Court filings: District Court, motion for extension of time by Knight intervenors to response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from court supervision and post-unitary commitments; District Court, reply of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to the Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision and post-unitary commitments; 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. ... 1q ... ,~ , , 1 \':1 ' ' ' . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT}Df ~SAS WESTERN D~I't)i'r - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT gg APR -S lit1 I I '"'.; PLAINTIFF JAME3 Vf. MCC~! ff:;~.r> .-1 .. VS. NO. J!;:i-~g:zls6~0fr, T. :::. BY- -0...,.E.,,..Pl.i.",,i. ':' CU:b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST APR UNITARY COMMITMENTS OFFICE OF . . . DESEGREGATION MONlTDRIMG Kathenne Knight, et al., Intervenors, by and through theIT attorneys, Roacheff - Law Firm, for their Motion, states: 1. The Motion of PCSSD for release from Federal Court supervision and post unitary commitments was received in this office on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. On that date and before the mail had run, counsel for these Intervenors had left for depositions in Helena, Arkansas on March 31 and April 1, 1999. Upon returning on April 2, 1999, Intervenors counsel actually received and read the PCSSD Petition. 2. All three Districts' employee organizations (LRCTA, NLRCTA and PACT) were off work< April 2, 1999 through the Easter weekend. Therefore, it is impossible for these Intervenors to respond in the time allowed if they do so choose to respond. skp9 l 2.500.doc WHEREFORE, these Intervenors pray that the Court grant a seven (7) day extension of time, within which to file any response to the PCSSD Petition and for all other relief to which they be entitled. Respectfully submitted, :o, :_ ~ .Ct~..4u. ~ - - - - ---- --- Richard W. Roachell, #78132 Roachell Law Firm 504 Lyon Building 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following this 5th day of April, 1999. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 skp9 I 2.500.doc M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste 2200 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 -~-r ~kansas 72'f\ ~ \' --~ " lc .. J..r..\..\- Richard W. Roachell FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS e omc1: 1J~ DESEGREGATION MOWOH\NG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR O 6 1I "'j'"j'"J JAMES w. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \) \ l,1,,J :\ 1\ C I ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * lntervenors, * * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * lntervenors, * ORDER The motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension oftime until and including April 20, 1999 in which to fiie a response to the PCSSD petition for reiease from federai court supervision is hereby granted. The Knight Intervenors' motion for an extension oftime to file a response to PCSSD's motion is likewise granted and they, too, shall have until and including April 20, 1999 in which to respond to PCSSD's motion. !TIS SO ORDERED this (;.Aday of cf 4, f_ I 999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUANJE vm-~ RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FACP m :f: ~ ~ z:'.'.1' ev.-e_t:_ ___ DEP CLERK u.fo!bfcPuAr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR 161999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ey: -------=~::-,-::-,,.,., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAI~~~ilfAK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. , RECEIVED APR 19 19B~ omce=.o;r DfSf61111TJCN MO'Ntfffifll@ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release From court supervision and Post-unitary commitments The PCSSD has renewed its effort to secure the entry of an order "declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and releas[ing] [the district] from further court supervision." The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court: ( i) deny .. _ the specific relief sought by the PCSSD, (ii) treat the totality of the new PCSSD submission, in accord with its terms, as a request to substitute a new plan for the current plans, and (iii) declare that the new plan can be approved as a revised settlement agreement, except for its provisions defining the duration of the court's jurisdiction by reference to an arbitrary date rather than by reference to sustained, adequate compliance with the plan's terms. The current petition, of course, omits some important prior 1 I I I I I I I I I history. First. On October 14, 1997, the PCSSD filed an almost identical "Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervi si on." l Secon d . . On Decem be r 2, 1997, th e Jos h ua Intervenors filed their opposition to the petition, setting forth the legal standards deemed to apply to its resolution and discussing the various facets of the system's operation, which the district had addressed. Third. The -Joshua Intervenors undertook written discovery and took numerous depositions. Fourth. The court conducted a three-day hearing on the petition in the period June 29 to July 1, 1998. Fifth. After the hearing, the Joshua Intervenors and the PCSSD each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as comments on the submission of the other party. Sixth. On September 28, 1998, upon learning of renewed settlement discussions, the court denied the petition without prejudice, and cited the system's right to refile the petition should settlement efforts fail. Seventh. The system has refiled its petition. This history and the congruence of the two versions of the petition shed light on what need n2t: be done at this time. That is, there is no need to conduct new discovery, have a new evidentiary hearing, or file again contentions regarding the content of the 1998 hearing and relevant aspe~ts of th record. 