Court filings: District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 12 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 ED MAY 1 5 2000 OftlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") filed a motion seeking approval of a revised monitoring plan [ docket no. 3327]. The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") and the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") responded in opposition [docket nos. 3340 & 3334], and ADE replied [docket no. 3350]. After careful consideration, the Court determines ADE's motion should be denied. I. The parties' settlement agreement, Part ill.A., in pertinent part, states: The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor, through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. . . . Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the state will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following the execution of the settlement agreement. In 1989, Mr. H. William Allen, on behalf of ADE, submitted the monitoring plan referenced in Part ill.A above. Since then, the parties have referred to the monitoring plan as the "Allen Letter." ADE moves this Court to replace the Allen Letter with a revised monitoring plan, entitled the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan ("DMAP"). II. Regarding the State's obligations under the Allen Letter, this Court stated: This plan goes beyond monitoring compensatory education in the three Pulaski County school districts and includes many more areas which ADE promised to extensively monitor and evaluate, including magnet schools, M-to-M transfers, and magnet school transportation. Likewise, the settlement agreement includes other obligations undertaken by ADE in addition to its financial agreement with the parties and, in its monitoring plan, ADE reaffirmed its commitment to undertake extensive monitoring that would fulfill those obligations. ADE never changed its monitoring plan or moved to change the settlement agreement. Therefore, the obligations contained in these two documents [the settlement agreement and monitoring plan] are the obligations to which ADE has committed. 1 Thus the Allen letter contains substantive terms of a consent decree, which relate to the vindication of constitutional rights. Disputed modifications of such terms are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications. See Appeal of Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 253, 258 (1991). When parties to a consent decree oppose modification, the moving party must show that (1) a significant change in fact or law warrants revision and (2) the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748, 765 (1992). ADE makes four points in support ofDMAP. First, ADE notes that since 1989, the 1 Docket no. 2045, page 2. 2 I I I I I - Court has withdrawn supervision over various portions of the Districts' desegregation plans, and LRSD and PCSSD have revised their plans. While changes in the Districts' desegregation plans may warrant revision of the Allen Letter, ADE fails to explain how it has addressed those changes with the proposed revised monitoring plan. Second, ADE maintains its revisions are needed because "one of the major reasons the State agreed to extensively monitor the Districts was that the Districts were scheduled to receive millions of dollars ... for 'compensatory education' programs ... [and] those additional funds are no longer being provided to the Districts."2 ADE does not specify how DMAP responds to the cessation of state funding for compensatory education. Furthermore, the Court can find no provisions contained in the Allen Letter delineating specific monitoring and reporting obligations related solely to compensatory education funding.3 Third, ADE states that when the State submitted the Allen Letter, the Eighth Circuit had yet to establish the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM"),4 but ADE fails to explain how the proposed plan is tailored to resolve any issues related to ODM monitoring. 2 Docket no. 3328, page 2. 3 The Allen Letter states: The primary focus of the process shall be a continuous assessment of the remedial effectiveness of programs supported partially or fully by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and services receiving special funding include: 1. Compensatory Education 2. Magnet Schools 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers 4 ADE does not contend that ODM monitoring supplants ADE's monitoring obligations. 3 Fourth, ADE emphasizes that the parties have expressed a need for more focused monitoring and assistance from ADE than called for in the Allen Letter and that ADE consulted the parties and ODM in developing the revised monitoring plan. However, two parties, LRSD and Joshua, oppose approval of the revised plan. The Court acknowledges that changed circumstances may warrant revision of ADE's monitoring plan but finds that ADE has failed to demonstrate that DMAP is tailored to address the changed circumstances. Consequently, the Court must deny ADE's motion. m. Joshua opposes approval ofDMAP on grounds the plan is vaguely worded. Additionally, Joshua asserts the proposed plan would duplicate reporting functions already carried out by ODM and the Districts5 and contends ADE should assist the Districts in a "hands on manner."6 According to LRSD, ADE's current monitoring reports consist of reformatted data, originally provided to ADE by LRSD. The District argues that ODM provides sufficient, independent monitoring, rendering ADE's monitoring and reporting activities superfluous. LRSD understands the original objectives of ADE monitoring to be (1) ensuring fiscal accountability to the tax payers of Arkansas (in light of the State's obligation to fund compensatory education programs) and (2) involving the State in improving achievement disparities. Because State funding for compensatory education has ceased, LRSD contends State's role "should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's 5 The Court notes that Part ill.A of the settlement agreement states, "Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties." 6 Docket no. 3334. 