Court filings: District Court, emergency motion of the Joshua intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees by the Little Rock School District (LRSD)

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. I FILED U.S. DISTR ICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtmTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 1997 OFFICE OF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR Emergency Motion of ~~Wt{-hWNlmifHGrvenors Concerning The Payment of Attorneys' Fees by the LRSD The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order providing for the payment of interim attorneys' fees by the LRSD to intervenors, periodically, in the manner described at the conclusion of this motion. The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the plaintiff class has adequate representation in the proceeding to consider the proposed, revised plan of the LRSD, and thereafter. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum and the following allegations: (1.) The LRSD has filed a motion, which this court has scheduled for a hearing beginning February 2, 1997, seeking approval of a "Revised Desegregation and Education Plan." This plan is 16 pages in length. In contrast, the current plan of the LRSD is approximately 230 pages in length and the Interdistrict Plan is 64 pages in length. (2.) It is the stated purpose of the LRSD, in part, to have 1 / the Revised Plan "supersede and extinguish" the current LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan. Revised Plan, at 1. (3.) The Revised Plan is in substantial part and in areas of critical importance merely an outline for a plan, rather than a plan that could be enforced by the court. For example: (a.) In 15 instances, in paragraphs II.B. through II.P, the words "LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and\or procedures," followed by a particular subject matter, appear. Revised Plan at 1-3. The "programs, policies, and\or procedures" are not identified in the Plan. Compare Rule 65(d), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. (b . ) In Part V. of the Revised Plan, which deals with "Student Achievement," the Plan specifies outcome goals for students in a way making it impossibe to determine the level of mastery intended. See Parts V.B.1.a. (at 8), V.B.2.a. (at 9-10), and V. B. 3. a. ( at 10) . (c.) In Part VII, the Revised Plan addresses a "Compliance Program," without setting forth compliance standards. Revised Plan at 13. (4 . ) The Joshua Intervenors propounded written discovery requests to the LRSD concerning the Revised Plan. See copy of answers attached as exhibit A. One purpose of the discovery was to determine if the LRSD was willing to work with the Joshua Intervenors to render Part II. of the Plan, addressing "Obligations," more specific. The LRSD made a nonresponsive answer to this query. Interrogatory 4 at 3. 2 / (5.) One purpose of the discovery was to secure the identification of the underlying "programs, policies and procedures" which would appear to be determinative of the efficacy of the plan with regard to the plaintiff class. The answers to written discovery indicate that to a substantial degree, the underlying materials have not been identified. See Interrogatories 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22(i), 23, 27, 30. (6.) One purpose of the discovery was to identify the reason or reasons why in many instances the proposed plan did not identify the particular programs, policies or procedures to be implemented. The LRSD responded that "LRSD believes, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the revised plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement." Interrogatory 3. In responding to an interrogatory about school construction, the LRSD again indicated its intent to have the power to define and redefine standards determinative of the value of the revised plan for the plaintiff class. Interrogatory 23. (7.) The LRSD seeks the approval of a new plan which is vague and standardless in many important respects, and designedly so, in a context in which the court and ODM have, over the years, found the performance of the agents of the LRSD in implementing the court-approved agreements to be deficient. See, for example, the court's statement to the LRSD school board members in March 1993; Mem. and Order, March 11 , 1996, at 8 ("The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance 3 I . ' towards its comitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements although some improvements have been made.''); Transcript June 23, 1995, at 34, 72, 87; July 6, 1995, at 123-24, 176-77, 241. (8.) In view of the foregoing allegations, it is reasonable to characterize the activities of the Joshua Intervenors in responding to the Revised Plan as protecting the extensive relief, previously agreed upon and approved by the courts. However, the relief sought in this motion is appropriate whether or not the court agrees with the foregoing position regarding the proposed Revised Plan. (9.) Assuming for the purposes of this motion the existence of the agreement on future fees found by this court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 25, 1996, at 6-7, the agreement dealt with "the life of the settlement plans ... " (Chachkin); see also Mr. Heller ("in our settlement plans"). The activities of the Joshua Intervenors to date and in the future, with reference to the Revised Plan which would "supersede and extinguish" the LRSD and Interdistrict plans, are outside the parameters of the agreement found to exist by the court. Therefore, the Joshua Intervenors should be permitted to secure fees and costs for such work, and other work related to the Revised Plan, in accord with the standards last discussed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Jenkins v. Missouri, 115 F.3d 554 (1997). (10.) Assuming for the purposes of this motion the existence 4 I' of the agreement on future fees found by this court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 25, 1996, at 6-7, it is appropriate, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, to modify the agreement to delete the limitation on fee awards in the post-judgment phase of this case [see Appeal of the LRSD, 949 F.2d 253, 258 {8th Cir. 1991)], thereby restoring the