Court filings concerning judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy and ODM report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''

District Court, motion in Limine; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) joinder in LRSD's motion in Limine; District Court, joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion for summary judgment with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Specialty Programs in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' prehearing submission on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy 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 V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION IN LIMINE 1-, ,ue.,,,~ . RECEIVED - DfC 4 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its motion the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This court's decision in favor of the three Pulaski County school districts on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance was affirmed by th~ ' Eight_?,. C,j,rcuit Court of Appeals on July 1, 1998. The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to this court "to decide exactly what relief is appropriate." 2. Noting that the Eighth Circuit "directed it to decide what relief is appropriate for the distric~s, this court scheduled a hearing "on this issue" for January 5, 1999. Order, November -3, 1998. 3. On July 20, 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the districts filed simultaneous briefs concerning the r emedy issue. ADE submitted one method for calculating the remedy, '... -:' f' the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) submitted ,. another method ; the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and ,,.. ..:. \ ' LRSD agreed that 11AnE,~.s submission seems to present an acceptable - method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals." 3. The parties filed simultaneous reply briefs on August 19, 1998. The three districts agreed "that ADE's [July 20] submission provides (1) acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 Equalization Funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts argued, however, that because districts outside Pulaski County received one hundred seven percent (107%) of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs, the districts should be paid that same percentage of their actual costs in order to meet the requirements of the Eighth Circuit's order. PCSSD filed a II supplemental submission" in which it reserved the right to argue its proposed methodology and outcomes "if the court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD. 11 ADE filed a response to PCSSD's July 20 submission arguing that the method for calculating the remedy proposed by PCSSD is flawed. 4. The only issue separating ADE from LRSD and NLRSD is whether ADE should be required to pay one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Aside from that issue, LRSD and NLRSD have expressed their willingness to accept ADE's proposed method for calculating the remedy. The question of whether the award should be calculated on the basis of one hundred percent (100%) or one hundred seven (107%) of actual costs is a legal one, the resolution of which would not require the court to decide any disputed factual 2 issues. ADE, NLRSD and LRSD are willing to present this sole remaining issue to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The reason that this simple and expeditious method of resolving the remedy issue among these three parties has not been presented to the court is that PCSSD suggests a different method for calculating the remedy and ADE desires a single method of calculation for all three districts. 5. On September 8, 1998, PCSSD filed a motion and brief to enforce the Settlement Agreement as regards MFPA. PCSSD's motion is based partly upon the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance but, unlike those issues, PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 claim has not been litigated and there has been no determination of ADE' s liability with respect to the 11 MFPA11 claim. PCSSD' s motion seeks to recover the entire difference between the funding it now receives under Act 917 and the funding it claims it would have received under Act 34. PCSSD's motion is not limited to the damages caused by ~he State's change in its method for distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. 