
 
This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
RECEIVED NOV 2 1 2006 INDEPENDENT INVESTI~NfoRINI REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PREPARED BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE Q ATILEBAUM, GROOM 'Tuu &amp; BURROW PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900  Lmle Rock, Arl.ansas 72201 II (501) 379-1700 QGTB OUATTlEBAUM, GROOMS, lULL &amp; BURROW PUC &gt; Q. po .... REC 'iVED NOV 2 1 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A GRIEVANCE BY DR. KAREN DeJARNETTE AND IN A DOCUMENT TITLED COMPLIANCE HISTORY 2004-2006: PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL &amp; BURROWPLLC 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-379-1700 &gt; Q. ?- N ,
C. C. ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 5 REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 19 I. QGTB ENGAGEMENT ........................................ ...................... ......... 19 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 21 III. A. B. Introduction ............................................................................... 21 The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command ...................... ...... .... 21 C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion ......................................... ....... 23 D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates ............................................................... 29 DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT .............. .............. 31 IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE ..... ... ............................ ................... 35 A. Documents Reviewed ............................................................... 35 B. Persons Interviewed .................................................................. 42 V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............... .............................................. 44 A. Timeline of Events .................................................................... 44 B. Factual Issues Identified ............................................................ 58 C. Discussion oflssues ..... ....................... ....... ........ ..................... .. 59 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update ........................................................... 60 a. What is an "Update?" .................... ........... .......... 60 b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process ............... 60 2  Q. p. N  Q. p. l,
.l 2. 3. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update ................................. 61 d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website ................................................. 61 e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 64 f. August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 65 g. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting ........ 72 h. Instructed to Withhold Information ................... 76 Threats of Termination .................................................. 81 a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command ........................................................... 82 b. Direct Threats of Termination ............................ 85 I. ii. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article ..................................................... 85 Threats at Cabinet Meetings ................... 87 c. Indirect Threats of Termination ......................... 93 1. The Job Advertisement Incident.. ........... 93 11. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident ................................................... 94 111. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks .............................................. 95 Hostile Work Environment.. .......................................... 97 a. Direction of the PRE Staff ................................. 97 b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team ......... 99 c. Gifted &amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office .................................... 101 d. Painters in PRE Offices .................................... 102 e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE ............................................. 104 4. PRE Compliance History Document.. ......................... 105 3  Q. ?- N .,,,. Q. Q. (.,.I 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data .............................................................................. 109 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance ........ 113 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 114 ADDENDUM Add. 1. Add. 2. Add. 3. Add. 4. Add. 5. Add. 6. Add. 7. Add. 8. QGTB Resume and Biographical Information Investigation Specific Organizational Chart Textual Comparison of the Eight Quruterly Updates Submitted to the District Court A Comparison of the Various Iterations of the Q8 Update Employee Relations Complaint Form (Grievance) - Ex. 127 Letter and attached PRE Compliance History Document -Ex. 147 PRE's Initial Draft of the Q8 Update - Ex. 69 Final and Filed Version of the Q8 Update - Ex. 123 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull &amp; Burrow PLLC ("QGTB"), identified six major issues during its investigation. Although some factual overlap between them is unavoidable, those major issues are: 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update
2. 3. Alleged Threats of Termination
Claims of a Hostile Work Environment
4. The document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department
5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy ofLRSD's Data
and 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance. This Executive Summary is intended to provide an abbreviated discussion of the factual disputes concerning these issues. A more detailed discussion of these disputes with accompanying cites to interview transcripts and exhibits can be found at section V. C. of this report. 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update The United States District Court' for the Eastern District of Arkansas ("the Court") was tasked with overseeing the desegregation of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD"). The Court ordered certain program evaluations as part of the desegregation compliance remedy. In its June 30, 2004, Order ("2004 Compliance Remedy"), the Court required the LRSD was to submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM") and the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") eight Quarterly Updates regarding the status of the Court 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 5 ..... &gt; Q. Q. N ordered program evaluations. A disagreement arose between the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department ("PRE") and administration officials regarding the Eighth Quarterly Update ("Q8 Update"), which was to be submitted to the Court on or before September I, 2006. The dispute within the LRSD regarding the Q8 Update centered on what information should be included in the Q8 Update and whether the removal of certain information from the draft Q8 Update was proper. PRE was of the opinion the information removed from the draft Q8 Update should be provided to the LRSD Board of Directors ("the Board") and the Court. LRSD administration officials and LRSD outside counsel were of the opinion that the information should not be included in the Q8 Update. Certain staff members in the PRE department, including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the Director of PRE, believed that all of the information included in the draft Q8 Update was crucial for the Board and the Court's consideration. PRE viewed the Q8 Update as an opportunity to present a comprehensive report to the Board and the Court. PRE included information in the draft Q8 Update TetraData, a "warehouse" of student data that PRE recommended but LRSD decided not to purchase. PRE also included concerns about the accuracy of the student data gathered and whether LRSD had a comprehensive program to verify the accuracy of student data. Further, PRE included a discussion of its attempts to ensure timely receipt of data from the Arkansas Department of Education. Finally, additional "programs" other than the eight step 2 programs identified in the 2004 Compliance Remedy were included in PRE's draft Q8 Update. 6 ....  Q. Q. N ,
,
Q. Q. n Administration officials and LRSD counsel disagreed with PRE about whether these issues should be included in the Q8 Update submitted to the Board and the Court. The administration was concerned that PRE had chosen to air "in-house" disputes that were irrelevant to the evaluation process outlined in the 2004 Compliance Remedy, particularly the data "warehouse" issue and PRE's criticisms of the Arkansas Department of Education. Administration officials and Mr. Heller were also concerned that certain statements made by PRE were inaccurate and did not reflect the position of LRSD. Among these were statements regarding the accuracy of student data. Finally, administration officials and LRSD counsel were concerned that by including "programs" that were not among those being evaluated pursuant to the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD could be creating an additional obligation to evaluate extra programs in the future. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh's office to discuss the concerns of the administration and PRE regarding the draft Q8 Update. Also in attendance at the meeting were Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. DeJarnette's immediate supervisor, Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, Dr. DeJarnette, and three statisticians from PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Mr. Jim Wohlleb, and Ms. Maurecia Robinson. Both sides shared their opinions about whether the information should be included, and, at the end of the meeting, PRE was charged with incorporating suggestions made by the administration and redrafting the Q8 Update. Opinions within PRE on redrafting were not unanimous. It appears Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb believed that the draft should remain as it had been presented by PRE and that it was critical that all information be given to the Board and the Court. Dr. Williams was of the opinion that the edits suggested by the 7 ,. ti administration were clear and should be made. Ms. Robinson's opinion lay between these two, and she described her input as "minimal." Initially, PRE sent a second draft of the Q8 Update that removed references to the additional "programs." However, PRE stated that it was "fuzzy" on what other edits the administration wanted. PRE later reinstated references to the additional "programs" in a third draft of the Q8 Update that was circulated to the administration. Ultimately, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and removed the discussions of concern to the administration. Mr. Heller's edited version was submitted to the Board on August 24, 2006, and was approved. The approved Q8 Update was then filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. After the Q8 Update was filed with the Court, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with LRSD ("the Grievance"). In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had been directed by Dr. Brooks, Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold from the Board, ODM, Joshua and the Court the information that was removed from PRE's draft Q8 Update. In addition, Dr. DeJarnette alleged that, on several occasions, Dr. Brooks threatened to terminate her employment if she shared information with Joshua or ODM. She also cited an e-mail dated August 17, 2006, from Mr. Heller wherein he instructed PRE not to discuss issues that will be litigated in December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in the desegregation case without counsel present. Dr. DeJarnette provided a copy of PRE's draft Q8 Update to Joshua and ODM on or about August 8, 2006, when she says that she first posted the draft Q8 Update to the Board's 8 &gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. n Novus Agenda website.2 Thus, the information that was removed by Mr. Heller had already been provided to ODM and Joshua. Dr. DeJarnette is of the opinion that PRE should openly share all information with Joshua and that the 2004 Compliance Remedy requires a free flow of information between PRE and Joshua. Regarding sharing information with ODM and Joshua, the administration's position is that all ODM requests should be honored without any need to involve counsel but that requests for information from Joshua should be coordinated through Mr. Hattabaugh or counsel. Also, the administration and Mr. Heller do not believe that drafts of the Q8 Updates were to be shared with Joshua until agreement on a final version for submission to the Board had been reached. Mr. Heller stated that no one was instructed to withhold information from the Court. According to Mr. Heller, information removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update could be presented to the Court through, for example, testimony at the hearing in December. 2. Threats of Termination Interviews conducted by QGTB revealed that LRSD personnel generally understand that following the designated "chain of command" is very important. LRSD personnel understand that information and concerns are to be presented to an individual's direct supervisor who, in turn, can then present that information to his or her supervisor. It is also clear that LRSD personnel have been told on several occasions by Dr. Brooks that issues 2 Items to be discussed at Board meetings are posted initially to the Board's Novus Agenda website by the persons in charge of the items. After posting, items are subject to approval by that person's immediate supervisor and then that person 's immediate supervisor and so on until approval by the Superintendent. !fall necessary approvals are obtained, the item becomes available for the Board's review and ultimately for review by the public at large. 9  Q. Q. N  Q. Q.  I. I. n discussed within LRSD should remain confidential and should be shared outside LRSD only through proper channels. Dr. DeJarnette's alleged threats of termination can be divided into direct and indirect threats. Dr. DeJarnette claims that she was directly threatened with termination (1) in a meeting with Dr. Brooks following an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and (2) by statements made at meetings of the Superintendent's Cabinet. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette article referenced statements made by Joy Springer in an affidavit, a paralegal for Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, that had been filed with the Court. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks called her into his office, showed her the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article and asked her to agree with him that Ms. Springer's statements were inaccurate. Dr. DeJarnette refused to do so and stated that she felt Ms. Springer had support for all the statements in her affidavit. Near the end of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalled that Dr. Roberts entered the room whereupon Dr. Brooks stated to Dr. Roberts that anyone who shared information with Joy Springer should be fired. Dr. DeJamette reports that Dr. Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks does not recall the meeting that Dr. DeJarnette describes or the specific article in the newspaper. He maintains that if he had had any concerns regarding an article, he would have expressed them to Mr. Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts. Similarly, Dr. Roberts does not recall the article or meeting with Dr. DeJarnette about an article. Regarding threats allegedly made during the Superintendent's cabinet meetings, Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks pointed his finger at her in front of all the cabinet members and said that he would fire her if she shared information with ODM or Joshua if it was the last thing he did. Dr. Brooks denies making any such statements. Dr. Brooks affirmed that 10 ,
Q, Q, there is a general understanding that PRE staff members should not communicate the Court, Joshua or others extraneous information outside of the Updates to. Likewise, Dr. Roberts did not recall any threatening statements like those described by Dr. DeJamette being made at cabinet meetings. None of the cabinet members recalled Dr. Brooks making any statements about disclosure of information directly to Dr. DeJarnette in cabinet meetings. Some cabinet members recalled that Dr. Brooks generally expressed that termination was a possible consequence if information was improperly shared outside LRSD but did not recall those threats being made in connection with the desegregation litigation or Joshua. Some cabinet members did not recall any threats of termination by Dr. Brooks in cabinet meetings. The first indirect threat of termination reported by Dr. DeJarnette is her allegation that Dr. Brooks brought an advertisement for a position in the Buffalo, New York, school district into a cabinet meeting and, while handing it directly to her, suggested that "someone" from the cabinet should look into the job posting. Dr. Brooks did not recall giving a job description to Dr. DeJarnette specifically but stated that he frequently shared job openings at the cabinet meetings. No other cabinet member recalled any job advertisements being handed directly to Dr. DeJarnette. The next indirect threat reportedly occurred at a cabinet retreat held in the Regions Bank building. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks presented certificates to various cabinet members and when he presented hers, he stated to all cabinet members that he was sorry she had become an "outsider." Dr. Brooks does not recall making these statements. Other cabinet members do not recall any negative statements being made to Dr. DeJarnette when the certificates were distributed at the cabinet retreat. However, one cabinet member recalled 11 &gt; Q. Q. &gt; Q. Q. N Q. Q. n Dr. Brooks saying something "different" to Dr. DeJarnette during the presentation of her certificate. Next, Dr. DeJarnette states that she suffered indirect threats of termination in telephone calls from Dr. Brooks on three Friday afternoons in late October and early November wherein Dr. Brooks was very loud and angry. Dr. Brooks does not recall any phone conversations with Dr. DeJamette on the Fridays before November 3, 2006, but does recall phoning her after receiving the document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department ("PRE Compliance History Document") via e-mail from her. Dr. Brooks admitted being very frustrated during this phone call and asking Dr. DeJarnette who had authorized her to send a letter and the PRE Compliance History Document directly to the Board. In summary, there is a factual dispute about whether any direct or indirect threats of termination were made to Dr. DeJarnette. However, it appears that it was generally understood that information should only be shared outside LRSD if done through appropriate channels. It also appears that there was a general understanding that disciplinary action could result from sharing LRSD information with Joshua other than through counsel or other appropriate means. 3. Claims of Hostile Work Environment Dr. DeJarnette's claims of a hostile work environment began with the reorganization of the district in 2005 that resulted in Dr. Roberts replacing Dr. Brooks as her direct supervisor. In addition to the alleged threats of termination discussed above, Dr. DeJarnette related several instances of inappropriate conduct by Dr. Roberts and/or Dr. Brooks that contributed to her allegations of a hostile work environment. 12 &gt; Q. p. ,,,.. Q. Q. :::. p. n First, Dr. DeJarnette complained that administration officials directed PRE staff without her knowledge. Examples include administrative officials inviting Dr. Williams' to a cabinet meeting and referencing Dr. Williams as a manager or leader of certain PRE projects. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Brooks and Walter Hussman took Dr. Williams to dinner in May of 2006 to discuss a particular program. Also, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Dr. Roberts went directly to Dr. Williams for information about certain PRE programs. Dr. Brooks recalls speaking with Dr. Williams regarding certain PRE programs and evaluations. He also recalls that Dr. Williams attended a cabinet meeting to provide his expertise on a particular subject. Dr. Brooks stated that it is not necessary for him to inform Dr. DeJarnette of these matters because he has the authority to go directly to the source that he knows has information. Dr. Roberts stated that she may communicate directly with PRE staff if necessary but that this was not a regular occurrence. Dr. Roberts also recalled that Dr. Brooks invited Dr. Williams to attend a cabinet meeting and give a report. Next, Dr. DeJarnette complained that certain personnel positions were eliminated from PRE that have made it difficult for PRE to operate adequately. The administrative assistant was cut completely. The testing coordinator position was first reduced to an elevenmonth position which, according to Dr. DeJarnette, caused the person occupying that position to resign. According to Dr. DeJarnette, the testing coordinator position was not filled for fourteen months although Dr. Hattabaugh did reinstate the position to a twelve-month contract. Administration officials stated that Dr. DeJarnette was on the transition team charged with determining where personnel cuts would be made and that she recommended 13 ,
Q. Q.  L, " eliminating the administrative assistant position without hesitancy. Other members of the transition team do not recall any specific comments from Dr. DeJarnette regarding cutting the administrative assistant position although at least one member reported that Dr. DeJarnette did not have a good relationship with the administrative assistant. Administration officials also contradict Dr. DeJarnette's statement concerning why the person in the testing coordinator position left the LRSD. According to them, the testing coordinator left to take an assistant principal position in the Pulaski County Special School District. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Roberts unnecessarily moved persons from the Gifted and Talented department into her office despite an available office next door and that Dr. Roberts moved painters into a room that contained secured testing materials. According to Dr. DeJarnette, her department may be reprimanded because certain testing information was lost when she was forced to move the testing materials. Dr. Roberts states that she asked Dr. DeJarnette if it would be permissible to temporarily locate the Gifted and Talented personnel in her office and that they were moved out after Dr. DeJarnette complained. Dr. Roberts does not recall Dr. DeJarnette expressing any concern about the secured testing materials in the painters' room. Dr. Hattabaugh recalls mediating a dispute in his office on these issues between Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette. 4. The PRE Compliance History Document On November, 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette sent to the Board a letter with the PRE Compliance History Document attached. The PRE Compliance History Document contained detailed information regarding topics that were removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. It also included discussions of errors in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court in October 2006, statement concerning difficulty in cooperation between LRSD and PRE, and 14 &gt; Q. Q. &gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. L. n allegations regarding threats of termination to Dr. DeJarnette. And recommendations for Board action were also included. According to Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb, the PRE Compliance History Document was prepared because it was imperative that the Board be advised of the obstacles to the LRSD's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. Dr. Williams stated that he would not have provided the PRE Compliance History Document to the Board and would have used it for internal discussions only. Dr. Williams also disagreed with many statements in the document. Ms. Robinson voiced some concerns with the document including her feelings that a lot of the information could not be supported with evidence and was based on hearsay. 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data One of the issues addressed in both PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and the PRE Compliance History Document concerns the accuracy ofLRSD's student-related data and the effect on the reliability of LRSD's eight step 2 program evaluations provided to the Board and the Court. PRE states that the extent of errors in LRSD data is unknown, and, therefore, any evaluations based on that data are unreliable. According to PRE, a comprehensive procedure needs to be developed by an outside consultant to address measuring and guarding the accuracy of the data. PRE also is concerned by the fact that LRSD elected not to purchase a data warehousing program titled TetraData that PRE claims would have been operational by the end of the Court's two-year monitoring period. According to PRE, it is unclear when the 15 11 data warehouse vendor selected by LRSD will be able to implement sufficiently its program to support PRE's data needs. Administration officials and certain persons within PRE take issue with the concerns about data accuracy. Generally, these persons state that the student data has never been perfect and that it is better now than it has been in the past. They also assert that PRE has been unable to identify any specific problems with the data. They suggest that PRE's complaints are not valid. Concerns from the administration about the TetraData product included (1) that the expert recommending the product to PRE was also on the Board of Directors of the company selling the software, (2) that the data would reside on space leased from the vendor instead of LRSD servers, and (3) that LRSD has had a long-standing relationship with the vendor chosen by LRSD to implement the requested data warehouse by expanding on data programs already in place at LRSD. One of the outside evaluators hired by LRSD to perform some of the step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not identify any significant problems with the data. That evaluator stated that the data had been substantially accurate and did not affect his findings in any meaningful way. 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The final issue discussed in this report concerns Dr. DeJarnette's claims that LRSD was not responsive to the Grievance. According to Dr. DeJarnette, she filed the Grievance in order to get an audience with the Board to discuss the issues removed from the draft Q8 Update prepared by PRE. Dr. DeJarnette expected that her Grievance would be addressed within five days of filing. When her Grievance was not dealt with in a timely manner, PRE 16  0. 