applicability of the standard discussed in Jenkins v. Missouri. supra. The agreement will have been in force for seven years, during which an extraordinary amount of activity by the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors has been necessary, both in and out of court, much due to the deficient performance of the agents of the LRSD. This deficient performance has often been noted by this court, as evidenced by the examples cited above. See also Transcript, August 19, 1996, at 102. In addition, the continuation of the agreement will undermine the ability of the Joshua Intervenors to adequately represent the class. See the attached Affidavit of John W. Walker. (11.) Considerable work will be necessary in connection with the consideration of the Revised Plan, including responding to voluminous written discovery requests submitted by LRSD to intervenors' representatives. In addition, the LRSD proposal is for the Revised Plan to take effect eight months hence and to be in effect for at least three school years. {12.) This court has the authority to provide for an interim .award of fees and litigation costs, particularly when needed to protect the functioning of the private attorney general concept. 5 --- -- - ----- (13,) With regard to the hourly rates sought for the work of the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as noted in the prayer for relief below, see the following materials previously filed: John W. Walker -- Fee Petition, Nov. 21, 1995, Aff. of John w. Walker, at 1-7, 12-14; Supplemental Response of the Joshua Intervenors, Aug. 29, 1996, at 7 and Enclosure Two; Robert Pressman -- The Joshua Intervenors Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (Sept. 1996), Sept. 27, 1996, Declaration of Robert Pressman and Attachments; Joy C. Springer -- Fee Petition, Nov. 21, 1995, Affidavit of Joy C. Springer, at 1-5, 19-20. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the court enter an order: (a.) declaring that the work of the Joshua Intervenors' representatives concerning the Revised Plan is outside the scope of the agreement, previously found to exist by the court, limiting fee awards; (b.) declaring that the agreement of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD is modified, pursuant to the .court's authority to modify a consent decree, by eliminating the limitation on fee awards in the postjudgment stage of this case (with the understanding that the general standard governing fees at the postjudgment stage of a case will then apply); (c.) providing that the LRSD pay the Joshua Intervenors' representatives monthly their reasonable fees and costs, upon submission of adequate documentation, with the court available to rule on any portion of a request considered by the LRSD to be 6 outside the bounds normally governing fee awards; (d.) providing that the fees be paid at the following rates: John w. Walker ($ 250 per hour), Robert Pressman ($ 200 per hour), and Joy c. Springer($ 50 per hour); and (e) providing that the LRSD shall have the right to request the court to reconsider the procedure detailed in (c.) and (d.) after it has been in operation for 12 months; (f) providing such other and\or different relief as the needs of justice may require. Robert Pressman MA 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 W. Walker AR 64046 W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was sent via United States mail on thi D e 1997 to all counsel of record and sent via counsel for LRSD. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEiVED DtL 1 5 1997 I, John W. Walker, a.ffiant herein, state under oath the following: FLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTrllCT ARKANSAS DEC 1 2 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv: PLAINTIFF = -~ t:lEP.eLE1:111: DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. A majority of the cases being handled by my office are in the nature of civil rights litigation. 2. The clients in these cases are usually not fee paying clients whereby this office could on a regular basis bill them for our services. There are in such a practice unexpected losses, such as when the entire fee in the Judy Smith case was lost due to the bankruptcy of Harvest Foods. 3 Many of these cases are handled on a contingency fee basis thus causing the office to utilize a substantial amount of the fees collected on other cases to be a basis for support of these cases. 4. In the case ofLRSD, when the Eighth Circuit awarded fees to be paid in the case herein, a substantial amount was paid to the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and to the estate of Wiley Branton, Sr. who had worked on this case for many years. Moreover, a substantial amount of the fee award was expended for expenses incurred in connection with the litigation herein. Furthermore, because of the taxing accounting method for purposes of making payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), large amounts of the Little Rock portion of the fee award were paid in that year or the next for federal and state income taxes. S. The costs of the representation of the class are enonnous and involve fees and costs to staff who monitor the case and who assist class members in their efforts to secure or retain rights believed by counsel to be afforded by the settlement. 6. The present scheduled hearing involves considerable preparation time including discovery, costs of extensive depositions from the two superintendents and five major level administrators and response to the substantial set of interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff class. This time and expense involvement comes during the period of the holidays, the end of the year, and the beginning of of the new year, when there is a need for attention, not only to legal presentation, but also to the overall business. It also comes at a time when the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) is launching a serious attack upon the court approved settlement plan and is seeking to be declared unitary .. 