"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status""

This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
lN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED er SEP 2 4 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V. CASE NO.4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JNTER VENO RS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. JNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is a.ware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the tenn of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons pe1formed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1- Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD dming the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors' counsel, in response to and at the request of Supe1intendent Les Carnine and District counsel Chiis Heller, in an eff01t to be cooperative with them did not publish any monit01ing rep01ts of the concerns which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written communications from Heller, Carnine and Walker - Comt Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD & term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4: Please see Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Paiker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the Maich 15, 2001 Compliance Rep01t. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2- Superintendent Carnine and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure
double funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools
the proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school
the closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish Instructional Resource Center
Pulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate treatment of African American students and staff, dispaiate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial slurs and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and disc1irninatory learning environment
Hall High School involving discriminat01y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement
Cloverdale Middle School involving discriminato1y learning environment, dispaiate discipline and lack of academic achievement
the creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson
discriminat01y practices involving the removal of the principal at J.A. Fair High School
the promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatmy conduct towaid African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)
Mabelvale Middle School involving discrirninato1y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline and lack academic achievement
Dunbai Middle School involving dispaiate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and determination of discipline decisions, assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic - 3- achievement
Forest Heights Middle School involving disparate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices
Wakefield Elementaty involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminato1y learning environment
Forest Park Elementary involving discriminato1y learning environment, discriminato1y practices regarding the participation in field nip activities, racial comments by members of the PT A
Meadowcliff Elementary involving disparate discipline
Western Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatmy treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of IEPs and education of Afiican American students
Rockefeller Elementaiy involving dispaiate discipline of students and staff
Horace Mann involving disc1iminat01y grading practices, discriminatmy discipline rnles established at the school level, dispaiate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member
Central High School involving discriminato1y practices in student patticipation in extIacmTicular activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock comi, student council, disparate discipline practices, one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favo1ing white students in awaids and activities
Parkview involving discriminato1y practices in counseling services, dispaiate discipline, discriminato1y practices in student paiticipation in extracurricular activities (band and choir), discriminato1y teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement
McClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leaining evironment, resomces, and staff use of racial epitaphs
several incidents of discriminatory assignment practices
numerous incidents of the District's failure to properly implement IEPs of Afiican American students
and Safety -4- and Security Director Bobby Jones' staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer o. 4. Documents are located in files entitled "John W. Walker" in the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Carnine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Washington. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Court Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. - ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Carnine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to counsel for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Court Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbs's letter of August 31, 2001, CoUit Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the format or content of LRSD 's -5- Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the pruties regarding the fonnat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. Disti-ict officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPO SE 0. 3: Refer to response given in Intenogat:01y Answer o. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Repo11 filed Mruch 15, 2000. ANSWER 0. 7: There were no communications between the pruties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSD's Inte1im Compliance Repo1t filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0.4: Please produce all documents pe1taining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSD's Interim Compliance Rep01t filed Mruch 15, 2000. RESPONSE 0. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogato1y Answer o. 7. TERROGA TORY~: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- I disparities revealed by your monitoring during the te1m of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD ( c) Whether LRSD 's response to the racial dispaiity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A SWER 0. 8: Please refer to the Joshua's Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see Intenogato1y Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quaiterly rep01ts which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These repo1ts were indicative of the racial disparities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Heller regaiding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the District did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors' counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD - 7 - Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Superintendent Carnine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshua's 1ight to contest in a vigorous manner the District's release from court jurisdiction after the District's report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number oftimes Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5: Refer to response given in Intenogatmy Answer No. 8. Also see Comi Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all incidents of racial disc1imination in the imp_osition of discipline which occmTed dUiing the term of LR.SD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD ( c) Whether LR.SD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8- I ANSWER NO. 9: Joshua received notice of numerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory o. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Supe1intendent Carnine with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Court Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents during this pe1iod including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fair High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Carver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementaiy schools. Many of these cases were refened to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to Intenogat01y Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogato1y regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6: See the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial disc1imination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9- ANSWER NO. 10: LRSD did not adopt specific compliance standards for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSD's failure in this regard diminishes Joshua's ability to segregate instances of racial dispa:iity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline repo1ts. Fmthermore, it is our opinion that when African American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quaiterly reports which confirm the continued dispaiity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding intenogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in Intenogat01y o. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and desc1ibe all incidents involving student discipline which you refened to the LRSD Ombudsman
and separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman
( c) Whether LRSD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10- ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline during this pe1iod for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman., James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based mistreatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refened to the District's Ombudsman: 1) Millard Russey at For est Heights Middle School
2) Alex O'Neal at Forest Heights Middle School
3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School
4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School
5) Earnest Rump at Southwest Middle School
6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodiiquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School
8) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann Middle School
9) Mann Middle School's rnles regarding participation in extracunicular activities which are diiven by citizenship grades
10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher
11) Christopher Munay at Cloverdale Middle School
12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary
13) Elwin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary
-11- 14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann
15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle
16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School
17) Cedric Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School
19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementary
20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith
21) Felicia Duhart at Wes tern Hills Elementary
22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann
23) April Hayes at Par-.l<View
24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementary
25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle
26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School
27) ---Peel at Forest Heights
28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School
29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann
30) CIC program implementation (suspensions expunged for wl:te students but not for black students who paiticipated in this program)
and 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the 1ight to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO ~: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Refenals were made dming these communications. INTERROGATORY 0. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which supp01t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 12: The program, policies and procedures identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 repo1ts ar~in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regard to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Intenogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshua's Response in Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding intenogat01y. RESPONSE NO. 9: See Intenogatory No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- support your objection to LRSD 's compliance with Section 2.5 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories umbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding inte1TOgatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Interrogato1yNo. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY 0. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should hav~ yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the CoU1t to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 rep01ts do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 11: Please produce all documents in the preceding intenogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 11: Same as Interrogatory o. 14. -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 15: Refer to Comt Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resources and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 12: Please produce all documents in the preceding inteITogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inte1Togat01y o. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 16: Compliance with Section 6 of t.he revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Comt to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They repo1t that these cases are refeITed to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents. (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15- preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in Intenogatmy o. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the "Program Evaluation Agenda" and/or the "Assessment Plan" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Repo1i filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and desc1ibe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention
(b) state when you detennined that they did not comply
( c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply
and, ( d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2. 7.1 was to r~ach all academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshua's ability to respond to this intenogat01y is hindered by the District's failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2. 7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cuniculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie 1itchell, -16- Bonnie Lesley and Supe1i.ntendent Carnine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding intenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transc1ipt of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: District officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve counsel for Joshua in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pe1iaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsel's complaints regarding non involvement in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your paiiicipation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17- District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Biracial Committee meetings. Notices regarding Cha:r.ter School Committee and agenda. Joshua counsel and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a pa.it of our ongoing monit01ing activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pe1taining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to 8.2 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see CoUit Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the 1ight to supplement the answers provided herein. Respectfully submi!ted, JOHN W WALKER, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) ~71-4187 ) .~ i / By:____,~s--f.,,_,.,,_.~,...:i..r__.... . ---++'"-=--"--=----"- J
/ -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed,,.postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this __2L_ day of~( 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 -19 - Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker "-
This 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.