4 efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity."7 LRSD concludes this Court should require a meeting between ADE and LRSD for the purpose ofreaching an agreement regarding the State's role in eliminating achievement disparities. Additionally, LRSD proposes that the Court modify the parties' settlement agreement to increase the financial obligations of the State. Specifically, LRSD requests the State pay for the cost of ODM for the current year and future years and provide the Districts additional resources in the form of personnel or funding equivalent to resources ADE planned to devote to DMAP. This Court remains mindful that "we are dealing with a settlement"8 and disagrees that the absence of state funding for compensatory education should shift the State's monitoring role to one of active participation in eliminating achievement disparities. As previously explained, the Allen Letter "goes beyond monitoring compensatory education ... and includes many more areas which ADE promised to extensively monitor and evaluate, including magnet schools, Mto- M transfers, and magnet school transportation."9 Nor does the Court find that increasing the State's financial obligations will resolve problems related to the State's monitoring obligations. A consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires, and this Court finds that the record before the Court does not justify increasing the State's financial obligations. See Rufo, 112 S.Ct. 7 Docket 3340, 16. 8 Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (8th Cir. 1990). 9 Id. 5 - at 764 ("Once a court has determined that changed circumstances warrant a modification in a consent decree, the focus should be on whether the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. A court should do no more, for a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires."). As for requiring ADE to negotiate with LRSD, this Court strongly encourages the parties to proceed diligently with negotiations regarding ADE's monitoring obligations, but declines ordering such negotiations at this time. If the parties are unable to reach an agreementregarding the State's monitoring role, upon proper motion, the Court will hold hearings on the matter and take action necessary to ensure the State's monitoring obligations are carried out efficiently and effectively. IV. For the reasons stated, it is hereby ordered that ADE' s motion for approval of a revised monitoring plan be DENIED [docket no. 3327]. IT IS so ORDERED nns J)l)A Y OF MAY, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1S OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPS. ,E Wl:?;1 RULE 5e ANn 79(~ FRCP ON (,h/JQ !Y '- - 6 MAY 18 2000 tlfiCEOF 9f-5E6RE6Allll IIJ!l10RIII IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTI.,E 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, * * KATIIERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED EAsTMRsriio1sTR1cr COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 16 2000 The Court has received the proposed 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The budgets and a cover letter are attached to this Order for the parties' review. Parties have to and including fifteen days from entry of this Order to file objections regarding the proposed budgets. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS _/L~ AY OF MAY, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1S OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN_ COUPLWiE WITH RULE 58 AH~a) FRCP , ON 5=:- J '7- o-v ev ________ .!!:L . Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor April 20, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376~200 Fax (501) 371--0100 ODM budgets for two years, 1999-00 and 2000-01, are attached for the parties' review and your approval. Because one of the school districts did not furnish us a final October 1 student enrollment count (upon which we base the apportionment of charges to the districts) until last month, we are issuing the current-year budget late in the year. By accompanying it with next year's budget as well, we begin a new practice that will enable us to issue our annual budgets in advance of the new fiscal year . From now on, we will propose our budget for the upcoming year before the close of the current fiscal year, using an estimated total for revenue and expenditures, along with the current-year enrollment numbers (which we use as the basis for the portion each district contributes to the ODM budget). Then, when we know actual revenues and expenditures and the new October 1 enrollment numbers, we will adjust each district's contribution accordingly. The format of the budgets follows that of previous budget documents, including annotation to explain revenue calculations; budget category definitions; and budget allocations and anticipated expenditures by category for 1999-00 and 2000-01 . Note that the 1999-00 budget is only 1. 