Court filings concerning LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, affidavit of Christopher Heller, and PCSSD's petition for release from federal court supervision and analysis of non-compliance with court order

District Court, response to Joshua intervenors' motion for continuance of hearing; District Court, order; District Court, motion to dismiss appeal against North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withhold jurisdiction; District Court, LRSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, PCSSD analysis of non-compliance with court order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV O 4 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEn/ED NOV '1 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD appreciates the court's responsiveness to its need - for a timely hearing on its motion for approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. For the reasons set forth below, however, LRSD believes that a short continuance of the scheduled hearing would benefit all of the parties and the court. 2. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the redrawing of attendance zones in accordance with certain principles described in that plan. LRSD has contracted with a software compfiny to provide boundary planning software for the purpose of drawing attendance zones in accordance with those principles. The necessary maps and student location information have been provided to the software company. Training of LRSD personnel is scheduled to begin on November 17, 1997. Within a few weeks after that date LRSD should be in a position to show the - parties and the court maps, racial balance information and other student assignment information regarding a number of possible student assignment options. This information will show the parties and the court the practical application of the student assignment principles described in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. LRSD is also in the process of developing policies and procedures which will govern the implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The parties and the court will have the benefit of more of this information if there is a short continuance of the scheduled hearing date. 4. LRSD has agreed to work with Joshua in a cooperative effort to complete all necessary discovery in a timely manner. The - significant number of witnesses and documents, and the fact that LRSD is currently engaged in boundary planning and development of implementation plans, makes it difficult to do the necessary work to insure an orderly and efficient discovery process and presentation to the court on the scheduled hearing date. 5. LRSD supports a continuance of the scheduled hearing only if the hearing can be rescheduled for a time no later than early February, 199Q. If the hearing is scheduled any later than that, LRSD believes that the court will not have sufficient time to consider the evidence and render a decision which LRSD can effectively implement for the 1998-99 school year. 2 WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD supports Joshua's motion for continuance of the scheduled December 1, 1997 hearing, provided the continuance will not delay the hearing beyond early February, 1998. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Hearing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 4th day of November, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sain Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, 1\R 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 3 --- Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:lbomolbd\yllnd-__ -.............. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED u.s Ql8TRICT COl.!,'!THIU' EAiTIPI~ 01ST1'10T """"' ""' NOV O 4 '997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By (>/ef?lr DEP CLERK Before the Court is the a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors requesting a continuance of the hearing scheduled for Monday, December 1, 1997 regarding the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan. This Court is sympathetic to the reasons stated by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in support of the requested continuance. However, this matter is of great concern to the Little Rock community. Furthermore, the Court expects the hearing on the LRSD's motion to last for a full week. Because the Court has numerous criminal matters scheduled during the upcoming months, there are few alternative dates available to conduct a hearing on the LRSD's motion. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to continue the hearing on the LRSD's motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan currently set for December 1, 1997. However, this Court will wait for other parties involved in the case to file their responses to the Joshua Intervenors' motion before ruling definitively upon the request for a continuance. ,;14-._ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~ day of November 1997. a$., ; ~ )1~ui- UNITEDSTATES DISTRlCfJGE T+l8 ~UMENT EHTEREO ON DOCKET 8tET ltl COMP~E ~TH RULE Si AN~~RCf OM //- i/- CJ 1 SY~~~~~;;.;;;- 2 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. November 4, 1997 Ms. Dana C. McWay U.S. Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, Mo 63101 Re: 97-2743 EALR JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Joshua, et al v. LRSD, et al Dear Ms. McWay: RECEIVED NOV 5 1997 OFFtC0F DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find Joshua's motion as it pertains to the NLRSD. The Joshua Intervenors previously set forth in their reply brief at pages 6 to 19 the issues that remain to be decided by the court given the partial settlement. Those pages are attached hereto. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:cac cc: Stephen Jones Enclosures 'RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOV 5 1997 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA v. NO. 97-2743EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION TO DISMISS OFFICE OF DESE~REGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE APPEAL AGAINST NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Corne now the Appellees, Joshua Intervenors, and move the Court to dismiss their appeal with respect to the North Little Rock School District Defendants: 1. The Joshua Intervenors and the North Little Rock School - District Defendants have settled their underlying fee dispute and request that this matter be dismissed as to the North Little Rock School Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and fees. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray the Court to dismiss their appeal against the North Little Rock School District with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 01) 374-3758 ~IVVL, V ~4 Walker, No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ I, John w. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon Mr. Stephen w. Jones, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201 and Mr. Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, P.A., 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, 400 E. Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid on this 4th day of November, 1997.Qh -~~~ J w. Walker I IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * In tervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTi<ICT COURT EASTERN DISTR:cr ,\FW.ANSAS NOV O 0 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ~ ' j \1 :)MQG,. \ OEP CLERK . Before the Court are two very important matters: the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") motion requesting that this Court approve its revised desegregation and education plan and the Pulaski County Special School District's ("PCSSD") motion requesting that this Court release it from federal court supervision. A. Previously, this Court scheduled a hearing for Monday, December 1, 1997 to address the LRSD's motion requesting that this Court approve its revised desegregation and education plan. 1 Now, before the Court is a motion requesting that this Court continue the hearing 1 Docket No. 3062. 071 currently scheduled for the week of December 1, 1997.2 By separate Order, this Court has indicated its reluctance to reschedule this hearing. 3 However, the LRSD has indicated that it "believes that a short continuance of the scheduled hearing date would benefit all of the parties and the court. "4 Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors also has indicated that due to his trial schedule and the amount of discovery and preparation necessary for this hearing, the Joshua Intervenors would benefit from a continuance of the scheduled hearing date.5 Therefore, after careful consideration, this Court hereby grants the motion requesting a continuance. The hearing to address the LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan will now commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 1998. The parties still are expected to conduct discovery prior to and in preparation for this hearing. The discovery deadline is now Tuesday, January 20, 1998, approximately two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. To avoid potential discovery and evidentiary disputes, all parties are directed to exchange exhibits with one another and to provide an exhibit list, as well as copies of their exhibits, to both the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM") on or before the January 20 discovery deadline. This Court will not admit any exhibit as evidence at the February hearing which was not produced on or before the discovery 2 Docket No. 3067. 3 Docket No. 3069. 4 Docket No. 3070. 5 Docket No. 3067. 2 deadline in accordance with this Order if any party objects to the exhibit's being admitted on the basis of timeliness. Due to time constraints and in an effort to be fair to all parties involved, the Court still intends to calculate the total number of hours which will be devoted to this matter and then limit accordingly the amount of time each party will have to present testimony and other evidence and to cross examine witnesses at the hearing. B. In regard to the PCS SD' s motion requesting that this Court release it from federal court supervision, this Court is aware that by separate Order the Court granted the Joshua Intervenors an extension to and including November 24, 1997 in which to file their response to the PCSSD's motion.6 Although this Court has not received or reviewed the Joshua - Intervenors' response to the PCSSD's motion, this Court anticipates that a hearing will be necessary on the PCSSD's motion. Therefore, a hearing to address the PCSSD's motion requesting release from federal court supervision will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998. The discovery deadline is Monday, March 9, 1998, two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. Again, to avoid potential discovery and evidentiary disputes, all parties are directed to exchange exhibits with one another and to provide an exhibit list, as well as copies of their exhibits, to both the Court and the ODM on or before the March 9 discovery deadline. This Court will not admit any exhibit as evidence at the March hearing which was not produced on 6 See Docket No. 3063. 