639,091 898,425 170,229 3,000 3,905,107 1,012,922 4,140,580 713,653 73,419 1,688,263 988,268 178,740 3,000 4,217,516 1,063,568 4,491,150 735,063 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 44,625 111,453 800,000 40,000 112,000 600,000 35,000 116,480 400,000 30,000 121,139 300,000 25,000 125,985 200,000 20,000 131,024 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995- 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION 67,748,508 7,808,935 16,910,424 6,791,207 3,817,539 887,696 1,606,543 8,718,196 0 71,437,088 9,022,067 19,141,451 6,992,544 3,927,703 755,079 1,621,715 9,597,115 500,000 (7,700,000) 73,765,037 9,202,508 18,887,119 7,202,320 4,045,534 777,731 1,670,366 9,090,123 600,000 (7,931,000) 75,316,854 9,386,558 22,144,629 7.418,390 4,166,900 801,063 1,720,477 8,845,248 700,000 (8,168,930) 76,822,807 9,574,289 24,940,080 7,640,942 4,291,907 825,095 1,772,092 8,258,921 800,000 (8,413,998) 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,190 126,512,136 130,245,103 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,158 (97,553) (3,099,103) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 ENDING FUNO BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 902,199Prog # Pago # Doseription Unit/FunH # 1 2 5 0 7 8 0 10 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 10 21 22 24 25 20 27 28 20 32 33 34 35 49 51 -75 5 6 28 28 30 44 40 48 03 82 80 114 120 120 143 148 148 224 227 1-0 03 34 35 28 100 1-56 131 125 00 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student H \u0026gt;ring Officer Office of Desegregation Extra  Cu rricu lar T' ch er Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Multlcultral Programs Incentive Grants Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M lo-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transportation Romine Themi Community School In School Suspension Job Pair Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS  Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be Allocated Incentive School Programs TOTAL 70 1105 121 04 81 50 1580 75 42 87 82 35 41 71/75 82 40 12 14/08/120 00 60 00 72/45 73 75 SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET 1 ~02 02-03 03-rO4 0ft~O6 ge-07 244.077 204,350 101.048 432,504 110.000 46.782 418,570 2,084.728 200.005 738,732 3,800,000 103,415 080,002 200,835 400,272 0 0 345,320 10,000 17,207 270,002 741.217 1.500 12,850 501,404 52,000 62,688 50,000 200,000 4.128.058 10,010,424 252,320 502,073 102.477 430,148 110,000 40.020 507,074 2,730,374 200,005 800,000 3,800,000 110,342 704.553 410,304 1,330,038 0 0 300.270 10,000 70,000 270,002 760.381 1.500 11,350 580.017 52,000 04,048 5.000 200.000 4,437,312 10,141,451 250.800 857.450 105.552 462,323 113,300 48.337 584,704 2,102,810 278,002 0 3,014,000 113.053 818,300 422.074 1,013,020 0 0 401,004 10,500 81,370 285,271 782.102 1.545 11.001 508,035 53,560 66,807 5,000 200,000 4.614.378 18.887,110 207,003 1.286,131 100.718 405.802 110.000 40.787 002.245 2.250.505 280,342 0 4,031,420 117,002 842,042 435.355 1,440,552 2,003,300 0 414,043 11,025 83,811 203,820 806,027 1.501 12.041 015.077 55,107 08,004 5.000 200,000 4,050.880 22,144,620 276,724 1,184,723 111.080 470.800 120.200 51.281 020,313 2.320,353 204,032 0 4,152,303 120,574 808,230 448.415 1,404,007 2,707,432 2,707,000 428,405 11.570 80,325 302,044 820.700 1.030 12.402 034,450 50,822 70,071 5,000 200,000 4.307,028 24,040.080 283,005 1.232,112 116,330 404,205 123,800 52.810 038,022 2,300,143 303,780 0 4,270,033 124,101 804,277 401.808 1,484,110 2,815.720 2.815.280 430.250 12,155 88.015 311,723 054.000 1.088 12.775 053,400 58,520 73,100 5.000 200.000 4,030.500 25.864.401Exhibit A 1105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 52,349.84 2,795,060.64 28,811,085.64 4,037,827.87 4,071,829.27 756,490.90 1,156,944.86 2,598,700.99 2,684,664.92 183,975.48 3,939,101.54 290,883.38 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 44,337.94 325,000.00 7,562,955.21 1,224,081.75 1,238,599.52 698,543.12 537,715.75 214,094.16 1,102,812.86 2,077,880.91 734,945.29 1,861,405.13 16,625,075.77 2,194,315.26 839,750.00 8,718,196.00 DESEG FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 204.356.00 6,686,389.30 11,626.28 118,050.36 35,608.75 1,649,581.34 317,475.66 1,653,162.72 4,265,335.80 107,044.21 710,699.21 510,528.09 640,566.28 362,373.04 351,162.00 130,509.54 3,522,602.96 67,162.00 428,580.73 444,781.18 115,554.79 425,733.12 9,069,517.95 273,945.79 601,212.16 6,880.00 187,848.98 651,786.63 423,530.00 3,000.00 464,212.24 TOTAL 1,195,556.85 1,051,829.76 301,043.78 3,545,793.76 52,129,948.10 5,909,854.73 6,380,853.31 864,661.41 6,473,270.95 1,626,050.00 5,099,356.87 7,284,019.73 5,299,811.36 7,103,107.73 18,390,604.74 2,995,726.73 1,944,528.52 8,718,196.00 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  MONDAY, JUNE 15. 1992  Desegregation costs helped $7.7 million shortfall, Steele create BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-GazeWe Staff Writer The Little Rock School Districts projected $7.7 million budget deficit for next year is largely the result of implementing parts of two desegregation plans while trying to meet other financial demands, Superintendent Ruth Steele said last week. Friday, Steele released a 17- page chronology of budget-related events that date back to July 1989, when she became superintendent. The superintendent said 9 her report was not an attempt to cast the districts financial problems in a better light or to shirk responsibility for the districts financial condition. On several occasions re- cently, questions pertaining to the districts financial situation have been raised, Steele said. Specifically, several district employees and one board member on a radio talk show have asked why we now face budget problems after an 8- mill tax increase was obtained in a successful election a little over two years ago. says The question deserves response. a Steele, who is retiring from the district June 30. said she thought the explanation of the complex finances would be helpful to her successor. Dr Mac Bernd of San Marcos Calif. Bernd said last week that balancing the budget will be a top priority. In her report. Steele said the districts financial position IS actually better than it was projected to be in 1989. But, See SCHOOL, Page 3A--npg^^CL 3 2^ 2 3 Si o .5 O (fl  ?2 3 ^3 3. 7 3 3 _ 3\" 2  S' 2 S o H X g g *0 o  5 5 o w *5 \"O *\u0026lt; \"O S . O n e 2- o o \u0026lt;\u0026gt; c \u0026gt; 3 \"J. S CT z 0.^0 ^.- J..O 2- 2\n2 00.  o* 9   tn 9 o 3 9* 3 71 3 g 9 3 9 ft q-S-2.   - o --  srnaf* kJ *\u0026lt;332 -  fD OO o 5-0 a a a a* a- 3 'S I * a a  = 8.5 8  \"Xa 3c- 3 9 p g 9:\u0026lt; = S9- Cl pb!Dg-.a.2 2 5wgg\u0026lt;5^ o 9 o o V Q .a 3 S e-r. t^i L? ffQ \u0026lt;5 o O o w rt\u0026gt; o o c 9 f\u0026gt;  tn r* p ^3 p \u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3* Q 3 w Z- o *\u0026lt; 3 Ui rt) 3 g era 3 o 9 c 2.5: o \u0026lt;  c 3 trt rt O p 3 g (D r* 3 1/1 9 XJ \u0026gt; f^ Co 0,09 3'PoH--^'O,4 5ttS\u0026amp;5i5|3'S P-  sr-o ^oo^39-^cs: O,,,^3^S,2.3- 92.33-\n-^\"g ^5\" p 3 O O o 2- r 9* era (D n\u0026gt; * a Cl c O      S - 3 i- 5 3 o o O S ' 3 *9 M X33ao29 ^P    5'sg tn 9 3 O 2. 3 2 3 2,0 O o\u0026gt; a 9 i? 2 tn O 3 p p - 0\u0026gt; Rj .3. tn Si 5.S2S- ssg-$s 9 ? o P 9 V) O O 9. O rt\u0026gt; UI  -* c. a 9 9 3 0$ \u0026gt; P \u0026lt; o 3 5. Q cz\u0026gt; w 9\" . - N 3 O- .O 7. 3 2. \" 3 y, P 2^ 5 S  S' s\n= O P \u0026gt;-1 fV OQ CU O p o O 9\" x M 9 V Q is   Ji 9 rt\u0026gt; SSg-g. cn .-o S  3 g '* r\nn o = \u0026lt;\u0026lt;9 c c ti\u0026gt; 9 5ggg 3 O m UI c 9 3 8 g _ .a 5 u .3 3^ .^32, - ft_R OJ'TXP \u0026lt;0 p3'\u0026lt;^\nS^3.9S-S *2ft2 Jft  tnto 2,3 w 5.^3(xa  - '- - 3  3 H 3 2 3* w o. 0 - ^i-O r* a ft -t- 5 .,2.0 3 53 g jS-o 3-  S\u0026lt;?.EiJ-S9ft-~33 TftOc-RV* -      ^0 3 c\n3- 9*\u0026lt; 2 c::3 2 5 o to o o X \"O w O \u0026lt; o fi\u0026gt; U) := fij C/3 CtJ? o' O S D\u0026gt; a C ? a a 4, a G f? a a a Oo .s '-^ a a O* a o ?r c -S 00 5 o 3  9 O :. V) a H. 3 tn _ O. P TS 3- (Xa tn o tn 3 52Orj- r-- 3 M- \u0026lt;-\u0026lt; v\u0026gt; cn p  \" 2  3 E:r 3 x 3^ p era TO 3 3 o 9 o  tn 9- n o \u0026lt; 3 O 9  tn 3 J2  o ,-. 3 5 3 2 3 3 Ui 9 U) ft) tn CD (XQ O HQ P p 5 o P UI p to 3 O 9 O o 9 o n Si g g \u0026lt;9* 2^3 3i o-^ 0 0 3^ w O Xj 5. 3  ft p 3 3 S Ei O Ei 9 2-3^*0 3^ 9 ..  i3E:bSo2SCi2'.- S *^S-^ o^.^Oco ,2 3  0) cn tn St O*Xa3uj(IQpEJ- -*O .^3ag9-3oo2.-i- s 3 o Ei 0 $= g ? \" *3 P 9 \"ft Ui S  ^9  S S  og-\"?' \u0026gt;SS \u0026gt;b a . s:- O ft) X, so-O * 5? Ei 52. H 0) W ft M r ft O t-i 2 n o 2 2 9 ft ito'to' fl) 3-9- p Q) sg rp 9   3 3 ^.  o Ui 9 9 \u0026lt;352.^w23Mft-S9'bi *37i -^sr3,^3,  i'-\u0026gt;9323XJ hr\u0026lt;-n P 9 p 3 . P y,' O 9. '3 7:\"ft9 3 .2 C Si 3- Ei ^Oc.- 9 ft^9^tnft9\u0026lt;^ft9ftft g B b' S..g - S.ZS -^  -  ?S3'ggS'. ex ft Q si^  r cz) CA f\" 9 o 9^ O 3 ?3 \u0026amp; - 3 cn S^S.a-2 2^ Q o P o \u0026lt;1 o o X3 3 9 CA SS - \u0026gt; 3 - 3 Q =Ss  3   3 2 p \u0026lt; 3 5 2 o \u0026lt; o era 9 _ Ui 3 tn  o o O 3 p \u0026gt;-] m 3 O.  O Q 5 9* oa 52- p -J \u0026lt;z 9 0, 2. O tn  ev O tn wcn OOra C?3-9\nO -------------3\n323tnO ii) 3 9 0^ -n  u: _ tn \"-I 3Po39tn^r  \"^^.1^9 0 K- o 9 2 - 9 O 3 X-5- gSSvS^- W'\u0026lt; 5 o-ira p\no. eo w 9 eo n (i\u0026gt; (T\u0026gt; (la o o O OQ P *-| (A O (TO g X 3 o o 9 Sg 3 3ft '\u0026lt; _ S 3 Si3 O'S fto g ft r-*' tn 9 r* O P 9 \u0026lt; tn cn JT s g-S- Ui M A n p p C p 1 o 3 2^ o 3- p  3 S- 3-2 2 0* n\u0026gt; T -j Sg'Sg S \u0026gt;g.-e  3 o o \u0026lt; x- 9- 9.X) CT :\ng g q 2.= n. 3 0-. \" 5' ora \u0026lt;5 3 =* r-^O o  \"O o o 9 =\"52 p .- *** 3 3 _ *-\u0026gt; (n G o -gSS S gg O 3 O2.^o O O O \"\u0026gt; go sra'g.eg- i5o2--S8 P 3 tn O 0,3 to *9 (ra p .-\u0026lt;- 3 3 g.g o Ui o ft p Ui fSS 2 3 o X **\u0026lt; ^ p P cn rt O  = \u0026amp; o o UI -\u0026gt;^2  S^ 0-3 p o  o\u0026gt; 2 9 o o s 9 p cn era P-- sr 3  w O o tn y tf Ui CO 9  2,\u0026lt; $ 9 cn tn er ,. B\u0026gt;  o 75 9. o 3 9 O- t9 9 - 2-2^-3 O 3 tn p s (la to o p 2 Q 9 cj da O'  9 9* tn O 2 S w 9 * Q g* 9 CL? 5:? p 3 O OS 9' O O _ CL O P g.R.,9O.fti_aP CT-Cl'9 O tn 5 CO 9.3 Si n. 3  3 UI ^ Ui  22 0.3^ H. \" S  g  S S-2. \u0026lt;: cl\n-. 2 - \u0026lt;0  3 57 3- 9 O o o tn P O  3 o c  3 3 p JJ. O- o, O 3 EJ Sera 2: p 3 5 p 3 O (fl tn 95 w ? Sg B gw -. c g ? 5sg!??S:s- S.s'g o 9 O rt\u0026gt; ft) P O O ? 9 3- O p P p o 2 tn P 2. S 3 . s s  _ \u0026lt;t 3 [-\u0026gt;  0\u0026gt; Q r ^\n3 5-^S s 3-8-3\u0026gt; ? 5 -J SJCX*1O'XJiW* SCOQ 3 oO 9-3'9fl !=r^\u0026gt;:rt3 P 9.0Q \u0026lt;OfD(raO_. X\"-* O B- e\u0026gt;q 5'^ *\u0026lt; Er 3 X  3 J I ft- 9 ' ft '' -4 ' ^ ( w'O 33-?j35ftp9R, ^Ss\u0026amp;SgB.slSXs-^S^SS ,..^3^3 ft, ftft32-.22 . CZ3 i-h fO M M (0 2 rr gera c r* 9  STP  2L 2 sr 9 3 3, O P (t\u0026gt; 3 9 O a* (A 9 Oi exQ P 9 cn C M o _  -baS-SS -\" o b g,-2,5. b 5 339.3_. O-.-MEX.,\u0026lt; ^'-JPt_^39g--'~ \".g = -i\u0026lt;JSgOgWB Ogg\u0026lt;g-c-.O Cv^9 99C.O_n9323T,9^OirX9S9 Ego, ^30 0^^ 9\u0026lt;X5^ 29.y\u0026gt;5 \u0026amp;g-5 h = K \"ss  31 \"s=s ^3 S.3 3 ^g-?\u0026amp;3 Si 0-73 \"O 3 _ ^\u0026lt;30.2-9SoO) P\"^oCoengt^f-* S  3 0 St \u0026lt;  \u0026lt; o p '. 9- ?. C 3 003 3 9 P M 3 (Zl5' o o g g ng's g s F ? g^ p  0 3 o tn O- 52. ' ^ ^3 9 p 3 3- O X o 9 CL n\u0026gt; c 3 , n 3 O - S3 g 3 J O 3 3 9 O 5^,2 3 9 p Q. 1 \"O O A,  . Ui O P 9 Lo 9 W (XQ O p  ?' 2 3 Ol. 5 co  3 2 ^3 9 E* ^00 I rt\u0026gt; rt) Q O\u0026lt;^ S' a * Sac a a a 9 O e, .* ez) 0 ft 9* o.  __ -b, \"\u0026gt;TO 9 2 ? 3 BS:: i\na 5- s a r. o tn a '1 p Q 9 ^l\u0026gt;ftp  -- - oa ft 3 cn ex x^jS 2.0a 3 PXp9rt'-'9- -., 3 i-'i r- o 2 3  9 W 3 p  5. 3 P Slg^a.S-o2  \"O 3 M P  o X3 tn tn : 3 3 Pt 3 a i'? L a o - 9 y c i Q ft) s \"S. s- 5  SS'o g's- a  . ,. _ 3 23 gprS'oE.g.g' o a 5 o a. g  cn ^ , 3 tn S cT a' a a - a . S 5 S'5g' F 3  o s 9 p Q a. a w o 3 g- o  , r *-t- 3 1:^0 5^ sX' 2^ 3 3 p 0 3  a. a o a o  K tn 3 3- c gw p \" 2-O2*3 2:2.0 s\na 5 3 a o UI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; r4' 3- O 2 O p 3- 3 3 \u0026lt; pO99crao3\u0026gt;3 \u0026lt; 9 cn O 3 i-j 9 O.\" ? S' Q n 5=^3 2 t\u0026lt;\nffa ex tn X3 P 3 ------- g-era 3 O' g 3  2 9 \u0026lt;'^3 2 X5 3 3 S 9\" o 7^  3tn3c,j:fpO,y,\u0026lt;-* 5 co H 9 a (D 2.P S P (X 9 \u0026lt; O 9 O tn _''9- 9-0 tn 9 3 O J2 3- 9- O-. fi^cra ss g\np 3 3 fc Ui fu p a- a- a- a O ft) S' 9. 9 O H. S 3 2\nS''f igp =-o tw 9 \u0026lt;* 9 to 3. 3 r-i CX^ 9-S-(WrT 7 o 2 5- T 0 3 0 9 9 = fD CT 9  ' G g2 'H-'H-rt 9- 9H9-i9-pg. 39-oPOjj ,22pp2333 era 33oexa3oerapg^,^ dgo.33cX3-^\u0026lt;3o.X^2tnj\n rc9- go o  SoS Sob 'g-' 2q9'q9\u0026lt;b3 9 rm rt X (TO n g-g as'^s g' S. -T- 3 era tn p Op S 9 9 3 0 2 CfQ - .9 9. C. O  ?r 03 $ P ^^o^E? 0^3\n p 3l  M n.2 \u0026lt;  9 9. in t^S O Sg o P O -o 0*3 'I W 03 O '\u0026lt; g -o \" So 9*S^ ^0-03(b9mo eZ\u0026gt;.32t23^\u0026lt;3 9'*3 ^-*3a2. o^Qog cren -  h^S-o =r 2- 5 w 3 \u0026lt;\u0026lt; UI Q,(xa . J* . O cn 3^ 3 9 O P 0-3 TO o cn Q w -K  71 O' O 9 (0 O o 2. o -J ft)  r \u0026gt;Xi!i35?i3P^ 32^w^3X5*\n\u0026lt;2  tn . -, cn 3 9 2. S o S  C 3xj -* h^9 0 \u0026gt;1 3 TO 9 o UI O 9 5)\nfO rt- 3' 9 O p C S  P -o  U. 3 2m p 3 -2(0 S 9 fj O o . 9 o\u0026lt;a 3- * 3 o' 9- ' S 3 \u0026lt; S S ^^,3-0-gg 9 o 0 P 3 o 9 P j^fio _ - 00 CO w ^g H. s|.-= o 3  S    '^2  3-90^ - r*era 3-_ 2 p 3 3 -3 2-'  tn 3 3 3 2. ri 3 o 3 3 g SoS a'= s' p \u0026gt;1 tn '1 3 JO ^crg o 9 O 0'^2tn3O\u0026gt;p,,. gSS.s^.^g- p 9 t\u0026lt;3S5.g S 3 9-3 9 --t- C_i 9 3 o' O Q  3 \u0026lt; ' \u0026gt;tn 3 2. 3 cn 3 -- ex 2 5 P 0\u0026gt; 9  3\no sr g  O 9 U. 9. 3 - P  O _ 3^S7o3\u0026lt;-O. 5t-r oZs.\u0026gt;Sr)0 tn02. 3 \u0026gt;'  M 40 3 tn 3 r 3\no o 3 9 M 2 9-3 3-^^  C:: 3 9 o to 0^ J2 w \u0026lt; '? PT '-I 5 3 to O- ? s:: ? -^ o 2.9* O 3 9 ffO 2 3 3 23 32 co to O9.Q--O^O- gs-gS' ^S' = 2 \u0026lt; \u0026gt;-j tn 3 (XQ Ui o o o o - 5 .S 3  S'^ g.o O s 9 n 9- tn O Q :'3 co \u0026lt; U! o 3 p 9. o O 3 5 5fi  ft\u0026gt; tn P UI O S fl) p tn 4, g p ^-57 g 2 3 \u0026amp; g.za o Lra 3 - cn o 3 3 2^ o o  P X w o 3 p o OhO^ 52. 3 c -- 2 raoiffiajg-sxs:. *53 9 I.  S ES \u0026lt;- P tn 3 ff^ .sl^Sog- '|g=3S co 2-0 o 3 So \"o  **: 2 9 to tn 9 , 9'0 3 c t- _ 39 *33 c w fo 5 3 2.era ftfnft-_.9J^ 3 -3 g g^w 0 ft ?52of?SoF^S.p. o 2-0 5?392 fU 3 O 9 (XQ P p 5 9 ? o p ? o  ? g 9 XJ 9- UI tn 3-O P 2 3 5* S  ^^^^3 \"  5'gS'\n5 S5'g RoE'5'\u0026lt; b.-' Sg 2.g 3 B s SS^S-'S o 9 o |(X0 UI ^2'^S9 '5'\u0026lt; 3^ 3 I 9 (3 3 SI g 2 3 O 3 e I-.- f* CO 9 % /T\u0026gt; fn C 3 UI M O JT 2 Q O ft 3 3 3  ^ g-^JE-^^g^ 0 3 3* O 3 3 s s.^ S- n\u0026gt; - m ff. O 9 ^2. - bSXss ...?2'3 39g^g^3-ft^3 O era o Q p r\" .. 3 2  \" o . 5. 9 o S a P rt o o  P'S O g-'s^w'\" a. gpssSsffSg-g 3\u0026lt;3' \u0026lt;^9^ ftoe/eR\u0026gt;- 2 0 3^ 9 . 3 9 o i- o slg.s'^e-i 2- \"S 3: Etoo'S g 0.3 o 2-o - 9 3 tn O o o Q ex 9:o\u0026gt; 3 J? o tn 3- 9^ K- P 9 n 3 E s: sS- 9  ^ _____ P ? O) 3 ci i- 9 P 9 3 tn o p 3 N 03 S - 2 c\u0026lt; O ra 3 S.g.^ O O 3^9- \u0026lt; 3 goSiS 3 57 0) 9 0^9 2 52 9 9 w n 9 era J* 3_ p O W 3-3335.0.2? O 2 '\nS *0 ? 7 3p5 \u0026lt;'^-a933^3-PO,.^t-^9-j--g.oa\u0026lt;p M3^-CXS*2.33r-r-- OSS:cnrfooP3E33g'2- 3c33.3 S3p3.'*3X  ^XJ 2^ 3  S 3 *3 3 \u0026lt; oo 2.  9 \u0026lt;- ES i tn 2 (ra O(^ o. \u0026lt; S O\u0026lt;--n s B EoS'\u0026lt; o--0^oj^--q w ? D, '5' ffq 5^  S o' S ,- n 'c \"S5'2oS\"\u0026amp;=\"3ooi: O 5'0 s 5'0 g-S ss\u0026gt; o ra Ui O P P cn' O .qs era o  M/ J3 o 3 3 O n tn e S- CL era .^o p (D o o (XCi o 3 cn ft ^ \u0026gt; '5:o'S5-Sb- HS3-^.8^3Sg 2 . so -- y o 2 O Ui 9 o p era o to p-, Ui o  iS p X lJ. 9. O 0-9 0 0.^ 9 g  p iw 3. 9 en'o Sterji'^ Ei* ' fn ft g p |J5 9: -e ii iiP'C t i n TT c o s -3^ S3x2, iOSa - STotnx.  tn I  p 9 tn i-jl o co TO i ri 3 3 9 0 S: 9 9 :. a2^- 3 tn tn - - .tihj- ^3'1.3E2}3  3O-\u0026gt;-j2 i ?. -h3\u0026lt;?07:cn P-PP \u0026lt;3 TJ ** ^OotnpSTtnqf-o 5  B  g.S^ K 3 2 2- O* 3 S' o (w C3 o ra o \u0026lt;- o   !. ts3  o 1 B $  9 o ^2 W 3 w 01 . \u0026gt; o O- cn ^- r--  - 9 0^9 9 O o tn TO S 2 _.. 9- -r 00  00^3 - (O 9- p 3 i *3 f o Q  g S^era o o y? \u0026lt;t\u0026gt; o o o 2 2 9 P1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECEIVED TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR June 18, 1992 Board of Directors 72201 JUN 1 9 1992 Office of Desegregation uiOfni. 1-3 Ivey, Manager of Support Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent . Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent (a))\u0026gt; Proposed Budget for Annual School Election Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 (1951) states \"The requirement of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 40, for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time...not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election.\" It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures for 1993-94 as attached. c:\\memos\\elecbud.wpdPROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Act 403 of 1951, as amended by Act 117 of 1979 and Amendment 40 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, has prepared, approved, and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the District in 1993-94 together with a supporting tax rate follows: as Salaries \u0026amp; Fringe Benefits Purchased Services, Supplies, Capital Outlay Debt Service $ 82,967,545 25,252,071 9,090,123 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax levy of 43.9 mills. This total tax levy includes 34 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools and 9.9 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. Given this 18th day of June, 1992. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County 0. G. Jacovelli, President Patricia Gee, Secretaryet _ ' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 18, 1992 Board of Directors rasa '^.ID w .-.7 f \u0026gt;-. JUN 1 8 1992 C!fic3 of uoso^rev\n.\nn Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools APPOINTMENT OF EX OFFICIO FINANCIAL SECRETARY Because the current Ex Officio Financial Secretary will leave the District on June 30, 1992, appointed to begin serving on July 1, 1992. it is necessary to have a successor Bernd concurs, I recommend, and Dr. that the Board approve the appointment of Mark Milhollen as the District's Interim Ex Officio Financial Secretary effective July 1, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring October 15, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Gary E. Jones,/Manager of Resources and School Support THROUGH: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Refinancing of Bonds It appears that the District could realize an estimated savings of $323,632 by refinancing the May 15, 1988 bonds. The Department of Education requires that a refunding produce a $100,000 savings or a five percent reduction in debt service. whichever is less. criteria. This proposed issue meets both refunding In order to initiate this process, the Board will need to adopt an intent resolution. With the State Board of Education approval, the bond forms will be filed in February, 1993. Should interest rates increase between now and the time the bonds are scheduled to be refinanced. the District can cancel the refinancing proposal. In the event this refunding cannot be sold so as to produce sufficient savings, there will not be any charge for the services of Stephens, Inc. I recommend that the Board approve proceeding with the refinancing of this debt by adoption of the attached resolution.NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District was held at the Administration Building in Pulaski County, Arkansas on the 15th day of October, 1992, at the hour of p.m. All members of the Board had due notice of the time and place of said meeting, and the purpose thereof, and a quorum consisting of the following members were present: After consideration, the Board adopted a resolution reading as follows: \"This School Board will authorize Stephens Inc. to file application with the State Board of Education to issue bonds in the estimated amount of $5,500,000 for the purpose of refunding the Districts bonds issue dated May 15, 1988. The sale of the proposed issue is subject to determination by the Board that the savings generated is adequate to justify the issuance of the refunding bonds.\" BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS By: President By: , SecretaryRESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District continues to be alarmed at the violence and drug activity that threatens the safety and well-being community and in our schools\nand of our students in the WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Board of Directors that the presence of police officers in secondary school buildings would be of great value to the students\nand IT IS, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Board of Directors remains committed to the Police Resource Officer Program which was approved by the Board on December 19, 1991, as follows: \"...that the Police Resource Officer Program be piloted at one senior high school (J.A. Fair) and at one or more junior high schools (Henderson, Cloverdale, Pulaski Heights, and Mann) during the 1992-93 school year, ....and that the program be evaluated very carefully and see if it has a positive impact on our students... and assuming that half the costs can be paid by the City of Little Rock.\" ADOPTED this day of October, 1992. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT O. G. Jacovelli, President Pat Gee, SecretaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED November 12, 1992 NOV 1 6 IW2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle: THROUi lary E. Jones, Manager of Resources \u0026amp; School Support SUBJECT: interim Millage Adjustment Attached is a resolution approving the personal property and real estate millage rates for the year 1992. We recommend that the Board of Directors approve the resolution as submitted.RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY MILLAGE RATE FOR THE YEAR 1992 WHEREAS, the Pulaski County Quorum Court will levy county, municipal, and school taxes for the year 1992 as required by Ark. Code Arm. 14-14-904\nand WHEREAS, Ark. Ann. 26-73-202 requires that the governing body of any taxing entity approve the applicable taxes prior to the adoption of the county levy\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County approves the established level of 43.9 mills for personal property and 43.9 mills for real property within the district for the year 1992. President Secretary AdoptedTO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RECE3VEE5 NOV 1 ft LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 19,1992 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MARK MILHOLI GARY E. JON^ ONTROLLER (R Office of Desegregation Monitoring lANAGER OF RESOURCES \u0026amp; SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND, SUPERINTENDENT FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIPTS-OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 APPROVED BUDGET YTD RECEIPTS REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURERS FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 5,333,750 1,157,371 58,215 134,097 6,683,434 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,419 11,000 84,419 0 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 3,000 229,403 2,692,563 2,490,900 697,589 548,034 46,367,563 8,568,212 18,357 272,783 57,351 328,503 137,991 9,383,197 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 21,795 1,179 22,974 TOTAL REVENUE 113,913,390 16,089,605EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES END BALANCE 1992-93 1992-93 10-31-92 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32,467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 4,426.69 102,788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 695.69 99,057.46 S.400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63,413.03 63,413.03 0.00 0.00 57,113.00 57.113.00 6,300.03 6,300.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATERTOWER ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 55,114.00 196,120.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 103,414.00 0.00 0.00 55,114.00 213,670.45 53,832.05 426,030.50 36,419.50 541.84 0.00 (17,550.45) 1,210,308.57 1,229,719.46 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON W(X)DRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20 (23,584.00) 40,860.38 123,266.92 56.94 1,739.42 2,247.19 23,584.00 25.00 75.00 552.00 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 24,282.50 501,660.46 102.50 29,744.43 20,887.35 13,684.67 959.62 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 18,701.79 975.52 0.00 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 32,325.18 56,344.93 67,175.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20OPERATING/DESEG BUDGET FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 2,321,865 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31.1992 MAGNET FOOD SERVICE SPECIAL REVENUE CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL 2,321,865 2,355,488 2,355,488 150,322 150,322 22,156,036 22,156,036 REVENUE CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAX 40% PULLBACK OTHER TOTAL LOCAL MFPA VOCATIONAL TRANSPORTATION OTHER SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN TOTAL STATE FEDERAL OTHER 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 1,526,524 66,559,408 27,042,713 1,341,887 2,692,563 4,948,213 8,926,606 1,500,000 46,451,982 40,000 862,000 5,333,750 1,157,371 192,313 6,683,434 8,568,212 272,783 328,503 213,699 9,383,197 21,795 1,179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 600,000 318,180 318,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,288,783 1,250,843 963,717 153,696 TOTAL REV \u0026amp; FUND EQUITY 116,235,255 18,411,470 0 0 9,644,271 3,606,331 1,114,039 304,018 22,756,036 22,474,216 EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 15,923,816 2,202,011 3,088,946 8,064,997 1,559,766 2,425,430 317,036 2,672,143 589,630 561,778 116,010 122,629 31,369 798,620 211,646 961,054 4,730,606 1,651,892 755,448 960,041 153,547 22,756,036 3,622,349 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,872,561 30,839,537 0 3,703,521 9,644,271 1,433,237 1,114,039 1,163,813 22,756,036 3,622,349 FUND EQUITY-ENDING 362,694 (12,428,067) 0 (3,703,521) 0 2,173,094 0 (859,794) 0 18,851,867i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES WAKERELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,177,454.31 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 1992-93 3,186.12 639,403.72 1,467.44 0.00 812,880.13 END BALANCE 10-31-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 3,534.92 684,617.47 3,398,532.56 0.00 5,364,574.18 5,100,000BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALEJR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASKI HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 178,948.99 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,826,719.79 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 472,265.84 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 186,272.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 186,256.06 31,704.50 175,489.82 350,000.00 13,383,170.45 (400,000.00) 400,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 0.00 123,345.56 62,183.93 31,735.10 14,435.63 101,113.08 935,241.44 30,911.00 9,996.55 263,835.08 30,750.70 58,393.54 37,790.00 74,384.00 856.50 143,978.59 16,124.00 17,817.02 28.50 1,529.00 6,855.00 3,118.67 80,824.00 131,504.57 61,047.79 2,237,799.25 55,603.43 152,181.07 13,656.55 205,220.29 250,000.00 142,001.16 2,891,478.35 29,589.00 8,493.28 3.45 57,960.00 208,430.76 1,249,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,750,000.00 9,738.82 123,578.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 42,293.41 11,850.19 382,182.98 63,400.00 24,000.00 48,145.00 180,838.98 0.00 50,000.00 54,751.49 31,704.50 114,442.03 350,000.00 11,145,371.20 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 95,082.51 394,674.74 45,000.00 8,647.80 76,147.50 65,525.00 207,654.79 145,201.50 101,932.75 36,352.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 65,525.00 602,329.53i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 740,991.50 INCOME 1992-93 318,179.79 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 1992-93 84,795.30 END BALANCE 10-31-92 974,375.99 GRAND TOTAL 22,156,035.53 318,179.79 0.00 3,622,349.18 18,851,866.14Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 18, 1993 The Honorable Jim Guy Tucker Governor of the State of Arkansas State Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Governor Tucker: 1 was pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you last week about the Pulaski County school transportation system and other desegregation matters. As promised, Im enclosing a chart showing the schedule of the States Settlement payments to the Little Rock School District (LRSD). This chart is based on the terms and payment schedule described on pages 22-27 of the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement. The Settlement monies due the other two county districts are so much less than those to LRSD that 1 have not prepared similar charts for them\nhowever, if it would be helpful to you, 1 will be happy to have graphs drawn up. The chart for LRSD shows that, by June 30, 1993, the district will have spent between 66% and 68% of the Settlement funds to which it is entitled. (The difference in the total percentage spent at fiscal year end depends upon the extent to which the LRSD uses the available portion of the $20 million State loan for which it is eligible.) In other words, by the end of Year Two of the six year desegregation planone-third the targeted time periodthe LRSD will have used two-thirds of its Settlement money. Unfortunately, LRSD has not fulfilled anything even approaching two-thirds of its desegregation plan obligations. The district is making very little progress toward achieving its desegregation goals. Progress in the other two districts is also very slow. Moreover, all three districts are experiencing well-publicized financial difficulties. If the Settlement Agreements were to collapse because of a districts financial insolvency, or a districts failure to otherwise fulfill Agreement terms, the State would be left ultimately \"holding the bag.