{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1660","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)","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":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-07-03"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)"],"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/1660"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["56 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1689EALR NO. 97-1700EALR MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. APPELLANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 APPELLEES APPELLEES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors complain on appeal of the district court's approval of the ODM budget in the face of their objections, and its refusal to appoint additional ODM monitors. But the bases for the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the budget were unsound. There is no evidence in this case that any perceived racial \"achievement gap\" or statistical racial disparity in disciplinary treatment is caused by current discrimination. Rather, the testimony in this case, and in others across the nation (and accepted by other federal courts), is that such disparities are the result of various socioeconomic factors. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget. This appeal also arises, in part, from an unsuccessful attempt by the Joshua Intervenors to force the district court's intervention -- in the name of monitoring the Pulaski County school districts' Desegregation Plans -- into matters which are purely internal to the PCSSD and which are not, indeed should not be, affected or governed by the Desegregation Plans. The district court properly declined to grant the Joshua Intervenors' motion for ODM monitoring at the PCSSD's Robinson High School when the motion raised only individual personnel matters. Further, notwithstanding the Joshua lntervenors' motion, and in accordance with the district court's urging that the parties continue to work with the ODM, an ODM assessment of Robinson was carried out without necessity of court order and the personnel matter was resolved by proper utilization of the PCSSD's policies and procedures. The district court did not err in denying the Joshua Intervenors' motion which, in any event, is now moot. The PCSSD respectfully requests oral argument in this appeal. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. .. .......... . ... . TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... . ........... . ...... . ........... . .. iii COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 9 ARGUMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM II. BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. The Joshua Intervenors' Complaints Concerning the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE \"ROBINSON\" MOTION .. . . . ... .. .... .... ... . . ..... ....... . ... 21 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784 (D. Del. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 18, 20 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985) .......................... 12-14, 19 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LRSD vs. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 ............... 13, 15, 19, 20 Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL I. Appellants' Issue No. 1 relates solely to the LRSD's incentive schools, and is not addressed by the PCS SD. II. WHETlIER THE DISTRICT COURT'S HANDLING OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED TO ALLOW INCREASED MONITORING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER MANDATES OF THIS COURT? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, (D. Del. 1995) Tasby v. Woolery. 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) 901 F. Supp. 784, IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION SEEKING ODM MONITORING AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) lV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The ODM Budget On December 13, 1996, the Josh,1a Intervenors filed their objections to the ODM budget and requested additional ODM monitors based, primarily, upon a perceived need due to a racial \"achievement gap\" and purported racial disparity in discipline throughout the districts. J. App. 252. The district court, however, approved the ODM budget as submitted. J. Add. 17. This appeal followed notwithstanding testimony by court appointed experts, Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg, that the achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination, and that these same socioeconomic factors play a deciding role in disciplinary actions across the nation. LRSD App. 264, 451-52, 543-45. 1 2. The Robinson High School Motion Prior to the filing of the budget objections, the Joshua Intervenors, on November 1, 1996, filed their motion to request ODM monitoring of Robinson High School or, in the alternative, for PCSSD to show cause. J.App. 225. Paragraph 2 of the motion states: \"Most of the complaints relate to the administration of the principal, Ralph Hoffman, and the apparent support he has been given by the Superintendent of Schools, Bobby Lester, and the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District.\" J.App. 225. Mr. 1 PCSSD's appendix, submitted herewith, is cited as \"PC App. 11 Some of the materials included therein were filed with the district court on July 2, 1997. See PC App. 107-09. The Joshua Intervenors' appendix is cited as \"J.App. 11 , and the Little Rock School District's appendix as 11LRSD App. 11 I I Hoffman had previously been a principal in the Little Rock School District before becoming I principal at Robinson. Id. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The PCSSD responded on November 26, 1996 stating that th~ Joshua lntervenors' motion was improper because: \"It is, at bottom, primarily a complaint about one employee and therefore a personnel matter. By bringing its motion, Joshua has compromised the traditional steps to be taken in investigating and evaluating complaints concerning a single employee and they have effectively compromised the PCSSD's ability to appropriately and fairly respond to the allegations.\" J.App. 241-242. The PCSSD response continued at paragraph 8. Id. at 242. Indeed, it is Joshua who has compromised a personnel matter and which has precipitously and prematurely aired allegations which have not been fully investigated and for which it apparently has no documentary support, all as indicated in paragraph 11 of its motion. Thereafter, the District Court denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion (J. Add. 5-6) and stated in part that: \"The Court considers the allegations against the principal at Robinson High School an individual personnel matter which should be dealt with by the PCSSD according to its own processes. However, the Court encourages the parties to continue using the resources of the ODM to assist in resolving this issue .\" J.Add. 6. This appeal followed. During the pendency of the appeal, the ODM interceded at Robinson and ultimately issued its own report. PC App. 1-8. The PCSSD conducted its own investigation and followed its own written personnel policies. Mr. Hoffman resigned effective June 6, 1997 and is no longer employed by the PCSSD. PC App. 9. On June 10, 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1997, the PCSSD appointed Mr. Herb Brooks, an African-American and long time principal at Fuller Junior High School, as the new Robinson principal. 3. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan Most of the issues alleged in the Joshua Intervenors' motion concern complaints about discipline and discipline related issues. (See generally, Joshua Motion beginning at J.App. 225.) The Joshua Appendix includes portions of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The Plan includes provisions, among others, that dictate the resolution of issues such as discipline. For instance, with regard to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, the Court approved plan states: J.App. 322. J.App. 323. J.App. 325. The Assistant will work with all departments to establish procedural guidelines which provide that desegregation issues will be raised and resolved as appropriate both in system-wide planning and in each school building. With advice from legal counsel, and working through the Office of Desegregation, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation provides for the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders, and will see that the Office of Desegregation recommends corrective action as needed. The Office of Desegregation has worked, and will continue work, directly with principals to insure equity at the building level. It is further a function of the District's Office of Desegregation to include: Receiving, processing and preparing responses to civil rights inquiries, regardless of source, and preparing internal evaluations of operations or activities where discriminatory practices are alleged, which includes 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J.App. 325 reporting the results of the investigations to the supervisor of the operation or activity involved and to the Superintendent of Schools. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan further provides that: J.App. 380 Id. at 380. Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that note the reasons for punishment, the teacher or staff member involved, and the school, race, and sex of the student disciplined. Collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents, and others to analyze the reasons for suspension by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems that require attention. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services shall submit a discipline report to the Superintendent, School Board and the Office of Desegregation at the end of each semester along with specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality. 4. The PCSSD Discipline Management System Among the goals set forth in the PCSSD Plan are the development of a \"district-wide school-based discipline management system\" . Id. at 312. This school based management system was to be developed with input from teachers, parents, and administrators. Id. On January 24, 1995, counsel for the District submitted to counsel for all of the other parties copies of the \"Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual\" . PCSSD App. 10. Thereafter, the court having received no objections or comments, the Discipline Management Manual was filed with the District Court on February 15, 1995 pursuant to the Desegregation Plan. PC App. 11. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page one of the Discipline Management System sets forth information concerning the procedure that students and parents should utilize for the filing of grievances, which information could be obtained either from the principal or from the pupil personnel office. PC App. 13. Included in the introduction to the Discipline Management System are the following comments: PC App. 16. Few would argue that maintaining good discipline is a necessary precondition to establishing a school or classroom climate that is conducive to learning. That is a given. The real question is how to establish that discipline in such a way as to support learning and encourage growth in all the students. This presents no challenge to the teacher for 90 % of the students. The remaining ten percent of the students require more, not because they are bad or unteachable, but because they are growing up in a society that is more challenging than the socialization they receive. Also, they appear not to have the usual supports available to them (i.e., parental concern or support). As the society for which the children are being prepared becomes more complex, the percentage of children coming to school less than prepared for learning is bound to increase. It is a challenge that must be addressed. The major role of the school principal has changed from that of providing a place for teachers to teach to that of providing a climate for learning and an enthusiasm for the learning process. This includes creative attention to issues of discipline and a safe and orderly environment in the school and classroom. The manual goes on to state that: Despite all efforts at prevention, discipline problems inevitably occur. When a discipline problem does occur, the teacher needs to address the problem as quickly as possible. The first step is to implement the consequence associated with the rule violation as agreed to in the social contract. Being careful of nonverbal 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 21 . gestures and indicators, the consequence should be implemented quickly and without a great deal of fuss. When violations occur with great regularity, the class ought to be asked to assess the rule and see if something could be adjusted to reduce the number of occurrences. The manual is direct regarding the issue of suspension and expulsions: PC App. 22. Teachers are asked to explore and develop consequences that minimize the loss of school time for the student. Suspensions and expulsions should be considered only when every other avenue of correction has been exhausted, in keeping with the regulations established in the student handbook. This concept is reinforced elsewhere in the manual. PC App. 23. The campus administrators are asked to utilize the various levels of referrals to keep the student in school or to minimize the out-of-school time of the student short of expulsion. 5. PCSSD School-Based Discipline Management Program While the manual is a broad conceptual consensus outline developed by a biracial committee, the development of a discipline management program is individual for each campus: Each individual campus is encouraged to express its individual character in the development of the DMP. This manual expresses how the DMP should be organized. This version is offered as a model that seems to meet most of the goals set out for a discipline management plan. Under the leadership of the principal, each school community is expected to devise a plan that is uniquely theirs and that they can implement. It is expected to have a consensus of those involved in the planning process. It is also expected to address the mission of that school in regard to the discipline 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 27. management and how that school intends to carry out that mission with fairness and justice for all the students in its care. * * * The expectation of the campus DMP is that each year will bring about a decrease in the disparity between the white and black student populations in terms of disciplinary actions in that school. The data from school year 1994-1995 will be used as the benchmark in the evaluation of the impact of each campus DMP. Discipline-related data from the 1992-1993 school year is included in appendix 2. This data was used by the Discipline Management Committee to develop this document. The manual contains a procedure for assisting individual campuses whose progress lags behind those of other District campuses: PC App. 28. At the discretion of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services and the Division of Instruction, a special team will be recruited from the staff of another school with similar problems which is making good progress. This team, under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, will assist that staff in identifying the causes for the lack of progress and the ways these causes can be addressed. Toward the end of the manual, it is observed that: PC App. 32. The diversity of the school populations that the schools now serve requires the schools to rethink the issue of appropriate school behavior and to create a climate in which academic achievement can become a reality for all students. School appropriate behavior must be examined in light of the various cultural and racial groups comprising the school. Equity is an issue that must be considered in the conceptualization of alternative strategies. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. The PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline The Joshua Intervenors, by their Robinson motion as well as their motion objecting to the ODM budget (and requesting additional OCM monitors), bypassed the procedures for challenging disciplinary action set forth in the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline (the \"Handbook\"). PC App. 67-74. The Handbook, the reading of which must be acknowledged in writing by each student and his or her parent or guardian, (PC App. 68), provides two distinct grievance procedures: (1) those related to a student or parent filing a grievance under the desegregation policy set forth in the Handbook (PC App. 71); and (2) a complaint procedure for students or parents when a student is involved in a disciplinary ruling. PC App. 72. The Joshua Intervenors, however, did not utilize these procedures and filed their motion directly with the district court requesting relief. Joshua never employed the PCSSD's policy and procedures as set forth in the Handbook. 7. The \"Suspension Index\" for Assessing Discipline Outcomes A general \"suspension index\" has been developed by Dr. Charles Achilles, who served as an expert witness in the Wilmington, Delaware case and whose methodology was endorsed by Dr. Walberg in this case. (LRSD App. 373-375, 381-384). The index allows comparison of one district's suspension rate for minorities to other districts and to the national average. The PCSSD's index and Robinson's are both lower than the nationwide index of 2.0. The suspension indices for the past five years for the PCSSD system-wide have decreased from 1. 77 to 1.45 and for Robinson alone, have ranged from 1.88 to 1.35 for 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the same years.2 These indices are lower than those of school districts which have achieved unitary status. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors have appealed a number of rulings of the district court, to wit, the court's approval of the ODM budget and denial of their motion relating to Robinson High School. The Joshua Intervenors complain that their objections to the ODM budget were not properly considered, and that their request for additional ODM monitors should have been granted. The purported bases for their objections and requests are the \"achievement gap\" between white and minority students, and the alleged racial disparity in disciplinary treatment of minority students. Neither bases, however, withstands scrutiny. The testimony of experts appointed by the court in this case, and similar testimony in other cases where school districts have achieved unitary status, show that socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination are the real reason why school children achieve at different rates and why some children are disciplined. In accepting this testimony, federal courts have found that, notwithstanding racial disparities, a school district may be in good faith compliance with its desegregation plan. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget over the objections of the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors also challenge the district court's denial of their motion for ODM monitoring of Robinson High School. The court's denial, however, was soundly based 2 See nn. 6 \u0026 9, infra. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon a finding that Joshua was complaining about an individual personnel matter which should be left to the district to deal with according to its policies and procedures. The principal al:lout whom the Joshua Intervenors complained, in fact, resigned after the PCSSD was allowed to carry out its own business. Additionally, ODM did monitor Robinson High School and made recommendations to the administration and the school community. In essence, the Joshua lntervenors' motion and appeal are moot but, in any event, the district court did not err in denying their motion. ARGUMENT The focus of a District Court charged with monitoring implementation of a comprehensive remedial desegregation decree must be, as explained more fully infra, on the proper system-wide implementation of the components of the decree. Particularly when the decree, or in this instance the agreed Plans, contain discrete due process provisions for resolution of individual complaints or concerns, the District Court should have no reason to involve itself in individual student or patron complaints, or individual personnel matters, when the institutional process already exists to deal with those. Indeed, in any large institutional setting, there will always be some concern or outcome disagreement even if a remedial device, such as the Desegregation Plans agreed upon here, are implemented not only in good faith but even with near precision. For these and other reasons set forth below, the District Court's orders were correct and should be sustained. By their appeal, the Joshua lntervenors take issue with a number of the district court's orders, including (i) treatment of their requests for additional ODM monitors and objections 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the ODM Budget and (ii) denial of the Robinson motion. In support of their argument that the orders should be reversed, tbey point this Court to a number of \"facts\" which the district court either allegedly ignorrc or misinterpreted.3 Included are allegations of discriminatory treatment of black students in certain areas, primarily discipline, both systemwide and at PCSSD's Robinson High School, allegations which Joshua lays predominantly at the feet of the now resigned principal, Mr. Hoffman. J. App. 225. I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS This Court, in approving the Desegregation Plan in 1990, noted that it was the \"duty of the court, when fashioning a comprehensive remedy, to prescribe a level of relief . . . that will achieve integration to the maximum practicable extent. \" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). That is what has been done here, and the PCSSD has implemented the remedy, the Desegregation Plan, as well as the Discipline Management System required by the Desegregation Plan. The problem, however, is that the Joshua Intervenors do not look to whether the plan has been implemented, achieving integration to the maximum practicable extent; rather, they focus not on implementation but outcomes which are not legally required. The Joshua lntervenors must recognize, as have courts in other jurisdictions when faced with 3 Some of these \"facts\" bear little or no relationship to the Joshua Intervenors' requests or objections. For present purposes, and given the nature of the record submitted by Joshua with this appeal, it is impossible for the PCSSD to refute the discrete individual allegations made concerning individual students. However, as we explain infra, under the law it is unnecessary for the PCSSD to do this. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I unreasonable expectations, that a desegregation plan cannot cure all of societies' ills, nor is it designed to do so: [T]here is nothing in the law which does or couk require equality in the results of educational services. . . . No school policy and no court order can assure any particular level of success in public schools any more than in any other aspect of life. Individual students will flunk, become disciplinary problems, drop out or otherwise fail to meet expectations for reasons wholly unrelated to race, ethnicity, and environment. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985)(\"Keyes XIV\")4. Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the ODM budget and the concomitant request for additional ODM monitors -- based upon their complaints concerning achievement gaps and allegedly racially disparate disciplinary actions -- were properly considered; the district court, however, did not err in approving the budget over the objections. As discussed below, a number of school districts nationwide have been granted unitary status in the face of less achievement under a desegregation plan than that exhibited by the PCSSD. Indeed, they were granted unitary status where there was an adjudication of liability, but where any disparities were found to be, not the vestiges of dual systems but, rather, of outside factors. Here, the PCSSD was released in 1989, pursuant to the PCSSD Settlement Agreement, from all liability for issues which had been raised, or which could have been raised. The Joshua Intervenors specifically agreed that there would be no further litigation other than proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or of the Desegregation Plans. PC App. 75-79. Thus, the PCSSD's obligations were only forward 4 For a complete procedural history of the Keyes litigation, see Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274, n.1 (D. Colo. 1995). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I looking, and it has fully complied with its obligations to the Joshua Intervenors and to the children it educates -- both minority and white -- to desegregate its school district according to Plan. A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates While there may, indeed, be statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, such disparities do not mean that the PCSSD has not properly implemented the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, other school districts across the country have achieved unitary status in the face of greater statistical disparities. 5 For example, in Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995), the court granted the Denver school district's motion to terminate jurisdiction in a longstanding desegregation case. It did so notwithstanding statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, noting that these differences -- among others -- are longstanding and seemingly intractable, but the mere existence of such differences does not identify them as 5 As noted by Judge Posner in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *18 (7th Cir. 1996), \"[a]ffirmative decrees are a formula for protraction.\" Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have provided new guidance for the district courts in bringing school desegregation cases to a close. See, ~. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)(the district court's duties in the final phases of a desegregation case are to determine whether there has been compliance with the desegregation decree since it was entered and whether the vestiges of past discrimination were eliminated to the extent practicable). The constitutional authority of the federal courts does not include the power to posit any particular affirmative achievements. While the PCSSD relies upon the consistent outcomes of other significant desegregation cases across the nation, this Court should not interpret such reliance as any lack of resolve or commitment of the PCSSD to continue implementation of its Plan and to realize the best desegregation outcomes attainable, whether or not legally required. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vestiges of the prior dual system. \"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic facts, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\" Id. at 1300. Similarly, in Coaliti.on to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784, 817 and n.38 (D. Del. 1995), the Delaware district court, granting unitary status to the Wilmington, Delaware school districts, found that the disciplinary codes were not applied in a discriminatory manner and expressly rejected as \"skewed\" any statistics \"which do not account for the fact that a small core of students account for a large percentage of the disciplinary instances, i.e., the fact that black students may account for a greater proportion of suspensions than their proportion in the general student population is essentially meaningless if only a handful of black students is responsible for multiple suspensions.\" In Coalition, Dr. Charles Achilles, an expert, employed \"suspension indices\" accepted by the district court to test whether discipline was disproportionately applied to black students. He compared those numbers with the suspension data from the 1993 Office for Civil Rights data, and determined that the national suspension index for black students is 2.0, whereas the Wilmington black suspension index was 1.81.6 901 F. Supp. at 817. Applying Dr. Achilles' methodology, and using the 1995-96 suspension data for the PCSSD, the PCSSD has a suspension index of 1.45, well below either the Wilmington schools or the 6 The \"suspension index\" for black students is derived by dividing the percentage of black students suspended by the percentage of black enrollment. Dr. Achilles also looked at external data sets (i.e., the behavior of black students outside the districts, independent of the school districts). He also checked \"consistency\" to determine if the behaviors and the suspensions seemed to be consistent and, finally, he tested the \"discretion of the person in charge of the discipline\" to see whether discretion influenced the suspension indices. 901 F. Supp. at 817. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I national norm. Indeed, its index has been well below the national norm for the past five years. 7 Most recently, the Seventh Circuit, in ruling !U response to nine consolidated appeals, found racial disciplinary quotas to violate equity \"in its root sense.\" Commenting in the quota context, but fully applicable to the statistical complaints of the Joshua Intervenors here, the court stated: They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *33. The incidents touted by the Joshua Intervenors are selective with respect to certain schools and certain individual students, and do not reflect the PCSSD's systemwide good faith compliance with the disciplinary provision of the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, the Pupil Personnel Annual Report Summaries indicate that for the past few years, disciplinary actions 7 Using Dr. Achille's formula of dividing the percentage of minority suspensions by the percentage of minority enrollment, the PCSSD has calculated the following system-wide suspension indices: 1995-96: 1994-95: 1993-94: 1992-93: 1991-92: 48 % minority suspensions + 33 % minority enrollment = 1.45 48% minority suspensions + 31 % minority enrollment = 1.55 51 % minority suspensions + 30 % minority enrollment = 1. 70 49 % minority suspensions + 29 % minority enrollment = 1. 69 48 % minority suspensions + 27 % minority enrollment = 1. 77 Utilizing PC App. 80-99. 15 I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1659","title":"Court filings: District Court, supporting documents","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-07-02"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joe T. Robinson High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","School management and organization","School discipline","Students","Student suspension","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, supporting documents"],"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/1659"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["140 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 R Ec1:111,:D JUL 2 - 1997 DESEGRJFF!CE OF TION MONiTORJNG NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please take notice that the PCSSD is filing the following documents as part of the record in this case: 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Climate Analysis Process and Climate of Robinson High School, both performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring this Spring. 2. A portion of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting of the PCSSD dated May 13, 1997. 3. Letter dated January 24 , 1995 from counsel for the PCSSD to all other counsel in the case. 4. Pertinent portions of the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, 1996-97, Secondary Edition . 5. Portions of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989, including pages 19 and portions of the attached PCSSD release. 6. Pertinent portions of the 1995-96 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 7. Pertinent portions of the 1994-95 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report ' describing discipline outcomes. 8. Pertinent portions of the 1993-94 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 9. Pertinent portions of the 1992-93 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 10. Pertinent portions of the 1991-92 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 11. Letter dated May 16, 1997 from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to Mr. John W. Walker regarding climate analysis at Robinson High School. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ' ,,-?\"' / By  ,, , ~-----1, -( -- --- M. Samuel Jones III (16060) Attorney~ for PU-Hiski County 8.peci--arschool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 2, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ODM CLIMATE ANALYSIS PROCESS The ODM climate analysis process occurred in six steps: 1. Collecting and Analyzing Archival Data To develop a statistical picture of Robinson High School, ODM examined archival data that included attendance zone maps, census tract demographics. enrollment reports, school profiles. quarterly discipline records, and extracurricular participation rates. We also studied the school CO E. (Creating Opportunities for Excellence) staff, student, and parent survey results. 2. Site Observations A team of ODM monitors formally visited Robinson twice, and individual monitors returned to the school on other occasions for interviews and observations. We observed a total of 44 classes, representing eleven disciplines (such as math, social studies, etc.) and four activities (such as basketball. cheerleading, etc.). We stayed in individual classrooms from 30 to 60 minutes or lo nger. noting the physical environment (such as visuals. facilities, seating patterns, etc.). instructio nal approaches, and the nature of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. \\Ve also watched the interplay among students, staffs, and administrators during the morning bus arrival, class changes, and lunch. Additionally. we observed student interaction during one home basketball game when the boys and girls varsity teams played Lonoke High School. 3. Interviewing School Staff. Students, and Parents ODM interviewed randomly selected staff, students. and parents. We asked interviewees about their perceptions of interactions among various groups at Robinson and about their opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the school. :\\1onitors conducted one-on-one interviews with 39 randomly selected students (approximately l ')0/o of the student body). Over half of the student interviewees ( 54%) were white and 460 \\\\ ere black Based on a random drawing, monitors identified and interviewed 16 staff members (31 % of th e total staff). Blacks comprised 31 % of staff interviewees and whites 69%. We talked to teachers. cafete ria workers, office staff, and paraprofessionals, as well as the principal and assistant principal. 0 OM conducted parent interviews by phone. We randomly generated a list of 43 parents. representing both black and white parents from various geographic areas within the Robinson attendance zone. The list also included the parents of majority-to-minority transfer students who lived in adjacent school districts. Overall, 26% of the parents we interviewed were black and 7 4% were white. - 4. Organizing the Finding, After gathering information from the various sources, we grouped our findings into broad categories (such as geography, leadership, etc.) Each individual monitor assumed responsibility for various categories and converted the data into a series of comprehensive summaries. 5. Reaching Conclusions Working in concert, the ODM monitors drew conclusions by identifying patterns across the data summaries and drawing connections bet.veen various pieces of information. We focused most of our conclusions on broad themes rather than individual behaviors and incidents. 6. Making Recommendations Finally, ODM developed a series of recommendations based directly on our findings. We attempted to make the recommendations as broad as possible in order to address more than one specific finding. The recommendations are applicable to the Robinson High School community as well as the PCSSD central administration. and are offered as suggestions for improving the school environment not only at Robinson, but at other schools in the district. CLIMATE OF ROBlNSON HIGH SCHOOL Strengths (Identified by Staff, Students, and Parents)  The students themselves. especially their comradery and good interpersonal relations Diversity of the student body (race. socioeconomic status. geographic are:i) Small size of school and local community Racial integration of the school An environment that is safe  Many involved parents Parents feel welcome at the school Teachers who care about their students and work hard Positive relationships between the students and staff Some strong relationships among staff members The academic program Block scheduling Sports  A strong program for students with special needs A strong administration An administration that has improved the academic program and established a safe environmem Strong discipline Additional Strengths (Identified by ODM) Well-maintained facility that is attractive and welcoming Orderly environment Students who are friendly and respectful Cooperative administration, staff, students, and parents Most classes are racially integrated Some good teaching practices Additional factors that have contributed to the climate at Robinson High School Geography The Robinson attendance zone is far ranging and very diverse, with a student enrollment that also includes M-to-M transfer students from various neighborhoods. \\\\-rule such diversity is a strength of the school, it is also a potential barrier to maintaining a cohesive school community. Expectations The principal expected to have the latitude to make changes as he saw fit. The pn11cipal believed he had been hired to increast! order at Robinson High. Prior to his arrival. the school had experienced disc1pli11e problems. racial conflict, and loss of e11rollmelll. The staff did not expect sweeping changes. Staff seemed pleased wiih the increased order and discipline established in the las! !WO and half years, bm they were not so pleased w1th other changes i11st1wted by the principal. The adve11t of block scheduling caused greaI co11stematio11. While there was general support for the co11cept, staff felt they did not have mough say i11 the decision. Issues related to the scheduli11g of athletics and spint teams caused a rremendous rift between some staff. parents, and rhe adm1msrraao11. The principal' s values and Robinson s traditions represented a culture clash. The prmcipal sought ro increase the emphasis on academics a11d achrevemenc, b111 many teachers believe he did so at the expense of Robinson rradiuons. Sports have been very important lO Robinson studellls. parents. and teachers. Attendance at sporting evellls was often the on(v school-related acuvrty reported by parents m our imervrft'r11s. i\\,fany members of the school community perceived the pnnc1pal as anti-athletic. One student said she thought the admi11istration was trying to /Um Robi11so11 imo \"something rt is not . ..  The PCSSD did not plan for change at Robinson High If the district had made effons to help facilitate the leadership rransrtion at the school. many of the current problems could have been avoided or at least m111imi:ed The dismct should have worked closely with the prrnc1pal to help acquaint him with the traditional culture and values at the school. If the district expected the pri11c1pal to make changes at Robinson, they should have articulated this charge to the staff and parents as well. Leadership The principal' s leadership style was perceived as autocratic by many of the staff, students, and parents. Many staff members felt they were not involved in the decision-making process within the school. , Trust has become frai.tile or non-existent between some individuals and groups. Wt! rept!at11dly ht!ard comments that reveall:!d various levels of distn1st between the administration and many staff members. as well as among some staff A minimum of infonnal inter:iction between the principal and many of the school's students, staff, and parents has contributed to perceptions that the principal was generally distant and aloof Some pi:!ople told us that the principal was seldom in the halls or cafeteria to mingl11 with st11dents and staff Others hi:!li11ved that the prmcrpal was oftm away from the school during the day or that he declined to participate in some school activities. especially athletic events. The few opportumtiesfor informal imeraction wrdened the distance between the principal and members of the school community. A lack of general collegiality has characterized the relationship between the principal and most staff members, contributing to a general lack of cohesiveness that has inhibited communication. understanding, trust, respect, shared work goals, and mutual support. Th11 school's admimstrators and faculty have not bonded well either as professional colleagues or as informal associates. Building positive relationships is work that requires time, attention. shanng, and muwal support on the part of all involved. Some staff. students, and parents have sensed a racial undercurrent at Robinson and perceived that racial prejudice has been a negative factor in some interactions. They be!il:!ved that racial prep1dice has impeded objective decision-making and caused inequitable trearmem of soml:! individuals and groups. Problem Solving ).\"o mechanism has been in place at Robinson to anticipate problems and head them off Small problems and disagreements between the administration and staff members were not addressed early on, so some small problems escalated into much larger ones. Few. if any outlets, were available for the adrninimation and staff to vent frus-trations and concerns without going through the formal grievance process. 01her rhan 1he Jonna! gnevance process, 111dividuals who were dissansfied had few opnons for ventmg 1hetr frustrations or solving 1he1r problems. Eventually neganw feelings compounded mlSt de1enorated. anger 1tscalated, and a tense atmosphere prevaJ/ed; some individuals l:!ven acted on a desire /0 retaliate. Many staff members perceived that central office administrators did not give adequate attention to the problems developing at Robinson nor did they provide direction and support for solving problems until they had grown to enonnous proportions. No staff development or any other kind of meaningful intervention was initiated early on to assist the school's administrators or staff in resolving the problems they were facing. Even !hough leaders at both Rohinson and the central office were aware !hat the school was experiencing serious difficulties, they did not quickly move lo objectlvely analy:e the problems or set about fixing them. Professionalism Many members of the staff manifested inappropriate professional behavior by individually soliciting parent and student involvement in their controversy with the principal. 'v(aJ1y srajj members, parents, and swdents were distressed by the pressure they received to take sides on issues. Some starf members have shown favoritism to certain students and parents. Some swdents and parents 1:xpressed 1ea/011sy, resenrment. and a sense that everyone co11/J11 't expect fair, 11qwtable rrearment. They perceived that some people were shown javonusm based 011 race or soc10economrc status. Instructional Quality Teachers exhibited uneven instructional performance. We found some classes that were well orgam:ed with motivarional teachers and involved studems, hlll in too many other classes we smv disengaged st11d11111s and teachers who were not presennng mformat1011111 an engagmg way. In a few cases. we found teachers who had a poor grasp of rhe basic comem of the course they were teach111g.  A number of te:ichers made poor use of instructional time. We saw maJTy teachers that seemed to be havlllg some rro11b!e adj11sring to the longer class periods afforded by block scheduling. The extended time period should have allowed for more ac11ve swdenr leam111g. but some teachers were su!l spending an ho11r or more lecwnng. In some classes. teachers S.:f!med 10 \"coast\" durmg the last 30 mmwes of class rime, usmg nomma!!y re/el'CI!ll matena/s 10 .fill nme. While teachers sel!med 10 be srn,gg!ing to .fill class lime wuh meaJ1mgf11I !eannng act1v111es, some pare ms comp/al/led that swdents did not have enough learning nme during the school day, and that the teachers did not have llme to adequately exp/am new concepts. Some classes were lacking in order and control. Whzle most classes were orderly, af(?W were dramatic excep110ns. We noted classes where no one seemed to be in charge: consequem!y, no learning could rake place. Student Behavior Some srudent behaviors may indicate a backlash against school rules that students have perceived as too restrictive. For example. fo//(J'Wing their lunch period, students left the cafeteria in a deplorable state. Much of the mess appeared to be the result of conscious neglect. We saw uneaten food, large m,mbers of unused napkins strewn on 1he floor, half-filled plastic cups, and ketcfn,p smeared across tables and chairs. Cafeteria workers said some swdents Jon 't appear 10 feel it's /heir responsibility to pick up after themselves when lunch is over. Although we saw adults supervising in the cafeteria. few of them encouraged student to bus their own 1ab{es before leaving. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Work to establish an atmosphere of collegiality and the re.1liry of teamsmanship among the entire staff Collegialiry ,s fosr2red by a number of factors, including agreement 011 common values aJ1d goals: respect for the ideas and comnhutions of fellow workers: /2adersh1p that elicits and s11pporrs a s2ns2 of teamsmanship: and opporwmtiesfor i11forma/ interaction that allows co-workers to feel comforrahle wirh 011e anorher and develop a ge1111i11e se11se of connectedness a11d caring 2. Bring together existing school organizations (such as staff committees, student council, equity committee, etc ) to squarely confront both the perception and reality of racism and other prejudices and work to eliminate them. Recog11i:mg that prejudice and bigotry are teamed, use inservice rraining. swdent workshops, open andjrank disc11ssio11, multicultural opporru11ities in the curriculum, staff retreats, behavior modeling, and all other available means to eliminate biased behavior and atti wdes. 3. The PCSSD should de\\e!op both a fonnal system for regularly assessing school climate and a process for delling with conflict within a school community.  The key to a posime school envrronment is wg,lmu monitoring of the factors that comprise the climate and addressing problems before they escalare. !11 addition. an organi:ed approach to d2aling wirh co11J7icts wirhm individual schools will help solve probl2ms before they are playd out in the evening news. 4. The district administrar;on should support a summer retreat for the Rci:inson staff led by a skilled, outside professional. A summer rerreat or series of retreats will allow the Robinson stafj an opporru111ry to reflect m1d leamfrom recent experrences. 1dennfy changes they need to make, and commll to overcoming the problems that have divided them. 5 All stakeholders at Robinson (parents, students. administration, support staif. facuity. and PCS SD administrators) should work together to deve!cp a vision for the sc:1001' s short and long tenn future. 6 Develop and implemem a staff development program on communication skills Bnng in tramers 1~1th a proven track record in the area of orgam:auonal a11d crosscultural communrcanon. Thrs r;,pe of tramrng should be an ongoing actmry ratha than the one shot,. i11oculat1on approach. 7. Provide more staff training on effective time management and varied instructional approaches for the 90 minute periods offered through block scheduling. 8. Consider collaborating with the staffs of other secondary schools in central Arkansas who have had a history of successfully implementing block scheduling. 9. Plan additional staff development for teachers who need skill development (such as classroom management techniques). Io. rn selecting the next principal. take care to match the vision. strengths. needs. culture. and expectations of the school community with the skills. style. vision. and expectations of the prospective principal. 11 . The school PTO and Equity Committee should jointly establish a plan of act ion to deve!op a more inclusive school community 12. The staff should involve student representatives in the fonnulation of school-based rules and policies. 13 . Staff members and srudent leaders should present a united front to encourage the student body to exhibit more responsible beha,ior toward maintaining a clean school en,ironment. P.2 A.DDENDVM  BOARD OF EDUCAUON MEETING MAY13, 1997 !;!,_EMENT4,RY ELFCTIQNS Wendy Case Resource To Be Assigned Nicole Robinson ElemcntarY To Be ASSigned SECONDARY ELfCTJONS Richard Allen Bishop Jacksonville Jr. High Art Rel'.)lacing: Richard Alan Llsemby Transferred to Social Stu.dies BESIGNATJQNS Brenda Groce (Priroa.ry) Temporary Oakbcook.e Elemenwy Andrea Knapp (Kindergarten) Temporary Sherwood Elemenwy Julie Rasmuson (Biology/Chemistry/Coach) Robinson High Ralph Hoffman (Principal) Robinson High School Searcy. AR; Certification: Special Ed. BA  Harding University at Searcy ,AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Warren, AR; Cettification: Elementary BS  U of A at Pine Bluff, AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Mtn. View, AR; Certification: Art K-12 BS Hardini University at Searcy, AR Experience: Two and ooc half (2-1/2) years outside the District \u0026ginning: August 14, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 6, 1997 EOWARO L . WRIGMT i I 903-t 977) ROBERT S LINOSEY WRIGHT. LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 tl 91J.!991J RONALD A MAY IS AA.C A. SCOTT JR .;AMES M MOODY JOM N G LILE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7 2 20 I 3699 GORD(\" t;RATHER. JR TERR)' THEWS DAVID .JWELL ROGER ..., GLASGOW C OOUGLAS BUFORD. JR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOI-IN R flSDALE KATMLYN GRAVES '-t SAMUEL JON ES ill JOHN -N IL.LIAM SPIVEV IU LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J TVLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BAS SETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY( L TA.VLOR WALTER E. MAV Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Christopher Heller Stephen Jones John W. Walker Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter ( 501 ) 371-0808 FA.X 1!5011 376,9442 OF COUNSEL ALS TON JENNING S GEORGE E LUSK J R January 24, 1995 A.N,.,.( I-IIR A I GIB S ON CRECORV T .JON ES M ~EIT,_. '4QRR ISON BETTINA E BRO'o'fNSTE JN H.-.LiER \"'4 CS P.-.OOEN ROGER O ROWE NA \"CY BELLHOUSE MAY JQl-+N O DAVIS .. UOY S IMMONS HE'-IRY K IMBERLV WOOO T'JCKER '4ARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR H-'RRY 5 ,..URST J R TROY A PRICE P'-i'qlC IA SI E V ERS LEHALLEN J A\"'4E5 M \"\"1000Y JR t\u003cATMRYN A PRYOR J '4AR,\u003c DAVIS C!..A IRE SNOWS HANCOCK l\u003c(V IN -H ,\u003c(NNEOY \"'4ARI( A ROGERS J ERRY J SALLINGS M TOCO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON M ICH AEL O SARNES STE.='HEN R i..ANCASTE\"' FRED ANDREW WOOD JUOV \"4 ROBINSON BETS Y MEACHAM AIN SLEY H LANG Re: Pulaski County Special School District Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed for each of you are copies of the Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual together with a copy of Memorandum of Unqerstanding between the District and PACT dated January 12,. 1995. Bill Bowles tells me that our desegregation plan requires, and that we previously indicated to the Court, that we would first develop this system, then share it with the parties and, assuming no significant opposition, then file it with the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures JlullJOS.030 Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY f- omuel Jones, \u0026 JENNINGS III HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE ~~~~~~- /: : ' ----', .. \"------,.,i .. ',: . ' .. ~ 1996-97 SECONDARY EDITION  w z :J 0 w ~ a: 0 u.. a: w a.. c., z g \u003c( I u ~ w 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT-STUDENT STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacherw1thIn one (1) week after the student receives ,t. If. after one ( 1) week. the student has not returned the form. he will not be permitted to attend class until he does comply. We have read the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline and although we may not agree with all the regulations, we understand that the student must adhere to them while he ,s at school or In attendance at school sponsored activ1t1es. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we w,11 contact the principal for clarification w1th1n one (1) week after receipt of that policy. Student Signature ParenVGuardian Signature Date State law (6-18-502. 6-18-505) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student d1sc1pline polIcIes. This document will be included in the records packet for students transferring w1th1n Pulaski County Special School District .  TO THE STUDENTS: This document has been prepared for the purpose of outlining to you the expectations of the Pulaski County Special School District ,n regard to student conduct. The District recognizes that students are guaranteed full rights of c1t1zensh1p by the United States Const1tut1on; and these rights may not be denied except in accordance with due process of law. The District further recognizes that with these rights there are respons1bli1t1es which are designed to help all part1c1pants acquire the full benefits of the educational program, regardless of race. sex. creed or national origin. It 1s 1mposs1ble to list in this Handbook all of the rules and guidelines for student and staff use. Therefore. the contents of this Handbook should not be construed to limit or deny your rights and respons1b1ht1es on your own campus as a member of the student body or as a c1t1zen. Neither should the Handbook be construed as limiting or denying your principal the right and respons1b11ity to develop such necessary rules and regulations that are not 1ncons1stent with federal and state laws and Board of Education policies and regulations. Each student will receive a copy of the policy Handbook, and will be required to sign a statement of receipt. ii  Eddie Collins Assistant Superintendent Pup,! Personnel Services WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT CONDUCT? Freedom 1s a constttut1onal nght. but it does not mean the absence of reasonable rules and regulations which serve to guide the actions of 1nd1v1duals. Along with freedom comes the respons1b1ltty to act In such a manner as to insure that all part1c1pants may en1oy the same freedom. To obtain the greatest possible benefit to the students, teachers. adm1n1strators, parents. Board of Education and ti'le entire community. 1t ,s essential that all work together to insure that all persons are treated equally and with d1gn1ty 1n respect to their rights and respons1b1htIes. Students Students have the respons:01hty to pursue their education tn the Pulaski County Special School O1stnct In a manner thats ows respect for other students. acuity members. parents and other c,tIzens. Students shot;ld be aware that they have a respons1b1'.1ty o cooperate with and ass,st tne school s a~ ,n the orderly and erf1c:ent conduct of he schoo1s by abiding by rules and regulations established by the Board of Education and r.e school of attendance. and implemented by teachers and school aom,nistrators. Each student 'S respors1ble for his own conduct at all times. Parents or Guardians Parents should carefully ,ead the pages of this handbook and assume a ,ead1ng role ,n ad IsIng their children of appropriate and inappropriate behavior at school. Parents should stress he r:,portance of a good educatton and conduct necessary to achieve ,t. Without the support of tne parents/guardians. this attempt o promote good c1t1zensh1p and success ,n ,,fe may not succeed and the student will be the one to suffer the consequences of struggling though 1fe ., 1 r:out benefit of an educauon. Arkansas Law 6-15-.116. 6- 5 . .1 7 establishes a penalty not to exceed 550 plus court costs and reasonable fees for any parent who fails to attend a student conference to discuss his child's failure to achieve mastery level periormance on a basic competency test at grade levels 6 and 8. Fa,lure on the part of the student's parents to attend the conference or o arrange another t,rr,e for he conference sub1ects them to the c1v1l penalty. Arkar,sas Law 6- 7-106 states that any person who shall abuse or ,nsult a public school teacher while hat teacher ,s performing normal and regular or assigned school respons,b1hlieS shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be liable for a fine of not ,ess than 5100 nor rrore than S1 .500. o urauthor,zed person 1non-stt;dent) shall purposely en er or remain unlawfully tn a scnoot venIc:e or on the schaol premises. ICrim1nal respass - A.C.A 5-39-203) Teachers All eacrers are responsible for the superv,s,on of he bel-iav1or of all the students .n re sc,..col. This includes not only the s udents who are regularly ass:gred to the teacner. but all ot;,er students ~J1th ,1,hom the teacher comes 1n contact. Each teacher s expected to rna,nta1n the kind of atmospr,ere and decorum which will promote the learning crocess. and to ut11,ze sound :ecr-r1ques :ih1ch seem appropriate. These techniques ,nclude conferences mth students ar,o parents. referral o counse,ors at the school or referral to other supportive service personre of tre Oistnct rnurse. attendance caseworker. educational examiner. psycho1og1st). Wren re teacher 'S unable o assist the student to maintain proper controls of ,s benav1or. the stwdent s o be referred to the appropriate adrrnnistrator 1n the school.  , I School Administrators An administrator of each school will disseminate and explain to all students at the beginning of the school year, and will d1ssem1nate to each new student upon reg1strat1on. the rules and regulations currently in effect for that school. In developing rules and regulations the administrator Is expected to involve representatives. of the teaching staff. the student body and the patrons of the school. The administrator of each school is responsible for conducting continued inservice education for all personnel on a regular basis to interpret and implement established policies. Each principal. or the princ1pal's des,gnee. ,s authorized to assign students to detention. to work detail. to probation status and to suspend or to recommend the expulsion of students. The principal ,s expected to inform the parents or guardians of any student whose behavior ,s in serious conflict with established laws, rules and procedures. Superintendent The Superintendent ,s responsible for exercIsIng leadership ,n establishing all necessary procedures. rules and regulations to make effective t e Board of Education policies relating to standards of student behavior. * * * * * Board of Education The Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District. acting through the Superintendent. holds all school employees responsible for the supervision of the behavior of students while legally under the supervision of the school. The Board expects all employees to be concerned with student behavior and when and where unacceptable behavior occurs. to take appropriate action. * * * * * Nondiscrimination It ,s the policy of the Pulaski County Special School D1stnct to provide equal opportunities without regard to race, color. national origin, sex. age. qualified handicap or veteran ,n ,ts educational programs and act1vItIes. educational services. financial a,d and employment. Inquiries concerning application of this policy may be referred o: Director of Desegregat1on/EquIty Coordinator 925 East Dixon Road/PO. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 Telephone Number: 490-2000. Extension 205 In keeping with the requirements of federal la.v. state law and aoolicable court order, the District w,11 stnve to remove any vestige of d1scnm1natIon ,n the employment. assignment and promotion of personnel: ,n educational opportunities and services offered students: ,n student assignment o schools and classes: ,n student discipline. and, ,n location and use of fac1lit1es. Furttier. the D1stnct will make special efforts to employ and advance women. blacks and handicapped persons. (Board Policy Code AC) Any student. or parent, who feels aggrieved urder the aoove policy may secure 1nformat1on concerning filing grievance procedures from the principal of a D1str:ct scrool or from ttie office of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. * * * * * Student Procedure for Filing Sexual Harassment Complaints It ,s me policy of the district that none of ,ts s:L.dents 11111 be sub1ec:ed to sexual :iarassment 'Jy any school employee, including teachers and administrators. any ,olunteer or any v1s1tor 2  * * * * * Alternative School The Pulaski County Special School District has an Alternative Learning Center for students in grades 7 through 12. It Is designed to serve the needs of those students whose educational needs are not met by trad1t1onal programs. The primary goal of the program ,s to help students develop and maIntaIn the academic. social and behavior skills they need to function successfully ,n school and in society. Grievance - Due Process Students have the right to be Immed1ately informed of alleged vIolat1ons of standards of behavior as estaol,shed by Board poilcy and/or school regulations. and to be informed of appeal procedures. Students have the respons1b1l1ty to know and obey school rules. to express gnevances ma ool1te and hoso1table manner. and to give parents correct information concerning misconduct. Pnnc1oals and teachers have the respons1b11ity to follow Board established procedures ,n d1sc1plmary actions against students. Principals are responsible for nottfymg and confernng with parents and students m cases mvolvmg suspension and expulsion recommendations. Parents have the respons1b1l1ty to calf pnnc1pals for conference when needed. and to arrange with proper school authont1es for desired student hearings. * * * * * Student Complaints It a student and the parent of a student involved In a dIsc1plinary ruling wish to contest a d1sc1plinary ruling or a cond1t1on or ci "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1634","title":"Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-07"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary"],"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/1634"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, three Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; Court of Appeals, petition for additional time; Court of Appeals, entry of appearance; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECE~ /~r; - DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . J~1 ~ ;  - 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF PCS SD MOTION FOR ENLARGO!~{ijM'{'WJ !~friOO/NG INTER VENO RS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the response of th/ LRSD to the PCSSD motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning the \"pooling\" issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to reply. 2. Counsel for the LRSD has no objection to this extension of time. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997 in which to reply to LRSD's response to the PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By .. r. __ , M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special __ ,.,.School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ___ , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III a J: Es lfED JUL 7 - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the motion of thEf Joshua Intervenors seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning - the PCSSD strike issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend and the issues raised in the Joshua's motion, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to respond. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (S01) 371-0808 By '-----;27-r. -~~ __ ,,-- M. Samue+ Jones ;rII (76060) - 1?-ttorn~ fok..../ Pulaski County \u003c_______~ School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 3 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 07 10 97 15:.?3 LJP I GHT, LI I l[1SE',' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LI7TLE ROCK SCSOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SP~CIAL SC~OOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR i;-NLARGEMEN:' OF TIME PLAINTI:::'F DEFC:NDAK'I'S J::-JTERVEl\\ORS IJ:1;'7ERVEKORS ':'he P.1laski County Special School Jistrici: ( \"PCSSJ\") fol:' its motion states: , Prese:1i:l21 pending: be:'o::-e ~he Cour: :.s LRS'J' s :no~.:.or: for attorneys' feee and costs perta:ni~g to the 0 pool:~g'' issue. 2. So:;i.e of :.he issues raised ir1 :he LRSD' s CT',o~:on are s:milar to the :ssues ra1sed a~d pend:~g in ~RSD's ~sspcr.se to c~e PCSSD motion seeking an awa=d of atcor~eys' fees o~ the same issue. 7te reply to the response :s due on Mor.day, cu_y 14, 1997. 3. Due to the related nature of these pending ~otio~s, the PCSSD requests additional time to and !nc:ud::1g July 14, 1997 in which to respond to LRSD's motion. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has no cbjecticn to ~his exte~s:on of tiIT\",e. WHEREFORE, PCS SD prays for an exce:1sicr: of t:1r.1e to and includ:~g July 14, :997 in which to ree9ond to the ~~SD ~otion :or 15:2J .~E: ,lill/Ci3 - attorneys' fees and coats. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, :,I~DSEY \u0026 JE!\\-:-JIKGS 200 West Capitol Ave~~e suite 2200 Litt:e Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 '-- , .. - I \\ By ) ----:\u003e--..  \u003c- '- '- ';--_, ~- Samuel Jones rr:' (76060) Attorneys,,/ for ,..,.-Pulaski Coc.nty Sp_e_c_i_a ...] ,_/:Schcol Cistr.:.c'::. CcRT!FICATE CF SE~v:cs 1~ , 199~, a copy o! t~e fores=i~g was served by U.S. mail on t~e fol:owing. Mr. Joh~ W. Wal~er ~ctn W. wa:ker, F.A. 1 723 Brcaci,.;ay ~itt:e Roe~, AR 72201 Mr. Chr:s:oor.er Heller Friday, ~~d~edge \u0026 C~ark 2000 First Cc~~ercia~ Buildi~g Little Rock, Arka~sas 72201 ODM Heritage West Blcig., Ste. 510 201 Eas: Xarkham Stree~ Lit~le Rock, Arka~sas 722Cl ~r. Richard~- Roachell Koac~e:: anc Street F:rst Federa: Pla~a 401 ~- Caci:~:. s~~ce 524 Litc~e KoCk, ~r~a~sas 722~1 ~r . ::~ot~y Ga~ger Ass:sta~t At:or~ey Ge~eral 323 Cen'::.s= S;ree'::., Suite 20 ~it~le Rock, A=kaneas 72201 Mr. Stephe~ ~. ~ones 3400 :'CBY Tcwe1: 425 West Capitol A~enue Litt!e Rock, Ar~ansas 7220: I) M. Sa:r.ue:. :II -- ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~!lErJJ ~S DISTRICT COURT EAST::i,,'i Cc STRICT fa.RKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Plaintiff, * By.~.!~ vs. * No. LR-C-82-866  oep CLERK * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * JUL 1 5 1997 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Intervenors. * QB.DER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") requesting an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the PCSSD strike issue. Also before the Court is a motion filed by the PCSSD requesting an extension of time in which to file a reply to the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") response to the PCSSD's motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the \"pooling\" issue. In both motions, the PCSSD requests an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997. The PCSSD has indicated in its motion that the LRSD has no objection and has orally indicated to this Court that the Joshua Intervenors have no objection to this request. For good cause shown, this Court grants the PCSSD's motions for extension of time. The PCSSD has to and including July 14, 1997, in which to file its response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the strike issue and its reply to the LRSD's response to the - PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the pooling issue. Jit 0 2 5. ,r/'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS // day of July 1997. 'll/ ) , r . ,1 :;:/7 ~/4 11,,-/.._,J... UNITED STATES DISTRI~ JUDGE Tttl IXDME.0- OOEREO ON DOCKET IHET ~ C~E ~TH RULE 58 ANc;}J8~RCf \u003cMl 1 ~1  1 av ~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue, states: 1. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is without merit and their petition should be denied. 2. The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). 3. The Joshua Intervenors' reliance on Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996) is misplaced. 4. The Joshua Intervenors do not meet the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\" as set forth in Jenkins and Schafer. Their limited participation in the post-judgment - litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was not in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. 5. The Joshua Intervenors' own petition for fees states that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 12 (emphasis added). 6. This is the position taken by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors at the strike hearing on August 28, 1996. 7. As argued by the Joshua Intervenors, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. The Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, F.3d (8th Cir. 1997). 8. The Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Schafer. 9. The Joshua Intervenors cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys fees in its entirety. 2 Respectfully submitted: WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 - ' ----- ' (; ~ By ----:--;i ~, . -:- - \\.__ . '---'-- M. Samuel Jone , III (76060) Claire Shows ancock ~013) Attorn~s. for the Pulaski County Special Scnoof District No. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samlle1-Jo,, III . i ) 3 -----/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE]VED \\JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is, simply put, without merit and their petition should be denied. ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). Their brief addresses only two paragraphs to the \"Predicate for Award,\" and they cite only two cases. Joshua Br. at 1-2. Their reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), stands for the proposition that -- with regard to fee awards -- a prevailing plaintiff does not necessarily lose its \"prevailing\" status even if it does not prevail on an issue so long as it was defending its remedy. The plaintiff's claims in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims. Id. at 11. The Joshua Intervenors pay mere lip service to the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\", and do not explain how their participation (limited as it was) in the post-judgment litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. Indeed, their position is belied by their own petition for fees, in which they state that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 1 2 (emphasis added). Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors made this plain at the strike hearing, as well. The - Court, referring to a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors the morning of the hearing stated, and Mr. Walker responded: THE COURT: And Mr. Walker -- I won't enunciate all that he [Mr. Walker] has responded to, in fact, I have not read it all carefully, but in essence, you are asking the Court not to intervene in this dispute because the teachers union and negotiations between employer and employee has never been really a part of the Settlement Agreement. And that the black children do not stand to be harmed any more than any other children. And yet, you do concede that this Court has jurisdiction -- MR. WALKER: No, we don't, Your Honor. * * * THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: There was no issue in the original case that sought to raise liability of the teacher's union with respect to the constitutional rights of black children, there is none. 2 - Transcript of Hearing, August 28, 1996, at pp. 16-17 (emphasis added). Mr. Walker later stated to the Court: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, understand our position. This has been presented to the Court as a conflict between two parties, the Teacher's Union and the School District. It does not involve at this particular point the Joshua Intervenors other than to the extent that Joshua would talce a position with respect to the Settlement Agreement. . . . Id. at 27. As argued by Joshua, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. Indeed, as this Court is aware, the Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, _ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996).1 The Joshua Intervenors did not have a dog in this fight. They cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. Given their present posture, it is surprising that they did not request attorneys' fees in the pooling dispute between the LRSD and the PCSSD, or the teacher retirement dispute between the LRSD/PCSSD and the ADE. The Joshua Intervenors could, and should have requested this Court's permission to absent themselves from proceedings on the strike issue, just as the PCSSD has done in the 1 In Schafer, the Eighth Circuit reversed that portion of the district court's judgment awarding attorneys' fees because the plaintiffs' were not defending their remedy, and failed to persuade the panel that the State continued to violate federal law. As the court stated: \"We must avoid creating a framework in which 'the decree institutionalizes the attorney, as well as the system.\"' 83 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1986). 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following . Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I ' / ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES .JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs, states: 1. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. 2. In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. 3. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it made a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered and order granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of the Eighth - Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" 4. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. 5. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCSSD's petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. 6. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically noted that LRSD did not request and was not - granted an extension, and that any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated  June 18, 1997. 7. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. That fee petition is untimely. 8. The LRSD stated grounds for not seeking an extension, to wit, that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible\" and that the \"LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" (LRSD Br. at 3) do not excuse the LRSD's failure to obtain an extension of time . 2 9. The LRSD's and PCSSD's cooperation follows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue and not when, as here, the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. 10. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to file a fee petition on the pooling issues, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. 11. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 12. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), does not support the LRSD's claim for attorneys' fees. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, held that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they - were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. 13 . The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction that the issues in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit. 14. This distinction has been applied to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 15. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 3 16. Further, the proceedings relating to the pooling issues concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees and costs, in its entirety. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ___ ., ('(~ By( ___.TJ:.---\"- y~~-~~ M: Samuel JfnesUI)76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) , _}..~or the Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roach ell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / Ms SamuelJ nes, III. _~ I / , _____ / 5 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES J\\JI_ l ,1 1997 omcE OF OESEGREGA110N MON\\10RING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in - response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. ARGUMENT I. THE LRSD's FEE PETITION IS UNTIMELY In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it make a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered an order - granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of - the Eighth Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCS SD' s petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically ruled: As PCSSD points out, this Court granted only PCSSD an extension of time to and including thirty (30) days after the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate regarding the pooling issues in which to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD did not request and was not granted a similar extension. Therefore, any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated June 18, 1997. Notwithstanding the express language in the Court's order that any such filing by the LRSD for fees in connection with the pooling issues would be untimely, the LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 2 The LRSD states that it is simply seeking the same time within which to file its fee petition as was previously granted the PCSSD, stating that it did not seek an extension for two reasons. Neither reason is persuasive. First, the LRSD states that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible. The LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" LRSD Br. at 3. While it is true that the LRSD and PCSSD attempt -- as they should -- to work cooperatively, that cooperation flows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue. That was certainly not the circumstance in this instance, where the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. Further, it is somewhat disingenuous of the LRSD to claim that it did not expect the PCSSD to file a fee - petition with respect to the pooling issue. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to do so, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 1 Second, the LRSD states that its \"right to recover fees in this case was firmly established only last month by an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Kansas City desegregation case. Jenkins v. State of Missouri,_ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997)(slip op., May 22, 1997)\" As discussed fully in Point II, infra, the LRSD's reliance on the Jenkins 1 Even if the LRSD had requested and been granted an extension of time to file a fee petition up to and including thirty days after the Eighth Circuit issued its mandate, the fee petition would have been due June 29, 1997, i.e., thirty days from May 30, 1997. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 3 - case is wholly misplaced. It provides no support to the LRSD, either as to the timeliness (or lack thereof) of its fee petition, or on the merits. II. THE LRSD IS NOT ENTITLED TO FEES ON THE MERITS The LRSD misconstrues the holding of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and misapplies it to the facts of this case. In Jenkins, the prevailing class plaintiffs were denied fees by the district court for their participation in the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court that culminated in Jenkins III (515 U.S. 70 (1995). The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. The Jenkins class plaintiffs had obtained orders at the district court level, and affirmed by the - Eighth Circuit, which related directly to the issues they won initially -- issues from which their prevailing party status flowed. The Court of Appeals held that even though they did not successfully defend their remedy at the Supreme Court level, they did not lose their prevailing party status. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and applied by the Fourth Circuit in multiple cases: Under Hensley, the first inquiry is whether the issues in the post-judgment litigation are inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit or whether they are distinct. The Fourth Circuit has applied this distinction to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 4 - 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895, *10 (citing Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit applied this distinction in Association for Retarded Citizens v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 482 (1996)(plaintiffs' post judgment activities so much greater than necessary for monitoring the decree, they amounted to the assertion of distinct, new claims for relief which could not be compensated on the strength of the plaintiffs' prevailing party status in the underlying suit). The facts and circumstances of this case do not fit within the Eighth Circuit's \"prevailing party\" ruling in Jenkins for two reasons. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. While the LRSD was the prevailing plaintiff in its suit against the PCSSD initiated in 1982, any past \"liability\" of the PCSSD was extinguished by the remedy afforded the LRSD in 1985, the Settlement Agreements (and releases), and the Desegregation Plan approved by this Court and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Eighth Circuit noted: The remedy prescribed was intended to be a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past. If PCSSD or some other governmental entity commits another constitutional violation in the future which has an interdistrict segregative effect, the courts will of course be open and able to order an appropriate remedy on pr "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1497","title":"Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock School District","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":["1997-07"],"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--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","School attendance","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Student suspension","Parents","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock School District"],"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/1497"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":["300 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1667","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue"],"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/1667"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUN 3 n 1991 V I ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUE I. Attorneys' Fees. Federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. A prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it was, LRSD's pooling claim was not frivolous. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees should be denied. A. 42 u.s.c.  1988. Prevailing defendants in civil rights litigation may recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988. However, the Supreme Court has declared that a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees only in very narrow circumstances. Eichman v. Linden \u0026 Sons, Inc., 752 F.2d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985), citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (: l~Vcndky\\lnd\\pcu-foc.bri (1978). \"A court may award prevailing defendants attorney's fees - under section 1988 only if the plaintiff's claim was 'frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or . . the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.'\" Flowers v. Jefferson Hospital Ass'n, 49 F.3d 391, 392 (8th Cir. 1995), quoting Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 422. Moreover, the prevailing defendant must affirmatively prove that the plaintiff's claim was \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.\" Marquart v. Lodge 837, 26 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1994) (\"A survey of the Eighth Circuit's most recent decisions awarding attorneys' fees to 'prevailing defendants' in civil rights cases reveals that this Circuit has been unwilling to award attorneys' fees where the defendant is unable to prove that the plaintiff's case is meritless. 11 ) (emphasis in original). PCSSD's claim for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 fails for two reasons. First, while PCSSD may have prevailed on the pooling issue, LRSD remains the \"prevailing party\" in the case as a whole. In Jenkins v. Missouri, F.3d , 1997 WL 268815, *l (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that \"status as a prevailing party is determined on the outcome of the case as a whole, rather than by piecemeal assessment of how a party fares on each motion along the way.\" The court noted that \"(t)his is true of matters decided after judgment on the merits, as well as those decided before.\" Id. Thus, PCSSD is not a \"prevailing defendant\" under 42 u.s.c.  1988. PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees also fails because LRSD's pooling claim was not \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless\". (:\\hofrc\\/crdlcy\\1n,d\\pcw-foc .bri 2 LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement, although rejected by the this Court, was the only interpretation consistent with the language of the agreement and with the only contemporaneous explanation of the agreement. See Docket No. 2610. The Eighth Circuit described LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement as \"completely logical.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 436, 437 {1995). LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement was not \"frivolous\", and as a result, PCSSD cannot recover attorneys' fees even if it was a prevailing defendant. PCSSD also argues that it may be awarded attorneys' fees under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. State law governs the award of attorneys' fees only in diversity cases where the underlying claim was governed by state law. In federal question cases, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded unless authorized by federal law. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 259 n.31 {1975). The present case is a federal question case. This Court's original jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C.  1331{a), 1343(3) and (4) 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d. Jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6). See Docket Nos. 1947 and 2337. Because this Court's jurisdiction was and is based on federal law, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded under Ark. Code Ann.  16- 22-308. In Home Savings Bank v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152 {9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth circuit reversed an award of attorneys' fees based f:\\hancVcrdky\\Jr,d\\p:::u--fcc.bti 3 on state law where the district court's jurisdiction was based on a federal question. The court stated: Because established federal common law disfavors the award of attorney's fees in federal question cases absent an express congressional directive, we hold that the district court erred in applying Alaska's law on attorney's fees. Incorporation of state law occurs in federal question cases only in the absence of federal coJillDon law or statutory law. * * * Since the Supreme Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 95 s.ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the rule in federal courts had been that, absent an express statutory coJillDand, attorney's fees will not be awarded in civil cases. Id., at 1162 (emphasis supplied). PCSSD's reliance on TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994), is misplaced. Jurisdiction in that case was based on diversity. As the Supreme Court noted in Alyeska, \"A very - different situation is presented when a federal court sits in a diversity case.\" Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 259 n.31. Therefore, federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. Under 42 U.S.C.  1988, a prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it were, LRSD's claim was not frivolous. attorneys' fees should be denied. B. Timeliness. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for Included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed before this Court's Order dated March 16, 1994. PCSSD failed to request attorneys' fees within 14 days of that Order. Consequently, they r:\\horne\\fcrdlcy\\l r.d\\p::114-(oc .bti 4 have waived any right to fees for work performed before the March - 16, 1994. See Local Rule B-3. D. Work on Appeal. Also included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed on the two Eighth Circuit appeals of the pooling issue. In each case, PCSSD failed to timely file a request with the Eighth Circuit to recover attorneys' fees for its work on appeal. A substantial question exists as to whether this Court has authority to award attorneys' fees for work on appeal absent the issue being remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See Eighth Circuit Rule 4 7C. This is currently one of the issues pending before the Eighth Circuit in the State's appeal of this Court's award of attorney's fees to LRSD and PCSSD. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 19, Appeal No. 97- 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that this Court stay any award of fees for work on appeal pending the Eighth Circuit's resolution of this issue. Moreover, PCSSD did not prevail on the first appeal of this issue. LRSD appealed this Court's March 16, 1994 order, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the order and directed this Court to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). Even if this Court finds that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable fee, PCSSD should not be compensated for work on this first appeal in which PCSSD lost. f:\\homeVcndlcy\\Jnd'9c-fec .bri 5 E. Reasonable Hourly Rate. In an Order filed December 12, 1996, this Court awarded attorneys' fees to PCSSD for the work of M. Samuel Jones and Claire Hancock at an hourly rate of $160.00 and $145.00, respectively. See Docket No. 2883. The State has appealed contending that these hourly rates are excessive. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 23, Appeal No. 97-1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Even so, PCSSD now asks for an even higher hourly rate for the work of attorneys Jones and Hancock. LRSD believes that the hourly rates awarded by this Court in its December 12, 1996 Order are reasonable and, unless reduced by the Eighth Circuit, should be applied in the present case should a fee be awarded. F. Lack of Detail. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" The Eighth Circuit has held that \" [ i] nadequate documentation may warrant a reduced fee.\" H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257,260 (8th Cir. 1991). \"Incomplete or imprecise billing records preclude any meaningful review by the district court of the fee application for 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary' hours . II The Supreme Court in Hensley noted that \"at should identify the general subject matter expenditures.\" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12. least counsel of his time In H.J. Inc., supra, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's 20% fee (;\\hon-c\\fcndlcy\\lnd\\p::sfc,c.bti 6 reduction based on inadequate documentation where the fee applicant's time records included numerous vague entries such as \"legal research\", \"trial prep\" and \"met w/ client.\" Similarly, the vast majority of PCSSD's time entries contain no description of the subject matter on which time was spent. This failure justifies a significant reduction in any fee awarded to PCSSD. II. Prejudgment Interest. As with its argument for attorneys' fees, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law and federal diversity cases to support its request for prejudgment interest. Federal law governs whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in federal question cases. See Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1330 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The question of whether interest is to be allowed, and also the rate of computation, is a question of federal law where the cause of action arises from a federal statute.\"). Under federal law as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit, PCS SD' s motion for prejudgment interest is untimely and should be denied. See Reyher v. Champion International Corp., 975 F.2d 483, 489 (8th Cir. 1992). In Reyher, supra, the Eighth circuit held that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 apply to postjudgment motions for prejudgment interest. Id. Rule 59 requires that postjudgment motion be filed within 10 days of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). When a motion is untimely under Rule 59 ( e) , \"the district court loses jurisdiction over that motion and any ruling on it becomes a nullity.\" Id. f:\\horne \\fcn:tlcy\\lr'ld\\p:;:N-(ce.bri 7 Judgment was entered in favor of PCSSD on July 30, 1996. Docket No. 2724. PCSSD did not file its request for prejudgment interest until on or about June 5, 1997. Thus, PCSSD's motion for prejudgment interest is untimely under Rule 59 and should be denied. 1 III. Postjudgment Interest. As with the above issues, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law to support it claim for postjudgment interest. Post judgment interest on judgments of federal district courts is governed by 28 u.s.c.  1961. LRSD admits that it owes PCS SD post judgment interest on the July 30, 1996 judgment as provided in that statute. LRSD also admits that it has not yet satisfied the July 30, 1996 judgment. LRSD understood that it had an agreement with PCSSD to withhold payment of the judgment until after conclusion of LRSD's appeal. It was understood that postjudgment interest would accrue during this time. PCSSD and LRSD are currently attempting to determine the precise amount owed and are negotiating payment terms. IV. Prayer. LRSD prays that PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Prejudgment Interest be denied; that LRSD be awarded its costs and 1PCSSD may argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 governs its request for prejudgment interest rather than Rule 59. However, the Eighth Circuit noted in Reyher that Rule 60 \"cannot be used to impose additional affirmative relief.\" Reyher, 975 F.2d at 489 n.l. Therefore, Rule 60 cannot be used after the fact to award PCSSD prejudgment interest.  (;\\ha-nc\\fcrdlcy\\l r-.d\\pcM-(oc .bri 8 attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. f: \\home \\fcrd le y\\J nid\\pc:u- fee. bri Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 9 O9ristopher Heller (#BlP?3) ~ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (M182) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this X,\"!' day of r , 1997. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 !hJistopher Heller' '\\.o/1n C. Fendley, Jr. f:\\horn::Vcrdlc.y\\Jnd\\pc:u-fcc.bri 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. LITTLE ROCK $CHOOL DISTRICT and PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 No. 97-1350EALR APPELLANT APPELL:SES Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF : EXHIBIT SUMMARY A. WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas desegregation litigation. In response to motions brought by ihe three school districts in Pulaski County, by order entered January 13, 1995, the District Court found that the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State of Arkansas and the three districts. The District Court's order was affirmed in part and reversed in part by this Court. ~ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1. et al., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), reh'a denied {June 27, 1996). After this Court's mandate issued, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed motions in the District Court seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs. By orders entered December 10, 1996 and December 12, 1996, the District Court awarded PCSSD and LRSD $36,464.00 and $43,083.32 respectively in attorneys' fees and costs. ADE appeals from these two orders. ADE believes that this appeal can be resolved on the briefs alone and therefore does not request oral argument. i TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM.l\u003e.RY .AJ.\\ffi WAIVER OF O~ZU, ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT STATEMENT OF ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMM.l\u003e.RY OF ARGUMENT ......................... ......................... ARGUMENT A. B. ................................... Standard of Review The District Court Erred in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 .............. . C. The District Court Erred in Awarding PCSSD and LRSD Costs and Attorneys' Fees in Connection With Their Defense of ADE's Appeal and Their Prosecution of Their CrossAppeal of the District Court's i ii iii l 2 3 14 15 15 15 January 15, 1995 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. The District Court Abused its Discretion in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Discounted Rates Actually Charged the Districts During 1994 Through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CONCLUSION ................................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM ................................... ii 24 25 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aleveska Pipeline co. v. Wilderness Societv, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982) Corder v. Brown, 25 F. 3d 833 (9ti:c Cir. 1994) DeGidio v. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990) Delta Special School District No. s v. State Board of Education, 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984) Fogertv v. Fantasv. Inc., 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994) Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) International Travel Arranaers. 1 nc. v. Western Airlines. Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980) Jenkins v. state of Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. , , 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F. 3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) iii PAGE(Sl 15 20 I 23 15, 22 16 17 15 17 22 17 17 3 5, 19 22, 23 TABLE o~ AUTHORITIES (Cont.) CASES Patrick v. Staples, 780 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D. Indiana 1991) Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Board, 925 F. 2d 1069 ( 8th Cir. 1991) Wvcoff v. Hedcrepeth, 34 F. 3d 614 ( 8th Cir:. 1994) STATUTES Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308 42 u.s.c. 1983 42 u.s.c. 1988 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a) Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C Local Rule B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts Of Arkansas iv PAGE{Sl 17 15, 23 16 PAGE(Sl 7 16 passim PAGE(Sl 19 19 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) appeals from orders entered on December 10 and December 12, 1996, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, the Hon. Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, in the action styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et .al., No. LR-C-82-866. In those orders the District Court ordered ADE to pay a total of $79,547.32 to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) in attorneys' fees and costs. Apx. 56-61. The District Court's jurisdiction was originally invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  133l(a), 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1~83, 1988 and 2000d, and the Fou~teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291 in that the District Court's December 10 and December 12, 1996 orders are collateral orders that are final with respect to all issues raised therein. ADE's notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 1997, and hence was timely filed under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a) (1). 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. --42 u.s.c.  1988; --DeGideo V. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990);  --Delta School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984); --Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1994) II. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD for Work Performed Defending ADE's Appeal and Prosecuting LRSD's and PCSSD's Cross-Appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 Order. --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Fed. R. App. Proc. 39(a); --Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C. III. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees To LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon Their Attorneys' 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Actual Discounted Rates Paid by the Districts for Work Performed by Their Attorneys During 1994, 1995 and 1996. --Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Bd., 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1991) --International Travel Arranaers, Inc. v. Western Airlines. Tnc., 623 F. 2d 1255 ( 8th Cir. 1980) . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal arising from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation litigation. The parties to this appeal are appellant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and appellees Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (PCSSD) and the L1ttle Rock School District (LRSD). In 1989 the State of Arkansas, the three school districts in Pulaski County, and two groups of intervenors agreed to settle the remedial aspects of the school desegregation litigation. The parties submitted to the District Court \"comprehensive settlement agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the 'setclement plans.' They also submitted a separate but related document, called the 'settlement agreement,' settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas.n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). This Court reviewed and approved the settlement documents and directed the District Court to approve the settlement plans and the Settlement Agreement as written by the parties . .IQ.. at 1394. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court entered an order on January 18, 1991, dismissing the State of Arkansas as a party to the case. 3 A. LRSD's and PCSSD's Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement In July of 1994 LRSD filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. LRSD contended that the State breached the Settlement Agreement by enacting a law that shifted the responsibility for the payment of workers' compensation claims brought by school district employees from the State to each school district in the state. PCSSD joined in this motion. Later, in August of 1994, LRSD and PCSSD filed a second motion asking the District Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. In this motion, LRSD and PCSSD contended (a) that ADE improperly treated M-M Transfer students in calculating the amount of \"loss funding\" due the Pulaski County school districts; (bl that ADE improperly excluded certain funds, known as Education Excellence Trust Funds, in a multiplier that determined the amount of \"loss funding\" due the three Pulaski County school districts; and (c) that the manner in which the State planned to implement a statewide public school computer network violated the Settlement Agreement . After a four-day hearing, the District Court, by order entered January 13, 1995, granted in part and denied in part 4 LRSD's and PCSSD's motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement. B. The Appeal and Cross Appeals of the District Court's Januarv 13, 1995 Order The State and ADE appealed the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. PCSSD and LRSD cross-appealed, contending . that the District Court did not grant them full and appropriate relief on their motions. On May 15, 1996, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order . .s.ae. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). LRSD and PCSSD filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by this Court on June 27, 1996. No party sought from the Eighth Circuit an award of attorneys' fees or costs in connection with the appeal or cross-appeal, and no order awarding costs or fees to any party was entered by the Eighth Circuit. C. PCSSD and LRSD Seek Extensions of Time Within Which to File Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under Local Rule Local B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, any motion by PCSSD or LRSD for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the District Court's January 13, 1995 order was due within fourteen days of the entry of the order, ~, on or before January 27, 1995. On January 26, 5 1995 PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file such a motion. The District Court extended the time to February 17, 1995. Apx. 66. On February 17, 1995, PCSSD and LRSD filed another motion'for an extension of time; asking that their motions for attorneys' fees not be due until after this court resolved ADE's appeal and the districts' cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. The District Court granted this motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until \"fourteen days after the appeal is decided or withdrawn\" to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 71. On May 29, 1995 (fourteen days after this Court announced its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order), PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion in the District Court asking for a further extension of time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 72. The District Court granted that motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until June 28, 1996 to file their motions. Apx. 74. On June 28, 1996 PCSSD and LRSD again filed a motion asking for additional time to submit an attorney fee motion. Apx. 75. On July 1, 1996 the district Court granted the motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until 30 days after this Court's mandate issued to file a motion for attorneys' fees . Apx. 78. 6 On August 19, 1996 LRSD filed another motion seeking more time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 79. ADE filed an opposition to this motion on August 22, 1996. The District Court granted LRSD's motion on August 27, 1996. Apx. 82. D. PCSSD's Motion for Fees and costs On August 16, 1996, PCSSD finally filed its initial motion for attorneys' fees and costs. 1 In its motion the only basis PCSSD cited for its fee request was Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which permits a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Apx. 83-84. The affidavit filed in support of the motion provided no information concerning the billing rates of or the activities performed by the various persons who allegedly worked on b~half of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Apx. 85-88. On August 30, 1996, ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD's motion. ADE opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that state law could not form the basis for a fee award to PCSSD, that PCSSD had failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Court to calculate a reasonable 1 While PCSSD's motion purported to seek \"costs\" in addition to attorneys' fees, the motion itself contained no information concerning such claimed \"costs.\" 7 fee award, and that the District Court lacked authority to compensate PCSSD for time its attorneys spent defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting PCSSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Three weeks later, on September 20, 1996, PCSSD filed a \"Supplemental Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees as to the State Defendants.\" In its \"Supplemental Motion\" PCSSD claimed that it was entitled to an award of fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The \"Supplemental Motion\" did not provide any further information concerning the hourly rates or activities performed by the attorneys, paralegals and document clerks that purportedly worked on behalf of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On October 4, 1996, ADE filed a response to PCSSD's \"Supplemental Motion.\" In its response ADE argued, among other things, that PCSSD was not entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 or any other exception to the \"American rule,\" and that PCSSD's motion must still be denied for its failure to present evidence sufficient to enable the District Court to compute a \"reasonable\" fee award. On November 21, 1996, the District Court entered an order directing PCSSD to submit, within ten days, \"an affidavit documenting the time spent litigating these matters and the position or job title and hourly rates for 8 those who worked on the matters.\" The District Court further specified that \"the affidavit should set forth the activity performed and time spent by each individual.\" Apx. 133-34. On December 2, 1996, PCSSD filed a second affidavit signed by its attorney,  Sam Jones. Apx. 135. \"Attached to the affidavit were billing records that purported to show the time spent by attorneys, paralegals and document clerks on behalf of PCSSD. Apx. 139-170. In the affidavit, attorney Jones stated that his current normal billing rate was $175.00 per hour, but that during 1996 PCSSD was charged only $135.00 per hour for his time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that attorney Claire Hancock's current normal billing rate was $145.00 per hour, but that PCSSD was charged only $110.00 per hour for her time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that the time of Angell Jones, the Manager of the firm's Litigation Support Department, was currently billed at $75.00.per hour during 1996 (Apx. 136); the billing records attached to the affidavit showed, however, that Ms. Jones' time was billed to PCSSD at a rate of $55.00 during 1994. Apx. 139, 147. The billing records attached to the affidavit also showed, among other things, that PCSSD was billed $110.00 per hour for attorney S. Jones' time during 1994 (Apx. 139, 147), and included time spent by attorneys, paralegals and 9 document clerks for work performed in connection with PCSSD's defense of ADE's appeal and PCSSD's prosecution of its cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 148-165. E. LRSD's Motion for Fees and costs LRSD filed its motion for fees and costs on August 30, 1996. LRSD's motion sought an award of $42,520 in attorneys' fees (262 hours spent by attorney Chris Heller at a rate of $160.00 per hour and 6 hours spent by attorney Clay Fendley at a rate of $100.00 per hour) and $563.32 in other unidentified \"costs.\" Apx. 89. Like PCSSD, LRSD sought attorneys' fees for its attorneys' work defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting LRSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 95-132. The affidavit submitted in support of LRSD's motion stated that attorney Heller's current normal billing rate was $160.00 per hour and attorney Fendley's current normal billing rate was $100.00 per hour. Apx. 89. The billing records attached to LRSD's motion, however, showed that LRSD was only billed $105.00 per hour for attorney Heller's time from June, 1994 through at least November of 1995, and that LRSD was only billed $85.00 per hour for attorney Fendley's time through at least November of 1995. Apx. 103, 122, 125, 127-131. LRSD's motion also sought attorneys' fees for time spent by LRSD's lawyers on appeal. Apx. 125-132. 10 With respect to costs, the billing records attached to LRSD's motion showed that a total of approximately $4380 was billed to LRSD as \"expenses\" during the period from June of 1994 through November of 19952 (Apx. 103, 122, 127-129, 131- 32), but LRSD's motion did not identify which particular items of the total \"expenses\" LRSD wanted the District Court to direct ADE to pay. See generally Apx. 89-132. ADE filed its opposition to LRSD's motion on September 16, 1996. ADE objected to any award of fees for time spent on appeal, ADE pointed out that LRSD's request for $160.00 per hour and $100.00 per hour for time spent by attorneys Heller and Fendley was excessive and would result in a windfall to LRSD in light of the actual hourly rates paid by LRSD, and ADE pointed out that some of the allegedly \"compensable\" time spent by LRSD's attorneys was spent on matters unrelated to LRSD's litigation against the State and ADE. F. The District Court's December 10 and December 12. 1996 Orders On December 10, 1996, only eight days after PCSSD finally submitted an affidavit with billing records to 2 These total \"expenses\" included charges listed as \"binding expense,\" \"deposition expense,\" \"copy charges, 11 \"Lexis computerized research,\" \"messenger expense,\" \"postage,\" \"fax,\" \"express mail,\" \"filing fees,\" \"preparation expense, 11 \"meals,\" \"Westlaw computerized research,\" \"airline ticket,\" \"parking\" and \"taxi.\" 11 support its fee motion and before ADE had filed any response to it, the District Court entered an order granting LRSD's and PCSSD's motions for attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court found that LRSD and PCSSD were prevailing parties entitled to an award of-fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court awarded PCSSD $28,854.50 in attorneys' fees. The award was based, among other things, 3 upon billing rates of $110.00 per "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1657","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"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","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits"],"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/1657"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["121 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED !! ii 1 - 1997 I.- '  ~ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its notice the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. On June 30, 1997, LRSD filed its fee petition with respect to the pooling issues. For the convenience of the court and - the parties, LRSD has prepared the attached summary of its fee petition. 2. During the course of preparing a summary of its fee petition, LRSD discovered additional time entries which should have been deleted from Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. LRSD has deleted those entries and submits with this notice a substitute Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. 3. LRSD's brief in support of its fee petition refers to two exhibits: A request by PCSSD for an extension of time in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Eighth Circuit's order providing additional time for all appellees. Those exhibits were not attached to the brief filed yesterday. They are attached to this notice of filing. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 \") ,.   ..) ~--;. _.,.. . By: ~~--:;;;4,/,;;/~/~~~ Christopher Hell- , v -__ Bar No. 81083 /1/' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of July, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri.stophJ~ -- 3 SUMMARY OF EXHIBIT A - INVOICE NO. FEES EXPENSES 1 $ 880.00 $ -o- 2 1,195.00 226.09 3 4,785.00 923.00 4 995.00 5.00 5 575.00 28.50 6 40.00 18.00 7 800.00 8.00 8 8,325.00 4.80 9 7,955.00 555.88 10 12,345.00 19.31 11 10,850.00 3,808.70 12 1,410.00 5.00 13 2,095.00 621.80 14 6,760.00 136.20 15 1,080.00 -o- 16 1,900.00 1,750.00 17 9,960.00 95.00 18 6,830.00 52.10 $ 78,780.00 $ 8,257.88 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER ' FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 31'6-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 CD RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 2/25/94 CJH 4/19/94 CJH 5/05/94 CJH 5/11/94 CJH - 16/94 CJH 5/17/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REPLY RE: POOLING ISSUE LETTER FROM OISTR1CT CLERK - POOLING APPEAL LETTER FROH .6TH CIRCUIT CLERK RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BRIEFING SCHEDULE PREPARATION OF APPEARANCE FORH PREPARATION OF DESIGNATION OF RECORD; REVIEWED FILE RESEARCHED STAY ISSUE TELEP.HONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN I3J - POOLING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DRAFTED STIPULATION ANO SUPERSEDEAS BOND TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN (2+ \"i-ELEPHmt~ CtUIFERENGE! RITII TOtJR RE ARQEESS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH BARRY WARD PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .so .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 .so .so .25 .75 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATON  71-()25363; l -110294 6/23/94 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER TOTAL SERVICES '5\"- st) 5.75 5.75 X 105.00 = $603.75 603.75 'i\u003eW TOTAL THIS INVOICE 5.7s -------------- TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOCCE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARCiES F'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND PAYA  I.IC UPON 111:CICIPT, $603.75 4/28/97 CJH 4/29/97 CJH 4/30/97 CJH 4/30/97 JCF 5/27/97 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DRAFTED HOTI ON LETTER TO MR GANS LETTER FROM HR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORgER RESEARCH AND DRAFTING - POOLING BRIEF RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF REVIEWED PETITION FOR REHEARING; CONFERENCE WITH CJ~ LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED POOLING ORDER TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 6.50 7.50 1.00 .25 .25 43.25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO', 71-Q2S363. 2 -137146 6/18/97 .0001so-cJH $5368.00 -------- ---------- C~RISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN Cl.AYBURN FENDLEY COPY CftARGES 41.75 X 124.98 = 1.50 x 100.00 = LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !!EN !!ILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !!EN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE !!ILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 5211.92 \"-W 1so.oo lSO 8.60 43.50 $52.10 $5420.10 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTl.E ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 6/27/94 CJH 6/28/94 CJH 6/29/94 JCF 6/30/94 JCF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY REVIEWED PLEADINGS; REVIEWED NISWANGER MEMO 't-EI FPWONE CONFERENCE IHTII ATTOP~15 +AYL  R*S DI I ICE. I Eltrn  NL CEINFERENCE lllll PfR:a ~EBERS OFFICE RESEARCHED ENFORCE~ENT OF CONSENT DECREE CONFERENCE WITH CJH; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESEARCHED RULE OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .75 1.25 .75 -zs 2.so 1.00 2.00 2.so , 11,.QO TAX I0ENTIFICATO'-, 1 7Hl2SJ6J; l -11108S 7/26/94 .0001so-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER -------- --------- JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 2.00 X 105.00 = 9.oo x es.oo = EXPRESS HAIL \"7\u003e. \"K\" 'f.... \\ OJ WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET llEEN lllLl.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTED. THESE WILL ee l!IILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOIClt\u0026 ARI: DUI: AND P'AYA8\u0026.IC UP'ON RICCICIP'T. 210.00 '5lQ 765.00 \"l\u003e'?S-a. oo 218.09  . ~ ' Sl201.09 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING '00 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501 I 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 7/05/94 JCF REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: ADOPTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 7/06/94 JCF RESEARCHED RULES OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 7/07/94 CJH 7/10/94 CJH 7/l.0/94 JCF -7/11/94 CJH 7/11/94 JCF 7/12/94 CJH 7/12/94 JCF 7/13/94 CJH 7/13/94 JCF 7/14/94 CJH 7/24/94 CJH PREPARATION OF 8TH CIRCUIT ARGUMENT; REVIEWED RULES RE: PREPARATION BIREF RESEARCHED APPEAL BRIEF PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED ANTICIPATORY BREACfl RE: DISCHARGING CONTRACT DUTY; PRESUMPTION OF DEPENDENT DUTIES P.REPARATION OF STATEMENT OF THE CASE PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL PREPARATION OF sPP~cMENTAL AUTHORITY ~TER IH '1/0THIG R1C.MT'~ ,\\PPl;ilibi CO~IFERENCE WITII FENBLC PREPARATION OF 8TH CiR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOff OF APPENDIX; CONFERENCE WYTH C3H PREPARATION OF POOLING BRIEF AND APPENDIX PREPERATION OF 8TH C~R. BRIEF RE: POOLING PREPARATION OF POOLYIIG BRIEF; ARPENOIX; PIRED REVIEWED AND REVISED BTR CIR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOM FOR FILING TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH 8Tff CIR. CLERK REVIEWED FILE RE: AP.PEAL TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.so 2.25 1.75 1.25 1.25 5.75 4.25 5.50 7.25 3.25 1.25 1.2s .25 .so TAX I0ENTIFICATO1' I 71-0253637 1 -111812 8/25/94 .0001so-CJH $3702.50 .. .. , .. .  ~ '. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT tNCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.EC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POST0, THESE WILL DE BILI.EC ON A LATER INVOICE, Al.I. INVOICU AIIIIIC DUii: AND PAYAL.11: UPON 111111:CICIPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ~D PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c100 WEST CAPITOL LlffiE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 \\(.o .oo PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY ~-25 X 105.00 = 22.25 X 85.00 = BINDING EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES POSTAGE WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE -:$(4,ic;- TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC:.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !IEEN !IILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL !IE !IIU..EO ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICES AIUC DUK AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. TAX I0ENTIFICATOI. I 71 -(1253637 2 -111812 8/25/94  000150-CJH 63.00 68.90 479.40 17.40 294.30 $923.00 $4625.50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ,4()() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICAT01' I 71-02S3637 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKf1AH (501) 376-2011 PAGE INV# DATE LI230 l -112794 9/28/94 .0001so-cJH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSD 8/17/94 CJH 8/18/94 CJH 8/2.2/94 CJH 8/24/94 CJH 8/29/94 JCF - 0/94 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: BRIEF REVIEWED FILE; SEND DOCUMENTS TO WL\u0026J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY LETTER FROM MICHAEL GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER LETTER FROM MR. JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED APPELLEES BRIEF PREPARATION OF DRAFT REPLY BRIEF TO 8TH CIR. 8TH REVIEWED ANO REVISED CIR. REPLY BRIEF TO TOTAL SERVICES HOURS .zs .25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .75 1.00 -------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 3.25 8.oo X 105.00 = .r,..75 X 85.00 = HES SENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL \"THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIIE DUE AND PAYALE UPON RECEIPT. ---------- s.oo ---------- ---------- S750.00 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS N-ID PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/05/94 CJH RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY BRIEF; BRIEF 9/06/94 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED REPLY PREPARATION FOR FILING 9/07/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FINAL REPLY BRIEF - POOLING 9/23/94 CJH REVIEWED APPEAL FILE TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE Ll230 HOURS 2.00 .75 3.50 TAX IDE'-'TIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -113619 10/26/94  000150-CJH S352.50 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY EXPRESS MAIL 2.75 X 105.00 = .75 X 85.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU Alli: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. ~8.7'.5 '-\\40 .f,3 _y:, 1'5\"\" 28.50 $2_!3.50 $381.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 10/10/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAH JONES TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 TAX IOENTIFICA TOI.  71-()25363~ l -116162 2/13/95 .000150-cJH $26.25 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER FAX .25 X 105.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL TRIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL IHVOICU AIIIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LII: UPON 11111:Cll:IPT, 26.25 C.,C) 18.00 $18.00 $44.25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST NARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi. BUILDING .COO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 cJ PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TAX IDENTIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -121629 9/18/95 .0001so-cJH HOURS 8/02/95 8/10/95 8/22/95 8/29/95 CJH CJH CJH CJH RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL REVIEWED MCCUTCHEON EXHIBITS; PREPARATION FOR HEARING RECEIVED t REVIEWED ORDER LETTER TO OR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE COIJFERENCE lHTH MARG. GREHILLIAN TOTAL SERVICES 1.75 2.50 .25 .25 s.oo CHRISTOPHER JOHN MELLER COPY CHARGES s.oo x 1os.oo = MESSENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAl THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"'RO,.ER CREDIT, \"'LEASE ENCl.OSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE, AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND P'AYA  LIC UP'ON 1111:CICIP'T, S525.00 52s.oo ~co 3.00 s.oo s0.oo -------$--5--3--3--.--0--0 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COl,O,lERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LrTTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS i'Z101 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/01/95 CJH 9/05/95 CJH 9/05/95 JCF .06/95 CJH 9/06/95 JCF 9/07/95 CJH 9/07/95 JCF 9/08/95 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE PREPARATION OF HEARING PREPARATION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY COURT; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT DRAFTS ANO HEARING TRANSCRIPTS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; CALLS TO SAH JONES, ANN BROWN AND J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLER~; CALLS TO RUTH STEELE CONFERENCE WITH CJH~ REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILES RE: EQUALIZATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSSD POOLING DOCUMENTS; SUBMISSION ON POOLING; PREPARATION FOR HEARING; CALLS WITH HILHOLLEN: SAM JO~ES: RUTH STEELE; CHIP JONES AND JUDGE WRIGHTS OFFICE REVIEWED PCSSO SUBMISSION; CONFERNCE WITH CJH PREPARATION OF HEARimG; CALL TO J. WRIGHTS OFF~CE; CHYP JONES; RUTH STEELE; HARK HIL~ObLEN: SAH JONES: PREPARATION FOR CROSS EXAHINATI:ON OF DON STEWART; CONFERENCE WITH H~RK HILHOLLEN; CALLS TO LRSD; REVIEWED BUDGET AND BOARD MINUTES CONFERENCE WITH CilH RE: RESEARCH -FOR HEARING RESEARCHED NOVATI N REFORMATION AND MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT POOLING HEARING; CORFERENCE WITH HARK MIUiOLLEN; PREPARATION FOR HEARING CONTINUATION PAGE INV# OAT!: LI230 HOURS .zs 1.00 7.50 2.so 7.75 1.00 8.75 .25 7.50 TAX I0ENTIFICATO,._ f 71-Cl2S3637 l -122801 10/18/95 .000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHAR\u003coES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLEC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IIE IIILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L IHVOICU ARIC DUIC AND PAYA  LIC UPON IIICCICIPT. 9/08/95 JCF 9/11/95 CJH 9/12/95 CJH 9/13/95 CJH 9/14/95 CJH --9/95 CJH 9/28/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAL.S AHO PROFESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 'I)() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 ATTENDED HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: CROSS EXAM OF MR. STEWART CONFERENCE WITH KR. HIUHOLIN RE: HEARING PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN PREPARATION OF HEARING; STEELE AND JONES TESTIMONY; STEWART CROSS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION EOR HEARING TELEPHONE C  lfFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR HEARING LETTER FROH SAH JONES  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CITT:P JONES RE: DEPOSITION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: aEARING TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.00 .so .75 .25 .25 5.25 .so .75 .so .2s .25 2.00 .25 .so .so .25 . so .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt.. I 71 -(125363 ; 2 -122801 10/18/95 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOfN CLAYBURN FENDLEY -------- --------- 45.00 X 105.00 = 11.25 X 85.00 = 4725.001'100 956.25 \\ \\\"2..$\"' COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES P'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 4.50 s~.80 $5686.05 ======= FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAATNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ' WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 10/06/95 CJH 10/09/95 CJH 10/10/95 CJH 112/95 C:JH 10/16/95 CJH 10/17/95 CJH 10/18/95 CJH 10/19./95 A TT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAH JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS TELEPHONE CO!llFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES RE: DEPOSITION PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE COMFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES; PREPARATION FOR JONES DEPOSITION REVIEWED STEWART TESTIHONY PREPARATION OF OUTLYNE OF STEWART TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF POOLING DEPOSITIONS; REVIEWED FILE AND SENT DOCUMENTS TO CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CH'IP JONES; DEPOSITION PREPARATION LETTER FROH sAH JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN OICTATEO OUTLINE OF STATEMENT TESTIMONY; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION ANO TRIAL HEHO TO J.C. FENDLEY TELEPHONE COIIFEREWCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER TO SA~ JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH CHRIS HELLER; RESEARCflEO YRS7RUCTIONAL BUDGET CASES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.25 .25 .25 .25 2.50 .so .so 2.75 1.50 1.75 2.so 2.50 .25 .50 .25 4.50 .2s .25 .so .so TAX I0ENTll'ICATOt, I 71 -0253637 1 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2J TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED, THESE WILL IIE IIIU.ED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 10/19/95 CJH 10/20/95 CJH 10/23/95 CJH 10/23/95 JCF 10/2~/95 JCF 10/26/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL AS SOCIA TKlNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 TRAVELED TO DALLAS FOR CHIP JONES DEPOSITION; PREPARATION; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; RESEARCHED INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN LETTER TO DR. WILLIAHS RE: JONES DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH CHIP JONES PREPARATION FOR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPflONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK REVIEWED SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF STEWART; CONFERENCE MITH CJH RE: DEPO. OF CHIP JONES AND RESEARCH NEEDED; RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RESEARCHED INTERPRETATION OF CONSENT DECREE; PREPARATION OF HEMO TO CJH RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED CHIP JONES, DEPOSITION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 11.75 .zs .2s .25 2.50 2.2s .25 .so .25 s.so 5.25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOI, f 71 -02536:l\u003e 2 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH ANDREW T. TURNER 42-50 CHRISTOPHER JOHN NELLER JCJ-fN CLAYBURN FENDLEY .so x as.oo = 43.00 X 105.00 = 10.7s x as.oo = 4515. oo \u003cr:,'6W 913.75 \\01~ COPY CftARGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH PARKING TAXI WESTLAV COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES 5.ao 202.50 12.00 13.00 322.58 $-55. .5 .88 ; (CONTINUED ON PAGE 31 TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED, THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TOTAL THIS INVOICE PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TO INSURE l'ROPER CREDIT, l'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCL.UDE CHARGES l\"OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.I.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WIL.L. BE BIL.I.ED ON A I.ATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU AIUI: DUI: AND PAYA l-1: UPON Rl:Cl:IPT, TAX I0EWl~ICATOI. I 71-(12~3637 3 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH $6027.13 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 11/08/95 CJH 11/10/95 CJH 11/12/95 CJH 11113/95 CJH 1 20/95 CJH 11/22/95 CJH 11/26/95 CJH 11/27/95 CJH 12/02/95 CJH 12703 /95 CJH 12/04/95 CJH 12/05/95 CJH 12/06/95 C.JH liELEPHQ1\u003e1~ CONFERENCE WITH EIGAI A '1RCUIT ELERlr I.El EPHtmE CONFERENCE WITII SAf4 JON~ ~REP!.RATUJN OF BRAL ARGUHENl:TELEPIISHE EONFEROCE WITII Sidi JOH~ '2-REP:AltATION Hfi BRAL ARGUNer~T' Rf'.IEWEB CASES FOR BRAL ARGUMENT 'KLEPflOPE CONFEltENC:E WI I A Bi A CIR. E-at:IRT OF .t,PP~Ats REVIEWED OLD FILES RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND HISTORY LETTER FROM J. WOODS RE: CHIP JONES DEPOSITION RECEIVED t REVIEWED CORRIGENDUM OF DEPOSITION CHANGES PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION FOR TRIAL; REVIEWED DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DEPOSITIONS RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL REVIEWED TRAISCRIPTS AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HII.J-IOLLEN PREPARATION OF TRIAL; CALLS TO SAM JONES ANO COURT REPURTER RE: LESTER AND SECRETARY; REVIEWED EXHIBITS TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE l1 ITH SAM .JONES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS ~ 2.50 .25 2.00 2.00 1.00 .25 1.75 1.75 2.00 .zs 3.25 .zs .25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO\" I 71-0253637 l -126291 3/22/96 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 21 TO INSURE P'ROPER CREOIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUOE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN l!IIU..EO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL l!IE l!IILLEO ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. IKVOICU AIII: DUI: AKD PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 12/07/95 CJH 12/07 /95 JCF 12/08/95 CJH 12/08/95 JCF 12/11/95 CJH 12/12/95 CJH 12/13/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES AND DON STEWART TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. STEELE PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS OF STEWART AND LESTER CONFERENCE ~ITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: DEPOS. CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR DEPO. OF STEWART PREPARATION OF DEPOSITION OF RUTH STEELE; PREPARATION AND DEPOSITIONS OF DON STEWART AND BOBBY. LESTER ATTENDED DEPOSITION OF DR. STEELE PREOEPOSITIOU CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE ATTENDED DEPOSITIONS OF DR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF OR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING; FEE ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES l2J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE PREPARATION FOR HEAR~NG TELEPHONE COSFERENCE WITH SAH JONES 12) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WYTH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TRAVIS CREED TELEPHONE CONFERENCc WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPTS PREPARATION FOR HEAR\"ING; REVIEWED EXHIBITS; PREPARED EXHIBITS; EXAMINATIONS TELEPHONE COIIIFERERCE MITH HARK HILHOLLEN; CALL TO SAM JONES l2J; CHIP JONES; JUDGE WEIDOWER; REVIEWED ANO OUTUNEO DEPOSITIONS; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; TRIAL PREPARATION PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .2s .zs .2s 1.2s .2s .75 a.so 1.2s 2.00 3.25 1.75 .so .50 .25 1.75 .50 .25 .2s .so .25 3.50 11.75 TAX IDENTll'ICAT01\"  71-0253637 2 -126291 3/22/96  000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET ISEEN ISIU.0 OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !SEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IS ISIU.0 ON A LATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU ARC DUI: AND PAYA  LC UPON 1111:CCIPT, 12/13/95 J CF 12/14/95 CJH 12/14/95 JCF 12/15/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROA:SSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE R()CI(. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN WALKER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HANK WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING PREPARATION OF TR1AL; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR POOLING TRIAL; CONFERENCE WITH co=cauNSEL ATTENDED POOLING HEARING PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJY RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE WITH SAH ~ONES RE: SETTLE HE NT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 7.50 10.75 6.50 1.00 .25 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATO1'  71-025363\" 3 -126291 3/22/96 .000150-cJH 91.00 $9070.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY TOTAL SERVICES bZ,CO 66.75 X 24.25 X -------- ---------- 105.01 = 7009.42 q'C\\'20 85.00 = 2061.25 'l-'-1\"2$\"\" LONG D'ISTANCE MESSENGER EXPENSE FAX TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"ROPER CREDIT, \"LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHAR\u003cilES l'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU Altl: DUI: AND \"AYA LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT. 9.81 s.oo 4.50 $19.31 $9089.31 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi- BUILDING 0l WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKfiAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS PCSSD 12/04/95 CJH 1/04/96 CJH 1/05/96 CJH 1/08/96 CJH -1/09/96 CJH 1/10/96 CJH 1/11/96 CJH l/Ei/9.6 JCF 1/16/96 JCF 1/18/96 JCF 1/19/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS ANO TRIAL; CALL TO RUTH STEELE; CA~~ TO GAR~ JONES; CALL TO C~IP JONES; CALL TO aAMES ~ENNINGS; OUTLINED JONES DEPOSITION - RE POOLING RESE~RCHED AND REYIEWED FILE RE: POST-TRIAL BRIEF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: SETTLEMENT; TRANSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT RESEARCHED FOR POOLING POST HEARING BRIEF; CALL TO HILHG~LEN RE: SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT; BRIEF PREPARATION RECEIVED . REVIEWED POOLING TR~NSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN CONFERENCE WITH CLER~ RE: RESEARCH PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FIND'INGS OF FACT REVIEWED TRAHSCRIPT OF CROSS OF DON STEWART ANO ESTIHOlff OF CHIP JONES REVIEWED RESEARCH MEMO RE: POOLING IS5ES; REVIEWED 8TR CIR. OPINION REMANDING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROPOSED PINOINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: POOLING PAG= INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.25 1.75 2.75 .25 .25 1.50 1.25 1.75 .25 .25 3.00 4.25 .75 .25 1.15 TAX I0ENTl~ICATOI, I 71-0253637 l -128661 6/30/96  000150-CJH ICONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY Wl'ni PAYMENT. 'nilS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. 'niESE WILi. BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:CCIPT, 1/19/96 JCF 1/21/96 JCF 1/22/96 CJH 1/22/96 JCF 1/23/96 CJH 1/23/96 JCF 1/24/96 CJH 1/24/96 DKHP 1/24/96 JCF 1/25/96 CJH 1/26/96 CJH 1/26/96 JCF FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES; REVIEWED FILE; BRIEF PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK KILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF DIRECT EXAM. OF STEWART; REVIEWED DEP.O. OF LESTER AND STEELE RE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOANN SORN RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BR~EF PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED RESEARCH DONE BY CLERK RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE lUTH HARK HlLHOLLEN RE: SETTLE!ENT RECEIVED t REVIEWED NEW CALCULATIONS RESEARCHED AND REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED AND REVISED BRIEF; REVIEWED RECORD; EIGHTH CIR ORDER PREPARATIO~ OF EXHIBIT NOTEBOOK RESEARCHED CONTRACT EORHATION ANO MUTUAL ASSENT PREPARATIOM OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIEF PREPARATION AND CALLS WITH COUNSEL PREPARATION OF FINAL DRAFT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; REVIEWED CALCULATIONS; CA~L FROM SAM JONES RE: WASHINGTON; CALL TEJ SAM LcTTER TO .JUDGE WRIGHT RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARED NOT~CE OF FILING DEPOSITIONS OF STEELE AND LESTER LETTER TO JUDGE WRIGHT ENCLOSING DEPOS. PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.50 .so 5.25 s.so 1.00 .25 .so 1.75 7.25 1.so .so 1.75 2.75 2.50 .25 .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt,,  71-0253637 2 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH ICONTINUEO ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE !'ROPER CRECIT, !'LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.LEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL BE BILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INY0ICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 1/30/96 CJH 1/30/96 JCF 1/31/96 CJH 2/01/96 CJH 5/03/96 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .6()() WEST CAPITOL LrntE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 OF STEELE ANO LESTER PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSO POOLING \"SECOND SUBMISSION; PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF REVIEWED PCSSD PROPOSED FINDiNGS AND FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RESEARCHED RE: PCSSD REVIEWED ANO FUTURE RESEARCH RE: PCSSO POOLING AND PLAN BRIEFS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV#- DATE LI230 HOURS .25 5.50 2.so .75 1.25 1.25 .25 -------- as.po TAX IDENTIFICATOIS  71-(1253637 3 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH S8Q05.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 40.00 X 105.01 = .50 X 45.00 = 44.50 X 85.00 = 4200.40 6\u003c.tCO 22.so 3782.50 ~~ DEPOSITION EXPENSE COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES l\"DR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIIIIC DUI: AND PAYAaLIC UPON 11111:CICIPT. 3791.50 17.20 $3808.70 $11813.70 3/'Jz./96 JCF '3/05/% CJH 9/U/% CJH SIA % CJH 9/~ 9b CJH q/'JCJ/96 CJH q/U/qb CJH 9/l3/9b CJH q/t5/9b CJH (:J/l7/9t:, CJH 9/24/96 CJH 9/25/96 CJH 9/27 /'H, C.JH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARlHERSHI' OF JNOIYl)\\JAI.S NIJ pRQFESSK)NAI. ASS0CIA llONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BULDING .00 WEST CAPITOL um ROCK. ARl(ANSAS 7Z201 (1501) ,7\u0026-2011 REV!EwED J 1.JOGE  S ~HIORAN0U!\", AtW ORDER TELEPHONE CJNFERENC~ WITH OR. ANDERSON RE: APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSS~ MOTION RE: FEES PREPARATION OF NCTICE CF APPEAL REVIEW (CQNTINUE01 OF SUPPLEMtNTAL PLEAaINGS CALL FROM JOE HAGEN; CALL TO UARRY WARD LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED REVIEWED APP FOR~ ( BRIEf!NG SCHE~ULE "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1633","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-26/1997-06-30"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs"],"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/1633"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["99 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C.","Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  f\\LED uRT S 01s11~1C\\ ci9p.l(.P,.NSAS u. N 01s1R1c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cdm.~ 2, 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J\\.lN ?.- WESTERN DIVISION _ ,., Mccu~\\11\\Ac\\C-, CLI:. JA N~tS OE.P .CLE.RI(. sv: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. JUN 2 7 1997 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORl\u0026lt: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOT10'N.FOR''A'N A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order against the PCSSD defendants, awarding attorneys' fees for the work of their representatives concerning the PCS SD strike issue. The award sought is set forth in Attachment One to this motion. This motion is based upon the affidavits of John W. Walker and Joy C. Springer, the declaration of Robert Pressman, attachments to these documents, 1 the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations: (1.) On August 27, 1996, the PCSSD defendants filed a motion seeking equitable relief, including an order \"directing that PACT end [a] strike .... \" A 9-page memorandum supported the motion. The court scheduled the matter for a hearing on the following day, August 28, 1996. (2.) On August 28, 1996 the Joshua Intervenors filed a memorandum opposing the relief sought by the PCSSD. Joshua argued in part: \"Moreover, resolution of the contract dispute between 1 These documents are attached to this motion. 1 - the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement\" (at 2); see also at 4 (\"The Joshua Intervenors simply observe that the District has not identified a single provision of the settlement agreement which the union has violated.\") (3 .) On August 28, 1996, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the PCSSD motion, which it treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court \"enjoin[ ed] the teachers from further striking following the Labor Day weekend.\" Transcript, at 18. ( 4.) The Knight Intervenors appealed this court's judgment enjoining the strike. Thereafter, on May 1, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this court's judgment. In words echoing those set forth in the memorandum promptly filed by Joshl!:i on August 28, 1996, the court reasoned: \"But we cannot agree that the settlement agreem~nt, even by implication, took away the right to strike, assuming such a right exists under state law, nor can we - find any other source of authority for the action the District Court took\" (Slip Opin., at 5). (5 .) The position taken by the Joshua Intervenors was premised upon two ir.terests of the plaintiff class. First, it sought to focus the attention of the parties and the court, and the use of hearing time, on matters within the scope of the agreements and designed for the benefit of the class members. Second, it sought to avoid a situation where teachers could view class members negatively, because their litigation would be a vehicle for suppressing a tool available to the teache1 s to advance their economic interests. (6.) The Joshua Intervenors are entitled to the fee award sought in this motion against the PCSSD because their representatives' efforts constituted a reasonable post-judgment activity to defend their earlier victory embodied in the approved agreements. Alternatively, and without waiving the foregoing contention, Joshua Intervenors note that they ultimately prevailed in their action to 2 - defend their earlier victory -- and are entitled to the award sought on that basis. (8.) The attachments to this motion, and the accompanying memorandum, show that the time and the rates claimed for the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as set forth on Attachment One of this motion, are reasonable. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors move that the PCSSD defendants be ordered to pay )j-{;M.00  the amount of$ --to John W. Walker, P.A., for the work of Joshua Intervenors' representatives in opposing the PCSSD motion. JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accqf11panying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this c2.f1fl_ day ofJ une ~ 1997. Sb v1J .U/oKo A J~ W. Walker \" 4 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FEE CLA AGAINST THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE John W. Walker Robert Pressman Joy C. Springer 11 . 7 hours at $ 250\\ hour 5. 75 hours at $ 200\\ hour 10.9 hours at$ 50\\ hour Grand total 5 $2,925.00 $1,150.00 $ 545.00 $4,620.00 FILED RT U.S. DDl~s\\R~~\\ cAi~ANSAS EASTERN ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 2 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP.ClERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 Fy r= p..;. F P,' r:! D PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICr/ E~AE':~-t -~, ~ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUN ?. 7 1997 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AN A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE A. Introduction This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an award - of attorneys' fees against the PCSSD defendants in connection with the PCCSD st:-ike issue. It discusses the predicate for this award, as well as the time claimed and the rates sought. B. The Predicate for an Award As detailed in the motion, the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors concerning the court's involvement in the PCSSD strike issue was ultimately the one adopted by the Court of Appeals in ruling in the appeal filed by the Knight Intervenors. As also explained in the motion (at paragraph 5), the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors is properly viewed as protecting the value of the court-approved settlement, for class members, in two regards; that is, by focusing the attention of the court r and the parties on the substantive relief gained by intervenors in the settlement;1 and by avoiding a 1 Such an effort was appropriate. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM recommendations, pending at the time of the August 28, 1996 hearing, were never heard on the merits. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions concerning the Robinson High School and PCSSD discpline were denied tersely, without hearings by the court. situation where the plaintiff class could be scapegoated by the teachers. Alternate grounds support the award sought. The Joshua Intervenors having broadly prevailed in this action by virtue of the settlement, their representatives are entitled to fees for reasonable postjudgment monitoring, including \"defensive [steps], seeking to preserve relief obtained earlier . . . . \" Jenkins v. Missouri, Appeal No. 96-3870 (8th cir. May 22, 1997), Slip Opin. generally and at ---; 2 see also Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) (defending a victory). We note also, that as to PCSSD, there is no claim of a waiver of fees for monitoring. Secondly, the Joshua Intervenors ultimately prevailed on this matter. They are, therefore, entitled to fees on this matter as a prevailing party. E,\u0026, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1n8. C. The Hours Claimed and the Rates Sought \"The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number - of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983). This \"lodestar\" amount yields a presumptively reasonable fee. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). 1. The Time Claimed The time claimed, totalling ---- hours, was \"reasonably expended on the litigation .... \" Hensley, supra. As this submission shows, intervenors claim only a modest amount of time for the work of lead counsel, Robert Pressman (only on this petition), and Ms. Joy Springer. Intervenors' representatives studied the materials filed by the parties, prepared a memorandum, participated in the hearing on August 28, 1996, and prepared this petition. As it is customary in this market to bill the time of a paralegal separately (J. Springer Aff., para. ---), it is proper to make a sepan.te award for Ms. Springer's time. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288-89 (1989). Indeed, involving Ms. 2 See paragraph beginning \"Another factor that has been considered . ... \" Springer was cost-effective. Id., at 288. 2. The Hourly Rates Sought The rates sought are John W. Walker$ 250 per hour, Robert Pressman$ 200 per hour, and Joy C. Springer $ 50 per hour. These are \"reasonable hourly rate[s]\" for these advocates taking account of the nature of this case and their \"skill[s], experience[s], and reputation[s].\" Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). In order to avoid repetition, intervenors' argument on rates relies upon the details set forth in the accompanying affidavits. These documents show, among other things, that Mr. Walker has long been active in this case, been lead counsel in a very large number of civil rights cases, and been praised by members of the federal bench for his expertise in this sphere. J. Walker Aff., paras. 3, 5, 7, 9. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated Mr. Walker at the rate of$ 250 per hour for his work on the appeal in the case of Shirley Harvell v. Blytheville School District, 93- 1009EAJ (Order, August 19, 1996). See J. Walker A.ff, para. 8 and attachment. He currently charges fee-paying clients this rate. Aff., para. 9.3 With regard to Mr. Pressman, a district judge familiar with his work during the lengthy Boston school desegregation case compensated almost all of his time for the period October 1988 through June 1993 at the rate of$ 200 per hour. See Morgan v. Gittens, 915 F.Supp. 457, 472-74 (D.Mass. 1996). The affidavits appended to Mr. Pressman's declaration here also support a rate of 3 To be sure, this court in dictim, in an order of September 2 3, 1996, at 9, n. 6, set a rate of $ 200 per hour for lead counsel. However, this rate is inconsistent with the rate established by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, at minimum, lead counsel's rate should not be lower than$ 225 per hour, a rate employed by two other judges of this court on a total of four occasions. See J. Walker Aff., para. 8. $ 200 per hour. 4 The affidavit of Ms. Springer attached to the motion shows that she has considerable experience in civil rights litigation generally, and this case in particular. In Jeffers v. Clinton, 776 F.Supp. 465,470,476 (E.D.Ark.) (2 to 1), a three-judge court utilized rates of$ 40 per hour for local paralegals and $ 50 per hour for out-of-town paralegals in a voting rights case, for work in the period 1989 to 1991. The passage of time since this work was performed justifies the higher rate sought for Ms. Springer's work in this case. We note also the following factors. First. The rates sought are supported by rates approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in instances other than the one cited with regard to Mr. Walker). See McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (1988) (the court noted its approval in 1986 in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case of the rate of \"$ 200 per hour for a Washington, D.C. 'cooperating attorney who had been in practice approximately thirty years\"' and of the same rate in 1988 in the Kansas City case for \"an experienced civil rights attorney for his services in [that] school desegregation case ... \"); Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, v. Miller, 70 F.3d 517, 520 (1995) (rates ofup to$ 260 per hour for attorneys based in Chicago); see also the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins, former General Counsel of the NAACP, attached to the Declaration of Mr. Pressman. Second. The rates sought here are supported by the reasoning of the Court of A~peals for the Eighth Circuit, which has emphasized the connection between the rates employed in cases like this one and fulfilling the goal of facilitating civil rights enforcement, which underlies the fee statutes on 4 Recently, in this case, the LRSD did not challenge a rate of$ 200 per hour for Mr. Pressman/or work in opposing the termination of jurisdiction as to the LRSD and preparing the related fee petition. This court then granted the full award sought by the Joshua Jntervenors, in an order entered on May 16, 199 7. which the plaintiffs rely. See Casey v. City of Cabool. MO, 12 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1993). Conclusion There is no basis for departing from the lodestar amount here. Therefore, an award should be made to John W. Walker, P.A. in the amount of $4i~O-OO Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accAmpanying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this MdayofJune~ 1997. ~/-.~ J~er IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Comes now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thurman Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the 2. Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold  Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board ofExaminers. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board ofDirectors of the LD F b New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73- C-l and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); 2 McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley. 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. - 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. ___J E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 931 F. 2d. 226 (8th 3 - Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana, 32 F. 3d. 265 (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC). the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.), and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. 7. I have participated actively in this case and the predecessor litigation since the 1960's. 8. The foregoing recitations establish my educational and professional qualifications. It is my opinion that the bar of first rank with comparable qualificaitons in other fields of law command the highest hourly rates for their work. Those rates range between $150.00 and $300.00 per hour in this market. The State of Arkansas has contracted for legal services in the range of $150.00 per hour for experienced counsel. In an Order dated August 19, 1996, in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009 EAJ, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated my time at the rate of $250.00 per hour for a successful appeal in a voting rights case. See the papers attached to this affidavit. My time has been compensated at the rate of $225.00 per hour on at least four occasions in the Arkansas District Courts. These cases are as follows: (a) Ashford v. City of Hamburg. C.A. No. 93-1032 (W.D. Ark.) (Order 1/19/95) 4 - (Judge Barnes); (b) McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.a. No. LR-C-78-153 (Order, 4/18/95) (Judge Howard); (c) Davis v. Franks, C.A. No. 88-4082 (Order, 5/16/96) (Judge Barnes); (d) Day and Hollowell v. Johnson. C.A. No. LR-C-94-849 (Order 9/27/96) (Judge Howard) (stayed ... r pending outcome of substantive appeal). 9. In Taylor v. Jones, Circuit Judge Richard Arnold described me as a member of the bar of the \"first rank.\" In April, 1995, in the aforementioned Order in McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital. cited in paragraph 8., Judge George Howard, Jr. wrote: \"The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State\" (at 3). 10. The fee which I request herein of $250.00 per hour is my usual and customary fee which I routinely charge fee paying clients. The total time for which this fee is sought is 11. 7 hours. 11. Counsel and co-counsel herein have taken great care to prevent their submission from - reflecting duplicate and non-productive efforts. I have reviewed the submissions of all representatives of the intervenors and believe they are accurate. correct and reasonable. 12. A statement and activities for which I claim compensation is attached hereto. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the bestof my knowledge, records, information and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~ay of 199 ~~LQ. ~Lll MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9/11/ZfJJ') IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DATE - 8/27/96 8/27/96 8/ /96 9/09/96 9/11/96 9/14/96 6/25/96 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER ACTIVITY Conference with JCS re: PCSSD special board meeting; Attended meeting Review and study of PCS SD Motion and Memorandum; drafted and finalized Joshua Intervenors' Response to Motion; preparation for hearing Prepare for hearing and hearing before Judge Wright on Motion Review and study of Knight Motion for TRO and Brief Review and study Knight Response to PCS SD Motion (Response and Memorandum) Review and study PCS SD Reply to Knight Response, including Brief Review draft Fee Petition Total Hours Expended Hourly Rate Total Fee Requested HOURS 1.3 3.5 6.5 .3 NC .1 NC 11.7 $ 250.00 $2,925.00 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. Civil Action No. LR-C-82-866 Declaration of Robert Pressman Robert Pressman swears under penalty of perjury that the following information is truthful: A. Employment in Civil Rights Division (1). Following my graduation from the Columbia Law School in June 1965, I worked as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, from August 2, 1965 through July 31, 1970. The Division enforced civil rights laws concerning voting rights, access to public facilities and public accommodations, school desegregation, equal employment opportunity, and freedom from mistreatment by police personnel. My work at various times involved each of these areas. It encompassed giving guidance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on investigations of possible civil rights violations and compiling factual material and analyzing complex fact patterns, as well as legal research. (2.) For roughly the first two years of my tenure in the Division, I was assigned to work on problems arising in the northern part of Mississippi. During this period, I frequently travelled to Mississippi and, among other things, made appearances in the Carroll County school desegregation case. I also investigated the status of school desegregation in other systems, including Lee County, Pontotoc County, Tunica County, and the City of Corinth. In 1967, the Division was reorganized and my work shifted to Illinois. There, I developed facts concerning school segregation in School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois. The Department's suit against that district was its first northern case. I participated in the trial. See United States v. School District 151, 286 F. Supp. 786, 787 (N.D. Ill. 1968); 301 F. Supp. 201, 205 (N.D. Ill. 1969). My Illinois work also included school segregation issue in Cairo, East st. Louis, and Madison County, Illinois. (3.) In 1969, the Division was again reorganized, this time along subject matter lines. I was assigned to the education section. From October 1969 through my departure from the Division at the end of July 1970, I worked principally on Alabama school desegregation issues, particularly on Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a statewide case involving 100 local - districts, as well as state officials. Efforts were underway in this period to secure implementation of plans satisfying the standards of Green v. County School Board. I prepared written comments on issues arising in more than 30 Alabama districts and appeared frequently before the three-judge court (Judges Richard T. Rives, Frank M. Johnson, and R.H. Grooms). I also appeared before Judge Johnson in the separate Montgomery County school desegregation case and prepared for the Department briefs in two appeals from the decisions of the three-judge court in the Lee case. See, for example, Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746, 747 (5th Cir. 1971). (4.) On December 15, 1969, I received a Certificate of Award for outstanding work, in the Attorney General's Twentieth Annual 2 Awards Ceremony. Four of the Division's ninety attorneys were given this award at that time. B. Employment at the Center for Law and Education (5.) In August 1970, I began working at the Center for Law and Education (CLE), a component of the federally-funded program of legal services for low-income persons, administered since 1975 by the Legal Services Corporation. As the \"national back-up center\" on education issues for the entire legal services program, the Center's principal role was to promote throughout the program strong representation of clients experiencing education problems. The work consisted of providing advice to local legal services personnel on particular client problems; conducting training programs; writing publications and articles; - engaging in administrative advocacy; and participating as cocounsel in some cases. My employment at the Center ended as of September 15, 1995, due to lay off, because the Congress chose to eliminate funding for national support programs like CLE. (6.) In 1972, upon its filing, I began working on the Boston school desegregation case as co-counsel for the plaintiff class of Black parents and students. My involvement has continued to the present, although the case is largely inactive with only a few orders remaining in place. See, for example, Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410, 414 (D.Mass. 1974) (liability ruling) and Morgan y, McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527, 528 (1st Cir. 1976) (argued appeal in which the court affirmed the placing of the operation of a high school in receivership). 3 (7.) In the 1970's I also did some work in the Detroit school desegregation case, Bradley v. Milliken, and more than 1000 hours of work on behalf of the plaintiffs-intervenors in the Omaha school desegregation case, United States v. School District of Omaha. See for example 521 F.2d 530 (wrote brief for successful appeal with the court's opinion reflecting to a substantial degree the factual portion of the brief). (8.) During the 1970's, I played a role at CLE in the development of a racial discrimination theory ultimately employed successfully in securing a delay in the Florida program of denying standard high school diplomas to students failing a \"competency test.\" See Debra P. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979), aff'd, 644 F.2d (5th Cir. 1981). In the Debra - I:..._ litigation, I participated briefly in the trial (due to an illness in the family of a CLE colleague) and wrote a portion of the trial memorandum setting forth a theory accepted by the courts (denial of standard high school diploma based upon competency test result perpetuated earlier intentional discrimination against black students who began their educations in segregated and unequal elementary schools). (9.) In 1986, I wrote two memoranda on racial discrimination claims for use in the legal services program. (a) The first, focusing on racial discrimination in school discipline and curricula, contained the following headings: \"Typical Problems,\" \"Gathering Information About a Discrimination Problem,\" \"The Legal Bases of Racial Discrimination Claims\" (including 4 constitutional and Title VI claims), \"Other Material re Disparate Discipline,\" \"Material Regarding Discrimination in Curriculum,\" and \"Remedial Principles.\" (b) The second memorandum is titled \"Discriminatory Allocation of Resources within a School District\" (14 pages). I first used this document in a training program for legal services attorneys in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1986. (10.) I participated during my tenure at CLE, as a trainer or lecturer, in a minimum of 40 sessions on education issues for legal services workers, parents, and\\or students. One such session in Colorado during the late 1980's for legal services attorneys concerned ways to monitor consent decrees and other judgments in institutional reform cases. I prepared for this event a 34-page memorandum titled \"Materials on Monitoring and - Enforcement of Judgments.\" c. Work on the Ayers Case (11.) In January 1987, the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services Program asked me to join their staff members providing representation to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class in the case then styled Ayers v. Allain, Civil Action No. 4:75CV009- B-O, Northern District of Mississippi. Ayers concerns the nature of the obligation of Mississippi officials to eliminate racial disrimination and segregation from the operation of the Mississippi system of public universities. I have played an active role in the case since that time. My work in Ayers through March 1995, totalled in excess of 6,000 hours, and involved, inter alia, framing and responding to discovery requests; taking 5 depositions; identifying and preparing exhibits; preparing exhibit lists and other materials required as part of the standard pre-trial submission; participating in settlement efforts; making an opening statement; presenting and crossexamining witnesses and otherwise participating in two lengthy hearings (with the second exceeding 40 days of trial); preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; preparing appellate briefs; arguing before three panels of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as well as that court sitting en banc, 1 and supporting the efforts of my brother and sister cocounsel. o. Court Appearances (12.) During the course of my legal career, I have made - appearances in the following federal courts: M.D. Ala., S.D.Ala., E.D. Ark., M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., N.D. Ill., D. Mass., N. D. Miss., E.D. Mich., D. Neb., D. N. H., and D. S. Car.; Court of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits (filed briefs and argued); United States Supreme Court (filed briefs). E. Work in this District Court (12.) In September 1995, I began to assist John W. Walker 1 See Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1990); Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676, 677 (5th Cir. 1990) (en bane) (argued in each instance). A fresh appeal followed the district court's March 1995 decision. See Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F. Supp. 1419. I later argued in March 1996 before a panel considering a stay of a part of the district court's order and on November 4, 1996 before the panel hearing the matter on the merits. See Ayers v. Fordice, 111 F.3d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir. 1997). 6 and other persons in his firm with various facets of their work. My many projects have included: several fee petitions; work on a large number of issues in the Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. case; participation in the Honorable v. North Little Rock Sch. Dist. student discipline case in this court; preparation of the appellees' brief on appeal in Day and Hollowell v. Johnson, a case in which Judge Howard invalidated in part on the basis of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and Title VII, the attempt by the newly elected sheriff to discharge two African American captains; support to an attorney in the Walker firm in the ongoing MOPAC case involving Title VII issues, as well as work on other employment discrimination issues; and preparation of the complaint and discovery efforts in Young v. City of Little - Rock, alleging the wrongful arrest and detention of a black resident of Little Rock. F. The Current Fee Petition (13.) Attachment One to this Declaration, which is incorporated herein by reference, sets forth my time and activities in working on this particular petition. It is based upon records prepared on a daily basis. An award is sought  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1645","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-05/1997-06-19"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees"],"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/1645"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Sam"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues; District Court, brief in support of motion for attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest; District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply brief in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to extend time; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  JUN (i - 1997 OFFICE Cr DESEGREGAT!O~J MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JA~Ats.w. McC,ORMAC~. CLERK By. ~1 ~ Ll... l U \".. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No, LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District for reconsideration of this Court's Order approving the 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. There has been no timely response to the motion. The Court finds that the motion should be granted. 1 1 See doc. # 2983. DEP CLERK' ., .. :,-._ O O 1: The Court hereby modifies it Order of May 6, 1997 to clarify that the Order applies only to the 1996-97 ODM budget. The Pulaski County school districts are free to present evidence on all issues concerning the adequacy of state funding of future ODM budgets. Also before the Court is the motion of the Knight Intervenors for an extension of time within which to respond to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. The motion is granted. The Knight Intervenors have until and including June 10, 1997, within which to file their response to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. IT IS SO ORDERED this -5~ay of June 1997. a, ,g,J ~' \\ 'Hd f0 UNITED A ES DIST JUDGE - i,1s DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKETSHE:ETIN .- MPUANCE Wl\"'[H RULE~ ANL(a) FROP :N __ {:,~/2/!l_~ey V  ~ - ~ r - 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RJECEI''~\"' DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~.q ,,cf_ ]; .I W!!;.U DEFENDANTS -e.,,. Vr.,., d MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUN S-1997 INTERVENORS Y-'Gl'ti KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. p..., _ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TO PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'ffi~ES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUES The PCSSD for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD is the prevailing party as regards the pooling - dispute. 2. Pursuant to both Arkansas Code Annotated 16-22-308 and 42 U.S.C.  1988, the PCSSD is entitled to payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees. 3. The PCSSD is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees of at least $45,723.50, all as more fully set out, explained, and supported in the brief and affidavit which accompany this motion. 4. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the PCSSD is entitled to both pre- and postjudgment interest pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. This Court's order of July 30, 1996, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ordered the LRSD to pay over the pooling sums within 60 days of that date. The opinion of the Court of Appeals - dated March 31, 199~ is attached as Exhibit A. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court awarding reasonable attorneys' fees together with pre- and postjudgment interest. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ones O) for ski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June _5 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 03/%8/97 17:36 US COURT APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3333 Little Rock School District, * * Appellant, * * Lorene Joshua; Intervenor Plaintif!s, * Servicemaster Management Services;   *  Intervenor,  Appeal from the United States * District court ror the Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore, Pat * Easte~ District of ~kansas. Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. Gage;* North Little Rock Classroom * Teachers Association; Pulaski * A.,sociation of Classroom  Teachers; Little Rock Classroom* Teachers Association; Alexa  Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong;  Ed Bullington; Khayyam Davis; * Janice Dent; John Harrison,  Alvin Hudson; Tatia Hudson;  Milton Jackson; Leslie Joshua; : Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua;  Katherine Knight; Sara  Matthews; Becky McKinney; * Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce * Person; -Brian Taylor; Hilton * Taylor, Parsha Taylor; Robert * Willingham; Tonya Willingham; * Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. North Little Rock School District; Leon Barnes; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulkner; Richard A. * *  * * *  * EXHIBIT I A OJ1281i7 li:3i 'OJH 5Ja 31145 Giddings; Marianne Gosser; Don  Hindman; Shirley Lowery; Bob  Lyon; George A. Mccrary; Bob * Moore; Steve Morley; Buddy  Raines; David Sain; Bob * Stender; Dal Ward; John Ward;  Judy Wear; Grainger Williams; * * Defendants, *  Pulaski County special School * District;   Appellee, *  State of Arkansas;   Defendants,   Office of Desegregation Monitor;*  Claimant,  * Horace A. Walker, F. A. * Hollingsworth; Kenneth G. * Torrence; Phillip E. Kaplan;  Janet Pulliam, John Bilheimer; * Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown,  Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane * Davis; Raymond Frazier;   Plaintiffs, * V.   Pulaski Cowity Board of  Education; o. G. Jacovelli, * individually and as President * of the Board of Education of  the Little Rock School District;* Patrici~ Gee, individually and  in her official capacity as a * member or the Board or  Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body;* Dr. George Cannon, individually and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board or  Education of the Little Rock  -2- '61JUU.i 03/28li7 17:38 'Et3H 53i JU5 US COliRT APP.EALS School District, a public body;  John Moore, individually and in his official capacity as a  member of the Board o!  Education o! the Little Rock  school District, a public body; Dorsey Jackson, individually  and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board ot  Education of the Little Rock  School District, a public body;  Dr. Katherine Mitchell, indivi-  dually and in her official * capacity as a member of the  Board o! Education ot the * Little Rock School District, a  public body; W. D. Hamilton,  individually and in his o!!icial* capacity a~ a mexiwer of the  Board of Education ot the  Little Rock School District, a  public body; Cecil Bailey, * individually and in his  official capacity as a member  of the FUlaski County Board of  Education, a public corporate;  Thomas Broughton, individually  and in his official capacity  as a member or the Pulaski  County Board of Education, a  public corporate, Dr. Martin  Zoldessy, individually and in  his official capacity as a  member of the Pulaski County  Board of Education, a public  corporate; *  Defendants,  Submitted: February 25, 1997 Filed: March 31, 1997 l(illOOi Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chid Judge, and HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge~. -3- 03/%8/97 17:40 !!314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ilJ 007 HF.ANEY, Circuit Judge. Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District o! Arkansas requiring it to pay the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) $345,294 pursuant to a settlement agreement in the interdistrict desegregation case. We a!!irm. the order or the district court essentially tor the reasons stated in its opinion. At issue in this appeal is the entitlement to majority-tominori ty [M-to-M] payments and the amount each school district would receive pursuant to the settlement agreement. Paragraph oot the settlement agreement provides in part: [A]ll M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets ot the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. (Settlement Agreement, II, 1 0(3) .) Pursuant to this court's. instructions, the district court judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ordered: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement. [There is no dispute as to the methodology for calculating these amounts.] The total amount of fwids in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total -4- 03/ZS/97 17:41 US COllRT APPEALS number or M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized perstudent dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M students hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to deteanine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. Little Reck school Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special Schgol Dist, Ne. l, LR-C-82-866, at 3 (E.D. Ark. July 30, 1996) (citations omitted). ijooa On appeal, LRSD argues that the district court erred in dividing the pool based on the number ot M-to-M transter students; rather, it asserts that the court should have divided the pool based on the total number of students in the interdistrict schools. Under LRSD's method o! calc~lation, PCSSD would owe LRSD - Sl,270,839, instead o! LRSD's owing PCSSD $345,294 as ordered by the district court. We review the factual findings ot the district court under a clearly erroneous standard and its interpretation ot the Settlement Agreement de ngyg. The district coUit's interpretation of paragraph O is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive Mto- M tra.nster students. ~ Little Bock School Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special School Dist No, 1. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). We recognize that LRSD spends more per pupil to educate its students in the interdistrict schools than PCSSD does and that the district court fonnula will not fully equalize these costs, but we do not believe that these differences are sufficient to release LRSD from its pooling obligation. Such a release would certainly -5- OJ12819i li:4J liS COl,;RI Af'f'\u0026u..S inhibit efforts to provide an integrated education to many student~, the principal objective of the school integration propo.!al. Nor are the differences sufficient to justify the alternative method of equalization suggested by LRSD. The practical problems in that approach were found by the district court to be insurmountable and we are not prepared to say that the district court erred in making that assessment. The judgment of the district court is attirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -6- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in support of its motion for attorneys' fees in connection with its motion to enforce the \"pooling\" agreement. Without doubt, PCSSD was the prevailing party in this contract dispute and, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, this Court may award reasonable fees. Alternatively, this Court may award fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. PCSSD is further entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest on this Court's award of $345,294 to PCSSD. BACKGROUND By motion dated January 7, 1994, PCSSD sought to enforce the Settlement Agreement, requiring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to reimburse the PCSSD for monies owed pursuant to the \"pooling\" agreement of the parties regarding Majority-to-Minority (\"M-to-M\") payments received from the State of Arkansas. LRSD opposed PCSSD's motion, and this Court entered an order on March 16, 1994 granting PCSSD's motion. The Court of Appeals vacated this Court's March 16, 1994 order by opinion dated July 12, 1995, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. 1 Pursuant to the Eighth Circuit's order, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 8, 1995, and again on December 14, 1995. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs addressing the issues raised in the Eighth Circuit's opinion and this Court again, on July 30, 1996, granted PCSSD's motion and ordered the LRSD to pay over these sums within sixty (60) days. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. LRSD appealed the pooling order to the Eighth Circuit once more. Reviewing the district court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement de novo, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's order on March 31, 1997, finding the district court's interpretation of Paragraph O (the \"pooling\" agreement) to be just and in furtherance of implementation of the Settlement Agreement. 2 This petition is timely pursuant to this Court's order of August 16, 1996, giving the PCSSD until thirty (30) days after return of the Eighth Circuit's mandate to present this petition. ARGUMENT I. THE PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES A. PCSSD Is Entitled to Fees Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22- 1 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Cty Dist. 1, 60 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 1995). 2 Opinion, p. 5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit's March 31, 1997 opinion is attached to PCSSD's motion as Exhibit A. 2 PCSSD is entitled to request reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which provides that a prevailing party in a breach of contract case may be allowed reasonable fees to be assessed by the court and collected as costs. This statute may be utilized by a federal court in awarding fees on breach of contract claims brought in federal court. TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994). There is no fixed formula or policy to be considered in arriving at the amount of the attorneys' fees. There are, however, pertinent considerations w~ich the courts regularly evaluate in exercising their discretion to determine the amount of such award. These factors include (1) the attorneys' judgment, learning, ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice; (2) the relationship between the parties; (3) the amount or importance of the subject matter of the case; (4) the nature, extent and difficulty of services in research; (5) the -preparation of the pleadings; (6) the proceedings actually taken and the nature and extent of the litigation; and (7) the time and labor devoted to the client's cause, the difficulties presented in the course of the litigation and the results obtained. Crockett \u0026 Brown, P.A. v.Courson, 312 Ark. 363, 849 S.W.2d 938 (1993) (under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308); see also Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990). 3 An evaluation of the above considerations in this action makes clear that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee in the amount of at least $45,723.50. 1. The Attorneys' Judgment, Learning Ability, Skill, Experience, Professional Standing and Advice This Court is well acquainted with the PCSSD's attorneys' judgment, learning ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice. Mr. Jones has represented the PCSSD in this matter since its inception in 1982. 2. The Relationship of the Parties In this long standing action, PCSSD has been required to litigate funding claims against both the State and the other Districts. In this particular instance, PCSSD has litigated the - pooling issue twice before this Court and twice before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hard fought nature of the pooling dispute is a relevant matter for this Court to consider in fixing the appropriate fee. 3. The Amount and/or Importance of the Subject Matter of the Case This Court ruled that, pursuant to the pooling agreement, the PCSSD is entitled to $345,294 for FY 1991-91 through FY 1994- 95. Equally significant to the monetary award, this Court determined that the pooling agreement interpretation urged by PCSSD -- and adopted by the Court in its order -- would give effect to the meaning the parties attached to the agreement and in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, particularly to interdistrict schools. The operation of the 4 - agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable is considered by the Eighth Circuit to be a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. 3 Thus, PCSSD achieved not only a substantial monetary award but also a substantial success in the continued implementation of the Settlement Agreement toward the goal of desegregation. 4. The Nature, Extent and Difficulty of Services in Research PCSSD was required to research and submit briefs and supplemental briefs to this Court and to the Eighth Circuit on the pooling issue on multiple occasions. To do so required considerable legal and factual research in order to present the applicable law and facts to this Court and the Court of Appeals. 5. The Preparation of the Pleadings PCSSD respectfully submits that the quality of its pleadings were equal to the results obtained. 6. The Proceedings Actually Taken and the Nature and Extent of the Litigation PCSSD submitted numerous briefs to this Court both before and after remand by the appellate court, participated in two full days of hearings before the Court, and submitted multiple briefs to the Eighth Circuit on two separate appeals of the same pooling issue. With regard to the overall nature and extent of this 3 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). Similarly, on the second appeal of the pooling issue, the Eighth Circuit found that the District Court's interpretation was \"just\" and would promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools. March 31, 1997 Opinion of the Eighth Circuit, at p. 5. 5 - litigation, this Court is well familiar with all matters related hereto. 7. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Client's Cause, the Difficulties Presented in the Court of the Litigation and the Results Obtained The time and labor devoted to the client's cause was plainly substantial, and is particularized in the Affidavit which accompanies the motion requesting fees. The results obtained for the PCSSD -- and the additional benefit to the overall Settlement Plan -- were surely positive. B. Alternatively, PCSSD Is Entitled to An Award of Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1998 The pooling agreement is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement, which embodies the remedy of the various parties in - this desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) PCSSD, by its motion to enforce the pooling portion of the Settlement Agreement, sought to defend that remedy and, as prevailing party, may recover attorneys' fees. Jenkins v. Missouri, 73 F.3d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1996) (fees available to permit school desegregation plaintiffs to defend remedy); see also Jenkins v. Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) (services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court's decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working to desegregate the school system, are compensable services); LRSD v. PCSSD, (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 1996) (districts 6 - entitled to attorneys fees from State of Arkansas for enforcing financial terms of settlement agreement). This Court found, and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that not only was PCSSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement the correct one, but that interpretation would give effect to the Settlement Agreement in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, especially to interdistrict schools. Once again, the operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools is a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, PCSSD -- by seeking further to effectuate the desegregation remedy through enforcement of the settlement agreement -- is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. II. PCSSD IS ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PCSSD brought its motion asking this Court to interpret the pooling agreement in January 1994, at which time the damages PCSSD sought for LRSD's breach of the pooling agreement were capable of determination. Indeed, PCSSD has consistently, since the inception of the pooling agreement, made the calculations in accordance with the formulae/interpretation adopted by the Court and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. The law of the state where the cause of action arises governs whether a party in a federal action is entitled to 7 - prejudgment interest. Jennings v. Dumas Public School Dist., 763 F.2d 28, 33 (8th Cir. 1985) (citing Bauer v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 630 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir. 1980). The standard for assessing whether prejudgment interest may be awarded was articulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Lovell v. Marianna Fed. Savings and Loan Assoc., 267 Ark. 164, 166, 589 S.W.2d 577 (1979) -- the test is \"whether there is a method of determination of the value of the property at the time of injury.\" The Lovell decision was clarified in Wooten v. Mcclendon, 272 Ark. 61, 612 S.W.2d 105 (1981), by indicating that what must be ascertainable is the \"initial measure of damages\" as distinguished from the precise amount that plaintiff would claim in his complaint or from the amount that the finder of fact would - ultimately award. Under either case, however, the requirement remains only that damages be determinable immediately after the loss. Pre-judgment interest is justified for obvious reasons: an injured party is entitled to have use of his money from a particular date. When deprived of that use, he suffers damages for which he should be granted relief in the form of interest. As a general rule, interest on an improperly disallowed insurance claim accrues from the date the amount due should have been paid under the policy. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Fodrea, 185 Ark. 155, 46 S.W.2d 638 (1932). Arkansas courts have uniformly awarded six per-cent (6%) prejudgment interest in contract 8 - disputes. Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980). PCSSD's injury -- the amount it should have received from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement since 1991 -- has been capable of determination, indeed readily ascertainable, from the outset. As such, it meets the test of Lovell and its progeny. Accordingly, PCSSD should be awarded prejudgment interest on the award of $345,294. 4 III. PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED POST JUDGMENT INTEREST By Arkansas statute, a judgment on a contract is to bear interest at the contractual rate or ten percent (10%), whichever is greater. Ark. Code Ann.  16-65-114. Because the pooling agreement does not contain a provision setting the rate of interest, the statutory rate of 10% is applicable. Further, this post-judgment interest is appropriately awarded not only on the judgment, but also on the amount of pre-judgment interest to provide total compensation for the loss of use of the money prior to -- as well as subsequent to -- the date of the judgment. Hopper v. Denham, 281 Ark. 84, 661 S.W.2d 379 (1983). PCSSD is entitled to payment from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement but, to date, LRSD has paid not one cent. This Court's order of July 30, 1996 required the LRSD to pay over 4 PCSSD is calculating the interest it claims and will submit its calculations to the Court at the appropriate time, unless, of course, agreement can be reached with the LRSD regarding the accuracy of the calculations. 9 - these sums within sixty (60) days; this has plainly not been done. The award of post-judgment interest, including post judgment interest on any prejudgment interest awarded, is certainly warranted in this instance. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, PCSSD respectfully urges this Court to award it reasonable fees for the prosecution of its Pooling motion, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest on the award of $345,294. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ft-) V \u003c:;:,._kc______ ,,--- ~ Samuel. Jones /II (76060 ) Claire S ws Haficock (95013 ) Attorne for Pulaski County Se  School District 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June~, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 11 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jones, I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO . LR -C - 8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEHlED f/4'7,!- \" , , ., 14.1, ve,--e' JUN 5 - 1997 4- 30 I' ,v} OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF ' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Sam Jones and I represent the Pulaski County Special School District in this litigation and have done so since its inception. Attached as Exhibit A are the billing records representing time reasonably expended in pursuit of these claims against the LRSD beginning September 13, 1993 and continuing through June 2, 1997. This file has been separately maintained as regards this claim and all time and expense entries relate only to the pooling claim. It is my professional belief that the narratives submitted as Exhibit A reasonably reflect time actually spent and devoted toward the pooling orders. Please note that the time entries are kept in tenths of an hour units as opposed to other firms whose time is recorded in units of one quarter hour. Because of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD, we have represented them in this matter at reduced hourly rates. My - standard rate for clients on January l, 1993 was $150.00 per hour; 1 January 1, 1994 was $160.00 per hour; January 1, 1995 was $170.00 per hour; January 1, 1996 was $175.00 per hour and is now $180.00 per hour. However, during 1996, I have represented the PCSSD in this matter for $135. 00 per hour. I have been a partner since January 1, 1981. Claire Shows Hancock has been a licensed attorney practicing primarily in New York City where her last standard hourly rate was $245.00 per hour. Her normal hourly rate in Little Rock is now $155.00 an hour as compared to $145.00 an hour 1996, and she is also a partner. She too has represented the PCSSD in this matter at the reduced hourly rate of $110.00 an hour. Angell Jones was the Manager of our Litigation Support Department. That department evolved because of the instant case - and several other complex cases involving the creation of databases and the management and retrieval of hundreds of thousands of documents and pleadings. Her hourly rate during 1996 has been $75. 00 an hour and that is her normal hourly rate. In 1993 her hourly rate was $55.00 as it was in 1994. It rose to $60.00 an hour in 1995. Valerie Bryant is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. She is primarily charged with maintaining this litigation database as well as with the management of the hundreds of thousands of documents that this case involves. Her normal hourly rate is $60.00 an hour and that is what she was paid by the PCSSD during 1997. Her rate in 1994 was $45.00 an hour, and was $55.00 an hour in both 1995 and 1996. 2 Sherry Murphy is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. Ms. Murphy's hourly rate is $60.00 an hour, up from $55.00 an hour in 1995. I respectfully submit that a total fee award of hours multiplied by standard 1996 rates would be appropriate in this matter, as reflected on the attached fee statement. These rates are consistent with those commonly found within the community for this type of work. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI \\ - .. ,.. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, this day of __: _ .-_,'-_~_ _ , 1993/- My Commission Expires: .- .) ) No t--iry Public Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 722 01-3699 (501) 371-0808 By '-----77i . M. Samuel AJc'torneys Special S '----- 3 J nes III jl76060) for Pcrlaski County ool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / On June _) , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( 4 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Donald Stewart Pulaski County Special School District Post Office Box 8601 North Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District: Pooling Issues FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 09/13/93 09/14/93 09/20/93 09/29/93 - /30/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/07/93 10/08/93 12/14/93 12/15/93 12/22/93 01/03/94 01/03/94 01/05/94 01/07/94 ._107/94 . /07/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Telephone conference with Don Stewart regarding pooling agreement Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Don Stewart Confer with Mr. Milhollen, Mr. Malone, Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart Organize transcripts regarding settlement agreement for attorney review Telephone conference with Don Stewart for pooling Review old transcripts to agreement issue Computerized search of transcripts for references to settlement agreement approval Organize transcript references regarding settlement agreement approval for attorney r "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1420","title":"Report: \"Monitoring Report: The 1995-96 Incentive Schools Extended Year Program in the Little Rock School District,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-04"],"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","School enrollment","School attendance","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: \"Monitoring Report: The 1995-96 Incentive Schools Extended Year Program in the Little Rock School District,\" Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1420"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["76 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_50","title":"Memos received","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-06","1997-07","1997-08","1997-09"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Memos received"],"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/50"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["memorandums"],"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\nADE Memos Received 6-2-97  School Funds/Types of Funds State Equalization and Trust Fund Aid  Special Education Programs Due Process Hearings  Student Transportation . Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION ..\n.....\n.\n.~~\n.\n---~ ..... _\n,,,------------------------- 11 ~~IM~~I.~\nKA.!?,1!i~I~.2~ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division\n' 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: County School Supervisors NO: FIN-97-111 Page 1 of2 Date: May 29, 1997 Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: School Funds/I'ypes of Funds Index Code: DIB State Equaliz.ation and Trust Fund Aid Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-05-304 through 6-05-306 (Repl. 1993, as amended by 1995 Ark. Acts 1172) and Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-Subchapter 3 (As enacted by 1995 Ark. Acts 917 and 1194) Contact Person: Vivian Roberts Phone No: 682-4258 Attached is the final State Aid printout for 1996-97. This printout reflects funding for all categories shown. Since the December printout was mailed, several districts submitted corrections in data that affect their aid in selected categories and in some cases, affect the aid of other districts. In addition, changes in ADM have been required as a result of attendance audits conducted by the department. Please note the following changes due to these corrections: Educational Excellence Trust Funds\nThe percentage of funds made available to school districts for Educational Excellence Trust Funds is increased from 9.693% in December to 9.696% in May. This is necessary to stay within the total state allotment of $119,145,693. There should be no adverse effect on salary requirements to any district due to this change. Debt Service SUJ)l)lemental Payment: The funding factor is auced from $12.89 in December to $12.88 in May. This is necessary to stay within the total state allotment of $20 million. Director's Communication No. FIN-97-111 May 29, 1997 Page 2 of2 Growth Facilitjes Fundini: The Growth Facilities Funding Rate.is reduced from $599.67 in December to $570.64 in May. The State Average ADM Growth is increased from 1.2'7% in December to 1.36% in May. This adjustment is necessary to stay within the total state allotment of $5 million. This change is a direct result of an attendance audit that affected the Growth Facilities Funding calculation. Please remember that districts were paid 90% of the Growth Facilities Funding in December and the remaining 10% will be paid in June. Although districts will not receive the amount projected in December most districts should receive some additional funds. If these changes have resulted in an overpayment, those districts will be contacted individually. Additional Base Fundin~: Slight changes in Additional Base Funding have occurred due to differences in rounding when calculating each district's Weighted Average Millage Rate. Please review the attached printout and call 682-4258 should you have questions. 11 I'. ,. ,Jl-.1i, (. - 1997 . OrFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals Other: LEA Supervisors, *Early Childhood Coordinators *Other Interested Parties NO: FIN-97-112 Page: 1 of 1 Date: May 29, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Special Education Programs Index Code: IHBA Due Process Hearings Regulatory Authority: Arkansas Code Annotated (A.C.A.) Sec. 6-41-216, as mended by Arkansas Act 369 of 1997 and Arkansas Act 1182 of 1997 Contact Person: Marcia Harding Margie Wood Phone No: 682-4222 Attached to this memo are copies of Arkansas Acts 369 and 1182 of 1997, which amended Arkansas Code Annotated Section 6-41-216, Tests and evaluations--Change of child's status--Hearings. Arkansas Act 369 of 1997 was signed into law by the Governor on March 6, 1997. This Act authorizes subpoena power for hearing officers in hearings conducted pursuant to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Arkansas Act 1182, signed into law on April 8, 1997, further amends A.C.A. Sec. 6-41-216 to clarify the time limit for appeal of hearing officers' decisions in hearings conducted pursuant to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. These changes go into effect on August 1, 1997\nand apply to due process hearing requests filed on or after that date. *Will be mailed by Special Education. ... Stricken la~ would be deleted from present law. Underlined lan.,auage would be added to prrseot law. - 1 State of Ark.ansas 2 3 81st General Assembly Regular Session, 1997 A Bill ACT 1182 ct 1997 SENA1E BII..l.. ~ 3 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ,- -  I 18 By: Sena10r Mahony For An Act To Be Entitled \"AN ACT TD AMEND ARKANSAS CODE ANNOTATED 6-41-216 TD CLARIFY TEE TIME LIMIT FOR APPEAL OF HE.A.RING OFFICERS' DECISIONS IN HEARINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TD TEE FEDER.AL INDIVIDUALS wlTE DISABILITIES ACT\nAND FDR OTHER PURl'DSES. II Subtitle (\"\"' 19 \"TD AMEND A.C.A.  6-41-216 TO CLARIFY TEE TIME LIMIT FOR APPEAL OF HE.ARING OFFICERS' DECISIONS PURSUANT TO TEE FEDER..\\!.. INDIVIDUALS wlTE DISAEIL:TI.ES ACT.\" \\  20 21 22 3E IT ENACF..D BY TE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE S\"IATE OF ARKANSAS: ,- .:..:\u0026gt; 24 SECTION l. Arkansas Code Annotated 6-41-216(e) is a::iendec to reac as 25: :foll=s: -::::---26 II ( e) Anv ~artv aggrieved bv the findin2s and dec\nsion =ade bv the I - {/'5-:- hearing office has the right to bring a civil action in either federal\n\u0026gt; ~ district court or a state court of c=Petent iurisdiction pursuant to the _::-29- Individuals vith Disabilities Education Act. Ar.y aggrieved party shall have -:: ~ 0.. ., 33 - _ _-.34 .-: -- 35 .. 36 thirty (30) days after the hearing officer's decision to file an appeal ~-'' SECTION 2. All p~cvisions of this act of a general and pe=iane~t nature are amenciatory to the Arkansas Code of 1987 A=otated and the Arkansas Code Revision Co=ission shall incorporate the same in the Code . 0306971 :2.53.jjd465 ' } 1 \"'~ ' ~ C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ?_~., 24 .:::- 25\nI/ -- 26 \"~' 27 ,-- 28 -\u0026lt;:' \"\" ~~ 29 J 30 :, .1 / 31 .j -  '\n-   36 SB SECTION 3. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held :iDvalid, such invalidity shall not affect - other provisions or applications of the act vhich can be given effect vithout the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable. SECTION 4. All lavs =d parts of lavs in conflict vith this act are hereby repealed. r:, ,..:-:.-.i i : 1997 SPEC/A!... ::DIJC.A.TION 2 0306971253.jjd465 i \\ ) - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 --18 .. _.: .: .. ~-.\u0026gt;\" 19 20 21 21 Stricken lan.,auage would be de.letcrl from present law. Undulined lan.,au.age would be \u0026amp;dded to present law. State of Arkansas 81st ~neral Assembly Regular Session, 1997 A Bill ACT 369 01 1997 i_- SENA TE Bil.J.., 2,_ ~ By: Scna10r Mahony . For An Act To Be Entitled \"AN ACT TO AMEND ARK.'iliSAS CODE ANNOTATED  6-41-216 TO AUTEORIZE SUBPOENA POWER FOR HE.ARING OFFICERS IN HEARINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO TRE FEDERAL INDIVIDUALS w\"ITII DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT\nAND FOR OTE:R ?lJRl\u0026gt;OSES.\" Subtitle \"TO AUTEORIZE SUBPOENA POWER FDR HE.ARING OFFICERS IN HEARINGS CONDUCrLD PURSUANT TD THE FEDERAL INDIVIDUALS mnr DISA.BILITIES EDUCATION ACT.\" BE IT ENACTED BY 'IRE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION l. Arkansas Code Jumorared  6-41-216 is =ended ro read as follc,-c.\ns: \"6-41-216. Tesrs and evaluarions - Cb=ge of child's srarus - Hea=:::.ngs .  (a) All decis::!.ons_ perra::!.ning ro change in rhe educar:ional srarus of a child shall foll=due proces~ procedures esrabl:ished by rhe Srare Boa=ci of Educa.::ion. (b) Due pro~ess shall :!.Delude: ( 1) Providing for prior norificar.ion ro pare::i_rs of resr.ing and provision of special educarion services\n(2) The =ighr ro requesr educario=l evalu.arion =d special educarion services\nand (3) The r:ighr ro hearing =d appeal of educarional decisions. (c)(l) The Srare Board of Educarion shall prescribe =ules and regula.:ions gove=~g hearings and appeals. (2) Hearings shall be conducred by i::ic:iv:iduals hereinafrer 0123971555.ijd157 SB 2 (3)(A) The board shall establish standards and qualifications fo~ 3 individuals to serve as hearing officers. 4 5 an employee of the local school district involved in a particular heari::lg may 6 serve as a hearing officer. 7 (C) Professional service contracts v.i.th individu...ls made 8 for the purpose of compensating the:n for services rendered in co=ecticn vith 9 hearings shall not constitute employment. 10 (d) An individual serving as a qualified hearing officer at an assigned 11 hearing shall be :i=u.~e fro.n civil s~it brought by either party for the 12 consequences of actions required of a hearing officer. 13 14 (e)(l) An individual servin as a qualified hearing officer under this section shall have the PO-Jer to\nssue subpoenas and to bring before h,~ as a 15 vitness any uerson in this state. (2) The hearing officer shall issue a subuoena uuon the reouest of anv uartv to a uending uroceed\nng. 16 17 18 (3) The =it shall be directed to the sheriff of the countv -.:here - :. .. 19 the -.:itness resides or may be found. 20 (4) The =\nt mav reouire the vitness to bring vith him an. book, 21 =iting, or other thing under his control ~hich he is bo=d bv lav to ?reduce 22 in evidence. J (5) Service of the '-'Tit shall be in the canner as urovided bv lau ,- for the service of subuoenas in civil cases. (f)(l) -A v.i.tness vho has been served bv subuoena in the canner u~cvideci 1bv lav and vho shall have been paid or tendered the legal fees for travel and ~ ' ~ttendance as urovided bv lav shall be obligated to attend for exar:iination of ~ the trial of the cause pending before the board. 5 \\ ': ~ 2 9-' V I -::i ! (2) In the event a v:l.tness shall have been served ~ith sub?oenas as herein urcvided and fails to attend the bearing in obedience to the ~ ~I subuoena, f ~\nthe hearing officer cav au?l\u0026gt; to the circuit court of the count, r-~3~ ~4 c-:1 -5 vherein the hear\nng officer is having the hearing for an order causing the arrest of the vitness and directing that the vitness be brought before (3) The court shall have the PO-Jer to uunish the disobedient ~\n.--~~-~i ~t~n~e~s~s~~f~o~r~c=o~n~t~e~==~t~a~s~=u~r~=~1==d~e~d~b~v-~l~a~~-~\n~n~t~h~e~~t~r~1~a=l~o~f~=c=\n~v~i~l~=c~a~s~e~s~. =~\nr - 2 0123971555.ijd 157 - 1 (4) The disobedient vit~ess shail be liable in da=iages for 2 nonattendance to the trial or hear\nng as provide~ b, lav. 3 4 hearing officer's decision to file an appeal pursuant to the federal 5 Individuals Yith Disabilities Education Act.\" SB 6 7 SECTION 2. ill provisions of this act of, general a.nd pe=anent nature 8 are amendatory to the Arkansas Code of 1987 ~otated a:::id the Arkansas Code 9 Revision C=ission shall iD.corporate the same i.:l the Code. 10 11 SECTION 3. If any provision of this act or the ap?lication thereof to 12 any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect 13 other provisions or applications of the act ~hich can be given effect vithout 14 the invalid provision or application, a.nd to this end the provisions of this 15 act are declared to be severable. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SECTION 4. ill lavs and parts of lavs in conflict vith this act are hereby repealed. 3 APPROVED JI~ .fv__. 7- l , qi GOVERNOR 0123971555.ijd 157 ,, Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 ~ECf ~\\ffED GENE WILHOIT. Director, General Education Division OFflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors NO: FIN-97-114 Page: 1 of 1 Date: May 29, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Student Transportation Index Code: EEA Regulatory Authority: NIA Contact Person: Spence Holder Phone No: 501-682-4264 Twelve (12) surplus school buses used in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Transportation program will be subject to an auction on Monday, June 23, 1997. The time of the auction will be 10 a.m. The sale will be conducted at the Pulaski County School District bus compound located in Sweet Home (map attached). The buses may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at this location on June 20, 1997. Buses will also be on display from 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. on sale day. These buses were in use during the 1996-97 school year. See attached for additional data on these buses and map to bus compound. - Bus Number 1-3M-539 1-3M-184 1-3M-182 1-3M-542 1-3M-536 1-3M-176 1-3M-131 1-3M-138 1-3M-173 1-3M-174 1-3M-175 1-3M-183 Magnet Buses Subject to Auction June 23, 1997 Make Year Miles VIN Number GMC 1987 162,861 2GDHG31K4H4516379 Senator 1990 151,658 48SlA11XOLL000141 GMC 1990 175,996 485H1AAXOLL000138 GMC 1987 128,811 2GDHG31K4H4516391 GMC 1987 186,803 2GDHG31K4H4516316 Senator 1990 186,254 48SA1AAX6LL000130 GMC 1987  62,741 1GDJ6P1B0HV533191 GMC 1987 170,000 1GDJ6P1B0HV533251 Senator 1990 124,978 48SAIAAX3LL000134 Senator 1990 98,078 48SAIAAX8LL000131 Senator 1990 110,684 48SAIAAXFLL000135 Senator 1990 118,560 48SA7AAX9LL000140 ALL BUSES 65 PASSENGERS Little Rock A  Area Map 1 \\'-----:--Bu s c:\"'f '\" .,J ADE Memos Received 6-9-97  Student Transportation  K-3 Summer Program Administration  Technology Resources Satellite Instruction for the 1997-98 School Year  Safety Drills Tri-Annual Fire Drill Reports  Supervision of Professional Staff Teacher Supervision Workshop for New Elementary/Secondary Principals --  '  Amansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RECEI ' ~E CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 y CU GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division JUN ~: - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors NO: FIN-97-113 Page: 1 of 1 Date: June 5, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Student Transportation Index Code: EEA Regulatory Authority: N/ A Contact Person: Spence Holder Phone No: 501-682-4264 ..- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has strongly recommended that a copy of the School Bus Safety Assurance Program Recall Listing be forwarded to each school district. Attached is that copy. Also, NHTSA and the Arkansas Department of Education encourage all school districts to develop and implement a program that would insure that all outstanding recall work is completed on each school bus within the district's fleet during the summer vacation maintenance period. U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Spence Holder: 1-'iAY 2 7 1937 SCHOOL TR,4. N5,.0RTATtON 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington. D.C. 20590 NSA-lllwbl TAB97-001a The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is 'writing this letter to provide State Pupil Transportation Directors with the enclosed third annual NHTSA School Bus Safety Assurance Program Recall Listing. Safety recalls involving school bus handrails remain of great concern to the agency. There continue to be reports of children snagging articles of clothing on the handrails as they exit the bus. To date. defective school bus handrails have caused at least seven fatalities and numerous injuries. State Pupil Transportation Directors are again requested to emphasize to each school district the importance of immediately having all relevant handrail recall remedy work completed on all involved school buses. Information specifically relating to school bus handrail recalls can be found in the Recall Listing on pages 6 through 10. The agency has included a new section in this year's edition that specifically identifies new school bus recalls that have been initiated since the publication of the last Recall Listing in June 1996. Information on these new school bus recalls can be found in the current Recall Listing on pages 11 through 16. NHTSA strongly recommends that a copy of the School Bus Safety Assurance Program Recall Listing be forwarded to each school district. In addition, the agency is requesting each State Pupil Transportation Director to encourage all state school districts to develop and implement - SAFETY BEL TS SAVE LIVES AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE (800) 424-9393 Wash. D.C. Area 366-0123 a program that would ensure that all out-standing recall remedy work is completed on each school bus within the district's fleet during the summer vacation maintenance period. School buses owned and/or operated by contractors should also be advised of the safety recalls and provide assurances to the state/district that all recall work is completed. The agency has also included a User Comment Form in this year's edition. The primary purpose of the User Comment Form is to allow you the user to make suggestions on how future editions of the School Bus Safety Assurance Program Recall List can be improved to better serve the users of this information. The agency strongly encourages you to complete the User Comment Form and fax it back to us at the number indicated on the form. The success of the School Bus Safety Assurance Program is dependent on the willingness of each of us concerned with the transportation of children to review the enclosed recall listing and make every effort to ensure that buses within their purview are corrected during the summer vacation maintenance period. If you have any questions concerning the School Bus Safety Assurance Program, please contact either Mr. Bill Lewis or Mr. Jon White of my staff at (202) 366-5227 or by facsimile at (202) 366-7882. Copies of this publication and the User Comment Form are also available on NHTSA's web site located at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov. If you have any questions concerning a specific recall campaign, please call the involved manufacturer at the phone number given in the recall listing or call NHTSA' s Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393. Enclosures: School Bus Safety Recall Campaign Listing User Comment Form Sincerely, ~v~ Kathleen C. Demeter, Director Office of Defects Investigation Safety Assurance .. .. ----=----=-------54 SCHOOL Bus SAFETY AsstJRANCE PROGRAM RECALL LISTING: JANUARY 1992 THROUGH APRIL 1997 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington. D.C. 20590 Auto Safety Hotline 800-424-9393 Wash. D.C. area 202-366-0123  SCHOOL BlTS SAFETY ASSURANCE PROGRAM RECALL LISTING FROM JANUARY 1992 THROUGH APRIL 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Special Section School Bus Handrail Program Schoui Bus Handrail Recall .\\u\u0026lt;.iil Program School Bus Handrail Program Handrail Inspection Procedure Handrail Recall Listing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Listing ~ew School Bus Recalls Definitions .\\mrr:rn . Blue Bird Carpemer.'Crown :vtid Bus ...... . '.\\avisrar Sturdicorp1US Bus Thomas Built .... Wayne/Harsco School Bus Vehicle Recalls ..... 4 . . . . .. .. 6 ... 7 ...... 8 ..... 9 10 13 . . . . . . . 13 ... ... .... 14 14 . . . ... 14 15 16 ........ .. .. .... 17 Amtran .......... . . ....................... 19 Blue Bird .... . . ... . . ... ... 21 24 25 Carpemer:Crown Coach \u0026amp; Equipment Collins ............. . .. . . 25 Eldorado :--.:arional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . Ford ... .... . . ..... . ......................... ... ......... . GM.... ... . . .......                                Gillig ........... .. . . . Girardin .................................................. . LES Entreprises/Corbeil ........................................ . 25 26 26 27 27 27 Mid Bus ........ .. . ........................................ 27 Navistar Oshkosh Spa nan ........... .. ..... .. ..... .. ... . . ...... . ..... . . ... .. . Superior1United Technologies .. ... .. ... ......... ... ...... . .... . 28 31 31 31 Sturdicorp1CS Bus . . .. ... ... .... ... .... ... . ..... . .... ... 32 SCHOOL BtTS SAFETY ASSURANCE PROGRAM RECALL LISTING FROM JANUARY 1992 THROUGH APRIL 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . ... 4 Special Section School Bus Handrail Program Schooi Bus Handrail Rec:lll .\\uuii Program .6 School Bus Handrail Program .. . .. .. 7 Handrail Inspeciion Prnu:Jure .8 HanJrail Recall Listing .. . . . . . .... 9 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Listing :\\1ew School Bus Recalls Definitions .\\mtr\n_in . Blue Bird C\n_irpemer 1Crnwn :-vtid Bus ...... . . \u0026gt;i aYistar Smrdicorp1US Bus Thomas Built .. Wayne/Harsco School Bus Vehicle Recalls Amlran .. Blue Bird . . Carpemer1Crown Coach \u0026amp;: Equipment Collins Eldorado N auonal Ford .......... . GM ...... . ...... . Gillig Girardin ........ ...... ............ ...... .. .. ... . .......... . LES Emreprises/Corbeil ... .. . . .. . ...... ..... . ....... . ...... .. .. . Mid Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ....... .. . . .. . Navistar .............. ... .. .. .. . .. . . . . ....... ........ . ... . . Oshkosh .. .. . .......... .. ............... . ............... . . . Spartan .... ......... . Superior/ United Technologies Sturdicorp(CS Bus 2 12 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 17 19 21 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 31 31 31 32 - - \\ Thomas Built . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Transi-Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Van-Con ....... .. . ... .... .. ... . . ... ... . ....... .... ..... .. .. 38 Wayne:Harsco ......... . ...... . . . . . .. .. . ............ .. . . .. . . . 38 School Bus Equipment Recalls Carpenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                                  ~ Hercules Engine .. . .. .. ..... . ..... . . . . . . . .... . ............. . .. 40 Kinedyne . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . ..  . .                        ~ Wells Aluminum ... . ..... . .. .. ... ... . . . ...... ........... . . . . . 41 Current School Bus Investigations Safety Defect Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Federal Motor \\'ehicle Safety Standard Compliance Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3 SCHOOL BUS SAFETY ASSURANCE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION TO 1997 EDITION The .':ational Highway Traffic Safery AJministration \u0026lt; ~HTSA l is the Federal government agency responsible for assuring the safety nf vehicles traveling the public roadways. '.':HTSA performs this responsibility. in pan. by monitoring the perform:mce of ,safety recall campaigns conducted hy manufacturers to remeJy a safety defect or noncompi-iancecondition. The prompt remedy of school huses involved in safety recall campaigns is of special concern to rhe agency because the student occupants of a school bus could he subject to multiple injuries or even loss ,1r life if a recalled safety defect or noncompliance condition is not corrected in a timely manner. In order to respond to heightened public concern regarding the safety of students riding school buses. the agency initiated the \"School Bus Safety Assurance Program\" in May 1995. The main purpose of this program is to inform State Transportation Inspection Program Directors. State Pupli Transpnnation Dirccrors. interested association groups. schooi Jistricr :--ersnnnel. nonpublic s..:hool bus uwners. parents. and members nl the general puhlic t)r' the current safety recalls involYing school huses. The School Bus Recall Listing consists of all school bus related safery recall camoaigns that have heen initiated by school hus manufacturers for the past five years. .