Court filings concerning motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA), petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the PCSSD,

District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of its motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) petition for award of attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendant; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fee petition; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Joshua intervenors' comments on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Joshua proposed finds of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce the settlement agreement as regards minimum foundation program aid (MFPA); District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion to defer consideration of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; 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. ' .. .. ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS SEP 9 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS OfflCE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~CGATimHtiOi11TORING INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA The PCSSD for its Motion states: 1. The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had, and is having, upon the PCSSD. 2. Exhibit A to this Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. 3. This exhibit demonstrates that the PCSSD lost three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thousand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97 as compared to Act 34, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2,047,676) in 1997-98 and that Act 917 will cost the District four million, one hundred and twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4, 122,457) during the current school year. 4. The Court of Appeals has ordered that the three Pulaski districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system (Act 34) of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. 5. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to this Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 060) aunty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September __i_, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg. , Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53481 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 MFPA CALC: ESTIMATES: DISTRICT LINE SCHOOL YEAR NO. CHARGE RATE 1 WADM DATA 2 REG. 3QADM 3 SPEDWADM 4 VOCWADM 5 VOCCWADM* 6 G& TWADM 7 MAGADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 9 TOT. WADM 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS 13 AMOUNT ADDED 14 TOTAL ST. 15 AV AMT. 16 CHARGE RA TE 17 TOTAL AV CHG 18 TOTAL MISC. FDS. 19 TOTAL RESOURSES 20 TOT. WADM (73,892) 21 SBER 22 DIFFERENCE 23 AVE. LOC. RES. 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. 26 X CHG. 31 MISC. REV. 75% 32 LOCAL RES. 33 NO. M. D. 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. 36 LOC. RES. RATE 37 SBER 38 TABLE RATE 39 TOT. MFPA 40 MFPA CHANGE 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. & HEAL TH INS. COST 43 AT RISK 44 TRANS 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS 47 TOTAL CHANGE 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34 NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 & 98-99 ACT34978.WK PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD PCSSD 1995-96 , 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 19,070.30 19,074.36 18,801 .98 18,339.84 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 1,950.70 712.45 712.45 712.45 712.45 26.01 26.01 26.01 26.01 246.00 246.00 246.00 246.00 963.41 951 .41 978.17 978.17 539.39 159.12 166.49 389.97 23,508.26 23,120.05 22,881.80 22,643.14 402.66 394.01 581.14 581 .14 $963,200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1,104,528,360 $1, 164,528,360 $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 0.0278 0.0315 $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $5,215,335 $5,171,702 $1 ,441 ,460,364 $1,640,938,394 521 ,731 519,249 $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $397.37 $907 $1,115 $737,033,624 $786,594,811 $20,489,535 $24,777,737 $73,473 $73,473 $20,563,008 $24,851 ,210 669.47 669.47 ($217,769 ($83,766 $20,345,239 $24,767,443 $865.45 $1 ,071 .25 S2,762.84 $3,160.21 S1,897.39 $2,088.96 $44,604,310 $48,296,823 $3,692,512 S8,701 ,196 $9,564,451 S809,914 $809,914 S2,005,448 $2,005,448 $11 ,516,558 $12,379,813 $56, 120,868 $60,676,636 $4 555,767 $57,018,967 ($3,657,669 EXHIBIT I A 0.0334 $661,860,897 $6,739,116 $1,773,128,373 I 525,631 I $3,373.331 $213.121 $1 2591 $917,639,068 $30,649,1451 $41,1861 $30,690,331 I 669.471 $30,690,331 I $1,341 .261 $3,373.33 ! $2,032.08i $46,497,592 I ($1 ,799,231) $9,753,8661 $809,9141 $2,005,448 i $12,569,228 I $59,066,8201 $31,116,1931 $57,019,1441 ($2,047,6761 0.0358 $730,702,357 $6,739.116 $1,901 ,969,833 525,631 $3,618.45 $245.12 $1,390 $949,708,069 $33,999,549 $56,981 $34,056,530 669.47 $0 $34,056,530 $1 ,504.06 $3,618.45 $2,1 14.40 $47,876,547 $1,378,955 $10,280 ,201 .18 $809,914 $2,005,448 $13,095,563 $60,972,110 $4,851 ,242 $56,849,653 ($4, 122,457 MFPA CALC. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR 96-97 97-98 & 98-99 ACT34978.WK~ DISTRICT LRSD LRSD LRSD LRSD LINE SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 ' 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 NO. CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QADM 22.384.95 22,231 .64 22,839.39 23,133.39 3 SPED WADM 1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 4 VOCWADM 826.68 826.68 826.68 826.68 5 VOCCWADM 77.95 77.95 77.95 77.95 6 G & TWADM 253.75 253.75 253.75 253.75 7 MAG ADM 8 LOSS FD WADM 533.59 311 .20 0.00 0.00 9 TOT. WADM 25,777.64 25,401.94 25 698.49 25,992.49 10 M-to-M OUT 11 SBER CALCULATIONS 12 STATE FUNDS $963.200,241 $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 13 AMOUNT ADDED $0 %1M}tf~t~~ %if-tt{U:t~~ ii.i.i:d:li~J 14 TOTAL ST. $963,200,241 $1 ,056,899,739 $1 ,104,528,360 $1 ,164,528,360 15 AV AMT. $17,015,999,575 $18,376,728,665 $19,816,194,517 $20,410,680,353 16 CHARGE RATE 0.0278 0.0315 0.0334 0.0358 17 TOTAL AV CHG $473,044,788 $578,866,953 $661 ,860,897 $730,702,357 18 TOTAL MISC. FOS. $5,215,335 $5,171 ,702 $6,739,116 $6,739,116 19 TOTAL RESOURSES $1,441,460,364 $1,640,938,394 $1 ,773,128,373 $1 ,901,969,833 20 TOT. WADM 173,892) * 521,731 519,249 525,631 525,631 21 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,618.45 22 DIFFERENCE $397.37 $213.12 $245.12 23 AVE. LOC. RES. $907 $1115 $1 ,259 $1,390 24 MFPA CALCULATION 25 TOTAL A. V. $1 ,645,039,791 $1 ,712,31 1,220 $1,947,375,874 $1 ,964,727,647 26 X CHG. $45,732,106 $53,937,803 $65,042,354 $70,337,250 31 MISC. REV. 75% $102,1 58 $1 47,194 $132,386 32 LOCAL RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 33 NO. M. 0 . 34 M.D. CR. 35 NET LOC. RES. $45,834,264 $53,937,803 $65,189,548 $70,469,636 36 LOG. RES. RATE $1,778.06 $2,123.37 $2,536.71 $2,7 11 .15 37 SBER $2,762.84 $3,160.21 $3,373.33 $3,6 18.45 38 TABLE RATE $984.78 $1 ,036.84 $836.63 $907.301 39 TOT.MFPA $25,385,218 $26,337,719 $21,500,007 $23,582,898 40 MFPACHANGE $952,502 ($4,837,713 $2,082,891 41 ADDITIONAL FUNDING 42 TEACHER RET. & HEAL TH INS. COST $11 ,518,589.00 $13,802,736.00 $14,461 ,942.00 $15,933,618.50 43 AT RISK $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 $1 ,226,252.00 44 TRANS $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 $1 ,653,753.00 45 TOT. ADD. STATE FUNDS $14,398,594 $16,682,741 $17,341,947 $18,813,624 46 TOT. STATE FUNDS $39,783,812 $43,020,460 $38,841,954 $42,396,521 47 TOTAL CHANGE $3 236,649 $38,841,954 $2,612,709 48 ACT 917 FUNDING + DEBT SERV. $43,350,510 $43,233,081 $45,946,383 49 TOTAL MORE OR (LESS) THAN ACT 34 $330,050 $4 391,127 $3,549,862 NUMBERS REMAIN AT 1995-96 LEVELS - CHG. INC= (AMT. ADD./2500000)/1000 - - ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 93 ~Fp _ o P"' S WESTERN DIVISION .. - '-' 1 06 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECElllED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE-fr !ffSEGREGATION MONITORlNm INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS MFPA In its latest decision regarding the Districts' financial claims against the State, the Court of Appeals held in part that: [t)he districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 97-1794 E.A. Slip Opinion at p. 31 . The PCSSD has previously acquainted this Court with the negative impact Act 917 had and is having upon the PCSSD. Indeed, in its Order dated February 18, 1997 this Court stated: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, _ see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. Exhibit A to the Motion is an updated calculation utilizing the same methodology reviewed and approved by this Court on February 18, 1997. The outcomes for 1996-97 are slightly different because additional updated information has been received. As contemplated by the Court of Appeals in its most recent decision, these calculations cannot be made with precision, but they are more reliable than "a reasonable and informed estimate." kl The outcome in this case is that as compared to Act 34, Act 917 cost the PCSSD three million, six hundred and fifty-seven thou,sand, six hundred and sixty-nine dollars ($3,657,669) in 1996-97, two million, forty-seven thousand, six hundred and seventy-six dollars ($2 ,047,676) in 1997-98 and will cost the District four million, one hundred and - twenty-two thousand, four hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($4,122,457) during 1998-99 using the current projections of the Arkansas Department of Education. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the North Little Rock School District lost one million, five hundred and thirty-four thousand, five hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($1,534,557) under Act 917, that it gained slightly at forty-three thousand, fifty-one dollars ($43 ,051) in the last school year under Act 917 but that it will lose an additional one million, three hundred and forty-four thousand, eight hundred and fifty dollars ($1,344,850) this year under Act 917. The same methodology demonstrates that for 1996-97 the LRSD gained three hundred and thirty thousand and fifty dollars ($330,050) under Act 917, gained four million, three hundred ninety-one thousand, one hundred and twenty-seven dollars - (4,391 ,127) last year under Act 917 and will gain three million, five hundred and forty- 53101 2 ' nine thousand, eight hundred and fifty-two dollars ($3,549,852) this year utilizing current State projections. The Court of Appeals ordered that: "the three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed." ~ at 30- 31 . The system that changed the distribution for teacher retirement and health insurance is Act 917. To comply with the holdings of the Court of Appeals, the PCSSD should be awarded the sums set forth in Exhibit A to its Motion. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 60) nty Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September _i, 1998 a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53 101 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 53101 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 ,,,, J.-1\C K, lLYON & J O'.~ES, P ... -1\ . ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7 2201 3472 (501 ) 375 1 1 22 TELECOPI ER (501 ) 375 1 027 ~,-~/ "~ ,, .. (.It:. lii: Ur f&GREW'!ON MONiTORING Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al September 11 , 1998 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Nashville Office 111 MUSIC Circle South Surte 202 Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (6151259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, (-- i ~ Stephen W. Jones U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARK ANSllc: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 11 1998 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ________ _ nEP.CLERI< LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. SEP 1 ~~ 1998 OFF/GE Cf DEISafGATION MONIT'JR/NG DEFENDAt-v.IS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT; et al. INIERVENORS INIERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR AW ARD OF. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANT Comes now the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD"), by and through its attorneys, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., and for its Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs as to State Defendant, states as follows : 1. On or about July 1, 1998, this Court issued an Opinion affirming the district court's decision that the State of Arkansas had violated the terms of its Settlement Agr~ement with the three Pulaski County school districts with respect to the adverse effect on teacher retirement and health insurance caused by changes to the method of school funding. 2. Consistent with this Court's previous decision in this matter, see 127 F.3d 693 , 695 (8 th Cir. 1997), NLRSD qualifies as a prevailing party and is entitled to recover attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. Alternatively, NLRSD is entitled to recover fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-22-308. 3. NLRSD incurred fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15 (Stephen W. Jones - 130.25 hours x $185.00 = $24,096.25;]. Allen Carney- 24.50 hours x $125.00 = $3 ,062.50; Melissa Glover - 23 .5 x $115.00 = $2,702.50; and $1 ,219.90 in costs). The hourly fees charged by Jack, Lyon and Jones, P.A. are consistent with those charged by attorneys of like skill and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. The fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit of Stephen W. Jones, attorney ofNLRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. As a service to the NLRSD and the community at large, the fees charged by Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. to NLRSD were at substantial discounts from those rates typically charged to other clients. See attachedExhibit B, Affidavit of James Smith. However, Defendant ADE is not entitled to benefit from those discounts. To do so would reward it for its violation of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, for purposes of this fee petition, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. is entitled to receive its typical hourly fees. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, NLRSD respectfully requests this Court award it attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $31,081.15, and for all other ~elief to which it may be entitled. By: 2 Respectfully submitted JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Stephen W. Jones, ' 083 J. Allen Carney, #9. 122 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this 11 th day of September, 1998 served one copy of the foregoing via United States mail to the following: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDqE & CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Esquire WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Builcti.m r ~ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John M. Walker, Esquire JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas .72206 3 Ann Brown OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL AND STREETT First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 $L<-W~ Stephen W. Jones U IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER.~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT,.et al. AFFIDAVIT I, Stephen W. Jones, after being duly sworn, state under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INilRVE~-ORS INilRVEJ\-ORS 1. The billing statements attached as Exhibit A to this Affidavit reflect the hours worked and costs incurred on this matter before this Court as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements have been billed to NLRSD and those bills have been paid or will be paid. 2. I have been engaged in the private practice of law for twenty (20) years and am the managing partner of Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. I have practiced and lectured extensively in the areas of civil rights, employment, and school law. I am a contributing author to Employment Discrimination Law, Schlei and Grossman, 2Ed., 1983, co-editor of the Arkansas Employment Law Bulletin, and co-author of the Arkansas Employment Law Deskbook. My normal hourly billing rate is $185.00. That rate is consistent with rates charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. EXHIBIT I A 3. J. Allen Camey is an associate with Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. with approximately four ( 4) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate is $125 .00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski CoW1ty, Arkansas. 4. Melissa Glover is an !associate with Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. with approximately two (2) years of experience. Her normal hourly billing rate is $115.00. This rate is consistent with billing rates for lawyers of similar ability and experience in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. The attached billing statements relate exclusively to proceedings before this Court involving the funding of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits. Moreover, the time entries have been reviewed to eli!I}inate duplicative and other non-billable time. Designated for internal accoW1ting purposes as matter No. 1-2 0, time records with respe~t-to proceedings before this Coun were kept separate from other desegregation matters. ~ . ' -- '(I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) By: x~ LJ ?FJ~ Stephen W. Jones U ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this the l f tiJ d~y of September, 1998, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public, personally appeared Stephen W. Jones, known to me to be the p~rson whose name is subscribed to the attestation and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. r-, \- -~~-\-'! ::.\ cQ-Jt. K 0 Notary Public 2 DATE ATTORNEY DESCRIPTION Tl~IE 10/20/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding State Funding 0.50 issues, recovery of payment shortfalls, etc. 10/20/95 SWJ Meeting with Messrs. Smith, K.ince and Watkins to 5.75 review financial projections and analyze legal rami~cations; Telephone conference with Mr. Jones and Dr. Stewart 11/8/95 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones regarding state funding 0.75 issues and his previous meetings with NL RSD officials 11 /9/95 JAC Conference regarding state funding; review 0.50 Desegregation Plan provisions 11 /14/95 JAC .. Conference regarding teacher retirement and state 1.00 funding 12/ 1/95 JAC Conference regarding funding formula and potential 0 .. 25 litigation 12/11/95 SWJ Telephone conference with l'v1r. Smith regarding 0.75 .. ADE response to funding concerns; Telephone conference with Ms. Boyter .. 