6. LRSD understood that the hearing scheduled for January 5, 1999 was to be for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues remanded by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As outlined above, there are relatively few issues separating the parties with respect to the remedy. The resolution of PCSSD's 11 MFPA11 issue requires a liability hearing, not a remedy hearing. The 11 MFPA11 issue would be more properly 3 - combined with the outstanding special education, loss funding and other issues which have yet to be tried on the merits. 7. In order to avoid unnecessarily prolonging the remedy hearing by the litigation of liability issues only marginally related to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue, LRSD seeks an order expressly limiting the January 5 hearing to the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issue and excluding the issues presented by PCSSD's "MFPA" claim. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the January 5, 1999 hearing to the question of the appropriate remedy for ADE's adjudicated violation of the Settlement Agreement with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and excluding other issues, particularly those related to PCSSD' s "MFPA" claim. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, EDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. ----- By::-: i==h~~..I,J.'t~~LJ~~#::.( C Bar No. 81083 4 --- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion In Limine has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December 1998. 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 5 RECEIVED DEC 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OffiCE(f DESEGREGATION MONm1iJE ,,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS '. ' WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.1, ei al. PLAINTIFF .DEFENDANTS ADE'S TOINDER IN LRSD's "MOTION IN LIMINE" Like the LRSD, ADE understands that the hearing currently scheduled for January 5, 1999, is for the purpose of presenting evidence and argument concerning the appropriate "remedy" for the teacher retirement and health insurance issues discussed in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 opinion. For the reasons discussed below, ADE joins in LRSD's motion to exclude from the January 5 hearing any evidence or testimony concerning PCSSD' s purported "MFP A claim." Following the Eighth Circuit's decision, this Court set a briefing schedule for the ' parties to submit their arguments concerning the remedy on the teacher retirement and health insurance issues. Pursuant to the Court's briefing schedule, as amended, the parties filed briefs on Jly 20 and August 19, 1998. None of those briefs submitted by PCS.SD on those dates argued or even suggested that the appropriate remedy on the retirement/health insurance issues ~ould require a comparison of total state aid - outcomes between what the Act 917 system produced and what the Act 34 system 1 -- --- "would have produced" if it would not have been eliminated in the 1995 legislative session. However, on September 8, 1998, well outside the established briefing schedule for the teacher retirement/health insurance "remedy" issue, PCS5D filed a pleading it styled as a "Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA." In that motion PCSSD purports to compare the total amount of state funding it received under the Act 917 system and the total an\ount of sta!e fonding it claims it would have - received if the Act 34 system would not have been changed. PCS5D' s motion does not -i~entify any provision of the Settlement Agreement it contends has been breached. Rather, PCSSD's motion is based exclusively upon the "remedy" language in the Eighth Circuit's July 1, 1998 decision regarding teacher retirement and health insurance.1 Like the LRSD, ADE believes that PCSSD may attempt to introduce evidence at the January 5 hearing regarding purported total state aid outcomes under the Act 917 system and what PCSSD and the other Districts allegedly "would have received" if the Act 34 system had not been repealed. Such evidence and argument should be excluded from the January 5, 1999 hearing for two reasons. First, evidence and argument concerning an alleged Act 34/917 comparison should be excluded because this method of calculating a remedy was not presented to this <;~urt in any of the briefs PCSSD submitted pursuant to this Court's briefing 1 In its motion in limine, LRSD states that PCSSD's motion .. is based partly on" the remedy language in the Eighth Circuit's July I, 1998 opinion. ADE disagrees with LRSD_on this point. An examination of PCSSD's motion makes cJear that PCSSD's bases its claims exclusWe(y upon the remedy language of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. PCSSD's motion does not cite_t9 ariy .provision of the Settlement Agreement 2 - schedule on the remedy issue. Had PCSSD wished for this Court to consider such a comparison as the appropriate rei:nedy on the retirement .and health insurance issues, PCS.SD should have advanced this theory in its opening remedy brief on July 20, or in its reply brief on August 19. Second~ PCSSD's proposed Act 34/917 comparison is not an appropriate "remedy" on the retirement and health insurance issues as a matter of law, and any ' evidence or argument concerning such a compa.Iison would therefore be L.-;:elevant. The appeal which resulted in the Eighth Circuit's July 1 opinion dealt only with the changes in the manner in which teacher retirement and health insurance matching obligations of school districts were paid by the State. Neither this Court nor the Eighth Circuit has found that the State is in violation of the Settlement Agreement in any other respect, yet PCSSD's Act 34/917 comparison plainly seeks relief beyond those damages that might have been caused by the State's change in its method of distributing funds for teacher retirement and health insurance. Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion authorizes such a comparison as an appropriate method for calculating the damages on the narrow retirement and health insurance issues. Permitting PCSSD to. present clearly irrelevant evidence and argument concerning its . purported Act 34/917 comparison. at the January 5 hearing would unnecessarily prolong and complicate the resolution of the remedy issue. Accordingly, ADE joins in LRSD's request for an order excluding from the January 5 hearing any evidence or argument concerning PCSSD's purported Act 34/917 comparison. 3 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorn y General ; . ~23 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, T~othy Gauger, certify that _on D~ember 7, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing qocument to be served by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell . 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller . i'.riday, Eldredge & Oark . 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") and the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") for their Joint Motion for Summary - Judgment With Regard to the Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy state: 1. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to the appropriate methodology for determining the three Pulaski County districts' (the "districts") damages with regard to teacher retirement and heal th insurance. All parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable. 2. The only dispute concerning ADE's methodology is whether the districts damages' should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. The parties have already submitted br.iefs on this issue. This dispute presents a legal question which can be resolved as a matter of law. 3. LRSD and ADE's memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, LRSD and ADE pray that the Court adopt ADE Is proposed methodology and decide as a matter of law whether the ---- -- districts' damages should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE By: John c. Fendley, Jr,. I V I. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - --- -- 3 , RECEIVE,:, //411..f-/"l./1 I Y'GflJ, f!ye_ ~ DEC 1 0 1998 " ' t. 2. .., ...,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/Nr, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDY Introduction. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS This Court has scheduled a hearing for January 5, 1999 on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. Two issues stand to be resolved. 1 First, this Court must determine the appropriate methodology to be used in determining the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding received by the three Pulaski ~ounty districts under Act 917. Second, this Court must determine whether the three Pulaski County districts' damages should be based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. No material fact remains to be resolved with regard to either of the above issues. Accordingly, the moving 1 See Joint Motion in Limine filed December 3, 1998. Docket No. 3223. parties pray that this Court resolve these issues as a matter of law. II. The Methodology. On August 19, 1998, the three Pulaski County school districts -- --- . (the "districts") agreed that the Arkansas Department of Education's ("ADE") Submission Concerning Remedies on the Issues of Teacher Retirement and Heal th Insurance provided an acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance. Docket No. 3187. Only the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") proposed an alternative to ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. However, PCSSD's pleading simply reserved the right to argue for its methodology should the Court reject ADE's methodology. Docket No. 3186. 2 Under ADE's proposed methodology, all three Pulaski County districts recover more damages than under PCS SD' s methodology. Districts' Brief filed August 19, 1998. See Exhibit 1 to the Therefore, since all parties agree that ADE's proposed methodology is acceptable and since that methodology provides the greatest benefit for the students of each district, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology as a matter of law. 2The three Pulaski County districts do not agree at this time that ADE's methodology would be applicable to possible future pending claims regarding MFPA, special education and loss funding. F: \HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD\des-bri-sju .tea 2 or III. Actual Costs Versus Percentage of Costs. While the three Pulaski County school districts agree that ADE's methodology is acceptable, the districts contend that ADE has stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. ADE's proposed remedy provides the districts with 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. The districts contend that this remedy falls short of complete relief because other districts in the state received more than 100% of their actual costs for teacher retirement and heal th insurance. The districts seek to recover the same percentage of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. ADE denies that the districts should receive more than their actual costs. Whether the districts should receive their actual costs or the same percentage of their costs as other districts in the state presents a legal issue which can be resolved by this Court on summary judgment. No material fact needs to be resolved for the Court to decide this issue. Resolution of this issue simply requires an interpretation of Eighth Circuit's decisions in this case. The districts and ADE have already submitted briefs stating their respective positions on the issue. Accordingly, LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court decide the issue as a matter of law. IV. Conclusion. LRSD and ADE respectfully request that the Court adopt ADE's proposed methodology and decide whether the districts' damages F: \HOME\FENDLEY\ LRSD\de 3-bri -3 ju. t ea 3 should be calculated based on their actual costs or the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by ADE to other districts in the state. If the Court resolves these two issues, LRSD and ADE are confident that the remaining details can be settled and that the January 5, 1999 hearing will be unnecessary. f : \HOME\fENDLEY\LRSD\des-bri-sju.tea Respectfully Submitted, Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for LRSD and, Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Attorneys for ADE 4 . ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this 9th day of December, 1998. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 J F: \HOME\FENOLEY\LRSO\des-bri-sju. tea 5 ', ~ECEIVED DEC 15 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 14 1998 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.JAMES ','i ;\ :cCOR,'lir\CK, Cl..ErK WESTERN DIVISION By: 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GcP. CLEi,K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION IN LIMINE INTRODUCTION The PCSSD understands that the hearings scheduled for next January are for the purpose of resolving the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues. However, the PCSSD disagrees with LRSD's analysis concerning the MFPA issue. For reasons which will be fully explained below, the PCSSD submits that the MFPA analysis it has submitted to the Court is, on the one hand, an independent claim being pursued by the PCSSO. However, and most importantly, on the other hand, the PCSSD MFPA analysis resides at the heart of the remedial tasks directed by the Court of Appeals as regards teacher retirement and health insurance. INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS As an initial matter,' the Court of Appeals has directed the District Court: "On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what . ' . . ' : . . . . ' . . , . . relief is appropriate." 