\"Page Two Februaiy 18, 1993 Obviously, it is in the best interests of us all for the Settlement Plans to work. Thats why ADEs role is so important. As you and 1 discussed. Im very concerned about how the State is keeping the commitments it made as a party to the 1989 Agreements. 1 have not seen evidence that ADE is doing all the Settlement requires of it, particularly that which is set forth in the Settlement Agreements Section 111, entitled \"States Role in the Desegregation Process.\" This section obligates the State and ADE to specific action in addition to routine monitoring and enforcement requirements. 1 am forwarding the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to Deborah Walz, along with the other four volumes of the desegregation plans the Pulaski County districts are obligated to implement. Please let me know how 1 may be of further help. Very truly yours, Enc. cc: Deborah Walz Compensatory Education Funds Provided By Settlomonl Al Final Approval 4,475,000 January Payment June Payment Total Ally Fee Adv/Popay- Nolo* total Selllenienl Receipts Cumulative SelllemerrI Receipts Remaining ArrxrunI of Setllernenl Funds Available I o.art Hr aw 4,475,000 4,475,000 4,475,000 59,129,886 Schedule of Payments to LRSD State Settlement Funds Fiscal Year 89-90 Fiscal Year 90-91 Fiscal Year 91-92 Fiscal Year 92-93 Fiscal Year 93-94 Fiscal Year 94-95 Fiscal Year 95-96 Fiscal Year 96-97 Fiscal Year 97-98 1/29/93 Fiscal Year 98-99 3,475,000 4,609,250 3,609,250 4,747,528 3,747,528 4,889,954 3,889,954 5,036,652 4,036,652 4,057,460 3,057,460 2,985,131 1,985,131 1,844,811 844,811 1,266,770 266,770 152,387 152,387 8,084,250 8,084,250 12,559,250 54,654,086 8,356,778 2,000,000 10,356,778 22,916,028 46,570,636 6,000,000 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 8,637,482 31,553,510 36,213.858 4,500,01X1 8,926,606 40,480,116 27,576,376 1,500,000 8,094,112 48,574,228 18,649,770 6,042,591 54,616,819 10,555,658 3,829,942 58,446,761 4,513,067 2,111,581 (1,428,456) 683,125 59,129,886 683,125 419,157 (419,157) 0 59,129,886 0 152,387 (152,387) 0 59,129,886 0 Selllerrrent Plus Loan Draw Fiscal Year To Dale-2-1-93 Draw Down on Selllemenl To Date -2-1-93 Draw Down on Settlement Plus Loan Year End Total of Selllemenl Draw Down Year End Total of Settlement Draw Down Plus 12 Million Loan (Available Loan Amount Is 20 Million) 16,356,778 13,137,482 10,426,606 35,443,464 47,443,464 40,480,116 52,480,116 59.94% ot total settlement 59.96% o( selllemenl plus loan 68.46% \u0026lt;- End of June '93 66.32% \u0026lt;- End of June '93 Budget 14,356,778 15,703,006 17,013,029 Actual Expenditures Cumulative Expenditures 5,471,069 8,434,586 13,905,655 14,598,588 28,504,243 15,997,240 44,501,483 Additional Payments per pg 24 ol Financial Settlement not included in code 13 accounting 2,000,000 Cumulative 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,870,114 10,000,000 12,000,000 13,870,114 'Note: Fire setitlernent provided Itiat the attorney fee would be advanced from tire settlement monies and recaptured from the last years ot payment. Prepared by the OfTice of Desegregation MonitoringCF: l/Vr I JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR,  Also admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Ajtorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 722116 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 April 2, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED APR 5 Office of DesegregaSon Mcnitoringj I have reason to believe that the Little Rock School District may be destroying certain financial records and other documents. I am, therefore, asking you appoint the ODM to determine whether document destruction has occurred with respect to financial records for the past three years. I am also requesting that you conunission an audit the district's finances for that same period of time to determine whether the finances of the district have been legitimately spent as required by law and by the Desegregation Plan. In ray work on a related matter, I have discovered that school district officials do not routinely reimburse the district for their personal long distance telephone calls. Dr. Bernd has apparently now recognized that after I requested his personal and cellular phone bills and has devised a \"quarterly\" repayment policy for the staff. the last several months. That policy was not enforced prior to my letters in It stands to reason that if district officials do not routinely repay telephone advances, they engage in similar practices in other areas. Another reason for the request is Dr. Bernd's statement earlier in Court that he did not know how many district employees the district had. If that knowledge escaped him, then it is reasonable to believe that payments were being made to some persons who were not district employees or for activities or invoices that were directors. not properly approved by the school district board of Moreover, the administration of the district does not have the power to circumvent the bidding policies of the district. I am prepared to share with the ODM information that I have to the effect that at least one district employee in the business office rather routinely allowed contracts between the school district and a family member or members. If this in fact is substantiated, then further inferences attach to the manner in which the business affairs of the district have been conducted.Judge Wright April 2, 1993 Page 2 plan My concern for raising these issues is that the settlement contemplations of double funding, including scholarship promises to the incentive schools and their children, stand to be diminished if not aborted by school district spending practices. Although the audit will cost some money, I believe that its yield will be well worth it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Verj truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Im cc: Mr. Chris Heller All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Dr. C.M. BerndJOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED MAY 7 1993 Office cf Desegregation JZoniioiing JOHN W. WALKER R/\\LPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR, AUSTIN PORTER. JR.  Abtn ailtnitlrtl b\u0026gt; Pnilin* in it the Distrirt of ColumiMa. May 6, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Bobby Lester Pulaski County Special School District 924 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. James Smith North Little Rock School District 27th \u0026amp; Poplar North Little Rock, AR 72115 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Arkansas FOIA, this request secure copies of documents from January 1, is being made to 199 0 to date which represent bills for legal services rendered to your respective school districts related thereto. including itemized statements and all costs Please let me know when someone from my office can come by your respective offices to secure. Sincerely Sincerely, 75\u0026gt;nn W. Walker J JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann BrownLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUNE 24,1993 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: THROUGH: MARK MILHOLLEN, CONTROLLER GARY E. JONES, MANAGER OF RESOURCES \u0026amp; SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND. SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.INCOME-SOURCES LOCAL COUNTY STATE OTHER TOTAL INCOME BEGINNING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DESEG-SALARIES DESEG-EMP BENEFITS DESEG-PUR SER,SUPP,EOUIP PUR SER.SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET ENDING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE ELEVEN MONTH PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TRANSACTIONS ENCUMBRANCES BALANCE 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390' 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390 47,207,023 91,459 34,333,318 42,045 81,673,845 19,352,385 (7,040) 12,034,245 859,955 32,239,545 2,321,865 2,321,865 116,235,255 116,235,255 65,063,011 9,162,732 6,851,059 1,078,701 9,083,269 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,561 65,063,011 8,862,732 7,587,909 1,078,701 8,346,419 14,708,182 9,597,115 28,492 115,272,561 62,040,042 8,530,194 7,087,908 1,003,987 3,978,354 10,788,578 9,597,115 103,026,178 362,694 962,694 116,235,255 116,235,255 3,022,969 332,538 500,001 74,714 253,085 2,006,824 0 6,190,131 0 0 0 0 4,114,980 1,912,780 0 28,492 6,056,253'I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED 91/92 ACTUAL 05/31/92 % ADOPTED 92/93 ACTUAL 05/31/93 O.'o FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 634,842 634,842 2,321,865 2,321.865 REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES COUNTY SOURCES STATE SOURCES OTHER SOURCES 64,590,356 84,419 49,864,380 956,078 44,845,817 73,419 36,777,846 23,820 69.43% 86.97% 73.76% 2.49% 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 47,207,023 91,459 '34,333,318 42,045 70.92% 108.34% 74.05% 4.66% TOTAL REVENUE 116,130,075 82,355,744 70.92% 116,235,255 83,995,710 72.26% EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGRATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,381,149 8,408,935 13,589,306 19,502,985 8,718,196 388,163 56,041,084 6,815,515 11,033,659 12,683,306 7,998,218 85.71% 81.05% 81.19% 65.03% 91.74% 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 62,040,042 8,530,194 12,070,249 10,788,578 9,597,115 95.35% 93.10% 70.95% 74.22% 100.00% 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,988,734 94,571,782 81.54% 115,872,561 103,026,178 88.91% FUND EQUITY-ENDING 141,341 (12,216,038) 362,694 (19,030,468)EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 END BALANCE 05-31-93 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32.467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102.788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 695.69 99.057.46 5,400,000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 13,745.03 13,745.03 0.00 0.00 10,016.00 10,016.00 3,729.03 3,729.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATER TOWER KING ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139.833.50 541.84 52.358.30 103,414.00 11,306.00 1,210,000.00 138,342.70 1.264,140.62 1,595,216.96 0.00 (1,210,000.00) 0.00 220,091.25 53,947.55 388,758.80 36,419.50 541.84 41.052.30 1.210.000.00 (81,748.55) 193.07 1,206,458.16 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT 9.209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 32,502.88 13.684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 (23,584.00) 23.584.00 0.00 34,339.10 21,523.71 309.73 11,934.70 2,247.19 428.21 1,706.95 75.00 552.00 101.69 9.209.59 16.725.08 12.463.96 10.279.42 54.236.08 24.282.50 508.181.74 102.50 29.744.43 10.979.17 13.684.67 706.83 6.160.02 20.944.74 10.467.20 11.684.73 8.506.51 975.52 0.00 4.200.00 33.166.71 2.514.28 85.020.81 30.643.23 56.344.93 67.175.73 58.955.15 0.69EXPENDITURES OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 5,042.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,065,802.92 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 15.100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALE JR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASK] HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 139,679.88 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,636,783.65 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 449,977.88 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 99,231.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 177,508.29 31,704.50 126,029.47 350,000.00 12,986,428.12 0.00 TRANSFERS 1992-93 0.00 (1,040,000.00) 1,040,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 360.00 308.00 3,186.12 1,324,021.19 1,467.44 1,402,561.03 90,132.72 69,829.10 33,483.50 31,407.49 172,358.45 2,719,765.90 32,719.27 9,996.55 11,336.60 266,876.97 47,414.75 30,750.70 58,393.54 452,428.05 46,190.00 81,930.16 5,301.21 856.50 56,937.59 16,124.00 37,780.79 63,400.00 2,029.00 10,741.62 4,169.45 80,824.00 147,406.49 4,506.61 15,580.10 4,600,671.11 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 70,201.51 45,000.00 65,525.00 9,145.80 51.266.50 30,687.59 END BALANCE 05-31-93 4,682.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,082.96 3,534.92 0.00 3,398,532.56 0.00 4,663,241.89 49,547.16 144,535.90 11,908.15 188,248.43 250,000.00 70,755.79 917,017.75 27,780.73 8,493.28 3.45 46,623.40 183,100.91 609,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,937,571.95 1,338.82 116,032.55 939,261.29 10,218.50 42,293.41 11,850.19 362,219.21 0.00 21,971.00 44,258.38 179,788.20 0.00 50,000.00 30,101.80 27,197.89 110,449.37 350,000.00 8,385,757.01 145,201.50 101,932.75 35,854.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 34,837.41EXPENDITURES INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31. 1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 394,674.74 716,110.50 INCOME 1992-93 545,656.64 656,181.64 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 91.099.89 END BALANCE 05-31-93 940,331.38 1,281,192.25 21,512,559.81 656,181.64 0.00 6,436,837.83 15,671,903.62LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C-SUBJECT: 1993-94 Budget I am submitting for your review a summary of all requested budget changes since the submission of the April 26, 1993 Tentative Budget document. These requests have been categorized by the major expenditure classifications as required by our chart of accounts. The final budget we are asking you to adopt is the same as the tentative budget with the exception of the changes listed herein. _______Operating Budget_______ Salaries Fringes Serv,Supp,Equip Desegregation Budget May 27. 1993 Additions Director of Human Resources Assistant Principal - Central High Communications Assistant CA time) Minority Recruiter Instructional Materials Center EPA Department Police Resource Officer 50,000 36,000 9,290 31,073 37,964 61,500 5,000 4,000 710 4,115 4,671 8,057 * 77,432 * Addition to original amount of $203,000 Additional Requests Administrative Salary Proposal Media Clerks/Computer Lab Assistants Lease Purchase Refinancing Property Insurance Premium Adjustment King Staffing 157,175 10,907 26,010 340,691 Totals 383,002 37,460 (428,459) (200,000) 100,000 (628,459) 544,133 A final document will be printed incorporating Board approved changes and the format revisions suggested by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 118,998 317,646 120,412 317,978 141,376 91,322 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,576 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,277,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 225,000 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,502,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 TOTAL 56,823,656 64,998.180 66,559,406 68,357,399 225,000 68,582,399 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL___________ SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,971 16,232 90,203 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11,000 84,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 REVENUE -STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN_________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL_______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________ ORPHAN CHILDREN_________ TRANSPORTATION__________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 22,037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,000 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 540 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 ________0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,540 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 TOTAL REVENUE- OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 45,472,609 28,585 95,588 613,166 737,339 103,123,807 48,670,684 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 46,367,563 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 .113,913,388 47,960,160 30,000 1,250,000 400,000 1,680,000 118,088,978 540 10,000 100,000 110,000 335,540 47,960,700 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 1,790,000 118,424,518LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL 2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4.557,572 12,571,785 12,571,785 120,253,164 56,996,869 7,312,664 14,598,558 17,053,677 6,646,769 0 102,608,537 4,369,442 \\2,57-\\,7a5 119,549,764 703,400 185,838 119,574 373,968 634,844 1,008,812 3,275,099 224,423 558,810 1,164,511 5,222,843 13,887,841 13,887\u0026gt;1 133,401,805 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 112,604,098 5,111,131 13,887,841 131,603,070 1,798,735 373,968 634,844 485,680 2,321,867 i2,807,547 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,278,796 14,278,796 134,471,434 65,063,011 8,862,732 17,012,939 14,236,764 9,597,115 500,000 115,272,561 6,764,930 14,278,796 136,316,287 (1,844,853) 485,680 2,321,867 0 962,694 962,694 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,075'388 67,397,356 8,934,265 18,207,812 14,638,463 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,048,019 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,034,429 (959,042) 0 962,694 0 3,652 3,653 335,540 383,002 37,460 544,133 (628,459) 336,136 336,136 (596) (596) 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,410,928 67,780,358 8,971,725 18,751,945 14,010,004 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,384,155 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,370,565 (959,638) 0 962,694 0 3,056 3,056Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary Actual 1991/92 Budget 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 TW 0115 0117 0130 0135 CERTIFIED REGULAR CERTIFICATED CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. STIPENDS SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS-SHORT SUBST. CERTIFIED LONG TER CERTIFIED TOTAL $8,212.70 $1,229,076.61 $871,099.40 $326,189.12 $56,324,204.58 $0.00 $1,743,639.54 $900,000.00 $0.00 $56,335,335.62 t57,4S!,W.7S $0.00 $453,431.31 $926,321.00 $0.00 $60,863,732.04 0120 0121 0124 0140 0145 NON-CERTIFIEO REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED MAINTENANCE CLERICAL OVERTIME SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SUBST. NON-CERTIFIED LONG NON-CERTIFIED TOTAL $15,076,554.61 $1,129,828.37 $91,812.91 $540,253.81 $28,557.67 $16,867,007.37 $16,818,713.84 $0.00 $0.00 $350,000.00 $0.00 $17,168,713.84 $15,209,953.76 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $416,844.45 $0.00 $16,763,743.49 TiTnr 0220 0230 0240 0250 0290 BENEFITS SOCIAL SECURITY TAX TEACHER RETIREMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREHE INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL $?\n5 75,^5. $0.00 $171,904.40 $3,036,037.39 $153,797.29 $60,097.43 $8,992,742.29 $7775377507 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 $73,462.00 $9,962,190.24 $6,882.48 $148,194.77 $4,349,655.31 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,268,023.46 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0321 0322 0323 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 0331 0332 0333 0334 PURCHASED SERVICES PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL PROG IMPROV PUPIL SERVICES_____________ STAFF SERVICES DATA PROCESSING SERVICES BOARD OF ED SERVICES OTHER PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC UTILITY SER-WATER/SEUAGE/ CLEANING SERVICES REPAIRS-BUILDINGS REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEH OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL-PAYROLL_____________ TRAVEL OFFICE EXPENSES $327,016.05 $13,309.42 $1,052,785.32 $44,070.20 $40.00 $7,529.35 $57,237.67 $91,162.34 $563,340.02 $2,651,690.07 $173,066.98 $0.00 $519,413.12 $470,552.36 $50,770.81 $23,214.29 $126,364.09 $710,448.27 $2,555.64 $92,165.12 ($80.00) $586,390.00 $1,000.00 $691,900.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $366,862.00 $70,000.00 $28,000.00 $3,531,500.00 $5,500.00 $15,000.00 $501,558.00 $596,964.28 $42,000.00 $18,464.00 $275,500.00 $562,036.00 $21,120.00 $73,600.00 $0.00 $621,800.00 $21,015.00 $761,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $752,500.00 $72,100.00 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $506,300.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $633,067.30 $24,160.00 $71,343.63 $0.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary BKAIBH 0542 0543 0545 0548 0550 0551 06177 0620 0630 0635 0640 0641 0642 0649 0660 0690 Page 3 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE EQUIPMENT VEHICLES SUPPLY CENTER VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE CAPTIAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL INTEREST DUES \u0026amp; FEES DUES \u0026amp; FEES - NCA INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE OTHER INSURANCE IMPROVEMENT TAX OTHER EXPENSES OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL Actual 1991/92 $836.27 $91,527.78 $1,350,643.15 $0.00 $152,106.60 $906,669.49 $3,959,731.36 $3,^93,324.59 $4,904,977.12 $54,716.42 $12,950.00 $1,196,236.20 $50,000.00 $1,817.08 $51,804.85 $8,971.34 $3,738,667.07 $13,413,464.67 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $0.00 $92,000.00 $1,489,020.00 $136,302.00 _________$0.00 $910,000.00 $3,120,046.84 Budget 1993/94 $0.00 $60,000.00 $926,742.00 $52,093.00 _________$0.00 $0.00 $1,738,382.50 $4,597,115.00 $5,000,000.00 $40,645.00 $26,000.00 $1,018,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $0.00 $4,690,713.00 $15,427,688.00 1^7753?^ $4,074,616.00 $4,785,507.40 $57,339.50 $17,000.00 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $15,000.00 $5,148,290.00 $14,552,527.90Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1132 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1191 1193 1195 1196 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 1352 1353 1354 1360 1362 1371 1392 1393 1410 1420 1430 1440 1445 1490 1550 1560 1570 1580 1595 1910 2111 2113 2114 2120 2121 Description FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY MAGNET SPECIALTY PROGRAM MIDDLEXJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET________ JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL STANDARDS BOYS ATHLETICS GIRLS ATHLETICS____________ FOOTBALL/HINOR SPORTS VOLLEYBALL BASKETBALL TRACK,TENNIS,GOLF \u0026amp; SUIMH BASEBALL OTHER REGULAR MULTI-ETHNIC PROGRAM TRAVELING TEACHERS________ ACCELERATED LEARNING ACCELERATED LEARNING SUBST ITUTES-1NSTRUCTI ON ITINERANT INSTRUCTION RESOURCE ROOM SPECIAL CLASS______________ HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL OTHER EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP MARKET ING/D1ST ED-EXPL BUSINESS ED COOP BUSINESS ED EXPL___________ BUSINESS ED-SKILL TR HEALTH COOP TRADE \u0026amp; IND-COOP TRADE \u0026amp; IND-EXPL TRADE \u0026amp; INO-SKILL TR YOUTH APPRENTICESHIP HOME ECONOMICS CONS/HMKG CAREER ORIENTATION________ COORD CAREER-COOP LOORD CAREER-EXPL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS WORKPLACE LITERACY OTHER ADULT EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION READING MATHEMATICS ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICE AREA DIRECTION SOCIAL WORK SERVICES PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES GUIDANCE SERVICES SERVICE AREA DIRECTION Actual 1991/92 $312,429.70 $3,107,993.07 $18,957,936.89 $24,950.47 $978,337.42 $8,134,324.61 ___________$0.00 $71,943.05 $429,684.81 $7,856,636.53 $42,226.16 $2,300.61 $42,098.02 $43,559.23 $47,638.98 $6,490.16 $42,794.32 $9,066.81 $8,946.68 $63,857.99 $690.88 $21,042.56 $2,283,175.79 $17,394.73 $1,393,301.78 $943,193.30 $2,065,293.61 $1,253,039.78 $255,077.13 $823,730.20 $14,151.72 $197,722.24 $2,869.04 $191,121.48 $853,847.88 $970,157.41  $58,755.33 $193,754.91  $619,807.20  $1,016,956.63 ' $41,764.48  $38,946.63 ' $670,989.72 ' $230,724.89 ' $201,795.03  $0.00  $437,414.74 ' $186,704.13  $18,949.50  $28,974.75  $25,545.75  $35,631.06  $930,948.93  $11,216.41  $288,660.42  $658,575.23  $967,023.83  $1,327,011.59  $11,321.52  $0.00  $145,479.23 \" $1,561,832.32 \" $8,639.40  Budget 1992/93 $1,479,804.31 $3,253,398.91 $21,904,944.99 $265,892.02 $0.00 $8,635,782.29 ___________$0.00 $212,863.97 $492,021.18 $8,264,041.10 $273,095.96 ___________$0.00 $44,620.00 $13,230.00 $49,680.00 $7,200.00 $45,540.00 $11,160.00 $10,800.00 $37,696.84 $0.00 $12,000.00 $2,275,181.26 $0.00 $1,096,370.00 $901,880.14 $2,189,284.37 $1,296,582.62 $240,565.63 $435,287.20 __________$0.00 $194,886.18 $0.00 $190,480.17 $575,813.91 $965,541.57 $50,996.02 $189,221.26 $537,358.99 $852,818.65 $46,025.56 ' $36,683.42  $664,130.37  $224,651.50  $203,203.43  $21,518.34  $404,251.48  $180,760.35  $39,221.06  $10,001.85 ' __________$0^' $0.00  $0.00  $280,068.49  $21,519.20  $320,000.00  $862,437.52 ' $646,481.75  $5,150.00 ' $0.00  $14,700.00  $2,475,037.42 ' $12,850.00  Budget 1993/94 $1,681,072.65 $3,328,323.45 $23,073,155.13 $173,979.01 $86,475.45 $8,790,806.29 $26,783.84 $440,972.56 $545,069.55 $8,780,756.57 $100,000.00 __________$0.00 $44,797.00 $4,798.20 $49,680.00 $7,416.00 $45,880.20 $11,354.40 $10,800.00 $18,697.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $1,332,756.42 $0.00 $1,111,585.20 $1,147,624,46 $2,268,606.18 $1,377,005.08 $324,980.11 $997,814.22 $5,705.28 $208,184.71 $0.00 $202,595.86 $652,853.50 $1,021,150.81 $31,974.81 $204,169.82 $558,050.96 $933,655.63 $119,623.23 $0.00 $734,449.69 $250,098.90 $215,630.04 $0.00 $427,317.98 $328,075.39 $2,280.00 $953.04 __________$0.00 __________$0.00 $245,468.62 $22,400.00 $12,000.00 $320,000.00 $1,102,804.02 $1,136,731.95 \u0026gt;5,150.65' $122,361.81 $123,025.50 $2,863,409.70 $10,850.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 5100 6000 Description BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI LITTLE RXK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1991/92 $7,950,100.01 $0.00 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $9,597,115.00 $700,000.00 $115,272,560.34 Budget 1993/94 $8,870,123.40 $1,000,000.00 $119,384,154.77 Page 3Jw/y \u0026gt;^enc(4 RECBIVBD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 2 3 1998 Off ICE QI- (JSESREGAWH WQHITOWMS July 23, 1998 TO: Board Of Directors FROM: THROUGH: ^Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent Of Schools SUBJECT\nFinancial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. 1I I J :'SiW *W#COMBINED\nSTATEMENT OF REVENUES^EXPENDITURES AND.tHANGESlN FUND BALANCE^^g jjr APPROVED 1996/97 RECEIPTS 06/30/97 % COLLECTED DRAFT 7 1997/98 RECEIPTS 06/30/98 % COLLECTEC REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40%. PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS ITOTAL-^^j^^^g^, REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION SUMMER SCHOOL WORKER'S COMPENSATION 46,211,535 4,150,000 25,553,182 170,000 400,000 160,000 250,000 625,000 100,000 77,619717\n45,086,233 4,744,367 25,194,504 169,094 404,117 160,511 241,088 301,827 117,968 76\n4'19\n707j 97.56% 114.32% 98.60%. 99.47%. 101.03% 100.32% 96.44% 48.29% 117.97% .^?98.'45% 49,248,043 4,650,000 26,202,284 170,000 405,000 160,000 260,000 350,000 108,000 W-8lt553^7i 48,632,501 5,266,906 25,148,513 185,618 525,161 176,515 303,653 559,105 120,587 4^80,918\n560' 98.75% 113.27% 95.98% 109.19% 129.67% 110.32% 116.79% 159.74% 111.65% a^'99\n22% 68,649 18,000 ^S:^86.649i 41,530,927 683,125 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,200,000 245,000 2,856,453 3,326,654 857,560 0 637,781 342,998 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND S^JTOT ^56:680X98\n30,000 200,000 0 741,261 i^?tS^97B26l\n67,890 20,113 98.89% 111.74% 68,000 20,250 69.255 101.85% fi^j^88,^3y ji^1Oil''56/o Wg^88,250: jiS^^69i255^ SS^8?48% 43,350,510 683,125 3,000,000 1,067,268 1,500,429 233,992 2,966,526 3,548,125 968,176 67,795 637,781 428,505 104.38% 100.00% 100.00% 106.73% 68.20%. 95.51% 103.85% 106.66% 112.90% 100.00% 124.93% 43,257,881 0 2,000,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 233,992 3,059,584 3,895,429 934,186 137,814 0 349,330 43,662,233 2,000,000 1,914,484 1,779,632 233,992 3,238,875 3,475,326 934,186 149,413 100.93% 100.00% 153.16% 98.87% 100.00% 105.86% 89.22% 100.00% 108.42% ^58352\n230j ^66r9T8\n216? 382,146 ^5^770)286? 109.39% |goiao% 213,031 824,092 ^^^^JO37^123 106.52%. 111.17% 28,000 250,000 0 850,000 IW7Q0O5 3,240 391,473 11.57% 156.59% 1,284,189 ^^fe\n678\n9p2^ 151.08% ^^48:84% T0TAL\nREVEN0E-0RERATING^^^^|^35.358a25?|li^5:997,iD63i|^Ppg73S[OW:fe87\n79S|g^0137-003]|lE(iro^ REVENUE-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS  lirf 6,508,656 16,620,205 6,557,858 16,422,402 100.76%. 98.81%. 6,439,580 16,776,091 6,838,643 18,159,205 106.20% 108.24% JOTAt-\u0026gt;--^a^g^g|^23.'128,86ia M22\n:98Pg60\ng^99.364 W^3\n2Y5\n67i: lg24\n997,848. ^07:68% TOTAL REVENUE 58,486,986 | .