7 6% higher than that of the previous year, and that the 2000-01 budget is a 2.53% increase over that of the previous year. Salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29% per year, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the salary scales of the three local districts. We have continued to contain our expenditures such that they are below the projected annual budget at year's end. As is our practice, we credit that difference proportionately to each of the school districts according to their pro-rated contributions to our budget, a return that averages over 12%. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, . ~~ Ann S. Brown Enc. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: BUDGETS FOR 1999-00 AND 2000-01 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Credit* NLRSD Credit* PCSSD Credit* Interest 1998-99 BUDGET 200,000.00 219,128.14 37,714.98 81 ,227.78 13,929.95 169,293.99 30,344.16 0.00 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 219,128.14 232,137.33 232,137.33 244,131.66 37,714.98 36,967.69 36,967.69 34,175.51 81 ,227.78 82,836.58 82,836.58 87,116.67 13,929.95 13,191.66 13,191.66 12,195.29 169,293.99 172,300.09 172,300.09 181 ,202.67 30,344.16 27,438.65 27,438.65 25,366.20 8,788.39 0.00 5,407.00 0.00 !zje~jtz~~i 1 :: z:i: ;,ijz-- t;,1: :.-1.-.-.,:-:;!:;:::::::t:::::t i;,ee : i ij1n1;19 Every budget cycle, ODM credits each district a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the curr~nt budget allocation. See annotated budget. EXPENDITURES 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET Communications 9,180.00 9,157.28 10,000.00 9,832.00 10,000.00 Dues and Fees 3,300.00 3,320.67 3,850.00 3,827.00 4,000.00 Equipment 6,339.00 6,337.94 3,000.00 1,905.00 3,000.00 Food Services 200.00 93.17 200.00 133.00 200.00 Management Services 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 Periodicals 400.00 334.97 450.00 436.00 450.00 Printing and Binding 6,000.00 4,625.75 6,000.00 4,606.00 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 26,497.00 6,207.50 26,497.00 1,847.00 26,497.00 Rent 50,917.00 50,916.67 51,935.00 51,935.00 52,890.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 720.37 1,200.00 627.00 1,000.00 Resource Library 500.00 28.40 250.00 0.00 200.00 Salaries 492,614.00 474,173.79 508,159.00 482,159.00 523,937.00 Benefits 125,122.00 103,788.82 124,431.00 116,009.96 127,114.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,025.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750.00 7,713.27 7,750.00 7,729.00 7,750.00 Travel 18,000.00 14,090.83 18,000.00 15,825.00 18,000.00 Insurance 820.00 820.00 650.00 646.00 650.00 LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGETS FOR 1999-00 AND 2000-01 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor ... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring... 10/1/99 o/o of Total 1999-00 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Allocation 1998-99 Credit (Budget not spent) 1999-00 Budget Payment 2000-01 Budget Allocation 25,116 47.64 269,105.02 36,967.69 232,137.33 278,307.16 1999-00 Estimated Credit* (Budget not spent) 34,175.51 NLRSD 8,960 17.00 96,028.24 13,191 .66 82,836.58 99,311.96 12,195.29 2000-01 Estimated Budget Payment* 244,131.66 87,116.67 PCSSD 18,638 35.36 199,738.74 27,438.65 172,300.09 206,568.88 25,366.20 181,202.67 State of AR N/A NIA 200,000.00 NIA 200,000.00 200,000.00 NIA 200,000.00 - ::::i::i:1~w11i;::::::::i::::::i11~l~i1:1 :111111:.11: 1JFt,1iij;,i:i1 ::iiji~iii;qg:: :z~1i11:.1g} ::::::i1~iifi :11,iil1~11 *Because the 2000-01 budget has been prepared before the close of the 1999-00 fiscal year, we have estimated the 1999-00 credits to the districts and the 2000-01 payments due from the districts. After the close of the current fiscal year, we will notify each district of the exact amount due for their share of ODM's 2000-01 budget, incorporating each district's exact credit. Also, adjustments in the apportioned payments for each district in 2000-01 will be made to correspond with the October 1, 2000 enrollment count. Descnbed below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the charts above, that we used to determine each district's contnbution to ODM's budgets: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contnbution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contnbutes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified at the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for their share ofODM's budget. EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1998-99 Budget 9,180.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures The budget increase accommodates the rising costs of postage and basic services for various communications, such as telephone and internet. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1998-99 Budget 3,300.00 1998-99 Expenditures 3,320.67 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 3,827.00 The budget increase gives more staff members the opportunity to participate in regional and national conferences. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additionai and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1998-99 Budget 6,339.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures During 1999-00, we will replace a laser printer, color printer, scanner, and printing server and hub; during 2000-01, we will upgrade two computers. Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1998-99 Budget 200.00 1998-99 Expenditures 93.17 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 133.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1998-99 Budget 1,500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 0.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1998-99 Budget 400.00 1998-99 Expenditures 334.97 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 436.