District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of plan development period; District Court, order; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, motion; District Court, brief in support of motion; District Court, order; District Court, response to Knight et al.'s motion; District Court, objections of the Joshua intervenors to the proposed 1996-97 budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring; District Court, motion to withdraw pleading; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for the approval of a plan development period; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion to request Office of Desegregation Monitoring monitoring or, in the alternative, for Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) 1998 program planning and budgeting tool; District Court,Amicus Curaie's response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court,Amicus Curiae's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material and undisputed facts on the issue of teacher retirement matching; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, 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.  12 D: 1996 16 : 51 FROM JOHN W. WAL~ ER P . A. TO :::;- 10100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEL U 2. 1996 EAST~E~~~I~vi!I~SAM~ES 'r'v. 1v1t.vvn111nvr., \;LERK By: -------- LI TTL E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIMB OEP CLERK The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order extending to them the same time as requested by the Arkansas Department of Education in which to file a response to the Office of Desegregation proposed 1996-97 budget. For its motion, Joshua states: 1. Due to trial in Texarkana, Arkansas before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes and absence from the city on Thanksgiving, plaintiff did not formally meet the response deadline herein. 2. The Joshua Intervenors have previously advised the ODM that ODM's budget was too low and asked the ODM to bring their position to the attention of the Court. 3. There is no prejudice to any party by granting the motion to extend the time or to file our of time. WBBRBPORB, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter an order allowing them until Oecelllber 13, 1996 in p . 0.:: 12 02, 1995 16 : 52 FROM JOHN W. WALI EP P . A. TO 3 71 0100 - which to respond to the ODM budget request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 certificate of Service I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile to all counsel of record on this 2nd day of December, 1996. P . 03 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER r~~~ :;-~~\ 11~ . ;:~~  ; 1.~~ ,; .,; J; ... 7;-,.,:7 :_: :_::J~T [i,~T~~~i G.$--;-:r_:-: 1 ,\r~:A,~SAS Before the Court are the motions of the Arkansas Department of Education (" ADE") for _ extensions of time to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852) and to respond to the motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching (see docket entry 2862). The motions (docket entries 2871 & 2873) are granted. The ADE has until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file its objections and response to the motion for summary judgment No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1996. 1/ l/, )ii:'~i;\ r ~-HS Q~)C~J~/:f:i!T t:i\JT~1EQ r:~~ ~(::..:i-<ET Sr.E:=- 1i -: -~.t~,1?LL\~~C~ \~  ,TH :7U:..'.= :.; ;\;O/OR 79{c.} rsc:=- 'JN ~/3 /f 0 BY _kt~~-- ~-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RE: ~ a ~. l! ""'"' -. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL _;1::. y -  .. DEC ~ 1996 DEFENDANTS Office of Dese~rsgat1011 :.ion1tonnfINTERVENORS  -- I'NTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD - could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan mod if ica tions. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ( "ODM") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within - the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This - plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM moni taring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD' s approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline r:-~.,,..... 2 issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current - LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; to redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues; and, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-_2_0_1_1 __ _ BY: 3 Christopher Hell John c. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop~y depos~a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of~~ , 1996. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 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. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 1.stopher Helle John C. Fendley, Jr. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC (, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 1996 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Moni!oririiJ INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: (A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, "We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the 1:-\fmdlcyllnd~ PCSSD. 