^158,977,323 | -ffgl00.31%[ '162,903,464'f ..165,434,852 | ^\nT101.557! APPROVED 1996/97 EXPENDED 06/30/97 9997rAND.1998 % EXPENDED DRAFT 7 1997/98 EXPENDED 06/30/98 % EXPENDEL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE 74,864,664 21,353,655 18,654,143 3,432,024 2,540,360 6,722,833 7,104,457 76,032,027 21,027,425 19,007,021 3,250,464 2,346,558 6,274,158 6,981,748 101.56% 98.47% 101.89% 94.71% 92.37% 93.33% 98.27% 78,786,916 21,757,036 19,736,390 4,206,694 3,321,203 6,817,039 6,136,091 78,377,854 21,180,016 20,804,218 3,921,906 2,186,168 7,007,446 6,129,738 99.48' 97.35' 105.41? 93.23' 65.82' 102.79' 99.90? J-0TAt5EXE\u0026gt;ENSES:QI?EBATIN(3^O|^)M672a3^|^g^19\u0026gt;bs}a^m8?$t^40^6i\n369\n|^39:6d7^7U|^^99:^83 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS 7,167,441 16,620,205 6,507,301 16,386,065 90.79% 98.59% 7,148,922 16,812,428 6,628,468 18,123,058 92.72? 107.80? (^3\n787i646\nW22\n893^ ^fe3.'961^50: .1^4.75i\n526, i^l03:30\u0026gt; ^TOTAeEXPENSES^I^^gl^^^^ .1|I58:459?78^ W57^812?766': S^64:722'?749: ^64358.872^ S^I^'9.785 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING 27,204 658,785 256,656 0 942,645\n^g^\u0026amp;42,645'. 1,164,557 658,785 256,656 745,679 1,334,319 ^^\n079\n998, (1,819,255) 1,075,979 745,679 1,334,319 0 260,743 4Og\n260,743i 745,679 1,334,319 992,002 2,163,976 ^^Jl 55,977^ JPROJECT I $16,900,000 BOND ISSUE SOUTHWEST WAKEFIELD EAST SIDE STEPHENS FOOD SERVICE CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $15,100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE DODD FOREST HEIGHTS MABELVALE JR MCCLELLAN OAKHURST M.L. KING ROMINE HENDERSON CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL REVENUES SALE OF PROP/MISC PROCEEDS-FIRE LOSS HENDERSON HENDERSON WATER GETTY GRANT DUNBAR PROJECT CENTRAL GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1998 BEG BALANCE 07-01-97 218,878.93 3,300.00 3,035.61 3,022,409.73 5,577.23 132.21 3,253,333.71 1,243.30 24,258.45 1,100.00 403,239.98 65,000.00 13,000.00 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 34,037.16 548,878.89 254,098.59 59,408.81 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 36,998.72 944,876.74 1)320,336.57 5.122.549.17 INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 END BALANCE 06-30-98 0.00 0.00 100.00 25,000.00 215,560.81 240,660.81 240.660.81 (1,401.00) (3,035.61) 11,555.00 1,899.00 1,755.00 5,577.23 207,323.93 0.00 0.00 3,020,654.73 0.00 4,436.61 0.00 20,786.23 0.00 4,568.82 3,232,547.48 (1,243.30) (2,465.35) (28,286.64) 2,060.25 (85.00) 4,835.00 1,000.00 24,185.04 0.00 19,988.97 1,100.00 15,899.94 36,713.36 15,060.25 6,915.00 4,835.00 1,000.00 101,512.52 254,198.59 5,222.90 0.00 1,804.13 0.00 387,340.04 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 596.85 10,000.00 25,596.85 599.84 20,000.00 0.00 58,222.20 447,366.37 0.00 54,185.91 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 9,400.16 0.00 (10,596.85) 0.00 305,618.18 0.00 36,998.72 1,149,840.70 1,255,379.20 0.00 427.916.93 0.00 4,935.293.05Ann Marshall From: Sent: To: Subject: Skip Marshall [marshall@arsba.org] Friday, May 17, 2002 9\n29 AM asbrown@aristotle.net Fwd: Legal Clips \u0026gt;From: JUndenwood@nsba.org \u0026gt;To: \"School Finance\" \u0026lt;schoolfinance@lists.nsba.org\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Subject: Legal Clips \u0026gt;Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:52:19 -0400 \u0026gt;List-Unsubscribe: \u0026lt;mailto:leave-schoolfinance-2941704S@lists.nsba.org\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Reply-To: JUnderwood@nsba.org \u0026gt;Status: \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Below please find this week's Legal Clips. Please note that if you are not \u0026gt;receiving Legal Clips directly into your emailbox and would like to, just \u0026gt;send me an email with subscribe in the Subject line. Thanks and happy \u0026gt;reading. \u0026gt;Julie \u0026gt;Julie Underwood \u0026gt;General Counsel \u0026gt;National School Boards Association \u0026gt;(703) 838 -6710 \u0026gt;junderwood@nsba.org \u0026gt; LEGAL CLIPS \u0026gt;A service of the National School Boards Association's \u0026gt;Office of General Counsel \u0026gt;May 16, 2002 \u0026gt;TOP STORY: U.S. Supreme Court rules that Child Online Protection Act's use \u0026gt;of \"community standards\" to define Internet material that is harmful to \u0026gt;minors does not violate First Amendment free speech protections. But the \u0026gt;Court remanded the case and allowed the injunction to stand. \u0026gt;See Technology: Ashcroft v. ACLU \u0026gt;TECHNOLOGY \u0026gt;The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act's (COPA) \u0026gt;use of \"community standards\" to define material harmful to minors does not \u0026gt;renderthe Act unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to material \u0026gt;disseminated over the Internet. The Court concluded that COPA's reliance on \u0026gt;\"community standards\" to identify what material \"is harmful to minors\" does \u0026gt;not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment \u0026gt;purposes. The Court, however, expressed no view as to whether COPA violates \u0026gt;the First Amendment for reasons other than its use of \"community standards\" \u0026gt;and remanded the case on those issues, allowing the injunction on \u0026gt;enforcement to stand pending further proceedings. \u0026gt;Ashcroft V. ACLU No. 00-1293 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2002) Link to full \u0026gt;opinion \u0026gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=000 \u0026gt;\u0026amp;invol=00-1293 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=00 \u0026gt;0\u0026amp;invol=00-1293\u0026gt; \u0026gt;link to case summary: http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm 1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;LIABILITY \u0026gt;Ty Hull, a student at Wellston High School in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, \u0026gt;suffered an intra-cerebral hemorrhage while participating in a football \u0026gt;scrimmage between Wellston and Bethel High School's varsity teams. As a \u0026gt;result of his injury, Ty was permanently disabled. Ty's mother filed a \u0026gt;negligence suit against the school district. The Oklahoma Court of Civil \u0026gt;Appeals ruled that under state law the school district was immune from \u0026gt;liability for Ty's injury because it occurred while he was participating in \u0026gt;an interscholastic event sponsored by the school district. The court \u0026gt;rejected Ms. Hull's attempts to get around the state's immunity law by \u0026gt;recasting her claim as either negligent or wanton hiring, retaining, \u0026gt;training and supervising of its football coaches. Further the court found \u0026gt;that even if Ms. Hull could prove that the school district was guilty of \u0026gt;negligent or willful and wanton hiring, retaining and supervising of the \u0026gt;coaches that conduct was not the proximate cause of Ty's injury. The court \u0026gt;pointed that the sole proximate cause of Ty's permanent disability was the \u0026gt;injury he received while participating in the scrimmage. \u0026gt;Hull V. Wellston Independent School District, 2001 WL 1836289 (Okla. App. \u0026gt;December 14, 2001) \u0026gt;STUDENT RIGHTS AND DISCIPLINE \u0026gt;A new invention called the \"smart locker\" would allow principals across the \u0026gt;country easy access to lockers and even monitor how often and when students \u0026gt;use them. Opened with \"swipe cards,\" rather than padlocks, these lockers can \u0026gt;be operated from a computer in the central office where they can be opened \u0026gt;individually or all at once. \u0026gt;The Christian Science Monitor by Patrick Jonsson link to full story\n\u0026gt;http\n//www.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http\n//v7ww.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Several students and their parents filed an action challenging the City of \u0026gt;Waterbury School District's (CT) dress code. The claims centered on the \u0026gt;students' and parents' liberty and privacy interests. The court rejected \u0026gt;both claims, concluding that the school district's interest in preventing \u0026gt;disruptions in school caused by disputes arising from taunts and envy over \u0026gt;jeans outweighed the students' right to wear the clothing of choice. Turning \u0026gt;to the parents' claim, the court rejected the contention that parental \u0026gt;autonomy is absolute. It stated that the parents' right is subject to \u0026gt;reasonable restrictions within the school context. The court concluded that \u0026gt;\"[a]bsolute exercise of parental autonomy within the public school program \u0026gt;would very likely cause total chaos as conflicting parental visions \u0026gt;collided.\" \u0026gt;Byars v. City of Waterbury, 2001 WL 1830017 (Conn. Super. 2001) \u0026gt;RELIGION \u0026gt;The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Louisiana challenging \u0026gt;federally funded sexual abstinence programs. The primary allegation is that \u0026gt;the state has used tax dollars to promote religion. The ACLU contends that \u0026gt;Louisiana has spent money on \"Christ-centered\" skits, religious youth \u0026gt;revivals, biblical instruction, and prayer vigils at abortion clinics. The \u0026gt;suit focuses on what the ACLU contends is a misuse of public funds. \u0026gt;Washington Post by Ceci Connolly \u0026gt;link to full story\n\u0026gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http\n//www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Education writer Richard Rothstein's editorial on the voucher case pending 2\u0026gt;in the Supreme Court questions whether the outcome will really have any \u0026gt;significance whatsoever. He states in part, \"Advocates and opponents of \u0026gt;vouchers await the ruling with great excitement or dread. But the decision \u0026gt;may be less important than they think. Whatever the ruling, constitutional \u0026gt;policy will change little because the government already supports religious \u0026gt;schools by providing them with busing, textbooks and remedial aid. But \u0026gt;the main reason the court's ruling will have little impact is that private \u0026gt;schools' attraction as a way to improve education is beginning to wane.\" \u0026gt;The New York Times by Richard Rothstein \u0026gt;link to full story: \u0026gt;http\n//www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/educ \u0026gt;ation/15LESS.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://wwzw.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/edu \u0026gt;cation/15LESS.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;DISCRIMINATION \u0026gt;The NAACP is threatening to file complaints against 22 states that have \u0026gt;failed to respond to their challenge to address racial disparities in public \u0026gt;schools. Last November, the civil rights group asked states to target 14 \u0026gt;areas which needed improvement, including the over-representation of \u0026gt;minorities in special education programs, under-representation in gifted and \u0026gt;talented programs, and disparities in testing and graduation rates. The \u0026gt;NAACP plans to file racial discrimination complaints against states and \u0026gt;school districts or begin \"proactive ballot initiatives\" in elections. The \u0026gt;states targeted are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, \u0026gt;Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, \u0026gt;North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, \u0026gt;Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. \u0026gt;USA Today by Tamara Henry link to full story\n\u0026gt;http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;A Utah parents' group and the Navajo Nation are in agreement in their \u0026gt;opposition to the \"Red Devil\" mascot of Springville High School. The \u0026gt;parents' group objects to the mascot, believing it represents the devil and \u0026gt;evil as a symbol of the school. The Navajo Nation is opposed to the use of \u0026gt;the term, \"red devil\" which they find derogatory and offensive. \u0026gt;ABC News by Dean Schabner link to full story: \u0026gt;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;When James Ranieri, the boys' varsity basketball coach at James O'Neill High \u0026gt;School (New York), was ousted from his coaching position in favor of a \u0026gt;younger candidate, he filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment \u0026gt;Act (ADEA). The school district contended that he did not have a valid claim \u0026gt;because both individuals were protected by ADEA, both being over the age of \u0026gt;40. The federal district court found that the 10-year age difference was \u0026gt;sufficient to state a claim of age discrimination. However, the court \u0026gt;dismissed Mr. Ranieri's suit because he was unable to refute the legitimate, \u0026gt;non-discriminatory reason articulated by the district for not rehiring him. \u0026gt;Specifically, Mr. Ranieri could not show that the stated reason for \u0026gt;replacing him, i.e. the team's failing record, was a pretext for age \u0026gt;discrimination. \u0026gt;Ranieri v. Highland Falls Fort Montgomery School District, 2002 WL 745576 \u0026gt;(S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2002) \u0026gt;The Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the \u0026gt;University of Michigan Law School admissions policy case. The court ruled, \u0026gt;based on Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, that the use of race in a \u0026gt;schoors admissions process for the purposes of achieving racial diversity \u0026gt;in its student body is constitutional. The court went on to find the law 3\u0026gt;schoors admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of \u0026gt;diversity across the student body. As a result it concluded that the policy \u0026gt;passed constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. \u0026gt;Grutter v. Bollinger, 2002 FED App. 0170P (6th Cir. May 14. 2002) link to \u0026gt;full opinion: \u0026gt;http://caselaw. Ip.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;no=02a \u0026gt;0170p \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;no=02 \u0026gt;a0170p\u0026gt; \u0026gt;link to case summary: \u0026gt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/iawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;SCHOOL REFORM \u0026gt;Charter school owners are coming under fire from Arizona state officials. \u0026gt;The schools are privately run as non-profits businesses. They use public \u0026gt;state education money but have fewer regulations than traditional district \u0026gt;schools. Two years ago, lawmakers gave state boards the power to withhold \u0026gt;state money to bring errant charter schools into line. This year a number \u0026gt;of charter schools face fines, and some may face closure, because of late \u0026gt;audits, missed testing requirements and financial fraud. Officials are \u0026gt;considering discipline against 31 of 288 charter school owners. \u0026gt;The Arizona Republic by Pat Kossan \u0026gt;link to full story: \u0026gt;http://wvw.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://wv7w.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Nearly every student at Summit Academy, a charter school, in Akron, Ohio is \u0026gt;reported to have a special education problem, even though most of them \u0026gt;didn't carry that designation when they were enrolled in public schools. \u0026gt;Allegations that Summit Academy has intentionally misidentified students \u0026gt;with special education disabilities have drawn unscheduled audits from the \u0026gt;Ohio Department of Education at two schools. In question is whether millions \u0026gt;in tax dollars that flow into the eight Summit Academy charter schools in \u0026gt;Ohio have been properly obtained and used. \u0026gt;The Beacon Journal link to full story: \u0026gt;http://vAvw.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;LEGAL SYSTEM \u0026gt;A professor in the Georgia state university system, filed a state-court suit \u0026gt;against the board of regents and university officials alleging that the \u0026gt;officials had violated state tort law and 42 U.S.C. 1983 when they placed \u0026gt;sexual harassment allegations in his personnel files. The defendants removed \u0026gt;the case to federal district court and then sought dismissal. Conceding that \u0026gt;a state statute had waived Georgia's sovereign immunity from state-law suits \u0026gt;in state court, the state claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in \u0026gt;the federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state waives its \u0026gt;Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to \u0026gt;federal court. \u0026gt;Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, No. 01-298 \u0026gt;(U.S. May 13, 2002) \u0026gt;Link to full opinion: \u0026gt; \u0026gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=000 \u0026gt;\u0026amp;invol=01-298 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case8ivol=00 \u0026gt;0\u0026amp;invol=01-298\u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Copyright @ 2002 the National School Boards Association. All Rights Reserved 4\u0026gt;To edit member settings, view archives, or unsubscribe login at: \u0026gt;http://spirit.sparklist.com/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=schoolfinance 5FINANCIAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR Committee Members: Loretta Hendrix, Edward Jacobs, Jane Markham, Vernon Markham, Rev. Charlie McAdoo, Danny Sullivan, Toni Sullivan, Gary Tucker, Ashvin Vibhakar (Chairman), and Harry Ware. Also present at all of the meetings were Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones of the Little Rock School District. The committee wishes to express its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones. They significantly aided in our understanding of the Little Rock School Districts finances, patiently answering numerous questions and prompt-ly providing projecltiioonnss rreeqauueesstteedd bbvy tthhee ccoommmmiitttteeee.. T...h..e.. ..c..o..m....m...i.t.t.e..e.. ..f.e..els that without their assistance, the task of the committee could not have been accomplished. After lengthy discussions and deliberations, the committee has developed the following list of concerns and recommendations. These concerns and recommendations are based on our understanding of the charge to the committee, which was to evaluate the financial matters and not the merit of the desegregation plan - except where financial matters are the overriding issues. CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 1. The committee feels that the proposed plan cannot be implemented without additional resources and would require a significant increase in millage. Given the current state of public opinion regarding public schools in Little Rock and Pulaski County, we feel that a significant, voluntary increase in millage would be difficult to obtain. In addition to this general negative attitude, the plan itself incorporates ob-two items which aggravate this polarity: a. b. A perceived disparity between the basic educational programs provided by magnet and non-magnet schools, resulting in the publics perception of inferior nonmagnet education and excessive magnet cost, and. The \"informed\" publics negative perception of academic progress grants. 2. While the committee feels that a millage increase is needed, this option appears difficult or unlikely unless public perception is improved. TTie best source for this improvement would be increased parent and teacher involvement. For this reason, the committee recommends that the District and Metropolitan Supervisors Office immediately form two parent/teacher committees for the following purposes: a. A committee to evaluate the proposed programs, both prior to implementation and then during their operation. This committee would make recommendations to the district for implementation, scale down, or elimination of the programs. b. A commiftee to improve the public image and perception of the school district. In addition to helping with passage of necessary millage increases, this com-mittee could also assist in soliciting corporate grant sponsors. 3. The committee recommends that the District increase its efforts to seek and obtain outside sources for capital expenditures and special programs. While it may be desirable to establish a separate group of concerned business people, the committee noted in 2.b. would be a good place to start. -Page 1- 4. Certain programs created under the old desegregation plan and many proposed under the new desegregation plan appear to be expensive. It further appears that there may be existing schools where the operational costs are too high relative to the desegregation impact achieved. The committee feels that a comprehensive evaluation and review of all proposed and existing programs and schools is needed. In order to accomplish this, the committee recommends that a review board, as noted in 2.a., be established. This review board should be composed of school administrators, teachers, and parents. The purpose of the committee should be to make certain that the programs and schools being provided, best utilize the scarce dollars available. Since public acceptance of the proposed plan is so critical to the plans success, the involvement of parents in this review structure is considered essential. 5. New programs, once implemented, should include a system for monitoring the ongoing costs and benefits. If it is found that programs are not achieving the stated objectives, it is recommended that some mechanism be established whereby the funds can be diverted from ineffective programs, to those where they could be better utilized. 6. The costs of existing and proposed magnet schools, specifically the Aviation Magnet, need to be carefully studied further. The Aviation Magnet should be implemented only if outside resources, such as corporate donations, can be secured for constructing and equipping the school. The feasibility of obtaining grants or other funding sources to cover operational expenses of the school should be investigated by the District and Committee noted in 2.a. Otherwise, the potential cost of such a magnet school is unjustifiable, considering the scarcity of available resources. 7. The committee recommends that: i) the near-term need for Aviation and Zoo Magnet Schools be re-examined, ii) the District should prioritize its plans of action, and iii) the District consider serious cost-cutting where feasible (such as closing schools which are not cost effective). 8. The committee recommends that the decision-making process for significant financial issues should include consultation with District personnel and other individuals possessing relevant professional training and expertise. We specifically recommend against such decisions being made in isolation by educators/administrators who are not equipped with such expertise. Examples of such matters would include the settlement, as well as new programs which require a large commitment of resources. The committee also feels that the administrators/educators should maintain regular contact with the financial managers of the School District regarding all major cial decisions and their potential impact on the Districts finances. egi fir inan- The current proposed teacher salary plan could result in a large deficit in the near future, assuming that such plan is accepted by the teachers. Unless new revenues are forthcoming to support the proposed teachers salaries, the effect of that package could be to make financial resources unavailable for the proposed new programs. 9. The constant fighting between teachers and administrators has created a negative public image for both groups. Both teachers and the public need to be better informed about the Districts financial situation, in terms of both revenues and expenses. This can be accomplished via the noted committees and involvement of teachers and pa- rents in the financial decision-making process. This could help regain teacher trust, their demands, and make future re- add a measure of discipline and public oversight to venue increases less difficult to pass. -Page 2-. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, ,992 L. 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LRSD desegregatioifto cost taxpayers $26 million a year by 96- 97 VA too. . . ................................ multicultural education proBY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The cost of the Little Rock School Districts dese^ega- tion plan will be $19.1 million next year and almost $26 million by 1996-97, according to budget projections filed Mon- ^y in federal court i * The documents, submitted  Discipline problems on rise, districts teachers say in survey 1B to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, spell out publicly for the first time the anticipated costs for about 30 de- j^gregation-related programs and the districts share of those costs. Wright has set a July 17 hearing on district budget matters. The judge had required the district to submit the projections because of her concern that it was quickly depleting itsrstate desegregation financing. The desegregation-related programs include the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, the early childhood education program for 4-year-olds. double-figram and majority-to-minority interdistrict transfer students. The state pays part of desegregation costs because of a 1989 financial settlement nego- nanced elementary incentive The setUemTnt was schools, a teacher recruiter, the state. The ^tt ement was magnet schools.,, school secur- , approved by the 8th U.S. Cir ity officers, the\nexpansion of a \u0026gt; See SCHOOLS/. Page 5A Schools The states financial obliga- the settlement decreases each tion under .5^!untU 1996-97 when the year until laao-vi amount owed will be $683,12b. the state money for  Continued from Page One cuit Court of Appeals in 1990. The state is to pay the district $8.9 million next year as a result of the financial settlement, plus $2.5 million toward the education of the majority- to-minority transfer students. The state also is providing a $20 million loan, $1.5 million of which will be available next year. The maximum available is I $6 million every two years. The  loan does not have to be re- i paid if the average score of I black students reaches 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000. The Little Rock districts share of the $19.1 million in desegregation costs next year could range from $5 million to $7 million, depending on the loan. As a result of using a $4.5 million loan, the districts share of the $16.9 million desegregation costs this school year was about $2 million. District officials acknowledged in 1989 that state financing would not cover the total cost of the desegregation programs. However, lu. majority-to-minority students is expected to increase to $4.5 million that same year. It is now $1.8 million. The total cost of the deseg- regation programs a Monday included projected in 1996-97 is projected S25.9 million. The most expensive of the desegregation programs is the double instructional financing per student at the seven incentive schools. The financing is double the amount spent on instruction per child at the non- and non-magnet .VlUllLiaj ----------- *  ,, . operating budgets for the next five years. The revenues range from $113 million next year to $127 million in 1996-97. Those revenues assume the passage of a 5-mill tax increase in Sep- tember 1993. Jim Ivey, the district mana- oer of support services, said Monday night that the budget assumption should not be taken as an announcement ot a millage election. The assump- tion was made to show that in 1993 to 1995, the district must find new revenues, either through budget cuts or tax increases. an 8-mill Voters approved tax increase in April 1990. incentive schools. Incentive schools are supposed to use the extra money to improve the achievement levels of black pupils and attract white pupils to the hard- to-desegregate buildings. The incentive schools cost will be $4.4 million next year. District officials noted in the documents Monday that the mandatory double financ- exceed the actual at the the ing will costs for the programs incentive schools next year. Besides the desegregation budgets, the documents filed 1 1 i t t10. ^e desegregation settlement was based on the old plan and not the new plan. The 'committee was not clear as to exactly how the settlement amount was derived. However, the committee strongly feels that the desegregation settlement is highly inadequate. It further appears that the new plan includes certain capital expenditures which were not previously considered in the settlement. 