Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD

District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, the districts' brief in response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, supplemental submission by the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to Little Rock School District (LRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; 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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARt<ANSAS AUG t O 1998 JAMES o/ ~MACK. CLERK By: LI U.,(\,1\/\j 1\, OEP CLERK vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Arkansas Department of Education ( ADEj requesting a second extension of time to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file reply briefs to the opening briefs previously submitted regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues. 'The ADE states in its motion that counsel for the Llttle Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCssn), and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) do not object to and join the ADE in this motion. As this Court noted for the record in its prior Order granting the parties' first request for an extension of time to file reply briefs, although the F.ighth Circuit Court of Appeals has released its opinion regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues, the mandate from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding this opinion has not issued. Therefore, it is not clear that this Court has jurisdiction to require the parties to brief these issues at this time. Because the parties are in agreement regarding the briefing schedule and the proposed extension, - this Court will grant the ADE's request. The parties have to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file their reply briefs. .,,.. . . }3 i1 8 2 ~ IT IS SO ORDERED TillS /0 day of August 1998. QL.&~ UNITED STATES Dis JUDGE 2 . , .JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE Ot DESE6REGATION MON1TOR1N6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S BRIEF CONCERNING REMEDIES-ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT ' AND HEAL TH INSURANCE On July 20, 1998, the Districts and ADE submitted briefs outlining their positions - 6~ -the appropriate way to calculate a remedy for the Court's finding that the State breached the Settlement Agreement when it changed the manner in which school .district employee retirement and health insurance obligations were funded. After having reviewed ADE' s submission, LRSD and NLRSD advised this Court that they believe "ADE' 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." Neither LRSD nor NLRSD submitted a proposed remedy of their own. This Court is now presented with two proposals concerning the calculation of a remedy: The method proposed by ADE (and endorsed by LRSD and NLRSDf and the 'Iriethod proposed by,.PCSSD.:,: Asr'discussed beio'w; PCS5D's proposai is flawed and - should'itbt be adoptea'by this C~urt.because (a) it assumes that Equalization Funds are 1 distributed on a pure per-ADM basis, and therefore is inconsistent with the findings of -this Court and the Eighth Circuit that such funds are distributed on an "equalized" basis; (b) it includes in the calculation PCSSD's health insurance matching obligations attributable to federally-funded school district employees, costs which were not paid by the State under the Act 34 funding system; and (c) it would produce an unwarranted windfall to PCSSD and the other Districts and would give the Districts compensation beyond that which is necessary to hold the Districts harmless from the effects of the funding changes. A. PCSSD'S J:>ROPOSAL IGNORES THE FACT THAT EQUALIZATION FUNDING IS NOT DISTRIBUTED ON A PURE PER-ADM BASIS The first flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy calculation is that it is based upon - the assumption that funds distributed for school district retirement and health insurance obligations ( distributed as "Equalization Funding") are distributed on a pure per-ADM basis. In the worksheet attached to its brief PCSSD calculates the amount of retirement and health insurance funding it received in 1996-97 and 1997-98 by taking the total statewide teacher retirement and health insurance obligations for all school districts for each year and dividing it by the total ADM count for all districts to arrive at an "amt. distributed per ADM." PCSSD then multiplies that number by its previous year's ADM to arrive at the figure that is supposed to represent the amount of State retirement or health insurance funding it received. 2 C. PCSSD'S PROPOSED REMEDY WOULD PRODUCE DIVERGENT RECOVERiES BETWEEN THE THREE DISTRICTS AND WILL RESULT IN UNW ARRAN'fED WINDFALL RECOVERIES The third and most significant flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy is that it would give the Districts more funds than the previous retirement and health insurance "program" would have given them had it not been changed in the 1995 legislative session, and therefore PCs.SD' s proposal violates the Eighth Circuit's command that no remedy be fashioned that produces a "windfall" recovery to the Districts. Moreover, PCSSD' s proposed calculation would produce an anomalous result under which each Pulaski County school district would be entitled to State funds sufficient to satisfy a different "percentage" of each District's actual retirement and health insurance obligations. 1. PC~SD's Proposal That The Districts Receive More Than 100% Of Their. Retirement And Insurance Obligations Violates The Eighth Circuit's Directive That The Districts Not Receive A Windfall In its instructions to this Cqurt on remand the Eighth Circuit directed that a remedy be fashioned that places the Districts "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 the same time, however, the Eighth Circuit recognized that the remedy should not produce a "windfall" recovery that would place the Districts in a better position than that which they enjoyed under the prior method of retirement and health insurance funding. PCSSD' s proposed remedy must be rejected because it would result in an unwarranted windfall to the Districts. 4 Prior to 1996-97 the funding "program" ensured that approximately 100% of the Districts' required retirement and health insurance contributions be paid by the State. Yet under PCSSD's proposed remedy, PCS.SD would be entitled to receive state funds equal to 101.2% of its 1996-97 retirement obligation, 101.02% of its 1997-98 retirement obligation, and 103.79% of its 1997-98 health insurance obligation. Moreover, PCSSD would be entitled to keep all of the state funds it received to satisfy its health insurance obligation for 1996-97, even though PCS.SD' s own analysis indicates that PCSSD received state funds sufficient to satisfy 107.62% of its actual health insurance obligation for that year.3 PCSSD's proposed analysis - and any similar analysis that would give any District more than 100% of its retirement and insurance obligation - would run afoul of the Eighth Circuit's direction that a "hold harmless" remedy be fashioned that results in no "windfall" recovery to the Districts. 2. PCSSD's Proposal Would Result In Divergent Levels Of Funding Between The Three Districts Moreover, PCSSD's proposed remedy calculation makes little sense and should be rejected because, under PCS.SD' s method, each District will receive State funds sufficient to satisfy a different "percentage" of its health insurance and retirement obligations. Under PC5.5D's proposal, its appropriate "percentage level" of funding should be determined by calculating the total retirement and health insurance obligation of all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), calculating the 3 The inequity of this result is further illustrated by the fact that, under PCSSD's own analysis, the other 310 school districts in the state received from the State, on average, funds sufficient to satisfy 99.67% of their health insurance obligation. 5 - total amount of State funds distributed for those purposes to all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), and calculating what "percentage" of this total obligation of these districts is covered by state funds. Under PCSSD' s proposal, PCSSD would then be entitled to funds sufficient to pay for this same "percentage" of its obligations. If this same methodology is adopted for each Pulaski County District,4 it would undoubtedly result in each District being entitled to funding sufficient to constitute a different "percentage" of their respective obligations. Because Equalization Funds are distributed in a manner that takes into account the wealth of the district, and given the differences in the relative "wealth" of each Pulaski County district, using PCSSD's method might result in PCSSD receiving, say, 103% of its health insurance obligation, while NLRSD and LRSD would be entitled to some different percentage of their respective obligations. There is no reason in law or logic to adopt such a remedy. For the foregoing reasons, ADE submits that PCSSD's proposed remedy, and any remedy that would result in any District receiving more than 100% of its retirement and health insurance obligations, must be rejected. 4 Under PCSSD's proposal, presumably LRSD would calculate its own "percentage" entitlement by looking at the state funding and ob'iigations of all other districts (inciuding PCSSD and NLRSD), and NLRSD would calculate its own "percentage" entitlement by looking at the state funding and obligations of all other districts (including LRSD andPCSSD). 6 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _ I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document 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 Friday, Eldredge & Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82 - 866RECEllfED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE DISTRICTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO ADE'S SUBMISSION CONCERNING REMEDIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS : INTERVENERS ,' INTERVENERS ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE I. Introduction. The three Pulaski County school districts (the "districts") agree that ADE' s submission provides one acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts' for teacher retirement and health insurance. 1 However, ADE stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. The Eighth Circuit's order requires "equal state funding ... for all school districts." LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 ( 8t h cir. 1996) . See LRSD v. PCS SD, slip op. at 27, 1998 WL 352245, *6 (8 th Cir. July 1, 1998). Under Act 917, districts outside Pulaski County received 107% of their teacher retirement and health 1The districts cannot agree at this time that ADE's methodology should be used for future claims to be made by the districts with regard to special education and loss funding. insurance costs. 2 Therefore, the three Pulaski County districts should also receive 107% of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. See Exhibit 1 attached. II. Discussion. In remanding the issue of damages to this Court, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: 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 a~e 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 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 heal th insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6 (emphasis supplied). 2Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green, this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other district. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 2 To determine the districts ' damages as prescribed by the - Eighth Circuit, this Court must know two numbers: (1) the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; and, (2) the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system. Using these two numbers, the districts' damages can easily be calculated by subtracting what the district's actually received under Act 917 from what the districts would have received under Act 34. See Exhibit 1 attached. The amount the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system is no longer in dispute. The districts accept for the purpose of calculating their damages in these cases the amounts set forth in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. The parties dispute, however, the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system. ADE contends that this amount is equal to 100% of the districts' actual costs. The districts contend that this amount is equal to the percentage of actual costs received by districts statewide (which is 107%). Resolution of this dispute should be guided by the Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case. In that case, the Eighth Circuit defined the workers' compensation "program" as "equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts." LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Thus, the 3 Eighth Circuit found that this Court "correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide." l,g ( emphasis supplied) . 3 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts "in the same percentage as it does statewide." The nature of the State's violation of the Settlement Agreement dictates a remedy which ensures no disparate impact on the three Pulaski County districts. As the Eighth Circuit explained in the workers' compensation case, disparate funding violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement. The court stated: The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, 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." We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. If, for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation 3Specifically, this Court stated: (T]he Court does find that the state must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, Docket No. 2337. 4 payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The state did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding formula for all districts in the State. So long as that change effects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed "seed money" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half of the expense statewide. In the Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. This result is 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. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018 (emphasis supplied). By defining the "program" as "equal state funding," the Eighth Circuit's opinion prohibits the State from funding the districts "to a lesser degree" than other districts in the state. Using the Eighth Circuit's analogy, the Settlement Agreement would clearly be offended if the State passed a statute funding 100% of the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs and 107% of these costs for other districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. This is exactly what the State did in passing Act 917. As the Eighth Circuit stated in the workers' compensation case, "It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner." Ig. 5 Act 917 violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement because "[i]t funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state." Id. Therefore, as in the workers' compensation case, the proper remedy is to direct the State to provide the districts funding for their teacher retirement and heal th insurance costs "in the same percentage as it does statewide." Id. ADE may argue that funding 107% of the districts' costs will provide the districts the windfall described by the Eighth Circuit. This argument fails for two reasons. First, the windfall described by Eighth Circuit arises only if the State is not given credit for the amount of teacher retirement and heal th insurance funding provided under Act 917. See LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6. The districts agree with ADE's proposed methodology for calculating the this credit, and both ADE's and the district's damage calculations deduct this amount to avoid a windfall. Second, funding the three Pulaski County districts at 100% would deprive them of additional funding being provided to other districts in the state. Because education funds are finite, funds used to pay teacher retirement arid health insurance costs decrease the amount of funds which can be spent on direct educational programs. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F. 3d at 1018 ( "Assuming finite funds, workers' compensation payments will decrease funds available for more direct educational programs.") . Thus, if the average Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and health insurance costs total $1,000,000.00, Act 917 provides the district 6 $1,070,000.00 -- an excess of $70,000.00 over its costs. This excess can be used to fund direct educational programs in addition to other funding received by the district under Act 917. There is no reason why the three Pulaski County districts should be deprived of these additional funds provided to other districts in the state. To the contrary, the districts' desegregation obligations place the districts in a position of greater need than most other districts. III. Conclusion. Act 917 funds 107% of the teacher retirement and health insurance costs of districts in the state outside Pulaski County. In order to fund the three Pulaski County districts in the same percentage, the State must pay the Little Rock School District an additional $8,740,083 for 1996-97 and $9,079,676 for 1997-98; the North Little Rock School District an additional $1,303,417 for 1996-97 and $1,328,590 for 1997-98; and, the Pulaski County Special School District an additional $1,920,359 for 1996-97 and $2,222,213 for 1997-98. See Exhibit 1 attached. 4 Accordingly, the districts pray that the State be ordered to pay these amounts to the districts. 4Exhibit 1 incorporates the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the districts as calculated by ADE with the exception of PCSSD. See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. ADE's calculations exclude federal employees only for PCSSD. In order to be consistent and fair to PCSSD, Exhibit 1 is based on a total cost for teacher retirement and health insurance calculated by Dr. Don Stewart which includes federal employees. 