Court filings concerning LRSD's compliance report, addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School, and motion release of LRSD from federal court supervision

District Court, Knight intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School; District Court, motion objecting to release of Little Rock School District (LRSD) from federal court supervision; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) intervenors' objections to proposed Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) conversion to middle schools; District Court, response of the Joshua intervenors to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle schools; District Court, order; District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined reply to Joshua and Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and further submissions to this court; District Court, Joshua's response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve addition of an activities facility at Baker Interdistrict School; 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. FILED EAsrM;...sN01STR1cr COURT K 01STRICT ARf<ANSAS MAY JC ;,nrn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 11 2001 Offliit 1:. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 8JAy M ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DESmRE6ATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion, Knight, et al. Intervenors, state: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. At the close of the hearing on Friday, May 4, 2001, the undersigned counsel for PACT and PASS requested a ten (10) day period to file objections to the 4I PCSSD plan to implement middle schools within the district. The court granted the request and gave PACT and PASS ten (10) days to file such objections. PACT/PASS intend to file objections to the PCSSD proposal. 2. Because of scheduling conflicts, the Mother's Day week-end and the absence of Sandra Roy, Executive Director of PACT, counsel has been unable to meet with PACT and gather information with which to file said objections. 3. Granting a seven (7) day extension of time to file said objections until close of business on Monday, May 21, 2001 will cause no prejudice to PCSSD or the other parties. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors, et al., and JJ10re specifically PACT and PASS pray that the court grant an additional seven (7) days or until close of business on ,,,, 'ft DEP CLEHK Monday, May 21, 2001 to file their objections to PCSSD's plan to implement middle schools within the district and grant them all other relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 (501) 224-1110 Richard W. Roachell (78132) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify that a true and correct c~y. of the foregoing document was sent by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, on this. l \ T ~Y of May, 2001, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~.~ Richard W. Roachell RECEIVEO MAY 1 6 2001 MAY 1 4 2001 VlfiCl:OF DESEGREGATION MONfflJRJNQ JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: OEP CLER~ rn THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERmEKNIGffi, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAmTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to PCSSD l\Jotion for Approval of Middle Schools up to and including May 21, 2001. For their motion, Joshua states: 1. Additional time is needed in order to provide a response due to undersigned counsel's schedule. 2. Counsel for the Knight Interv~nors has filed a similar request. 3. Counsel for the PCS SD has been contacted and he has indicated that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time up to and including May 21, 2001 in which they may file their response to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle Schools. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 50137~ By~r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 14th day of May, 2001. ~-~ \ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 15 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff (s) vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED Defendant(s) MAY 21 2001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors Intervenors Pending before the Court are motions filed by the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to file responses to PCSSD's motion to approve middle schools. The Court finds that the motions should be, and they are hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Knight Intervenors and the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including May 21, 2001, to file responses to PSCCD's motion for approval of middle schools . 11' Dated this ___ii_ day of May, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED .ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI ~ULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON - '{;..~(J/ BY er:-: 9?~~M SUAN WEBBER WRIGH~ Chief United States District Judge -FIECEl\fEO - MAY 18 2001 MAY 1 6 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrroRING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C=S W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERI( WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension ohime to Respond to LRSD's Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases: Name of Case Date of Trial Bennett v. First National Bank May 21 , 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. v. Joe Bryant III May 29, 2001 Beverly Burkett v. USDA June 4, 2001 Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. June 4, 2001 Jamie Tims v. DHS June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judoo G. Thomas Eisele 'r!., Judge George Howard Jr. Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 4, 2001 June 6, 2001 June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 13, 2001 Judge William "Bill" Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the District's compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report up to and - including June 18, 2001 . Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374- 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via United States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi th day of May, 01. EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1077) ROBERT S. LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR.' ,, .... , ,1 ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G . LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER , JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O. ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: ATTORNEYS AT LAW TROY A. PRICE . ... ,..,...... -.a,. " wlICIA SIEVERS HARRIS 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE Bl"' e C MN !'.0 P 0 R 0 /o~R. SUITE 2200 . . . A SOH"oV~~ HANCOCK LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3 9 KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS (501) 371-0808 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON FAX (501) 376-9442 ~ICHAEL 0 . BARNES MAY 2 i 200 TEPHEN R. LANCASTER , ~ UOY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN l\C:j ; u"i: C. TAO BOHANNON Ur.