11 Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved - modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts - by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD; by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 1The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 14i3, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified a myriad of changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) ("Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered."). f:lhomolfclldloyllndlbri-1JWUlov 2 budget development, staff development, student assignment and - resolution of discipline issues; and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. f:lbomolbdloy\lodlbri-plaLdcv Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-~2~01=1.,___ BY: C. Fen 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peo(5"7}PY depos~g~ of same in the United States mail on this day of~ , 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 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. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:lbomolfeadlcyllndll,rl.plan.dcv 4 - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRDER F~lED U.S. OISTi:ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC O G 1996 JA~~ES ! ~C{lRMACK, CLER!( By. \L \~\..{AA .. QA DEP CLERK " DEC ~ 1996 Offics of Desegregation Monrrori~ Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in , which to file objections to the 1996-97 ODM budget (see docket entry 2852). The motion is granted. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including December 13, 1996, within which to file their objections. SO ORDERED this rf1''-- day of December 1996. ,7 'u 2 8 7 7 RECE DEC 1 1 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -~ ,, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED US DISTRICi COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 1 0 1996 JAME$ ~CORMACK, CLERK By:\/. ~\,V\~ OEP CL.fRI( Before the Court are the motions of the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") and the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") seeking attorney's fees and costs in connection with their efforts to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the State of Arkansas. Having carefully considered the motions, affidavits, responses, and briefs, the Court finds that the motions should be granted. I. In the summer of 1994, the moving parties challenged actions by the State of Arkansas which had the effect of reducing the amount of state funds the three Pulaski County school districts receive for funding workers' compensation claims and for "loss funding," claiming the State was in violation of the Settlement Agreement. The parties also challenged the State's establishment of a statewide computer network which they claimed would not facilitate desegregation in the three Pulaski County school districts. The Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding that funding of workers' compensation by the State is a "program" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and that the State must J disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Counry Special School Distria, # 1, 83 F. 3d - 1013, 1918 (8th Cir. 1996). The circuit court also held the district court correctly ordered the State to exclude M-to-M transfer students from ADM in the loss-funding formula. Id. With respect to the statewide computer network, the Eighth Circuit reversed this Court's order which directed the State to pay the three Pulaski County districts an amount equivalent to what the State would spend on any other educational cooperative. Id. The PCSSD and the LRSD seek fees pursuant to Ark.Code Ann.  16-22-308, 28 U.S.C.  1920 as well as 42 U.S.C.  1988. The ADE urges that the districts are not entitled to fees under either state or federal law. The Court finds that the districts are entitled to fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. 2 II. Title 42 United States Code Section 1988 provides that the Court may allow the prevailing party in a civil rights action a reasonable attorney's fee as a part of the costs, and the Eighth Circuit has directed the award of attorney's fees pursuant to  1988 in connection with the compliance phase of this case. See Liule Rock School Disrrict v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, the Court has directed the State to pay attorney's fees to the Joshua Intervenors in connection with their efforts to reinstate the Arkansas State Department of Education as a party defendant in this case. See docket entry 2045. The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorney's fees awarded under 1988. Winter v. Cerro Gordo County Conservation Board, 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. - 1991). "The number of hours to be awarded to a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C.  1988 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. 'The trial judge should weigh the hours claimed against [her] own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required to complete similar activities."' Gilbert v. Little Rock, 867 F.2d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812 (1989) (citations omitted). The usual procedure used in calculating attorney's fees is to compute the base 'lodestar' figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended times the lawyer's regularly hourly rate. Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982). After careful review of the pleadings, the Court finds that PCSSD should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $28,854.50. 1 The LRSD 1This figure represents an hourly rate for M. Samuel Jones of $110.00 during 1994 and $135.00 during 1995-1996; an hourly rate for Angell Jones of $55 .00 during 1994 and $75 .00 during 1995-96; and an 3 should be awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $42,520.002 and costs in the amount of $563.32. III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the PCSSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2757] and supplemental motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2819] are granted. The PCSSD is awarded $28,854.50 in attorney's fees. The LRSD's motion for attorney's fees and costs [docket entry 2797] is granted. The LRSD is awarded $43,083.32 in attorney's fees and costs. A DATED this _LfL day of December 1996. ~-~~~ UTED STA ESDISTRicT DGE hourly rate for Valerie Bryant of $40.00 during 1994 and $55.00 during 1995-96. The total hours for both M. Samuel Jones and Valerie Bryant were reduced by .8 and 5.6, respectively, because of lack of success on the APSCN issue. 