7 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 8 ------ ristopher He John C. Fendley, 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 19th day of August, 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 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John c. Fendley, Jr. 9 Exhibit 1 Summary of Proposed Remedy on Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Issues - Fiscal Years 1997 & 1998 1996-97 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Actual of Actual Funding Damages District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil LRSD $13,832,481 $14,800,755 $6,060,672 $8,740,083 NLRSD $4,458,912 $4,771,036 $3,467,619 $1,303,417 PCSSD $9,564,451 $10,233,963 $8,313,604 $1,920,359 TOTAL $11,963,858 1997-98 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Total Actual of Actual Funding Damages 1996-97 & District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil 1997-98 LRSD $14,337,742 $15,341,383.94 $6,261,708 $9,079,676 $17,819,759 - NLRSD $4,606,297 $4,928,738 $3,600,148 $1,328,590 $2,632,007 PCSSD $9,753,866 $10,436,637 $8,214,424 $2,222,213 $4,142,571 TOTAL $12,630,478 $24,594,336 NOTE: Dr. Don Stewart's calculations were used for PCSSD's actual costs. t . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE1,,eo AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION BY THE PCSSD PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On this day, the LRSD is submitting a proposal which accepts the State's methodology but urges that the districts receive 107% of their costs as compared to the State's proposed 100%. The LRSD submission also supplies the correct cost numbers for the PCSSD making them consistent with how costs were calculated by the State for LRSD and NLRSD. If the Court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD today, then the PCSSD reserves the right to argue the adoption of the methodology and outcomes reflected on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". Further, the PCSSD does not currently agree that the methodology proposed by the State should be applicable to any other remaining issues or claims that may be advanced in this matter. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Special School Di CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August / 7 , 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 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 STATE TEACHE'.R RETIREMENT CALCULATION 1996-97 DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST pcssd only TOT. OTHER STATE TOT. STATE 1995-1996 SOURCE INFORMATION $136,389,292 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE TEA. RET. COST $136,389,292 96-97 STATEWIDE TEA. RET. DISTRIBUTION 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $304.55 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 STATE HEALTH INSURANCE CALCULATION 1996-97 SOURCE INFORMATION $46,206,825 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. COST TR&HIEXP.WK4 1996-1997 DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST $46,206,825 96-97 STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. DISTRIBUTION - INCLUDING FEDERAL 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $103.18 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1995-1996 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. OTHER STATE 396,797.72 $39 020,310 $98.34 $40 940 527 TOT. STATE 447 838.95 $46 206 825 $103.18 $48 480 696 NOTE: HEAL TH INSURANCE ACTUAL COST INCLUDES COSTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR ALL DISTRICTS. 08/18/98 1996-1997 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. EXHIBIT I 8 ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ., WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 4 1998 Of-FIGE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO~ 1, ct al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO LRSD DEP"r.NDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEAL TH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that plaintiff Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: State whether LRSD reported ODM employees as LRSD employees to the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for the purpose of ATRS' calculation of LRSD's 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. INTERROGATORY No. 2: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is in the affirmative, state: (a) The name of each ODM employee so reported; and (b) for each such ODM employee, . the amount (in dollars) said employee generated towards LRSD' s total 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. ' . ' ' ' : : ---- - --- INTERROGATORY No. 8: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded LRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase "federally funded LRSD employee" means an employee for whom LRSD was required to pay the health insurance contribution rate under Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1117 and whose salary was paid in whole or in part with federal funds. INTERROGATORY No. 9: State the name, title, employer, business address and telephone number of each and every person who prepared, provided information, or otherwise assisted in the preparation of the response to Interrogatory No. 9. (You need not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant ~ ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 21, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document 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 Friday, Eldredge & Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 4 I IN TH~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG 2 4 199B OfflCE0f ~TlON MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO NLRSD . - . . . . . DEFENDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that the North Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded NLRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase "federally funded NLRSD employee" means an employee for whom NLRSD was required to pay the health insura