-lwJ;; I MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD ~TIN! M0NITQMl(tia~~'b~i;HERTY' ~ _......Ni.I M. SEAN HATCH ., PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Writer's Direct Dia I No. 501-212-1273 JANE W. DUKE mJonesCwlJ .com ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY. Pn.o . May 18, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 l..icflnHd to practice before the Un#ed Stat Patent and Trademark Off,ce Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve addition of an activities complex at Baker lnterdistrict School, which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 255717-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP &-~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION TO APPROVE ADDITION OF AN ACTIVITIES COMPLEX AT BAKER INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL The PCSSD for its motion, states: RECEIVED MAY 21 200f GROF BM WN1aomNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this motion is a letter from the principal of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School to the PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services outlining what she feels to be an opportunity to enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker Elementary. 2. Briefly stated, the principal and administration believe that the construction of the complex described in Exhibit "A" would present a unique opportunity not present at the District's other elementary schools. 3. While the construction of the activities complex would relieve congestion in the building regarding music, art and other activities, it would not literally expand capacity. The District would commit not to utilize any of the new construction for regular classroom space without permission of this Court. 255238-v1 4. However, the Court's approval of the District's current motion to convert to middle schools would generate space sufficient to accommodate newly recruited M to M students and intradistrict transfers to Baker, for the 2001-2002 school year. 5. Further, in a matter not mentioned in Exhibit "A", it is important for the Court to note that Baker and other PCSSD schools in the western part of Pulaski County compete directly with established private schools in the area. One is Walnut Valley Christian Academy located at 19010 Highway 10. Walnut Valley has a gymnasium/activity complex. Chenal Valley Montessori School is located at 15717 Taylor Loop Road, which offers preschool through middle school. Baker itself also competes directly with Hebron Christian Academy located at 18715 Kanis Road, about 1 miles from Baker. 6. Further, it is known. and has been known for some time, that Pulaski Academy plans to relocate to a site proximate to the Wildwood Performing Arts Center on Denny Road located approximately two miles from Baker Elementary. 7. The District believes that the construction of a complex as described in Exhibit "A" would enhance its ability to recruit additional minority students to Baker and at the same time help position it to compete more effectively with the schools described above. Three pages depicting the location design and dimensions of the proposed complex are attached as Exhibit "B". 8. The District will need to supplement this motion as soon as possible to outline a specific strategy and plan for the recruitment of additional minority students to Baker as well as provide the specifics of how additional students would be - accommodated as regards space. The District anticipates that this plan can be 255238-v1 2 - developed in coordination with Joshua and submitted to the Court as soon as reasonably possible. WHEREFORE, the District prays that the construction plans set forth herein be approved and for all proper relief. 255238-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ty Special 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 18, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 255238-v1 4 Baker lnterdistrict Elementary School May 18, 2001 Karl Brown Assistant Superintendent Equity and Pupil Services 15001 Kanis Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72223 (501) 228-3250 Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Brown: Baker Elementary is located in west Little Rock off of Chenal Parkway. In the original Desegregation Plan, because of its low minority population, Baker Elementary was identified as an lnterdistrict school with an extended day program to attract minority students. Since 1988, Baker has struggled to meet the targeted percentage of minority students. Again this year Baker's minority population is below the target range, at sixteen percent. As the new administrator of Baker lnterdistrict Elementary, I have a strong commitment to Pulaski County Special School District's Desegregation Plan. I have realized during this past year that the recruitment efforts to attract minority students to Baker have not positively impacted our racial composition. Recognizing Baker's need to increase the minority enrollment, I have established a recruitment committee that has formulated and implemented a recruitment plan. At the beginning of the year, we met with Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring to seek his guidance in our plan. The District's Director of Equity has also been involved in Baker's recruitment planning. As the year has progressed, we have made good faith efforts toward our goal of increasing minority enrollment. These include, but are not limited to, 1) participating in city wide events (World Fest and Boo at the Zoo); 2) surveying our M to M parents as to why they chose to attend Baker and what keeps them at Baker; and 3) visiting our partner Little Rock school, Romine Elementary, where our students presented Baker's economic specialty program and the extended day program (selling points identified from the survey) to this group. Information was then sent home with Romine students. To date, however, these efforts unfortunately have not yielded the results we had anticipated. While seeking to find an added incentive that will attract minority families to Baker, a unique opportunity has presented itself. Parents and an area business have approached me about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room , and an art room. While exploring this opportunity, I began to envision what this building might mean to my goal for increasing Baker's minority student population. Baker has a strong and highly successful studio art program offered by volunteers and supported by the district with materials and training. The availability of a room designed for art would be optimal for the in-school program and extension of the after school extended day program. Volunteers offer Baker students additional curriculum in the area of vocal music that is now held in an open space room with heavy traffic or the regular classroom. A music room would allow for school-wide music instruction as well as enrichment for the extended day