11. The committee feels that the formula by which the State of Arkansas determines the tax revenue allocated to each school district is unfair. i It particularly penalizes Iso the districts with the school districts with a heavy population density. It is al the heaviest population density that have the desegregation problems, which normally result in heavier transportation costs. The committee recommends that the Metropolitan Supervisors Office study this matter further and consider recommending or requiring a change in the State allocation formula. -Page 3-students' pennies add up kansas Democrat (gazelle TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 .'  to $10,000 Donations help LRSD pay part of substance abuse insurance installment BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazelte Education Writer When students in Little Rock were asked to chip in their pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters to help pay for their own substance abuse insurance, they came through with a whopping total. Little Rock School District students brought at least $10,000 in loose change to class in February, said Wendy Salaam, executive director of the city of Little Rocks Fighting Back Initiative*. Salaam said the money raised through the classroom campaign  Pennies for Pasta: Your Change for Change  helped the city pay a quarterly installment of $45,205 one week earlier than its Monday due date. That insure!\ncoverage will The classroom has been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund-raising effort called * Fight Back! Insure the Children.' continue for at least three more months, Salaam said. Though she wont know until 'riiiirsday exaclly how much the classroom campaign ha.s raised, the figure already calculated means the effort has been a big success, she said. The Pennies for Pasta theme refers to the offer of  a free 1 uncli at the Olive Garden restaurant in Little Rock for the class raising the most money. eamnamu t, c'^ssroom campaign has campaign been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund- raising effort called Fight Back! Insure the Children. The insurance plan began with great fanfare in 1991, when a group that included then-Lt. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and former Arkansas first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton announced a campaign to raise money to cover every child enrolled in the Little Rock School District for sub- stance-abuse treatment and counseling. Tucker is now governor. Clinton, now the nations first lady, chairs a national task force on health-care reform. Donations from parents lagged from the start and reached a critical stage last fall, when city officials threatened to suspend coverage by the second semester because of a shortage of money. They decided to offset the donation shortage by using cit.v funds to pay for the opening six months of coverage for the 1992 93 school year, with coverage slightly trimmed to give fundraisers a better chance to make less-expensive quarterly payments for the remainder of the year. The cutbacks dropped the annual premium from $373,000 to $277,910. Shortly afterward, officials began the classroom campaign to supplement other fund- raising efforts. The classroom campaign ended Friday. But the fight for money to continue the program through the summer isnt over. Another $45,205 is due bv May 31.\u0026gt; WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1993 3 school districts divide $41,506 . The Pulaski County Board of Education voted to transfer $41,506.96 from the County Common School Fund to the three local school districts Tuesday. The distribution, based on enrollment:  Little Rock School District  $18,302.58.  North Little Rock School District  $7,117.10. , ..  Pulaski County Special School District $16,087.28. SATURDAY. JANUARY 8,1994  6 I Collectors office trying to learn - h: where $816,788 is supposed to gd 1 BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Pulaski County collectors office has $816,788.79 in tax money that it doesnt know what to do with. Officials havent handed the money out yet because they arent sure where the money is supposed to go. They discovered the problem after distributing $151,099,613.06 in taxes to municipal governments and school districts last month, then finding tax money left over in the bank. Jim Osburn, Pulaski County Collector, said he doesnt know why that happened. But he suspects the problem occurred during the transfer between two different computer systems. The collectors staff is trying to track the system to find where the error cropped up. The money will be sent, with interest, to the appropriate municipal government and school district accounts. Osburn said the money is not missing, and the receipts add up to the proper amount. A spread sheet showing the difference in what was recorded and what was actually collected shows the majority of the $816,788.79 would go to the three Pulaski County school districts. More than half that amount  $465,495.09  would appear due the Little Rock School District, according to the spread sheet. But Osburn cautioned that the disbursement figures may not be correct, and officials must still check the numbers to make sure. The collectors office was the target of a criminal investigation leading to three arrests for theft before Osburn took over in 1992. The investigation led to guilty pleas by former Collector Ed Maples and his chief deputies, Margaret Kay Wyse and Mitchell H. McCollum. A Pulaski County grand .jfiry report in 1993 found no problems with procedures in place since then. The money has been sitUng in the bank at least a monthT\nI---------------------------------------------------------------- IArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1994 State aid for LRSD tops projection by $339,332 \nDemocrat*Gazette Staff The Little Rock School District got some good news about its 1994-95 budget woes. When the state Department of Education released $25 million more in preliminary Minimum Foundation Program Aid for the states 312 school districts Monday, the Little R\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_433","title":"Four year old program, enrollment","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Childhood development","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Four year old program, enrollment"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/433"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTEL: Jul 21,92 16:53 No .002 P.Ol SCHOOL Bald Badgett Franklin Garland Cloverdale Mitchell Rockefeller Goyor Springs Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Wilson Woodruff Ish Watson 7/21/92 FOUR-YEAR-OLD ASSIGNMENTS 1992-93 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 9 9 27 9 9 9 25 9 11 9 9 18 9 9 9 9 9 7 27 2 9 8 29 9 0 9 1 18 9 9 1 9 IQ 16 54 11 18 17 54 10 11 18 10 36 18 18 10 184: (1^ I ! t I LITTT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSICNMP.MT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 January 18, 1994 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Polly Ramer, Office of Desegregate on Monitoring Sue Pedersen, Student Assignmnet Office, LRSD 3990-91 Four-Year-Old Enrollment WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL ISH 1 11 12 ROCKEFELLER 19 32 51 WASHINGTON 18 21 39 SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE FAIR PARK FRANKLIN CARLAND GEYER SPRINGS KING MABELVALE MITCHELL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE WASHINGTON WATSON WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL based on total capacity *AS OF 8/31/95 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ASSIGNMENTS FOR 1995-96* ENROLLED CAPACITY 36 36 36 18 18 54 36 72 18 36 72 18 18 18 54 36 54 36 18 36 BL 20 16 19 8 8 25 17 34 9 16 36 7 9 9 22 18 28 19 10 18 348 NBL TLT VACANCIES % BLACK 7 16 7 7 6 9 19 5 5 16 27 8 2 3 25 8 22 8 7 16 223 SEP 27 32 26 15 14 34 36 39 14 32 63 15 11 12 47 26 50 27 17 34 571 rar- J 1995 0/fice of Oessgregaiicn 9 4 10 3 4 20 0 33 4 4 9 3 7 6 7 10 4 9 1 2 149 56 45 53 45 45 47 48 48 50 45 50 39 50 50 50 50 52 53 56 50 49LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS FOR 1995-96* ENROLLED SCHOOL CAPACITY BL NBL TLT VACANCIES % BLACK FRANKLIN 100 53 59 41 53 GARLAND 40 25 25 15 63 MITCHELL 40 29 29 11 73 RIGHTSELL 40 19 20 20 48 ROCKEFELLER 60 40 18 58 67 TOTAL 280 166 25 191 89 60 based on total capacity J (1 SEP Office of Desesregauofi Monitoring *AS OF 8/31/95 6 0 0 1 2 7LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD THIRD DAY REPORT BLACK WHITE TOTAL P1 P2 11 P3 13 TOTAL 13 19 32 SEP 1 1995 4 4 3 8/31/95 4 7 5 8 OftiCQ of Desegregation MonitonngLittle Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting February Tl, 1997 REGISTRATION Registration for all new and kindergarten smdents to the LRSD and those smdents opting for transfer options began January 21, 1997, and continued through January 31, 1997. The following information will provide an update concerning kindergarten registration. KINDERGARTNERS Tear 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Black 890 851 910 Non-Black 600 557 546 Total 1490 1408 1456 Attachment 1 is a Projection by School for the 1997-98 school year as of February 21, 1997. These numbers do not include NLRSD and PCSSD or Four-Year old students. Assignment letters for all kindergarten, new smdents, and smdents requestins options will be mailed to parents on March 5, 1997. The secondary desegregation transfer application period will be March 10, 1997 - March 28, 1997. Assignment notification letters will be mailed to parents on April 9, 1997. Four-Year old applicant numbers will be available for the board meeting in April. Notification letters to parents of Four-Year old applicants will be mailed on April 18, 1997. LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE The LRSD Biracial Committee met on February 4, 1997. The committee unanimously voted to accept the new bylaws proposed by the comminee. Attachment 2 is a copy of the newly adopted bylaws. The next meeting will be held March 4, 1997, at 6:00 p.m.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_461","title":"Green factors","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Green factors"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/461"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRE: MEMORANDUM April 10, 1992 Supreme Court Decision Concerning Desegregation of DeKalb County, Georgia Public Schools.________ On March 31, 1992, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Freeman v, Pitts, a school desegregation case from DeKalb County, Georgia. The Freeman decision reaffirms seve-ra-t-impOLr.arLt_s.choo.l-deseg.rega-t-ion principles set forth in prior Supreme Court opinions. including that sehoo-1dis-fer-icts operating under -court- supervision -have an aff-i-rmatiwe-duty-ho- eliminate-all vestiges- of illegal segregation to the extent practicable and to comply-in- good faith with--a-l-l cou-rt- orders\nthat, when evaluating whether a school district should be declared unitary, the district court should review the six so-called \"^reen^ factors student assignments, faculty, staff, transportation, physical facilities. and extracjurricular^achivrties  to ensure the effects of prior discrimination have been remedied\nni that the quality of education for minority students is an important ----T- r-.i n, I. . . - . .. __   -lit,. MM II and relevant ^r^uiry_ when^^detejinji^ng whether a school district, or aspects of its operations, should- herelea.sed from c 0 ux-1spe^w.i s i o n. At the same time, the Court ruled that school districts are respons-ib-lef-or~remedying resegregation that results from- demographic- conditrons-thafct h eydrd- \"not'cause. and that court-ordered school desegregation plans are not perpetual, but rather are \"intended as a temp5jLaj:y_measure.\" Specifically, the Court's holding in Freeman reject^d the Elevenths Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the-DeKalb County School System (\"DCSS\") could not be declared with respect to some areas of its operations-while unitary the court maintained supervision of other aspects of its- administration which still were not free from the ef-feets of prior -de-wr-e segregation. Instead, the Court held that the transition from a coxrttsupervisedr- segregated- school system, to a \"unitary\" system free of court scrutiny may beaocorap-lished incxementally, in a series of steps, where the trial court finds that to be an appropriate process. It ruled, however, that prior to releasing particular areas of a school district operations from court supervision, a district court must ' s- consider ^hree factor'^\nGwhethex_tbe-sehoel-dist-rict-has comp.lied_ f u 1 ly ,wi.th. the^ court-o-rdered- deseg-regationp-1 ainthe a reas of sChoo 1' administration- to- be-'re-tingu-Mhed-f-ronj-fehe '^o^^-tjA-juxi-Sdiction\n^^ether judieia 1\" supervistoni-sneeded in an_.axea--thatotherwise could~be- released, to-bring-about compliance with the plan in other areas of the school -a- district's operations\nand,'-Tihether the_achoo-l-district-has demonstrated~agood faith commitment-to- the- court' s desegregation orders and the U.S.-eonstitntron. 2Although the Supreme Court generally affirmed existing desegregation principles, the Freeman decision could have an impact on current desegregation cases. The precise impact, however, will \\ay from district to district depending on the facts of the case and the status of desegregation. I. The Court's Decision The DCSS is located in a suburban county east of Atlanta. It serves approximately 76,000 students in over 90 schools. In 1969, a federal district court approved a desegregation plan developed by DCSS which was designed to remedy the effects of prior jure segregation. Under this plan, DCSS closed several historically African-American schools, implemented a neighborhood school student assignment policy, and established programs to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. Between 1969 and 1986, the demographics of the school district changed dramatically, as migration by African-American families -into DeKalb County caused the African-American student population to rise to a level of 47%, with most African-American students attending predominantly African-American schools in the southern portion of the County. Most white students in DCSS went to predominantly white schools in the northern portion of the County. In 1986, DCSS sought an end to court-ordered desegregation. The District Court found DCSS-had-eliminated 3 w he vestiges of segregation in student assignments, physical f aciLi-ties, extracurricular activities, and transportation. In particular, the court held DCSS had no. role in bringing about resegregation of the county schools or related population shifts. The court found DCSS had fulfilled its constitutional Obligation to achieve maximum feasible desegregation in this area and the three others, and that DCSS should be free to manage these operations on its own. The court retained jurisdiction over DCSS, however. because it foi^d that additional measures were^necessary to-..integ.tate-facxiLty and staff _and .-tO-\u0026amp;giLa.l-ze ,,resQurrAs . Itfll The U.S. Court of Appeals for the E1 eye^nth Circuit reversed, holding that release_from_a^desegreg-ation order cannot-be achieved incrementally. Only after a school district has eliminated discrimination simultaneouslyin-a-1-1areas identified as appropriate by the-trial court can a school district become unitary, the Court said. It added that all tinges of discrimination ^ust be eliminated simultaneously for a period of not less than thr.ee-years. so as to_d.emo.nstrate both a district's good-f-aith- and a likelihood that ..the. district will not regress once court monitoring ends. The Court of Appeals declared DCSS had an aftirmativecdiuty to take all steps necessary to eradicate segregation including segregation solely attributable to demographic changes. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that \"a federal ^^y-^court in a school desegregation case has the discrAti nn to 4order an incremental or partiaL-withdrawal-of its supervision andcontrol. \" The Court rej,ected as \"formalistic\" the notion that a district CQiii_mu.s.t_ma_i.nt.ain,actiy_e. supervision over every aspect of school operations unti_l_a school district has become unitary in alL.respects. It ruled that a district court choosing to approve incremental withdrawal of its supervision must consider three questions before issuing such an order: (1) \"whether there h^s t^en complete and satisfactory pt^e^/M^dLcomplijn^ the court-ordered desegreqatioD_p_Lan in the rea ,.of schoo.]operations where-supervisien-wi-l-l-be-w-tthcdrawn\nf (2) whether...iudic_ial control in the area to be released \"is necessary or practicable to -achieve compliance.' with the plan in other areas of school district-operations\nand (3) whether^ the school district has demonstrated a good faith commitment tc^ court's decree, and to its duties under the Constitution,* which were the basis for the Court's intervention in its affairs. Regarding the District Court's findings that DCSS was once desegregated, and that its resegregation resulted solely from demographic changes, the Supreme Court declared: \"Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under..no. duty.to. remedy imbalai^e_jcaused-by,demogr-apiiio\u0026lt;-feaGfeors.\" The school_di.strict had- met-its burden, the Court said, to show that \"current [conditions of racial] imbalance [were] not traceable . . [its] prior violation.\" . to 5The Supreme Court sent the Freeman case back to the Court of Appeals to consider further proceedings to resolve at least two issues: i_rs^, whethe-r .rniirtQj.dered rslipf in t-h? 6 ( a ^e_a. o^taLtieii,t_aasi9nmen.ts_is_need.e\u0026lt;i_.in-..o-rdeE=^.to.- cu re-other 1 the-jCQurt' s desegr-ega^ionplan\nand s. , whetherDGSS-.has .[made] an affirmative commitment to comply in good faith with the of [the] desegregation-pTsn-so-ihat-parent s-r-atudents and the public.have_assurance-aganstfurther~TiT5ir]ries' or stigma. \" II. Freeman's Implications As noted above, the precise impact of the Freeman decision will vary from district to district depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We can, however, provide some general guidance regarding the meaning and possible impact of the case. Set forth below are answers to some frequently asked questions. (1) Did the FtegmgQ decision change the law of desegregation? Answer: While it clarified some new issues, the Freeman decision reaffirms basic desegregation principles established since Brown. First, the Court reaffirmed the principle that school districts that once operated racially dual school systems have \"an affirmative duty\" to-e-liminate the vestig_es.r_.of segregation \"to the extent practicable.\" Second, 6the Court reminded lower federaL .courts that in determining whether a school system is unitary. it is to review all \"facets.\" of district operations, including student assignments, faculty, staff, physical facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities. And finally, the Court reiterated'' what it said last year in Board of Education of Oklahoma Citv Dow'^1, namely, that court-ordered desegregation plans are not perpetual and that, in order for school systems to be relieved of federal court supervision, they must demonstrate \"a good faith commitment to the entirety of a desegregation plan so that parents, students, and the public have assurance against-further injuries or stigma.? While the Court previously had not addressed the issues of incremental unitariness and demographic changes, these holdings were foreshadowed in the Court's 1976 decision in Pasadena Board of Education v, Spangler and already had been stated as the law in some federal courts of appeals. (2) Does the Court's ruling regarding \"incremental\" unitariness mean that districts can be relieved more easily from federal court jurisdiction? Answer: Possibly. It is certainly true that the V , Court held that the Court of Appeals' blanket rule that school systems must eliminate all vestiges of segregation in all the so-called \"Green* factors simultaneously was wrong as a matter of law, and this could mean that some school systems could be relieved of federal court supervision more readily, on a 7step-by-step basis. without ever simultaneously satisfying all of the Green factors. However, the Court also ruled that the Gre^--factors-are \"interrelated,\" and that federal courts cannot withdraw theix. supervision, of. school, districts in one Green area if continued supervision is required to ensure compli^ce_ in_other areas. school system of supervision Also, whether a court can relieve a . regarding one Green factor depends upon whether the school system can satisfy the court of \"its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" (3) Does the Court's ruling regarding demographic changes in DeKalb County mean that school systems are no longer responsible for residential segregation that occurs implementation of a court order? after the Answer: The answer to this question depends upon the facts of each case. In Frogman, the Court ruled that the DeKalb school system, which it noted achieved desegregation in the area of student assignments in the first year of the remedy, was noJi- responsible for racial segregation that occurred since the entry of the decree because- there was no' Xi^?,^ce that the school system\"'IraTd 'caused thedemogr-a-phic changes--or contributed to* the-'reseqreq3ti\"on''b'f\"''its'\"s'ch'ooIs The Court made it clear, however, that such evidence does exist, the school systenL,Md-LU-he.~hA.T-d- responsible-unle^s-'it carries the burden of showing that it did not-cause'that 3resegregation. This point was made particularly clear in the con,qurring opinions of Justice Souter (\"[rjacial imbalance in student assignments caused by demographic change [residential segregation] is\nnot insulated from federal judicial oversight where the demographic change..i,s_jLtseLf-caused---by_past segregation) and Justice Blactoiun (\"[i]t is not enough. however, for DCSS to establish that demographics exacerbated the problem\nit must prove its own policies did not contribute\") . (4) Does the Court's reference to the quality of education expand school district responsibility under desegregation plans? Answer: It has been clear since the Supreme Court's 1977 decision in\nMilliJ\u0026lt;en,' v. Bradlev that. in addition to correcting the racial isolation that results from past segregation, school systems a.re..required .to_correct.^the \"educationaL deficits,\" as well. By \"educational deficits,\" the Court was referring to inadequacies in the education provided to minority children that are inherent in a dual system. Speci-f rc~educa-tional_ programs ..a.nd...jsurr iculum..of f erings may be required to remedy these \"inadequacies\" or \"deficits.\" Since Ml1liken. the-dower federal court^'have ordered school systems and state governments to fundatvariety-of*educational programs, such as early childhood education, smaller classes. etc., to correct educational deficits flowing-from past segregation. 9It was on the basis of these well-established principles that the Freeman Court ruled that,[when a federal court considers whether__t_o_relinquish ^supervision over all or part of a school district' s.-operations ,-\"quality of education [is] a legitimate inquiry in determining-[a school district's]* compliance with the desegregation decree.\" It was for this reason that the Freeman Court pointed with approval to the district court's order requiring DeKalb County to equalize the allocation of resources between predominantly African-American and predominantly white schools. (5) What does a school district have to prove to be unitary? Answer: As the Supreme Court said in its Oklahoma City decision last year and reiterated this year in Freeman. in order to be nitar a school_ system iSu^ demonstrate that it. has_ eliminated thg.^es.tj.ges^f-seg-geg-a-t-jon^-to the- eafae-nt P^spfe.icable, that it will nut rotti-rn tVTftS\" 'foiiiitfr discjriminatocy ways, and that it has compliad with- oou-rt-egder s in good faith. With respect to the demonstrating ^ood fai^, * the Court added in Freeman that J_'B.ystpm has* tin bad.,aitb'*.ti,ft=Ju3drr-STrf^ci?gnt. Instead, a schooli system must demonstrate \"jwa affi-gfliafc-ive ommi-bmen'\u0026amp;^o-'compf'ry ini go In order for a district court to find a school* district unitary with respect to one of the Green factors. the 10Court established a three-part test, specifically: \"whether there- hasbeen~f tri-l-a-nd~s-afe-irS-f-ac-to-E.y~GorapJ-Lan.cg_wiiiL-_tlie_iecree in thos-easpeets_athesystem-where-superv-i-s-ienis te-Joe withdrawn\n\" (2) whether retention of judicialcontro-t-is necessary or practicable to- achieve-comp-l-ianee~withthedec-ree in nf thp.-5w^hnn1-\u0026lt;\nyrt-pTn-\n\" and (3) \"whether the school district-h-asdemonstratedto--thepub-l-ic-and*tcthe paren-t-s-andstirdent3~of~the once disf avored' race\", 'its'good  aith-eommitme\u0026amp;ttote-he-who-leo-ftheGou-rt-'-sdecree^.and to tho5.ep-r-ovisions of the law and the constitution -that, were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" (6) Does the Freeman case mean that school systems which are receiving state desegregation aid for plans including educational components will lose that support? Answer: The Freeman decision signals strong support for those court orders that have required state governments to provide support for educational programs as part of a desegregation decree, since the Court emphasizes in Freeman the importance of ensuring that the \"educational vestiges\" of segregation have been eliminated. It is these \"vestiges\" that state governments have been ordered to help correct, and the Freeman case reaffirms the appropriateness of this approach. School districts that are examining their position under Freeman should pay particular attention to this aspect of the case. 0326m 11 Op E  391 U.S. 430 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. 1689 ! 11 1 1 t rr 1 391 U.S. 430 Charles C. GREEN ct al. V. Cite as 88 S.Ct. 1089 (1968) den of establishing that additional time to abolish segregated public school systems is necessary to public interest and 1 c f I 1 j f 1, rs )- is i- )- tr t. d IB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA et al. No. 695. Argued April 3, 1968. Decided May 27. 1968. Proceeding attacking as deprivation of constitutional rights a freedom of choice plan allowing each pupil to public school he would attend. TThhee is consistent with good faith compliance at earliest practicable date. Const. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. 3. Schools and School Districts =13 In context of longstanding state-imposed segregated public school system. fact that in 1965 school board opened doors of former white school to Negro children and of Negro school to white children under its freedom-of-choice plan permitting each pupil to choose :tul o ino United Eastern States District Court for the District of Virginia entered judgment adverse to plaintiffs. The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 382 F.2d 338, affirmed in part and remanded and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brennan, held that where in three years of operation of freedom of choice plan, not a single white child had chosen to attend a former Negro public school and 86% of Negro children in system still attended that school, the plan did not constitute adequate compliance with school board s responsibility to achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on nonracial basis and board must formulate new plan and fashion steps promising realistically to convert promptly to desegrated system. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated insofar as it affirmed district court and case remanded to district court for further proceedings. 1. Schools and School Districts \u0026lt;^13 Unitary, nonracial system of public education is the ultimate end to be brought about under Supreme Court de-i : - I*! ''\u0026gt;w Si school he would attend did not establish board had taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. U.S. cisions declaring unconstitutional segre- C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 4. Constitutional Law =220 School boards operating state-com-pelled dual systems of public education\n,,e affirmative duty of taking whatever steps might be necessary to convert have to unitary system in which racial dis-crimination would be eliminated. U.S. C.A.Const. Amend. 14. .5. Schools and School Districts =13 In determining whether respondent school district by adopting its freedom-of- choice plan met its obligation to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert from dual system to unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated, it was relevant that adopting of freedom of choice plan did not come until ten years after second Brown decision directing prompt and reasonable start of desegregation. 6. Schools and School Districts G=13 Governing constitutional principles precluding dual systems of segregated public education no longer bear imprint TH n c: irvTi O rriI cn gated school systems established under compulsion of state laws. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 2. Schools and School Districts =13 Constitutional rights of Negro chil-dren require school officials to bear bur- 88 S.Ct.106Va i of newly enunciated doctrine and delays elimination of unconstitutional dual system are no longer tolerable. 