The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT R ECEIVEr.APPELLANT v. NO. 96-3333 APR 1 4 1997 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF.71CE OF DESEGREGArior~ MONJTORit,GAPPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD's deadline for filing a petition for rehearing by the panel is April 14, 1997. Because of the time necessary for a public body such as LRSD to determine a course of action, and because of the press of business, LRSD requires additional time within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. 2. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of fourteen (14) days, to and including April 28, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-L.J.j-'T"-- sas Ba CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 11th day of April, 1997: 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 l:lhomo~J.at ~ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APR l 1 1~~7 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO ADD PARTIES For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Joshua Intervenors have asked this court for permission to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Police Department of the City of Little Rock. Joshua has not provided the court any authority to support the proposition that these parties can be brought into this case at this time. This court has found that "with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter." March 11, 1996 Memorandum and Order, p.a. The police department and the municipal court are not parties to the settlement agreement. Joshua has provided the court no basis for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 2. Joshua has not even discussed the issues inherent in asking a federal court to interfere with the operations of another court or a police department. This court should not consider adding parties without requiring more from Joshua. 3. The primary basis for Joshua's motion was the issuance by the municipal court of a standard "no contact order. " Joshua complains that the no contact order "effectively restrains a black school child from attending Hall High School." The no contact order has been amended to insure that the student who is the subject of the order will be able to attend classes at Hall High School without violating the order. Therefore, in addition to being unfounded, Joshua's motion is moot. 4 . A copy of the order amending the municipal court no contact order is attached to this response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's "Motion to Add Parties" should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B~~ Bar No. 81083 2 ------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of Little Rock School District's Response to Motion to Add Parties has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 11th day of April, 1997. 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 istopher 3 Ll<l'U UtltlJllVt UIV IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ST ATE OF ARKANSAS vs. NO. 97-2313 DANTE MILES ORDER TO AMEND NO CONTACT ORDER r. u~ l. It is ordered that the No Contact Order issued in the case of Dante Miles, defendant, in the name Patricia Bona, victim, be amended to state that Mr. !v1iles is authorized to go peacefully and directly past room 612 at Hall High School before and after third period in order to go to and from class. 2. This amendment does not alleviate Mr. Miles duty to refrain fro any contact with Patricia Bona. Approved as to Form and Acknowledged: Defense Attorney .. f':30 Time 04/02/97 WED 13:56 [TX/RX NO 6528) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HUIICHIEL H , F"IDAY (1822-1184. WILLIAM H. IUTTON, P . A . JAMEi W. MOOftE IY,.ON M . USEMAN. J"   , . A . JOIE 0. IElL. r.A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C , ECHOLS , , . A . JAMES A . IUTTRY, r . A .  ICIC 8 . U"SIERY , , . A . "ZELERE, r . A . C E. DAVIS, JR . P. A. , JA 8 C. CLA""-  JR ,, , . A . THOMAS,. , LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P . A . PAUL I . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LAftftY W. BURKS , P.A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR ., P . A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P. A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A. JAMES M. SAXTON, l' . A. J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P. A . OONA.LOH . IA.CON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS IAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON 11 , P. A . IA""y E. COPLIN , P.A . IUCHARO 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH B. HURST , JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY , P. A . CHftlSTOrHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. A . ROBERTS . SHAFER, P. A. WILLIAM M . GRIFFIN Ill, P.A . MICHAELS . MOORE, P. A. DIANE 6 . MACKEY , P. A . WALTER M . EBEL 111, P.A. lEVIN A . CRASS , P. A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A . Mr. Michael E. Gans 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-37e-2011 FAX NO. 601-37e-2147 April 22, 1997 RECEIVED APR 2 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING United States Court of Appeals U.S. Court & custom House 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Court of Appeals No. 96-3333 Dear Mr. Gans: SCOTT J , LANCASTER , P. A. M. GAYLE CORLEY , , . A . ROBERT 8 . IEACH, Jlll . , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P, , A . JAMES C . BAICER , JR ., P, ,A . HARRY A . LIGHT, P. A. SCOTT H. TUCKER , P. A . JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH . P. A . GUY ALTON WADE, P. A . PRICE C . GARONE", P. A . TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 , WILSON . P. A . JEFFREY H . MOORE. P. A . ANDREW T . TURNER, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . ALLISON GRAVES JONA.NH C . ROOSEVELT R. CHllllSTOPHEfl LAWSON GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRANC . HIClMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH r CLIFFORD W. PLUHlETT DANIEL l. HERRINGTON ALLISON J . CORNWELL TOOO A. GREER ELLEN M . OWENS OF COUNHL WILLIAM J . SMITH 8.8 . CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY . P. A . WILLIAM l. PATTON. JR , P. A . JUTEll"S OI IIECT NO. (601) 370-1606 I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock School District's Motion For Extension of Time in the above-referenced matter. CJH/k Enc. Yours very t Christ er. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT V. NO. 96-3333 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD requested and was granted an extension of time of fourteen ( 14) days to April 28, 1997 within which to file its petition for rehearing by the panel. It has now become necessary for LRSD to seek an additional four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997, within which to file its petition for rehearing. 2. This second request is necessary because of the unanticipated amount of time counsel has had to spend dealing with emergency issues which have arisen in the school desegregation case and due to the unanticipated amount of time counsel has lost in the aftermath of a traffic accident. 3. Mr. Sam Jones, counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District, has stated that he does not oppose this motion. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests an order extending the time within which it may file a petition for rehearing by the panel of four (4) days, to and including May 2, 1997. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 501/376-z.u,,H:--- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time has been served on the following on this 22nd day of April, 1997: 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 f:lbcmc~\3333.cxl 2 - FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. OIS,iliCT COURT EASTERN ~i:,TR iC 1 AA..; . .-,;.,SA:3 APR 2 2 1997 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 APR 2~ 1997 OFFICE oi:: DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District for summary judgment on the issues of state funding of the public school employee insurance program (health insurance matching), state funding for special education students, and loss funding. The State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, has responded to the motion, and other Arkansas school districts have joined in filing an amicus curiae response in opposition to the 2 9 6 7: motion. 1 Upon careful consideration of the motion, responses, statements of facts, briefs, and exhibits, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. I. In 1995, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Acts 917 and 1194, legislation that changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie 1995 Supp.) ("Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995"). Prior to 1996-97, the Arkansas Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). In addition, the State funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. See Arkansas Budget System, Agency Program Commentary for the 1997-1999 Biennium(" ABS") [Doc. 2896, Ex. C, p. 29]. Under the new funding scheme, no school district will receive money from the State specifically earmarked for health insurance matching. Also, State Equalization Funds are now distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (" ADM"), 1In reply to the State's response, the Pulaski County Special School District filed an additional affidavit of Donald Stewart [ doc. 2950]. The State filed a motion to strike the affidavit and for leave to file a sur-reply [doc. 2954]. The Court finds that the motion to strike should be granted. The Stewart affidavit serves only to point out differing interpretations of the new funding formula and raise questions of how the formula will operate. The State's motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied as moot. 2 equalized by the wealth of the district. Weighting for special education and loss funding is eliminated from the State Equalization funding formula. The three Pulaski County school districts urge the Court to find that these changes to the funding formula violate the desegregation Settlement Agreement. II. The Settlement Agreement obligates the State to continue to pay the settling districts "[t]he State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding." See Settlement Agreement II, 1 E. The Agreement also provides that the "State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate." See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. The Agreement goes on to state that "[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts." Id. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit held that direct state funding of workers' compensation costs is a "program" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement. It further held that the State's decision to change the law to require individual school districts to provide their own coverage did not violate the Settlement Agreement because it was an equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. The appellate court held that the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, "so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, 'fair and rational' and of 'general applicability.'" Id. at 1018. "So long 3 as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement." Id. The Eighth Circuit went on to hold, however, that when the State disbursed "seed money" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation insurance, the formula, which was based upon enrollment rather than number of employees, created a disparity between the Pulaski County school districts and other school districts. "This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It  funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner." Id. A. The three Pulaski County school districts move for summary judgment on the issue of state funding of health insurance, arguing that requiring them to pay health insurance costs from state equalization funding or local funds violates their desegregation Settlement Agreement with the State. For the same reasons the Court granted summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching, see doc. 2930, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment on the issue of funding of health insurance matching. This Court found that direct funding of teacher retirement matching contributions by the State was a program in existence at the time of the Settlement Agreement, and that funds for programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance, which under the old scheme were not a part of the funding formula but were