97-1794 EA, Slip Opinion at p. 30 72098 1 t This the parties have done by their submitted calculations regarding their claimed teacher retirement and _health insurance shortfalls. In this respect, the submissions of the PCS SD differ from those submitted by the State_ and embraced by the LRSD.1 However, the submissions of the other parties ignore the remain.der of the Court of Appeals instructions. The Court of Appeals went on to direct 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. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the 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 EA, Slip Opinion at pp. 30-31 This directive of the Court of Appeals cannot be ignored. While the other parties have paid lip service to this requirement, only the PCSSD has submitted an analysis comparing the effects of the old system to the new as required by the Court of Appeals. Whether this be currently characterized as an independent claim by the PCSSD or as simply its effort to assist the Court in complying with the instructions of the Court of Appeals is of no practicable 1 To the extent it ever agreed, the PCSSD can no longer support the calculations of the State. This will be more fully explained in PCSSD's Response to the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment served upon the PCSSD on December 11, 1998. 72098 2 moment for hearing purposes, since whatever description is given the analysis, it is the same for either purpose.2 THE RULES AND CASE LAW REQUIRE THE PARTIES AND THIS COURT TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' INSTRUCTIONS Twenty-eight USC 2106 requires in pertinent part that: The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm ... any judgment...and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment...or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances. The case law from this Circuit supports this proposition. In Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., 916 F.2d 453 (8th Cir. 1990) the court of appeals had occasion to explain what is required of a district court after remand. On remand, a district court is bound to obey strictly an appellate mandate. (citation omitted) If the district court fails to comply with an appellate mandate, the appellate court has authority to review the district court's actions and order it to comply with the original mandate. llL at 456 See also Chambers v. Armantrout, 16 F .3rd 257 (8 th Cir. 1994) and West v. United States of America, 1995 US Appellate Lexis 5294 (8th Cir. 1995). CONCLUSION As its resubmitted analysis will demonstrate, the PCSSD is entitled to a full recovery for its teacher retirement and health insurance shortfalls since its losses under the new funding system far exceed its claims for teacher retirement and health insurance. A full award of its current claim will thus neither result in a 2 Because the labeling issues obviously concern the LRSD and the State, the PCSSD is separately submitting its own funding analysis which it believes complies with that required by the Court of Appeals. (Please see attached Exhibit A, three pages) 72098 3 r .I , - double recovery nor a windfall and, as explained above, this analysis must be performed by this Court whether or not any other party assists by submissions to this Court. 72098 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-~::;__---:+------=~-:-:-:----- y Special School \ 4 1' ,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December /J , 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 72098 M. ( Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger .A.ssistant 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 ones, Ill / I 5 NA I c ... r :.. I NOS&v !MFPA CA1.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 3"' FOR H-97. 