1 The current document differs in only two ways, substantively. The second paragraph and the attachment concerning the so-called post-unitary commitments are new. At pages 27-28, in the discussion on discipline, a chart which appeared in the first version of the petition has been omitted. The reason for this omission may be that the chart was deemed to depict the racial disparities in discipline too graphically. 2 Intervenors have already addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has 11 [not] earned unitary status [or] release ... from further court supervision. 11 Intervenors rely upon their prior submissions, filed on December 2, 1997 (opposition), September 1, 1998 (proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law), and September 16, 1998 (comments on PCSSD findings and conclusions). But for the PCSSD's inclusion in its Petition of what it labels "Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments" (March 9, 1999), Intervenors could rest on the foregoing argument. The commitments document requires a response, however. Indeed, it provides a vehicle to improve upon the poor record of implementation revealed by the proceedings following the filing of the first version of the petition. Provisions concerning the continuation of this court's jurisdiction are a central feature of the commitments document. The submission is~ a compilation of policies and practices to be followed after this court's jurisdiction ends. The language to which intervenors refer is as follows (at 8-9): A. scope of This Cominitment (1) This Commitment shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case "Settlement Agreement" as revised on September 28, 1989; 3 (b) The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; (c) Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; (d) The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and (e) Orders of the district court and the court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Commitment. N. continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its term, as described in Parts N, P and Q. Nothing in this Commitment shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Commitment in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua Intervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. [Sub-parts (a) to (c) omitted] (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations S~rvice, the Joshua Intervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Commitment. o. The scope of compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include. the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Commitment, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Commitment ... 4 Q. unitary status The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. Upon execution of this Colllillitment, the PCSSD will petition the court for the district's immediate release from court supervision, subject however to the terms of this Commitment. Provided, however, that the PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. In short, the commitments document sets forth the anticipation of the PCSSD that the court's jurisdiction will continue and addresses the manner in which that jurisdiction will be invoked, as well as the types of compliance issues which may be raised. Furthermore, the substantive portions of the document further identify the areas of potential court activity by setting forth provisions addressing discipline (at 3), multicultural education (at 4), school facilities (at 4), school resources (at - 5), staff (at 6), personnel (at 6), student achievement (at 6 and attachment), etc. The court, intervenors respectfully submit, should treat the commitments document as what its terms show it to be -- a request by the PCSSD to substitute a new plan as the basis for the system's remedial obligations. Respectfully, the court should rule that the motion could be granted, if the terms of the commitments document (revised plan) were modified so that the duration of the court's jurisdiction depended upon the quality of implementation rather than an arbitrary time period. (This topic 5 is discussed below.) 2 Substitution of the new plan would be beneficial. A review of its substantive features reveals a focus upon areas shown by the hearings last summer to require a renewed and more-targeted emphasis, such as discipline, facilities and student achievement . 3 While briefer than the current plans, the plan identifies many specific remedial activities. The system would be required to focus its monitoring efforts on the steps required by the new plan, develop a plan to do so, and identify the persons responsible for implementation of particular features. See page 7, N.(l). There would be no impeding of ODM monitoring. The system would continue to provide the data which ODM has used for many of its reports. See pages 7-8, N.(3). ODM could also test compliance with the various specific activities promised by the district. Lastly, intervenors feel certain that the PCSSD would respond positively to ODM re~ests to participate in the various projects identified in the proposal. Intervenors' approach finds support in the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in this case of April 10, 1998, approving the joint motion of the LRSD and these intervenors for a revised plan for the LRSD. At a general level, the order evidences that the earlier plans are not cast in concrete. 2 The need for approval by the court was and is obvious. The PCSSD could not expect to invest the court with jurisdiction and delineate the scope of that jurisdiction, unilaterally. 