2This represents an hourly rate of$ 160.00 for Christopher Heller and an hourly rate of $100.00 for Clay Fendley. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC!f~J?~~.::.:: EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARNANSAS-;:;1l, ,\ ... I\\, , - ~ WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 0 1996 JAMES W McCOR~,lACK. CL::.;-,K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. DEC f : 1996 KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. MOTION DEFENDAi TS INTERVENORS Il''TERVEI\'ORS Katherine Knight. et al., by and through their attorneys. ROA.CHELL LAW FIR.\1. for their i:{otion, state: 1. Effective September 3, 1996, the Court ordered striking teachers of PCS SD back to work as a result of a motion filed by PCSSD. The Court also ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a mediator for that purpose. Since the appointment of the mediator, the main issue in dispute between the teachers and the district, salaries, has not been resolved. In fact, there has been almost no movement by PCSSD with regard to salaries. 2. The PCSSD approved and submitted to the Court its tentative 1996-97 budget in August of 1996. 3. Since the submission of the PCS SD tentative 1996-97 budget to the Court, PCS SD has created new line items in its budget and increased tentative budget line items without C authorization by the Court expending monies that could have been used for negotiations for teachers' salaries. The district. however, continues to maintain that it does not have the necessary funds for an increase in teachers' salaries. At each monthly board meeting, the board re\iews a monthly financial report of the district prepared by administrators. The budgeted amounts on the monthly financial reports change each month from the proposed 1996-97 budget submitted to the Court. The board votes to adopt the financial report which amends the budget without approval of the Court and authorizes expending monies that could be used for salary negotiations with PACT. 4. The reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksomille Junior High South was not a line item in the tentative 1996-97 budget PCSSD submitted to the Court. In November, 1996, the board voted to retain architects which item was not budgeted and there are likely other expenditures from the 1996-97 budget that will be related to the reconfiguration to be - paid for from the 1996-97 budget which could be used for salary negotiations. Although it is the infonnation and belief of PACT that these budgeted expenditures for the Jacksonville reconfiguration come primarily from capital outlay, such funds have consistently been off limits to the district in negotiating salary increases. Other costs for the reconfiguration from the 1996-97 PCSSD budget will not be paid from capital outlay funds which could be used to negotiate an increase in teacher salaries. 5. The actions of the PCS SD stated herein and more fully in the brief accompanying show that PCSSD has been negotiating with PACT in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Knight et al Intervenors prays that the Court order the PCSSD Board of Directors to refrain from taking action on any matter that would increase a budgeted line item or add 2 new line items to that budget for budget expenditures except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement with PACT has been reached. ~~b~Q_j_ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December 10, 1996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roachell FILED Us DISTRICT C1..,URT EASTEciN DISTRIC_T ARl\-"IN$AS DEC 1 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CK Cl >="K EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANS,~ \\I McCOm.\A   __ n WESTERN DIVISION 8r ~=::,_ c!..c::::K LlTTLEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO1FJ r;,:z DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. d, r'J ' /.~ ":~:= :".: ",\, .,. -:- ~ ~ ,:::;.. ....:,;,z ~ ~I ~  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. -,. DEC 1 @ 1996 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION~ - PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I TERVE oRS After a full day of court proceedings. the Court ordered striking PCSSD teachers back to work effective September 3, 1996 upon Motion filed by PCSSD. The Court ordered the parties to mediate and appointed a federal mediator for that purpose. To this date, there has been no settlement with regard to salaries, the main dispute between the parties. PCSSD has consistently led the Court and the public to believe that it does not have sufficient funds to settle its labor dispute with regard with PACT. In August 1996, PCSSD submitted to the Court its tentative budget for the 1996-97 school year. Recently, the district has posted to hire personnel to fill nine (9) coaching positions which were not reflected in the budget or approved by the Court. Although the addition of some of these coaches was ostensibly for the purpose of complying with Title VII requirements, the district did not seek permission from the Court and has not shown PACT that such expenditures of monies not in the budget were absolutely necessary. See attached Exhibit "A." Further, the district prepares