3 - or before the discovery deadline in accordance with this Order if any party objects to the exhibit's being admitted on the basis of timeliness. Again, due to time constraints and in an effort to be fair to all parties involved, the Court intends to calculate the total number of hours which will be devoted to this matter and then limit accordingly the amount of time each party will have to present testimony and other evidence and to cross examine witnesses at the hearing. In conclusion, this Court grants the motion requesting a continuance of the scheduled hearing on the LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.7 The Court will conduct a hearing on the LRSD's revised plan beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 1998.8 The discovery deadline is Tuesday, January 20, 1998. The Court also will conduct a hearing on the PCSSD's motion requesting release from - federal court supervision beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998.9 The discovery deadline is Monday, March 9, 1998. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 day of November 1997. 7 Docket No. 3067. u~ ED$ sTAE&SDIS~TR!CJ~UDGE "HiS DXlfr-~;;"J.JT Er-JTE:RED CN DOCKET SHEET IN ;XJMPUANC WITH RULE 53 AI\J~9(a) FACP ~N // .~ BY_~-------- 8 See Docket No. 3049 for a copy of the LRSD's motion regarding the revised plan. 9 See Docket No. 3057 for a copy of the PCSSD's motion regarding release from federal court supervision. 4 NOV 1 3 1997 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ET AL. VS. NO. 92-5318 (and consolidated MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION TO WITHHOLD JURISDICTION INTRODUCTION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS" .<;;ases.}o c:. .._J r - ~ c,,, 0 -n ri~Em5EJ'ITS_:: 12 C?-:: c::> 'J S~-~- :.~ n . .. ,;--, ,: :.. - .J4 1i~} - c...:> The PCSSD intervened in this action primarily as reg&rds N ( /) certain state-aid claims that are either pending before or which have been adjudicated by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas . These claims arise from the Settlement Agreement of March, 1989 entered into among the three Pulaski County School Districts, the State of Arkansas, the - Joshua Intervenors and the teacher organizations represented by the Knight Intervenors. Each of the claims, which are more fully described below, flow from contentions by the school districts that legislat i ve changes in state funding, changes which occurred after t his Court's Order of November, 1994, violated the Districts' 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State. The claims that are either adjudicated or pending include claims regarding workers' compensation, loss funding regarding majority-to-minority (M-to-M) transfer students, teacher retirement, health insurance, special education, general loss funding, and, as respects the PCSSD, a decline in overall funding when Act 34 and Act 917 outcomes are compared. 1 THE CLAIMS AND THEIR PROCEDURAL POSTURE On January 13, 1995, the District Court entered its order as regards workers' compensation and loss funding for majority-tominority transfer students. A copy of the decision is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit "A". Beginning at page 6 of the January 13, 1995 order, the District Court concluded that: [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 districts' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. By requiring the State to assist the Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting others, the Districts will not be "singled out" for less favorable treatment than the other districts. The January 13, 1995 District Court order adjudicated the issue of loss funding for M-to-M students in favor of the Pulaski County districts. Beginning at page 9 of that order, the District Court found that: It is undisputed that loss funding is a State educational funding program and one that is "ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas." The Court further finds that the State is deliberately discriminating against the Districts with respect to the provision of loss funding for a decline in enrollment related to the loss of M-to-M students. Whether a district loses a student through ordinary transfer or an M-to-M transfer, the effect on that district's enrollment is the same. No matter how the loss occurs, the disruption to a school district form a net declining enrollment is the same. However, the ADE has decided not to credit the Districts for the loss of students due to M-to-M students. Thus, the ADE has determined to discriminate against the three Pulaski County districts with respect to M-to-M students. 2 The District Court went on to order the State to restore the lost State aid contended for by the Districts in accordance with the calculations set forth by the Districts. The State appealed both issues and the findings of the District Court were affirmed on appeal. 