program. Just this year, volunteers have offered a high-interest curriculum teaching physical education. However, this instruction competes for available open spaces. The EXHIBIT Pulaski County Special School District I A gymnasium would optimize instruction and create opportunity for intramural sports and before and after school program use. The opportunity to acquire a facility free to the District (on the heels of voters having declined a millage that would be directed at facilities improvement) may be the blessing Baker has hoped for-a recruitment tool we have not tried. With an activities complex, our art, music, and physical education programs could be expanded during the school day and beyond to enrich our lnterdistrict Specialty after school extended day program. As parents and the lead business continue to plan, the recruitment possibilities seem to be limited only by our imagination (i.e. intramural sports, music and art lessons). Pending court approval, the District has made a "good faith" offer of support, approving this request and allocating a part-time certified physical education teacher that validates the program as a recruitment tool. The District has identified Crystal Hill Magnet Elementary School to share the certified physical education teacher in an effort to offer an additional program for their recruitment of minorities. With this facility, the support of a certified teacher, and strong parental and community involvement, this may just be what we need for additional incentive for increased recruitment for Baker. An important note, our district currently has schools that seek to attract white students through physical education (Bates Elementary) and music/art (Landmark Elementary) for desegregation purposes. However, there is no school that seeks to attract minority students through physical education and music/art programs. Therefore, it is our hope that it would please the court to grant our request to allow for the construction of the proposed activities complex to assist with Baker's recruitment plan. Thank you for your attention and representation of our request. M'tk -TJ!t:._, Beverly M. Ruthven Principal Baker lnterdistrict Elementary Pulaski County Special School District A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LI TTL E ROCK , ARKAN SAS FRONT ELEVATION a ~ BAINUI C0Hsu.T,HT F I'I $ P_ROPOSED SITE PLAN A NEW GYMNASIUM FOR BAKER ELEMENTARY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLAN t BAINUM CONsll.TAHt( MtPJ -f , .vr. I J ~?Y. .- ,};.?~~~''.( :.:;,,~,:~,?,)~'\'~ .:-?r~itF~)f.f!~, ;~:~;;;~~j;lr~~~{ :ti~r.;f !I~t: ~~!1~.:;'fi;:l.cf*:'t . " ;:tf:l:-.. l! \. ;:;y{h::ttf :-T: .. :ii{'~t ~ ~, ~-. -,:c :,.:~:t"\i J,i!: !,,,~., ?:fi : rJ~~~tf l!\:~-\1~;itfi} . .:, ,. !~ i ~.,J-:,:\ ~_l'::;!';\: ~ '-~:-~{~.t!:~~rr:-~~\ -:-.~D: --- ......____..... ...... ,P. .R.O. POSED SITE PLAN- MAY 2 9 2001 FILED EAST~ifN ~i; RR/ICCTTCOURT AR/<ANSAS MAY 1 8 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JBy:~ A~~CL ERK vs CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all, Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. 3. 4. Jurisdiction is proper as Frankliil A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Carnine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis' employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis' termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. DEP CLERK e..r.:. 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis' job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedural due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis' character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 2 15. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3, 2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it. 'is moving swiftly and in good faith' to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today, May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School District's scandalous, whitewashing, and 'dirty linen' covered behavior covers the front page of the state's largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Carnine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DA VIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis' suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 which states: "Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." 3 The Little Rock School District is liable under 1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis' Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teacher's character or reputation. The Supreme Court hoJds that a teacher, even a nonprobationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her "good name, reputation, honor, or integrity." See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employee's opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Vlett, 466 F.2d 113, 116 (8th Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teacher's character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to a prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilderman v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972); Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973); Buhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, "An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident". "Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism." She also wrote, "His leadership style and relationship is respected 4 - by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community." She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, "Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel displays that Mr. Davis is a team player." "Administrative policies are followed while working well with others." She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Carnine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School District's exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis' claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 -Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2, 1998 -Dr. Carnine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Carnine's intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 5 4 .) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendent's recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12; 1998-Dr. Carnine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Carnine's termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Carnine's recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. Afler the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 6 3.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Carnine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an "alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recornrnendation."(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis' termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis' attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School District's attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principal' s job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkan