Court Filings: District Court, depositions of Dr. Ruth Steele and Bobby Lester

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF FILING OF DEPOSITIONS OF DR. RUTH STEELE AND BOBBY LESTER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. The following documents are being filed and made a part of the record in the above-styled case: (a) Deposition of Dr. Ruth Steele, taken December 8, 1995; (b) Deposition of Bobby Lester, taken December 8, 1995. (:lbomolfoadloy\lnd\lnd-pul- Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 501/376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE served on the following counsel on this zJet1. day of ..,. _____,. ,-/ I certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadinFasbe en 19 tj(, Y 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 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 (:lbomo\fcndloy\lndllnd-pw.- ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al. V. No . LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA, et.al. KATHERINE w. KNIGHT, et.al. DEPOSITION OF DR. RUTH STEELE TAKEN IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 AT INSTANCE OF DEFENDANTS ********** APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF : CHRIS HELLER, ESQ. CLAY FENDLEY, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge and Clark 400 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: M. SAMUEL JONES, ESQ. Wright, Lindsey and Jennings 200 West Capitol AV Little Rock, AR 72201 ********** copy GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1 , 224-6409 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS CONTENTS APPEARANCES STIPULATIONS WITNESS SWORN EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE (SOIJ 224-6409 PAGE 1 3 4 4 27 2 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of DR. RUTH STEELE, produced, sworn and examined in the offices of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 10:10 a.m. on Friday, December 8, 1995 in the captioned cause at the instance of the counsel for the Defendants, said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed that all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimon of the witness at the time of trial as to responsiveness, competency, relevancy and materiality, other than those with respect to the form of the questions as propounded to the witness . GIBSONBRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THEREUPON, DR. RUTH STEELE having been called to testify, was duly sworn and testified as follows : EXAMINATION BY MR . JONES : Q A Q Who are you? Ruth Steele. Ruth, help me. Can you give me the dates in which you 4 became the Little Rock superintendent, and the date that you left? A Q A Q In July of 1989 and to June 30, 1992. And I trust Chris has told you why you're here? Yes. Okay. Before I get into the obvious questions, have you had occasion to review anything in writing to help you get ready for the deposition today? A A little bit of the settlement agreement, and some factual information that showed some budget . figures, and things of that nature. Q A Can you be more specific on the latter? I think it was a work-up sheet that was produced by someone at the Pulaski County School District, showing a scenario of M to M payments , and that sort of thing. Q Before you reviewed that recently, had you ever seen it GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or something like it? A Q No, I had not seen anything like that. Okay. Anything else that you can recall that you reviewed? A Q A Q A No. Any -- did you review anybody's testimony? No. Did Chris or anyone else summarize that for you? He talked a little bit about the - - no, I don't think not about anybody's testimony. Q A Or anybody's position, or anything like that? We just reviewed some general types of ideas, thoughts, 5 comments from -- that Don had made, that Chip had made just to kind of help me to recollect some of the things that were occurring around the time frame that we're talking about . Q What I want to ask you to do -- understanding that we're going to get down to late September of 1989 -- can you capsule for me your recollection of what was still an issue regarding the financial settlement with the state as we entered those hearings before Mr . Mccutcheon in late September of '89? A One of the issues had to do with the methods of funding for the interdistrict schools, and the problems about the actual payments, and how those would be handled. There had been a lot of prior issues over the release o GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE (S0IJ 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 6 funds whether or not there was actually an agreement that could be acted upon, based on the problems with the -- that we had with the legislature first approving it, and then the appropriations bill being struck, and then Nap Murphy losing his key, and then the third and final decision from the legislature about the capping the amount of money, and not really agreeing in substance to anything other than a cap, in terms of the money, except for those things which had already been agreed to, like the M to M money, and transportation, and that kind of thing. Q And as the hearings began, do you have a recollection of any issues that were still out there between the parties -particularly the county and Little Rock? A The discussions about the interdistrict schools. That was one of the things discussed. And then the discussion with the -- with Mccutcheon over whether or not there was an executable agreement, it seems to me were -- those were primarily the things that I remember being an issue then. Q Do you remember anything occurring during the course of those hearings that prompted the parties to engage in furthe negotiations? A I remember there was a -- there was a room that we -- several of us were coming in and out. There was an issue over the funding of the interdistrict schools and the poolin of the -- how that would work. And there were some GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - discussions between Chris and you, and others that you were engaged in some discussion