a monthly financial report which is presented by the administration to the board at each regular monthly meeting to show where the district is in its financial condition. The board then adopts the monthly financial report which in effect amends the budget. The budgeted amounts in many budget categories change from month to month and are different than the proposed budget submitted to the Coun. In general, each month the budget figures increase. In as much as the district is spending far more money than it budgeted and the proposed budget figures were used in contract settlement negotiations, it appears that the district is spending money from sources which could be used to settle its labor dispute. See attached Exhibit "B" which is a recapitulation of the monthly financial repons from July 31, 1996, through September 12, 1996. - It should be noted that the total budget of the district as well as the funds themselves continue to mcrease. The Court approved earlier in 1996 the reconfiguration of Jacksonville Junior High North and Jacksonville Junior High South. It should be noted that the cost of such reconfiguration is not reflected in the tentative budget submitted to the Court. However, monies from the 1996-97 budget will be used to partially fund the reconfiguration. See attached Exhibit "C." Certainly, some expenditures will come from the district's capital outlay. For instance, in November 1996, the board voted to retain architects which was not in the budget. Also, it is reasonable to assume that the 1996- 97 budget will require the expenditure of monies for supplies and materials and other costs in connection with the reconfiguration. In addition, the potential additional allocation of personnel for training; substitute costs, and overtime will be paid from the 1996-97 budget which will create 2 increases in expenditures from the salary fund and the general fund not reflected in the budget presented to the Court. These monies could be used to fund a settlement of the labor dispute within the PCSSD. In contract negotiations, for example, one of PACT's submitted proposals was for a modest $100,000 of the amount required to settle the labor dispute to come from interest on the building fund which the district has steadfastly refused since the Court ordered the teachers to return to work. See PACT Fact Sheet attached as Exhibit "D." Such monies could be used to settle the labor dispute between PCSSD and PACT. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Coun should order the district not to take action on any matter that would increase any budgeted line item in its tentative budget as submitted to the Court or add new line items to that budget except upon orders of the Court and until a contract settlement has been reached with PACT. 3 ~tfully submitted, "-~4~ Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar o. 78132 ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roache!!, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on December I 0, I 996 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P. A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, .A..R 7220 I Richard W. Roache!! TO: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Board of Directors 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216-8601 (501) 490-2000 THOROUGH: Bobby G. Lester, Superintendent of Schools FROM: QrJ"'Ronnie Higgins, Director of Athletics RE: DATE: ~...l_ry Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel /_j~~ly Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Assistant Coach Allocations November 12, 1996 Renresentative senior high principals, girls basketball coaches, and boys basketball coaches met with us on October 27, 1996 to discuss perceived inequities in the allocation of assistant coaches. After reviewing the District's current regulations on the number of coaches assigned to each sport and Title IX guidelines, we make the following recommendation. In an effort to provide for equitable allocation of assistant coaching staff, we recommend that the Board approve an allocation formula which requires an assistant coach in boys basketball, girls basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, boys track, and girls track when there are twenty (20) student participants. If a team has twenty (20) participants at the end of a athletic season, the assistant coach allocation will be implemented for the following school year. Teams with less than twenty (20) participants will lose the assistant coach allocation until such time as the number of participants reaches twenty (20) participants. The determination of twenty (20) participants will be made by the coach of that particular sport and approved by the secondary principal who will submit recommendations for coaching allocations to the Director of Athletics and Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services. When it is determined that the number of participants has fallen below twenty (20) participants, it shall be the responsibility of each principal to notify the Director of Athletics and the Director of Certified Personnel by April 20. If approved by the Board, this allocation is projected to increase the budget by approximately $9,000 for the 1996-97 school year and an additional $30,000 for the 1997-98 school year. - - i ! !/ i i I I ,J I :/ I ' I i I i ' ' I ! !I I/ ! I ,! ' ;I 1996 - 1997 PCSSD FINANCIAL REPORT "BUDGET AMOUNTS" T ; =--=-"= =- -=.,=-= ==-=---c ~-==- __ ;---- --- -- -- DATE UY""Fiti~fltt Rfrv~I I I I I I FUND I I . Fund 1000 j Fund I ~ Fund 2000 2900 1 GRANO TOT AL .J ,j ~ I I .l j I 7/31/96 :1 8/31 /96 ,, I 9/12/96 I 51051512 51710451 51253200 ;/ 95852533 ~1400885~ 1035185