1/2/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and Dr. New, etc. regarding 2.75 funding issues 1/26/96 SWJ Telephone conference -with Mr. Smith regarding state 0".75 funding and plan, etc. 2/7/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 2.75 funding issues; Research regarding same and possibility of recovery 2/8/96 SWJ Review ADE's pleadings regarding Worker's 3.25 Compensation to determine if any admission; Research regarding funding issues 2/12/96 JAC Conference regarding potential action against state 0.50 2/13/96 JAC Attend meeting regarding state funding issues 2.50 2/13/96 SWJ Meeting with Mr. Smith and staff regarding funding 4.25 issues; Review current analysis .. " . . 4/24/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 PCSSD and ADE meeting 4/29/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE; Telephone conference with tvlr. Jones' secretary regarding ADE meeting 5/2/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding 0.50 meeting with ADE 5/16/96 SWJ Meeti,ng '.vith ADE regarding funding issues; Meet 5.25 with Messrs. Smith and Kince, et al. 5/ 17/96 JAC Interoffice conference with tvlr. Jones regarding ' 1.00 funding meeting 5/17/96 SWJ Prepare and attend meeting with ADE and district 7.50 personnel regarding funding issues; Meet with Messrs. Smith, et al.; Review various reports 5/23/96 SWJ .. Review ADE offer regarding M-toM adjustment for 0.50 1996 5/24/96 SWJ Telepho~e conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.75 issues and ADE position 5/28/96 SWJ Review PCS SD letter regarding 1996 M-toM 0.75 adjustments; Review tvlr. Jones' letter regarding hearing on June 7 5/29/96 SWJ Review PCSSD Motion to Enforce Settlement; 0.75 Review letter from tvlr. Walker regarding deposit~ons; Review PCS SD FOI request 5/30/96 JAC Conference regarding meeting with Judge Wright; 1.00 Litigation strategy 5/31 /96 JAC Prepare for and attend hearing regarding State 2.00 funding issues; Conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller. 5/31/96 SWJ Conference with Judge Wright and other counsel 3.50 regarding schedule of proceedings for Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement; Conferences with Messrs. Heller, Jones, Smith and Watkins regarding same; Review ADE FOI request to PCS SD; Review Order regarding funding hearing; Review LRSD, PCSSD Petition for rehearing 6/4/96 JAC Review.County's Motion to Enforce Settlement 1.25 ... Agreement 6/5/96 JAC Review County's Motion; Research funding issues 1.50 6/6/96 JAC Review 8th Circuit Slip Opinion; Review LRSD 1.25 6/6/96 SWJ Review LRSD Motion to Enforce Settlement 3.75 Agreement; Review PCSSD Second Motion to Enforce; Work on NLRSD Motion 617196 JAC Rese' arch and draft NLRSD's Motion to Enforce 3.50 Settlement Agreement 617/96 SWJ Review PCSSD and LRSD Motions; Review and edit 3.25 NLRSD Motion Brief; Telephone conference with Mr. Smith 6/12/96 SWJ Telephone conference regarding NLRSD motion; 0.75 Prepare letter regarding same 6/17/96 SWJ . . Review ADE response to petition for rehearing 0.75 6/27/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE rega~ding extension to 0.25 respond 6/28/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Messrs. Jones and Heller 2.75 regarding amicus and other issues; Review ADE Motion for Extension to Respond; Review status report materials 7/1 /96 SWJ Review Motion to Extend Time filed by Joshua, 1.00 PCSSD and LRSD; Review 1:,RSD June planning and budgeting tool 7/2/96 SWJ . Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding 0.50 need for amicus and demand status of rehearing 7/3/96 SWJ Review discovery requests and ADE pleadings 0.75 7/8/96 SWJ Review letter from ADE describing documents 1.00 responsive to PCSSD discovery 7/15/96 SWJ Review documents in preparation for Lakeview 0.75 hearing 7/ 16/96 JAC Conference regarding state funding issues 0.50 7/16/96 SWJ Attend status conference on Lakeview case; 2.00 Conference with Mr. Wilson 7/17/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding 0.50 meeting on Lakeview; Telephone conference \.vi th tvlr. Smith 7/ 18/96 JAC Prepare for and attend meeting with Messrs. Jones, 2.50 Heller, etc. regarding state funding challenge 7/1 8/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Wooldridge 4.50 regarding Mr. Smith's schedule; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding going ahead with meeting; Telephone conference with Mr. Kince; Telephone conference with Ms. Wooldridge; Telephone conference with Mr. Watkins; Attend meeting with other counsel and parties regarding Lakeview 7/23/96 SWJ Telephone conference with l\llr. Sam Jones 0.50 . 7/24/96 SWJ Briefly review ADE and Lakeview Plaintiffs 1.00 Motions and Responses; Telephone conference with Mr. Sam Jones regarding same; Telephone conference with Mr: Roachell regarding same 7/26/96 JAC Conference with Mr. Jones; review brief 1.00 .. 