1. Schools and School Districts =13 Public school plan failing to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and 3 II jiii k' Sil! * h I I'flj lil'ii' 1.1 If\n1-' i 1690 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER effective disestablishment of dual system of segregated schools is intolerable. 8. Schools and School Districts =1.3 Time for mere deliberate speed in elimination of segregation in public schools has run out. 9. Schools and School Districts =13 Burden on school board today is to come forward with plan that promises realistically to work to eliminate segregation in public schools and promises realistically to work now. ence method. 391 U.S. 430 for the apparently less effective 15. Scliools and School Districts =13 Any plan adopted to disestablish state-imposed segregation in public schools must be evaluated in practice and federal district court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. lol it- - 10. Schools and School Districts \u0026lt;=13 Federal district courts have obligation to assess effectiveness of proposed plan to achieve desegregation in public schools. h\n 11. Scliools and School Districts ==13 Effectiveness of proposed plan to desegregate public schools must be assessed in light of circumstances present and options available in each instance. 16. Schools and Schixil Districts =1.3 In desegregating a dual system of public education, a plan utilizing student \"freedom of choice is not an end in itself but is only a means to constitutionally required end, the abolition of system of segregation and its effects, and, if it proves effective, it is acceptable, but, if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve that end. i W.f  12. Scliools and School Districts @=13 It is incumbent upon school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation in public schools. 17. Scliools and School Districts \u0026lt;5=13 School officials have continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary nonracial public school system. i is! t ( It b l' \u0026lt;1 . sb -1, I .-J 13. Scliools and School Districts =13 Federal district court in assessing effectiveness of proposed plan to desegregate public schools must weigh claim of school board in light of facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. 14. Scliools and School Districts =1.3 Where federal district court finds school board to be acting in good faith anj its proposed plan has real prospects for dismantling state-imposed dual system of segregated education at earliest 18. Schools and School Districts =13 Where freedom of choice plan offers real promise of converting state- imposed dual system of segregated public schools to unitary nonracial system, there may be no objection to allowing such device to prove itself in operation, but if there are reasonably available other ways, such as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, \"freedom of choice must be held unacceptable. 19. Schools and Sclrool Districts =13 Where in three years of operation of \"freedom of choice plan, allowing each pupil to choose public school he would attend, not a single white child had chosen to attend former Negro public school and 85% of Negro children in system still attended that school, the practicable date, then plan may be said to provide effective relief, but if other plan did not constitute adequate compli- more nromising courses of action are ance with school board s responsibility to promising open to the board, that may indicate lack of good faith or at least place heavy burden upon board to explain its prefer- achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on nonracial basis and board must formulate new plan and t I I I I .  t. te-. r-i  ''1^: . 1 391 U.S. 433 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. cite as 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1988) 1691 fashion steps promising realistically to convert promptly to desegregated system. 4k i? 431 Samuel Tucker, Richmond, Va., for petitioners. Frederick T. Gray, Richmond, Va., for respondents. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D. C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 740 and 805) the \"school system serves approximately 1,300 pupils, of which 'i40 are Negro and 550 are White. The School Board operates one white combined elementary and high school [New Kent], and one Negro combined elementary and high school [George W. Watkins]. There are no attendance zones. Each school serves the entire county. The record indicates that 21 school buses11 serving the Watkins school and 10 serving the New Kent schooltravel overlapping routes throughout the county to transport pupils to and from the two schools. HJIi 4 li W-'i  - - S Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question for decision is whether, under all the circumstances here, respondent School Boards adoption of a \"freedom-of-choice plan which allows a pupil to choose 432 his own public school constitutes adequate compliance with the Boards responsibility to achieve a system of determining admission to the non-racial basis \u0026lt; public schools on a  * * \" Brown v. Board of Education * \" of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294, 300-301, 75 S.Ct. 753, 756, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (Broum //). Petitioners brought this action in March 1965 seeking injunctive relief against respondents continued main- The segregated system was initially established and maintained under the compulsion of Virginia constitutional and statutory provision.s mandating racial segregation in public education, Va. Const., Art. IX,  140 (1902)\nVa.Code  22-221 (1950). These provisions were held to violate the Federal Constitution in Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, decided with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 487, 74 S.Ct. 686, 688, 98 L.Ed. 873 (Brown /). The respondent School Board continued the segregated operation of the system after the Brovm, 433 decisions, presumably on the authority of several statutes enacted by Virginia in resistance to those decisions. Some of these statutes were held to be unconstitutional on their face or as applied.* One 51 r tenance of an alleged racially segregated statute, the Pupil Placement Act, Va. school system. New Kent County is a rural county in Eastern Virginia. About one-half of its population of some 4,500 are Negroes. There is no residential segregation in the county\npersons of both races reside throughout. The school Code  22-232.1 et seq. (1964), not repealed until 1966, divested local boards of authority to assign children to particular schools and placed that authority in a State Pupil Placement Board. Under that Act children were each year automatically reassigned to the school previ- system has only two schools, the New Kent school on the east side of the county ously attended unless upon their applica- and the George W. Watkins school on the tion the State Board assigned them to west side. In a memorandum filed May another school\nstudents seeking enroll- 17, 1966, the District Court found that ment for the first time were also as- I. E. g., Griffin v. County Scliool Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 81 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256\nGreen v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 304 F. 2d 118 (C.A.4th Cir. 1962)\nAdkins v. School Board of City of Newport News, \u0026gt; 148 F.Supp. 430 (D.C.E.D.Va.), affd, 240 F.2(l 325 (C.A.4th Cir. 1957)\nJames V. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (D.C.E.D.Va. 1959)\nHarrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 100 S.E.2d 030 (1959). \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; ITI SITI  nr5 o s 3 I it fe- 4 d ! i!  '11  I5\n U! IL 1692 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 391 U.S. 433 I I f- f  i\u0026gt; signed at the discretion of the State Board. To September 1964, no Negro pupil had applied for admission to the New Kent school under this statute and no white pupil had applied for admission to the Watkins school. The School Board initially sought dismissal of this suit on the ground that petitioners had failed to apply to the State Board for assignment to New Kent school. However on August 2, 1965, five months after the suit was brought, respondent School Board, in order to le- main eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a freedom-of-choice plan for desegregating the schools. Under that 434 plan, each pupil, except those entering the first and eighth grades, may annually choose between the New Kent and Watkins schools and pupils not making a choice are assigned to the school previ- i\" * ously attended: first and eighth grade * * * also to set up procedures for pupils must affirmatively choose a school, periodically evaluating the effectiveness After the plan was filed the District choice Court denied petitioners prayer for an injunction and granted respondent leave to submit an amendment to the plan with respect to employment and assignment of teachers and staff on a racially nondis- criminatory basis. The amendment was duly filed and on June 28, 1966, the District Court approved the freedom-of- choice plan as so amended. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en 382 F.2d 338, affirmed the F banc, District Courts approval of the freedom- of-choice provisions of the plan but remanded the case to the District Court for entry of an order regarding faculty 435 which is much more specific and more comprehensive and which would incorporate in addition to a minimal, objective time table some of the faculty provisions of the decree entered by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, affd en banc, 380 F.2d 385 (1967). Judges Sobeloff and Winter concurred with the remand on the teacher issue but otherwise disagreed, expressing the view that the District Court should be directed * * * of the [Boards] freedom of choice' [plan] in the elimination of other features of a segregated school system. Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, Va., 382 F.2d 326, at 330. We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 1003, 88 S.Ct. 665, 19 L.Ed.2d 598. i*\u0026gt; J ^4 i I' IP. 11/ \u0026lt;  : . - p- -i  A*.?.I 2. Congress, concerned with the lack of progress in school desegregation, included provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with (he problem through various agencies of the Federal Govern- in ent. 7S Stat. 246. 252, 266, 42 U.S.C. 2(X10c ct seq., 2000d et swp, 200011-2. In Title VI Congress declared that No person in the United Stales shall. on the ground of race, color, or national origin, he excluded from partieipatiou in, he denied the benefits of, or be subjected to diseriinination under any program or .activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C.  2000(1. The Dciiartruent of Health, 3^r1u\u0026lt;.'ation, and Welfare issued regulations covering racial discrimination in federally aided school systems, as directed by 42 U.S.C.  2000(1-1, and in a statement of policies, or guidelines, the Department s Office of Education established standards according to which school systems in the process of desegregation can remain qiinlified for federal funds. 45 CFR  80.1-80.13, 181.1-181.70 (1067). Free- dom-of-choice plans arc among those considered acceptable, so long as in oper- ation such a plan proves effective. 45 CFR  181.54. The regulations provide that a school system subject to a final order of a court of the United States tor the desegregation of such school * * system with which tlie system agrees to comply is deemed to be in compliance with the statute and regulations. 45 CFR See also 45 (IFR  181.G.  .80.4(c). See gcncrnlly Dunn, Title VI, the Guide- lines and School Desegregation in the South, 53 Va.L.Rev. 42 (1067)\nNote, 55 Gco.L.J. 325 (1066)\nComment, 77 Yale L.J. 321 (1907). 3. This case was decided per curiam on the basis of the opinion in Bowman v. County Scliool Board of Charles City County, 382 F.2d 326, decided the same day. Certiorari has not been sought for the Bowman case itself.391 U.S. 437 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO.. VA. Cite fts 88 S.Ct. 1089 (1908) 1693 ti j  bii The pattern of separate white and \"Negro schools in the New Kent County school system established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern OIVU Vi OV14VW of segregation to which Broivn I and Brown II were particularly addressed, and which Brown I declared unconstitu- tionally denied Negro school children equal protection of the laws. Racial identification of the systems schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operationsfaculy, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities. In short, the State, acting through the local school board and school officials. or- ganized and operated a dual system, part ............ . .J__*.  white and part Negro.' [1,2] It was such dual systems that 14 years ago Brown Z held unconstitu- tional and a year later Brown II held must be abolished\nschool boards operating such school systems were required by Brown II to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. 349 U.S., at 301, 75 S.Ct. at 756. It is of course true that for the time tern.  i school problems. Id., at 299, 75 S.Ct. at In referring to the personal in- 756. terest of the plaintiffs in admission to immediately after Broion II the concern was with making an initial break in a long-established pattern of excluding 436 practicable on public schools as soon as nondiscriminatory basis, we also noted a that [t]o effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of ob- stades in making the transition * * \u0026gt;\u0026gt; Ne- gro children from schools attended by white children. The principal focus was on obtaining for those Negro children courageous Yet we Id., at 300, 75 S.Ct. at 756. emphasized that the constitutional rights of Negro children required school officials to bear the burden of establishing that additional time to carry out the ruling in an effective manner i.s necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. Ibid. We charged the district courts in their review of particular situations to consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a -n  * enough to break with tradi- tion a place in the white schools. See, ., Cooper V. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 e. g., Under Brown S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5. // that immediate goal was only the first system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the 437 defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. Id., at 300-301, 75 S.Ct. at 756. [3, 4] It is against this background that 13 years after Brorm II commanded the abolition of dual systems we must n J Ci. TU ni inra 52 Jf \u0026lt;3 J A * The transition to a uni- step, however. tary, nonracial system of public education was and is the ultimate end to be brought about\nit was because of the \"complexities arising from the transition measure the effectiveness of respondent School Boards freedom-of-choice plan to achieve that end. The School Board contends that it has fully discharged its obligation by adopting a plan by which i student, regardless of race, may svstem of public education freed of every -------- , ................. .... freely choose the school he will attend. to a X------ , racial discrimination that we prtivided for \"all deliberate speed in the imple- The Board attempts to cast the issue in its broadest form by arguing that its X 7 \\ r^rinpinlpq of Brown 1. its broadest form by arguing mat ns ST^ffsT at 299-301, 75 S.Ct. at 755. freedom-of-choice plan may be faulted Thus we recognized the task would neces- aarily involve solution of varied local ment as only by reading the Fourteenth Amend- universally requiring compul- g ,1 I 4-1 iw I: 1694 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 391 U.S. 437 Bl a I 'LW, - - \u0026gt; it I I sory integration, a reading it insists the wording of the Amendment will not support. But that argument ignores the thrust of Brown //. In the light of the command of that case, what is involved here is the question whether the Board has achieved the racially nondiscrimina-tory school system Brotm II held must be effectuated in order to remedy the established unconstitutional deficiencies that Brown II commanded school boards to bend their efforts.'* [5-9] In determining whether respondent School Board met that command by adopting its freedom-of-choice plan, it is relevant that this first step did not come until some 11 years after Broivnl was decided and 10 years after Brown II directed the making of a \"prompt and reasonable start. This deliberate per- I i 39 of its segregated system. In the context petuation of the unconstitutional dual of the state-imposed segregated pattern system can only have compounded the of long standing, the fact that in 1965 the Board opened the doors of the former white school to Negro children and of the Negro school to white children merely begins, not ends, our inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. Brown II was a call for the dismantling of well-entrenched dual systems tempered by an awareness that harm of such a system. Such delays are no longer tolerable, for the governing constitutional principles no longer bear the imprint of newly enunciated doc-trine. Watson V. City of Memphis, supra, 373 U.S. at 529, 83 S.Ct. at 1316\nsee Bradley v. School Board, City of Richmond, Va., supra\nRogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265. Moreover, a plan that at this late date co th at U1 di p! T tl ti i) li i d t c i t I 1 complex and multifaceted problems would fails to provide meaningful assurance of 1 arise which would require time and flexibility for a successful resolution. School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual system.s were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to 438 prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is also intolerable. The time for mere deliberate speed has run out, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 256, the context in which we must interpret and apply this language [of Brown II] to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered. 3 -i Si, Ft if.'? , I - : 7  \u0026lt; I it. t i . .. : t.i pv *f4 convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. See Cooper v. Aaron, supra, 358 U.S. at 7. 78 S.Ct. at 1404\nBradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Va., 382 U.S. 103, 86 S.Ct. 224, 15 L.Ed.2d 187\ncf. Watson V, City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 83 S.Ct. 1314, 10 L.Ed.2d 529. The constitutional rights of Negro school children articulated in Brown I permit no less than this\nand it was to this end 439 Goss V. Board of Education of City of Knoxville, Tenn., 373 U.S. 683, 689, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 1409, 10 L.Ed.2d 632. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now. ^13 \"i S 4 5 S i 4. We bear in mind that the court has not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimina-tion in the future. I^)iiisinna v. United .States. 3S0 U.S. 145, 154, 85 S.Ct. 817, 822, 13 L.Ed.2d 709, Compare the remedies discussed in, e. g., NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding \u0026amp; Ury Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, GO S.Ct. 203, 84 L.E'(U219\nUnited States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 0,5 S.Ct. 254. 89 L.Ed. IGO\nStandard Oil Co. v. United States. 221 U.S. 1, 31 S.Ct. 502, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 834. See also Griffin v. County Scliool Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 232-234, 84 S.Ct 122G, 1233- 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 25G. Ai .jt 1- 1   1 ? 5 *5 - V\n4 37 591 U.S. 440 GREEN v. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. Cite ns 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968) 1695 Is [10-15] The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in d 1, \u0026gt;t I / d achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation\nthere is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the op- lions available in each instance. It is tion of Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443, at 449, 88 S.Ct. 1697, at 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 727. [1618] We do not hold that freedom of choice can have no place in such a plan. We do not hold that a freedom- of-choice plan might of itself be unconstitutional, although that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, 440 it g HI 61 tv 11 e e ? r 4 - incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system at the earliest practicable date, then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith\nand at the least it places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less all we decide today is that in desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing freedom of choice is not an end in itself. As Judge Sobeloff has put it,  Freedom of choice is not a sacred talisman\nit is only a means to a constitutionally required endthe abolition of the system of segregation and its effects. If the means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end. The school officials have the continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary, nonracial sys- tem.  Bowman v. County School  effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state- Board of Charles City County, 382 F. 2d 326, 333 (C.A. 4th Cir. 1967) (concurring opinion). Accord, Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F.2d 178 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1968)\nUnited States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, supra. Although the general experience imposed segregation has been completely been such under freedom of choice to date has removed. See Raney v. Board of Educa- ness as a as to indicate its ineffectivetool of desegregation, there tl :ti \"n pl .ij \"Th 3- Sil cj:\u0026gt; M 52 co wl j- i,'. .'*1 fj IS*.' (SO 5. Tlie views of the United States Commission on Civil Hights, which we neither adopt nor refuse to adopt, are as follows: Freedom of choice plans, which have tended to perpetuate racially identifiable schools in the Southern and border States, require affirmative action by both Negro and white parents and pupils before such disestablishment can be achieved. (b) During the past school year IlOOi!10(i71, as in the previous year, in some areas of the South, Negro families with children attending previously all- white schools under free choice plans wcre targets of violence, threats of vio- Tliere are a nnnihcr of factors which have prevented such affirmative action hy substantial numbers of parents and pupils of both races: (a) Fear of retaliation and hostility from the white community continue to deter many Negro families from choosing formerly all-white schools\nlence and economic reprisal by white persons and Negro children were subjected to harassment by white classmates notwithstanding conscientious efforts by many teachers and principals to prevent such misconduct: (c) During the past school year, in some areas of the South public officials improperly influenced Negro families to keep their children in Negro schools and excluded Negro children attending for- I  7^]9 \u0026lt; '9  *1 ! I 1! Si i\n! ,1 f 1 f I S- A \u0026lt; is\nHl 1696 may 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER well be instances in which it can serve as an effective device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation 441 program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, non-racial system there might be no objection to allowing such a device to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, freedom of choice must be held unacceptable. [19] The New Kent School Boards \"freedom-of-choice plan cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to effectuate a transition to a unitary system. In three years of operation not a single white child has chosen to attend Watkins school and although 115 Negro children enrolled in New Kent school in 1967 (up merly all-white schools from official func- tiun.s\n(d) Poverty deters many Negro families in the South from choosing formerly nn-white sebools. Sonic Negro parents are embarrassed to permit their children to attend such schools without suitable clothing. In sonic districts special fees are asae.sse\u0026lt;l far cauraes which arc avail- ai)lc aniy in the white scliaols\n(e) Irnproveinonts in facilities and equipment * * have been instituted in nil-Negro .scliools in some school districts in a manner that tends to discon rage scdiools. Negroes from selecting white Southern School Desegregation, 19G6- 1907. at 88 (1907). Sec id., at 45-09\nSurvey of School Desegregation in the Southern and Border States 1965-19G0, at 30-44. .51-52) U. S. Commn on Civil Rights J9CC). 6. In view of the situation found in New Kent County, wh^re there is no residential segregation, the elimination of the dual school system and the establishment of a unitary, non-racial system could be readily achieved with a minimum of administrative difficulty b.y means of geographic zoningsimply by assigning students living in the eastern half of the county to the New Kent School and those living in the western half or the county 391 U.S. 440 from 35 in 1965 and 111 in 1966) 85% of the Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Watkins school. In other words, the school system remains a dual system. Rather than further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents 442 with a responsibility which Brown // placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a white school and a Negro school, but just schools. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it affirmed the District Court and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. to the Watkins School. Although a geographical formula is not universally appropriate. it is evident that here the Board, by separately busing Negro children across the entire county to the Negro school, and the white children to the white school, is deliberately maintaining a segregated system which would vanish with non-racial geographic zoning. The conditions in this comity present a classical case for this expedient. Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, supra, n. 3, at 332 concurring opinion). Petitioners have also suggested that the Board could consolidate the two schools, one site (e. g., Watkins) serving grades 1-7 and the other (e. g., New Kent) serving grades 8-12, this being the grade division respondent makes between eleinen- tary and secondary levels. Petitioners contend this would result in a more efficient system by eliminating costly duplication in this relatively small district while at the same time achieving immediate dismantling of the dual system. These are two suggestions the District Court should take into account upon remand, along with any other proposed alternatives and in light of considerations respecting other aspects of the school system such as the matter of faculty and staff desegregation remanded to the court by the Court of Appeals. I I 391 U. Artli The GO c of m schoo Court sas d appea F.2d grant tice I deseg sistir and 1 in di. quatc syste estab erati' in a Negr at al verse Cour 1. Aj choic prop issue plaii dent boar gate was cidei peak 1?Statement of Intention to Establish Green Factor Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9, 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. Establish committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas: 1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement FEB 9 1995 Ofic3 QI Oe\nicC. The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. B. C. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April.Statement of Intention to Establish Green Factor Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9, 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. B. C. Establish, committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas: 1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. pzy'CMvmztlti. fTimpfrnmp. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April.! Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1995 I Itu Copyrigw O Uttle Hock Newspaoera. '\"O- I Long negotiations end as district, NLR teachers agree on contract BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Education Writer North Little Rock teachers finally have a tentative contract, five months into the school year. The Classroom Teachers Association settled for a 2,9 percent raise with conditions in a meeting with North Little Rock School District negotiators Wednesday, Im pleased with the settlement and I think the teachers will be, too, said Louene Lipsmeyer, the unions president and chief spokesman for its negotiating team. The two sides began negotiating the one-year contract last summer in what Lipsmeyer said was the longest process she could remember. The contract still must be ratified by the school board and union membership to take effect, Lipsmeyer declined to reveal the teachers original salary proposal, but she said the unions last offer was a 4 percent raise. The teachers group accepted a 2.9 percent increase, retroactive to the start of the school year in August 1994, with the stipulation that teachers will make more money if additional revenue is collected. For each $82,500 collected above revenue projections, another $50 will be added to each teachers annual salary. The contract contained a similar arrangement for the last three years, Lipsmeyer said. Other sticking points involved extra pay for teachers who spend extra time at work. While most teachers salaries are based on 187 workdays, some teachers, such as athletic coaches, receive supplemental pay because they come to school early for practice or stay late, or both, Our policy says those positions had to be negotiated, Lipsmeyer said. We had asked for a list of those positions but were never able to get it or find out the number of extra days pay they were getting. The most contentious point, however, was the school boards proposal to increase the stipend for high school drama teachers from 4 percent to 15 percent. Board members felt those teachers give much more of their time than others. We felt that was way too much of an increase over what was proposed for other teachers, Lipsmeyer said. But the union agreed to a one-year-only 15 percent stipend for the drama teachers, on condition that the next contract be more equitable for all.\\ I, f \u0026gt; (L^tzx Ji (rfc^ Jrs hVl Jt Mj JUcv c bb n* 9 ' 5*  b a s k - i * . \u0026lt;' f'?\n,'1 - i : J ' t ij J Ms J ^1 . -^1 'M tj :t L-! /'Mii   V j fl i J? \u0026gt;f \u0026gt;' ^5 rs .:3 .i I 'liI Arkansas Democrat 7^ ((jazelk FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1995 iZCtk Williams proposes 7 panels to assess integration advance DY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democraf-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams proposed Thursday calling OU committees of em- ployee.s and community members to research how well the school district meets its desegregation obligations. Under Williams plan, the district would establish seven committees of 10 to 15 teachers, ad- niinislralors and residents. Those panels would assess the district's progress in eliminating all vestiges of what was once legal racial segregation and dis- crimination schools. in the public That work will help the district identify what must be done before it can ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to release the district from federal court supervision, Williams told members of the school board Thursday night. Wright is presiding in the district's I2-year-old school desegregation lawsuit. She monitors the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Committee members would be paid for the extra work, William.s said. That would cost the district from $12,000 to $15,(X)0 per committee, or as much as $10.5.000 overall. 'rhe committees would be given six weeks to conduct research and submit reports to the board. Dr. Russ Mayo, the districts comniitlee plan on the U.S. Supreme Courts so-called Green factors. The high court has said in other desegregation cases that federal courts must consider a districts efforts in those ar- ea.s before releasing the district from supervision. The school board is considering paying Williams a bonus of 5 percent of his annual base salary of $115,(X)0 for each area in which the district is released from court supervision. For example, if Wright finds that the districts staff is racially balanced. Williams would get a bonus of $5,750. Achieving all the proposed goals would net him more than $50,000 in bonuses. The board delayed voting Thursday on the superintendents incentive pay until possibly the Feb. 23 board meeting, Board member Katherine Mitchell said she disagreed with a proposed incentive to give the superintendent a 5 percent bonus for every 5 percent increase in white students in the district, up to 50 percent white. District enrollment is 35 percent white and 65 percent black. Mitchell said she didnt think the goal was attainable, and she would rather pay Williams for closing the disparity gap in test scores for black and white students. In other business Thursday, the board:  Voted to rebuild Chicot El- associate superintendent for de- ementary School, damaged by ar- segregation, would oversee the son last year. The school will be committees. Each would be co- rebuilt with walls dividing the chaired by a district adminis- classrooms at a cost of about Irator and someone selected by $150,000 to the district. Except Williams. for the walls, insurance will pay to replace the school, where fur- The committees would research, respectively: niture and book shelves once  Student assignments to separated classrooms. schools.  Faculty hiring and job assignments.  Listened to a presentation from a representative of Ser- viceMaster, a Chicago-based pri-  Support staff hiring and job vale company interested in con- assignments. trading with the district to pro-  Transportation  making vide custodial and maintenance sure that the burden of mandatory busing doesnt fall disproportionately on one race.  Student participation in extracurricular activities. services. The company would manage, train and equip current employees to do the work more efficiently at a cost to the district ___ similar to whats now spent.  The physical condition of They would remain district em- school buildings in various neighborhoods.  Student achievement.  Delayed action on an ad- Williams generally based the ministrative proposal to elimi- ployees and there would be no layoffs. nate the Learning Foundations class at four junior high schools starting next year. The mandatory course was designed to help students develop strong study skills.  Reviewed a proposed code of conduct obligating board members and the superintendent to conduct business in an open, constructive and positive manner.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_427","title":"HIPPY program","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Student assistance programs","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["HIPPY program"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/427"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham - Little Rock, Ar. 72201 HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS lAOl Scott - Little Rock, Ar. 72202 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TO: Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent of Educational Programs from: Parian Shead, Supervisor of HIPPY DATE: October 17, 1991 SUBJECT: General Information For Office Of Desegregation Monitoring For the 1991-92 program year, HIPPY areas of concentration are Southwest Little Rock and the shadow area of the Major Incentive Schools (central Little Rock). The projective participation hundred twenty (420) families. gender per area serviced. for the 1991-92 program is four Included is a chart of race and (Attachment)t OF t t OF suL\n!Husr TAKr T*?\nIcxE S VCZZ 5 S TEAS 'ar 'TT' wi^Hw? OF yworr.'^ gyntAL H WHHK CF MAT5^ TOTAL 128 208 19 21 36 ly6 6 3 n 1 25 2k 53 53 t OF k 31 38 51 t OF WT-TT 4 ^'Ar C'?' 1 6 8 10 k ICTAL TEAS 38 57 61 frrHnt 0 0 2(5yr.\u0026gt; l(4yr.) TOTAL 63 68 110 .120 361PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST March 31, 1992 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1991-92 school year: POSITION: Coordinator - Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Elementary certification preferred or major experience and primary responsibility in working with younger children. hildren. 2. Evidence of a strong commitment to parent involvement in the education of his/her child. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Evidence of good written and oral conununication skills. 5. Evidence of interest in the main profclems/educational care in disadvantaged areas. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS to\nProgram Supervisor - Home Instruction for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. Conducting home interviews of mothers. 2. interviewing and selecting community aides. 3. Dealing with specific problems concerning the conduct of the program in the home. 4 . Instructing the aides in the course of their work. 5. 6. Planning and guiding group meetings. Coordinating between the various community elements involved with the program. 7 . 8. Keeping budgetary records. Regular reporting to the Program Supervisor and/or the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.Coordinator HIPPY SALARY AND TERMS: 53-0001 Salary Schedule - A Twelve (12) Month Position, plus Benefits Package. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Support Services Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\nApril 8, 1992, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nLynda C. White Director, Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 324-2085 NOTE\nINDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN IN- DIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development.07/13/93 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 July 13,1993 ^3 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE a For more information\nJeanette Wagner, 324-2020 PRE-REGISJ ration FOR HOME BASED PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAM. The Little Fock School District announces the pre-registration of four and five year-old children for HIPPY program for the 1993-94 vear. The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters or HIPPY is a home-based education program where children are taught by parents. The HIPPY curnoilum provides the skills needed for children to be successful first in Kindergarten and throughout their education experience. m If you are interested in assisting your child in preparing for school or applying for possible job training employment, come to the HIPPY office at 1401 Scott Street, Room 208, Little Rock or call 324-2266 for more information.07/13/93 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/002 DATE: TO: FROM: SENDER'S PEONEii\nSUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 -Al) 3 1 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: -Ro^.a 1 f- Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial ' Fax Phone Number^^Ol ?  n :i i J If R b i-CKCBB8S Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE May 16,1994 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSP HIPPY GRADUATION PROGRAM PLANNED LITTLE ROCK - Students of the Little Rock School District Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) wiU participate in commencement exercises Sunday, May 22. The graduation ceremony wiU be held at 3:00 p.m. in the auditorium of Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School. The graduates, aU 4 and 5-year-olds, will be dressed in caps and gowns to receive their diplomas. The guest speaker for the afternoon will be Reverend Hezekiah Stewart. HIPPY is a home-based education program where children are taught by their parents. The program strives to effectively improve self-image and attitudes toward education of the child as well as the parent. As effective home educators, parents learn the importance of being actively involved in their child's learning. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000' * *) ijo I .i(OAUG-28-95 HON 11:47 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol EXILED U.S. DISTRICT CQUnT eastern district Arkansas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 1595 WESTERN DIVISION JAM6S W. WcCCRMACK, CLuAK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Oi?CU.XK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ST AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, AL. INTERVENORS LRSD^5 MOTION FOR PARTIAL UNITARY STATUS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its motion states: 1. LRSD moves that this Court withdraw supervision with regard to the following aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: a. Home Instructional Youngsters (HIPPY)\nProgram for Preschool b. c. d. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nParkview Science Magnet Program\nand, Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (JTPA). 2. LRSD has substantially complied in good faith with the requirements of the LRSD Desegregation Plan with regard to those aspects of the plan identified in paragraph 1. for a reasonable period of time. 3. Continued judicial supervision of those aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan identified in paragraph 1. is not necessary to achieve compliance with other aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan.AUG-28-95 HON 11:48 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAG{ NO. 5013246576 P. 02 4. LRSD has demonstrated to the public and to black parents and students its good faith commitment to the whole of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and to a course of action that gives full respect to the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. 5. LRSD has eliminated to the extant practicable the vestiges of past discrimination with regard to those aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan identified in paragraph 1. 6, There are additional aspects of the Plan with which LRSD has substantially complied LRSD Desegregation in good faith, and LRSD reserves the right to move that this Court withdraw supervision with regard to additional aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan in the future. LSSd has prepared for the presentation of evidence with regard to only those aspects of the plan identified in paragraph 1, because of the limited amount of time scheduled by the Court. Although the Court has scheduled three days for the submission of evidence, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD have agreed (subject to this Court's approval) to allow one day for each district. LRSD will begin on August 30, 1995. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves that thia court withdraw supervision with regard to the following aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: w uxa a. b. c. d. Home Instructional Youngsters (HIPPY)\nProgram for Preschool Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nParkview Science Magnet Program\nand, Job Trailing Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (JTPA). 2AUG-28-95 MON 11:48 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 03 Respectfully suhwt Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ZLDRZDGE i CLARK 2000 First Comnercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 501/376-2011 72201-3493 Attorneys for LRSD By\nChristopher HeUair/ Bar No. 31083 ( 3AUG-28-95 HON 11:4S SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 CgRTITICATB OP aBRVICg a copy of the foregoing motion has on the following counsel on this 23rd day of August,\nI been served 1995. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (MAILED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jonas JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Reck, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite SIO 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) CHRISTOPH HEL^ir / ----------_ 1mnr. 123 4Evaluation of HIPPY Program Little Rock, Arkansas A Look at Outcomes for Children at the End of Grade and 6th Grade Dr. Ed Williams, Evaluation Specialist Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent July, 1999Introduction This report describes an evaluation of the HIPPY Program administered by the Little Rock School District Planning/Research and Evaluation Department. HIPPY is a home-based educational enrichment program. HIPPY is designed to prepare 3, 4, and 5 year-old children for school readiness. Home Visitors work with parents weekly using packets of preplanned activities and storybooks. They demonstrate use of the activities, which the parents are to use with their child. The Little Rock School District was one of the four sites in Arkansas where HIPPY was first implemented. Children who participate in HIPPY enter the program with one or more of the following criteria qualifications: Low birth-weight Low income Education of parent Substance abuse Teenage mother Developmental delayed Other referrals The question addressed in this evaluation is whether participation in HIPPY has long-term benefits for children. More importantly, do children who participate in HIPPY do better in school than children who have no formal schooling experience prior to kindergarten? Or do children who participate in HIPPY do as well as children who have participated in a group-based formal preschool experience? Study Design Participants Hippy Students in 3^*' and 6**' Grade. At the time of this study, school year 1998-99, there were 102 3* and 48 6* grade enrolled in the District who had participated in HIPPY. Demographics for the 3\"* grades are 47% female, and 88% Black, 9% White, and 3% Other Ethnicity. Demographics for the 6* graders are 54% female, and 96% Black and 4% White. 2Description of Sample for Achievement Studv. Current 3\"^ and 6* grade students participating in the HIPPY program (see above description) were matched to Non-HEPPY students on gender, birth month, race, and SES as measured by those receiving fi'ee or reduced lunch. In addition to these variables, students had been matched on same school, however the sample size was to small, 19 and 8 respectively. Sample participants were 3 (N = 79) and 6* (N= 30) graders enrolled in the Little Rock School district (LRSD) during the 1998-99 school year. The 3*^ grade sample was 48% female and 99% Black, and 1% White. The 6* grade sample was 57% female and 100% Black. Measures This evaluation focused exclusively on student outcomes in third grade. Five categories of outcomes were examined: 1) school attendance\n2) official actions taken by the school district that affect the students experience in school (i.e., suspensions, retentions in grade, placement into special education\n3) classroom grades\n4) achievement test scores\nand 5) school behavior. Information on the first 4 categories was available through school record. Information about school behavior was obtained from the childs third grade teacher. Attendance, Suspension, Retention in Grade. Placement into Special Education. Information regarding actions on suspension, attendance, retention in grade, and special education placement were obtained through a review of individual childs teacher and information kept by the principal at the school building level. Grades. Year-end grades in Reading, Math, and Language Arts were used for purposes of this evaluation. In addition, an overall grade-point average was computed. Achievement Test Scores. LRSD administers the Stanford-9 Achievement Test (SAT-9) battery during the fall of each school year. Scaled scores (SS) in Reading, Math, and Language Arts were used for purposed of this evaluation. Scaled scores are the only scores generated by the SAT-9 that can measure growth. Two years of SAT-9 data were used to determine if any differences existed between groups (i.e., HIPPY v. Non-HEPPY). The 3\" grade sample was compared on current year and 2\"' grade SAT-9 scores. The 6* grade sample was compared on, since they did not take the SAT-9 during the 98-99 school year, 4* and 3\"^^ grade SAT-9 scores. Third grade students did not take the SAT - 9 during the grade and 6** grades were administered the SAT-8 in the 2^ grade, thus limiting the analysis to the above years. Using and controlling for previous years scores is analogous to a pre/post-test design. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusts the means on the dependent variable based on the differences between the two group means (HIPPY v. Non-HIPPY) on the covariate. The dependent variables for the two samples are the 3\"^ and 5* grade SAT-9 scores. The covariates for the samples are the 2\"'^ and 4* grade scores. In comparing only the dependent means, the comparison does not account for how participants scored on a similar measure at a previous point in time. 3Teacher Ratings of Student Behavior. Items in this section of this evaluation were\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Enjoyment of books and reading Listening and paying attention Task orientation Self direction Seeking and using assistance Curiosity Initiative Interest in school work Abihty to get along with peers 10. Overall adjustment 11. Overall academic performance Results School Attendance Retention, Suspension. Special Education Classroom Grades For each student, final grades for the year were obtained in Reading, Math, and Language Arts. These grades were converted to the traditional 4-point system (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=l, F=0) for purposes of analysis. An overall grade point average (GPA) was then computed from the three grades. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each of these grades. It also displays the results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) run on the final grade for each subject. The results show that both HIPPY children and non-HIPPY children reveal similar outcomes, however HIPPY children show a difference in reading and math in the 3rd grade and a difference in reading, math, and language in the 5* grade. Achievement Test Scores The HIPPY students had higher mean/average scaled scores on all subject areas except the 3* grade students in language (see Table 2). In addition, 3\"* grade HIPPY students had significantly higher scores in reading and 5* grade HIPPY students had significantly higher scores in math than Non-HIPPY students. Significance indicates that any difference is not by chance. Given the matching of students by a number of variables, it can be presumed that participation in the HIPPY program contributes significantly to the variance in scores. 4Not only did the HIPPY students have higher scores on the dependent variable (i.e., 3\"^ and 4* grade scores)\nthese students also demonstrated more growth than the Non-HIPPY students. In all subject areas, the HIPPY students had lower scores than Non-HIPPY students on the covariate (i.e., 2\"* and 3\"* grade scores). Lower scores on the covariate and higher scores on the dependent variable, while not significant in several of the subject areas, is indicative of a trend towards faster growth among HIPPY students than Non-HIPPY students. Table 2 Student Mean Scaled Scores on the SAT-9 3\"^^ Grade Students * HIPPY Reading' 2nd/3nl 515/568 Non-HIPPY 523/562 Math Qiid 507/550 513/549 Language 2*/3\". 541/572 546/573 5* Grade Students HIPPY Reading 4th/5th 587/621 Non-HIPPY 589/619 Math* 4*/5* 569/603 578/601 Language 4th/5th 591/618 594/610 * p # .05 Teacher Rating of Student Behavior They vary fi'om student to student. However, HIPPY students appear to be curious, self-directed, have improved listening skills, initiative, and has the ability to get along with their peers. Conclusions A. School attendance - Showed no significant difference between the groups 5B. Retention - It appears the HIPPY students are less likely to be retained - only 1% was noted C. Grades - The statistics indicate the non-HIPPY student may have had a slight edge at the beginning of the 2\"'^ grade, but the HIPPY students did have considerable gains by the end of the 3\"^ grade as well as the 5* grade. D. HIPPY students are growing faster in reading, math, and language subject areas than Non-HEPPY students. In two subject areas (i.e., 3*^ grade reading and 6* graders in math), HIPPY students are growing at a statistically significant faster rate than Non-HIPPY students. E. classroom behavior CAVEATS 1. 2. 3. The design used in this study was not a true experimental design with randomized assignment of children to HIPPY, other formal preschool, and no formal preKindergarten educational experience groups. Therefore the internal validity of the study is potentially compromised. The methods of identifying and selecting eligible Students for the program may have resulted in a selection bias that could account for all observed differences. Although there is no evidence to support any particular selection bias, the children who had no preschool experience may have had parents who were less motivated or competent. There could even have been a passive discouragement of some parents because they were considered less good candidates for the program. The children with no preschool experience may also have come from neighborhoods or contexts that are generally less supportive of school performance. These possible selection factors (and a host of others not described) are unknown and probably unknowable. However, selection bias remains a potential alternative explanation for the differences observed. The sample size was relatively small, meaning that the study had low power to detect first, Small effects (i.e. differences between groups.) This limitation cuts two ways\nit may obscure even a greater number of differences between HIPPY and comparison groups. Second, it may obscure some differences between HIPPY children and children with other formal preschool experience (however, the observed differences between these two groups were always small and inconsistent with respect to direction). No effort was made to determine whether the HIPPY program differentially benefited one sub-group more than another (i.e., makes more than females, all participants were black). Given that there were no prior hypotheses suggesting that gender or race or anything else would make a difference in 6program effects and given the size was relatively small, it seemed that testing for such differential effects may lead to unreliable results. Nonetheless, future studies of the HIPPY program should consider resting for such moderating effects. 4. The study was done only on children who received HIPPY from the Little Rock School District. Even though the children from the cohort who were students in the Little Rock School District at third grade also, in terms of race, family income and school, it is difficult to know how generalizable the findings are. 5. It is not appropriate, from a statistical point of view, to assume that each of the statistical tests done on these data represent independent tests of program effects. Running a larger number of tests increases the odds of capitalizing on some chance difference between groups. Nevertheless, we did not make corrections in the p-values used to establish differences between groups given limited power we had to detect differences of even a moderate size (i.e., 14 standard deviation). Therefore, it is possible that some of the differences represent chance finding. Nevertheless, the consistency of findings for HIPPY students makes it appear likely that a significant difference between HIPPY and comparison groups were observed on both math and science achievement test scores. 7REFERENCES Table 1 (3*^^ Graders) Differences in grades between children who participate in HIPPY, Children who attended preschool, and comparison children with no preschool experience Mean Standard Deviation F-Value P-Value Reading HIPPY Comparison Mathematics HIPPY Comparison Language Arts HIPPY Comparison Grade Point Average HIPPY Comparison 8 1 2Table 2 (6* Graders) Difference in achievement test scores between children who participated in HIPPY, children who attended preschool, and comparison children with no preschool experience Mean Standard Deviation F-Value P-Value Reading HIPPY Comparison Mathematics HIPPY Comparison Language Arts HIPPY Comparison Composite Scores HIPPY Comparison 1. 9I *^2A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  WEDNESDAY, MAY 27. 1992 HIPPY enrolling 4-year-olds in LR The Little Rock School Districts Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters is now enrolling 4-year-olds for the 1992-^3 school year. HIPPY lets parents prepare children for school by providing information and supplies to work with children at home. For more information, call the HIPPY office at 324^ 2266. 20A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SUNDAY, JULY 5,1992   SPECIAL REPORT: BILL CLINTON  PROMISES \u0026amp; PERFORMANCE 75 preschoolers learn ABCs of education School districts, enrollment The number of public school districts and average daily membership has declined since the 1978-79-School year In Arkansas: Districts:  385 I I I i I I with summer school BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer Members of the Cave City School Districts Class of 2005 are spending this summer in school so they will be ready for kindergarten in the fall. The children go to preschool for a full day, eat lunch, take naps and learn the basics for becoming a successful 4- or 5-year-old - such as identifying shapes and colors, differentiating between left and right, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, telling a story, using good manners and even standing in line. The public-school preschool program in Cave City is free. It is among about 75 preschool programs that were offered this past school year through the Arkansas Better Chance program, which is administered by the states Early Childhood Commission. About 4,400 children were served last year by 63 ABC grant recipients. The number of children served could grow to as many 7,400 in 1992-93. The ABC program was treated by Act 212 of 1991 to provide grants to any non-profit early childhood program that serves educationally deprived children ages 3 to 5. The ABC program was adopted by the Legislature at the urging of Gov. Bill Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. In his national campaign, Clinton has called for preschool programs for all who need them and for full funding for Head Start, a federally financed education program for 4- and 5-year olds. Arkansas ABC program is an effort to ensure that all children enter school ready to learn, which is one of six National Education Goals for 2000. Glenda Bean, executive director of the Early Childhood Commission, said that about 12,000 children are served by ABC and Head Start in Arkansas. Its not the total answer, Bean said about ABC. It wont solve all the problems of poverty, but it does provide a level playing field for children the small children during the when they start school.* The more we can do to prepare a child for school, the greater our success will be with our students, David Green, superintendent of the Cave City district, said recently. ABC is designed to be flexible. About a third of the ABC pupils participate in centerbased programs. Two-thirds are served in their homes by their mothers through the six- year-old Home Instruction Program for Pre-school Youngsters (HIPPY). The early childhood education programs are offered by school districts, cities, universities, day-care centers, educational cooperatives, and community development agencies. Bean said. Greens district is offering a summer program this year because the district didnt have adequate classroom space for 375 365 355 345 335 325 315 Ox ENROLL, (thousands) 455 450 445 440 435 430 425 0 1452,6101 School year\n78-79 79-80 80-81 61-82 62-83 83-64 64-65 65-86 66-67 87-86 88-69 89-90 90-91 91-92 SOURCE: Annual Report of the public schools of Arkansas regular school year. The space is now available and the program will be offered to 20 pupils during the coming year. Green has a $53,000 grant for the summer program and $55,000 for 1992-93. The money enabled the district to meet requirements for a certified teacher and an aide, as well as provide instructional materials and do some renovation work. The district had to provide funds and services equal to 40 percent of the grant request to get the grants. Five million dollars was budgeted for ABC last year and $10 million will be available in .fiscal year 1993, Bean said. Some of the money will be used to evaluate the ABC programs, and to give technical assistance to those programs and to private childcare providers who serve more than 60,000 Arkansas children. We want all children to be 321 1429.7611 T M. STOREY / Democrat-Gazette prepared for school, Bean said. ABC provides up to $2,500 per child. With the matching money and services provided by a school district or other agency, the amount spent per child can be as much as $4,000, Bean said. The program includes health screenings for the children. ABC programs must serve children whose families meet requirements related to low income, low education level, or low baby birth weight. Not all children in the programs have to meet the requirements, however. In the Little Rock School District, for example, preschool programs are open to all children but not all children are funded by ABC. The Little Rock district uses ABC money for preschool programs at selected schools and for HIPPY.Arkansas Democrat WC^azcttc WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1993 Copyhght O 1993, UWe Rock NowsBapers, h Inc. a Graduation today for HIPPY youths Graduation ceremonies begin at 7 p.m. today at Horaice Mann Magnet Junior High School, 100 E, Roosevelt Road, for 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in the Little Rock School Districts Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Pulaski County Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey will be the commencement speaker. HIPPY is a home-based edu- 1 cation program in which school district aides train parents to teach their children the academic skills needed for success in school.Aikansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 18,1994 I HIPPY plans graduation for children The Rev. Hezekiah Stewart will be the guest speaker Sunday at a Little Rock School Dis- J trict program honoring children and families who completed the districts Home Instruction Pro- gram for Preschool Youngsters. The commencement ceremonies for the 4- and 5-year-olds will be at 3 p.m. in the auditorium of the Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School. The children will wear caps and gowns to receive their diplomas. HIPPY is a home-based education program where children are taught by their parents. The parents get help and materials from instructional aides who visit the parents in the homes.1 1 Arkansas Democrat j FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1995 Copyright  Uttle Rock Newspapers. Inc. hippy graduates to march at Mann Rock school Distrwt-S Home CbUd,aPned..beb^^. Instruction Program graduate in commencement pxercises at 2 p.m. Sunaa.y in vne \u0026gt; Magnet Junior High and sciences  6n.du..es, ail Mear-clds J11 'S and Bacb^ra Gillie,, the reglo.al n'isThomf^based pro^m where district-employed - to show parents make penodic aisj,\" S?,eild cSaiT,^, S pn\u0026lt;SS.'cSSTls-aet childs learning.A p r i I 5. 2 0 0 1 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE side Gov. Mike Huckabees office at the state Capitol, state protesting a plan to cut millions from the HIPPY program. Barbara Gilkey of the states Home Instruction Program for along with a crowd of preschool workers from around the Pre-school Youngsters talks to reporters Wednesday out- $7.1 million cut from HIPPY cues chorus of protests from advocates BY SETH BLOMELEY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Gov. Mike Huckabee may have picked the wrong time to announce a $7.1 million cut to in-home preschool programs for low-income Arkansans. The nonprofit advocacy group Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY) just happened to be holding its national convention Wednesday at Arkansas Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock Of the 600 or so preschool advo- HOUSE OKs bill to halt self-dealing in schools. Page 8A. cates and caseworkers assembled, about 50 of them based in Arkansas, all women, went to the state Capitol and planted themselves in folding chairs in front of Huckabees office to voice their outrage. One even hollered through the door from the lobby to the staff offices in the governors office suite to complain about the cuts. The governor didnt stop to chat. Huckabees state police security guards and the State Capitol Police whisked him through the crowd upon returning from his Wednesday morning radio call-in show in Little Rock. Huckabee ducked into the Governors Conference Room, which leads to a side door to his personal office. One officer said the preschool workers didnt notice the governor until he was safely See PROTESTS, Page 4A Protests  Continued from Page 1A tucked away. Democracy is sometimes a messy process, Huckabee said later. Its not always pretty. Its never pleasant when you dont get what you want for Christmas. Theres no way to make everybody happy. Weve got to make some tough decisions. I dont want to tell anybody no. The Joint Budget Committee on Wednesday received more details about the governors $63 million cuts in his proposed budget for 2002 and $84 million for 2003. The administration has blamed a souring national economy for the governors overestimated projection in his original budget proposal for those two fiscal years. The committee plans to further discuss the cuts today. Some preschool workers in the HIPPY program say they dont understand the funding priorities of the Legislature and the governor. Both branches of government firmly support a plan to give teachers $3,000-a-year raises by the end of the coming biennium. We definitely support teachers raises, but it has to be done a different way, said Carolyn Cross of Russellville, a HIPPY coordinator. Cutting other services to children and families is not the right way to do it. Cross said the cut for HIPPY represents more than half of the programs budget in Arkansas. She estimates job losses in the hundreds for preschool workers statewide that serve 8,000 Arkansas families. While waiting for Huckabee, some HIPPY workers sang Happy Days are Here Again under the watchful eyes of Capitol police. But the state coordinator for the program, Barbara Gilkey of Little Rock, soon broke up the gathering. She said she wanted to state the groups case privately with administration officials. Then members of the group formed a circle and held hands, bowing their heads in prayer. Rich Huddleston of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families said the program is essential for helping toddlers prepare for kindergarten and elementary school. If this program goes, I dont know what itll do for school readiness in this state, he said. Huckabee didnt offer any olive branch to HIPPY but did talk to some preschool workers later as he walked through the Capitol. He said hes committed to state scholarships and teacher raises, which he contends will lead to better teacher recruitment and keep college- educated students in Arkansas. We can respectfully disagree, Huckabee said of those opposing his priorities. Department of Education Director Ray Simon said he wasnt giving up the idea of funding the program if other budget items in his department dont need as much money during the next two Ray Simon years as hes projected. He said he has nothing bad to say about the HIPPY program. He said the department received dozens of phone calls and faxes from unhappy in-home preschool workers who didnt like Huckabees proposed cut. The program is doing good things, Simon said. The issue here is the availability of revenues and the two priorities of protecting teacher raises and protecting [money to school districts]. Other cuts for 2002 include $18.5 million from the Department of Human Services, which handles a variety of welfare programs and had a proposed general revenue budget of $680 million. Of the cuts, $7 million comes from Medicaid. Were trying to protect as many recipients as we possibly can, department Director Kurt Knickrehm said. He said he wants to first make up the money through decreased staff travel, not filling vacant job slots and buying fewer computers. He also wants to see if theres any duplication in services that can be eliminated. Lawmakers have complained that the governor is shortchanging the Department of Human Services, which helps the poor in Arkansas, to shore up the Governors Distinguished Scholarships, given to students with a 32 ACT score but not restricted by family income limits. Knickrehm declined to comment. Huckabee acknowledged late Wednesday that he may lose the fight to inject another $5 million into the Academic Challenge Scholarship program for students with at least a 2.5 grade point average provided their family incomes do not exceed $70,000 a year. Earlier Wednesday, a Senate committee overwhelmingly voted to reduce funding for that scholarship. Department of Health Director Fay Boozman, who had a proposed $54 million budget, will lose $2.1 million for grants to community programs. He said the department runs dozens of programs, and he may not make the decision until July 1, the beginning of the 2002 fiscal year, which to cut. Fay Boozman The Department of Finance and Administration proposed cuts based on information from state agencies about the importance of various programs. The governors priorities are set forth in the proposed Revenue Stabilization Act. The state expects the top categories in the act  A and B  to be funded. If theres a greater revenue shortfall than expected over the next two years, all B category programs will be cut by an equal percentage. In 2002, the funding (and, therefore, spending) projected in the A and B categories totals $3.39 billion, up from the current fiscal years projected funding-and-spending total of $3.25 billion. In 2003, the A and B funding and spending totals will rise to $3.54 billion. In the A category, Huckabee has placed money for teachers raises, which will cost $122 million when fully funded in 2003, and a 2.6 percent annual cost-of-living raise for state employees, among other priorities. The proposed Revenue Stabilization Act also contains a B-1 category and a C categoiy. They contain programs that were cut from the original budget, such as the HIPPY preschool service. State officials dont expect money to come in for these programs, but they would be eligible for funding if revenue exceeds expectations. Senate President Mike Beebe, D-Searcy, has said he expects the Legislature to go along with most of the governors recommended cuts with the possible exception of the additional scholarship money. House Speaker Shane Broadway, D-Bryant, said hes giving up his proposal for adding another scholarship program, this one to help working adults returning to college.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_485","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Mitchell Incentive School, Parent-Student Handbook-92-93''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Parents","Students","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Mitchell Incentive School, Parent-Student Handbook-92-93''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/485"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMitchell Incentrive School Parent - Student Handbook-92-93 Theres Magic at Mitchell SchoolMITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL Dear Parents and Students: On behalf of the staff at Mitchell School I would like to welcome all students and their parents to the 1992-93 school year. We are eager as we begin this year, because we know this is going to be an exciting year. You This handbook is prepared to inform you about our school, will find that the information provided here together with the rules and regulations that govern each of us will insure that we I know you will take time to read this book carefully with your parents. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask vour teachers, counselors. have a successful year. course, feel your administrators, or other staff members. I want you to : our best to ensure know that the staff at Mitchell and I will do that each student achieves his/her highest This will require the combined efforts of students, staff, and parents. We need parents to be involved with our Your ideas and suggestions are essential in developing a strong team working in the best interests of each student. potential. program. We I am We know this is going to be a magnificent year at Mitchell, looking forward to working with each of you individually and collectively. Sincerely, Donita Hudspeth Principal I I I I I1 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL FACULTY AND STAFF PRINCIPAL Donita Hudspeth SECRETARY Sandra Johnson 4 Year Old Program Jeanne Hoover MATH SPECIALIST Janice Lewis... Rm. 102 KINDERGARTEN Melanie Hale . . . . 1 Rm. 2 READING SPECIALIST Susan Hestir...... Rm. 101 GRADE 1 Jo Hestir... Bobbie Govan Rm. 3 Rm. 4 LIBRARIAN Kenny Sutton GRADE 2 Barbara Banks.. Teresa Hamilton ART SPECIALIST Ken Milton Rm. 104 Rm. 106 MUSIC SPECIALIST Shirley Allen GRADE 3 Patricia Ross. Charlotte Guin Rm. 107 Rm. 103 COUNSELOR Mary Smith GRADE 4 Jimmy Calhoun........ Gertrude Stubblefield Rm. 20A Rm. 201 GIFTED/TALENTED Sylvia Tyler GRADE 5 Najmah Cooksey Mildred Walker Rm. 205 Rm. 202 PHYSICAL EDUCATION SPECIALIST Mary Ann Hansen AOXILLIARY TEACHER Kim Dade GRADE 6 Brenda Hipp. Linda Hamlet Rm. 203 Rm. 206 SPECIAL EDUCATION Margaret Regnier. Rm. 105 RESOURCE TEACHER Katie Pace...... Rm. 110 SPEECH THERAPIST Valerie Eastman. Rm. 110SUPPORT STAFF INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES Danyelle Allen Shirley Austin Larry Batch Becky Estes Nettie Irby Delores Iverson Davyda Howard Kevin McFadden Clarence Miller Yvette Williams Patricia Taylor Lillian Bunn LIBRARY CLERK Angela Moore COMPUTER LAB Joe Ann Johnson NURSE Estella Lee CUSTODIANS Ellis Flowers Aaron Johnson Flossie Murray FOOD SERVICE Mary Reese, Manager Valerie Burns Barbara HendersonMITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1992-93 PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION Janice and Leotis Nichols are P.T.A. Co-Presidents for the 1992-93 school year, during registration. Our Membership Drive Kick-Off will begin Please plan to become an active member. We value your support and involvement as active partners in education. P.T.A. membership is very important to incentive schools. is to have each student represented by a parent. $3.00. P.T.A. Our goal dues are P.T.A. OFFICERS OFFICE NAME ADDRESS PHONE Co-Presidents Janice Nichols Leotis Nichols 1212 W. 36th St. 72206 376-8280 First Vice Pres. Vera Brownlee 1904 Rice St. 72202 376-8372 Second Vice Pres. Andrew Lockhart 3101 Marshall St. 72206 375-5619 Third Vice Pres. Joe Ann Johnson 24 \u0026amp; Battery St. 72206 324-2415 Recording Secy. Linda Abrams 1105 Ringo St. 72202 375-0722 Corresp. Secy. Tracey Noel 2412 Marshall St. 72206 375-2032 Treasurer Sandra Johnson 2317 Schiller St. 72206 374-0966 IMPORTANT DATES School Registration August 13-14 Parent Night September 8 Open House September 22 American Education Week November 16-20 P.T.A. Meeting November 17 Holiday Program December 18 Holiday Parties December 22 Valentine Parties February 12 P.T.A. Meeting February 23 P.T.A. Meeting May 18LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1992-93 SCHOOL CALENDAR August August August 13-14 24 31 September 7 September 8 September 22 September 28 October October October November November November November November November December December December January January January January January February February February February March March March April April April April April April May May May May June June 12-16 19 24-November 1 3 4 4-5 16-20 17 26-27 18 22 23-January 3 4 18 27 28 29 1-5 9 12 23 1 2 8-19 1 2 5-9 12-23 14 21 4 7 13 31 9 10-11 Registration Teachers Report First Day for Students Labor Day Parent Night Open House Extended Day Begins National School Lunch Week Parent Conference Day Red Ribbon Week End of First Nine Weeks Teachers' Work Day AEA Teachers' Meeting American Education Week P.T.A. Meeting Thanksgiving Holiday Holiday Program Holiday Parties Holiday Break School Resumes Martin Luther King Holiday Nurse Appreciation Day End of Second Nine Weeks Teachers' Work Day National School Counselor's Week P.T.A. Founders Day Valentine Parties P.T.A. Meeting Parent Conference Day Teacher Appreciation Day AMPT Testing End of Third Nine Weeks Teachers' Work Day Spring Break Standford Test Custodians Appreciation Day Bus Drivers Appreciation Day National Teachers Apprec. Day National School Volunteer Day Food Service Appreciation Day Memorial Day Last Day for Students Teacher Work DayMITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DAILY SCHEDULE 1992-93 7:30 7:45 Breakfast 7:45 Teacher Arrival 9:00 10:00 7:50 8:00 9:30 10:15 First Bell Tardy Bell (Lunch count, Attendance, etc.) 4 year old recess Grades 1, 2, and 3 recess 10:30 11:30 Lunch for 4 year olds and Kindergarten 11:00 11:45* Lunch for 1 and 2 11:30 12:15* Lunch for 3 and 4 12:0 5 1:05 Lunch for 5 and 6 2:10 2:25 Sustained Silent Reading 2:35* Dismissal 2:35 3:05 Teacher Planning and Conference *DENOTES RINGING OF BELLPHILOSOPHY OF THE LITTLE ROCK_SCHOOL DISTRICT A sound and comprehensive philosophy, based on the personal and educational needs of students, is essential to a viable and The Little Rock School District effective public school program. statement of philosophy is hereby presented to promote a better understanding of and appreciation for the principles on which the present and future programs of the district are being developed. The school district instructional and supportive programs should. 1. i: !  li !  t *1 i ! 2. Be designed, organized, and implemented to provide all students with success-oriented, comprehensive, and sequential educational opportunities. Emphasize and continually reinforce the values of our democratic society, worthy citizenship and ethical behavior. I I ! 1 1 i J I 1 t i i' ! J 1\n3. 4. 5. 6. * J I I i ft Provide each student with the opportunity for maximum intellectual and inter-personal development. Reinforce positive goal-oriented learning by systematically recognizing and rewarding student success at all levels of achievement. Place emphasis on an intra-competitive system of education wherein each student competes'with his'  own potential to enhance internal motivation and positive self-image. Fxcodt a diversified curriculum, under the', board career education concept, to provide students with Present a a maximum range of options in choosing careers.  IPHILOSOPHY OF MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL We, at each student. Mitchell Elementary School, recognize the uniqueness of We believe we must enable all students to develop all that makes them unique to the maximum of their abilities. We believe that Mitchell Elementary School should create an environment which encourages our children to develop as thinking. caring individuals. We provide learning experiences that stimulate our students to communicate their intellectual, emotional, social and creative strengths in speaking, writing, and listening. We believe a positive self-concept is of great importance in the development of each student\ntherefore, we encourage each student to have worthwliile goals, self-discipline, concern a dedication to our democratic way of life. for his fellowman and Although we realize that our goals and objectives must be flexi ble so that our students will be prepared for a constantly changing society, we also realize that making our philosophy compatible with that of the Little Rock School District is essential in order to assure continuity between Mitchell and other schools in the District expecially when our students leave our school and transfer to other elementary schools in the District or go onward toward the secondary level of learning ex^ieriences. -It is our intention to do all in our power to assist our students in learning how to best serve themselves as well as their conmunity.MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OBJECTIVES The objectives of Mitchell Elementary have been formulated to give each child the opportunity to learn, grow, and function in his present and future environments. 1. 2. Develop Develop positive self-concepts. the student's capacity to discipline 3. himself Develop to work. study, and play constructively. the social skills necessary for adjusting and adapting to our ever changing world. 4. Encourage mutual respect and concern for others. 5. Provide situations in which problem solving skills are encouraged. 6. Increase efficiency in all areas of instruction. 7. Enhance an appreciation for the multf-cultural heritage in our world. 8. Provide opportunities for creative expression in speaking, writing, and listening. 9. Encourage bill ties each child to recognize his responsi- as a citizen of the community and country. 10. Provide opportunities for exposure to enriching experiences in and around the community.PARENT CONTRACT An important part of the philosophy of Mitchell Elementary School is that the education of a child is the responsibility of both the school and the parents. Every parent is required to sign a contract at the beginning of each school year. A sample contract is included here. My child (Complete Name) is presently enrolled in the grade at Mitchell Incentive School. As a parent I agree to support the provisions of my child's educational philosophy, program, and goals of Incentive School. I will: *attend regularly-scheduled and specially-called teacher/parent conferences\n*cooperate with the school when disciplinary actions are necessary\n.*support school rules and policies\n*ensure the student's compliance with the dress code policy\n*provide a proper study environment and require completion of homework as assigned\n*ensure prompt and regular school attendance\nand *be an active member of the parent/teacher organization and attend all meetings and other school function. I agree with the fundamental principles as stated above and will assist the staff with my support. I am aware that my child's success Mitchell____ Incentive School is contingent upon my honoring this contract. Date Parent/Guardian's Name Parent/Guardian's Signature Address (Home) Telephone // (Work)GENERAL INFORMATION School Hours Students should not plan The instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. to arrive at school before 7:30 a.m. Students are not to be in the Students go directly to the cafeteria building before 7:45 a.m. until dismissed to classrooms. Breakfast Program Breakfast will be served from 7:20 a.m. until 7:40 a.m. is .50 cents and .30 cents for reduced. The cost Lunch Program All students may participate in the hot lunch program, prepared in the school kitchen. Meals are Application for free or reduced lunch must be made through the Eligibility will be deteirmined according to federal school office, guidelines. Students who wish to pay for their lunches may purchase them daily Weekly lunch tickets may be purchased on Monday. or weekly. Daily rates: Milk .25. Full price lunch $1.00. Reduced price lunch .40. PLEASE NOTE: Candy, gum, etc., may not be brought to school to exchange or to sell to other students. Lost and Found Please be sure your child's belongings are clearly identified with Proper identification can assure the return items should be taken to the cafeteria first and last names. of lost items. II Found *1 where II lost II and II periodically turned claimed. found over It is maintained. Lost items to charitable organizations if are notSchool Visitation The staff of Mitchell Elementary welcomes and appreciates VISITORS MUST CHECK INTO THE OFFICE BEFORE GOING INTO visitors. CLASSROOMS. At tendance When your child is absent or tardy, he/she misses an important part of instruction. Students are expected to be in school except in cases of emergency or for reasons as explained below: 1. Personal Illness - The school may require a doctor's statement or other supportive data verifying the reason for the absence to be presented to the attendance office on the day the student returns to school. 2. 3. 4. Illness in the family - All school work should be kept current. Quarantine in the home - The absence arising from this condition is limited to the length of quarantine as fixed by the proper health official. Death of a relative - The absence arising from this condition IS limited to three days, unless reasonable cause may be shown 5. 6. by parent on a longer absence. Observance of a religious holiday - Any student of any religion shall be excused if his absence was for the purpose of observing a religious holiday consistent with his creed or belief. ANY OTHER REASON MUST BE EXCUSED BY THE SCHOOL PRIOR TO THE ABSENCE. Absences A written excuse is required for each absence and should be presented to the child's homeroom teacher. the responsibility of the school to make a reasonable such as calling by telephone, to notify the parent when the student is absent from school if the parent has not contacted HOWEVER, WE ASK THAT YOU CALL THE OFFICE WHEN YOUR It is effort, the school. CHILD IS ABSENT. PLEASE NOTE THE TWO LETTERS ON ATTENDANCE THAT FOLLOW!I little rock school district ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---------------------------------- ---------------------DATE To the Parent of Dear Parent: Grade ID# (16) years, (5) and sixteen th (17th) birthday is Students between the ages of five both inclusive .x.lud.a reached), who have be in attendance at school daily. Little school, must that absences from Rock School District Policy maintains only when the student is ill, unusual cause acceptable to the building P school are acceptable vzhen a family emergency exists, school sponsored or cipal and/or by the principal. In accordance with Little Regulations, the following . Parents or guardians acceptable - school related events approved Rock School District Attendance information is provided: of students for whom three(3) unexcused civil semester may be subject to a The school recorded in a axcy ..V. - exceed $500 plus costs of court. triCt shall notify the city attorney whenever number of unexcused absences. absences are penalty not to dis a exceeds the allowable shall take whatever action is attorney penalty. necessary to student The city collect the absent four (4) times during a  shall notify the student s parents, or guardians (or persons in loco parentis) of the number of _ and will request a l the student's attendance problems. . When a student has been quarter, the school office (or persons absences address parent/administrator conference to of the first and second unexcused  shall advise the . Upon the establishment semester, the school office absence during a students parents, guardians (or Persons in the third, unexcused absence, the parents loco parentis) that upon -- be referred to the city attorney. guardians will This letter is ha * been absent^____ school year and a written notice that your child ----- , ---- times during the ____ quarter of the conference must be held to address the student's attendance problems. has unexcuse semester. Upon be made. the \"third unexcused absence d absence(s) during this a court referral will Please contact me if you have questions concerning this notice. Yours truly, PrincipalLittle Rock School District PARB'TT NOTICE OF COURT REFERRAL (COMPULSORY SCHOOL-AGE STUDENTS) SCHOOL DATE To the Parent of Grade ID// Dear Parent: Students between the ages of five (5) and sixteen (16) years, both inclusive (until the seventeenth (17th) birthday is reached), who have not been officially excluded from school, must be in attendance at .school daily. Little Rock School District Policy maintains that absences from school are acceptable only when the student is ill, when a family emergency exists, unusual cause acceptable to the building principal and/or school sponsored or school related events approved by the principal. In accordance with Little Rock School District Attendance Regulations, the prin cipal is required to send written notice to the parents advising them that referral is being made when the student's absences are deemed excessive. a court This letter is your written notice that you and yovu: child are being referred to court as of date for violation of the School Attendance Laws of the State of Arkansas. Yours truly, Principal 010 West Mnrkhnin Street Little Kock, Arkaiir-.TS 72201 (501)574 33G1 k r Conferences We encourage regular parent/teacher conferences because we feel it If you should desire a is important and necessary to COMMUNICATE, conference with your child's teacher to discuss his/her progress. please contact the teacher. specially called teacher/parent conferences. Conferences may be scheduled and Parent-teacher conferences will focus on the skills being taught throughout the curriculum and the individual student's progress. arent/teacher conferences dates are October 19 1993. Special 1992 and March Parent Volunteers Mitchell Elementary considers its parent volunteers as a very special resource. Parents are encouraged to help in all classrooms, programs, and extracurricular activities. Please call the office if you have time or skills you can share to make our school a better place for students to learn and grow. Reporting Guidelines and Interim Reports Report cards are issued every nine weeks. The main purpose for report cards is to indicate to the parent(s) the child's achievement. report card. Letter grades are assigned for every subject on the GRADING SCALE 93-100 percent 83- 92 percent 70- 82 percent 60- 69 percent 0- 59 percent and below A B C D F Interim reports are sent home during the fifth week of each NINE weeks for children working below their capacity and/or any other time a student's average drops below 72%. A parent conference is required after every unfavorable interim report and when a It tl or It is recorded on the report card. D F PLEASE NOTE THE COPIES OF THE REPORT CARD AND INTERIM REPORT ON THE TWO PAGES THAT FOLLOW!LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ELEMENTARY TEACHERS INTERIM REPORT TO PARENTS Dale Pupils Name Teacher School Grade_ A check mark below indicates a need for improvement in that area. I I Stays on task................................ Follows directions......................... Completes work on time............. Works independently................... Has necessary materials............... Completes and returns homework Has self control........................... Control.s talking..................... Shows respect for adults....... Show.', respect for students .. Follows .school rules............... F0II0W.S classroom rules ........ Is on lime to school and class Attends school regularly........  Teachers Comments: I I I Conference Requested: Teacher requests a conference at the earliest possible time. I Teacher s signature Principal s Signature ELEMENTARY TEACHERS INTERIM REPORT TO PARENTS To the Parent: I Please sign and return this report. Write any comments that would be helpful to the teacher on the back of this repot I ' suggest a time when you could come for a conference. must r this report to the teacher as soon as pos.sible. I\nI 11 t ii Date Parent's signature I ! I i i  EZI Parent requests a conference at the earliest possible time. Copy to: Parent, Childs Teacher, Principal 27. FOR?STUDENT NAME PRESENT GRADE_ SCHOOL YEAR__ SCHOOL PRINCIPAL TEACHER NAME READING BOOK LEVELS FOR EACH SCHOOL YEAR: 1 S T GRADE K 1 READING BOOK Ready steps GETTING READY TO READ BELLS DRUMS TRUMPETS PARADES CAROUSELS LEVEL R R GRADE 2 \u0026lt; iGrade Level 1-6 READING PPI PP2 PP3 P I 3 4 5 6 Nine Weeks 1 \u0026lt; READING BOOK ADVENTURES DISCOVERIES CARAVANS JOURNEYS FLIGHTS EXPLORATIONS CELEBRATIONS LEVEL 2' 2 3' 3 4 5 6 Teacttcr Signature 9 W E E K S '2 N D 9 Teacher Requests Conference  2 3 4 Teacher Signature Book Level. Achievement Grade: Little Rock School District 1-6 ENGLISH ____________ 2 6 SPELLING 1-6 MATHEMATICS 1-6 SCIENCE  1-6 SOCIAL STUDIES * 1-6 MUSIC ______________ 1-6 HANDWRITING  4-6 ART__________________ 4-6 PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRESS REPORT Dr. Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools Achievement Grading System  First grade students will not receive a grade for the first nine weeks. A B C D F 94-100% Excellent 85-93% 72-84% 63-71% 0-62% Good Average Below Average Failing WORK HABITS ANO CITIZENSHIP S = Satisfactory N = Needs Improvement U = Unsatisfactory Nine weeks 1 2 3 4 S - Satisfactory N  Needs Improvement U - Unsatisfactory NOTE: A grade of D. F. or U requires a parent conference. An asterisk (*) after a grade indicates that the child is working below grade level in that subject. REPORTING PERIOD 1 2 3 4 W E E K S 3 R D 9 W E E K S4 T H 9 W E E K S Teacher Requests Conference  Teacher Signature Teacher Requests Conference  Teacher Signature Teacher Requests Conference L STUDENT'S PLACEMENT FOR NEXT YEAR: GRADE READING MATH Listening Skills_________ ___________ Slays on Task____________ ________ Follows Directions_____________ Completes Work on Time Works Independently______________ Completes and Returns Home Work Has Self-Control_______________ Controls Talking___________________ Shows Respect for Adults__________ Shows Respect for Students_______ Follows School Rules _______ Follows Classroom Rules DAYS PRESENT DAYS ABSENT TIMES TARDY Conference Requested (Student promotion in danger because of attendance laws). PARENT COPY - This Report is Your Copy to Keep at Home. DETACH AND RETURN THIS SIGNATURE/COMMENT SLIP I Student's Name____________ Parent / Guardian Comments: Parent Requests Conference  I have reviewed this progress report. PARENT I guardian signature 5 5 I c. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: lABC Adopted: 8/22/91 J STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES  The Board believes that students should leave school i possessing the skills and knowledge they need to have successful experiences in higher education and in the workplace. These exit outcomes should be reflected in the goals and objectives established for each curriculur program, level/course, unit, and lesson. The District has the following outcomes for all students by the time they graduate from the 12th grade. Students will: 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. s I* Adequately master reading, writing, speaking. listening creative thinking. (communication), critical sufficient functioning. and mathematical and skills for effective. efficient 9  I Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources. Identify problems and needs, apply problem solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action. Use tools of technology at an effective. efficient, flexible, and adaptable level. Have geographic, knowledge of basic political, literary. historical, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions. Appreciate' and understand cultural differences, the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events. Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, social responsibility. and civic and 'S SI i 41 I 'i j r I I EPS CODE: Paqe 2 I ABC 8. Demonstrate self-direction as an active lifelong learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, self-understanding, and a physically and mentally balanced healthy life. II 1 little rock school district i EPS CODE: PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF STUDENTS IKE me Liuic S^H^ul District Board of Directors requires standard levels of achievement for students at each grade level as a prerequisite for The Board advocates minimal use of The Little Rock School promotion to the next grade level, social promotion of students. Exceptions Students will normally progress annually from grade to S^ade. peDtions may be made when, in the judgment of the professional staff, such exceptions are in the best educational interest of the student involved. Exceptions Exceptions are in the best eoucationai inieresi, me aeuucnv will be made after prior notification and explanation to each student parents. Exceptions to the established criteria for Promotion are defined ir, ..oniiiafinnc\" hnwpvpr. the final decision is with the Little Rock bcnoo in regulations\nhowever, the final decision is District. Adopted: January 26, 1939I Kev. 4-b-y I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REGULATION EPS CODE: IKE-R STUDENT PROMOTION I. PURPOSE The purpose of the following regulations is to provide guidelines for teachers and administrators to use in promoting a student from one instructional level or grade to the next. II. REGULATIONS A. Promotion in Elementary School 1. Students being promoted from one elementary grade to the next should have completed the adopted reading curriculum materials for current grade placement, demonstrating at least 80 percent skills mastery. 2. If a student has not achieved 80 percent skills mastery of current grade-placement materials, he/she may be promoted based on an evaluation (by the teacher and principal) of the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Criterion referenced tests Placement inventories Standardized tests Teacher, principal anecdotal information Student characteristics (physical, emotional, and social) Scheduled parent consultation Attendance record 3. Accelerated Promotion The decision to promote a child to the fourth grade in fewer than three years, or to junior high school in fewer than six years, will be made in consultation with the parents(s), teacher, principal(s), elementary supervisor, and the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs. The Associate Superintendent, Division of Schools, and the appropriate Assistant Superintendent will be advised.J 1 li _(_F\u0026lt;egtJkit i iHi'^ 1 I r I.ITTLE ROC I' SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: IKB R 1 I . II. HI. HOMEWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 1 .s Purpose To set forth the piocedures governing homework in the Little Rock School District. Included in the recommendations will be procedures for teachers to follov/ in assigning homework to students. Procedures (General) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) Each teacher giving an assignment from the text in a class where only classroom sets of books are available will make provisions for books to be taken home. Teachers will present mimeographed materials that can be seen clearly and have instructions to be used in completing them. Homework assignments will emphasize the application of concepts and skills previously introduced. Homework will be considered in the grading of students. Homework should provide immediate feedback to the teacher on areas of weakness in the students' understanding of concepts and/or acquisition of skills. The type of homework assignments should be varied. Procedures ( Specific) (1) The following guidelines should be followed in giving homework assignments at the Primary Level : Kindergarten - Generally, students are not given home- Primary I - Primary II - work assignments at the kindergarten level. Students may be assigned homework for 15 to 20 minutes a night. Students may be assigned homework for 20 to 30 minutes a night. Primary HI - Students may be assigned homework for 30 to 40 minutes a night. {3'1 Homework assignments for Intermediate Level students should not be ny longer than one hour. Homework assignments for the Secondary Level should be given with an average of no more than thirty (30) minutes required for each of the subject areas. Secondary principals shall work with building committees to help coordinate long-term assignments or projects which might conflict. 1 I I i  jl ij s ' I I P J 5 * g J E ii I \u0026gt;.   I J-SMX. .Homework assignments of Intermediate Level students should not be any longer than one hour. The purpose of homework is to reinforce and extend what your child has learned in class and to develop a sense of self discipline. personal responsibility, and independent thinking, material is not assigned for homework. As a rule new We hope the following information and suggestions will be helpful to you. In order to give pupils an opportunity to develop various kinds of skills, teachers will give many types of homework assignments, some of which may not be written assignments. may be to read, to cut out, to collect. research. to interview. to listen to a particular radio or TV program. to do They I The school's policy is, generally, not to give homework on weekends. The reason for this is to give pupils a reward for a week's work well done and to allow them time to take part in family experiences such as trips, visits, outings, etc. You can help your child develop some routines that will be of assistance in successfully completing homework assignments, following suggestions are offered for this purpose. The 1. Ask your child if he or she has homework that day.______ that homework is generally assigned every day except Friday or the day before a holiday. Be aware By asking your child about homework, you are helping him or her to remember that there is an assignment to be completed. 2. Become interested in your child's homework. Ask him or her to show the homework to you and to explain what the work completed was about. Sharing your child's work with him or her reinforces the importance of homework and helps the child to understand that you are interested in his or her progress, looking at your child's homework also keeps you informed about the progress of the child and the way in which your child is able to complete the work assigned. I I JF 3. Remember that homework is your child's work not yours. You should not do the work for the child\nrather, you should be concerned with whether or not your child did the work. If your child has trouble with a homework assignment and cannot complete it, write a note telling the teacher about the problem. It is the teacher's responsibility to make the homework assignment clearly understood by each student. 4. Help your child set a regular homework time each day and remain with that commitment, responsiblities at that time. Free your child of other 5. Provide your child with a quiet place to work and study where he or she is not disturbed by younger children or pets. Homework will help your youngster grow and develop. Please feel free to consult the school whenever there is a question about homework, which, after all is intended to be a help, not a burden. Study Skills Specific skills and techniques can make learning easier and more enjoyable. good study habits. The following are student guidelines for achieving 1) Come to class prepared with pencil, paper, and other necessary materials. 2) Be an active participant in class, in class. Listen well and take part 3) Ask questions to clarify problems. 4) Plan your day and schedule time for homework. 5) Use what is learned and apply it to new situations. 6) Strive to do the very best work possible, is not a worthwhile goal. Just \"getting by\"* Textbooks All basic textbooks are loaned to students for their use during the school year. Workbooks are provided for students. Other    Textbooks are to supplies are paid for by the student or parent. be kept clean and handled carefully. t\nname, grade, and school are written in the book in case the book Students will be required to pay for lost or Please be sure the student's is misplaced, damaged books. Buses Please refer to the bus schedule to note pick-up points and the time schedule. NOTE: Please have your child at the bus stop a little earlier than the designated time in the event the bus should arrive early. Should your child miss the bus, please try to get him/her to school. It is very important that your child attend school every day. Proper behavior is expected at all times for safety reasons. Discuss the bus rules with your child. Bus Conduct The following rules have been established in order to insure the safety of all students who ride busses. 1. 2. 3. Use only the bus and bus stop assigned. Orderly behavior is required at the bus stop. Remain seated, facing front, when the bus is in motion. 4. 5. Talk quietly and make no unnecessary noise. Do not talk to the driver unless it is necessary. 6. Keep head and arms inside the bus. 7. Do not litter the inside of the bus or throw anything out the 8. window. Be quiet when the bus is crossing railroad tracks. Infractions s of the above rules will be brought to the attention of Continual abuse of the bus privileges will result in the parents. denial of transportation. bSCHOOL BUS INCIDENT REPORT LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Sus No. School Name Date ^11 DEAR PARENTS: ... ^11 students in our School System who ride a bus to school are subject to regulations until they get off at their school or the bus stop near their home. Any misbehavior which distracts the driver is a very serious hazard to the safe operation of the vehicle, and as such, jeopar- iizes the safety of all passengers. We are asking that you take the necessary action to insure that future misconduct of this nature does not reoccur. Thank you for your cooperation. has been cited for an infraction of the rules :hecked below: ' ) 1. Disobedient\nrefusal to cooperate with dri ver [ ) 2. Moving around in bus\nrefusal to stay seated\n) 3. Extending arm/head out window I ) 4. Excessive talking, uncessary loud noise ( ) 5. Tampering with bus or equipment or di struct!on of any part of bus ( ) 6. Smoking or lighting matches ( ) 7. Scuffling or fighting 8. Using obscene language\nsigns or gestures ( ) 9. Throwing items inside bus or out wi ndows ( ) 10. Littering the bus/eating on bus ( ) 11. Misconduct on bus stop ( ) 12. Deliberate delay in loading or unloading ( ) 13. Other For the first infraction of any one or any combination of the rules, a conference If the student persists PENALTIES: shall be held with parents, maybe by telephone, and with the students. in infractions, the following minimum schedule should be adhered to: Infraction 2: 3-5 days 5us suspension\nInfraction 3: 2 weeks bus suspension\nInfraction 4: 9 weeks bus suspension\ninfraction 5: 18 weeks bus suspension\nInfraction 6: indefinite suspension of bus privileges. driver's statement of incidents: date of this offense_______ PRINCIPAL'S ACTION: ( ) Conference with student ( ) Conference with parent ( ) Phone call to parent ( ) Other__________________ First offense ( ) Second offense ( ) Third offense ( ) Other( ( ) Bus suspension for ___ ( ) Sent Home Notice ( ) Suspension from school days, beginning Si gnatures: Route No. Student Principal Parent WHITE COPY to parent. YELLOW COPY to transportation after action is taken. PINK COPY retained for school record. GOLD COPY to driver. Ftoute No. Date, Driver School Name Student This portion of WHITE COPY rptiirned Io transportation bv driver # 510V Bus Route and Operating Policies Bus routes and stops are planned and established by the administration's transportation department. Safety, economy. efficiency, and allocation of resources are some of the considerations which must be evaluated in determining bus operation policies. Parents who wish to make requests for changes in routes or stops should contact the school principal. Students and parents are encouraged to notify the school immediately of any safety hazards which they have observed during bus operations. School Guidance Counselor Many parents have asked me for an explanation of the duties performed by our school guidance counselor, elementary guidance counselor does include: Some things an 1. Help students understand their abilities and limitations, adjust to a new school, find answers to their concerns, learn to make decisions, develop skills in getting along with others, talk with students who have experienced a death, injury, or serious illness ofpet, friend, or relative, and help students cope with parents separating or divorce. 2. Talk with you about your child's progress in school, abilities and limitations, growth and development. 3. Help teachers understand and meet individual student needs, provide classroom guidance in such areas as self-understanding, decision making, and values, find special help for students when needed, and plan units on guidance-related topics. 4. Consult with parents and teachers in private conferences about their children. 5. Coordinate referrals to school and community agencies when school personnel and parents agree this is needed. 6. Talking with children individually or in small groups. The child may request the counseling or may be referred by parents or teachers. Counseling is a voluntary service\nno child is required to talk with the counselor. Should you have any further questions, you may call the guidance office at 324-2415 and request to speak with Ms. Mary Smith.F BUILDING RULES 1. Be respectful to all adults and classmates. 2. Show pride in Mitchell School. 3. Settle conflicts without fighting. 4. Display proper behavior at all times. Students' Rights and Responsibility Handbooks will be distributed early in the school year and discussed throughly with all students.CAFETERIA RULES 1. Follow directions of all lunchroom adults. 2. Speak using your inside voices. be used. At any point quiet-time will Quiet-time is the last 5 minutes of the lunch period to assist in an orderly dismissal. 3. Children will stay in assigned seats until dismissed by lunchroom aides. 4. Lunchroom aides will be in charge of dismissing children: a. b. c. One table at a time\nbeginning with most quiet table\nthen, second most quiet and so on. 5. Children are responsible for removing all trays and trash. a. b. when table is dismissed, children will clear all trays and trash. walk quietly out to play area. PLAYGROUND RULES 1. Play in assigned areas only. 2. Follow directions of supervisors. 3. Come in when the bell rings. 4. Be silent on the cement areas between the building. 5. No fighting of any kind. 6. Throw nothing on playground except authorized playground equipment designed to be thrown. CAFETERIA AND PLAYGROUND CONSEQUENCES Warning Name on Aides notepad. Name with 1 check Time out for 10 minutes. Name with 2 checks Time out for remainder of recess. Behavior Document sent home by Instructional Assistant and returned signed by parent. Continued Misbehavior Lunch De tention/Office ReferralREWARDS 1. Student of the Week. 2. 3. Outstanding Student of the Day (periodically). Special recognition for doing something good/change in behavior (periodically). 4. Monthly recognition of students identified as II Good Citizens\". 5. Monthly recognition of students who have behaved according to expectations. 6. Movies 7. Popcorn/Coke Parties 8. Special Field Trips 9. Caught Being Good - A spontaneous and positive recognition of students. 10. Positive Phone Calls to parents. DETACH THIS PORTION AND RETURN PARENT SIGNATURE STUDENT SIGNATURE dateMITCHELL ELEMENTARY SUPPLY LIST SOLD EACH DAY 7:45 7:55 A.M. Pencils it2............................... Primary Pencil........................... Red Lead Pencil.......................... B Tablet.................................. J Tablet.................................. J Sprial Tablet.......................... C Tablet.................................. C Practice Writing Paper (in plastic). D Practice Writing Paper (in plastic). D Spiral Tablet.......................... Notebook Filler Paper (40 count)...... Subject Notebook Spiral (50 count).... Folders with pockets.................... Rulers (wood)............................ Scissors (sharp point)................. Scissors (blunt point)................. Elmers Glue 1^ oz....................... Crayons (16 count)...................... Crayons (Jumbo, 8 count, Kindergarten) Poster Board....... ...................... Erasers 15c or 2 for .25C .15 .20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 50 .75 .30 .25 .50 . 50 .50 .75 .75 .50 .05 ************************************************* PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN' MAKE A DIFFERENCE15 WAYS TO HELP CHILDREN LIKE THEMSELVES ^1/ 1. Reward children. Give praise, recognition, privilege for a job well done. Emphasize good, not the bad. A 2. 3. 4. Take their ideas, emotions, and feelings seriously. Define limits and rules clearly, and enforce them, allow leeway for your children within these limits. Be a good role model. Show that you feel good about Do 5. yourself. Teach that everyone can learn from mistakes. Teach your children how to deal with time and money. Help them spend time wisely and budget money carefully. 6. Have reasonable expectations for your children. Help e 1. them to set goals for themselves that they can attain. Help to develop tolerance toward others with different values, backgrounds, and norms. Point out strengths. I 8. ) 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Give your children responsibility. Be reasonable. They will feel valued. Give support .when children need it. Show them that what they do is important to you. their activities, do things together. Express your values. Attend Tell of experiences, decisions. reasons for your values, beliefs and feelings. Spend time together. Share favorite activities. Discuss problems without placing blame, attacking character. Use phrases that build self-esteem. Avoid phrases that hurt self-esteem. Show how much you care about them. Hug them, they are terrific and that you love them. REMEMBER THE POWER OF PRAISE ! fl Tell them 4K A T Say love you^^ in many ways  Spend time with your child doing what he or she wants to do.  Give honest praise in the presence of others.  Say Tm sorry when you are.  Forgive when he or she hurts or disappoints you.  Take time to LISTEN.  Respect your childs opinions.  Show physical affection ^did you hug your child today?  Let gifts be symbols, not proofs of love. L ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD You can help your child succeed in school by building his or her self-confidence at home. Use these guidelines: Respect your child by treating him or her with the dignity you would a friend. Have faith in your child. Don't be afraid to give your child increasing responsibility and independence. Concentrate on the positive\navoid using discouraging words or actions. Recognize your child's efforts, not just his or her accomplishments. Build self-esteem and feelings of adequacy by using positive phrases as: \"I can tell you worked very hard on that.\" \"You're getting much better at that.\" \"I appreciate what you did. II \"You really handled that situation well.\" Discourage competition (in all forms) between brothers and sisters. REMEMBER: Don't feel guilty if you \"blow it\", but use your energy to try again more effectively. Discipline Home = Behavior in School I i I Never punish in anger and remeniber that punishment does not mean abuse, rather restriction of activities or reduction of privileges. How parents handle discipline at home translates into a childs behavior in school. Suggestions for parents to follow in order to provide better discipline practices include\n Use a positive approach. Say do this more than dont do that.  Say what you mean...and mean what you say. And dont fool yourself, a child knows the difference. I I  Be dear- A child should never be confused about the rules. Rules should be simple and explained carefully. Be reasonable and understanding. When possible, explain why things have to be the way they are. And try to understand your childs feelings about how things are.  Remind yourself that children are different What works with one child may not  Be work with another. II I ii  Set an example for your children. Your own behavior is the base for establishing your expectations of them.  Set limits on your childrens behavior. Agree with your children on the tats and make it clear what the consequences are for breaking the rules. Enforce the conse-quences when necessary.  Be certain that you punish when you say you will. I . Planish as soon as the misdeed is done...dont put the punishment off for a later time or to another person. I bi IC wx VM lAXAW ---------- ri . Stick to your decision Never let a child talk you out of a punishment you feel is nec-essary.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":118,"next_page":119,"prev_page":117,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1404,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}