0. N  Q. Q. t..J drafted the PRE Compliance History Document. The PRE Compliance History Document was then sent to the Board on November 3, 2006. Mr. David Hartz, LRSD's Director of Human Resources, was charged with processing Dr. DeJamette's grievance because of her relatively high position in LRSD. He states that he first met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 12, 2006, but had to end the meeting early because of his mother's illness and hospitalization. Mr. Hartz later met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 18, 2006. During that meeting, Mr. Hartz obtained general information from Dr. DeJarnette about the nature of her Grievance in order to determine the process that his department would employ in resolving the Grievance. Again, due to his mother's health, Dr. Hartz was unable to address the Grievance other than to touch base with Dr. DeJarnette to state that he had not forgotten about her and would soon schedule a meeting. After the PRE Compliance History Document was provided to the Board on November 3, 2006, Mr. Hartz was informed that the Grievance would be investigated by outside counsel and he wrote a letter to that effect to Dr. DeJarnette. 7. Conclusion This investigation included the examination of many documents and e-mail messages and interviews of persons who had a significant role in the facts relevant to the issues identified. It is beyond our engagement in this investigation to make or suggest any "findings" or determinations, regarding which side is right and which side is wrong. It is clear, however, that significant disagreement exists between administration officials and some PRE staff members about whether the issues identified in the PRE Compliance History Document are material to compliance by LRSD with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. There is also disagreement about the accuracy of data utilized by PRE and the accuracy and 17 &gt; Q. p. N &gt; Q. Q. vJ veracity of Dr. DeJarnette's complaints of threats of termination and a hostile work environment. Resolution of these points of dispute rests with the Board. While our time was limited, we have diligently endeavored to provide the Board with the information necessary to make informed and knowledgeable decisions regarding the issues necessary for Board action. We have attempted to report the facts in a thorough and disciplined manner, but we also encourage the Board to examine the exhibits and interview transcripts with regard to any issue or fact about which the Board may have questions. 18 &gt; Q. p. N &gt; Q. Q. w REPORT I. OUR ENGAGEMENT Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull &amp; Burrow PLLC ("QGTB") was retained on Monday, November 6, 2006, by the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") to conduct an independent investigation of the facts relevant to the following: ( 1) the circumstances underlying an Employee Relations Complaint Form ("Grievance"), Ex. 127 &amp; Add. 5, filed by Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the director of LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department ("PRE")
(2) allegations regarding the withholding of information in the Eighth Quarterly Update ("Q8 Update") submitted to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM"), the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua"), and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Ex. 123 &amp; Add. 8
and (3) the circumstances regarding allegations included in a document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department ("PRE Compliance History Document"). Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6. The LRSD Board of Directors ("the Board") voted on November 9, 2006, at its regularly scheduled Agenda Meeting to authorize QGTB to continue its investigation and complete a written report. The events giving rise to our engagement include the filing of Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance as well as the delivery to the Board on November 3, 2006, of the PRE Compliance History Document, which contained additional allegations regarding the conduct of senior administration officials within LRSD and outside legal counsel for LRSD. Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6. The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a detailed description of the allegations asserted, the investigation conducted, and the facts developed during the 19 ....  Q. Q. N
, Q. Q. ,.. ::.. ~ /1 investigation. It is our intention to provide in this report a comprehensive review of the facts discovered from the interviews of nineteen witnesses and the examination of numerous documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses. The interviews of witnesses were recorded and unofficial transcripts of the interviews have been prepared and attached to this report. The documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses have been sorted, placed in chronological order ( except where certain documents were combined due to related subject matter), and included in separate binders as exhibits to this report. Certain documents of particular significance have been attached to the report in an addendum. This report, the Addendum and the exhibits have been scanned as electronic files in Adobe .pdf format and placed on compact discs that accompany each paper copy of this report. The electronic copy of the report includes interactive references which are hyperlinked to the exhibits and documents in the Addendum, allowing the reader to view the documents referenced. QGTB's investigation in this matter has been independent and without influence from anyone connected with LRSD, PRE, Joshua or ODM. No persons outside of QGTB have been allowed to review this report or make any changes to it prior to its presentation to the Board. The investigation was conducted by Steven W. Quattlebaum, Michael N. Shannon and Benecia B. Moore. A copy of the firm 's resume and the biographical information of the individuals named above is included in the Addendum. Add. 1. 20 &gt; 0. 0. ....  0. Q. ~ ,. /l II. BACKGROUND A. Introduction This investigation is focused on claims of misconduct by certain LRSD officials and LRSD's outside counsel that allegedly occurred in connection with the performance of certain obligations imposed upon LRSD in the desegregation litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Thus, a basic understanding of the structure of the school district and the nature and origin of the obligations and functions of certain departments and positions within the administration is necessary. The following addresses and explains this basic background information. B. The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command The following organizational chart depicts the chain of command for the relevant witnesses interviewed in connection with this report. This organizational chart is not intended to depict all persons in the LRSD structure, but only those persons relevant to this investigation. A full page version of this chart is included in the Addendum as Add. 2. 21
.. Q. Q. N &gt; Q. Q. ~ /l Add. 2. Chris Heller Outside Counsel LRSO Or Sadie 'v\1tchell Assoc Superintendent Elementary Education Karen Carter President of Principals Roondtable INVESTIGATION SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART J~M1tt1ga Governmente,. Lagislet,ve. e. Pubhc Affairs Officer Sue11eri Venn Director Comm.1ntcat1ons tformer) Mark Milhollan Chief Fmancrdl orr1cer Dennis Glasgow SemorDlrector Curriculum Dr Ed W, 11ams Dstnct Sta11s11can cPREI Board of Directors LRSD Dr. Roy Brooks Supenntendent Hugh HattaMu!}h Deputy SUpenntendent Or Olivme Roberts Assoc &amp;
p~mtendent Educa11onal SeMces Dr Karen DeJarnette Director Planning Research &amp; Evalua11on Maurecia Robinson Oistnct Stat st1c1an (PRE1 Beverly Griffin Assistant to Dr Brooks Junious Bibbs Assoc Supenntendent Secondary Educat100 J1m\l\lohlleb Dio
tnctSat1st1can tPREI [)f Linda Watson SeniorDtrtor Student Services The LRSD Board of Directors is at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Dr. Roy Brooks, LRSD Superintendent, is the chief executive officer of the school district. Persons reporting directly to Dr. Brooks include Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent, and Joseph Mittiga, the LRSD Governmental, Legislative and Public Affairs Officer. Beverly Griffin, Dr. Brooks' assistant, also reports to directly to Dr. Brooks. The Director of Communications, Suellen Vann, reported directly to Mr. Mittiga. She is no longer employed by LRSD. Several persons report directly to Mr. Hattabaugh, including Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of Elementary Education
Mark Milhollen, the Chief Financial Officer ofLRSD
Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent of Educational Services
22 &gt; 0. 0. .... &gt; 0. p. N &gt; Q. Q. w C. p... /l David Hartz, Director of Human Resources
Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent of Secondary Education
and Dr. Linda Watson, Senior Director of Student Services. At the next level are those who report through Dr. Roberts to Mr. Hattabaugh including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Director of PRE, and Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director of Curriculum. Karen Carter, the principal at Meadowcliff Elementary and the current President of the Principals' Roundtable, reports directly to Dr. Sadie Mitchell. Each of the persons mentioned above currently serves on the Superintendent's Cabinet which meets weekly to discuss the operations of the various LRSD departments. In addition to these persons, our interviews included three statisticians on the PRE staff: Mr. Jim Wohlleb, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams. We also interviewed Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, and Dr. Steven Ross, one of the outside evaluators hired by the District to perform step 2 Evaluations in conjunction with the Compliance Remedy. The chain of command is also considered to be the proper line of communication within LRSD. Personnel of LRSD are expected to communicate upward through the structure, if possible. Complaints regarding one's immediate superior are to be communicated to that person's immediate superior. However, superiors occasionally communicate directly with persons multiple levels below. C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion As stated by the United States District Court3 ("the Court") in its June 30, 2004, Opinion ("2004 Compliance Remedy"), LRSD has been involved in desegregation litigation since 1956. The obligations relevant to this investigation arise from certain plans filed in the 3 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 23 &gt; Q. p. ....  Q. p. N ,. /l litigation and adopted by the Court and certain opinions issued by the Court. An understanding of the plans and opinions is necessary to this investigation. They are the 1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), Ex. 1, the September 13, 2002, Opinion from the Court and the compliance remedy contained therein, and the June 30, 2004, Opinion from the Court and the supplemental and substituted compliance remedy contained therein. Ex. 2. On January 16, 1998, LRSD and Joshua entered into the Revised Plan that outlined the agreed obligations of LRSD necessary to obtain unitary status4 and release from court supervision. The Court entered an order on September 13, 2002, finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations set forth in the Revised Plan except those obligations outlined in  2. 7 .1. That section required that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Ex. 1. The Court set forth a Compliance Remedy ("2002 Compliance Remedy"), which contained three subparts (A, B, and C) with which the Court expected LRSD to comply. Subpart A required that LRSD devise and implement a comprehensive process for assessing, on a year-to-year basis, the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs in remediating the academic achievement of African-American 4 "Unitary Status" is a term of art in school desegregation litigation and one that is difficult to accurately define. Courts have stated that unitary status is achieved when a wrongdoer proves that it has complied with the court decree in good faith and has done everything practicable to remedy the effects of prior discrimination. The idea of "complete" unitary status connotes a release from all judicial monitoring of a school district's efforts to remove the vestiges of prior discrimination. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2049, 132 L.Ed.2d 63, 81 ( I 995). 24 &gt; C. C. .....  C. C. N  C. C. (.,J students. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each 2.7 program. Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report with the Court and sought a declaration of complete unitary status on the ground that it had complied with the requirements of 2.7.1. On June 30, 2004, however, the Court issued an Opinion, Ex. 2, finding that although LRSD had substantially complied with the requirements of subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, it had not demonstrated substantial compliance with subparts A and B. At the end of the Court's Opinion, it set forth another Compliance Remedy ("2004 Compliance Remedy") which reads as follows: A. LRSD must promptly5 hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations
and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.
to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations
and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE depai1ment. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process.6 It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make 5 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By "promptly hire," l mean, if possible, before school starts in August of this year. Because this team must consist of experienced and highly trained professionals, LRSD may not be able to accomplish this task by August. However, if LRSD believes that it needs more than ninety days to assemble this team of professionals, its attorneys should immediately notify me so that I can schedule a hearing on this matter. 6 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By "comprehensive program assessment process," I mean everything necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of the key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African- 25  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t.,J .. C. sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Part ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process
then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005- 06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of the step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross-to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year
and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: "Has the 2.7 program being evaluated improved American students. As explained in detail in subpart C of this Compliance Remedy, part of the "comprehensive program assessment process" must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs, as they have been implemented in schools throughout the district. I also expect part of LRSD's "comprehensive program assessment process" to include preparing informal program assessments that involve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations oftest scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process. While it should already be crystal clear, I am not using the term "assessment" to mean "testing." 26  Q. Q. N &gt; Q. Q. ~ ll E. F. G. the achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations
(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations
and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes[] the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated
(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students
and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2. 7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates much be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1 and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been 27 &gt; Q. Q. N
.. Q. Q. !,,,J completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. H. The ODM must actively assist LRSD in meeting its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. If problems arise, the ODM must work with LRSD to solve them. The ODM's primary mission is to do everything necessary to ensure that LRSD substantially complies with all of its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. I. J. K. I expect Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. If problems arise between LRSD and Joshua regarding the formulation and implementation of the comprehensive program assessment process, the key  2. 7 programs that will be the subject of the eight step 2 evaluations, or any other aspect ofLRSD's compliance obligations, the parties must bring such problems to my attention so that I can resolve them. I want to be very clear on this point-if compliance problems arise, the parties must immediately bring them to my attention so that I can resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make "mid-course corrections." The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court not later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VIII of the September 13 Decision. Ex. 2. In summary, the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy places the following duties upon LRSD:  Reinvigoration of PRE through the hiring of a highly trained team of professionals
28  C. C. N  C. C. ~  Devising a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program
 Hiring outside consultants to prepare a total of eight step 2 evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement
 Overseeing the evaluations, working closely with the evaluators and providing them with all requested assistance and support
 Including within the evaluations ( 1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data to the evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and (3) brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness
 Notifying ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight step 2 programs to be evaluated and providing a copy of the final draft comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval
 Submitting eight quarterly written updates on the status of the step 2 evaluations to ODM and Joshua
 Submitting to the Court four step 2 evaluations by October 1, 2005, and four more by October 1, 2006
and  Submitting a Compliance Report to the Court by October 15, 2006. D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates In accordance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired and added three new professionals to the PRE team in the fall of 2004: Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Ms. Maurecia Malcolm (now Robinson), and Mr. James C. Wohlleb. Ex. 6. On December 1, 2004, LRSD filed its first Quarterly Update to ODM and Joshua. Id. This Quarterly Update, as well as each of the others that followed, was organized into sections that matched the subparagraphs in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 16, 2004, the LRSD implemented and the Board adopted a written Comprehensive Program Assessment Process as referenced in subparagraphs 29 /1 Band F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 7. The next seven required Quarterly Updates were filed on March l, 2005
June l, 2005
August 31, 2005
December 1, 2005
March l, 2006
June 1, 2006
and September l, 2006. Exs. 13A, 14, 16, 22, 24, 39 and 123. A discussion of the contents of the various updates and the differences between them can be found in a document attached hereto in the Addendum, as Add. 3. The contents of the Eighth (and final) Quarterly Update ("Q8 Update") drafted by PRE became an issue between certain PRE staff members, senior administrators, and LRSD outside counsel and is central to one aspect of this investigation. Each of the four iterations of the Q8 Update are included as Exhibits 69, 97, 108 and 123. A "redlined" version of the Q8 Update showing the modifications made by Mr. Heller to the PRE draft can be found at Ex. 121. Also, a document discussing the changes that occurred between the four iterations of the Q8 Update is provided in the Addendum as Add. 4. According to certain PRE staff, PRE's draft of the Q8 Update contained information concerning the comprehensive assessment process that had not been included in previous updates but which they felt was crucial to include. LRSD senior administrators and outside counsel believed that much of the additional information included by PRE was unnecessary and some was inaccurate. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh's office between Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb, and Ms. Robinson to discuss PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and whether certain information was necessary and accurate. After the meeting, PRE made certain minor deletions to its draft (which 30  Q. Q.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q, ~ " it later requested be reinstated) but these changes did not satisfy the concerns of LRSD administrators and Mr. Heller. On August 24, 2006, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update by deleting certain portions. As edited, the Q8 Update was presented to the Board for approval at its August 24, 2006, meeting. The Q8 Update was approved by the Board and ultimately filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. Certain PRE staff members disagreed strongly with the decision to delete portions of PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. These disagreements were later aired in Dr. DeJarnette's October 3, 2006, Grievance, Ex. 127 &amp; Add. 5, and the PRE Compliance History Document delivered directly to the Board on November 3, 2006. Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6. III. DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed the Grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department. Ex. 127 &amp; Add. 5. The allegations summarized below were included in the Grievance:  Senior administrators have created a hostile work environment by directing Dr. DeJarnette to withhold information from the District's Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, and if she did not withhold that information as directed, she would be terminated.  Withholding the information directly violates the Court's compliance remedy in its June 30, 2004, decision and is not in the best interests of the African-American students regarding their attaining academic achievement.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to perform her job as Director of PRE because if she does, she will be terminated.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to provide information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court that is mandated by the compliance remedy for fear of termination. 31 ....  Q. Q. tJJ  If Dr. DeJarnette does not provide the information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, the Court could find her and the LRSD in contempt of its mandate in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette requested the following relief: Id.  That the hostile work environment created by senior administrators cease
 That the senior administrators stop threatening her with termination
 That she not be terminated by any senior administrator or the LRSD for performing her job as Director of PRE and for complying with the 2004 Compliance Remedy
 That she not be directed by any senior administrator to withhold information from the Board, ODM, Joshua, or the Court
and  That the LRSD follow its policies, regulations and the 2004 Compliance Remedy related to the evaluation and assessment tasks pertaining to improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. On November 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette provided by letter to each Board member, Dr. Brooks, Mr. Heller, ODM, and Joshua, the PRE Compliance History Document. Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6. The PRE Compliance History Document contained a number of allegations and recommendations regarding compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The following is a summary of the allegations included in the PRE Compliance History Document under a section titled "Difficulties with Compliance":  Rejuvenation of PRE. o Reorganization eliminated PRE's secretary and its test coordinator. o LRSD decreased the test coordinator position to an 11 month position. Before restoring it to a 12 month position, the test coordinator resigned, and PRE was without a full-time test coordinator for more than 12 months resulting in test infractions.  Eight Evaluations by External Experts. 32  Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l,.I J\ o The External Evaluators have discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. o No policy or comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. o The extent of data errors is unknown which leads to uncertainty in the accuracy and validity of results based upon the data. o PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. o LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data.  Embedding assessments in LRSD operations. o PRE began planning a "data warehouse" in late 2004. o LRSD rejected PRE's plans and recommended software for the "data warehouse and selected a firm which develops data warehouses for commercial applications. o It is unknown when the firm will complete enough of its "data cube" to support PRE's data needs. o LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data warehouse. o LRSD has undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally by refusing to implement surveys recommended by PRE. o LRSD opposed PRE's project to respond to Arkansas' new requirement for a wellness priority.  Q8 Update. o PRE's draft of the Q8 Update noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and the threat to sound decisions based on such information. o LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version of the Q8 Update from the Board and eliminated portions of the draft version without the Board's knowledge. o PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when originally posting the draft Q8 Update to the Board's Novus Agenda system.  Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua. o During the 2004-05 school year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not cooperative. During the 2005-06 school year, the "chill" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw while PRE experienced less responsiveness from LRSD counsel. o LRSD's counsel directed PRE not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel and PRE's plea for clarification went unanswered. o PRE felt estranged from LRSD and its counsel's rapport and became progressively cooperative with ODM and Joshua. 33 &gt; Q. Q. N  Compliance Report o LRSD's Compliance Report contained significant errors. After notification from PRE, counsel corrected some of these errors and submitted a revised report.  Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials. o The relationship between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. o The superintendent threatened Dr. DeJarnette' s dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. o Information from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. o Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette's knowledge. o LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. o PRE's director engaged a law firm for advice in the absence ofLRSD's legal counsel. o PRE's Director filed a Grievance. o LRSD has not tried remediation nor informed the Board of the Grievance. The PRE Compliance History Document also made recommendations to remedy these difficulties which are summarized below:  Restoration of Administrative Support. o Add an administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  Comprehensive Study of LRSD Data Accuracy and Policies and Procedures for managing data. o Hire consultants knowledgeable in public school data requirements.  More Resources Devoted to Completing the Data Warehouse. o Finish and test LRSD's data warehouse quickly. o Estimate error rates in previously collected data and correct errors. o Include additional information in the data warehouse needed by PRE. o If the data warehouse proves inadequate, reconsider using PRE's vendor.  Protection of PRE and LRSD from Senior Administrator's actions. o The Board should directly communicate with PRE similar to the internal auditor. 34 &gt; Q. p. .... &gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. w Q. Q. ~ Jl o The Board should determine PRE's budget. o LRSD's senior officials are not trustworthy with communicating expert opinions to the Board and they should be replaced. IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE QGTB's investigation focused on the allegations contained in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document. Documents were accumulated and interviews were conducted to develop, as fully as practicable in the limited time allowed, the facts relevant to the topics addressed in these two documents. A. Documents Reviewed QGTB received a number of documents initially from LRSD. In addition, many documents were obtained from various individual witnesses as a result of their interviews. The documents received and examined have been placed in chronological order in three volumes accompanying this report. The documents are also imaged on a compact disc in Adobe .pdf format. What follows is an index of the documents by date and a short description of each document: Ex.# Date Description 1 1/16/1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 2 6/30/2004 USDC Memorandum Opinion
Case No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR 3 11/16/2004 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: memo from Ross 4 11/22/2004 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: response to ODM 5 11/23/2004 E-mail from Kampman to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: LRSD Quarterly Update 6 12/1/2004 Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua 7 12/16/2004 LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process 8 1/18/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, Subject: Fw: March 1 Update 9 2/4/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette 10 2/8/2005 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update 35 &gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N &gt; Q. Q. l,.J 11 2/8/2005 12 2/16/2005 13 2/22/2005 13A 3/1/2005 14 6/1/2005 15 8/9/2005 16 8/31/2005 17 11/16/2005 18 11/16/2005 19 11/16/2005 20 11/17/2005 21 11/18/2005 22 12/1/2005 23 2/7/2006 24 3/1/2006 25 4/24/2006 26 5/1/2006 27 5/9/2006 28 5/10/2006 29 5/26/2006 30 5/31/2006 31 5/31/2006 32 5/31/2006 33 5/31/2006 34 5/31/2006 35 6/1/2006 36 6/1/2006 E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update+ invitations to ODM &amp; Joshua E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, DeJarnette, Subject: RE: addition to update E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Williams, Malcolm, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 2nd update ms LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 4th update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 4:04 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 8:25 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: quarterly final E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report Letter from Heller to Walker, Subject: RE: LRSD LRSD's Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua [Notice of Filing Omittedl E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: work assignments LRSD Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors [File-Marked] E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Roberts, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: FW: Program Evaluations for 2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Brooks to DeJarnette, Subject: PRE Team E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: Cabinet Notes 05-08- 06 Notes from Meeting with Gene Jones E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller Notes from Meeting with Chris Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: E-mail from DeJarnette to Powell, Subject: FW: document enclosed E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: ODM concerns enclosed 36 &gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t-J 37 6/1/2006 38 6/1/2006 39 6/1/2006 40 6/7/2006 41 6/12/2006 42 6/12/2006 43 6/13/2006 44 6/13/2006 45 6/14/2006 46 6/19/2006 47 6/22/2006 48 6/23/2006 49 6/23/2006 50 6/26/2006 51 6/29/2006 52 6/30/2006 53 7/5/2006 54 7/7/2006 55 7/11/2006 56 7/12/2006 57 7/12/2006 58 7/14/2006 59 7/14/2006 60 7/18/2006 61 7/21/2006 E-mail from DeJamette to Hattabaugh, Subject: ODM contact name and number E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Brooks, Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshot LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update [File-Marked] E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: meeting Monday at 1 E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Brooks, cc: Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshots E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts and Williams, Subject: RE: Draft from this mornings comments E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Subject: RE: Room 14 is too crowded E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: missing test book E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: statement to board members E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Heller, Subject: statements last night E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: letter Eighth Circuit Opinion News Article: LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing programs as it should E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: RE: foi E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller News Article: LR schools tell judge: No basis to hold hearing E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: need counsel on confidentiality E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: extension of time request E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Brooks, cc: Hattabaugh, Babbs, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Mitchell, Vann, Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 E-mail from DeJarnette to Kampman, cc: Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Heller, Subject, RE: Scott Smith .... E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Snapshot E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Brooks, Griffin, Subject: RE: letter to counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: counsel 37  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 62 7/24/2006 63 7/24/2006 64 7/24/2006 65 7/24/2006 66 8/7/2006 67 8/8/2006 68 8/9/2006 69 8/9/2006 70 8/9/2006 71 8/9/2006 72 8/9/2006 73 8/9/2006 74 8/9/2006 75 8/9/2006 76 8/9/2006 77 8/10/2006 78 8/10/2006 79 8/10/2006 80 8/10/2006 81 8/10/2006 82 8/10/2006 83 8/10/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, W ohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 7:00 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, Wohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 2:51 PM E-mail from Wohlleb to DeJarnette, Heller, Eddings, Brooks, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, cc: Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly update for board agenda meeting E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: draft quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly - Attachment: LRSD Quarterly Update, September 1, 2006 DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly - Attachments: updates ep06draft. doc E-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from Roberts to Griffin, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly - Attachments: updateSep06draft.doc E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: Re: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update - Attachments: Sep06 Quart. Draft.doc E-mail from Brooks to Griffin, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly update 38  C. C. N  C. ?- (.,.) 84 8/10/2006 85 8/14/2006 86 8/17/2006 87 8/17/2006 88 8/17/2006 89 8/21/2006 90 8/21/2006 91 8/21/2006 92 8/21/2006 93 8/21/2006 94 8/21/2006 95 8/21/2006 96 8/21/2006 97 8/21/2006 98 8/21/2006 99 8/21/2006 100 8/21/2006 101 8/21/2006 102 8/21/2006 103 8/21/2006 104 8/22/2006 105 8/22/2006 106 8/22/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Griffin, Subject: agenda meeting E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: joshua concerns
qtrly report E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: FW: Data for Evaluation E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: hello E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - enclosed file follows E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - FINAL DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - Attachments: updateSep06draftfinal.doc E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Heller, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Griffin to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Roberts to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly revised 39 &gt; Q. p.. N 'Jl 107 8/22/2006 108 8/22/2006 109 8/22/2006 110 8/23/2006 111 8/23/2006 112 8/23/2006 113 8/23/2006 114 8/24/2006 115 8/24/2006 116 8/24/2006 117 8/24/2006 118 8/24/2006 1 I 9 8/24/2006 120 8/24/2006 121 9/ 1/2006 122 9/1/2006 123 9/1 /2006 124 9/5/2006 125 9/ 14/2006 126 9/19/2006 127 10/3/2006 E-mail from Griffin to Baker Kurrus and various e-mail addresses, Subject: Agenda E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, Attachments: updateSep06draftwithedit.doc E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, with attachment E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap E-mail from Kampman to Heller, Subject: Fwd: RE: Board Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:25 PM E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:45 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh &amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs w/attachment, Sent: 10:56 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh &amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:08 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh &amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh &amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson &amp; Williams, Subject: RE: comments on the update E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts &amp; Brooks, Subject: Quarterly Report E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: FW: Quarterly Report DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update (Red-lined Copy) FINAL DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update (File-Marked] E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts &amp; Brooks, Subject: LRSD Quarterly Update/Sept 1, 2006 ( enclosed file follows) E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Brooks, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP E-mail from Heller to Brooks, Catterall, DeJarnette, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Memo from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: Employee Relations Complaint, Attachment: Complaint Form 40 &gt; Q. .P..-. &gt; Q. Q. N 128 10/5/2006 129 l 0/6/2006 130 10/10/2006 131 10/10/2006 132 10/10/2006 133 10/11/2006 134 10/11/2006 135 10/12/2006 136 10/16/2006 137 10/16/2006 138 10/18/2006 139 10/18/2006 140 10/19/2006 141 10/20/2006 142 10/20/2006 143 10/25/2006 144 10/31/2006 145 11/2/2006 146 11/2/2006 147 11/2/2006 148 11/6/2006 149 11/13/2006 150 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy. Reply to 10/4/2006 e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette E-mail from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: next steps E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 LRSD's Compliance Report [File-Marked] Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Appendix C DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz (Handwritten) E-mail from Brooks to Roberts, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Re: compliance report E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis LRSD's Revised Compliance Report [File-Marked] E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from DeJarnette, Attachment: Letter From DeJarnette to Mitchell, Attachment: Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. 11/2/2006 E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: Agenda Meeting November 9 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette regarding independent investigation Handwritten note regarding testing investigation notices, Attachment: 11/2/2006 Letter from Smith to Brooks Checklist of LRSD's progress in uploading analytic data into its Business Objects data warehouse as defined in November 2005 41 &gt; C. C. .... &gt; C. p.. N  Q. C. t,J 151 I Sign-In Sheets B. Persons Interviewed QGTB interviewed the following persons as part of its investigation: Administration/Counsel Roy Brooks Beverly Griffin Hugh Hattabaugh Chris Heller  Mark Milhollen Olivine Roberts PRE Staff Karen DeJarnette Maurecia Robinson Ed Williams Jim Wohlleb Cabinet Members Junius Babbs Karen Carter Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell Joe Mittiga Linda Watson Suellen Vann Human Resources David Hartz Outside Experts/Evaluators Steve Ross - CREP November 7'h and November 13th November 10th November 7th and November 14th November 13th November 10th November 7'h and November 13th November gth November 8th November 7'h November 14th November 13th November 10th November 8th November 10th November 8th November 9th November 10th November 9th November 13th Due to Dr. DeJarnette's schedule and that of her counsel, Dr. DeJarnette was not the first interview as was planned. Instead, the interviews began on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 42 .... &gt; Q. p. N &gt; Q. Q. ~ with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Dr. DeJarnette was interviewed on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, after which it became clear that second interviews of Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh would be necessary. Those were accomplished on November 13 and 14, 2006. Each interview was conducted by two of the three QGTB investigation team members, except for the interview of Mr. Heller which was conducted by all three members of the investigation team. Each interview was recorded and the tapes were transcribed by QGTB staff persons as accurately as the recording quality would allow. The transcripts are included in two volumes accompanying this report which are divided by witness name and which include (1) the transcripts, (2) summary memoranda of each interview, and (3) copies of the documents received from each witness, if any. A court reporting service was not used during the interview procedure due to the expense involved. As with almost any investigation, there were additional persons who could have been interviewed in connection with this investigation if time and expense had permitted such as Mr. Khayyam Eddings, additional outside evaluators, the Board members and others. The same is true for documents as there are likely other documents that may have been discovered had more time been available. By way of example, witnesses were not required to produce copies of their daily calendars and no analysis of LRSD's database containing student information was conducted. Also, expert consultants were not employed to provide assistance with matters such as data accuracy. However, QGTB believes that its investigation has been thorough and that it has gathered sufficient information to make an informed report to the Board of the issues involved. 43  Q. Q. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t..,J :.n V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS A. Timeline of Events From the interviews and the documents reviewed, QGTB has created the following comprehensive timeline of relevant events: Date Event Reference Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and 1/16/1998 Education Plan Ex. 1 Memorandum Opinion from Judge William R. Wilson 6/30/2004 containing "Compliance Remedy." Ex. 2 9/27/2004 Dr. DeJarnette hired by LRSD as Director of PRE Ex.6 Mr. Wohlleb hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/1/2004 department Ex.6 Ms. Robinson hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/4/2004 department Ex.6 E-mails between Wohlleb, Heller and DeJarnette regarding Heller's changes to draft reply to ODM regarding Quarterly 11/22/2004 Update. Ex. 4 E-mail from Kampman/Heller to Wohlleb enclosing draft 11/23/2004 with Heller's comments on Quarterly Update Ex. 5 12/1/2004 First Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex.6 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (IL-R) 12/16/2004 approved Ex. 7 Wohlleb sends e-mail to Heller with copy to DeJarnette requesting to see comments and suggestions from Heller about draft of March 1 Quarterly Update before showing it to 2/4/2005 Dr. Brooks. Ex. 9 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that we should meet with Joshua if they have any concerns about the Quarterly Reports when they are filed, but that we don't need to meet about each report otherwise. DeJarnette responds (and copies Wohlleb) that she is happy not to meet about the Quarterly 2/8/2005 Update with Joshua. Ex. 10 Wohlleb responds to e-mail asking questions about changes to 2/8/2005 the Quarterly Update suggested by Heller. Ex. 11 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller regarding draft of the second 2/22/2005 Quarterly Update and whether it needs any further changes Ex. 13 3/1/2005 Second Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex. 13A 44 &gt; Q. p. .... &gt; Q. Q. N  Q, Q, (.,.I ./l Board approves reorganization of district reporting responsibilities that results in DeJarnette reporting to Olivine 3/24/2005 Roberts instead of directly to Superintendent Brooks. 6/1/2005 Third Quarterly Update filed with Court E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette and Wohlleb suggesting a typographical revision to draft Quarterly Update and stating 8/9/2005 that PRE can "fire away." 8/31/2005 Fourth Quarterly Update filed with Court 3:50 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that he has glanced at the draft Quarterly Update and will need to make 11/16/2005 some changes. 4:48 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette with copy to Brooks 11/16/2005 suggesting several changes in Section D of Quarterly Update. 8:25 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson with copy to Heller enclosing final draft of Quarterly Update with Heller's edits. She states that she will 11/16/2005 print hard copies for the Board, ODM and Joshua. E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that the Quarterly Report draft does not reflect the change he suggested in 1st paragraph of Section D. "It still reads as if we still don't have any usable data." DeJarnette responds with a draft containing 11/17/2005 the changes. Letter from Heller to Walker with copies to Brooks, DeJarnette and Roberts requesting that Joshua's monitoring be done in a way that does not violate a legal ethics rule against direct contact with opposing counsel's clients. Heller states that if Walker will identify Joshua's monitors, he will make sure those persons have access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's monitoring 11/18/2005 expectations. 12/1/2005 Fifth Quarterly Update filed with Court DeJarnette e-mail to Dr. Roberts asking that she keep her in the loop regarding work assignments for statisticians. Dr. 2/7/2006 Roberts agrees to do so. 3/ 1/2006 Sixth Quarterly Update filed with Court Springer sends e-mail to Wohlleb and requests notes of evaluation team meetings. Wohlleb says that the request should be directed to Mr. Hattabaugh. Springer requests that her e-mail be forwarded to Hattabaugh and states that the information should be provided without a formal request. Springer requests that it be treated as if ODM was requesting 4/21/2006 the information. 45 Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex.21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 24 Ex.25  Q., -P-  Q., P-N  Q. Q., w ft Wohlleb forwards Springer's request for information to Hattabaugh who forwards it on to Heller asking him to inform Walker and Springer of the procedure regarding requests 4/24/2006 pertaining to the evaluations required by the court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing PRE draft of the 5/1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Report. DeJarnette e-mail to PRE Staff and Dr. Roberts re: expectations for PRE team members and process for handling data requests and projects assigned to department. She wants to be notified about requests from administration for 5/9/2006 information. Forwards e-mail to Dr. Brooks as an FYI. DeJarnette e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking whether Dr. Books will go forward with Ed Williams as project manager of Meadowcliff/Wakefield project. Griffin responds that this 5/10/2006 is not what Dr. Brooks told her but she will ask again. Meeting between DeJarnette and Gene Jones - Notes reflect ODM's concerns with issues such as PREs placement in the organizational chart, when the testing coordinator position will be filled and whether the closing of schools will affect 5/26/2006 programs being evaluated. DeJarnette says that she asked Heller to attend evaluation team meetings and told him that she will give Walker and 5/31/2006 Jones a copy of the Quarterly Update final draft. 10:26 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that she will give Walker and Gene Jones a copy of the Quarterly 5/31/2006 today at the team meetings. Meeting between DeJarnette, Gene Jones (ODM), Roberts, 6/1/2006 and Hattabaugh regarding ODM concerns. DeJarnette e-mail to Griffin, Brooks and Roberts regarding PRE Snapshot. She says Dr. Brooks may want to omit the list 6/ 1/2006 of OD M's questions. 6/ 1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Update filed with Court. DeJarnette says that she sent Heller OD M's concerns and 6/1/2006 notes on her meeting with Brooks, Hattabaugh and Roberts. 46 Ex.25 Ex. 26 Ex.27 Ex.28 Ex. 29 Ex.31 Ex. 30 Ex.31 Ex.38 Ex.39 Ex. 39 ..... &gt; Q. p. N  Q. Q. (
.) :Fl DeJarnette states that a meeting was held about the "dashboard" database. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts reported during the meeting that statisticians will not have access to this portion of the database but principals will. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts, after the meeting, said "the database is not for or about PRE." DeJarnette replied "It should be since we are the department named in the compliance remedy." DeJarnette reports that she asked Dr. Roberts if she would meet with PRE staff to share the change of role in the PRE department. DeJarnette reports that she asked Heller to attend the meeting because she was concerned 6/7/2006 with the changes. E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Heller regarding whether Heller would participate in meeting - she wants Heller's advice about the role of PRE in relation to Judge Wilson's order. Roberts states, "He [Heller] will not attend 6/7/2006 this meeting." DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Ark. Dept of Education with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Joshua, Heller and 6/12/2006 others requesting a phone conference meeting. DeJarnette says that she called Heller to request that he meet with PRE regarding a call with Arkansas Department of Education about data. Heller says he will participate in the 6/12/2006 call. DeJarnette, PRE staff, and Heller (via phone) meet with Arkansas Department of Education staff regarding expected 6/12/2006 date for LRSD to receive electronic ACT AAP data. Joy Springer sends an e-mail to DeJarnette requesting a status 6/12/2006 report regarding telephone call with Ark. Dept of Education DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller asking 6/12/2006 whether he will take care of this or whether she should reply DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller again stating that Gene Jones with ODM has asked for a status report regarding Ark. Dept of Education phone conference. She asks whether it is appropriate for her to meet with Jones and Springer at 3:00 pm that day. DeJarnette states that Heller 6/13/2006 informed her not to meet. E-mails between Roberts, Williams and DeJarnette regarding 6/13/2006 Williams' involvement in report on Wakefield. 47 Exs. 31 &amp; 40 Ex.40 Ex.42 Ex. 31 Ex.31 Ex.42 Ex.42 Ex.44 Ex. 43 &gt; Q. p. - &gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l.,J ... ... :.n E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks re: "Room 14 is too crowded" and other working conditions that need to be addressed - particularly Dr. Roberts' overstepping 6/14/2006 DeJarnette's direction. Cabinet Retreat is held in the Regions Bank Building where DeJarnette claims that Brooks referred to her as an "outsider" during a ceremony where certificates were given to individual 6/15/2006 cabinet members. E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts concerning lost test book and need to search room where painters and paint materials 6/19/2006 are kept. DeJarnette states that she called Heller with concerns about 6/22/2006 statements made by Dr. Brooks to the Board members DeJarnette sends e-mail at 9: 16 pm to Heller regarding statements to the Board members by Dr. Brooks about when ACTAAP data will be received. Dr. Brooks said the data will be received by July 1st and the evaluations will not be delayed 6/22/2006 but this is not aligned with her conversations with others. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Roberts with copy to Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' statements to the Board on benchmark data. States that evaluators will receive the data at the end of July rather than July 1st and asks Heller to notify Judge Wilson that the final reports will be submitted to the Court after the October board meeting, not the original October 1 6/23/2006 due date. Eighth Circuit Opinion affirming June 30, 2004 Order from 6/26/2006 Judge William R. Wilson Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding Affidavit from Joy Springer, Mr. Walker's paralegal, entitled "LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing 6/29/2006 programs as it should" DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks summoned her to his office on her cell phone and asked her to agree with him that the statements in Ms. Springer's affidavit were not true. She claims that she would not agree to that and that Ms. Springer had evidence to support each of the allegations in her affidavit. DeJarnette alleges that when Dr. Roberts came into the office toward the end of the meeting, Dr. Brooks said, "Dr. Roberts, I believe that anyone who shares information with Joy Springer should be fired." DeJarnette alleges that Dr. 6/29/2006 Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks did not recall such a meeting. 48 Ex.45 Ex.46 Ex.31 Ex.47 Ex.48 Ex. 50 Ex.51 Brooks Tr II at 4- 6
DeJarnette Tr at 3-4 &gt; Q. p.. &gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ DeJarnette calls Heller about FOIA request from Walker. 6/30/2006 Assistant says that Heller is out of the office. DeJarnette sends Heller a copy of the FOIA request via e- 6/30/2006 mail. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller regarding her responses to 7/5/2006 the allegations in Springer's affidavit. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller and called 7/7/2006 but he was not in. Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding response from LRSD to motion from Joshua entitled "LR schools tell judge: 7/7/2006 No basis to hold hearing" Cabinet meeting held where Dr. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks pointed to her in front of all the cabinet members and said, "I will fire you if it's the last thing I do if you share 7/11/2006 information with ODM or Joshua. They are the other side." DeJarnette e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks about Brooks mentioning on several occasions that a "breach of confidentiality will lead to 7/11/2006 employee termination." DeJarnette states that she called Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' 7/11/2006 threats. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller asking that he please file an extension for the due date for filing evaluations with the Court and that she called him but spoke 7/11/2006 with Brenda Kampman DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Heller about data issues with NORMES and possibility that database will have to be constructed and data input internally. Heller responds asking to be reminded about the difference between what our expert needs and the information in today's paper. DeJarnette responds asking Heller to please respond to the inquiry about 7/12/2006 confidentiality. Heller sends e-mail to Brooks, Hattabaugh, Babbs, DeJarnette, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Sadie Mitchell and Vann regarding probable need for extension on last four evaluations if benchmark results are unavailable in the 7/12/2006 required format. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller forwarding letter from 7/12/2006 Steven Ross about format for data needed. 49 Ex.31 Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 31 Ex.54 DeJarnette Tr at 4
Ex. 55 Ex. 55 Ex.31 Ex.31 Ex.56 Ex.57 Ex. 57  0, 0, ....  0, 0, N  Q. Q. w Heller/Kampman send e-mail to DeJarnette regarding ADE's counsel's statements that he still is not sure what data LRSD 7/13/2006 needs and in what format. DeJarnette responds to Heller/Kampman e-mail stating that if ADE does not know what they need at this point, there is no 7/14/2006 hope of finishing evaluations by October deadline. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status on completing compliance report. DeJarnette states that Heller has provided an update to the court regarding the status of data but has not requested an extension. She includes a document regarding data issues and comparisons of Crystal 7/14/2006 Reports to TetraData E-mails between Heller and DeJarnette regarding update on 7/17/2006 filing a motion for extension of time. 2:59 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson that Heller has not responded to PRE's questions about confidentiality and that there are urgent legal issues affecting our department. If district's counsel is not available, 7/21/2006 they would like to seek other counsel. 3 :31 pm e-mail from Eddings to same group stating he has spoken with DeJarnette and hopefully quelled any concerns 7/21/2006 that she has. DeJarnette e-mail to group that Eddings advised that if a document currently exists and is requested through FOIA that PRE should provide the document to counsel for review and that counsel will forward the documents to the persons making the request. This includes documents requested by 7/24/2006 ODM. Eddings responds that this is correct. Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice agrees with Court's directive to LRSD in early l 990's. Heller states that Eddings advice was about FOIA requests and in the unlikely event that ODM makes any FOIA requests then Eddings' suggested process should be followed. He states that this has no effect 7/24/2006 on the typical ODM request for information. 50 Ex. 58 Ex.58 Ex. 59 Ex.60 Ex. 61 Ex.62 Ex. 62 Ex. 63  Q. .P..-.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (
J .:.: . 'JI Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice applies to non-FOIA requests by Joshua. Heller responds that counsel needs to know about all Joshua requests for information. LRSD is still in litigation and there are several issues at stake. Legal ethics rules do not allow direct contact of Heller's clients by an opposing attorney in litigation. Heller needs to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know. Heller states, "I can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers." DeJarnette responds stating that Joshua usually makes an FOIA request and then ODM 7/24/2006 asks informally for the same information. E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she was on vacation last week and did not think she could post the draft Quarterly Report to Novus Agenda by noon. She asks if she 8/7/2006 will be able to post it at the end of the day. 9:51 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing draft copy 8/8/2006 of the Quarterly Update DeJarnette claims to have posted PRE's draft Quarterly 8/8/2006 Update to the Novus Agenda Website DeJarnette provides copies of PRE's draft Quarterly Update to 8/8/2006 ODM and Joshua 4:51 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing a new draft of the Quarterly Update. She states that it is the one that went to Griffin for the board agenda packet. Additional 8/9/2006 sentences added to the first version sent to Heller on 8/8/06. 4:52 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin enclosing Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft 4:56 pm e-mail from Griffin to Roberts forwarding Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft received from DeJarnette 4:57 pm e-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh forwarding 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update draft received from DeJarnette 51 Ex.63 Ex.66 Ex.67 Ex. 75 DeJarnette Tr at 21, 53
Ex. 147 &amp;Add. 6 Ex.68 Ex. 69 &amp; Add. 7 Exs. 70 &amp; 71 Ex. 72  0, p. .....  0, 0, N 5:05 pm e-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette stating that the "cover sheet" is posted at the Novus site which gives it a place on the action agenda for August. "Per my phone conversation with Dr. Roberts, I will wait and post the actual report sometime prior to the meeting on the 24th. That gives everyone another week for reading, reviewing, revising. If any of the board members ask why it's not posted, I will have to say that it was not complete prior to the agenda deadline of 8/9/2006 August 8th." 5:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she posted the agenda item and draft report on 8/8. It's okay with PRE if the Board does not consider the report tomorrow as long as it is approved by the end of the month so Heller can 8/9/2006 file it with the Court. 5:29 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts forwarding draft 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update. E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller with copies to Griffin and Brooks stating that he wants PRE's draft Quarterly Report reviewed by legal counsel to ensure objective and concise information is reported. Wants "biased comments" 8/ 10/2006 eliminated. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller regarding posting of the draft Quarterly Update for the agenda meeting and whether Board members will have an adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update. Heller says that we have three weeks and 8/10/2006 did not see a problem. E-mail from Roberts to Heller with copies to Brooks and Hattabaugh attaching draft Quarterly Update from PRE and 8/ 10/2006 requesting that Heller please note pages 3, 4, 6, and 9. Brooks forwards Roberts' e-mail to Heller to Griffin, 8/10/2006 Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga and Roberts DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Roberts and Griffin stating that she will not be able to attend the agenda meeting but that 8/ 10/2006 Wohlleb will be there. Heller sends an e-mail to DeJarnette re: "joshua concerns
qtrly report". States that he is sorry for delay but that they found out Thursday about an injunction hearing concerning an issue at Central scheduled for Monday, now Tuesday. He 8/14/2006 says he will call as soon as that gets under control. 52 Ex. 73 Ex. 75 Ex. 76 Ex. 77 Ex. 79 Ex. 81 Ex. 83 Ex. 84 Ex. 85 &gt; Q. p. .....  Q,. p. (
.I :JI E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating "please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence." DeJarnette responds and says, "Will 8/17/2006 do, Thanks." DeJarnette states that she left a voice mail message for Heller requesting clarification and did not receive a return call. Heller states in his interview that he does not recall such a 8/17/2006 voice mail. E-mail from Springer to DeJarnette, Powell (ODM) and Walker stating that it appears the data being provided to evaluators is not valid or is fraught with errors especially relating to student identity and attendance. Springer requests that DeJ arnette explain the process used by PRE for 8/17/2006 submitting data to experts. DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks stating that she would not 8/17/2006 respond to the e-mail upon Heller's advice. E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette and Roberts asking whether Quarterly Update is ready to be attached to the board agenda. DeJarnette responds saying that Wohlleb is amending the report to reflect the receipt of electronic data and that PRE has not heard from Heller yet about the Quarterly Update. Griffin responds saying that she needs the Quarterly Update by noon 8/21/2006 on August 22nd. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin and Roberts attaching an amended Quarterly Update reflecting receipt of electronic data and that the data has been passed on to 8/21 /2006 external evaluators. E-mail from Griffin to Heller and Brooks asking whether the Quarterly Update can be posted to the board agenda by noon 8/21 /2006 on the 22nd 10: 15 am Meeting in Mr. Hattabaugh's office between Hattabaugh, Roberts, Heller, DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams. Discussions are had concerning whether certain information in the draft Quarterly Update is 8/22/2006 appropriate for the report and/or inaccurate. 1 :02 pm e-mail from Griffin to Board members that agenda for 8/24 meeting has been posted but is not complete. The PRE is fine-tuning the Quarterly Report and it will be attached 8/22/2006 as soon as the revisions are made. 53 Exs. 86 &amp; 87 DeJarnette Tr at 35
Heller Tr at 23 Ex.88 Ex.88 Ex.92 Ex.96 Ex.95 Ex. 107  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (.,.) 3:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Roberts, Hattabaugh and PRE staff that three of the PRE members put their notes together about the suggested edits. They have a clear understanding about the changes in section F regarding listing of programs and have struck all but the first sentence from that paragraph. They are fuzzy on exactly what else Heller, Roberts and Hattabaugh wanted to strike from the 8/22/2006 report. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status of the Quarterly Update and being able to post it for the Board. DeJarnette states that Heller suggested major edits yesterday but was not specific. PRE will make any edits the Board sees fit but feels it is inappropriate for Heller or senior administrators to exclude the Board from the review process. Griffin responds by stating that she thought that when PRE left the meeting on the 22nd that it would make the suggested revisions and that any report given to the board is subject to administrative/cabinet level review and that the attorneys have the option of making suggested changes before it is presented to the board. "We are trying to comply with the court's order and get out of court. Chris is the one who should guide us in that endeavor." DeJ arnette responds stating that PRE made the specific edits suggested but Heller was not clear on the other edits. She states that if Heller, Roberts or Hattabaugh 8/23/2006 are clear on the needed edits, they can make the revisions. Griffin sends e-mail to Heller/Kampman stating that DeJarnette tells her that she hasn't received the final version of the Quarterly report. Griffin states that it needs to be posted 8/23/2006 to the board before she leaves today. 10:56 am E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh and Roberts requesting further conversation related to program assessments. After further reflection, she is uncomfortable removing the names of the programs from the Quarterly 8/24/2006 Update. 12: 12 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson stating that she has given all the reflection and input she feels necessary regarding the Quarterly Update and that she defers to counsel 8/24/2006 to amend any portion of the report necessary. 54 Ex. 108 Ex. 110 Ex. 111 Ex. 114 Exs. 115 &amp; 116 &gt; C. p. .... &gt; C. C. N &gt; Q. C. c.,.i 1: 15 e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams thanking Wohlleb for preparing comments on update but that she did not think PRE would need it as she planned to follow counsel's advice and defer any questions to 8/24/2006 Heller. 1 :37 e-mail from Heller/Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks attaching Quarterly Report with his most recent suggested changes. DeJarnette forwards 8/24/2006 to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams at 4:05 pm. Board Meeting held where Heller's edited version of Eighth 8/24/2006 Quarterly Update is approved. 9/1/2006 Eighth Quarterly Update filed with Court Heller/Kampman e-mail filed copy of Eighth Quarterly Update to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and 9/5/2006 Brooks DeJarnette e-mails Heller and others (possibly Joshua) stating that she has scheduled a conference call with Steven Ross to discuss his request for an extension of the deadline for reports. Heller responds stating that he sees no reason for an open conference call with Dr. Ross before LRSD has determined the status of the evaluation and reports to the Court, ODM and Joshua. Heller claims that DeJarnette held open conference 9/14/2006 call anyway. Heller e-mail to DeJarnette, Brooks, Catterall, Hattabaugh, Powell (ODM), Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams and Wohlleb stating that there is no reason for a conference call 9/ 19/2006 with Dr. Ross today. 10/3/2006 Grievance filed by Dr. DeJarnette E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette requesting "what information 'mandated by the compliance remedy' [she] was 10/4/2006 directed to withhold and who directed rherl to withhold it." E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller in response to request for information stating that she was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold information in Subsection B and Subsection F of the September 1, 2006 10/5/2006 Quarterly Update and enclosing a file of documents. E-mail from DeJarnette to Robert Robinson regarding next 10/6/2006 steps in process for written grievance. 55 Ex. 118 Exs.119&amp; 120 Ex. 123 &amp; Add. 8 Ex. 124 Ex. 125 Ex. 126 Ex. 127 &amp; Add. 5 Ex. 128 Ex. 128 Ex. 129  Q. p. N  Q.. Q.. ~ Q.. p. ... 2:03 pm E-mail from Hartz to DeJamette stating that he would like to have a meeting with her to discuss issues cited 10/10/2006 in her complaint and requesting dates and times for a meeting. 6:38 pm Response from DeJarnette to Hartz regarding request for meeting. She asks what the procedure for the meeting will be, whether other people will attend and whether it will 10/10/2006 include an informal conversation between Hartz and her. Phone conversation between DeJarnette and Hartz where Hartz explained that the meeting would be to establish the 10/10/2006 process and procedure of the grievance 8:38 am Response from Hartz to DeJarnette confirming a meeting at 1 :30 pm on 10/12/06. DeJarnette notes that when she arrived, Mr. Hartz said his mother was ill and he needed 10/11/2006 to leave and would reschedule. 20 minute meeting between Hartz and DeJarnette that had to be cut short because of the fact that Hartz's mother was in the 10/12/2006 hospital. DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking that PRE be reorganized so as to report directly to the Board of 10/12/2006 Directors rather than to senior administrators. Little Rock School District's Compliance Report is filed with 10/16/2006 the Court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE has concerns about statements in Compliance Report regarding school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. Heller/Kampman respond be asking (I) who at PRE is concerned and what is the concern, (2) to quote the language that is a concern and (3) an explanation in detail of the basis 10/18/2006 for each concern. 40 to 45 minute meeting between DeJarnette and Hartz - 10/18/2006 Typewritten and handwritten notes produced by Hartz. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE can provide the information requested by Heller. Kampman responds that Heller would like to meet on October 20th but would like a 10/19/2006 written response in advance of any meeting. PRE creates document of its comments regarding the l 0/19/2006 Compliance Report submitted on 10/16/06 to the Court. 10/20/2006 DeJarnette e-mails Heller two documents created by PRE DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/20/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. 56 Ex. 130 Ex. 132 Hartz Transcript at 3. Exs. 133 &amp; 134 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 135 Ex. 136 Ex. 141 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 141 Ex. 137 Exs. 141 &amp; 137 DeJarnette Tr at 17 &gt; Q. p. .... &gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ .. ... :::. Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report is 10/25/2006 filed. Hartz reports that he spoke with DeJarnette during board meeting break and explained that mother was recently released from the hospital. DeJarnette reportedly stated "no problem" and that she was busy and probably would not have 10/26/2006 had the time until then anyway. DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/27/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz checking on potential date to 10/31/2006 discuss her complaint. Brooks e-mails Griffin, Hartz, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Heller, Mitchell and Babbs asking Dr. Roberts to notify Dr. DeJarnette that the board has requested a compliance history update at the November 9th agenda meeting and the presentation should involve other members of the PRE Department. Dr. Roberts forwards the e-mail to 11 /2/2006 DeJarnette. Response from Hartz to DeJarnette stating that he will be in touch with a date very soon and has been out due to continued 11 /2/2006 family illness. Two letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education, to Dr. Brooks regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11 /2/2006 from McClellan High DeJarnette responds to 11/2/06 e-mail from Brooks/Roberts by stating that both Robinson and Wohlleb are scheduled to be on vacation on the 9th but PRE would be happy to meet with the Board and answer any questions. She attaches 11/3/2006 Compliance History documents 2004-2005 Compliance History Document sent to Board of 11/3/2006 Directors by Karen DeJarnette Dennis Glasgow had a conversation with Wohlleb regarding the Compliance History document and took issue with certain portions. W ohlleb asked Glasglow whether he thought that PRE should report directly to the Board and Glasgow 11 /3/2006 responded that he did not think that should happen. Dr. Brooks phones Dr. DeJarnette after receiving the 11/3/2006 Compliance History Document. 