around, around that. And the -- primarily that's what I recall was going on at that particular time. Q Do you recall any specifics at all about pooling -where the term came from, what it meant -- anything like that? 7 A What I understood that it meant was that the money would be -- that would be forthcomi ng from the state in terms of the sending and receiving districts, and the amount that would be contributed, that would be pooled; and that that would be used -- that pooled money would be used for the education of students attending the interdistrict schools. And that's what -- and that the amount that would be spent would be equalized so that no students from either district would be penalized in terms of a per pupil expenditure that would be identified for them as they attended those schools, in the event that two were eventual! established one in Little Rock and one in Pulaski County . Q Do you have any recollection of why pooling came into existence? A It's -- my recollection is that it came into existence because we were attempting to establish, based on the magnet school model, that there would be an equitable, same amount of money that would be spent in the interests of furthering GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 desegregation to those types of schools. That's what I recall. Q- I take it, then, that you do not have any recollection 8 that would involve settling an issue, like who got what part of the funds the state was willing to provide? A Well, the sending district was to receive -- or was to contribute half its table rate. And the host district was to receive the full cost of educating the child, is what I remember about the distribution of the money; and that the $200,000 per year that Pulaski County was going to get for a five - year period would be contributed toward that pool. Q Do you have any recollection of why the county was going to contribute $200,000 a year? A The only thing that I remember is that there were some difference in the amount of money per pupil that the county expended in educating its students, as compared with what Little Rock was spending to educate students; and that that amount of money was perhaps going to be used for that purpos to equalize all of that, as a 'part of that . Q Let me just try kind of a general question . Is there anything else that you can recall being either debated or resolved in that room outside of the court room during the course of those hearings? A There were, as I recall from the discussions, there wer there was agreement as to the fact that the interdistrict GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 schools would be funded along the same general types of procedures as the magnet schools. There would be a per pupil amount established. There would be equalized funding, which would come from the pool that was generated through funds from Little Rock and from Pulaski County. And that the application of that would be for all of the students that were attending the interdistrict schools, not simply those sent or received; but that that would apply to the total student population in the interdistrict school. And I think that's reflected in the subsequent paragraphs that were added to the September version of the settlement agreement, which I think is dated a day or so after the hearing that we had with Mr. Mccutcheon. Q And I didn't bring the thing with me. But -- is that it, Chris? MR. HELLER: Yeah. BY MR. JONES: Q Ruth, may I just look at that, and identify it, for the record the paragraph that you're referrlng to. A I think they're on pages 11 and 12. They're paragraph '0' and 'P' of the revised agreement. Q Let me just glance at that. After these hearings ended, do you have any recollection of reducing to writing yourself anything that was discussed or agreed to in those negotiatin sessions that took place during the hearings? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 A Are you asking if I wrote anything, or if I have any recollection of anyone writing anything? Q A Yes. I don't recall when that was done, or how that was done. I did not write anything. Q Okay. Do you recall if you took any notes during those negotiating sessions? A I probably did because I usually always did . But I don't have any idea where they are. But I'm just sort of a note-taker, so I probably wrote some things down at some point. But I don't have them, as far as I know because I've gone through a lot of files since then. Q That would have been the kind of thing that you would have left at the district, or taken with you -- if you know? A I don't know. I took a lot of things home. And -- but there were just volumes and tons of stuff, as you know. And I have no idea where any of that might be -- probably in my rough notes that I took with me. But I wouldn't have any idea whether I saved them or not. Q After those hearings concluded in September of '89, do you have any recollection of the pooling matter coming to your attention or being anything that you were working on, o directing anyone to work on any time before you left in June of '92? A There were some discussion about that with Chip Jones GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE f 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 and Herb Cleek. And I did not work directly with that, except to -- my concern was always that you make sure that the students who move from our district to Pulaski County are not shortchanged in terms of any per pupil expenditure that were being spent for them; and that the pattern of funding for the interdistrict schools would be similar to that of the magnet schools, not necessarily in terms of the exact amount, but that there would be an amount identified that would be spent for the students who attended those schools. And my concern was that we would not want our kids to be going to the Pulaski County School District, and receiving less per pupil in any kind of significant way, other than what they had received and would have received had they stayed with us. Q Other than that recollection, do you have any recollection or knowledge of any work or analysis that Mr. Cleek or