Court Filings concerning ADE's motion to dismiss, PCSSD's motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders, planning and budgeting plans, and LRSD's motion to end federal court jurisdiction

Court of Appeals, response to motion to extend time by Joshua intervenors; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abstain; District Court, response to separate school districts' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to the Knight intervenors' responses to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions regarding the minimum teacher salary law and the court's orders of June 15, 1993, and July 14, 1993; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) brief in support of its motion seeking equitable relief; District Court, intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, memorandum brief in support of intervening school districts' reply to the response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) to motion for intervention; District Court, second supplemental affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, supplemental brief; Court of Appeals, summary of argument, Servicemaster Management Services L.P.; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) August 1996 program planning and budgeting process and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) August program planning and budgeting tool for FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, portion of transcript The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. ! AUG 2 6 1996 Office f>f D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS asegregauon Mon1tormg FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ......_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 96-047EALR SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. APPELLANT APPELLEE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME BY JOSHUA INTERVENORS ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. ("ServiceMaster"), for its response to the motion to extend time made by the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") states: 1. Joshua requested in a letter filed with the Court dated August 21, 1996, that it be heard with respect to "argument one" of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") Brief as an appellee and that it be heard with respect to "argument two" of the LRSD Brief, which involves ServiceMaster, as an appellant. 2. Subject to the positions taken hereinbelow, ServiceMaster has no objection to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellee only with respect to argument one of the LRSD Brief and to any extension of time granted to Joshua for that purpose. However, ServiceMaster hereby objects to Joshua's request that it be heard as an appellant with respect to argument two of the LRSD Brief. 3. Joshua was served a copy of the District Court's Order dated March 11, 1995, which was appropriately styled and was in no way misleading~ Joshua knowingly failed to file an appeal of its own accord with respect the District Court's Order concerning argument two, the ServiceMaster issue, as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In addition, this appeal is not and cannot be characterized as a cross-appeal. 4. The status of Joshua in this appeal filed by the LRSD can only be as an appellee with respect to the argument one presented by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, ServiceMaster requests that any order granting Joshua's request to file a brief in this case be qualified and limited to allow Joshua as an appellee only and that Joshua not be allowed to argue or make references to ServiceMaster and argument two presented by the LRSD in its appellee's brief or in oral argument. Respectfully submitted, Joseph S. Mowery Giroir & Gregory, Professional Association 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 372-3000 and John C. Everett Everett, Shemin, Mars & Stills P.O. Box 1646 Fayetteville, AR 72202 (501) 443-0292 Attorneys for Appellee ServiceMaster Management Services L.P. "" ' , ... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to the Motion to Extend Time has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail on this 23rd day _of August 1996. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 17223 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capital, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept. of Education 4 State Capital Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 624/RESP JOSH.823 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 3 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION B y: DEP. CLERK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO . LR--C - 8 2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS AUG 2 o 1996 IlITERVENORS Office of Desegregation Moniton~VENORS RESPONSE TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS Comes now North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., and for its Response to the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, the Arkansas Department of Education filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Abstention. 2. Subsequently, the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") filed Responses to the Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss. 3. Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Responses, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Dismiss the Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to C, Dismiss; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award .NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By, s~~Caa, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEJl/~~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 B 1996 DEFENDANTS Office Of Desegr . INTERVENORS _ esation Monitoring - ~- - - INTERVENORS .RESPONSE TO ARKAN~AS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ABSTAIN For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: LRSD adopts Pulaski County Special School District's response to ADE's motion. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~ cw~: :::~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Arkansas Department of Education's Motion Dismiss Or, In The Alternative To Abstain has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 23rd day of August, 1996. 