97-91 & 91-N ACT J.4171. ww.. I OISTIUCT L.RSD UWJ LRSO LASO I UHE SCHOOL YEA11 199 .. 11111-el 11117-M 19a.. NO. CHNIGIMTa 0.0271 0.0315 0.031M 0.1131M 1 WAOIIOATA 2 REG. 3 QNJM 22.JM.as 22.231.54 22,439.31 23,133.39 l SPEDWNJM' 1,700.72 1,7'00.72 1,700.72 1,700.72 , VOCWNJM' 825.81 529.61 8.28.61 !21l.61 5 VOCCWN)M TT.9/5 TT.9/5 n,ge n .9tJ 6 GITWAOM 2.53.7S 253.75 253.75 253.75 71 LOSS FD WAOII 533.51 311..20 0.00 0.00 I TOT. WAOII am ... 25.401.M K ..... 29.H2A ----OUT 10 s1EJ1- ,.,. "TION8 11 ST ATE l'\JN0S $Q63.200.2,41 $983,.200,24' $1,"8.684.101 S1, 111,111,171 12Nit0..M'(AOJEJ SQ ... g....,,;: . ... ' iiiiii 13 TOTAL ST. SSIII.U00.241 $1,!Ma, .. , 101 $1,111,717,171 S1, 147.290,11111 14 AVNIT. $11,015.9118.ffl $11.371.121. s1u1e. 1M.511 $20,alXJ.232,515 150iMGERATI: 0.0271 OJXl15 0.03111 0.0319 19 TOTAL AV OiO $473,044,7 S571.-.m SG2.929.253 $M4,455.2,47 17 TOTAL MISC. FOS. S!.215..3311 15.171 70Z '-A 739, 1111 S7 209247 11 TOTAi. Rl!SOURSU $1441-~ s1.a:n..1112.m s1m~ $1 11 ut25.355 11 TOT. WADII 171112' SZ1 7l1 11,~ 1:111..a1 !lX.1IO 20 saa tt7S4.IO tt 14&..21 '3.331.ff S3,"5UI 21 DIFfUEHC2 U91.II $1- SUUI 22 AV!. LOC. RES. SN7 11111 Sf.:21111 $1..:za:I 2l IIIIFIIA CAL.CtJLAT10N 24 TOTAL AV. $1 ,So&e,039.71'1 S1 ,712,311.Z20 $1,947,375,174 S1 ,9&l,n7,1547 25 XCHG. 145.7~.101 SSJ. 837. 803 SG.1111,1115 sa2,753,401 291 MISC. REV. 75" $102. 158 S1-47,11M S132.386 27/LOCAL RES. $,45,834,284 $53,i:37,803 $82.3'4.37'9 $62,M5,7S7 28 NO. M. D. 29 M.O. CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $45,834.26' $53,937,803 $82.l4e.379 SS2,885,787 31 LOC. RES. RATE s1.ns.oe $2.123.37 $2.42:ll.07 $2,419.38 32 SaeR $2.75U0 $3, 1-4e.2S $3,331.97 $3,456.e.5 JJiTABlE RATE $978.54 S1 022.90 $905.90 $1 037.47 341 TOT. MFPA 'l:ll 172..1%1 ~11&1.74 $23 2IO 152 $:21 9M.3TT 3SiMfPACHAHGe $110121 (ll.701.!M $3 SN.22.S 31/ADDmOHAL. FUNDING 37 TEACHER RET. & HEAL.TH INS. COST $11 ,511.5111.00 S 13,802,731.00 $1-4,481 ,9'2.00 $15,933,618.50 38 AT RISK S 1,228.252. OIi $1.229~00 S 1.2:Ze.252.00 $1.229.252.00 39 TRANS $1 ,653 753.00 S1 . 653. 753.00 $1553753.00 $1 653 753.00 40 TOT. ADO. STAn FUNDI 114.lU.. ... $11.112.741 $17 341.M7 $1111312.4 41 TOT. STATE fUfjDI $31571 417 $G ll&L.tlllll $40.122.0N $45 710.000 42 TOT Al. CHAHGI $3.~ , .. ., ..... - S! 157.101 431 S.EQA/GWTHIGWT. FCJD.SJINC. $4350,510 $43.233.011 t.&5.941~ 44/TOTAL MOR OR (LESS) THAH ACT 34 I u.u.0211 12110 NZ $161,313 EXHIBIT I A ; ... ~c - , 2 ,,. ' MFPA CAL.C. ESTIMATES: ACT 34 FOR N-e7 97-81 & 91-81 A.CT3,q71.-. OISTlaCT NUt"2 NUSD NLASD ~ LINE ............. Y!AII 1~ 199M1 1917-tl 1 ..... NO. CHNtG! IIATI! 0.0271 0.0315 IJ.Ol1M 0.03114 1 WADMDATA 2 REG. 3QAOM 9,079.25 ll.9C.111 9,094.2' 9,231 .07 3 SPEDWNJM 1,111l.78 1,11ua 1,119.78 1,1111.78 4 VOCWNJM' 310.71 310.71 310.71 310.71 5 VOCCWN)M 8.15 8.15 6.15 8.15 S GATWMlM 0 107.75 107.75 107.75 107.75 7 LOSS FU W.ADII 140.13 11~ 0.00 4.00 I TOT.WAOII 10 7M.l5 10.131.71 10,131.G 10.nSM ,....,..our 10 ~ CM.CULAnoNa 11 ST A Tl! l'U."C>S S983..200.241 S883,200.241 St,048.1594,101 St .111 ,717,171 12AMOlMTADOED so) , . .,,..,!I,:,!: 13 TOTA&. ST. $803..200.241 11 ,IMl,e&M, 101 11,111,717,171 11,1-47.280,8111 14AVMr. S17,015,ll11U75 S11.l71.721. 119,111. 194,517 120 1113 232 515 15 CHARGE RATE 0.0271 0.0315 0.0318 0.0319 111 TOTM.AVCHG $-473,044,7N $571,a&l,953 $832,i29,l5J SilM,465,247 17 TOTAL MISC. FDS. S5.215 335 $5 171 702 U739111 S72011-.247 11 TOTAL RESCIUltlEI 11 ~1.--.:i&.I S1 ICD. 7n.n1 $1751..-..- SU11~ 11 TOT. WAOII m- 521731 518.2.111 ~a1 521,1 saa S2.7S&.IO Sl.1""-21 S2.331.ff H ,,. .,. 21 DIFFRENC2 mi.II S1ISJI 112'.II Z2 AW. L0C. IIU. SI01' 11111 11.2111 $1-2EI 2l IIFPA CALCUUTION 24 TOT M.A. V. $-41,,333.275 $-4:ZS,'11.491 $-471 ,402.- $-475.a:!4.,220 25 XCHG. $11 ,511,485 $13,400,C s1s,cee.111 $15.201 ,020 215 MISC. R&. 75" S12.8511 12.m $0 27 LOCM.RES. $11,531,120 $13,400,462 S15.0S.311D $15..201,020 2S NO.M.O. 211 M.D.CR. 30 NET LOC. RES. $11,531 ,120 $13,400,462 115.09,390 $15.201,020 31 LOC.. RES. RA TE $1,071.24 $1.2~.47 $1,415.54 $1,410.71 32 S8ER $2,754.80 SJ,1-44.28 S3,l31.J7 $3,456.85 33 TASLS RATE $1 613.38 $1 588.11 $1918.'3 S2 048.t, 3' TOT.WPA S1L120 Ga ~079.2117 S203U14'1 !22 !ML 071 35 IIIFPAatAHGe $1H.l..124 $312-.lla $159.nt 3' .ADOfflONAL FUNDING 37 TEAC>ER RET. 6 HEM.TH INS. COST "' 107,741.00 $4.'53,571 .00 $-4,681, 1 !M.00 $4,937,917.00 JI AT RISK $-478. 197.00 $478,197.00 $478,197.00 $478.197.00 39 TR.AHS S5