Mr. Jones may have done, . either during your tenure or thereafter? A I don't recall seeing anything in writing that they produced. Q We can look at some of the language -- the paragraph '0,' page 12 of the agreement, the particular sentence that says, 11The instructional budgets of the interdistrict school will be equalized." Let me ask you first, in 1989, if I had GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE f 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 asked you in that room what an instructional budget was, what would you have told me? A I would have told you that that included, to my knowledge, everything except transportation and capital outlay. That's generally what I think the state understood a per pupil expenditure to mean. That would have been instructional costs, excluding generally those two items building buildings and transportation. Q Since we all know that at one time you headed the State Department of Education, could you direct me at all to any document or book, or anything like that, out there that woul use the term 'instructional budget;? A I don't think that that term was used, though I think the term 'per pupil expenditure' was used, which has typically been understood to be synonymous generally with th term 'instructional budget.' And that appears, as I recall, in the document that's produced yearly by the state that compares districts throughout the state in a number of ways. And one of those is on the basis of per pupil expenditure. And I think that that term is defined perhaps in the front o that book, or somewhere. Or it's been generally understood to mean instructional costs, or the cost of educating the child that's spent on a district basis. Q Do you have any idea, then, why the settlement GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 50 I J 224-6409 ]. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J.0 ]. ]. J.2 J.3 - J.4 J.5 J.6 ]. 7 ]. 8 J.9 20 21. 22 23 24 25 J.3 agreement used the expression 'instructional budget,' rather than 'per pupil expenditure'? A No, I don't know why that term would have been used particularly. I can't really say other than to limit it from capital outlay and transportation, which were of course big issues to the state in terms of not being included in the calculation of that cost. Q One of the things Chris and I have been puzzling over is trying to figure out who wrote this language. Do you know? A No. Q Do you recall being shown it during, or shortly after the conclusion of the hearing? A I don't recall when I saw it first. You know, we went over the settlement agreement several different times, and under several different -- for several different reasons. And I don't really recall the first time that I saw the language. Q Do you recall reviewing it before your board president signed off on it? A I don't recall. Q Do you believe that the language in paragraph '0' is inconsistent with your recollection of what was agreed to an anticipated? A No, I don't think that it's inconsistent with what I agreed to at all. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Q Does the term 'operating budget' mean anything to you? A Yes. Q What does that mean? A Well, it means that that's the budget that's used to pay for the day to day operations -- general types of operations -- of the district. It would not include, as I recall -- and again, I'm talking from memory here. It would not include perhaps some fixed categories of funds that woul be set aside for various purposes that would not be considered as part of the day to day operational needs of the district. Q So then, operating budget or operations budget would not be equivalent to per pupil expenditure? A However, I think it's very much included in a per pupil expenditure. Per pupil expenditure would be a part of, I would think, the operating budget of the school district . Q But an operating budget is something that is more inclusive than per pupil expenditure? A It might, but I don't know how to -- I don't recall ho to break down the category exactly. But it might be more tha that. But I don't -- I'd have to give that some thought in terms of what specific categories might be included. I just haven't thought about it in awhile . Q Other than your recollections, have you been asked to give any kind of professional opinions in this hearing? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 A No. Q You did review some work sheets that you understand were prepared by someone at the county. Do you have any reaction to those? A The reaction that I had was that the work sheets as I viewed them were not consistent with what I understood to be the intent of paragraphs '0' and 'P' from the September version of the settlement agreement. Q Okay. Chris, I'll need to explore that if you're going to really get into that with Ruth -- if you're going to get into methodology, and all that . MR. HELLER: I did not inten? to get into methodology with Ruth, other than her understanding of what the terms of the settlement agreement meant . I'll probably talk to Don and Chip about the methodology, and whether or not that reflects our position on what the settlement agreement means. But I don't expect to have Ruth work through the work sheets and talk about methodology . BY MR. JONES: Q Then let me just ask her this question. What was it as you reviewed those that seemed to be inconsistent with pooling? A The inconsistency, seems to me was that the calculation did not reflect attention to all of the students in the interdistrict schools, but only those who were M to M GIBSON-BRANTON RE PORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 transfers, so that what you would have would be a situation where an amount of money would be spent on some students that would not be spent on others in the pool. The intent of the pooling, as I understood it, was to make sure that all the students who attended the interdistrict schools, whether M to M transfers or not would be given the same amount per child -- per pupil expenditure per child in those schools . Q Let me ask you this. What's the state of your knowledge about how those interdistrict schools are being funded today , and what has been spent at the schools? A I don't know, because I don't know Apart from the agreement to -- for the sending district and the receiving district, and the amount that's contributed, and the $200,000 per year by Pulaski County, I have to assume that that's par of the issue . So I don't really know exactly how they're being funded at this particular time. Q I want to make sure that I understand your testimony. Let's take Crystal Hill Elementary School . . Do you have any information that any child at Crystal Hill that may from the county is having more or less spent on his or her education there than a child that transferred to Little Rock. A I don't have any information about that. I would have to look at a school budget to see, I suppose, how that would work. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q If you've got 340 kids from Little Rock there, and 380 kids from the county there, and they're all in the same programs, would you give me a hypothetical about how more might be spent on the county kids versus the Little Rock kids? 17 A Well, the issue, I think has to do with the kids who are there who are not M to M transfers, but who would be attending the school anyway, so that the amount per child would be equalized for all of the kids who are in attendance at the school. And that I think is one of the issues, is that we didn't anticipate in the agreement that there would be a difference in the amount per child in a school so that the pool would be created by virtue of the process of sendin and receiving districts, and the pool of money from Pulaski County. I may not be answering your question. MR. HELLER: Sam, maybe I can help. Ruth's testimony wasn't that the problem might be that different amounts would be spent on Little Rock kids versus Pulaski County kids in a Pulaski County school; but that less might be spent on all the kids in a Pulaski County school versus a Little Rock school. MR. JONES: Yeah, and I thought she said both . That's why I was exploring the form of it. If you will stipulate that's not what she was trying to tell me, I'll ge GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE fSOIJ 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 on to something else. MR. HELLER : Well, you can probably ask her that, but that was my understanding of the testimony. THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right. BY MR. JONES: Q So what Chris said is right? You'll have to say, "yes," for the record . A Yes. Q All right . Let's go, then, to comparing any county school, interdistrict, to any Little Rock school , interdistrict. Do you have any information or knowledge that any of the county interdistrict schools are spending less than any one of the Little Rock interdistrict schools? A I don't have information about that. I ' ve not looked at anything that would show any kinds of comparison. Q We introduced quite a few exhibits in the on the first day that we had of the pooling hearing . To your knowledge, with the exceptions of work sheets of the county, have you seen any of those? A Now, when you're talking about the pooling hearing, which one are you referring to? Q Well A Date-wise? Q Well, the one we had a couple of months ago. A So your question is what, again? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q To your knowledge, except for work sheets from the county, have you been shown, or have you seen any of the exhibits that were introduced at that hearing? A No. Q I take, then, you have not seen any correspondence or 19 memoranda that may repose in a file of the Little Rock School District? A No . Q I'll have to ask Chris. Do you anticipate between now and -- when do we go back -- Thursday? MR. HELLER: Thursday. MR. JONES: Showing her any of that? MR. HELLER: Well, as I recall, Sam, none of that correspondence was directed to her. MR. JONES: after she left. MR . HELLER: Oh no, she -- I think it all started I don't anticipate doing that. But if there's something that you want to ask her about correspondence -- MR. JONES: MR. HELLER: Well, I hate to drag it all out. Well, I think beyond the types of things she's testified on here already, there's nothing that correspondence that I would ask her about that is beyon the opinions that she has given so far this morning. [Whereupon parties went off the record.] GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [Back on the record.] BY MR. JONES : Q We can go back for a few minutes to the negotiations 20 that were occurring in September of '89, and I want to rule out some things unless some of this jogs your memory . I take it you have no recollection of the county and Little Rock being involved in a scenario where there was two million dollars left that the state was going to provide. And the issue came down to who's going to get what part of that. Let's stop right there. Does any of that ring any bells? A In terms of the discussion that went on at that time about that? Q Yeah. A I don't recall except that it was there. And no, I don't recall any detailed discussions about that at all. Q Do you remember the figure two million dollars being mentioned? Is that a yes? A Yes sorry. Q And this may not be important, but do you remember who on behalf of the Little Rock district agreed to the pooling concept? A I can't recall exactly how that came about. I think there was some. discussion of that with Herb Cleek, with Chip, with the state, with you and Chris. But where the idea GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (SOIJ 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 21 originated in whose head -- I really don't recall. Q Yeah. Right now I'm beyond that and asking you when it was on the table, after it had been discussed, do you recall who on behalf of the Little Rock School District approved it? A No, I don't remember. Q Could it have been someone other than you? A I doubt that anyone on my staff -- I'm certain that if the idea originated from Herb or from James Jennings, or fro Chip, or from all three, that they would have communicated it to me, explained it to me, and that I would have agreed to it. But in terms of anything beyond that, I don't recall. Q I'm just kind of curious. You include both paragraphs '0' and 'P,' as being somehow pertinent to the pooling issue. What does 'P' have to do with it? A It's just one of the ones that got added, that was not in the March agreement. Q Okay. A It really doesn't have any relevance, other than it was just one of the ones that was added that made that document little different from the earlier document. Q I've never gone back and compared them. Do you even have old drafts? MR. HELLER: I've got the March agreement. And I can tell you that the last paragraph in that section in the March agreement was probably 'M,' rededicated millages. GIBSON-BRANTON Rf PORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: 22 Ah, yes . What I -- I don't think this really matters. But it looks to me like section '0' was probably just added to. It looks like this first part was probably agreement. probably it had to have been in the original MR. HELLER : I don't think so. MR . JONES: Yeah, you're right, because that's wha that was one of my fusses. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. BY MR . JONES : Q Ruth, I think you touched on this. And you may have answered it fully and I've just forgotten. Do you have any recollection during those hearings -- before those hearings -- of the county taking the position that the receiving district for an M to M student should receive state payments that would be made to the sending district? A What I recall is that the sending district would receive half the table rate. The receiving, _or host district would receive the full cost of educating the child. That's what I remember. Q Well, do you remember the county taking the position that that ought to change? A No. Q Okay. So I take it, then, having no recollection of th county taking that position, that you do not have a GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE (501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 recollection that one of the reasons pooling came about was to resolve that issue? A Well, my recollection about pooling is that it was done to create just simply that -- a pool of money through which spending could be equalized for the students in the interdistrict schools. That was the purpose of it, as I understood it and as I recall it. But I don't remember the county taking a position about that particular part of it . Q Understanding that, do you have any recollection or explanation of why something like section '0' was not in the original agreement? A Well, other than the fact that it hadn't been fully determined how this was going to work at that point. And that was one of the things that, I suppose, we had not come to agreement on fully at that point, or it had been overlooked - - one or the other . Q And I had forgotten this. I guess when we started that process, you were representing the state . And when we ended that process, you were representing Little Rock. A Yeah, things were on kind of a fast track there for awhile. Q Do you have any recollection of any time of instructing Chip Jones to evaluate the settlement agreement with the state for any possible changes to propose? A To negotiate with the state? GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE ( 501 J 224-6409 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Q Or to even just think about it, to make a recommendation to do that? A I think that there was some -- some feeling at some point -- and I'm trying to recall the sequence of dates. When we got the approval from the Eighth Circuit -- the final approval -- was it December of '90? Q Right. A That there was some suggestion again, this is very far back in my memory -- that there might be the opportunity to talk about with the parties some changes that might make the plan more workable. And I don't remember issuing Chip a directive to do that. But I remember talking about certainl exploring whatever avenues we could to make sure that we had a workable agreement. I don't recall suggesting any kinds o changes in the agreement with regard to the interdistrict school. Q I understand you're doing consulting-type work these days? A [witness nods head up and down.] Q Just out of curiosity, can you give me some examples of what you're doing and for whom? A I'm primarily working in the area of curriculum development, and in grant writing -- school districts and co-ops -- ranging all the way from early childhood education to professional development, and helping districts write GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r so 1J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 curriculum based on the requirements of Act 236. And that's primarily what I've done. Some staff development, and some areas like authentic assessment and dimensions of learning -- things like that. Q I think this happened after you left, but let me ask you anyway. Do you have any recollection of being involved in appointing people to any committees that may have been set up to consider curriculum themes for interdistrict schools? A No. Q Do you have a recollection that that was to be done at some point in time? A I think it -- I think yes, I can say that. I don't recall exactly when or how, but we did that with regard to there was a lot of discussion, for example, with regard to themes in the incentive schools. So it would make sense tha at some point there was some discussion about that with regard to the interdistrict schools. Q I think I asked you if you talked to Chris, or anyone else -- I just want to make sure. I take it you have not discussed the pooling issue with Chip Jones? A No. Q Did Chris ask you to look through anything -- A Wait, let me back up. Do you mean in relationship Q Recently? A No. GIBSON-BRANTON REPORTING SERVICE r 50 I J 224-6409 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q 26 Has Chris or anyone else asked you to look through your papers to -- to look to see if there is anything about pooling in your papers? A Not that I recall, no. Q And I think I asked you this, and just out of your own curiosity, have you looked through any of