3 See "The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ... ," 9-1-98, at 8-14 (discipline), 14-18 (facilities), and 23-38 (student achievement). 6 This court approved the LRSD revision as "an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua" (at 3), or, alternatively, as "a modification of the 1990 Plan" (at 5). The former approach, relying upon the standard set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990), may be deemed applicable here. See Mem. Opin. and Order at 3-5 (standard applied). The PCSSD has put forward a new consent decree or settlement agreement and the Intervenors have indicated, in this response, that they agree to its approval, with one exception dealing with the duration of the court's jurisdiction. This court, as explained in the opi nion last year dealing with the LRSD revision, can not pick and choose among the parts of the parties' proposal. Mem. at 4. It may identify those parts deemed to warrant approval, suggest modifications, and leave it to a party or the parties to demonstrate that the court's objections have been satisfi~d . .Ig. The reasons why the provisions with which each party agrees should be approved are as follows. The law strongly favors such agreements. Isl- at 3. ODM monitoring can continue unimpeded. Mat 5. The revised proposal "is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face." Isl- at 5. Indeed, the revision "furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties." .Ig. at 7. This leaves the matter of the duration of the commitment. The commitment provides in Part N.(l) that this court 7 shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this commitment during its tern, as described in Parts N, P and Q. (emphasis added). Part P. provides: The Term of the commitment The term of this conunitment shall begin upon court approval and shall terminate as of June 30, 2001. The last part of the agreement pertinent in assessing the duration of the court's jurisdiction, as proposed by the PCSSD, is Part N.(3), which reads: (3) Notwithstanding Part 2, invocation by June 30, 2001 of the process described in Part N shall be regarded as timely invocation of the entire process. Under these provisions, as a .totality, the term of the court's jurisdiction could extend beyond June 30, 2001, if the Joshua Intervenors had invoked the Part N.(2} process for raising compliance issues before that date. In this event, the term would depend on any period of relie_f., after June 30, 2001, entered by the court, to compensate for any earlier period of noncompliance. Nevertheless, the duration of jurisdiction would not necessarily be measured by the adequacy of compliance. And that is objectionable to intervenors. Three sources, two from this case, support intervenors' argument that the duration of jurisdiction should be geared to the attainment of sustained and adequate compliance. First. In LRSD v, PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th cir. 1990), in the opinion first approving the settlement, the court alluded to the need of the parties to "scrupulously and diligently carry out the 8 ,---------------------- - - --- - - - ----- -- -- -- -- settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... " Second. In the key decision addressing the duration of jurisdiction, outside the realm of agreed plans, the Supreme Court in Freeman y. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 134-35 {1992), identified one relevant factor as 0 whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; ... "Third.The revised plan for the LRSD allows the Joshua Intervenors to secure the continuation of the plan by demonstrating, before it expires, that the LRSD has not substantially complied with its terms. The LRSD is to submit a written report, addressing overall implementation, to facilitate consideration of the matter. In summary, in each instance, the focus is upon strong - compliance with substantive standards. Jurisdiction does not end - after an arbitrary time period, without regard to the quality of implementation. conclusion The Joshua Intervenors respectfully -request that the court: (1.) deny the petition of the PCSSD seeking a declaration of unitary status and a release from court supervision, for the reasons expressed by the intervenors in their submissions in response to the earlier version of the PCSSD petition; (2.) declare that the commitment document is acceptable as an amended settlement agreement, except for the provisions concerning the duration of the court's jurisdiction, to the extent that the duration of the court's jurisdiction does not 9 - . turn on the achievement of sustained, adequate compliance; and . ~ (3.) allow the parties to correct the defects in the commitment document (revised agreement) and refile it for approval. Rob rtPressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. # 405900 Respectfully submitted, Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ark. # 405900 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JIit. PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBS ITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wr i ter's Oi recl Dial No . 501-2121273 mjones(l)wlj .com April 30, 1999 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J, SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRI STI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OFFICE OP DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed is a copy of Reply of PCSSD to the Joshua lntervenors' Response to the PCSSD Petition for Release from Federal Court Supervision and Post-Unitary Commitments which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 100174-v1 Cordially, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY OF PCSSD TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION AND POST-UNITARY COMMITMENTS UNITARY STATUS Several comments are in order concerning the Joshua response. In opposing a declaration of unitary status, Joshua asserts that it has "[a]lready addressed the relevant legal standards and the evidence showing that due to inadequate implementation of the current plans, the PCSSD has [not] earned unitary status ... " Joshua Response, page 3. (emphasis added). The PCSSD submits that this is not at all what the evidence showed. At most, the evidence showed that in certain areas the PCSSD had not achieved the ambitious statistical outcomes it sought through implementation of its plan. There was no showing of any material failure of implementation in any respect. Indeed, the Board member witnesses called by Joshua testified only generally that they did not believe the PCSSD 100117-v1 was "ready" for unitary status, but none testified concerning any specific failure of plan implementation. The statement quoted in paragraph 1 is at the least a tacit acknowledgment by Joshua that the focus of the Court's analysis is properly plan implementation, not statistical outcomes or statistical achievements, however important they are as educational and social issues. This is still a lawsuit which must be evaluated by legal standards. Indeed, all parties understood the role of the Court when they executed the releases of all claims which state in pertinent part that: "This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans." [Court Exhibit No. CX417 at pages 1 and 2] Joshua's acknowledgment, when coupled with another recent development, should make the legal path for this Court clear. This Court approved the "new" Little Rock plan in an order dated April 10, 1998. A portion of the Little Rock plan approved specifically states that: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD .shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. LRSD Revised Plan at page 14, note 2 Further, as part of the analysis the Court made to approve the revised Little Rock plan, this Court noted: More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, 2 regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. (Citing the goals concerning achievement disparity) Order at page 6. CONTINUING JURISDICTION Joshua presumes that unitary status will be denied, that the 1990 plan would continue in effect unless replaced by the "Commitment" and therefore this Court should treat the Commitment as a proposed new plan. On the other hand, the PCSSD is seeking a termination of federal court supervision except in the financial areas and as otherwise specified in the revised Little Rock plan and in the PCSSD Commitment. Of course, this Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction over the unilateral PCSSD Commitment if it so chooses. To the extent any party might urge such - relinquishment as a "change" in the PCSSD submission, it will agree to that change. Inviting the Court to retain jurisdiction was seen by the PCSSD as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision, particularly as regards the 1990 plan and declaring the PCSSD unitary in respect of that plan. At the same time, the PCSSD Commitment would institute a new process of dispute and compliance resolution calculated to avoid the necessity of district court intervention except as a last resort. (Please see Commitment at pp. 8-9) THE DURATION OF THE COMMITMENT Again, in the context of asking the Court to treat the PCSSD as a plan - amendment, Joshua complains that the ending date of the PCSSD Commitment, June 30, 2001, is too brief and that the term of the Court's jurisdiction, as envisioned by Joshua, should not necessarily end when the Commitment expires. 3 The term of the PCSSD Commitment is identical to that of the LRSD Revised Plan, both ending at the end of the 2000-2001 school year. Indeed, the PCSSD Commitment is slightly longer extending until June 30, 2001, and, as observed by Joshua, susceptible to extension, as a practical matter, if Joshua demonstrates or claims non-compliance before June 30, 2001 . Interestingly, the April 10, 1998 order approving the Revised Plan of the ,LRSD is entirely silent as concerns the duration of that Plan and voices no concern about it whatsoever. Since the LRSD Revised Plan and the PCSSD Commitment operate basically in the same fashion as concern jurisdiction and the term of the Plan and Commitment, Joshua's arguments and concerns in this regard as respects the PCSSD - are simply unwarranted and unnecessary. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD should be declared unitary and its Commitment approved as part of that declaration and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By_~~~:::J...~:...C==:=._--- 6060) County Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 3a , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 5 , e RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 Offif,HJ ~MUlfflRIIG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 April 30, 1999 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR ;72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Spedal School District No. 1, et al, LR-C-82-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed for your files and information, please find copy of the Notice of Filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 1999 that I have caused to be filed this date. Enclosure Sincerely ~~ Carol Robbins Secretary to Timothy G. Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ I - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED MAY 3 1999 OffiCEOF DESf6REGATJON MDNfTDRJNB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for April, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARKPRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.