1 On February 18, 1997, the District Court entered its order granting the Districts' motions in respect of teacher retirement and health insurance. By this point, 111 other Arkansas school districts had sought to intervene and _were permitted to file amicus curiae responses in support of the State's position. The Fe~ruary 18, 1997 order is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit 11 B11 The District Court reasoned that: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme with distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation "seed money" formula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding formula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement . . While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. The District Court concluded its discussion by noting: As noted before, the desegregation Settlement Agreement provides that "[f]air and rational adjustments to the 1The January 13, 1995 order also dealt with the issue of the Arkansas Public School Computer Network. That issue has been resolved and need not concern this Court. 3 funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts." See Settlement Agreement, II, 1 L. Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an "adjustment" to the funding formula which has "general applicability," however, the Court cannot find that it is a "fair and rational adjustment." Because of the added obligations of the three Pulaski County school districts, a funding scheme that does not consider the number of eligible employees is not "fair and rational." February 13, 1997 Order, pp. 11-12. This issue is presently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On April 22, 1997, the District Court entered its order as respects the issue of health insurance. The April 22, 1997 order is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit "C". The District Court likewise granted the motions of the Districts reasoning, inter alia that: Because of the settling districts' added obligations, this Court found that the new funding scheme, which does not consider the number of eligible employees, is not "fair and rational." While the State may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a "fair and rational" adjustment to the funding formula. April 22, 1997 Order, p. 5. The health insurance issue is likewise on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 4 .,,. "' ;~. -: ? ~ ~ ~ .. ~- While the District Court, in the same order, declined to grant the Districts' motion as respects special education and general loss funding, those issues remain before the District Court for hearing and resolution. Finally, the PCSSD filed its separate motion with the District Court on September 2, 1997 contending that the change from Act 34 to Act 917, the Act before this Court, cost it several million dollars and that the change violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This issue remains upon the docket of the Pistrict Court for hearing and resolution. A copy of the PCSSD's September 2, 1997 motion and brief are attached as Exhibit "D". The essential grounds for the separate PCSSD motion pending in federal court are essentially set forth in the PCSSD's response to Lake View plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees dated August 29, 1997. CONCLUSION The principal purpose of this motion is to further educate this Court concerning issues pending in federal court and over which the federal courts have taken and continue to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court will no doubt have to grapple with many, if not all, of the topics discussed above. Indeed, this Court may find useful some of the explanations, rationales and conclusions made by the District Court. However, it is respectfully submitted, this Court should proceed in a manner which recognizes the 5 adjudication or pendency of these issues in federal court and should craft its ultimate orders accordingly. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF On November Ju , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. E. Dion Wilson Wilson Law Firm, P.A. 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Roy C. Lewellen Lewellen & Associates P. 0. Box 287 Marianna, AR 72360 Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn Thompson & Llewellyn P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902 Mr. William Brazil Brazil, Clawson, et al. 913 Oak Street Conway, Arkansas 72032 Mr. Donn Mixon Mixon & McCauley Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. David Matthews Matthews, Campell & Rhoads 119 S. Second Street Rogers, AR 72756 Mr. Allen Roberts Allen P. Roberts, P.A. P. 0. Box 280 Camden, Arkansas Mr. Edwin Alford 510 N. Second P. 0. Box 1588 Nashville, Arkansas Mr. David Wilson Ms. Pam Grondin 6 71701 71852 P. 0. Box 1442 Jonesboro, AR 72403 Mr. Malcolm Bobo Department of Finance & Adm. P. 0. Box 1272 Little Rock, AR 72203 Mr. Don Trimble 1124 MLKing Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Eugene G. Sayre Jack, Lyon & Jones . 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fayetteville School Dist. P. 0. Box 849 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Oscar Stilley Central Mall Plaza, #516 Fort Smith, AR 72903 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 7 (see ADE Funding 1997 for complete filing with Exhibits) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KnTHERINE KUIGHT, ET AL RECEIVEO NOV 1 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS . INTERVENORS INTERVENOP.S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The purpose of this amended fee petition is to address the issues remanded to the district court in the opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed on October 14, 1997. 2. Friday, Eldredge & Clark charges LRSD discounted rates for fees and costs. During the period of time the issues covered by this fee petition were in litigation, Friday, Eldredge & Clark charged LRSD $105.00 per hour for partners and $85.00 per hour for associates. Friday, Eldredge & Clark also charges LRSD reduced amounts for some costs, such as couriers, and does not charge for . other costs, such as meals. During the period of time covered by this litigation, the normal hourly billing rate for Christopher Heller was $160. 00 and the normal hourly billing rate for Clay Fendley was $100.00. 3. Most of LRSD counsels' time concerning the APSCN issue was excluded from the previous fee petition. Two further adjustments are necessary to meet the terms of the Eighth Circuit order. First, the time entry for June 19, 1995 includes, among other entries, some time for drafting an APSCN argument. That time should be reduced by one-half, or a total of five hours, to remove the time spent on the APSCN argument. Second, the time spent on the four hearing days in preparation for and participating in the hearings on the three issues in this case should be 4educed byonethird in order to remove the time devoted to the APSCN issue. Our contemporaneous time records show a total of 3 6. 5 hours spent preparing for and participating in hearings on September 14, 15, 16 and 21, 1994. That time should be reduced by 12.25 hours to reflect the time devoted to the APSCN issue. 4. LRSD is a prevailing party and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of attorneys' fees for Christopher Heller should be reduced by a total of 17.25 hours for the reasons set forth above. LRSD is entitled to $39,760.00 in attorneys' fees (Christopher Heller - 244.75 hours x $160.00 = $39,160.00; Clay Fendley - 6 hours x $100.00 = $600.00) and $563.32 in costs. 5. The, fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit. WHEREFORE, in accordance with this court's previous order and the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed October 2 14, 1997, LRSD prays for an order awarding it $39,760.00 in attorneys' fees and $563.32 in costs. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School district's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs As To State Defendants has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AEcen.teo NOV 1 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: 1. The billing statements attached to our original fee petition filed August 30, 1996 reflect the hours worked on this - matter as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements has been billed to LRSD and those bills have been paid. 2. During the period of time covered by this fee petition, Friday, Eldredge & Clark contracted with LRSD to provide legal services at discounted fees. The discounted rates charged to LRSD were $105. 00 per hour for partners and $85. 00 per hour for associates. 3. I have been engaged in the private practice of law at Friday, Eldredge & Clark for sixteen (16) years. My normal hourly billing rate for the period of time covered by this fee petition is $160. 00. That rate is in line with rates typically charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. Clay Fendley is an associate with Friday, Eldredge & Clark with five (5) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate during the period of time covered by this fee petition is $100.00. This rate is in line with billing rates for lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. My time in this case was devoted primarily to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues. During the course of preparing the previous fee petition, I reviewed the billing rec.ords in an effort to exclude time which was devoted to matters on which LRSD did not prevail, including the APSCN issue and our petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In consideration of the Eighth Circuit order filed October 14, 1997, and upon. further review of the time records attached to the original petition, I have determined that the time entry for June 19, 1995 should be reduced by five hours to remove the time listed as "drafted APSGC (sic) argument." 6. The time entries for the hearing dates, September 14, 15, 16 and 21, 1994, a total of 36.5 hours, should be reduced by onethird, or 12.25 hours, to remove the time spent on APSCN issues. The number of .h ours for which LRSD should be awarded fees should therefore be reduced from 262 in the original petition to 244.75 for my time. The amount of attorneys' fees should be reduced by a total of $2760.00, from $42,520.00 in the original petition to $39,760.00. 2 7. As can be seen from the billing statements attached to the original fee petition, the time expended on this matter was originally recorded and billed as part of the general Little Rock School District desegregation case file (LI230-90). Following the district court decision, a separate file was established (LI230- 159). In reviewing the general file, I was very conservative in my effort to segregate the time which was devoted to the issues in this discreet matter. Many time entries which were more probably than not related to this matter are not included in the fee request. Further affiant sayeth not. 3 ATTESTATION I, Christopher Heller, the undersigned herein, state that the foregoing Affidavit is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge & belief. Dated this 13th day of Novem