Court filings concerning majority to minority (M-to-M) transfers, District budgets, Stephens Elementary School, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats, and reinstatement of ADE as defendant

Court of Appeals, brief for appellee, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, stipulation for proposed order on voluntary majority to minority (M-to-M) transfers; District Court, notice of filing, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) revised budget for 1994-95; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) program planning and budgeting process; District Court, order; District Court, status report regarding Stephens Elementary School; District Court, response to motion for extension; District Court, motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to release incentive school Kindergarten seats and four-year-old program seats; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion to supplement the basis for its prior motion to reinstate the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) as a party defendant; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) project management tool; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. RECEIVED - AUG 2 41994 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Morntonng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT vs. No. 94-2070 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE Appeal From The United States District Court For The Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright District Judge BRIEP FOR APPELLEB PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Submitted by: M. Samuel Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Attorneys for Pulaski county Special School District TABLE OP CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF THE CASE AND WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ARGUMENT CONCLUSION ADDENDUM . . . . . . . . . . . i ii 1 3 4 5 7 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253 LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) ii Page 10 1, 7, 10 SUMMARY or THE CASE AND WAIVER or ORAL ARGUMENT on January 7, 1994, the PCSSD moved the District Court to require the LRSD to pay over to PCSSD approximately $167,000 which PCSSD claimed LRSD owed it pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. This appeal arises from the District Court's order of March 16, 1994, awarding a mone'T judgment to PCSSD based upon the District Court's interpretation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement approved by this Court on December 12, 1990, as reported at LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). That Settlement Agreement, among other more weighty matters, settled a dispute between the PCSSD and the LRSD concerning which district was entitled to receive certain state payments for majority-to-minority transfers pursuant to a stipulation originally entered into on August 26, 1986, and approved by the District Court and adopted as its order on February 27, 1987. To settle that disputed entitlement, the parties agreed to "pool" almost all state payments for interdistrict majority-tominority transfers. In addition to the pooling of the state payments, the PCSSD committed to contribute an additional $200,000 to the "pool" for the first five years of its operation. Because the payments received by the state include "incentive" or "bonus" payments above and beyond the cost of educating the transferring children, and because of the PCSSD's additional contribution of $200,000, the pool presently generates excess sums over and above the costs of educating these transferring students. 1 The PCSSD successfully moved the District Court for an order directing LRSD to pay PCSSD approximately $167,000 generated during the 1992-93 school year which LRSD had refused to pay. No hearing was sought by either party. This case presents the issue of whether or not the District Court abused its discretion in interpreting the parties' Settlement Agreement in favor of the PCSSD. PCSSD does not believe oral argument is necessary to resolve the issues presented on appeal. 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The PCSSD agrees with the preliminary statement submitted by LRSD. 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN FINDING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT LRSD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO POOL M-TO-M PAYMENTS IS INDEPENDENT OF PCSSD'S OBLIGATION TO EQUALIZE THE INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS OF INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS BECAUSE LRSD CANNOT DEMONSTRATE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE DISTRICT COURT. II. III. Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253 LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) THE 1989 DISPUTE BETWEEN LRSD AND PCSSD OVER THE ALLOCATION OF M-TO-M FUNDING WHICH LED TO THIS FEATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUPPORTS THE DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDING IN FAVOR OF THE PCSSD. EVEN THOUGH NO HEARING WAS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF AN AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THIS COURT; NEVERTHELESS, LRSD WAIVED ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING BY FAILING TO REQUEST ONE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 4 1. STATEMENT OP THE CASE The Factual Background of Section II, 0(3} of the Settlement Agreement The LRSD correctly observes that the Settlement Agreement is dated March 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989). LRSD Brief at 5. Pursuant to the State's obligation to pay the entire costs of M-toM students, the parties entered into a stipulation with the State which detailed the method and manner by which the state would reimburse these costs. Ad. 5-7 (Majority-to-Minority Stipulation). However, as late as September 25, 1989, the LRSD and PCSSD were still in dispute concerning whether the receiving district for Mto- M students should receive the sending district's costs per average daily membership or its own costs per average daily membership. The difference was approximately $700 per student at that time. App. 73. This issue over allocation of money between the two districts was ultimately resolved as of September 28, 1989, by agreeing to the pooling arrangement. In addition to these state reimbursements for the actual costs of educating the students, the State agreed to provide incentive monies to encourage such transfers. Each sending district is reimbursed by the State for one-half of the regular state aid the district would otherwise receive had the student stayed in the home district. Ad. 6. These sums were likewise pooled. The incentive amount paid to PCSSO is almost double that paid to LRSD, but all is now pooled. 