7/26/96 SWJ Conference with Mr. Carney, review brief 1.00 8/2/96 SWJ Review ADE request for extension 0.25 8/21/96 SWJ Review accumulated PCS SD and intervener's 2.50 pleadings 8/23/96 SWJ Review ADE Motion to Dismiss and Intervener 1.25 Motion; Review PCSSD response; Interoffice conference regarding response; Review and edit same 8/25/96 SWJ Review Motions/Memorandum; telephone 1.00 conference with Mr. Smith 8/29/96 SWJ Review Intervener's reply to LRSD and PCSSD 1.50 response 9/3/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings 0.50 9/6/96 JLJ Copy Charges 1.50 9/6/96 .. . JLJ Telecopy Charges .. 1.75 , 9/ 10/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Smith regarding class 1.00 certification motion in Lakeview case; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding LRSD position on motion 9/26/96 JLJ Copy Charges 4.25 10/3/96 SWJ Meet with Messrs. Smith, Jones, Heller, Kincl, Lester 2.75 and Stewart regarding strategy in Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement against ADE; Conference with Messrs. Smith and Kincl regarding same 10/8/96 MBG . Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 0.50 Department of Education about depositions; Conference with Mr. Jones and Mr. Bowman about depositions 10/9/96 MBG .. Telephone conference with Mr. Hoskins at 6.00 Department of Education; Review ofletters for file; Prepare deposition list; Conference with Mr. Jones on facts of case; Organize file; Attend deposition of . Dr. Robert Shaver 10/10/96 MBG Attend Dr. Robert Shaver's deposition; Conference 9.00 --with Mr. Jones on issues in depositions 10/11/96 MBG Attend depositions of Tristan Greene and Dr. Bobbie 8.00 Davis 10/14/96 JLJ Parking Charge 17.40 11/11 /96 SWJ Review and comment on draft of pretrial brief of the 2.00 three Pulaski districts regarding loss of teachers retirement and employee health insurance payments from state; Telephone conferences with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding brief and preparation for hearing on November 19 11 /13/96 SWJ Review order from Judge Wright ordering status 1.75 conference to consider various motions regarding motion to enforce settlement agreement; Reivew PCSSD motion to enlarge Jacksonville North and South; Telephone conferences with other counsel regarding hearing and strategy 11/18/96 SWJ Review new motions to enforce settlement agreement 6.00 and ADE responses; Telephone conference with :vfr. Smith regarding hearing; Telephone conference with Messrs. Heller and S. Jones regarding November 19 hearing; Review original motions to enforce settlement agreement against ADE prepare for status conference with Judge Wright; Review pre-trial brief; ! Review PCSSD pre-trial brief 11 /21/96 SWJ Review draft of Motion for Summary Judgment, 1.50 Briefin Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding same; Review letter from Mr. Walker regarding request for fees for November 19 hearing 11/25/96 SWJ Review filed version of Districts ' Motion for 1.75 .. Summary Judgment against ADE, Brief in Support and Statement of Undisputed Facts; Review letter from ADE attorney requested e~tension to respond to Motion for Summary Judgment on teacher retirement issue 12/13/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conferences 2.25 regarding depositions needed and schedule for sa.rne 12/18/96 SWJ Review ADE pleadings; Telephone conference with 1.50 other counsel regarding analysis and suggestions 12/19/96 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr: Heller regarding 0.50 additional filings 12/23/96 SWJ Review ADE response to LRSD, NLRSD and 2.75 PCSSD Statement of Undisputed Facts, ADE opposition to ODM budget, arid Brief in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment 12/26/96 SWJ Review Districts ' reply to ADE Response to Motion 1.25 for Summary Judgment; Review Amicus Curiae Response on Summary Judgment; Review deposition schedule for Mr. Wilhoit and Dr. Sydoriak 1/2/97 SWJ Prepare for and attend deposition of Mr. Wilhoit; 3.75 Telephone conference with Mr. Heller regarding hearing 1/3/97 SWJ Review documents related to school funding issues; 2.50 Interoffice conference with other counsel regarding hearing and evidence needed 1/6/97 SWJ Telephone conference with Mr. Reed regarding 3.25 impact of Act 917 on special education funding; Research regarding Act 91 7; Prepare for and attend deposition of Diane Sydoriak 1/6/97 SWJ Conferences with Messrs. Heller and Jones regarding 1.25 preparation for hearing 1/13/97 SWJ Review ADE and Districts' pleadings; Review 2.00 amicus filed by Mr. Llewelyn 1/14/97 SWJ Review and organize files with paralegal 1.25 1/14/97 SWJ . . Review motion and brief regarding summary 1.00 judgment on special education and other issues 1/1 5/97. SWJ Review Districts' motion regarding health insunice , 1.75 special educ