-\\n updated Recall Listing will be published in May of each succeeding year. just prior to the beginning or' the school bus summer vacation maintenance period. Each recall entry gives the following information: (a) the corporate name of the recalling manufacturer(s): (b) the phone number of the recalling manufacturer(s): (c) the production dates of the school buses being recalled: (d) the school bus modeI(s) being recalled: (e) the number of school buses being recalled: (f) the NHTSA assigned recall number: (g) the manufacrurer assigned recall number if different from the NHTSA assigned recall number: and (h) a brief description of the safety recall campaign. School buses remain nne of the safest forms of transportation in the united Srates. The success of the School Bus Safety Assurance Program is dependent on rhe willingness of each of us concerned with the transportation of children to review the enclosed recall listing and make every effort to insure that buses within our purview are corrected as soon as possible. If you have any questions concerning the School Bus Safety Assurance Program. please contact either Mr. Bill Lewis or Mr. Jon White at (202) 366-5227 or by facsimile at \u0026lt;202) 366-7882. Copies of this publication are also available on NHTSA's web site located at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov. If you have any questions concerning a specific recall campaign. please call the involved manufacrurer at the phone number given in the recall listing or call NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393.  . a - SPECIAL SECTION SCHOOL BUS HANDRAIL RECALLS 5 School Bus Handrail Recall Audit Program All safety recall campaigns heing conducted by school bus manufacturers 10 correct defective ~chool hus handrails are heing audi1eJ hy the agency . '.'IHTSA is taking this unprecedented action in \\ lrder to assure that all sl.'.honl buses \\\\ ith defecti,e handrails ha,e the necessary recall remedy work completed. For eal.'.h handrail recall campaign the recalling manufacturer is requested lO provide a list of all involved school bus owners lO the agency. Based on this list. a letter is, sent by the agency to all owners of school buses which are identified as not having the necessary recall work completed . A survey is also sent lO a representative sample of school bus owners involved in each recall campaign to identify recall related problems and to verify that the recall remedy is actually correcting 1he handrail snagging condition .. \\II recall related problems iJentified by '1HTS . .\\  ~ mrnc\nr surYey are rhen rnr\\\\'anl rn rhe recailing manufacturer for resolution. 6  School Bus Handrail Program E n:n though school buses\nire\nirnon~ tht: s\nifest of all modes of transportation. :m aYerage of about -+2 school children are kilkd eacn yl!ar in schooi bus-related incidents. Since most children arc h.ilkd or in_iured outsidl! thi: hus.\nHtention should be focused on the entrance and the imml.:'Ji:11c area around thi: i1us -:ntrancl.:'. Ri:cl!ntly. in ri:sponsi: to the incn:ased number of hanor::ii i snagging incidents. the :\ncilot,i bus handrail issu0- became onl! nf :\\HTS:\\ s highest priorities This l!ffort has tocusl!d L111 the snagging of children s clothing or book bag straps on stairneil handrails as \"ell as thi: rdated issut:s of dri,er training and clothing design. As a result of these endeaYors. many bus manufacturers are conducting satety recall campaigns to modify handrails. It is important to note that certain of the handrail recalls initiated in I 993 have been superseded by new. improved remedies. School buses involved in these earlier recalls must be re-campaigned. Care must be exercised in re\\\"iewing the current recall listing. 7 Handrail Inspection Procedure A uniform procedure for inspecting school bus handrails. and identifying tho~e which pose a safety hazard. has been developed. This inspection procedure applies to all types of school buses and should be used to test all school bus handrails. Inspection Tool This inspection procedure will use a standard 1/2 .. hex nut measuring 3/4 .. across the flats. This nut is tied to l/8\"'thick cotton cord measuring 36\" in length with overhand knots. The drawstring should have a minimum length of 30\" when tied to the nut and attached so that a pull of at least ten pounds does not separate the nut from or break the drawstring. All inspectors conducting school bus inspections should be equipped with this inexpensi\\'e tool. l nspection Proccdu re 1. Stand on the ground outside t ,r the hus , Drnr the inspection to()I het\\\\een the handrail and step well wall. ~imulatin~ the typical way students exit the hus 3. Draw the inspection tool through the handrail in a smo0th. continuous slow motion 4. Repeat this procedure several times (minimum of three times) Note: It is important to drop the inspection tool over the handrail in such a way as to simulate a child exiting the bus. This is a drop and drag test. Do not create a snagging situation by placing the nut in an area that would not be exposed to a drawstring 0r other articles. Inspection Results 1. Take the bus out of service and repair it if the inspection tool catches or snags anywhere on the handrail. 2. If the nut separates from the drawstring or the drawstring breaks. reassemble the tool and retest. If the inspection tool pulls freely without catching or snagging. the bus should not be rejected. This inspection procedure is intended as a means of objectively identifying those handrails with a potential for a safety hazard. Inspectors should not recommend procedures for handrail modification. Safety recall compliance should be ensured during c:ach inspection. It is important to inspect all school buses including those that have heen repaired. 8 .. .. .. \" Compan, .\\mtr:rn Blue Bird Carpenter Coach \u0026amp; Equipment Collins Corbeil Gillig Girardin :Vlid Bus 'iturdicorp. L'S Bus SCHOOL BUS HANDRAIL RECALL LISTING Production Buses Recall ln\\'ol\\'ed '.',umber Model{sl I .2 80-4,43 29.484 93V-032.002 /9300 I) Ward. Patriot. \u0026amp; Volunteer Superseded by Recalls 96 V-046 and 96 V -04 7. 486-2. 96 .2.650 ll6V-046 (%.30 I I Ward. Pa1rim. \u0026amp; Volunteer 4 86-3 96 ~4.91)() 96V-0471%.30.21 i\u0026lt;Jl-396 :'.800 %V-048 (9630.3) I \u0026lt;J 1-1 97 :.480 97V-ll I 4 \u0026lt; 9730 I \u0026gt; 8:7\u0026lt;J-7 88 6.3.81.2 95V-187 (R95AVl 180-3 \u0026lt;J6 18.000 \u0026lt;J6V-073 (R96BG) 3/80-3/92 20.825 93V-032 (R93AB) Superseded by Recall \u0026lt;J5V-090 ~ S0-4 l), :-:-.1 S\u0026lt;J 95V-09() 1 R95 .\\S 1 / \u0026lt;l4-: ()(, 8 95-1: ()5 :u:\n%\\-1,-:-s \u0026lt;RlJ6BC1 %\\'-OJ: (R%BC1 5 90-1 I 92 8.950 93 V-032.003 Superseded by Recall \u0026lt;J6 V-042 :,90-1195 :0.9:i() \u0026lt;l6V-042 5 \u0026lt;J0-5 % 3 . .38.2 96V-0\u0026lt;J7 I 80-1.2. 92 2.6 71 \u0026lt;J3 V-032.005 Superseded by Recall 96V-062 1/80-3'96 2.65\u0026lt;J 96V-062 11/85-5/93 2,833 93V-032.006 3/86-6/95 250 96V-076 R:S33tl2. RS3505. RS3-:-os. RS.39 I I. Patriot. \u0026amp; volunteer Genesis Volunteer SBCV All American. Conventional. TC.2000. Minibird. Wide Body, \u0026amp; Type A Van All American \u0026amp; TC2000 \\II American\u0026amp;:. TC.2000 .\\II American. Li\\lC\\'. ,iP\\\\ B. \\H3WB. SBCV. \\'CT.\\.~ TC:000 GvlC\\' \u0026amp; SBC\\ .\\AFE .. \\II American. fCFE. .-..: TC.2000 Cadet. Classic. \u0026amp; Classma1c: C1det. Classic. ~ Cl\nissm::ir~ Cadet. Classic. Classmate . .i.: Counselor Fortibus \u0026amp; Fortivan Fortibus \u0026amp; Fortivan Bantam Minibus 1/86-6,93 372 93V-032.007 Phantom 1'89-12'94 386 95V-120 MBll\u0026amp;SBI00O I 88-6193 .2.826 \u0026lt;J6V- I 69 Superior I 80-1: 93\n_690 93V-03.2.008 Sturdibus \u0026amp; Swrdivan Superseded by Recalls 96V-.205 and 96V-:06. 1086-1093 :.991 96V-205 Sturdibus\u0026amp;Sturdi\\an I 95-\u0026lt;J 96 616 96V-206 Sturdibus. Eagle. \u0026amp; t..:ni\\ersc: Superior1 L'nited Tech. unavail. 20.000 \u0026lt;J6V-079 School Bus Thomas Built 4177-1 92 i9.216 93V-032.001 All Star. Conventional. \\ligh1y Mite. Minotour, Safety-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Van-Con Superseded by Recalls 96V-054 and 96V-080. 4177-1 /92 4.500 96V-054 All Star. Conventional. Mighty Mite. Minotour. 4 77-3 96 116.933 96V-080 7191-2.'96 30.435 96V-105 Superseded by Recall 97V-03 1 - \u0026lt;J 1-2 96 :4.082 Q7V-03 I I 92-'.' 96 :.068 96V-164 96V-0o5 93V-03:.004 9 Safety-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista All Star. Conventional. l\\lighty Mite. Minotaur. Safety-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Conventional Conventional \\IVP .. .\\II Star. \u0026amp; Saf-T-L111c:r . .\\ II Siar. Con\\en11ona1. \\ I 1noltlur. \\ 1 VP. Saf-TL iner. \u0026amp; \\'ista Type A List Of School Bus Related Federal Motor Vehicle Safetv Standards F eder:il \\ 1otor Vehicle S:ifrty S t:ind:ird :\\o. l 05. Hydraulic Brake System. h:dcr:il \\lotor Vehicle S\n_ikt.': \\t:ind:mi '\\,). 111. Re:inil.'.\\\\ :\\lir, rors. Feder:il \\lotor \\'l.'.hick SJ.fl.'.!\\ St:ind:ird '\\u. l 15. Vehicle ldentitic:ition \\:umba.  Feder:il :\\1otor Vehicle S:itet\\ St:ind:ird No. 120. Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Federal Motor Vehicle S:ifety Stand:ird :'Jo. 121. Air Brake Systems: l eder:ii \\ lotor \\\"ehiclc Sakt, \\tJ.ncbrd '\\u. I~ 1. Sl.'.hool Bus l\\:dcstrian Sakt, i)~, 1cl.'.s. ,~ eJer:il \\ lo tor \\' l.'.hic k S\n_ifct\\ \\ t\n_inJ:m.i '\\ o . .209. safety Belt .\\ssemiJlies: Federal \\ 1otor \\' ehick Sa1'e1y ...\nt:indJ.rd '\\o. : 10. safety Belt .. -\\ssembly Anchorages ... [eder:il \\1otor Vehicle S:ifety St:indard '.'Jo . .217. Bus Window Retention and Rek:ise: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard :'io. 221.  School Bus Body Joint Strength.\" Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. \"School Bus Passenger Seating: Federal \\1otor Vehicle Safety Standard\n\\Jo. 301. '\"Fuel System Integrity: Federal \\1otor \\'ehidc S\n_ifety \\t\n_inJ:ird :\\o. 304. compressed '.'Jaturai Gas Fuel Container lntegrity: 10 ~,\\' SCHOOL BUS RECALLS FROM JULY 1996 THROUGH APRIL 1997 11 SCHOOL BUS SAFETY ASSURANCE PROGRAM DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN SAFETY RECALL CAMPAIGN LISTING '.\\:HTS..\\: :--.:acional Highway Trarlk S:ifecy .\\dminisrrarion . Production Dates: The beginning :ind ending manufacrurer daces of rhe school huses involved in che recall campaign. Involved: The number of school buses or school bus equipment items involved in rhe safety recall campaign. '.\\:lodeHs}: The school bus model or models involved in the recall campaign. 97\\\"-000: Recall numher assigneJ hy :\\HTS.--\\. \\\u0026gt;nee a ~chool hus manuraccurcr ,.otir'ics che agency char a safety recall will he condUl.:tcJ. 100000): Manufacturer assigned recall c1mpaign number char differs from the :\\HTSA recall number. Some manufacrurers do nor use separate recall numbers . Recall Description: A brief description of rhe recall campaign. SAMPLE AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION CAMTRANl Production Dates: 1/91-1/97 Model(s): Volunteer (800) 843-5615 Involved: 2.480 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 97V-0 I 4 \u0026lt; 9730 l) The doching of a scudent rider can become snagged in rhe exir door hand rail. 12 AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION \u0026lt;AMTRAN} Production Dates: 1 /91-1 '9i buses :\\lodel(s): Volunteer (800) 843-5615 lmolved: 2 .480 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 91 \\ -0 I-+ 1.q730 I l The clothing or\" a sru,km\nider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 3.'95-1 97 .\\lodel(s): RS. RC. \u0026amp; RE Involved: 1.4 73 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 97V-048 (97501) The power steering rerurn hose can crack due to power steering fluid expansion during cold weather. Production Dates: 5/95-3/96 Involved: 488 \\lodel(sl: RS3302. RS3.505. RS3708. LI.\n: RS391 l Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: \u0026lt;:)fiV-13-+ 19630-+1 The rear w1miO\\\\ nuzza S:lmtd fail to activate when the rear window is unlatched as required hy FcJcral \\lotor \\chick ~:.1!i!ty '-tandard :--.Jo. 217. Bus \\\\'indow Retemion and Rekas.: ... Production Dates: 5/96-10196 Involved: 194 .\\lodel(s): RS3302. RS3505 . .\\: RS3708 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-221 (96306) The wrong lubricant was used in the parking brake air chambers during production. ***************************************************************************** BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY Production Dates: -+177-7 '96 :vtodel(s): All American (912) 825-9608 Involved: 10. 969 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-l 12 (R96BK) The amount of fuel leaked from the fuel system during a vehicle crash exceeds the amount allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301. fuel System Integrity ... Production Dates: 1/95-12/95 Involved: 12 :\\lodel(s): TC2000 \u0026amp; CSFE Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-132 (R96BJ) The hydraulic brake hoses can leak fluid as a result of coming in contact with various air suspension system components. Production Dates: 5/96-7 '96 .\\lodel(s): TC2000 \u0026amp; QB Imolved: 5  Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 96V-198 \u0026lt;R96BN) The electric powenrain drive motor rotors are the - 13 wrong size. Production Dates: 5.'96-8196 Involved: 142 \\lodel(s): TC2000 . All American. CSRE. -\": QB Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: % \\. -180 \u0026lt; R96BLl The power steering hoses were incorrectly manuractured. CARPE'.\\TER .\\IA\n'\\l'FACTCRI:\\G, I'.\\C.,'CRO\\\\'N COACH Production Dates: l /92-12/92 Model(s): School Bus (812) 849-3131 Involved: 101 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96\\. -168 The wrong electric fuel pump motor was installed during rroducrion. Production Dates: .:5 '94-6, 96 \\lodel(s): School Bus~ Cbs\nmare 11 lnvoived: 23 Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: %\\-102.UOl The fuel rank was punctured during compliance testing resulting in a failure 10 meet the re~uiremenrs of federal \\loror \\ 'ehicle Safety Standard '.\\o. 301 . --Fuel System lntet!rit~  MID BUS. INC. (419) 358-2500 Production Dates: 1 / 88-6 '9 3 Involved: 2.826 \\fodel(s): Superior Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: l/h \\' -1 b9 The clothing of a ~rudent rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. ~A VIST AR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP (800) 448-7825 Production Dates: 1/81-8/94 Involved: l 71.638 :Wodel(s): 1723. 1753. 1823. 1853. 3600. 3700. \u0026amp; 3800 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-l 92 (96507) The turn signal lever could be difficult to operate due to resistance. 14 Production Dates: l /92-9196 :\\lodel(s): 3600. 3800. \u0026amp; 3900 Involved: 580 Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description 96V-174 (96505, The anti-lock brake sensor wires could have been misrouted to the wrong wheel or brake sensor during production. Production Dates: 2.'96-6 ,96 \\-lodel(s): 4700 lmolved: 232 Recall :'\\ umber \u0026amp; Description 96 V-154 , 9650-4, The tube portion of the steering column was welded incorrectly during production. Production Dates: 5/96-11/96 Model(s): 3800 Involved: 727 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 96V-239 (96509) The accelerator pedal could catch on the edge of the tloor \\\\hich could prevent the pedal from returning t() 1he idle position. Production Dates: 9196- \\ l),'96 Involved: 233 :\\lodel(s): 3800. -4700. -4900. S 100. S200. 9200. \u0026amp; 9400 Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description 96 \\\" -240 ( 96510) The rear axle assemblies were improperly heat treated during production. STURDICORP/US Bus Manufacturina=, Inc, Production Dates: 10/86-10/93 Model(s): Sturdibus \u0026amp; Srurdivan (914) 357-2510 Involved: 2.991 Recall\n\\Jumber \u0026amp; Description 96\\'-205 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 1/95-9/96 Involved: 616 Model(s): Sturdibus. Eagle. \u0026amp; Universe Recall :\\'.umber \u0026amp; Description 96V-206 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 1/95-9/96 Involved: 89 Model(s): Eagle Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-162.003 The fuel tank was punctured during compliance testing resulting in a failure to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301. Fuel System Integrity. 15 THO'.\\IAS BUILT BUSES. INC. (910) 889-4871 Production Dates: 4/77-7 /96 Involved: 120.162 Model(s): All Star. Conventional. .\\1inotour. .\\1VP . .\\1ighty Mite. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description 96 V-139 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit~ Joor control rod assembly. Production Dates: 9/88-1 '96 :\\lodel(s): Saf-T-Liner Involved: 695 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 97V-030 The suspension beam can contact and damage the brake chamt clamp band. Production Dates: 7 /91-2/96 :\\fodel(s): Conventional Involved: 24,082 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description 97\\'-03 I The clothing ot a student rider can hernme snagged in the exit Joor h:md r:iil. Production Dates: I /92-7196 Involved: 2.068 Model(s): MVP. All Star. \u0026amp; Saf-T-Liner Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description 96 V-164 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail . Production Dates: 8/92-6/96 Involved: 400 Model(s): Minotour Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-162.002 The fuel tank was punctured during compliance testing resulting in a failure to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard '.\\io. 301. Fuel System Integrity: Production Dates: 11/94-11/96 '.\\1odel(s): Saf-T-Liner Invohed: 1.800 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 97V-018 Th1: nut that secures the main power supply unit can loosen possibly resulting in the loss of vehicle power. Production Dates: 6/95-2/96 Involved: 18 Model(s): Conventional. Vista. Minotour. Saf-T-Liner. All Star. MVP. \u0026amp; Mighty Mite Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-189 The fittings used to secure seats and wheel chair tie-downs to the floor do not comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. school Bus Passenger Seating: 16 .. Production Dates: 7195-4/96 Model(s): Saf-T-Liner Involved: 55 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 97\\'-020 The brake system does nm met!t stopping distance requiremer. of r-t:deral \\lotor \\' ehicle Safety Standard \\:o. 121. _.\\ir Brake Systems. WA Y'.'iE WHEELED YEHICLES/HARSCO CORPORATION (717) 763-7064 Production Dates: 9193-5195 lmolved: 235 Model(s): Lifestar Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-133 The fuel tank barrier collapsed during impact test resulting in a failure to meet the requirements of Federal '.'vlmor Vehicle Safety Standard \\:o. 301. -rue! \\ystem lntc,\nrity . 17 SCHOOL BUS VEHICLE RECALLS FROM JANUARY 1992 THROUGH APRIL 1997 18 AMERICAN TRA:'JSPORT..\\ TIO~ CORPORATION \u0026lt;AMTRAN} \u0026lt;SQQ) 843-5615 Production Dates: 12/80-4/93 lnrnlved: 29.484 ~lodeHs): Ward'. Patriot. \u0026amp; \\'olumea Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 93\\'-032 .002 (93001 l The dothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 4186-2.'96 Involved: 2.650 Model(s): Ward. Patriot. \u0026amp; \\01umeer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96 V-046 ( 96301) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 4-'86-3196 Imolved: 34.900 ,todel(s): RS3302. RS3505. RS3708. RS:91 I. Patriot. \u0026amp; Volunteer Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: ufJ \\'-0-+ i 196302 l The clothing of a ~rudtm ridtr can become snagged in the e\\lt door hand rail. Production Dates: l '87- 10/9-+ lmolved: 661 ,todel(s): Genesis \u0026amp; Ward Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 94\\'-195 (94003) The certification labels for the tires installed on these vehicles contained incomplete information on both tire and wheel rim sizes and therefore do not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.\"' Production Dates: 1/91-3/96 Model(s): Genesis Involved: 5,800 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 06V-048 (96303) The clothing of a srudem rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 1/91-1/97 Involved: 2.480 Model(s): Volunteer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 97V-0 14 (9730 l) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 11/91-7/92 Involved: 94 Model(s): Genesis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 92V-102.001 (92506) The fuel tank was punctured during compliance testing and therefore the fuel system does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301. Tuel System Integrity .\" 19 Production Dates: 11/91-10/94 Involved: 3 .421 \\1odel(s): Genesis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 9-+V-208 (94509) The locking washer for the rear axle bearing was Iiot installed correctly. Production Dates: 11 !91-10:' 9-+ \\1odel(s): Genesis Imohed: I .1 79 Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description: \u0026lt;)-+ \\' -23.i-00 1 (945111 The brake pressure warning light may come on when there is not a brake pressure problem. Production Dates: 11/92-5/93 Involved: 2.473 Model(s): Genesis. Vanguard. \u0026amp; Volunteer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 93V-109 193002) The rear emergency exit door is missing an emergenc exit label and therefore does not meer the re'-luirements uf rcuer::ii \\lotor \\'d1ick ~afety Standard ~o . .:: 17 ... Bus \\\\'indo\\, Retention L1nc.i Rekas.:. Production Dates: I I .'92-12.'93 :\\fodel(s): Genesis lmohed: 1.378 Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description: \u0026lt;13\\\"-201-001 (93508) The hand thronle cable and rhe accelerator rod can become intertwined due ro a misalignment. possibly causing an unintended full throttle acceleration. Production Dates: 12/92-6/93 Involved: 137 Model(s): Genesis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 93-029.005 (93506) The Allied Signal brake master cylinders have a gap between the master cylinder and the remote brake fluid reservoir adapter. Production Dates: 1 l.'93-5i94 Involved: 58 :\\lodel(s): Genesis Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 94V-095 (94504) The brake fluid put into rhese vehicles during production was found to be contaminated. Production Dates: 3/95-1/97 Involved: 1.473 Model(s): RS. RC. \u0026amp; RE Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 97V-048 (97501) The power steering return hose can crackdue to power steering fluid expansion during cold weather. Production Dates: 5/95-10/95 Involved: 495 Model(s): Genesis. Vanguard. \u0026amp; Volunteer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 95V-206 (95301) The rearview mirror system on these buses does not meet the viewing area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard '.\\Jo. 111. --RearYiew ~lirrors.  - 20 .. AMERICAN TRA'.'JSPORTATIO~ CORPORATION (AMTRAN} (800} 843-5615 Production Dates: 12/80-4-'93 Involved: 29.484 :\\lodel(s): Ward. Patriot. \u0026amp; \\'olumecr Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 93\\'-032.002 (93001) The clolhing of J slUdcm rider can become snagged in lhe exil door hand rail. Production Dates: 4186-2,'96 Involved: 2.650 Model(s): Ward. Patriot. \u0026amp; \\olumeer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-046 (96301) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 4/86-3.'96 Inrnhed: 34.900 \\lodeHsl: RS3302. RS3505. RS370S. RS:91 l. P:imot. \u0026amp; \\'nlunteer Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: \"fi \\' -0-+ 7 196302 l The clothing of a slUdcnt rider c:rn hecome snagged in lhe exH door hand rail. Production Dates: I '87- l 0, 9-+ lnrnlved: 661 Model\u0026lt;s): Genesis \u0026amp; Ward Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 94 V- l 95 (94003) The certification labels for the lires installed on these vehicles contained incomplete information on both tire and wheel rim sizes and therefore do not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l 20 . .. Tire Selection ~d Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Production Dates: l/91-3/96 Model(s): Genesis Involved: 5,800 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: %V-048 (96303) The clothing of a srudem rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: I /91-1 /97 Involved: 2.480 Model(s): Volunteer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 97V-0 14 (97301) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 11/91-7 /92 Involved: 94 Model(s): Genesis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 92.V-102.001 (92506) The fuel tank was punctured during compliance testing and therefore the fuel system does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301. -rue! System Integrity ... 19 Production Dates: 11/91-10/94 Involved: 3 .421 Model(s): Genesis Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 9-l\\'-208 (94509) The locking washer for the rear axle bearing was riot installed correctly. Production Dates: 11 191-10:'9-+ Model(s): Genesis Imol\\'ed: 1.179 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 0-l\\'-23-+-001 1945111 The brake pressure warning light may come on when there is not a brake pressure problem. Production Dates: 11/92-5/93 Involved: 2.473 Model(s): Genesis. Vanguard. \u0026amp; Volunteer Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 93 V-109 (93002 l The rear emergency exit door is missing an emergenc exit label and therefore Joes not meet the reljuiremems of f..:Jerai :Vlntor \\\"..:hick :-iakty Standard \\:o . .:: 17. -1~us \\\\ \"111Jo,, Retention ,mo R..:kast.: ... Production Dates: 1 l 92-12.'93 \\lodel(s): Genesis lnrnhed: 1.378 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: \u0026lt;13\\ -201-00I (93508) The hand thronle cable and the accelerator rod can become intertwined due ro a misalignment. possibly causing an unintended full throttle A acceleration. W Production Dates: 12/92-6/93 Involved: 137 Model(s): Genesis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 93E-029.005 (93506) The Allied Signal brake master cylinders have a gap between the master cylinder and the remote brake fluid reservoir adapter. Production Dates: 11 93_5 ,-94 Involved: 58 \\lodel(s): Genesis Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 94V-095 (94504) The brake fluid put into these vehicles during production was found to be contaminated. Production Dates: 3/95-1/97 Model(s): RS. RC. \u0026amp; RE Involved: 1.4 73 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 97V-048 (97501) The power steering return hose can crackdue to power steering fluid expansion during cold weather. Production Dates: 5/95-10/95 Involved: 495 Model(s): Genesis, Vanguard. \u0026amp; Volunteer Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 95\\'-206 (95301) The rearview mirror system on these buses does not meet the viewing area requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard \u0026gt;lo. 111 . .. Rear\\'iew :--..1irrors ... 20 Production Dates: 5/95-3/96 Involved: 488 .\\1odel(s): RS3302. RS3505. RS3708 . \u0026amp; RS391 I Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96 V- I 34 \u0026lt; 96304) The rear window buzzer could fail to activate when the rear window is unlatched as required hy Federal .\\lotor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 ... Bus \\\\ \"inJm, Retention :rnci Rekasc.  Production Dates: 5/96-10/96 .\\lodel(s): RS3302. RS3505. \u0026amp; RS3708 Involved: 194 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-221 \u0026lt;96306) The wrong lubricant was used m the parking brake air chambers during production. ***************************************************************************** BLCE BIRD BODY CO.\\IP...\\:\\Y \u0026lt;912) 825-9608 Production Dates: 4-T7-7 96 Inrnived: 10.969 \\1odel(s): All American Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: %\\\"-112 1R96BK) The amount of fuel leaked from the fuel system during a vehicle crash exceeds the amount allowed by Federal i'\\lotor \\' ehick Safety Standard No. 301. \"fuel System lnregrity :  Production Dates: 8/79-7 /88 Involved: 63.812 Model(s): SBCV Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 95V-187 (R95AV) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 1/80-3/96 Imolved: 18.000 .\\lodel(s): All Star. Comentional. .\\lighty .\\lite . .\\linorour. S\n.lli.:t\\- f-Liner. \u0026amp; \\ista Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 96 V-073 \u0026lt; R96BG) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 3/80-3.192 Involved: 20.825 Model(s): All American \u0026amp; TC2000 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 93V-032 (R93AB) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 3/80-4/95 Involved: 27. 189 Model(s): All American \u0026amp; TC2000 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 95V-090 \u0026lt;R95AS) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. 21 Production Dates: 1/88-6/95 :\\1odel(s): CSFE. STFE. \u0026amp; TC.2000 Involved: 409 Recall :\\'.umber \u0026amp; Description: 95V- l 36 \u0026lt; R95A T) The welds used to attach the steel weight plates m the rear of the bus are not strong enough. Production Dates: 8/91-12.'91 .\\lodel(s}: TC2000 Involved: -+0 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 92\\'-1)85 \u0026lt; R92AR) The steering arm can coma1.:t and interfere with the proper operation of the from air brake automatic slack adjuster. Production Dates: 11/91-3/94 Model(s): CSFE. QBFE. \u0026amp; TCFE Involved: 6. 704 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 9-+ V- I 36 ( R94AD) The hand throttle cable can become wedged inside tl at.:celerator rod assembly possibl, causin!:! he acceler:.nor to remain in an uncontrolled full [hronk condition. Production Dates: 7 '92-5. q3 :\\1odel(s}: TC.2000 lnvolHd: 165 Recall '.'lumber \u0026amp; Description: 93E-029.003 (R93AM) The Allied Signal brake master cylinders have\ngap between the master cylinder :.md the remote brake fluid reservoir adapter. A Production Dates: 1/93-1/95 Involved: 108 W Model(s): CS. QB. \u0026amp; TC2000 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-068 (R96BD) The air suspension torque arm can come into contact with and possibly fracture the air brake chamber S-CAM mounting bracket. Production Dates: 9/94-9195 Involved: 4.590 '.\\.1odel(s): All American. GMC\\'. GPWB. MBWB. SBCV. VCTA. \u0026amp; TC2000 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: .15\\'- I SO (R95AU) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 9/94-2/96 Model(s): GMCV \u0026amp; SBCV Involved: 203 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-078 (R96BC) The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 1/95 Involved: 2.304 Model(s): All American. GMCV. GPWB. MBWB. SBCV. TC2000. \u0026amp; Vista Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 95\\l-051 (R95AP) The aisle side knee pads are not wide enough and therefore do not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. School Bus Passenger Seating. ..  - ..,.., Production Dates: l:'95- I 2!95 \\lodel(s): TC2000 \u0026amp; CSFE Involved: 12 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 96 \\\"- I 32 ( R96BJ) The hydraulic brake hoses can leak t1uid as a result 1)f coming in contact with various air ~uspension system components. Production Dates: 2.'95-3 95 Involved: 307 \\lodel(s1: GMC\\'. SBC\\'. \\\"CTA. \u0026amp; TC2000 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 96V-0l l rR96BAl The wrong circuit breaker was installed in the electrical panel uuring production. Production Dates: 5/95-11/95 Involved: 117 Model(s): All American. CSRE. SBCV. \u0026amp; TC:!000 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 96V-023 rR96BB) The proper operation of some emergency window ex could he hinuereu hy imerrerence h:t\\\\een 1he ,xindow latch and a aluminum 1rim piece and therefore rcsuJts in a failure It) comp1y ,, 11h I c:Jerai \\ lo!L)r \\d1ide Salcty :-itanuard \\n. ::.1,. --l3us \\\\.inJo,, Reten1ion ami Rc:k:.i:--c:. Production Dates: 6 95-6:95 \\lodel(s): .--\\II American \u0026amp; TC.2000 lnvol-ved: 57 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 95V-l 90 \u0026lt;R95A W) The wrong adhesive mix was applied to the interior side panel joints during production resulting in a failure to comply with joint strength requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221.  School Bus Body Joint Strength ... Production Dates: 8/95-12/95 Involved: 327 Model(s): AAFE. All American. TCFE. \u0026amp; TC2000 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 96V-012 rR96BC) The clothing of a srudem rider can become snagged in 1he exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 5.96-7,96 Involved: 5 .Model(s): TC:!000 \u0026amp; QB Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description: 96V-!98 \u0026lt;R96BN) The electric powertrain drive motor rotors are the wrong size. Production Dates: 5/96-8/96 Involved: 142 Model(s): TC2000. All American. CSRE. \u0026amp; QB Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-180 (R96BL) The power steering hoses were incorrectly manufactured. CARPENTER MANUF ACTt,:RING. I'.'.C./CROW~ COACH Production Dates: 2/86-9/89 :\\-lodel(s): SCL-1801 (812) 849-3131 Involved: 16 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: )2\\'-tJU The huses exceed the specified chassis weight and therefore do not meet the stopping d istam.:i: reljUJrements of F cdi:r~i :\\1otor Vehicli: Safety ~tandard :\\o. I 05. Hydraulic Brake System. Production Dates: 7 /87--V9 I lnvoh'ed: 872 :\\1odel(s): School Bus Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 94V-237 The bus floors can be damaged by water seepage. Production Dates: 5/90-11/92 \\lodel{s): Cadet. Classic. \u0026amp; CLtssmate Involved: 8.950 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: '::13\\'-()32.003 The clothing ot a student mier can hecome snagged in the ex it door hand rail. Production Dates: 5/90-11 95 Involved: 20.950 \\lodel(s): Cadet. Classic .... \\: Cbssm:.ite Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96 V-0-1-2 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the A exit door hand rail. W Production Dates: 5190-5196 Involved: 3,382 Model(s): Cadet. Classic. Counselor. \u0026amp; Classmate Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-097 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: I.'92-12 .'92 \\fodel(s): Crown Coach Involved: 101 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V- I 68 The wrong electric fuel pump motor was installed during production . Production Dates: 5/94-6/96 Involved: 28 Model(s): School Bus \u0026amp; Classmate II Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-162.001 The fuel tank was punctured during compliance testing resulting in a failure to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301. Fuel System Integrity . 24 4 Production Dates: 6/95-11195 :\\lodel\u0026lt;s): Classic \u0026amp; Counselor Involved: 451 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 95\\'-220 The wrong type of bolt was used to auach the drivers seat safety heir anchorage resulting in failure 10 comply with Fi:deral \\lotor Vehicle Satery Standard '(o . .:::\\)9. saferv Belt .\\ssi:mblies ... COACH AND EQUIP'.\\IE~T ,1A~l'F ACTCRI~G CORPORATION \u0026lt;315} 536-2321 Production Dates: l /80-12/92 Involved: 2.671 Model(s): Fonibus \u0026amp; Fonivan Recall '.\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 93V-032.005 The clothing of a srudem rider can become snagged in the t:xit Joor hand rad. Production Dates: L80-3.96 '.\\lodel(sl: Fonibus \u0026amp; Fortt\\'an Involved: 2.659 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: lJf, V-1 l62 The clothing. t'f a srndem rider can hecome snagged in the exit Joor hand rail. COLLINS BUS CORPORATION Production Dates: 11/85-5/93 Model(s): Bantam (316) 662-9000 Involved: 2.833 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 93V-032.006 The clothing of a srudem rider can become snagged in the ex.11 door hand rail. ELDORADO NATIONAL (800) 338-3211 Production Dates: 8/92-5/93 Involved: 40 Model(s): Escon RE Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 93E-029.006 The Allied Signal brake master cylinders have a gap between the master cylinder and the remote brake fluid reservoir adapter. 25 FORD \\IOTOR COMPA'.'/Y Production Dates: 9/86-3 194 '.\\.lodel(s): B600 \u0026amp; B700 (800} 392-3673 Involved: 6.206 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: ,q \\ ' -1156 1 lJ-+SS3 \\ The hanery powered electrical junction box mounted ,m the right fender apron can he Jama~eJ hy corrosion. Production Dates: l l.-'87-G -92 '.\\.lodel(s): B600 \u0026amp; B700 lmohed: 16.834 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 9-+V-l 18 (9-+S86) The steering gear snap ring grovt was improperly machined during production. Production Dates: 8/93-10/93 ImolHd: 106 \\lodel(sl: E350. Econoline. ~ Schooi Bus cha~si~ Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description: '-J3\\--19-+ 193S771 The appi1cauon turce neeueJ t11 ~et the loot 11perated parking hrake exceeJs the l1lrce allo\\\\ed by FeJerai \\tutor \\\"chick ~..ilety Standard \\!o. I 05. \"\"l-lydraulic l3rakc S~ ~tern . GENERAL :\\IOTORS CORPORA TI0:\\1 {G'.\\.1) (800) 222-1020 Production Dates: 3/89-9/92 Involved: 6,669 Model(s): Chevrolet B6 \u0026amp; B7 and GMC B6 \u0026amp; B7 school bus chassis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 92V-l 87 (93C05) The throttle body injector can disengage from the throltle drive shaft possibly causing an uncontrollable full throllle condition . Production Dates: -+ 92 --+ 93 Invohed: 729 \\lodel(s): Chevrolet/GMC B7 ~chool bus chassis Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 93 V-171 (93C 17) The brake pedal push rod can disengage from the bra~ booster. Production Dates: l /93-5/93 Involved: 9,681 Model(s): Chevrolet/GMC B7. C6. C7. P6. Kodiak. \u0026amp; Topkick school bus chassis Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94V-028 (93C19) The pinch bolts used to assemble the intennediate steering shaft could be loose or missing. ***************************************************************************** 26 GILLIG CORPORATION Production Dates: 1 /86-6193 \\lodel(s): Phantom (510} 785-1500 Involved: 372 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93\\'-032.007 The clothing of a srudent rider c:m become snagged in the exit door hand rail. GIRARDIN. INC. Production Dates: 1/89-12/94 '.\\fodel(s): MBI 1 \u0026amp; SBI000 (819) 477-3222 Involved: 386 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 95V- ! 20 The ciothing ol a student rider can become snagged in the exit Joor hand rail. LES E:\\'TERPRISES/:\\IICHEL CORBEIL. I~C. Production Dates: 5/86-6195 Involved: 250 Model(s): Minibus Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-076 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. ***************************************************************************** ,no BL1S. I~C. (419) 358-2500 Production Dates: 1/88-6/93 Involved: 2.826 Model(s): Superior Recall Number \u0026amp; Description: 96V-169 The clothing of a srudent rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. ***************************************************************************** 27 NAVISTAR INTER1'/ATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORP (800} 448~ 7825 Production Dates: 9/78-5/87 Involved: 145.682 \\-lodel(s): 1-l00. 1600. 1700. 1800. 1900. \u0026amp; 2100 series Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 92Y-153 \u0026lt;92507) The saginaw steering gear rails to adequately relieve pressure on the pitman arm splines \\\\'hen the \\\\ heels are _fully .-turned against the axle stops. Production Dates: 9178-, 92 Im-olved: 185.177 .Model(s): 1700. 1800. 3600. 3700. 3800. \u0026amp; 3900 series Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 92V- l 02 (92506) The fuel tank was puncrured during compliance test in\nand therefore the fuel system does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 30 I. Fuel System Integrity_- Production Dates: l I '78-2 :'92 \\lodells): School Bus Chassis Involved: 11.346 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description 92\\\"-1)20 (92502) The amount of gasoline 1ns1 Junng compliance tests exceeded the amount ::illowed t,y r-.:dcral \\1otor Vehicle Safety Standard '-:o. 301. Tud System Integrity . Production Dates: 1 '81-8/94 Involved: 171.638 Model(s): 1723. 1753. 1823. 1853. 3600. 3700. \u0026amp; 3800 - Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V- l 92 (96507) The rurn signal lever could be difficult to operate due to res is ta nee. Production Dates: 2/82-4/82 Model(s): 1723 \u0026amp; 1853 Involved: 588 Recall '.'lumber \u0026amp; Description 96 Y-096 ( 96502) The rear axles on these huses \\\\ere incorrectly welded during production. Production Dates: 6/88-3 /91 Model\u0026lt;s): 3700 \u0026amp; 3800 Involved: 21. 742 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 95V-127 (95506) The hand throttle cable wire can wear through a plastic grommet in the accelerator rod possibly resulting in the accelerator sticking at the full power position. Production Dates: 1 /90-3/93 Involved: 193 Model(s): 1652, 3600. 3700. 3800. 3900. 4700. \u0026amp; 4900 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93 Y-092 (93504) The pressure relief valve was omitted on the air tank for the air suspension system. 28 Production Dates: 9/90-12/91 :\\todel(s): 3900FC Involved: 1.184 Recall '.'lumber \u0026amp; Description 92V-096 \u0026lt; 92505) The power steering hose \\\\'as incorrectly routed during production. Production Dates: 9 190-9193 Model(s): 3900 lm-olved: 1.050 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93V-201 (93508) The hand throule cable and the acceleracor rod can become intertwined due to a misalignment possibly causing an unintended full throttle acceleration. Production Dates: 3/91-10/91 :\\-todel(s): 3600. 3700. 3800. \u0026amp; 3900 Involved: 10.629 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description \u0026lt;}3\\'-112 (935051 The bolts used to actach the ruel wnk case to the \\'ehicle frame were inscalkJ incorrect!\\. Production Dates: 591-3 93 :\\todel(s): 3900FC lnvolwd: 62 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 94\\'-234 \u0026lt;945111 The brake pressure warnmg light may come on when there is not a brake pressure problem. Production Dates: 11/91-9/93 Involved: 942 Model(s): 3600 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93V-188 (93507) The steel hydraulic brake lines which connect the brake master cylinder to the vehicle frame can develop fatigue cracks due co venical flexing. Production Dates: 11/91-2 '94 :\\lodel(s): 3600 Involved: 745 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 95V-l 79 (95512) The alternator belt can rub against the fuel hose connected co the fuel filter possibly resulting in a fuel leaking from the fuel hose. Production Dates: 1/92-9/96 Involved: 580 Model(s): 3600, 3800. \u0026amp; 3900 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V- l 74 (96505) The anti-lock brake sensor wires could have been misrouted to the wrong wheel or brake sensor during production. Production Dates: 7 /92-5/93 Model(s): 3900FC Involved: 4 ' Recall '.'lumber \u0026amp; Description 93E-029.004 (93506) The Allied Signal brake master cylinders have a gap between the master cylinder and the remote brake fluid reservoir adapter. 29 Production Dates: 3/93-2/96 \\fodel(s): 3800 \u0026amp; 4000 Involved: 206 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description '-J6V-041 ( 9650 l l The from wheel hub can develop fatigue cracks at the mouming stud connection p0ims. Production Dates: 1 '94-3 ,'94 Involved: 373 \\lodel(s): 2554. 3600. 3800. -+\"700 . 4800. 4900. \u0026amp; 8100 Recall :'.\\umber \u0026amp; Description 94 \\'-14-+ \u0026lt;94508) The four compression backplate retaining fasteners for the turbo charger were not torqued to specifications during production. Production Dates: l /94-6/94 Involved: 6,449 Model(s): 2574. 2674. 3600. 4700. 8100. \u0026amp; 8200 Recall :'.\\umber \u0026amp; Description LJ4V-l96 \u0026lt;94507) The accelerator hase can crack due to bein!! attached 10 a fire wall of insutliciem \u0026lt;\n1renrth r,1 \\\\'ith ~t:i.nd acceleration torces. Production Dates: 2.'94-5 44 \\lodel(s): 3800 lnvohed: 2.708 Recall :'.\\umber \u0026amp; Description ~Ll. \\. - 13 3 , 94505) The h0t10m of the accelerator pedal can lodge againsr the head of one of the bolts that attaches the transmission cover to the hus tloor possibly preventing the accelerator fr0m returning to a full idle position. Production Dates: 3195-6195 Model(s): 3600 \u0026amp; 3800 Involved: 2.238 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 95V- l 56 (95509) The chassis vin number is incorrect resulting in a failure to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. '\"Vehicle Identification :---Jumber. Production Dates: 2. 96-6 % \\fodel(s): 4 700 Involved: 232 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 96 V-154 (96504) The rube portion of the stet:ring column was welded incorrectly during production. Production Dates: 5/96-11 /96 Model(s): 3800 Involved: 727 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96 V-239 \u0026lt;96509) The accelerator pedal could catch on the floor edge which could prevent the pedal from returning to the idle position . 