5 To finalize the Settlement Agreement, PCSSD further agreed to pay an additional $200,000 per year into the pool over and above its M-to-M payments. 2. The Dispute Between LRSD and PCSSD LRSD did not challenge the worksheet appended to the PCSSD motion dated January 7, 1994 (App. 64); neither did it seek a hearing either before or after the ruling of the District Court. LRSD's only argument is that because this paragraph of the Settlement Agreement contains a statement concerning the equalization of instructional budgets at interdistrict schools, and because it contends without any appropriate record support that this has not been accomplished, then the entire pooling provision fails. PCSSD contends, as endorsed by the District Court, that the equalization provision has nothing to do with the independent obligation to distribute the excess funds. App. 58 (Order, March 16, 1994), and that the Settlement Agreement should not be modified. 6 ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN FINDING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT LRSD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO POOL M-TO-M PAYMENTS IS INDEPENDENT OF PCSSD' S OBLIGATION TO EQUALIZE THE INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS OF INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS BECAUSE LRSD CANNOT DEMONSTRATE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE DISTRICT COURT. standard of Review. The LRSD goes to great lengths to reduce the Settlement Agreement to an ordinary contract in its effort to seek de novo review by this Court. (LRSD Brief at 5.) Significantly, however, LRSD ignores the clear holding of this Court in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 at 1394, that: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the Settlement Agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. [emphasis supplied) This is precisely what the District Court did in this instance. Application of the Standard of Review. PCSSD filed its "Motion to Enforce settlement Agreement." The District Court found noncompliance with the Settlement Agreement by LRSD and ordered LRSD to come into compliance. This is just the kind of discretion this Court decided to grant the District Court in enforcing compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, LRSD's arguments that this Court should exercise de novo review are misplaced and are probably made only because LRSD knows it has no chance to prevail pursuant to the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. 7 At most, LRSD's argument is that there are two possible interpretations of the Settlement Agreement. However, LRSD has neither shown nor argued anything to demonstrate that the District Court's interpretation is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. on its face, and at a minimum, the District Court's conclusion is reasonable that: The Court agrees with PCSSD that the provision regarding the equalization of the instructional budgets has nothing to do with the PCSSD's entitlement to a distribution of the excess M-to-M funds generated by the interdistrict school transfers, and that these provisions "simply happened to appear in the same section of the Settlement Agreement." App. 59. Lending ever more reasonableness to the Court's order is its finding that: As the PCSSD points out, the LRSD may itself be on the receiving end of an annual distribution of excess M-to-M funds once the mix of students changes over time. App. 59. In what is partly a finding of fact and partly a conclusion of law, the District court concluded by finding that: The PCSSD has honored its commitments and requirements under the terms of the Settlement Agreement as regards this motion, and the LRSD offers no valid reason for refusing to withhold the distribution of $167,113 that is owed the PCSSD by the LRSD. App. 60. Thus, LRSD's argument that PCSSD was in "anticipatory breach" of the Settlement Agreement (LRSD Brief at 9) was rejected by the District court as a matter of fact, and LRSD has offered this Court 8 no evidence to set aside the finding as either clearly erroneous or - constituting an abuse of discretion. 1 Not only is the District Court's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement neither an abuse of discretion nor clearly erroneous, it is entirely reasonable. Indeed, if LRSD has some real concern with the instructional budgets (beyond utilization of this statement to seek relief from its pooling obligation), then its clear remedy is to file a motion with the District Court to test that separate issue. LRSD has not done this. Even if this Court were to agree with LRSD's alternative argument that the Settlement Agreement could be found to be ambiguous, this would avail the LRSD nothing. Again, if the paragraph is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, with any of the interpretations being plausible, then the District Court, in its discretion, may adopt any of the alternative interpretations. The issue of "intent" should be reached if and only if the agreement were subject to I1Q reasonable interpretations without receipt of extrinsic evidence. In its conclusion stated at page 10 of its brief, LRSD seeks to be released from its pooling obligation. This would be 1 Although LRSD contends at least twice in its brief that PCSSD had given LRSD notice that it would be "impossible to equalize the instructional budgets of the interdistrict schools" (LRSD Brief at 8-9), the only record support it offers for this assertion is the same statement contained in its own brief filed with the District Court. ~ App. 66. Even assuming that a "notice" had any relevance to the instant issue, LRSD neither sought a hearing to make proof on this issue nor did it tender any documentary evidence of this assertion in any of its filings with the District Court, nor did it move to "enforce" this provision. 