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 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 \ FILED. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 1996 WESTERN DIVISION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 AUG t o 1996 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------,0::-::E""P.--:aC"""LE=-==R=K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. Office of Desegre9allcn Momtorm~ INTERVENORS INTERVENORS - ~- - RESPONSE TO SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS' MOTION TO INTERVENE Comes now the North Little Rock School District ( 11NLRSD 11 ), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., and for its Response to Separate School District's Motion to Intervene and Answer, states as follows: 1. On or about July 23, 1996, a number of Arkansas school districts filed a Motion to Intervene and an Answer in the above referenced matter. 2. The Pulaski County Special School District ( "PCSSD") filed Responses to such Motion and Answer on or about August 2, 1996. 3 . Upon careful review of the PCSSD' s Response, and in order to promote economy and avoid burdening the Court with repetitious filings, NLRSD joins in and adopts the motions and corresponding memoranda referenced in paragraph No. 2. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court: (a) Award the relief sought by the PCSSD; (b) Award NLRSD its costs and attorneys fees; (c) Award NLRSD all other relief to which it may be entitled. By: Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 )iii:~Jo~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 23rd day of August, 1996 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant .Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stepnen w. Jon~ AUG 2 3 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of Dasagregilllon Munitonn~ ----PLAINTIFF -...- ., v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD REPLY TO THE KNIGHT INTERVENORS' RESPONSES TO THE PCSSD MOTIONS REGARDING THE MINIMUM TEACHER SALARY LAW AND DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS THE COURT'S ORDERS OF JUNE 15, 1993 AND JULY 14, 1993 The Pulaski County Special School District {"PCSSD") for its reply states: 1. The negotiated agreement between the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers ("PACT") and the PCSSD explicitly recognizes that any savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are to be used to reestablish the District reserves. 2. Compliance by the District at this point in time with the new minimum salary law will interfere with the PCSSD's ability to desegregate since it cannot now reasonably project sufficient funds to justify compliance and PACT has not, and cannot reasonably project such funds 3. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its motion for equitable relief and brief in support filed August 27, 1996 in further support of this reply. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By~ M. mue (76060) At~orneys for 1 Pulaski county Sp~School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August ;'1 7 ,7- , 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas . 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr~7Jones~ \ _______/ 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 ~ f\ECENEO liUG 2 9 1996~ AUG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS . I oeseNegation Mon~o1111~ Olhce o ,., _.. ...- I.NTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to release previously reserved four-year-old program seats throughout the distric~ and kindergarten seats in the incentive schools (doc.#2729]. The Court previously issued oral approval of the motion and follows with this Order. The LRSD states that it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1995-96 school year and that, while those efforts yielded positive results, seats still remain vacant in the LRSD's four-year-old classes and also in the kindergarten level in the incentive schools. The c~urt has repeatedly been reluctant to condone releasing seats reserved for white children because relinquishing those seats makes it more difficult for the district to desegregate the schools, especially the incentive schools. In previous orders granting the LRSD's request to assign black students to seats set 2 7 8 ~ aside for white students, 1 the Court has noted that it is not - satisfied that the district has engaged in timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment which is targeted at filling the reserved seats. Again this year, the LRSD's recruitment record does not convince the Court that the district has been significantly more energetic or diligent in recruiting students. Further, the Court has previously observed that the district has repeatedly filled incentive school kindergarten seats in proportions that are outside the guidelines, indicating that the district had either already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Such is the case again this year. Despite these recurrent problems, the Court is mindful that another major goal of the early childhood programs, in addition to racial integration, is to promote the academic achievement of black students. The desegregation plan provides that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Desegregation Plan, pg; 140.) The Court notes that the LRSD has pledged, in its motion, to continue "vigorous recruitment efforts" and also to determine what adjustments are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the effect of releasing the seats is minimized on future year enrollments. The Court encourages the parties to consider amending the district's racial balance goals in the plan so _that the district will have more flexibility in filling these seats. More realistic goals, together with vigorous 1 See Orders of September 7, 1994 and Seplemb~r 7, 1995. -2- recruitmentr could assist the LRSD in meeting its desegregation obligations. 2 .., 7/J1.