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1998-99 Budget 6,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures We are able to contain the cost of this budget category by doing most printing inhouse. Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1998-99 Budget 26,497.00 1998-99 Expenditures 6,207.50 Mansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 23,497.00 3,000.00 26,497.00 To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1998-99 Budget 50,917.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Per our lease agreement, the 1999-2000 and 2000-0 l budgets reflect a 2% per year increase in rent. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1998-99 Budget 1,500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 720.37 1999-00 Estimated [!ti& IJ i.i~Jii Expenditures 627.00 Resource Libr~ry: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1998-99 Budget 500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 28.40 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1998-99 Budget 492,614.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Salary changes between 1998-99 and 1999-00, as well as between 1999-00 and 2000-01 , reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Salaries: Name of Employaa 1998-99 Salary 1999-00 Salary 2000-01 Salary Ann Brown 104,164.00 107,591 .00' 111 ,131 .00 Melissa Guldin 2 48,533.00 50,130.00 51 ,779.00 Gene Jones 3 50,858.00 52,724.00 54,373.00 Norman Marshall 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 MaroiePowell 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 Horace Smith 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 Research Associate4 26,000.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 45,537.00 47,035.00 48,582.00 Linda Brvant 25,252.00 26,083.00 26,941 .00 Jackie Banks5 10,272.00 10,610.00 10,959.00 Ill ;;, ::: 1I::::Illlilt1il I tt:iiroaasttM @ iitti s2a~ Jon 1Ann Brown's last salary increase was in 1993-94. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 3Gene Jones works 4/5 time. Mr. Jones elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 3/5 time . Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1998-99 Budget 125,122.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 116,009.96 Below is a breakdown by category of each emoloyee's 1999-00 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Allowance Security ment lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Brown 1,800.00 6,310.57 13,126.92 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Guldin 1,200.00 3,926.75 6,159.60 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Jones 960.00 4,106.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Marshall 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Powell 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Smith 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Ramer 0.00 3,598.18 5,644.20 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 0.00 1,995.35 3,129.96 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 Banks 0.00 811 .67 1,273.20 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 Short Total Term Benefits 62.88 23,831.63 62.88 13,880.49 0.00 5,066.83 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 8,421 .04 62.88 11,836.52 62.88 7,702.89 62.88 4,662.45 ,,, :::::::::::::: ::1aB:I I wii~il :ooij1i;m Muir :ati3afoiE i::::::::::::::::::::,:::,:-:-:- :,:,:,:,:=?:::=,}?:,:,:::,:}:,;;:,;;:/: --:-::::::::: ::rn: oo.g112 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 2000-01 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Brown 1,800.00 6,361 .90 13,551.72 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 24,307.76 Guldin 1,200.00 4,052.89 6,357.48 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 14,204.51 Jones 960.00 4,232.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,192.97 Marshall 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Powell 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Smith 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2 233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 8,421 .04 Ramer 0.00 3,716.52 5,829.84 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 12,140.50 Bryant 0.00 2,060.99 3,232.92 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 62.88 7,871 .49 0.00 838.36 1 315.08 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 62.88 4,731 .02 Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1998-99 Budget 1,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 500.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 1,025.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1998-99 Budget 7,750.00 1998-99 Expenditures 7,713.27 1999-00 Estimated 1!:ii~-~~Ufgiltf/:] Expenditures 7,729.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1998-99 Budget 18,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 14,090.83 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 15,825.00 Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 1998-99 Budget 820.00 1998-99 Expenditures 820.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 646.00 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT / E~ASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 2000 Off\GEOf t&GRfGAllON MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for May, 2000 . ' _j\ffr/ . :~/ .-.:~. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, uite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each morith, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 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.