9 tantamount to this Court's reversing the opinion it issued in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), where this Court approved the entire Settlement Agreement of which the paragraph before the Court today represents a part. In the 1990 appeal, Little Rock was one of the prominent proponents of the proposition that: "Of course, the District court may suggest modifications, but ultimately, it must consider the proposal as a whole and as submitted. Approval must then be given or withheld." ~ at 1388. Indeed, in rejecting the District Court's conclusion in that instance that the parties had waived their right to object to court-imposed modifications, this Court stated: What they said was something quite different; that if differences of opinion as to the meaning of the Settlement Agreement arose in the future, they could be authoritatively resolved by the courts. ML. at 1389 n.14 (emphasis supplied]. That is precisely what happened in this instance. The District Court exercised its discretion and resolved a dispute between two parties as to the meaning of the Settlement Agreement. That which Little Rock now seeks would serve to emasculate the Agreement, eliminate a key condition which induced PCSSD to enter into it in the first instance and constitute a "remedy" foreclosed by this Court's 1990 decision. As this same panel observed in 1991 in Appeal of Little Rock school District. 949 F.2d 253 at 257: The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse of discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of 10 deference to reasoned choices made by the District Court. (emphasis supplied] This Court should simply do now what it said it would do in 1991: Give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. II. THE 1989 DISPUTE BETWEEN LRSD AND PCSSD OVER THE ALLOCATION OF M-to-M FUNDING WHICH LED TO THIS FEATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SUPPORTS THE DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDING IN FAVOR OF THE PCSSD. It is undisputed that because the PCSSD is a relatively poor district in terms of local resources and the LRSD is a relatively wealthy district in terms of local resources that PCSSD receives substantially more state aid per student than does LRSD. Pursuant to Section 13 c. of the M-to-M Stipulation: Each home district (sending district] shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers from his/her home district to a host district (the receiving district) one-half of the State aid (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Ad. 6. Accordingly, by agreeing to pool all M-to-M monies, including these "incentive" monies, the PCSSD surrendered a financial entitlement that is much more valuable per student than is the same entitlement in the Little Rock District. Further, the PCSSD relinquished the claim it had asserted that it should receive from the State LRSD's cost per student, reasoning that since the PCSSD would be educating those same students, that same money should follow those students. Finally, for a period of five years the PCSSD agreed to contribute $200,000 a year to the pool to finalize the settlement. 11 Although it should be obvious, given the foregoing financial - details, this Court is entitled to infer that because this was the last issue resolved between the LRSD and the PCSSD, that it is an important one as respects the PCS SD' s agreement to fully and completely settle financial issues with the LRSD. Because the PCSSD surrendered significant financial claims and makes substantial financial contributions to the pool, such circumstances support the interpretations made by the District Court. III. EVEN THOUGH NO HEARING WAS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF AN AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THIS COURT; NEVERTHELESS, LRSD WAIVED ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING BY FAILING TO REQUEST ONE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. LRSD does not contend it sought or desired a hearing on this issue. It simply observes that there was not one. The record developed in this case since its assignment to the current Judge indicates that hearings have been matters of routine and held with great frequency in this case. App. i-viii (Docket entries). Further, the PCSSD is hard pressed to understand how such a "hearing" could have amounted to little more than oral argument, a matter which is entirely discretionary with the District Court. Finally, the District Court does consider requests for reconsideration, but none was sought by LRSD in this instance and no post-ruling request for a hearing was made. 12 CONCLUSION The District court's order of March 16, 1994 should be summarily affirmed and the PCSSD should be awarded its reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, for this appeal. O:dnl20l.030 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ J-J -~90---- M. Samuel/Jones III ,76060) Attorn~y~-~-~or Pula~i County Specia~l Distr'-fct 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and defendants Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD"), and Arkansas State Board of Education ("State Board"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation of majority-to-minority transfer provisions is contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2. Eligibility: ADD-1 a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrol l ment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which C district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Prior to the transfer of any student, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good standing, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application. 