30 .. Production Dates: 9/96-10/96 Involved: 233 Model(s): 3800. -l-700. -l-900. 8100. 8200. 9200. \u0026amp; 9400 Recall :'.\\umber \u0026amp; Description 96\\'-2-1-0 (%510) The rear axle assemblies were improperly heat treate( Juring production. OSHKOSH TRCCK CORPORA TIO~ Production Dates: 7 /91-8/93 Model(s): SB30FD-D (414) 235-1726 Involved: 611 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93V-142 The cap screws that connect the intermediate steering linkages to the steering gear hox shafts were improperly torqued during production. Production Dates: 7 92-5 g3 Inrnived: 1.026 .\\lodel\u0026lt;s): Yarious schoL1l hus chassis Recall :'.\\umber \u0026amp; Description 93E-029 001 The Allied Signal brake mastt:r cylinders have a gap hetween the master cylinder and the remote hrake tluid reservoir adapter. SPARTAN MOTORS. INC Production Dates: 10/95-1/96 Model(s): SB (800) 722-3025 Involved: 52 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-052 The wrong fan clutch was installed on the engine cooling fan during production. SUPERIOR/SHELLER GLOBE BUSES/UNITED TECH:'.\\OLOGIES \u0026lt;313} 240-8656 Production Dates: unavailable Involved: 20.000 Model(s): School Bus Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-079 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. ************************************************************************ 31 STURDICORP/US Bus Manufacturing, Inc. Production Dates: 1/80-12/93 \\lodel(s): Srurdibus \u0026amp; Srurdivan (914) 357-2510 Involved: 3.690 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 93\\'-032.008 The clothing Ll f a student rider c:m become snagged in the exit door hand rail . Production Dates: I 0/86-1 O, 93 lmolved: 2. 991 \\fodel(s): Srurdibus \u0026amp; Sturdivan Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-205 The clothing of a srudent rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: l /95-9196 Inrnlved: 616 \\lodel(s): Sturdibu~ . Ll!.!le. ~ l 'niverse Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description %\\'-206 The clothing \\ \\J a student rider can hecome snagged in the exi1 Jo0r hand rail. Production Dates: l 95-9 96 \\lodel(s): Eagle Involved: 89 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 96V-162.003 The fuel tank \\Vas puncrured during compliance testingA resulting in a failure to meet the requirements of Federal \\1otor Vehicle Safety Standard No.  301, .. Fuel System Integrity. **************************************************************************** THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC. (910} 889-4871 Production Dates:  77- l 92 lmolved: 79 .216 \\1odel(s): All Star. Conventional. Minotour. MVP. Mighty Mite . Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall :\\'.umber \u0026amp; Description 93V-032.001 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 4/77- 1/92 Involved: 4 .500 Model(s): All Star. Conventional. Minocour. MVP. Mighty Mite. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-054 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. Production Dates: 4/77-3 /96 Involved: 116.933 \\1odel(s): All Star. Conventional. Minotour. MVP. ~1ighcy Mite. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista I, Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 96V-080 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. ' ...,. ...., - Production Dates: -l/77-7/96 Involved, 120.162 Model(s): All Star. Conventional. Minotaur. MVP. Mighty Mite. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V- l 39 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the e:ti door control rod assembly. Production Dates: 9\n73_ 7 92 \\fodel(s): School Bus Involved: 42. 97 I Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 92\\'-102.002 The fuel tank was punctured during compliance testing aIJ therefore the fuel system does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ~o. 301. -rue! System Integrity. Production Dates: 10/80-1 /92 Model(s): Bus \u0026amp; School Bus Involved: 6.248 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 92V-0 13 The actuator that releases the two catches for the rear emergency push-out window cm fail to function \\vhen needed due to poor maintenance. lack of iubrication. and/or corrosion . Production Dates: 9188-1,96 \\lodel(s): Saf-T-Liner lmohed: 730 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description %\\'-021 The brake chamber can be damaged due to contact with the suspension beam. Production Dates: 9/88-1/96 Involved: 695 Model(s): Saf-T-Liner Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 97V-030 The suspension beam can contact and damage the brake chamb, clamp band. Production Dates: 10/88-8192 \\lodel(s1: Bus \u0026amp; School Bus Involved: 277 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 92V- l 20 The welds which join the drive shaft to various engine and transmission components could be faulty . Production Dates: 11/89-1/93 Involved: 24.629 Model(s): All Star. Citiliner. Conventional. Mighty Mite. Minotaur. MVP, Saf-T-Liner, Vista. \u0026amp; School Bus Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93V-013 The bus windows fail to meet the glass retention requirements of Federal i\\lotor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. \"Bus Window Retention and Release.'' 33 Production Dates: 6/90-8/93 Involved: 336 Model(s): All Star \u0026amp; Type D Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93 V-l-+2-001 The cap screws rhat connect the intermediate steering - linkages 10 the steering gear hox shafts \\\\ere improperly torqued during production. Production Dates: l .'91-919-l Imolved: 804 :\\fodel(s): Vista Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 95\\'-041 The bracket used to support the hydraulic brake line can crack due to stress and possibly sever the brake line . Production Dates: 2/91-12/92 Model(s): Bus \u0026amp; School Bus Involved: 188 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 93V-029 The safety helt anchorage bolts were not large enough ro sustain specified load requirements during compliance resting and therefore Jo nor meet the requirements of F~J~ral \\ llllor , Lhick \\\n_ifct~ :-,\ntano:ird :\\ (1 . .:: : 0. satety lklt . \\ ~scrnhly . \\ nchor:iges.  Production Dates: 7.'91-2 '96 \"lodel(s): Conventional lmolved: 30.435 Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description 96 \\' - I 05 The c.:lothing of a studem rider can become snagged in the a door hand rail.  Production Dates: 7 /91-2/96 Involved: 24,082 Model(s): Conventional Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 97V-031 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exi door hand rail. Production Dates: 12.'91-8 92 Model(s): Bus \u0026amp; School Bus Involved: 1.684 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 92V-126 The wrong screws were used to attach the seat backs to the seat frames during production . Production Dates: 1/92-3/92 Model(s): Bus \u0026amp; School Bus Involved: 24 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 92V-078 The incorrect installation of the air brake lines during production could cause the brakes to self-apply without warning to the driver. Production Dates: 1/92-7/96 Involved: 2.068 :vlodel(s): MVP. All Star. \u0026amp; Saf-T-Liner Recall '.'lumber \u0026amp; Description 96 V-164 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. e' 34 Production Dates: 2.'92-3/96 Involved: 37.717 :\\fodel(s): All Star. Convemional. Minorour . .\\1VP. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 96V-065 The clothing of a srudem rider can become snagged in the ex door hand rail . Production Dates: 7 92-.5 93 \\lodelm: .\\II Star Inrnlved: 164 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 93E-U29.002 The Allied Si~nai brake master cylinders have a gap berneen the master cy I ind er :rnc..i the remote hrake fluid reser\\'oir adapter. Production Dates: 8/92-6/96 Imolved: 400 Model(s): Minorour Recall '.'Jumber \u0026amp; Description 96V-162.002 The fuel rank was punctured during compliance resting resulting in a failure{\\) meet the requiremems of Federal \\1otor \\'ehick S::it~ty Standard No. ~()l. !uei System lntesmY ... Production Dates: 9 92--\n03 \\lodel(s): School Bus lnvohed: 305 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description ':13 \\'- I 35 The driver does nor hear a continuous or imerminer!t audible ~ound signal when the switch that pre\\ents the automatic extension of the stop signal arm is acti\\'ated as required by Federai \\1otor \\'ehicle Safety Standard No. 131.  School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices. Production Dates: 9/92-7 /94 lnvohed: 1,040 Model(s): Saf-T-Liners \u0026amp; Transit-Lners Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94V-1-B The hydraulic assist for the power steering can stop during hard turns if the hydraulically driven engine cooling fan shuts off during the turn. Production Dates: b, 93-1' 0-l Involved: 3.076 \\lodeHsJ: Conventional. '.\\1\\.P. Saf-T-Liner. ~ \\'ista Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 9.5\\'-004 The safety heir retractor housing can become deformed. causing the safer., belt to become inoperative. Production Dates: 8/93-12.194 lnvohed: 1.413 Model(s): Citiliner. MVP. \u0026amp; Saf-T-Liner Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 95\\'-148 The automatic transmission will nor shift imo low gear due to a misalignment of the PRNDL indicator. 35 Production Dates: 11/93-3/94 Invoh'ed: 129 '.\\1odel(s): Minotour Recall '.':umber \u0026amp; Description 94 V-059 The s3.fely bell anchorages do not meel the strength requirements of Federal \\1otor Vehick Safety Standard :\\o. 210. safety Belt .\\ssembly .\"..nchorages. Production Dates: 11/93-1 L 94 \\fodel\u0026lt;s): Vista Involved: 2.133 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 95V-040 The heater \\ ems do nm have covers which would prevent trash from entering the vem area and causing a fire. Production Dates: 1/94-2/95 Involved: 50 :\\1odel(s): All Star. Conventional. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 95\\\"-042 The :iir conditioning hose vem covers Jo nm meet the head impau requiremcms ot fec.kr:.ii \\h)!L)r \\ '.:h1..:i.: Safety Standard :\\1). 2::. \"S..:honi 13us Passenger S.:ating. Production Dates: 2/94-6/94 \\lodel(s): Bus \u0026amp; School Bus lmolved: 360 Recall '.'lumber \u0026amp; Description 94V-120 The lemporary bypass cable for the neulral start switch may A not have been removed from the bus prior to delivery to the owner. W Production Dates: 3/94-9/94 Involved: 1,458 Model(s): School Bus Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94V-214 The bus engine can still be started if the rear emergency exit door is locked. resulting in a failure to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. Bus Windo\" Retention and Rele:ise ... Production Dates: 5.'94-8/94 Involved: 266 Model(s): Conventional. Minotour. \u0026amp; Vista Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94 V-171 The location of the emergency ,~xit signs does not meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard \u0026gt;Jo. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release: Production Dates: 6/94-8/95 Model(s): MVP-EF Involved: 221 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 95V-170 The positive battery cable can be melted by heat from the air discharge line. 36 II. I Production Dates: 6/94-8/95 :\\fodel(s): MVP-EF Involved: 259 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 95V-l 9 l The accelerator lever can bind against the engine cover possibly resulting in the accelerator remaining in the full throttle position. Production Dates: 9.194--+:95 Imolved: 350 :\\1odeHs): Conventional. Ylinocour. Saf-T-Liner. \u0026amp; Vista Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 95V-087 The roof latches do not meet the requirements of Federal \\1otor Vehicle Safety Standard ~o. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release: Production Dates: l l /94-11 /96 Model(s): Saf-T-Liner Involved: 1,800 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 97Y-018 The nut that secures the main power supply unit can loosen nossibly resulting in 1he luss nr' \\ehicle rower. Production Dates: 5 95-6195 ,todel(s): Vista lmolved: 17 Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 95V- l35 The wrong bolts were used to att~ch the drivers seat during rroduction resulting in a failure rn comply with Federal \\fotor Vehicle Saivy Standard No. 209. safety Belt Assemblies. Production Dates: 6/95-2/96 Involved: 18 Model(s): School Bus Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 96V-189 The fittings used to secure seats and wheel chair tie-downs to the floor do not comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. School Bus Passenger Seating. Production Dates: 7 '95--+ 96 \\-lodel(s): Saf-T-Liner lmolved: 55 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 97V-020 The brake system does not meet stopping distance requirement~ of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121.  . .\\ir Brake Systems: ***************************************************************************** TRANSi-CORP Production Dates: 1/90-7 / 91 :\\1odel(s): FC720 016) 662-9000 Involved: 57 Recall :\\umber \u0026amp; Description 94 V-225 The chassis frame rail can crack near the front and rear front axle spring hangers due to excessive stress. 37 VA'.\\1-CO~. I'.\\fC. (908) 356-8484 Production Dates: 1/90-12.'92 Imolved: 766 :\\lodel(s): Type A Recall :'\\umber \u0026amp; Description: 93\\'-032.00-l The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit Jnnr hand raii. WA Y'.\\E WHEELED VEHICLES/HARSCO CORPORATION (717) 763-7064 Production Dates: 8/93-9/93 Involved: 40 Model(s): Chaperone \u0026amp; Lifeguard Recall :\\'umber \u0026amp; Description 93\\/-195 The emergency exit door latches were assembled using ~cand2 i1UtS instead lit l, 1ckin\u0026lt;2 nuts. Production Dates: 9 '93-5 95 ,1odel(s): Lifestar lnvohed: 235 Recall '.'iumber \u0026amp; Description '::111 \\. - i 33 The fuel tank barrier collapsed during impact test resulting in a failure to meet requ1rem..:m~ ,,( 1~Jaal \\lotor \\'ehick Satety Standard \\:o. 301. Fuel System Integrity. Production Dates: 1 /94-6/94 Involved: 19 Model(s): Lifescar Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94V-150 The stud welds connecting the air brake supply lines to the vehicle frame can fail. possibly resulting in the air brake supply line falling on to the exhaust system. Production Dates: 2.'9-+--+- ll-+ :\\lodel(s): Lifescar lnrnlved: 13 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94 V-112 The exhaust system clamp boles were not torqued completely during production which could allow e:-..haust gases to enter the passenger compartment. ~**************************************************************************** 38 i .J SCHOOL BUS EQUIPMENT RECALLS FROM JANUARY 1992 THROUGH APRIL 1997 39 CARPENTER MANUFACTURING. INC. (812) 849-3131 Production Dates: 5.186-2/96 Involved: 1.415 :\\Iodel(s): Carpenter \u0026amp; Wayne School Buses Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description: 96E-007 The clothing of a student rider can become snagged in the exit door hand rail. HERCJ\nLES ENGI\n'l\nE CO:\\IPA\n'l\nY Production Dates: 6/91-3/92 Model(s): Crane Carrier Bus Chassis Production Dates: 3:92-6/94 \\lodel(s): Carpemer C uunselor Busi:~ Production Dates: b92-2.'9-+ \\lodel(s): Thomas Built Transit Bus \u0026lt;\\: School Bus Production Dates: -i, 93-10/9-+ \\fodel(s): Spartan TB22-+2 Bus Chassis Production Dates: 5 93-5 9-+ (216) 438-1390 Involved: 91 Involved: 25 lnrnln~d: 39 InrnlYed: 22 Involved: 19 .\\fodel(s): Blue Bird TCRE. QBRE. \u0026amp; CSRE Recall ~umber \u0026amp; Description 94-020 The hex bolts connecting various throttle components on - Hercules Impco GT AS .6 and GT A3. 7 engines can loosen possibly resulting in unintended full throttle acceleration. Note: Hercules Engine is conducting this recall on behalf of each subordinate manufacturer. ***************************************************************************** KI~EDY~E CORPORA TIO~ (913) 841-4000 Production Dates: 7 192-7 /93 Involved: :3 .182 Model(s): Goshen GC 11 \u0026amp; Sentry Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94-013 The wheel chair restraint hooks may release on their own without warning while the vehicle is in motion. Note: Kinedyne is conducting this recall on behalf of Goshen Coach. ***************************************************************************** -r J WELLS ALUMI7'lXM CORPORATION Production Dates: l 2.'92-3,94 :\\fodel(s): Thomas Built School Bus \u0026amp; Bus Production Dates: I 2 .'92-3 .' 9  :\\1odel(s): Van Con School Bus Production Dates: 7 93_ 7 94 :\\fodel(s): Mid Bus Guide OW. GuiJe SW. Superior. \u0026amp; Busette Production Dates: 1.193-5.'94 Model(s): AmTran Genesis \u0026amp; Ward (410 494-4500 Inrnlnd: 5.000 Inrnhed: 30 Invoiveri: 111 Involved: 1.447 Recall Number \u0026amp; Description 94E-01 l The emergency exit window latches are not strong enough to meet the requiremems of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217. --Bus Window Retention and Release. :'\\otc: Wells ,\\luminum 1s -.:nnduc1in~ this recall (ln bc::haif n1 e:irn hus manu1acturer. r CURRE~T SCHOOL BUS INVESTIGATIONS I, 42 - Introduction .} This section contains information concerning current safety defect and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard compliance investigations being conducted by NHTSA . ... - Office of Defect Investigations Safety Defect Investigations Make Ford Model(s) B700 Year(s) Subject 1992 Loss of power steering assist (PE96-073). Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard {FMVSS} Compliance Investigations Make Model(s) Blue Bird TC2000 Blue Bird TC2000 Carpenter Classmate II \u0026amp; Classic Wayne Lifestar Year(s) Description 1996 Failure to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, \"Bus Window Retention and Release. 1997 Failure to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. \"Fuel System Integrity.\" 1995-96 Failure to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, \"Bus Window Retention and Release.\" 1995 Failure to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 222, 'School Bus Passenger Seating.\" If you have any information pertaining to these investigations please contact the Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393. The information you provide will be forwarded to the involved investigator. who may contact you for additional information. 43 HOW TO CONTACT NHTSA WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Federal government agency responsible for assuring the safety of vehicles traveling on public roadways. The Auto Safety Hotline was established by NHTSA to allow members of the public to communicate their concerns relating to motor vehicle safC!Y-to ttie agency. WHAT THE HOTLINE DOES The Hodine collects complaints relating to:  Current safety recall campaigns  Safety related defects found in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment OTHER SERVICES The Hotline also distributes information on the following topic areas:  Current safety recall campaigns  Current safety defect and noncompliance investigations conducted by NHTSA  Child safety scats  Safety belts and air bags  Drunk driving literature  Annual safety recalls report  Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards  Motor vehicle import requirements  Odometer fraud  Uniform tire grading specifications HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION The Hotline can be reached from anywhere in the United States and its territories by calling (800) 424-9393 or (202) 366-0123. Operators are available to take your calls Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern time. Consumers who contact the Hotline during non-opentionaJ hours can leave a message on the answering machine, which will be responded to oa die next business day. Spanish speaking operators are also available. Hearing impaired persons may contact the Hodine at (800) 424-9152 or (202) 366-7800. VISIT US ON THE WEB Information is now available on the Internet at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov -- Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division NO: CUR-97-096 Page: 1 of 1 OFHCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: June 3, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Summer School Directors Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: Those Affected Assistant Director, Planning \u0026amp; Curriculum: Mr. Bill Ballard Subject: K-3 Summer Program Administration Index Code: CGA Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-16-703 (Supp. 1997) Contact Person: Mary Kaye McKinney Phone No: (501) 682-5615 Enclosed is a final copy of the Rules and Regulations for the K-3 Summer Supplemental Instructional Program. The State Board of Education approved these as final rules and regulations during the meeting on May 19, 1997. The K-3 Summer School applications are being reviewed. Enclosed is a corrected copy of the June calendar which had an error listing Monday as June 29th instead of June 30th. If this change impacts your summer school program, please resubmit the corrected calendar. Although infonnation was provided to increase the number of extended days, the State Board of Education selected to maintain the rules and regulations as currently written. The rules and regulations still require a minimum number of 25 days for summer school participation with no more than 2 extended days. If you have submitted an application with more than two extended days, please submit a revised calendar with extended day justification, eithe through fax to (501)682-4441 or mail by June 13, 1997. If you have questions, please contac either Mary Kaye McKinney, Susan Underwood or Glenda Nugent. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS SUMMER SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM: Early Childhood Initiative 1.00 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as the Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Governing the Summer Supplemental Instructional Program for the Early Childhood Initiative. 1.02 The State Board of Education enacted these regulations pursuant to its authority under Ark. Code Ann. 6-16-703 (Supp.1997). 2.00 Purpose of Regulations 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidelines under which local school districts may be allowed to provide summer supplemental instruction for students in kindergarten through grade three not performing at grade level during the regular school year. 2.02 These regulations outline the procedures under which students are identified for participation in the supplemental summer school. 2.03 These regulations describe the condition under which students who are determined to be performing below grade level in reading and mathematics may be promoted to the next grade level. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 \"Below grade level\" for all children in kindergarten through third grade shall be determined by the local school district using a combination of measures including teacher made tests, teacher observation, performance based assessments including portfolios and other diagnostic indicators, and/or performance on other appropriate screening/assessment instruments. 3.02 \"Grade level\" for students identified as disabled under state and federal regulations, shall be determined at the local district by the Individual Education Program (IEP) committee, using a combination of criteria including attainment of goals and objectives related to reading and mathematics on each student's IEP, results of criterion-referenced tests, and measures of discrepancy between ability and achievement. 3.03 \"Summer school\" shall be 25 days with each day being four hours in length. Student/teacher interaction shall be a minimum of three hours each day. The A remaining hour shall be for snacks, breaks, and teacher planning. These days W shall be scheduled outside the regular school year. Of the 25 days, no more than two may be extended to eight hours and count as two, four hour days. 4.00 Student Eligibility 4.01 Students enrolled in grades K-3 during the regular school year and performing below grade level in reading and/or mathematics and at-risk for retention are eligible and shall attend summer school to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. 5.00 Location of Summer School Classes 5.01 Local districts providing a supplemental summer school program for grades K-3 may elect to provide the program within the district or cooperatively with other districts. 6.00 Staffing 6.01 Each summer school program shall be staffed by an administrator and teachers from the K-6 level who meet state licensure regulations for K-6 or 1-6. 6.02 All site administrators and teachers of K-3 summer school shall have completed the Early Childhood Initiative Training as provided by the Arkansas Department of Education or the K-4 Crusade Graduate Course. 6.03 Class size shall be based on a student/teacher ratio of 12 to 1. An instructional assistant shall be provided for any class that includes more than two grade levels. 7.00 Funding 7.01 Summer programs shall be provided at no cost to students and shall include instruction, teacher preparation, transportation. materials. and snacks. 8.00 Instruction 8.01 The instructional program shall be developed consistent with the strategies presented in the Early Childhood Initiative. 8.02 The instructional program shall provide for effective parent involvement which actively engages the parent/ primary caregiver in the education of their child. Parent involvement should emphasize promotion of literacy within the home and  may include parent/child school sponsored activities, parent/primary caregiver volunteers, written and verbal communications, conferences, training of activities/ materials that may be used in the home, etc. 8.03 Students in grades K-3 who are identified as not reading at grade level should receive intensive reading instruction during their regularly scheduled reading time throughout the regular school year. The intensive reading instruction may include one-on-one tutoring or small group instruction which includes specific strategies to support a balanced literacy program. 8.04 Students who participated in summer school shall have activities designed for sustaining progress during the following year. These activities may include but not limited to the following:  placement with a teacher(s) who has participated in qualifying training  supplemental services  extended day tutorial  parent/home intervention 9.00 Administration 9.01 Each school district must prepare a plan that will provide for the supplemental summer school program for students in the district. The plan may provide for a single district program or describe how the district will provide such a program through a cooperative effort. 9.02 The plan must be submitted for approval to the Department of Education on or before May 31 of each year. 9.03 The plan must include superintendent signed assurances, a descript10n of the student identification process used consistent with section 4.01 of these Rules and Regulations, calendar, class grouping and description of parent involvement. 9.04 Demographic student data must be submitted to the Department of Education by October 15th of each year. 9.05 The local school district may apply to the Director of the Department of Education for a waiver to enhance and expand the use of funds for in-school and summer school for the development of an overall comprehensive program when the district has identified their students as being at grade level. SUMMER SCHOOL CALENDAR A Circle the days that summer school will be provided. B. Indicate the beginning and ending time for each day (ie.8: I 5 - 12:00). C. Enrichment experiences (ie. Field trips, parent day, etc.) Beyond a three hour may be approved if related to the curriculum. Indicate the day, time and attach description/plan. JUNE Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 IO l l 12 l3 14 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 30  Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ED STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division JUN 9 - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals NO: CUR-97-097 Page: 1 of 2 Date: June 4, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Planning \u0026amp; Curriculum: Bill Ballard Subject: Technology Resources Index Code: IJND Satellite Instruction for the 1997-98 School Year Regulatory Authority: State Board of Education Guidelines Adopted April, 1989 Contact Penon: Dr. Charles Watson Phone No: (501) 682-4474 FAX No.: (501) 682-4886 Since 1988, the State Board of Education has endorsed the inclusion of satellite-delivered instruction in secondary schools of the state. Under the guidelines, the Department of Education is charged with supervising the programming as well as approving credit courses that are proposed for the school curriculum. Schools that currently provide satellite courses, as well as those that intend to provide one or more courses via satellite-delivered instruction, must complete the one-page Application for Satellite Instruction 1997-98 form. The providers have been advised that they should not accept registration information that does not include an approved Department of Education application. Currently, there are four approved providers of instructional programming. Each establishes different registration dates, and each has a different method for completing the registration process. Each school must register students directly with the provider. Due to the changing nature of program delivery, each school should verify that Satellite receiver equipment continues to be compatible with that used by the provider. A Distance Learning Committee, chaired by Dr. Charles D. Watson, is charged with the responsibility of linking the Department with the providers of distance learning and reviewing and recommending approval of applications for credit-based courses. The committee will provide technical assistance to schools as needed to assure quality instructional programs through this medium. Applications will be reviewed as they are received, and a copy of the approval will be returned to the district. Applications should be in our office no later than Friday, August 1, 1997. Please return to: Dr. Charles D. Watson Manager, Special Projects Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 107A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 ease type application information School District SATELLITE INSTRUCTION 1997-98 Application Form Arkansas Department of Education -------------------------------------- Address -----------------County ------------------ --~------------- Zip Superintendent _______________ Telephone ______________ _ School Coordinator _____________ Telephone ______________ _ Do you presently have dish and receiver equipment? Yes ___ _ No ___ _ l'rom t.lie att.clJed llst of course approved for t.lie 1997-98 clJool :,ear, 11st clJ course to be ofTend, t.lie propam -urctJ, t.lie t:Ja.uoom Ji,cJJJtator arid t.lie .ocJaJ security zuu111Nr oft.lie Ji,cJJJtator. COURSE PROGRAM SOURCE NUMBER STUDENTS f ACILIT A TOR Anv chanac in course or facilitator should be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education on or before AuJ\n!ust I. 1997. Did your district participate in satellite instruction during 1996-97? Yes __ _ No ___ _ FACILITATOR'S SS# Please return tbi, form on or before August 1, 1997 to Dr. Charles D. Watson, Manager, Special Projects, Arkan1a1 Department of Education, #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 107-A, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071. ASSURANCES I . Teachers/classroom managers will particpate in an in-service training to learn about equipment, course organization and classroom management. 2. The district is unable to employ a certified teacher (s) to teach the course(s) used to meet the Standards. 3. Enrollment in the course(s) does not exceed requirement of the Standards. Date __ Approved __ Disapproved Superintendent For SEA Use Only Reviewed by: __________ _ - Guidelines Utilization of Satellite Instruction Uevi.\\'ed April I 'JH'J I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Satellite programs for instructional purposes in Arkansas school districts must be under the supervision of the State Department of Education. All courses taught by satellite must adhere to guidelines and course objectives established by the Department of Education or be approved by the Department of Education. Satellite Courses must be taught by experienced master teachers. Each satellite class must have a classroom manager who is a certified teacher, preferably in a related field, to supervise and manage the classroom. (In exceptional cases a trained aide may be used.) In-service training must be provided for classroom managers to learn about equipment, course organization and classroom management. Instructional programs should be liver and interactive or provide for microcomputer software designed to reinforce the television lessons. Supplemental)' printed materials correlated with the satellite course must be used for reYiew, drill and practice and homework in order to strengthen concepts being taught. Specific uniform procedures for evaluating student progress must be used in the courses. Two units of satellite course credit may be applied toward graduation requirements. Districts designated as isolated may request pem1ission from the Department of Education to offer a third unit of credit. I 0. In order to award credit for satellite courses in subjects that are required by the Standards, a school district must be unable to pro,ide a certified teacher for the course. 11 . Schools may provide satellite courses either live or by use of video tapes. (Video tape courses must also provide microcomputer software.) 12. Enrollment in satellite classes must adhere to State Department of Education class size guidelines. 13. All satellite courses offered for credit as required by the education Standards must have the approval of the Department of Education. These guidelines will be used as a basis for granting approval to local districts who wish to offer courses by satellite. Approved Providers of Satellite-Delivered Courses 1997-98 Satellite Education Resources Consortium (SERC) P.O. Box 50008 Columbia, SC 29250 800-476-5001 www.scsn.net/users/serc Full schedule of courses (see attached delivery schedule) See Web site for course descriptions and enrollment fees Spanish Via Satellite Educational Communications Center Kansas State University - 128 Bob Dole Hall Manhattan, KS 66506 800-533-6036 Spanish I and II Delivery schedule attached United Star Distance Learning Consortium, Inc. Formerly TI-IN Network 9300 Livingston Road Fort Washington, Maryland 20744 888-828-7352 Full schedule of courses (see attached delivery schedule) PeachStar Education Services Georgia Public Broadcasting P.O. Box 38472 Atlanta, GA 30334 800-222-6006 www.ceismc.gatech.edu/irasshai/ Irasshai - Japanese I and II : . .,,. ~\n.1::~ . -  '( Technical Information . . . '  ,e,. Course Titles and Descriptions I Transmission Schedule SERC *Tentative* Transmission Schedule 1997-98 School Year Last Updated: 4114197 (Exact satellite information will be provided as soon as it becomes available.) !EASTERN TIMEIIKu-BAND DIGITAL IIEASTERN TIMEIIKu-BAND DIGITajlEASTERN TIME C-BAND ANALOG 1 8:00 am - II Russian II 118:~0 am - I-Li:ehls~:pe- I\"' om 1=:\n1 . 8:50 am __ TIWfTh/F .. 8.55 am . M/I'/WfTh/F _ 9.25 am M/I'/WfTh/F Japanese II 1 M/I'/WfTh/F 9:00 am - IIAP Economics 119:00 am - II Gennan l 119:30 am - ll:00 a .. T/Th .. 9:50 am __ M/I'/WfTh/F .. 10:20 am :======~:======~ I~~\nI AP Gove~\n: Politics I- 11. II- 11:50am I: 1110:00 am - II Gennan I 1110:30 am - . .. 10:50 am __ MII'/WfTh/F .. 11:20 am Japanese Ill M/I'/WfTh/F Japanese II -TapeM/ f/WfTh/F 11 :00 am - Latin I 11 :30 am  Section 8 I I iapanese I ll : 50 am . Mil' /W fTh/F . 12: 20 pm Mil' /W fTh/F ::======:::::========::======::======~::======: I=~ II 12:00pm- 12:50 pm ll:OOpm- 1:50 pm I- 1 2:00 pm 2:50pm 3:00 pm- 3:50 pm 3:00 pm - 4:30 pm 1 3:00 pm - . 5:00pm Japanese I -TapeM/ I'/WfTh/F llspanish I II-llspanish II IRUWDIU -Tape- M/W/F 12:00pm - 1:15 pm II- 111:30 pm. 2:10pm II-II Scien\u0026lt;:e Out \u0026lt;Thi, World I -Tape- . Th Work in the 21st Century Math in the Middle ... Staff Development II- II-II- II-II II II II II II Remember to check back here for updates often! COURSE FORMAT Spanish via Satellite (SVS) utilizes a five-day per week format, in which the learning experience is enhanced through a variety of instructional methods, including textbooks, audiocassette tapes, and computer software, as well as live television broadcasts. Course content is comparable to traditional beginning Spanish courses .. Students learn to communicate with people of the Spanish-speaking world through instruction and practice in the four basic skills of speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Both Spanish I and II emphasize cultural awareness. Two -!5-minute, li\\e television (via satellite) programs are presented each Tuesd,1\\ and Thursday, at the following times: SPANISH l-1l:30PM - 1:15 PMCT SPANISH II- 1:30PM - l:15 PMCT During these broadcasts, a random rotation of schools assures telephone interaction between students and the studio instmctor. Scheduling of classes at times which coincide ,,ith the live broadcasts is strongly encouraged. On non-broadcast d,1ys, a classroom Teaching Partner conducts learning activities developed and pro\\ided by the instructor. The instructor or an assist,mt is only il toll-free call away. A tol:-free telephone line is 1-.1ro\\ided to facilitate contact between the ECC instructor and staff, and the Teaching Partners and students. T COURSE EQUIPMENT The participating school\"s downlink (satellite dish antenna and receiver) must be able to receive Ku-Band frequencies. Please be aware that there are two major satellite bands: C-Band and Ku-Band, which, somewhat like AM and FM radio, cannot automatically be received on all equipment. This equipment must be steerable in order to adjust for any transponder changes. Some CBand equipment can be retrofitted to receive Ku-Band signals. To verify this option, contact your equipment supplier. Other necessary equipment includes:  television monitor (2~ rcc,,mm,n,k,11  videocassette recorder (to record broadcasts off-air)  dedicated telephone line  cordless telephone (,,,,ak,r-plwn, tund1,\u0026gt;11 Ice \"111lh\"'.Ocd l  audiocassette player/ recorder or CD player/ cassette recorder (with tone or bass/ treble control: a \"boom-box\" is ideal) 1Cll , ''- ,r rcc,,,11111,11,kd 1,,,. ,l.111t, ,111cl 1,,ngc, it, 1 l APR-21-1997 13:41 WESTCOTT 972 716 5109 P.04 United Star Distance Learning Consortium (USDLC), Inc. 1997-98 Broadcast Schedule StarNet (formerly TI-IN Network) nme PT MT CT ET Chllnnel A (2132\u0026gt; Channel B rns61 4:30Lm. 5:30a.m. 6:JOLm. 7\n30Lm, CNN Newsroom 5:00 a.111. 6:00 a.m. 7:00a.m. 8:00Lm. Anatomy \u0026amp; Physiology Latin I Block (Fall) Latin Il Block (Spring) 6:00a.m. 7:00a.m. 8:00a.ra. 9:00a.m. Spanish I 6:JOa.m. 7:JO LID, 8:JOLm. 9:30a.m. Research Writing {T,TH) Business Comm. (MWF) 1:00a.m. 8:00a.m. 9:001.m. 10:00 LIii, Gennan Il French II Intro to Elem. World Around L's 8:00a.m. 9:00a.m. 10:00a.m. 11:00 a.JD, Spanish II SJ\u0026gt;IDWl ' (T,TII) {MWF) 8:30Lm. 9:30a.m. 10:JOa.m. 11:30 Lm. . Science Cowits! 3-5 {MWF) EJemStodent Enrich. (T, TH) 9:00 a.m. 10:00 LID. 11:00 LID- 12:00 p.m. Calculus/ AP Calculus French I 10:00a.m. 11:00a.m. 12:00 p.m. l:OOp.m. Marine/Aquatic Science Science World \u0026lt;M-TH)  (Fall-Saltwater, Oceans\nSpring-Freshwater, wetlands) 10:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 12:30 p.m. 1:30 p-111. Languages Around the World (M-,'.fH) , ., .. _\nffi~Scbool Enrichment (F) ., 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 1:00p.m. 2:00 p.m. Sociology/PsycboloiY/ Science COUDli! 6-8  AP Psychology Middle School (MWF) ~ ~~-~oo~-Enri~ er.TH\u0026gt; ... ' .. .. 12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00p.m. 3:00 p.m. Tes?, _101 (T.111) .. - Japanese n (MWTH) ' . 12:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 3:30 p.111, SAT/ACT 'That Review. en .. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00p.m. 4:00 p.m. Tech Talk (M). .  011 ~ol (M-TII) . Staff Developm~t ('f,TH)  Middle School NOTE: All courser\narc subJ~I to muwnum enrollment Apn/ JO, 1997  Available as a single semester or u a full-year cou~e. *-Most Staff Development will be pre-taped. Some Staff Development will be live and interactive. Courses scheduled in $haded rime blocks are pre-taped. For IDformatioa Call: 1-188-823-7352  Transmission Schedule lrasshai, Japanese I, will be delivered on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 7:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. lrasshai, Japanese II, will be delivered on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Some weeks will have two broadcasts\nother weeks will have three. A detailed calendar/ schedule for Japanes_e I and II can be provided to schools interested in enrollment. Video programs need to be taped and used in the sequence of their broadcast so that the audio interaction sessions can properly support video instruction. It is not necessary to watch the programs as they air since they are not live\nhowever, programs must be viewed on the day of the broadcast or before the audio interaction session as the lessons are sequential. For both Japanese I and II, the first air date for the 1997 - 1998 school year is Wednesday, September 3, 1997. The final broadcast date will be Wednesday May 20, 1998. There will be days throughout the year that will be used to \"catch up.\" This will mean that there will not be a broadcast on that day, and class time will be used for students to get caught up on related instructional activities, review and practice what they've learned, and prepare for upcoming exams. There will also be days when there will not be a broadcast due to holidays. As closely as possible, every effort will be made to parallel the holiday schedule for the majority of schools. It will be the facilitator's role to coordinate the use of the video broadcasts, the classroom activities, the audio interaction sessions, and the required assessment with the transmission schedule. 