distributed directly by the State, were included in state funds to be distributed according to the new formula. This Court further found that the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding scheme worked to, the detriment of the employee-heavy settling districts because they, to a certain extent, are not 4 in a position to control their teacher retirement costs due to the many added obligations under the settlement plans. Because of the settling districts' added obligations, this Court found that the new funding scheme, which does not consider the number of eligible employees, is not ufair and rational." While the State may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a ufair and rational" adjustment to the funding formula. B. Concerning the issues of funding for special education students and loss funding, the Court finds that summary judgment is not warranted. Under the old funding formula, the calculation for MFPA included add-on weights for various categories, including special education and loss funding. That weighting system has been eliminated and no district receives any identifiable money for special education or other high cost students or for loss funding'. The three Pulaski County school districts argue that because they have extraordinarily high special education expenses compared to other school districts, the new funding scheme is not fair and rational because it does nothing to recognize these costs or factor them into the formula. They also contend that they will suffer more from the elimination of loss funding because they lose students at a higher rate than other school districts. The settling districts argue that because the new funding scheme does not recognize . 5 the added costs of special education or loss funding, they are penalized unfairly and irrationally. The State says that under the new funding scheme, districts will continue to receive funding for the highest cost special education students, those requiring treatment at residential facilities. The State has historically reimbursed districts on a per diem basis equivalent to the actual charges made by these facilities. The new fund distribution method, the State says, as was the case under the distribution method in effect prior to the 1995 legislation, is a pure funding "pass through" in which residential treatment facilities do not bill school districts in excess of the amount of state funding provided to the district. The State, it appears, has determined to appropriate less money during the 1996-97 school year for this program, and has advised school districts that the reimbursement rate will be approximately $44.00 per day, down from average per diem reimbursement of $57.00 during the 1995-96 school year. The settling districts acknowledge that many institutions have reduced their charges to reflect this new rate; however, they express concern that this will be only a temporary arrangement and predict that the rate eventually will be raised. The Pulaski County districts also complain that elimination of weighting for special education students in determining formula funds violates the Settlement Agreement because they have a higher proportion of special education students. With regard to loss funding, depending on how the settling districts' M-to-M students are counted, which apparently has not been determined, the Pulaski County Special School District, for example, may or may not be eligible for growth funding. Student growth fundin& provides school districts additional funding for first quarter growth in the number of students 6 over the previous year's ADM. Act 917 retained student growth funding as a feature of state aid for districts with expanding enrollments. In addition, under Act 917, school districts' 1996-97 state aid is based upon the prior year's ADM, and thus there is a one-year adjustment period for districts with declining enrollment. See Wilhoit Dep., Ex. 2, ADE's Resp. Mot. Summ. J. Unlike teacher retirement and health insurance, where the costs for those programs are directly impacted by the obligations imposed by the desegregation settlement plans, the alleged disproportionately high number of special needs students in the settling districts is a circumstance that was not created by the settlement plans. Similarly, the loss or gain of students is not the result of obligations under the settlement plans. Further, it is unclear whether in these two areas the State has made an "adjustmenf to the funding formula which has "general applicability" which is "fair and rational adjustment. Even though the Settlement Agreement provides that the "State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, it also provides that "[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. See Settlement Agreement  II, 1 L. Thus, the Court finds that the evidence indicates there are unresolved questions of interpretation as well as questions about how the new funding formula will operate and how the settling districts will be impacted. Because the Court finds that there remain genuine issues of material fact in dispute, the motion for summary judgment on the issues of special educatio~ and loss funding is denied. 7 III. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [doc.# 2906] is granted as to health insurance and denied as to special education and loss funding. DATED this ~~ay of April 1997. ~ )Mi;;f~vr UNITED sii l)lsTRic 1unaE 8 ... ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us~,{ktJlRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASH:,,\; .::;s-:-;"~ c, AR,-.;,,,c:, "' WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 2 1997 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 OFFICE o:OESEGREGATIO:~ f!.OfJiTOh11 w.- Upon motion of the State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Education, the Court hereby orders that Special Assistant Attorney General Tim Humphries and Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger be, and are hereby substituted for Elizabeth Boyter Turner, as attorneys for the Arkansas Department of Education. Also before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors to add as defendants the Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department to which the Little Rock School District has filed a response.  I t ,  I I I I t I  t   t 2 9 6 8 The Little Rock Municipal Court and the Little Rock Police Department are not parties to the settlement agreement and the Joshua Intervenors have provided the Court with no authority for enforcing a consent decree against entities which are not parties to that decree. 1 In addition, it appears that the issue behind the filing of the motion is moot. . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to substitute attorneys [doc. 2964] is granted and the motion to add parties [doc. 2962] is denied. ~ DATED this # day of April 1997. 1The Court points out that while ServiceMaster Management Services was not a party to the settleme~t agreement, it asked the Court for leave to intervene in order to protect its contract rights. See doc. 2547. 2 APR 2 2 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURffiMl:S w. i,1cu.Jrti,1ALr-., CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By: -------;::D-;:;EP:;-:.C;::;LcE"RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEive~. APR 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONliORf fJG Notice is hereby given that the Joshua Intervenors do hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered on March - 24, 1997 (DOCKET NO.2959). Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-37i,-37 _/) ~ j " : By: \ ~ ~jt,7)(7~ Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby acknowledge that a document was sent to all counsel of copy of the foregoing th's 22nd day of April, 1997. Ye~ I J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 April 23, 1997 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Joshua Intervenor., Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 3/24/97 l\lemorandum Opinion and Order filed 9/23/96 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Waunzell Petre - Court Reporter - APR 2 ~ 1997 Off\CE Of DESEGREGA110N MONl10RING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION FILED UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. 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. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER U 5 DISTRICT COURT .,.., EASTERN DISTRICT ARKAN-APR 2 8 t991 JAMES~ORMACK. ClERK By: U{.~- ' ~ DEP Cl.RK No. LR-C-82-866 Before the Court is the motion for reconsideration filed by the Joshua Intervenors on February 21, 1997 to which the Pulaski County Special School District has responded. The Joshua Intervenors seek reconsideration of the Court's Order dated February 20, 199:7, in which the Court dismissed the Joshua Intervenors' motions to require ODM monitoring or in the alternative for the Pulaski County Special School District to show cause concerning a teacher at Oak Grove Elementary School. Upon consideration of the motion and response, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. In support of their motion, the Joshua Intervenors submit an exhibit which contains a number of letters and memoranda which they contend support to their contention that there are serious problems regarding the discipline of minority students in the PCSSD. The Joshua Intervenors ask the Court to direct the ODM to monitor the PCSSD's compliance with its discipline plan or, in the alternative, hold the PCSSD in contempt for violating its student discipline plan. In its response, the PCSSD has demonstrated its attention to and resolution of the specific conflicts about which the Joshua Intervenors complain. As stated in the February 20, 1997 Order, the Court believes these are matters that should be and are being addressed by the PCSSD. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (doc. 2940) is hereby denied. DATED this ~y of April 1997. '.22~ Jtlf&~ UNITED STADISCTGE 1141 m11EN'1 ENI ERED ON DOCKET a&T _. Calll"IJAIICE Willi AUlf 58 AN~ 7e{a) FRCP ~ - OM i--;; 8~qvz av ,~ <.. 2 - FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 9 1997 JAMES_ \fl. McCRRMACK, CLERK Br- v , Q:l~b I\ W 1\.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. 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 No. LR-C-82-866 RECE]VED APR 3 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OEl'CURI( Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorney's fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSD's motion. The , Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorney's fees. 2 9 7 0, The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Court's September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorney's fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSD's requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorney's fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to withdraw its motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSD's motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorney's fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that tire parties ..,._ are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2 finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorney's fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time ( doc. 283 7) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorney's fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order. 1 SO ORDERED this .,,2..i~ day of April 1997. n-ug DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~~ RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) f=ACP ON L 9J IY :et:: 1The resolution of the issue of attorney's fees will not defeat the LRSD' s right to refile its' motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Court's Order of December 27, 1996. 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY lt1221tl4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON, f' .A . JAMES W. MOOJU IYflOH M. EISEMAN. JR , , f' . A. JOE O. IELL, f' . A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, f' . A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES A. IUTTflY . f' . A. FREOEIIICIC S. UflSEIIY, f' . A . H. T. LAIIZHERE. f' .A. OSCAR . OAVIS. Jfl ., f' . A . JAMES C . CLARK, Jfl . , f' . A . THOMAS f' . LEGGETT . f' . A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON, f' . A . f'AUL I , IENHAM Ill, f' .A. LAlllltY W. IUflCS , f' . A . A. WYCCUFF NISl(T. JR ., f' . A . JAMES (OWAIIO HAIIRIS. f' . A . J . ,.HILLlf' MALCOM . ,. A . JAMES M. SIM,.SON, f' . A . JAMES M. SAXTON , f'.A . J . SHEPHEIIO flUSS(ll Ill.