2 ADD-2 4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av lability of space in schools and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state standards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the home district, which shall be communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer. If, during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside. 3 ADD-3 8. Host districts shall not have the authority to remand tr sfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. Once admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same general standards, academic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request. This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention, counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspension and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffer any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ADD-4 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of tt isporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the 09tion of (1) ?aying the school districts for trans9orting the students o r (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts in accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school districts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all add-ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food service, and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro-rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5 ADD-5 previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall estimate the cull-time equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to the State in September of each year when payment begins. A correction will be made in January of each year. Payments shall be made by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected. The students transferred to the host district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the district. c. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers from his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State aid (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. The students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular 6 ADD-6 state aid for the home district. All transfers of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate programs a~d resources, as identified in the IEP, at the hos: school. d. The provisions contained herein do not apply to magnet schools and programs. 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Little Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of not upsetting that balance through the operation oE the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of the Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 ADD-7 violations of any law or regulation and, specifically, shall ne ~ be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departures from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected school. Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR DIS 2258L 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ~ ADD-8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 23, 1994, a copy of the foregoing was mailed to: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 O:dnl201.030 14 AUG 2 4 1994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation t\/lc:,: .. ,. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING Attached to this notice of filing is the revised PCSSD budget for 1994-95 as approved by the PCSSD Board of Directors on August 23, 1994. The court will note that the PCSSD proposes to balance this budget by, if necessary, closing school one or two days early. However, even though the PCSSD used this means as its - device to balance the budget, under all present revenue forecasts, sufficient additional state aid should be received by the PCSSD during the 1994-95 school year to enable it to operate a full school year. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By on, M. S At s I (76060) u aski County istrict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ll, 1994, a copy of the foregoing was mailed to:. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell & Streett 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~~~\J J:jlpl238 .030 2 AUG 2 4 i994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING/PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS The Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit No. 1 is a true and accurate copy of the Program Planning and Budgeting Process document for the 1994-95 school year which will guide the development of the LRSD's planning and budgeting activities for the 1996 fiscal year. Ind.Iii 1 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit this Notice of Filing and requests that it be awarded any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. lnd.lil Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this ~'iday of August, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street . Little Rock, AR 72201-~~4 ~ ~ -~~c~yiJ? -~ ~ - Jerry L. Malone lnd.m 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER AUG 2 ~ 1994 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time within which to exchange documents they intend to offer as evidence as well as the names of witnesses they intend to call at the hearing scheduled for the week of September 12, 1994. The motion is granted. The time for exchanging documents and witnesses is extended until and including September 6, 1994. The parties and the State are reminded that they must provide the ODM with copies of the above material at the same time. SO ORDERED th i s _2.J/ day of August 1994. UNITEIY'STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 2 8 AUG 2 5 199.t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SC