3 en n :r tD 0.. C - tD Atiaosas DIRECI'OR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 J\\TE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division JUN - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORI Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors NO: FIN-97-115 Page: 1 of I Date: June 5, 1997 Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: All There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Safety Drills Index Code: EBCB Tri-Annual Fire Drill Reports Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-10-110 (Repl. 1993) Contact Person: Dave Floyd Phone No: 682-4261 Your third tri-annual fire drill report is due on June 20, 1997. Enclosed is a copy of the form for your use. Duplicate this form as needed for your district. Please report the results of all of your monthly drills that were not included on your February report. Return the form to School Plant Service. TRI-ANNUAL FIRE DRILL REPORT AS REQUIRED BY STATE BOARD POLICY FOR ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN KEEPING WITH ACT 61 of the 1959 ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY School District Name: ---------------------------- Address: _________________ County: ____________ _ Report #1 ________ Report#2 _________ Report #3 _______ _ (Sept 20) (Feb 20) (June 20) 1. Is there a School Fire Marshal Program currently in operation in each unit of the school district? Yes____ No ___ _ 2. Is there an adequate evacuation plan with a diain:a,rn posted inside each classroom of the school district? Yes____ No ___ _ 3. Are all buildings checked for haz.ards before being locked at the end of the day and at night after activities? Yes____ No ___ _ 4. Has each school facility been inspected by your local fire department, as required by Ark. Code Ann. 6-21- 106? Yes ___ _ No ---- 5. Does the district provide a program of safety training essential to the reasonable protection of the lives of students and property from fire and other haz.ards in each unit of the school district? Yes____ No ___ _ SCHOOL DA TE OF FIRE DRILL TIME OF FIRE DRILL EVACUATION TIME Dave Floyd, Coordinator SCHOOL PLANT SERVICE SIGNED --------SUPERINTENDENT DA TE _______ _ PLEASE SUBMIT TO: SCHOOL PLANT SERVICE, ROOM 110-B #3 CAPITOL MALL, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ADE Form No. FIN-07-00-001 8/91 Attansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION \"'\" \\ ,,:r\n.]1' ~'f,111fl'E CAPITOL MALL LITIL~ ROCK, ARKANSAS '?2201~1~?1  (501) 682-4475 -    cr:,U GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education D1v1S1on Cl--flCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals NO: DIR 97-016 Page: 1 of 1 Date: June 5, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected There are attachments to this memo. Deputy Director, General Education: Dr. Diana Julian Subject: Supervision of Professional Staff Index Code: GCN Teacher Supervision Workshop for New Elementary/Secondary Principals Regulatory Authority: NIA Contact Person: Janinne Riggs Phone No: 682-4374 The Arkansas Department of Education will sponsor a workshop on teacher supervision for new elementary/secondary principals on July 24, 1994, 9:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. at the North Little Rock High School-East Campus Mini Auditorium, 2400 Lake view Road, North Little Rock. The workshop will focus on the principles of supervision and evaluation, legal issues pertaining to evaluation, and the recently adopted teacher evaluation regulations. Featured speakers will be Dr. Diana Julian, Deputy Director and Mr. Paul Blume, General Counsel for the Arkansas School Boards Association. The recently adopted rules and regulations do not require new principals to attend teacher evaluation training sessions, however, the ADE does plan to continue providing orientation sessions. Attendance is not mandatory and is the decision of the local district. Please return the attached registration to Janinne Riggs, Room# 401-A, Fax Number: 501-682-4249 no later than July 11, 1997 to confirm participation. Lunch will be on your own. Contact Janinne at 682-4374 if you have questions. Namti. School District: Position\nTEACHER SUPERVISION WORKSHOP For New Elementary/Secondary Principals July 24, 1997 9:30 A.M. - ~:00 P.M. North Little Rock High School-East Campus Mini Auditorium 2400 Lakeview Road North Little Rock (Map on back of Agenda) Mailina= Address\n____________________ _ Phone Number: Please return this registration by July 11, 1997, to Janinne Riggs #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 401-A, Little Rock, AR 72201 or fax to (501) 682-1249. attachment -DM # DIR 97-016 TEACHER SUPERVISION WORKSHOP July 24, 1997 North Little Rock High School-East Campus Mini Auditorium 2400 Lakeview Road North Little Rock (Map on back of Agenda) Tentative Agenda 9:30 -11:30- Dr. Diana Julian The Principles of Supervision 11:30-1:00- Lunch on your own 1:00 -3:00- Mr. Paul Blume Legal Issues    ADE Memos Received 6-16-97 Computerized Data Systems Statewide Information System Manual Public Hearing Public Hearing on Proposed Revisipn to ADE's Regulations \u0026lt;1\nnd Procedures Governing Home Schools School District Annual Report Final Notice of Accreditation for the 1996-97 School Year Intervention/Prevention Grant Program for Arkansas School Children Arkansas . DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION .,~~1~!M~~K.~!'KE.!?,!!,S~!!.2~ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division JUN I G 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NO: IT-97-002 Page: 1 of 1 Date: June 12, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Information and Technology: Jim Boardman Subject: Computerized Data Systems Index Code: EHA Statewide Information System Manual Regulatory Authority: NI A Contact Person: John Gately Brenda Caudle Phone No: (501) 682-5246 (johng@apscn.kl2.ar.us) (501) 682-5192 (brendac@apscn.kl2.ar.us) The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) in cooperation with the Arkansas Public School Computer Network (APSCN) has developed a state reporting process that will allow Arkansas school districts to report their data electronically over the statewide network to the Department. Enclosed is a copy of the Statewide Information System Manual for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years. The manual includes the data elements, submission cycles, list of reports, and calculations which will be used for the initial implementation of the system. The manual and data elements will be updated annually in consultation with school districts and educational service cooperative staff to reflect changes in state and federal reporting requirements. Every effort will be made to distribute the annual update as far in advance of the new fiscal year as possible. Anticipated changes for the 1998-99 school year include revision in the course code/job assignment numbering system to make the numbering system more standard and reflective of the variety of courses being offered. Changes in the numbering system should be available by January 1998. The manual cannot answer all questions, especially for non-APSCN districts. Please contact statewide information system project leader, John Gately at 682-5246 (johng@apscn.kl2.ar.us) or the data base manager, Brenda Caudle at 682-5192 (brendac@apscn.kl2.ar.us) with any comments or concerns. JUN 1 6 i997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors NO: TEC-97-050 Page: I of I Date: June 12, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected Assistant Director, Technical Assistance: Frank Anthony Subject: Public Hearing lndex Code: BEE Public Hearing on Proposed Revision to ADE's Regulations and Procedures Governing Home Schools Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. ~ 6- I 5-50 I through 507 (Repl. 1993) as amended by Act 522 of 1995 and Act 400 of 1997. Contact Person: Yvette Dillingham Phone No: (501) 682-4252 NOTICE: THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ADE) WILL HOLU A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE ADE'S REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING HOME SCHOOL ON MONDAY,JUNE 30, 1997,AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM OF THE BIG MAC BUILDING, #I CAPITOL MALL, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. A COPY OFTIIE PROPOSED REVISIONS IS ATTACHED. WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC WILL BE ACCEPTED lJNTILJUNE JO, 1997, AND THOSE COMMENTS SHOULD BE SENT TO: YVETTE DILLINGHAM,#-' CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 102-B, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201. 1.00 PROPOSED ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR HOME SCHOOLS REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1.0 I These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the Home School Program. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Ark. Code Ann. 6-15-501 through 507 (Repl. 1993) as amended by ACT 522 of 1995 and Act 400 of 1997. 2.00 PURPOSE 2.0 I It is the purpose of these regulations to set the reasonable guidelines for the operation of the Home School Program. 3.00 GENERAL 3.01 Under Arkansas law children between the ages oftive (5) and seventeen ( 17) inclusive on October I (September I to begin in school year 1998 in accordance with Act 12]0 of 1997) must attend school. 3.02 For the purpose of this Act, a parent who intends to home school a child who will be five (5) years old by October I (September I to begin in school year 1998 in accordance with Act 1230 of 1997), must enroll the child in home school within ten (10) days of the beginning of the current school year or at any time during the school year the parent withdraws the child from the local or resident school district. Parent/guardian withdrawing their child during the school year must register for home school within ten ( I 0) days of the beginning of each school year thereafter. Any parent/guardian who withdraws their child from public, private, or parochial school any time during the school year shall file an Intent to Home School and Waiver Forms with the superintendent of the local or resident school district. These forms shall be tiled within ten ( I 0) days of withdrawal from the public, private, or parochial school. As described in Section Five (5) in these Rules and Regulations. any student entering home schooling during the school year shall participate in the re(Juired State testing Rev. 6/97 program at the required grade levels0 3.03 Parents may elect for a child, who will not be six (6) by October 1 (or five (S) by September I to begin in school year I 998 in accordance with Act 1230 of I 997), not to attend kindergarten by filing a Kindergarten Waiver form with the local school district administration office. 3.04 A home school is defined as a school conducted primarily by parents or legal guardians for their own children. 3.05 Home school students who enroll in a public, private or parochial school during the time they are home schooling cannot re-enter home schooling until a new Notice of Intent and Waiver forms are completed and returned to the local or resident school district. 3.06 Home school students who are in the required grade levels for which the state mandates norm-referenced testing and who are no more than two (2) years beyond the normal age for the required grade levels must take a standardized normreferenced test as identified by the Arkansas Department of Education and results will be used for statistical purposes only. 3.07 Books, curricula or materials are not furnished by the Arkansas Department of Education, local school district, or education se1vice cooperatiw 1t is the responsibility of the parent/guardian to purchase all books, curricula or materials that they use in home schooling. 4.00 NOTICE OF INTENT 4.01 Parents or Guardians who plan to home school must file written notice by completing and returning the printed current year Notice of Intent and Waiver forms to the public school superintendent's otlice of their local or resident school district within ten (I 0) days of the beginning of each school year or at any time during the school year that the parent/guardian withdraws the child(ren) from the local or resident school district. Parent/guardian who withdraws their child(ren) during the school year must complete a current year printed Notice of Intent and Waiver forms within ten ( I 0) days of the beginning of the school year thereafter. There are no exceptions to these filing requirements except as outlined in 4.02. 4.02 Any student(s) home schooled in another state prior to moving to Arkansas during Rev. 6/97 2 4.03 the current school year may continue in a home school if the parent(s) or guardian(s) file the current year printed Notice of Intent and Waiver forms with their local or resident public school superintendent's otlice within thirty(30) school days. The required Notice of Intent and Waiver forms must be the printed current year forms obtained from your local superintendent's office and must include the following information for statistical and test administration purposes only: a. The name, date of birth, and grade level of each child and the name and address of the public, private, home school or parochial school last attended, if any, for each student. b. The location of the home school (your mailing address) and phone number. c. A brief description of the basic core curriculum to be used and the subjects to be taught. d. Schedule of instruction to be followed (hours per day\ndays per week\nnumber of weeks). e. The education qualifications of the parent/teacher(s). f Parents or guardians shall deliver written notice in person to the superintendent of their local school district the first time such notice is given~ 5.00 TESTING REQUIRED 5.01 ACHIEVEMENT TESTS a. Test administration of home school students shall be under the direction of the education service cooperatives and the Pulaski County school districts. Achievement testing will be during the testing dates identified by the Arkansas Department of Education. b. The education service cooperatives and Pulaski County school districts will ensure that all test materials are secure before testing, between and following test administration and provide the Arkansas Department of Education, for approval by the Director, with a common set of procedures for test Rev. 6/97 3 administration of home school students in the required grade levels. These common set of procedures must include security measures to ensure that appropriate testing conditions and procedures have been followed as outlined in the appropriate test administration instructions. c. Each student enrolled in a home school program who is considered to be in the required grades or no more than two (2) years beyond the age appropriate grade will be tested annually by using the State identified norm-referenced achievement test. d. Parent/guardian requesting alternate testing procedures and timeframe must be submitted in writing to the education service cooperatives or the Pulaski County school districts and must remain within the State identified testing dates. If approved, alternate testing procedure costs shall be the responsibilitiy of the parent/guardian. 6.00 TEST RES UL TS 6.01 All test results for home school students will be used for statistical purposes only. 7.00 TRANSFER OF STUDENTS 7.01 Students transferring from a school not accredited by the state, including home school, to a school which is accredited by the state shall be evaluated by the staff of the accredited school to determine proper placement. As a part of the on-going assessment process, a State identified norm-referenced achievement test shall be one of the instruments utilized. 7.02 Local school districts have discretion to determine which course credits, if any, will be recognized when a student transfers from an unaccredited school. 7.03 Home School is an unaccredited school, there are no grades, credits, transcript, or diploma provided by the Arkansas Department of Education, education service cooperative or by the local school district for students enrolled in home school. 7.04 Any home school student who re-enters a local school district must attend classes for at least nine (9) months immediately prior to graduation before the student can Rev. 6/97 4 8.00 become eligible to receive a high school diploma from the local school district. STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 8.01 By way of these regulations, it shall be the policy of the State Board of Education that school districts provide a genuine opportunity (see 34 C.F.R. Sec. 76.651 (a)) to students who are home-schooled with disabilities, as defined in state regulations, to access special education and related services from the district where they reside. This policy is not to be constrned as conferring the procedural protections and rights under Part B of the IDEA to such students and their parents. 8.02 Only state and/or local funds may be used to provide such services. 9.00 DRIVER'S PERMIT/LICENSE 9.01 A student enrolled in a home school shall present proof in the form ofa notarized Notice of Intent along with an application for an instructional permit or for a driver's license. The parent/guardian has the responsibility of providing the notarized copy. Rev. 6/97 5 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ~TATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 t GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education\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\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1457","title":"Report: ''Monitoring Report on the 1996-97 Budgets of the Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1997-05-07"],"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","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School integration","School management and organization","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Monitoring Report on the 1996-97 Budgets of the Little Rock School District,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1457"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["5 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1637","title":"Court filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats, motion for taxation of costs, cross-petition for attorneys' fees, and enlargement of time","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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-05"],"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","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","School improvement programs","Employee rights"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats, motion for taxation of costs, cross-petition for attorneys' fees, and enlargement of time"],"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/1637"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["86 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, motion for taxation of costs; District Court, brief in support of motion for taxation of costs; District Court, order; District Court, opposition of Joshua intervenors to motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, motion for additional enlargement of time; District Court, motion for reconsideration regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT's) motion for taxation for costs and PCSSD's cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) cross-motion for attorneys' fees; District Court, two orders, District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for additional enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAYO o 1997 JAMES '(ii. Mc.fORMACK, CLERK By: '{._~t, /\\ N'\u003ei L':-\u003e _ OEP CL.ERK Intervenor. * MAY 7 \\997 * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * OFFICE OF * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of 111 school districts throughout the State of Arkansas to intervene for the purpose of appealing this Court's Order of April 22, 1997, regarding health insurance matching. The motion is granted. appeal. The applicants may intervene in this case only for the purpose of prosecuting the DATED this {a~ay of May 1997. ~.~~,y UNITEDSTA DICJUDGE fl-IS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN co~ WITH RULE. 5e AND,100 79(a) FACP ON ~ 6-7 IV 1Jt:: 2974 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTIUCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER f5l~D u s o:sr:.:cr couRr EASTERN DISTR!CT ARKANSAS MAYO 6 1997 JAMOS '/1. McGU~ACK, CLERK By: \\i ' \\.lJ\\ f\\J~ ~ DEP CLERK In November 1996, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") submitted its proposed 1996-97 budget to the Court for approval. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the Joshua Intervenors, and the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") filed objections to the budget. For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby .. approves the budget. 2975 I. The ODM is funded through contributions from the three Pulaski County school districts and the State. The State's share is $200,000.00, which is based on the amount that the State was paying the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative in 1989, the date of the desegregation Settlement Agreement. Each district's share is determined on a per-pupil prorated basis. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School District No. 1, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989). The 1996-97 budget submitted by the ODM shows a marked increase in the Benefits category, from a budgeted amount of $49,613.00 in 1995-96 to a budgeted amount of $120,109.00 in 1996-97. The ODM states the increase is due to changes in the State's method of handling health insurance premiums and teacher retirement. In the past, the State directly - funded teacher retirement matching and health insurance payments for the State's school districts. Employees of the ODM were included in the list of employees the LRSD sent to the Teacher Retirement System, and the State paid contributions into the Retirement System on behalf of ODM employees. The State also paid 50% of the health insurance. Under the new State funding formula, no school district receives any money fnm the S;:ate that is specifically earmarked for the payment of teacher retirement and health benefits. Rather, Arkansas school districts are required to fund health insurance and teacher retirement out of state equalization funding or local funds. 1 1As applied to the three Pulaski County school districts, the Court recently found that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits violates the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the State and the settling districts. See doc. 2930 \u0026 doc. 2967. The ruling on teacher retirement is now on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, and the Court uooerstuxls the ruling on health insurance benefits also will be appealed.  2 The PCSSD objects to the budget, asserting that the State's decision to terminate the payment of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits for ODM employees results in an increased contribution by the PCSSD to the ODM budget. The PCSSD asks the Court to direct the State to increase its base level of support for the ODM to the same level that it supports educational cooperatives. The ADE objects to the ODM's proposed budget, contending that the State is not responsible for paying retirement or health benefits for ODM employees and that ODM employees were and are ineligible to participate in the teacher retirement system. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors object to the ODM budget because they believe the ODM should employ three additional monitors in order to handle and investigate complaints of discriminatory treatment of black students. II. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989), Judge Woods directed the ADE to apply \"the amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative\" toward the budget of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor (\"OMS\"). The court further authorized the Supervisor to employ a professional staff of up to four people and stated: \"In addition to each district's portion of Mr. Reville' s salary, it should add an amount equal to its portion of fringe benefits (e.g. hospitalization insurance), using the percentage used in calculating fringe benefits for the highest ranking person in that district. This 'fringe benefit' amount will apply toward offsetting the penalty Mr. Reville will suffer by leaving the New York pension program prior to the expiration of his six-year contract in Buffalo.\" .. 3 In December 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals replaced the OMS with the . ODM, see Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), and in February 1991, this Court found that the State was obligated to continue funding ODM according to its previous obligation. See doc. 1442 (Order filed on February 28, 1991). In July 1991, the Court directed the LRSD, \"in the interest of administrative efficiency,\" to \"provide payroll services to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) for all ODM staff designated by the Desegregation Monitor.\" See doc. 1480. The employees of ODM have been listed as LRSD employees in reports submitted to the Teacher Retirement System for purposes of teacher retirement payments, and the State has been paying contributions into the Retirement System for at least the past five years on behalf of ODM employees. The State now argues that it is not and has never been obligated by order or agreement to pay retirement or health benefits for ODM employees or to permit ODM employees to participate in the teacher retirement system. The State claims that employees of ODM have been participating in the Teacher Retirement System and the State has been paying retirement 3Jld health insurance benefits for them without authorization under State law or an order of this Court. The ADE asks the Court to permit it to end and reverse any unauthorized participation by ODM employees in the Teacher Retirement System and provide guidance as to the disposition of any funds that may have been erroneously paid into the Teacher Retirement System by the State on behalf of \"ineligible\" ODM employees. 4 III. \\ The Court finds that the employees of the ODM are entitled to receive teacher retirement and health benefits as other employees of the three Pulaski County school districts. When Judge Henry Woods recused in this case on July 6, 1990, he stated that if members of the OMS wished to return to their jobs with the school districts from which they came, the school districts must reinstate them. Judge Woods further barred the districts -from retaliating against these employees. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 740 F. Supp. 632, 633 (E.D.Ark. 1990). This Court reiterated that in an Order dated January 17, 1991. See doc. 1418. Thus, the Court did not intend that the employees of the OMS/ ODM suffer as a result of moving from positions within the school districts to the OMS and its successor, the ODM. In addition, in spite of the State's claim that it did not know that ODM employees were receiving retirement and health benefits funded by the State, there is no indication that the arrangement with the LRSD was hidden from the State. The Court sent counsel for the State a copy of the proposed 1990-91 budget of the OMS and asked for any objections. See doc. 1391. The ADE did not object to tne budgeted amount for berefits. See doc. 1397. When in December 1990 the Eighth Circuit directed the Court to vacate the order creating the OMS and replace it with the ODM, the appeals court stated the office should be staffed by a monitor and such additional personnel as the Court deemed appropriate. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, the Court noted in September 1991 that the Arkansas Legislative Joint Auditing Committee would conduct annual audits of the ODM, and copies of the audit would be available to the parties. 5 See doc. 1510. Previously, the attorneys for the State were present, at this Court's request, for an August 7, 1991 hearing, at which the' Court discussed the ODM's budget and made reference to the audit by the Arkansas Legislative Audit Committee. See doc. 1507 at 10, 19. The Court finds that while the State may not have been aware that the employees of the ODM were being counted as employees of the LRSD for purposes of retirement and health benefits, this arrangement was not improper as a method of securing those benefits for ODM employees. See doc. 1480 (LRSD to provide payroll services to the ODM for all ODM staff designated by the Desegregation Monitor). Nor was the information unavailable to the State as the Legislative Audit was conducting annual audits of the ODM. The Court therefore finds that the objections of the ADE are without merit and will not require any repayment of funds previously applied. The Court, however, rejects the PCSSD's request that the State be required to provide teacher retirement and health benefits to the ODM employees as it does the educational cooperatives. Additionally, the Court finds no authority or suggestion in the record justifying an increase in the State's share of the ODM budget. Therefore, the Court will not order the State to increase its contribution to the ODM: budget. The Cot!.,1 expects the three districts to share the expense of the benefits package for the ODM employees in the same manner that they contribute to the ODM budget. 6 IV. With regard to the objections of the'Joshua Intervenors, the Court does not now intend to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors for the purpose of investigating complaints of discriminatory treatment in the disciplining of black students. Should the ODM determine that additional staff are necessary to carry out its obligations, the ODM may make such request to the Court. V. The Court having carefully reviewed the budget and the objections received thereto, see doc. 2870, 2885, 2886, the Court finds that the proposed 1996-97 budget for ODM should be and hereby is approved in its entirety . . -fl.._ IT IS SO ORDERED this \u0026 day of May 1997. ~l~~~ff UNITED STAT ms CJUDGE 7 MAY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ? 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Arkansas Department of Education appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, filed April 22, 1997 and entered on the docket sheet on April 23, 1997, granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District \"on the issue of state fundLTJ.g of the public school employee insurance program.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General ~  TIMO ~tio19 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 6th day of May, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026 STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON \u0026 LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 RECE~VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL litr-id- W-Yen J !.'./.\\)' 8 1997 \u003c/:~,,,,,., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDrJliORING MOTION TO RELEASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN SEATS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion to release incentive school kindergarten seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD encouraged parents who reside in the incentive - school zones to register their children for kindergarten during the registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. These are the only parents in the district who are presently unable to receive assignments. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a partial listing of those recruitment efforts conducted by the district. Additionally, the information contained in the district's quarterly program planning and budget documents status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although the recruitment efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant at the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. 4. Taking into consideration the importance of reserving seats for the recruitment of white students, the LRSD made special efforts during the recruitment season to register as many new white students as possible into these programs. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. 5. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the LRSD incentive school kindergarten assignments for the 1997-98 school year as of April 22, 1997. LRSD seeks permission to fill the - vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting list. 6. LRSD is not seeking to release four-year-old program seats at this time. The district will continue its effort to recruit white parents for the four-year-old program and, to the extent seats remain vacant, will petition the court at a later date for release of those seats. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant kindergarten seats at the incentive schools for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. {:\\bomc\\btll),llne!moe.- Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Incentive School Kindergarten following by depositing copy of this 8th day of May, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (:lliomolb1l,yllndlnao.- the foregoing Motion To Release Seats has been served on the same in the United States mail on 3 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 - April 21 , 1997 To: ~ancy Acre, Director of Student Assignmen1 From: Bed..-y Rather. Essie Middleton. Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment efforts for third quaner 96-97 January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. Jan. 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting. Jan. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors Jan. 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. Jan. 6 Mailed registration packets to: I 3 5 Childcare centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Jan. i Gave presentation to HlPPY staff Jan. IO Held registration training meeting with all school secretaries. Jan.. IO Taped promo for Channel 11. \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Jan. 13 ?resented aI (?- grade transition evening meeting at Crystal Hill Jan. 13-14 Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through . .\u003c\\!Hance for Our Public Schools Jan.. 14 Attended PTA Council meeting aI Pulaski Heights Elementary Jan. 14 Presented at Early Childhood meeting Jan_ 14 Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Jan. 16 Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Jan. 16 Mailed letters to all P-4s on v.-aiting list to encourage kindergarten registration. Jan. 16-17 Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Jan.. 16 Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jack.son. Jan.. 17 An.ended 6~ grade orientation aI Dunbar Jan. 17 Mailed 400 brochur~ to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Jan.. 18 Panicipated in Saturday Mall show Jan. 2 I Registration begins through Jan. 3 L Jan 21 Open House, Elementary magnets Jan. 21 Provided information to Christ Temple Church Jan_ 24 Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Jan. 27 Assist Rainey Realty Jan. 27 Opai House. Incentive and Interdistria Jan. 28 Open House. Elementary Area and Secondary Magnet Jan.. 30 Participate in Arlc:ansas Legislative Day on Education with PTA Jan. 30 Open House, Secondary Area Jan. 31 Assist McNeil Smith Realtors Feb . 3 Evening presentation to network of Exeaitive Women Feb. 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty Feb. 4 Report of Biracial Committee Feb . 6 Presentation of Superintendents Student Council al Hall High Feb. 6 Parent Involvement meeting Feb. 7 Work with CARE office Feb. 8 Anend Sarurday, Title l Parent Involvement program Feb IO Open House, Metropolitan Feb IO Chili Supper at Mabelvale Junior High Feb 11 Attend PTA Founders Day luncheon Feb 11 Report 10 Early Childhood board on 4-year--old registration Feb 12 HIPPY board meeting Feb 17 Meet with Southwest Jr. High Recruitment team Feb I 8 Assist in assigning magnet students Feb 19 Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children's Hospital Feb 20 Meet with PCSSD PTA parents Feb'.? 1 Worlc with McKay Realry Feb 24 Meet with Janet Jones Realty Feb 2A Meet ,1,ith ~1LR PTA parents Feb 24 An.end HIPPY Black History Celebration Feb 26 Participate in Parent Involvement Workshop for Secondary Vice Principals Feb 28 Participare in parent Involvement Workshop for Elementary Vice Principals Mar 3 Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mar 4 Mail assignment letters Mar 4 Report to Biracial Committee Mar S -~ ho-well Realtors Mar 9 Desegregation application opened through Mar. 28 Mar 10 Worked with T omado victims in reassignment or transpOrtarion Mar 10.As.sembly for Success Mar 11 Anend PT A Council at mcClellan ~-1ar 1.2.Anend Friends Day at King Mar 13 Assisted Grobmyer Realty Mar 13 Requested labels from PCSSD to assist Hall High with recruitment Mar 18 Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Mar 19 Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow. new relocation specialist for RPM Realty :Mar20 Compiled Recruinnent Survey Results \\far 25 HIPPY Parent Appreciation Mar 26 Worked with Barbara Sumpter. new relocation specialist for Entergy Mar 27 Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting.. Pro\";ded 80 packets for mailouts Pro\\;ded 31 tours to individual families during this guaner December 19, 199-j- To: From: Nancy Acre, Directo\u0026 of Student Assignment .\"'{! J ;,- / ~ ~\"-13,ecky Rather \u0026 ~;,i,t(ddleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Report, 2nd Quarter, 96-97 OCTOBER 2 Attend Youth Suicide Planning Meeting 3\u00264 Held Recruitment Workshops for all Principals and individual school recruitment teams. 5 Participate in Youth Suicide Conference 7 Met with LR Fa.1nily Magazine on story ideas for public school issue. 7 Met with Booker recruitment team 8 Attended PTA Council at Rightsell 8 Assisted UALR with maps 8 Assisted with Garland PrA recruitlllent 9 Met with Junior High principals and Dr. Anderson on planning transition meeting 10-11Delivered recruitment packets to schools not attending recruitment workshops 11 Prepared Program Budget Document Report 14 set up dates to meet with HIPPY 15 All school level recruitll1ent plans due 17 Attend Parent Involvement Advisory committee meeting 21 Send PYI to all elementary principals on 6th grade transition meeting 24 Met with Alliance for Our Public Schools 24 Attend Kids Count meeting 24 Mailed 216 letters to churches and homeowners associations about transition meeting 28 Mailed transition meeting letters to all 6th grade parents in the District 28 Delivered 600 transition flyers to PCSSD 28 Met with Eddie Collins and Susie Roberts at PCSSD about meetings on recruitment to incentive schools 31 Attended PUblic Education Forum 31 Met at Henderson about Jr. High meeting 31 Met with HIPPY advisory board NOVEMBER 1 Sent newly developed recruitment survey in tablet form to all schools to have parents fill out and return to parent recruiters. 1 Held meeting with communications on registration 7 Participated in evening meeting with Southwest Little Rocle United for Progress 10 Tour with 15 6th grade parents from Cathedral School at Mann, Dunbar and Pulaski Heights 12 Mailed letter to 6th grade private school letters - - 12 12 13 14 14 15 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 2S 25 25 26 27 inviting to transition meeting Attended regional PTA meeting with parents from all school districts Attended PTA Council at Badgett Attended meeting in Pine Bluff on school vouchers Sent flyers home with all 6th graders about meetings Prepare agenda, survey, and last minute details for Sunday meeting Schools first Bi-monthly recruitment survey due Held 6th grade transition meeting attended by approximately 600 parents Assisted with two tours at Cloverdale Jr. High Assisted with two tours at Dunbar Jr. High Meet about registration Mailed 100 evaluations to parents who attended transition meeting Assist at parent meeting on Adolescents Assisted with two tours at Forest Heights Assisted with t~o tours at Henderson Assisted with two tours at Mabelvale Jr. Assisted with two tours at Mann Jr. Met with Alliance for Our Public Schools about registration Assisted with two tours at PHJH Assisted with two tours at Southwest Met with Geyer Springs recruitment team Attended local meeting on charter schools Mailed Thank You notes to transition participants DECEMBER 2 3 4 4 6 6 9 10 11 12 12 13 16 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 Attended meeting with Hall High School parents Parent Open House at PH.JH Met with. principal at Hall High Met with committee on incentive schools Attended 90th birthday party at Rightsell Met with new principal at Mitchell on recruitment Parent open House at Forest Heights Made presentations on registration and legislation at PTA Council at Geyer Springs Attended luncheon for realtors at Forest Heights Attended Legislative meeting Attended Parent Involvement ~eeting Participated in planning meeting for PTA Founders Day Prepare mailouts for ministers, daycares and Housing Authority for registration Mail transition meeting evaluation results to schools Request private school labels for recruitment Met with Connie Whitfield on Rightsell and Mitchell recruitment Make Biracial Cot:llllittee report Attend celebration at Martin Luther King Attend meeting for legislative Advocates for Kids Attend ~eeting with Alliance for Our Public Schools The parent recruiters toured 48 families during the second quarter (Oct.-Dec.) of 96-97. Each family tour includes between one and six schools, depending on the grade level of child and availability of seats. At the special tours for 6th grade parents, the 16 tours at the junior highs ranged from 1 set of parents at one tour to approximately 80 at another. November 25, 1996 To: From: Re: JULY Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment Becky Rather \u0026 Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Recruitment Report, 1st Quarter, 96-97 1-31 Developed ad for Kid's Directory featuring Incentive Schools, CARE, 4-year-old program and registration dates. Ad was distributed trhoughout month of July 2 Met with Suellen Vann a.bout new Incentive School brochures 10 Met with Mable Donaldson for information on Gifted/Talented in schools 10 Mailed letter to all white students on 4-year-oid waiting lists offering available seats 12 Met with Parent Involvement Administrative Team about new District Parent Involvelllent Policy 14 sent memo to communications outlining agreed upon plans for Incentive Schools 17 Presented recruitment plans for the year to Director of Student Assignment 17 Met with Alliance for OUr Public Schools 19 L.~D 96-97 calendars ready for distribution to Realtors, prospective parents, etc. 19 Registration letters and flyers mailed to 156 churches and childcare providers in the city. 22 Attended monthly meeting of Parent Involvement Administrative Team 23 Met with Janet Jones Realty to provide new calendars 24 Work with new principal at Chicot on recruitment for school 24 Met with Pat Price on Parent Involvement workshop 25 Sent OERFs to McClellan and Henderson for recruitlllent efforts 25 Met with Ark. Co!!lIIlunity Fou.ndation 25 Julie Wiedower represented office in Magnet Meeting 29 Mailed calendars to all LRSD households informing them of registration, school opening dates, etc. 29 Participated in Principal Workshop on Parent Involvement 30 Attended Parent Involvement Conference with State Dept. 31 Attended Nuts \u0026 Bolts on Planning 31 Developed new letter to newcomers AUGUST 1 Press releases distributed on registration dates l Hold Secretaries inservice on registration \" - - 1\u00262 3 5 7\u00268 12 13 14 15 23 26 26 27 27 29 JO Distributed registration posters throughout city in grocery stores, housing projects, medical offices, youth centers, Department of Human Services, etc. Meet with McKay Realtors Worked on CARE closing at several schools Registration in Schools Attend Early Childhood meeting Attend PTA Council Workshop at Ro~ine Met with Alliance for our Public Schools Nancy Acre met with ODM, PCSSD, NLR Sent letter to Communications about Incentive brochure Interdistrict schools open houses Magnet elementary schools open houses Area schools open houses Incentive schools open houses Mann, Dunbar, Metro open houses contact Sterling Ingran on extended day information SEPTEMBER 3 3 4 5 9 10 10 12 12 16 17 18 23 23 25 25 26 JO Assist Henderson Pl'A Ju..~ior High open houses Acre met with Bowles, Collins, Acklin, Jackson High school magnets open houses Area high schools open houses PTA Council ueeting Board Room Report to Biracial Co11I111ittee Attend Parent Involvement Administrative Team meeting Assist Henderson in Recruitment Attend Department of Education retreat Talked to Fa1nily Magazine about prOl:lotional stories due day - Gathered lists of names of recruitment team members from each school Worked with Sweeney Realty Review incentive school brochure Held meeting on planning 6th grade orientation Attended Kids Count meeting at Arkansas Children's Hospital Assist McCaskell Realty Attend Amendment One meeting at Governor's mansion The parent recruiters toured 16 families during the first quarter (July-Sept.) of 96-97. Each family tour includes between one and six schools, depending on the grade level of child and availability of seats. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS 1997-98 AS OF 4/22/97 ENROLLED WAITING LIST SCHOOL BL W/0 TOTAL VACANCY %BL BL AZ* W/0 CAPACITY Franklin 52 6 58 22 89.7% 33 13 0 80 Garland 23 3 26 14 88.5% 14 2 0 40 Mitchell 20 3 23 17 87.0% 36 13 0 40 Rightsell 20 2 22 18 91.0% 29 13 0 40 Rockefeller 28 26 54 6 52.0% 49 0 0 60 TOTALS 143 40 183 77 78.1 % 161 41 0 260 BL - Black Students W /0 - White and Other Students AZ* - Students who live in the attendance zone *The attendance zone students on the Incentive Schools' wa1tmg list registered during the initial registration period in January. These students were unable to be assigned to their zone schools due to rising P4 students who filled all seats available for black students. These students were the ~ students who registered during January that could run be assigned to their attendance zone school. I' 'V I , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COU\"'l' EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSA8 1,:f\\ I .I. ;_ 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT MAY 1 4 1997 CFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LR-C-82-866 NOTICE OF APPEAL By: __________ _ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Notice is hereby given that the Intervenors, 111 Arkansas School Districts, listed on Attachment 1, as Defendants in the above case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's Order entered in this action on April 23, 1997. Respectfully submitted, INTERVENING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DE.f\"C...NDANTS THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 r. #66040 THE NITED ST A TE DISTRlCT CO RT EASTERN DI TRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISlON i,i,'.\\ Y 1 5 1S97 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT av: -------,o~E\":,\"\";:,_rcLIEE~Ri\u003c PLAI TIFF V. 0. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. ~'Av l : o::n f 'I, J .., lvv, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTIO FORT AXA TION OF COSTS DEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INIERVENORS ll\\TER.VENORS Knight, et al. , Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, ROA CHELL LAW FIRM, for their Motion for Taxatio "}],"pages":{"current_page":64,"next_page":65,"prev_page":63,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":756,"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}}]}}