57 Ex. 143 Hartz Transcript at 9. DeJ arnette Tr at 17 Ex. 144 Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6 Ex. 145 Ex. 149 Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6 Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6 Glasgow Transcript p. 9- 10 Brooks Transcript II at p. 1 &gt; Q. p. .... &gt; Q. Q. N 'JI Hartz reports that he phoned DeJarnette and informed her of 11/6/2006 the decision to have an outside counsel review her complaint. Hartz Tr at 10 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette informing her that the Quattlebaum firm would conduct an independent investigation 11/6/2006 of her concerns Ex. 148 Fax from Dr. Brooks to Karen DeJarnette enclosing two November 2, 2006 letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11/13/2006 from McClellan High Ex. 149 B. Factual Issues Identified From the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, the following general categories and subcategories of factual issues were identified: 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update a. What is an "Update?" b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process c. Drafting of the Q8 Update d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting f. August 22, 2006, Meeting g. h. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting Instructions to Withhold Information 58  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 2. Threats of Termination a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command b. Direct Threats of Termination 1. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article. 11. Threats at Cabinet Meetings c. Indirect Threats of Termination 1. The Job Advertisement Incident ii. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident iii. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks 3. Hostile Work Environment a. Direction of PRE Staff b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team c. Gifted &amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office d. Painters in PRE Offices e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE 4. PRE Compliance History Document 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The investigation results regarding each of these categories are addressed and the statements of various witnesses summarized below. C. Discussion of Issues This section of the report addresses the facts discovered in the investigation of the issues raised in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, as well as issues raised during witness interviews. 59 &gt; Q, P- ..... ::. " 'JI 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update ("Q8 Update") Issue: LRSD Administration and Mr. Heller disagreed with PRE regarding the topics and initiatives to be included in the Q8 Update. The primary issue in this investigation concerns the events leading to the preparation and filing of the Q8 Update. Dr. DeJarnette, in her November 3, 2006, letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Chairperson of the Board, states that PRE believes that the Board has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions. Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6. Dr. DeJarnette states in this letter, "[o]ne of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006)." Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6. This section addresses the facts as they relate to the Q8 Update. a. What is an "Update?" According to paragraph G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at page 65, "PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year." Ex. 2. Thus, for the two school years at issue, PRE was required to submit a total of eight "Updates" concerning the step 2 program evaluations. b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process The basic outline for the Updates was taken from the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 2. Initial drafts of the Updates were created wholly by PRE staff. DeJarnette Tr. at 19. Mr. Wohlleb was the primary drafter of the Updates for PRE. Id. at 19-20. His initial draft was then circulated within PRE for comment. Id. at 20. PRE commonly had the Updates ready for review by the cabinet and Mr. Heller thirty days before they were to be submitted to the 60 &gt; Q. P- ~ &gt; Q. P-N &gt; Q. Q. t.,.l .. :i. 'Jl Board. Id. After an Update was submitted to the Board and approved by the Board, Mr. Heller would file it with the Court. Id. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update A more comprehensive report titled "Compliance Report" 7 was scheduled to be filed on October 15, 2006. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she asked Mr. Heller in June 2006 if PRE would be responsible for writing the Compliance Report due to the Court on October 15, 2006. Id. at 23. When Mr. Heller stated that he would be drafting the Compliance Report, Dr. DeJarnette decided that the Q8 Update should be PRE's version of the Compliance Report, and it should include a detailed summary of the activities that PRE performed in the years 2004-2006. Id. d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website The Board's agenda is prepared using the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 5. Departments within LRSD prepare their agenda items and post their attachments for Board review. Id. at 6. Initially, agenda items are available on the Novus Agenda website for internal review through the chain of command. Id. at 7-8. Once an agenda item has been reviewed through the chain of command and approved by Dr. Brooks, Ms. Griffin posts that agenda item for Board review and review by the public at large. Id. There is some uncertainty about when the draft Q8 Update was posted to on the Novus Agenda website. However, it is undisputed that the draft Q8 Update was e-mailed to 7 LRSD was obligated under Paragraph K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to file a Compliance Report, documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1 requires that "LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program." 61 &gt; Q, p. .... &gt; Q, p. N  Q, p. \,,I Ms. Griffin, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Heller by August 10, 2006. Bxs. 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 81, 83. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection Dr. DeJarnette says that on August 8, 2006, she posted on the LRSD Novus Agenda website, which is an internal LRSD website that allows LRSD employees to post and review documents for the Board's agenda meeting, a draft of the Q8 Update. Ex. 75
DeJarnette Tr. at 25. Dr. DeJarnette also provided copies of the draft Q8 Update to ODM and Joshua on or about the same day. Ex. 147 &amp; Add. 6
DeJarnette Tr. at 53. Dr. DeJarnette believes that Ms. Griffin removed the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website, leaving only the cover page. DeJarnette Tr. at 25. ii. Ms. Griffin's Recollection Ms. Griffin does not recall removing the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 9. However, she has in the past removed an item from the Novus Agenda website when asked to do so. Id. at 9-10. Ms. Griffin provided e-mails showing that Dr. DeJarnette sent her the draft Q8 Update on August 9, 2006. Ex. 69 &amp; Add. 7. Ms. Griffin then forwarded the draft to Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Bxs. 70 &amp; 72. Also, on August 9, 2006, Ms. Griffin e-mailed Dr. DeJarnette to inform her that the cover sheet for the Q8 Update was posted at the Novus Agenda website, giving it a place on the Board's agenda. Ex. 73. Ms. Griffin recalls that although Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had posted the draft Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda website on August 8, 2006, she told Ms. Griffin that approval by the Board of the Q8 Update by the end of the month would be acceptable. Ex. 75. 62 &gt; 0, p. .... &gt; 0, p. N  0, 0, w iii. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts stated that the Q8 Update was on the agenda for the Board meeting, but the draft Q8 Update was not attached on the Novus Agenda website when she first looked for it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts asked Dr. DeJarnette for a copy of the draft Q8 Update. Id. When Dr. Roberts did not receive a copy of the Q8 Update from Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Roberts obtained a copy of the draft Q8 Update from Ms. Griffin. Ex. 70. Dr. Roberts asked that the draft Q8 Update not be presented to the Board before she had a chance to review it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts stated Dr. DeJarnette seemed surprised that only the cover page of the draft Q8 Update was posted on the Novus Agenda website. Id. at 10. Normally, the full text of the Updates would be on the LRSD Novus Agenda website for the cabinet members to review. The Updates are not public until the Board reviews the agenda. Id. at 6-7. When she received and reviewed a copy of the draft Q8 Update, Dr. Roberts had questions. Id. at 4. Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh sent the draft Q8 Update to Mr. Heller for his review. Exs. 77 &amp; 81. iv. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection Mr. Hattabaugh stated that he either received a draft of the Q8 Update from Mr. Heller or Dr. Roberts
he does not recall receiving the draft from Ms. Griffin. Hattabaugh II Tr. at 5. He does not recall going to the Novus Agenda website and pulling down a draft of the Q8 Update. Id. He has no recollection of anyone taking down or instructing someone else to take down a draft of the Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Id. 63 &gt; Q., p. .... &gt; Q., p. N &gt; Q., Q., (.,.) '.Jl e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting i. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts was concerned that the draft Q8 Update mentioned TetraData and addressed "programs" that were not required to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Roberts I Tr. at 8. Dr. Roberts stated that the "programs" referred to in Section F of the draft Q8 Update went beyond the "programs" specified by the Court for inclusion in the Updates. Id. at 8-9. Some of the "programs" included in the draft Q8 Update were actually interventions and strategies. Id. These interventions and strategies were not intended to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. For example, the "program" titled CRISS is actually a compilation of reading strategies, according to Dr. Roberts. Id. at 9. Dr. Roberts noted that prior Updates did not include the type of information included in the draft Q8 Update. Id. ii. Mr. Heller's Recollection Mr. Heller received an e-mail from Mr. Hattabaugh expressing his concern that the draft Q8 Update included items about which there was an internal dispute and that inclusion of the items was unnecessary. Ex. 77
Heller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller recalled that Dr. Roberts also suggested changes to the draft Q8 Update. Heller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller was concerned that the draft Q8 Update did not reflect LRSD's position regarding the status of compliance, presented issues that were not required to be included in the Update, and was inaccurate in some respects. Id. at 8-9. He noted the identification of certain initiatives as "programs" that were not "programs" as that term was used by the Court as an example of an inaccuracy. Id. 64  Q. p. N  Q. C. c.., :ll f. August 22, 2006, Meeting A meeting was held in Mr. Hattabaugh's office on August 22, 2006, to address the concerns of all persons involved in the draft Q8 Update. Present at this meeting were Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, and the PRE staff, consisting of Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb and Ms. Robinson. This meeting lasted about one or two hours. At this meeting, PRE staff, LRSD administrators, and Mr. Heller discussed the draft Q8 Update and each side expressed its position regarding the disputed topics. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection of the Meeting At the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalls Mr. Heller stating that he wanted to remove substantial portions from the draft Q8 Update. DeJarnette Tr. at 23. Dr. DeJarnette stated this was the first time Mr. Heller ever suggested edits to any Update. 8 Id. According to Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Heller agreed with PRE that perhaps the Board should be made aware of the disputed information contained in the draft Q8 Update, but Mr. Heller explained that the Q8 Update was not the proper vehicle to discuss those disputes. Id. However, Dr. DeJarnette stated that the Q8 Update was the only way she knew to share such information with the Board. Id. at 23-24. In addition to Mr. Heller's comments about the draft Q8 Update, Dr. DeJarnette recalls that Dr. Roberts had concerns about Section F of the draft Q8 Update. Id. at 24. Dr. Roberts stated that Section F included a discussion of "programs" that did not need to be assessed. Id. Other than the information in Section F, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Mr. Heller was not specific about what other information should be deleted. Id. at 27. Therefore, at the 8 Mr. Heller provided e-mails which indicate that he suggested edits to previous versions of the Updates. See Exs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 26. 65 &gt; C. ?...-. &gt; C. C. N  C. Q. (
.I cJl conclusion of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette was not clear about what should or should not be deleted from the draft Q8 Update. Id. She recalls Mr. Heller stating that he believed that the 2004 Compliance Remedy only required PRE to report on the eight program evaluations specifically mentioned in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette disagreed, stating that the Court's use of "deeply embedded" in the 2004 Compliance Remedy was an overarching term that included more than the eight program evaluations ordered by the Court. Id. She also recalls Mr. Heller stating that he thought the disputed information included in the draft Q8 Update was critical of LRSD. Id. at 31. Dr. DeJarnette recalls that most of the conversation regarding what should be included in the Q8 Update came from Mr. Heller. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette stated that there. was no resolution on what the Q8 Update should address when the meeting ended. Id. ii. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection of the Meeting Mr. Hatta
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.
   

<dcterms_creator>Quattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-</dcterms_creator>
<dcterms_creator>Shannon, Michael N.</dcterms_creator>
<dcterms_creator>Moore, Benecia B.</dcterms_creator>