__ IT IS SO ORDERED this._ day of August 1996. -UNITED ST.Z TES DISTR.i,cT JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT t:NTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN : C.,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND10R 79(a) FRCP )N ?J ~ '3' /'J~ BY k7t:: ;c;::::: 2 The Court refers the parties to the testimony of Dr. David J. Armor, who t.:stilied dunng May 1996 with respect to his studies and conclusions regarding achievement disparity and student assignm.:nt. -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ' v. LR-C-82-866 RECEfVED PLAINTIFF AUG 2 8 1996 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitiffi..ENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the district court Order of July 3 O, 19 9 6 by which the district court interpreted the "pooling" provision of the Settlement Agreement to require that LRSD pay PCSSD $345,294. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL- DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (50~~ BY:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 27th day of August, 1996: ~r. 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 LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER i1UG 2 7 1996 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Upon motion of the Little Rock School District, the time within which it must file its application for attorneys' fees with respect to this Court's January 13, 1995 decision and the May 15, 1996 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is hereby extended to and including August 30, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this )- ... ?" 1\ day of August 1996. 2782 MAR 2 7 1997 li1L.::U OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOrmORING U.S. DISTRICT COUAT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~<;TERNOISTRIC'tARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W. MCI.UK1v1~1.,K, 1.:LERK By: -----,,.pm.~-. l""lf....,.,F DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF The Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") for its motion states: 1. The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. 2. As a result of this unilateral action by a party to this case, the PCSSD cannot deliver the educational services and desegregation programs outlined in the Desegregation Plan and by orders of this Court. 3. As more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum, this Court should order striking teachers to return to work in the PCSSD because their unilateral action precludes the PCSSD from performing its constitutionally mandated role as a desegregating school district, because the issues which underpin the strike are already before this Court, because this Court already has a mediator in place, because the strike is inconsistent with the negotiated agreement between the parties, and because PACT has a remedy at law to allege breach of contract or specific performance of the agreement. 4. This Court possesses broad equitable powers to take all reasonable acts and to fashion all reasonable orders necessary to accomplish the remedial goals of the Desegregation Plans. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing that PACT end its strike, that the PCSSD teachers return to work pending resolution of the issues already before this Court, and, as appropriate, for a reference to the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ ...,,c...-.i.:----~-====-----M. S Atto Dis Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August n._, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 ' r :~ .. . - RECEniED U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc:MR'flNo,srn,cTARKANsAs 0:=FICE OF DESEGREGATIOi'J MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1996 WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAMES W. MCliUliMAliK, CLERK 3y: PLiUm'IFF DEP C'.. : DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF Introduction The teachers in the PCSSD are on strike. As a result of their unilateral action, the - PCSSD cannot operate its schools as required to deliver the education and desegregation services envisioned by the desegregation plan and the orders of this Court. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers ("PACT") is a party before this Court. It has been since July, 31, 1984. Procedural History On July 31, 1984, the Knight Intervenors, which specifically include the PACT, filed their complaint in intervention in this case. Paragraph 1 of the complaint in intervention states that: Intervenors intervene for the purpose of requesting that the Court order the protection of their rights to bargain and the rights they have bargained, pursuant to the agreements and policies between Intervenors and their respective districts. The District Court's order granting intervention followed an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directing that the intervention be granted. The concluding paragraph of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, dated July 6, 1984, states in pertinent part that: The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the appellants' motion for leave to intervene as parties in the remedy phase of this case. Their intervention shall be for the purpose of litigating the issues raised in their complaint, the protection of their existing contractual rights and their right to bargain collectively. Thus, as parties to the remedial phase of this litigation, PACT is decidedly subject to the remedial orders of this Court as is any other party. The Applicable Law The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision approving the Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plan in 1990. In that decision, it also outlined the rules for implementation. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). The Court of Appeals delivered both broad responsibilities as well as a broad charter and grant of authority to the District Court in respect of the Settlement Agreement and the Plans. As it held at page 1394: 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. In its subsequent decision, reported at 949 F.2d 253, the Court of Appeals evaluated the status of changes to the desegregation plans proposed by the parties but rejected by the District Court. In a passage often quoted by the District Court since then, the Court of Appeals held that: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 Plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows ... (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools acco~ding to the agreed timetable; ( 4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable; 949 F.2d 253 at 255. The Issues Underpinning the Ongoing Strike Are Alread,y Before This Court On May 22, 1996, this Court delivered a letter to the parties in this case informing them that Mr. Gus Taylor, Chief Conciliator for the United States Department of Justice Community Conciliation Service, was being made available to the parties. As the Court directed: There are a number of disputes among these parties in which your services might be of great value. I will not attempt to list them for you now. By sending you this letter I am inviting you and the attorneys for the parties to contact each other. Mr. Taylor's services to the parties, which have been rendered on several occasions in the past in this case, are free of charge. On August 5, 1996, the PCSSD filed and served its amendment and supplement to second motion to enforce the settlement agreement with the State. Among the issues advanced by the PCSSD in that filing is the proposition that the State's new minimum salary law violates that provision of the Settlement Agreement which prohibits the enactment of any legislation which substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate. On August 19, 1996 -- ironically the day the strike began -- the Knight Intervenors, including PACT, filed a response denying that the new minimum salary law substantially interferes with the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and that the minimum salary law did 3 not violate any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, PACT affirmatively requested the federal court to find that the minimum salary law should be enforced in all respects including those issues raised in PCSSD's motion to clarify the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993 and to grant to them "all relief to which they may be entitled". The referenced PCSSD motion, as it relates to the Court's orders of June 15, 1993 and July 14, 1993, deals with the issue whether the "savings" realized by the PCSSD from the previous refunding of its bonded indebtedness and the savings generated from its early retirement program are or should be available to the District to fund teacher raises this year. PACT has contended from the outset of the strike that the District should use its contingency fund, a fund generated by the savings realized by the refinancing of the debt and the early - retirement program, to fund raises to comply with the minimum salary law. In their memorandum also dated August 19, 1996, PACT contends that the Court should clarify its June and July, 1993 orders to declare that: "The savings may, in the discretion of the District, be used to increase teachers' salaries." Accordingly, the two central issues around which the strike seems to revolve are already before the District Court and the issues have been joined between the parties. Further, the District Court has already placed a mediator in place to resolve the disputes that may exist or may arise between and among the parties. In sum, PACT specifically intervened in the federal court action with regard to its negotiated agreement and it is respectfully submitted that all strike issues should be resolved by the District Court, particularly given the resources the Court possesses through the Office 4 of Desegregation Monitoring to evaluate any budget and revenue claims that may be advanced by either of the parties. The Negotiated Agreement Is Inconsistent With The Present Strike As a preliminary matter, it should be observed that Section 8, Item C of the negotiated agreement between the Board of Directors of the PCSSD and the PACT provides: "The parties agree that state and federal statutes and court orders are incorporated into this Agreement." (emphasis added). Accordingly, the parties explicitly recognize as part of their negotiations and agreement that the orders of this Court would be part of and control. The PCSSD declared impasse no later than August 26, 1996. Section 12 of the negotiated agreement sets forth the "impasse resolution procedure". It is clear from the structure of the impasse procedure -- which begins with mediation, continues with fact finding and ultimately places authority for a final decision with the Board -- that the agreement contemplates that all parties are working and that no job action is occurring when impasse is declared. Among other reasons, the status quo between the parties should be restored so that the impasse procedure can proceed in normal fashion which requires that the teachers return to work. Further, Article VI, Section 2A of the Agreement provides that: The Association agrees that the Board shall have the right to establish the work year and annual school calendar. Thereafter, certain provisions and conditions associated with establishing the calendar are set forth including days when school can be held and days when it cannot. Singularly absent 5 from the Agreement is any term which would support the proposition that the teachers are entitled to interrupt or change the work calendar by striking, when they explicitly recognize that the Board shall establish the working days. The teachers' publicly espoused position that raises can be funded from savings generated by the early retirement incentive program are specifically refuted by Article IX, Section 8 of the Agreement which explicitly recognizes that: The purpose of the early Retirement Incentive Program is to reduce District expenditures in order to build a reserve which will off set the cessation of State Desegregation Settlement Funds in 1995-96 and 1996- 97. As previously observed, this issue is presently and squarely before this Court and issue has been joined. Finally, any contention that the teachers are presently operating without the benefit of a contract is specifically refuted by Article XVII, Section 1 of the Agreement which provides: The Collective Bargaining Agreement after ratification by the Board and the Association shall be effective upon the signing by the President of the Board and the President of the Association and shall remain in effect until a successor a~reement is ne~otiated. (emphasis added). Ar~ument PACT sought, and w