7. In order to provide the court with insight into the plaintiff, LRSD's, tactic to overburden an already weakened office (no fees for more than $1,000,000.00 worth of work over a seven year period), the Friday firm proposes to take depositions of our representative simultaneously with our deposing the Superintendent and the staff. A response to that undertaking takes considerable time and effort. It distracts from inquiry into the plan. It also comes at a time when we still have our monitoring obligations which become more time consuming as the semester end approaches, based upon past experiences. Moreover, we are further handicapped because of the fact that we do not have the benefit of the usual Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) reports for the past eighteen (18) months which would reflect the current or ongoing status of the LRSD's implementation of the desegregation plan. 8. The class stands to be adversely affected if our preparation for and participation in the February 2, 1998 hearing is not adequate. As it stands now, although the public belief is to the contrary, a fee drought for seven years from this case leaves us unable to meet the efforts of defense - counsel, supported by unregulated and unlimited funds, in an effort to defeat the very plan which they bugled in 1989 before the Court and the 8th Circuit. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief. SUBSCRIBED and SWORN before me this ~day of December, 1997. ()fa a' Poivelx Ex h; h,t A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF LRSD'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF:S DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Answers to The Joshua Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents states: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This inte~rogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John c. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words "LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for OEC5S97 7 each ot these 15 paragraphs all programs, policies and procedures which you maintain ar~ currently implemented and are intended to be encompassed by the reference in the particular subparagraph of Pa~t II. of the proposed plan. In addition, please specify when the implementation of the particular program, policy or procedure began. Lastly, as to each sub-paragraph, please indicate whether work is underway to develop a particular program, policy or procedure to implement the obligation and, if so, describe generally the nature of the initiative(s) and the anticipated completion date(s). ANSWER: Except as otherwise provided in LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), the obligations set forth in Section II were not intended to encompass any particular implemented. program, policy and procedure currently being As stated in Section XI of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year will be a transition year in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan during the 1998-99 school year. During the transition year, LRSD will be evaluating current programs, policies and procedures and developing new programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in order to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Some of this work has already been completed and is contained in the work team reports submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors in August of this year. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please explain the reason(s) that the proposed plan does not include in the 15 instances referred to in Interrogatory No. 2, or in any instance, the identification of the 11-.""'4..,._jo,I,._ 2 particular programs, policies and procedures to be implemented. (If LRSD believes that there is identification of a particular standard in one or more instances, please answer as to obligations where you agree that there is no identification of a particular standard or program). ANSWER: The Revised Plan includes specific programs, policies and/or procedures with regard to student assignments (Section III & IV), African-American academic achievement (Section V), equitable allocation of certified personnel (Section VI) and compliance (Section VII). With regard to the remaining obligations, LRSD believes that, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the Revised Plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement. LRSD firmly believes that flexibility is essential to instilling in the qistrict a_ sense of responsibility and accountability. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Would the system refuse to support adoption of the revised plan if the plan included the identification of particular programs, policies and/or procedures, or other steps, to implement the "obligations" identified in Part II? If so, explain the reason(s) for the system's position. ANSWER: The Revised Plan does identify particular programs, policies and/or procedures. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you agree that as written, there would be compliance with the provisions of II.B. through II.P. of the proposed plan if the system implemented, as to the particular sub-paragraph, programs QI: policies QI: procedures regarding the ~11..a\lonl~-- 3 I I I I \ particular matter addressed in the paragraph. If the answer is negative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: As the plan is written, would the court have the authority, in the opinion of the LRSD, to hold a system official (s) (sic) in contempt of court for failure to implement a term of a particular policy of the district, which the LRSD views as encompassed by one of the sub-paragraphs in II.B. through II.P. of the plan, but which is not specified in the plan. If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain the basis f~r the answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for the lega1 opinion of counsel for LRSD which is privileged under the attorneyclient privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the district court would have authority to enforce the Revised Plan using its contempt power. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As the plan is written, does any provision of paragraphs II.B. through II.P. of the plan require any action on the part of the LRSD if at a particular school there is substantial racial disparity, atypical in the LRSD system, in the numbers of black students suspended, the numbers of black males placed in special education classes, or the numbers of black students in the gifted and talented program. If the answer is affirmative, please identify the provision(s) which is the basis of the answer. 4 \ ANSWER: Paragraphs G., H. and I. of Section II state LRSD's I obligations with regard to special education, student discipline and gifted and talented, respectively. Compliance with the~e paragraphs would require LRSD to investigate a racial disparity which varies substantially from what would be expected. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you maintain that the .LRSD complies, currently, with each obligation set forth in Part II. of the plan. If not, please describe in detail the area(s) of noncompliance. ANSWER: The obligations set forth in Section II encompass the core obligations from LRSD' s current desegregation plan. LRSD maintains that it has substantially complied with its current desegregation plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to II.B. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the proportion black in the relevant labor market and the source of this information, and the proportion black of the work force at present. ANSWER: LRSD intends to rely on federal EEOC statistics for Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas and the nation as a whole to determine the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market. With regard to the proportion of AfricanAmerican teachers and administrators, see Exhibits A, B and C attached. LRSD's noncertified personnel is 73.8% African-American. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: With respect to II.C. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the meaning of the words "the pool of candidates eligible 5 for promotion", the proportion black in that pool and the source of the information, and the proportion black of the persons employed in the category at present. ANSWER: The "pool of candidates eligible for promotion" includes current employees who satisfy all eligibility requirements imposed by law or by the Board for a position. LRSD objects to identifying every position for which every employee is currently eligible for promotion as unduly burdensome. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: With respect to II.D. of the proposed plan, please identify the positions covered within the term "certified personnel" and provide as to each category the number of persons currently employed in the LRSD by race . ANSWER: "Certified personnel" are LRSD employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by the State of Arkansas in order to hold their position. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: With respect to II.E. of the proposed plan, please identify any category of certified personnel where the LRSD does not have the right to assign personnel for the good of the system and the basis of the limitation. ANSWER: See Articles XV through XVIII of the PN Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 6 ". INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to II.H. of the proposed e plan, please describe in detail any specific initiative(s) in the LRSD a.t present, whether involving particular personnel, or standards, designed to guard against black students' receiving discipline for conduct for which white students are not disciplined, black students' receiving discipline for trivial matters, and/or black students' receiving more severe discipline than white students for similar conduct. ANSWER: LRSD expects all of its students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to comply with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. If a student fails to comply, the student will be disciplined as provided in the Handbook. Discipline information including the race of the student, the race of the administrator, the nature of the offense and the sanction imposed is compiled by the schools and maintained by LRSD. LRSD's Associate Superintendent for information in an attempt discrimination. Student Discipline reviews this to identify possible racial INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to II.I. of the proposed plan, please define, with specificity, the word "qualified," as it applies to each of the three areas discussed in the obligation; namely "extracurricular activities", "advanced placement courses", and "gifted and talented" programs. ANSWER: The phrase "qualified African-American students" means African-American students who satisfy the eligibility criteria for an activity or program. For many activities and 7 programs, there are eligibility criteria other than student interest. INTERROGATORY NO, 15: With respect to II.J. of the propos~d plan, does LRSD agree that as written the system would be in compliance with this provision if the system continued to implement any two programs with its federal Title I monies to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. If not, lease (sic) explain the basis for the disagreement. ANSWER: No. LRSD must also implement the programs, policies and/or procedures set forth in Section V of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to II.L. of the proposed plan, please define the terms "equitable allocation," "technological resources," and "educational resources." Also, please identify any data source allowing a determination of whether these resources are equitably allocated to LRSD schools at present. ANSWER: The phrase "equitable allocation" means to allocate based on need and without bias or favoritism. The term "technological resources" means up-to-date computer and information technology. The term "educational resources" includes teachers, teacher aides, equipment and supplies. With regard to a data source for determing whether these resources are currently equitably allocated, see the technology work team report, the individual school profiles and the LRSD budget. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to II.M. of the proposed plan, please define the term "equitable" and identify the matters encompassed in the terms "maintenance and repair." In addition, 8 ., . please identify any source of data available to -ascertain compliance with this obligation on a school-by-school basis. ANSWER: The term "equitable" means based on need and witho~t bias or favoritism. The terms "maintenance and repair" include the routine upkeep of the building and grounds and the repair or replacement of elements of the building and grounds which are no longer functional. LRSD maintains records which would indicate maintenance requests submitted by schools, the priority assigned to those requests and when and if those requests were acted upon. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to II.N. of the proposed plan, please identify any specific initiatives currently undertaken in the LRSD to ascertain whether or not guidance or counseling services provided to African-American students involve steering to a restricted range of courses and/or postsecondary educational opportunities. ANSWER: LRSD recognizes that African-American students are underrepresented in upper-level courses and has implemented strategies to address that issue. Specifically with regard to guidance and counseling services, LRSD has requested a National Science Foundation grant to fund training modeled after TESA and EQUALS to assist counselors in motivating African-American students to take the courses necessary to later be successful in upper-level science and math courses. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: With respect to II.O. of the proposed plan, does LRSD maintain that this subparagraph adds anything to 9 other obligations of the plan. If so, please describe with specificity what it adds. ANSWER: Yes. The obligations in Section II should be interpreted consistent with Paragraph o. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to II. P. of the proposed plan, please set forth the number of persons the LRSD plans to assign on a full-time basis to compliance/monitoring activities and the categories of positions to be staffed. In addition, please describe any steps to insure that the make-up of the staff includes a substantial number of African-American persons and any role which LRSD is willing to give the representative of the Joshua Intervenors in the selection of this staff. ANSWER: These decisions have not yet been made. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to III. A. 1. of the proposed plan, please identify any document , and any existing analysis stored in any other manner projecting school make-up by race if the steps described in this subparagraph are implemented. If any such data does not currently exist, please describe how such a projection could be done with data and resources available to the LRSO. ANSWER: LRSD is currently working with Edulog software to project school make-up under scenarios consistent with Section III of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: With respect to III. B. I.-5 of the proposed plan, please: (i) identify all written standards governing these transfers and (ii) describe any unwritten practices governing flllaN""-1'"711 ....... ,...._ 10 one or more of these transfers. (iii) In addition, please define the concepts of "capacity limitations" and "reasonable requirement" identifying any designations of schools capacities to be utilized. (iv) In addition, please explain the language "a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student" by reference to the circumstances of youth receiving such transfers in 1997-98 and explain who does and who would decide that the requisite circumstances exist. (v) Lastly, please identify the numbers of students by race utilizing each category of such transfers in 1997-98. ANSWER: (i) No additional standards have been developed beyond what is contain in the Revised Plan. (ii) None. (iii) A school's capacity is a function of the physical plant and the educational programs being implemented at a school. At this time, LRSD is using the school capacity numbers attached hereto as Exhibit E. The "reasonable requirements" described in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Section III.B. relate to procedural requirements which may be imposed by LRSD to ensure that student assignment occurs in a timely and efficient manner. ( iv) Special circumstances transfers as described by the Revised Plan are currently handled through an appeals committee composed of five members with individual members selected by the LRSD Board of Directors, the Biracial Committee, the PTA Council 11 and the Little Rock CTA. The committee reviews requests for transfers based on geographic isolation, racial isolation, medical hardship and other extenuating circumstances. This committee was established by the Tri-District plan and has been continued by LRSD under its current plan. (v) Records concerning transfers will be made available upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: With respect to III. E. of the proposed plan, please identify any potential sites for the school in west Little Rock, including any sites set forth in any study. In addition, please state whether the LRSD envisions the court's approving the site prior to its final approval. ANSWER: No potential site has been identified. Although LRSD anticipates keeping both the court and the parties informed about the site selection process, the site would not have to be approved by the court except as provided in Section IX.B. of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With respect to IV.E. of the proposed plan, please describe any existing agreements, standards, and practices relating to cooperative efforts of the LRSD and PCSSD. ANSWER: See Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: With respect to V.B. and C. of the proposed plan, please (i) identify the author or authors of the provisions, committees and entities, designating the provision or provisions associated with each such author; ( ii) identify any document(s) providing further explanation of any provision(s) of r:--~Jooh.- 12 the proposal; (iii) regarding parts B.l.a., B.2.a., and B.J.a., I please identify any standards describing the level of competency envisioned in each instance and how it would be assessed; is developing the standards and the general timelines for that effort; and (iv) regarding these three parts of the plan, please state whether LRSD plans to have students satisfy a test requirement prior to moving to the next grade; if the matter is not decided, but such a requirement remains an option, please indicate. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTE