Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's November 5, 1999, order; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, reply and brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the court's November 22, 1999, order; 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 STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 3 2000 Cff1CE(f ID6ll6A1XIIDIRIIE LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for December, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto General 323 Center Street, Suite 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 V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL \iAli 3 2QCD OffiCEOF -GA1i0?! h\O~~ 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 month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1999 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. RECEJVEO - JAN 4 2000 OfFICE OF D~TION MONITORIIG oAsrMt~{~~D RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RI ijijNSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ,/M,f n .i 2000 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W M C By: c 0RMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 IFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PLAN APPROVAL The Joshua Intervenors conditionally oppose the defendant's request for a new plan and respectfully request that a hearing be set in order that defendants may demonstrate what they expect to accomplish therewith. The Joshua Intervenors negotiated changed with the Pulaski County Special School District (hereinafter "PCS SD") in the preexisting PCS SD desegregation plan during the 1998-99 school term during the administration of Mr. Bobby Lester, then Superintendent of Schools. The basic changes were negotiated during October, November, and December, 1999. The plan was designed to replace and update the existing plan within the context of the administration of Mr. Lester. It contemplated that, inter alia, the Desegregation Office of the district and its two primary administrators would continue to implement the plan in accordance with earlier representations to the Court. It also contemplated cooperation between the parties with respect to the monitoring activities of Joshua and it set forth a process for obtaining good faith compliance with the desegregation objectives of the ogginal plan. -1- The plan was not to be submitted to the Court,, however, except as a joint submission and it was then to be after agreement upon all issues including attomevs fees. Bv submitting the plan unilaterallv. the defendants breached the agreement and thev now seek to avoid pavment offees and costs as agreed. Joshua also requests that the Court consider further plan modifications and other plan alterations in order to insure achievement of the original plan's desegregations goals. The plan submitted by the defendants takes as the work of the defendant the joint efforts of the parties. It is now being submitted out of context and out of regard for materially changed circumstances. It is submitted as a unilateral resolution of controverted issues which may be more than a year stale. Moreover, the unilateral plan presented to the Court contemplates notice to the class, a matter not even discussed by the document; and it includes a provision for raising compliance issues which Joshua would not agree to now or during the current administration due to changed circumstances. The Joshua Intervenors note to the Court that the present principal administrators of the district are vaguely familiar with the history of the desegregation plan and its commitments. Their early actions denigrate the plan and lower it as a district priority. They then reduced the role of Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, and deprecated the role and the work of the Director of Desegregation, Dr. Ruth Herts, by, inter alia, refusing her access to the second level power structure of the district known as the "A Team". Furthermore, citizen access before the board to discuss issues has been limited, on recommendation of the new superintendent, and in disregard of the Joshua Intervenor's request to be involved in resolution of the issue. The Joshua Intervenors have continued monitoring during the current administration and have met with general negative, if not hostile, responses from many teachers and administrators in -2- the district including the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Academic Matters, Dr. Fox. When Joshua has reported issues to the Office of Desegregation, Mr. Bowles now declines to make his own responses to the reports in writing lest they be used against the district. And, the district openly discriminates against Mr. Bowles' wife, Brenda, the district's Coordinator of Multicultural Education on the basis of race with respect to pay, duties and responsibility. We note the cosmetic nature of administrative changes. The superintendent touts academic improvement by attempting to point up significant test score changes. See Exhibit A. He then asks the board for a substantial pay raise for increasing test performance taking underserved credit for whatever changes may have occurred, if any, before he arrived. To top the plate, however, the test score data are not disaggregated by race. The Superintendent and Dr. Fox deliberately refused to allow disaggregation of the data. In this respect, the superintendent totally disregarded the "A Team" membership request by Dr. Herts but placed Dr. Robert Clowers, Test Director, and mostly other white male on the "A Team." These are not signs of good faith of a district which is committed to desegregation. At the least they cause Joshua substantial concern that the district has no intention of effective remediation of constitutional rights of African American children. We have included the Affidavit of Joshua Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, in support of our request that the district show cause that its plan addresses the current needs of African American students, is administratively consistent with the plan, and that the new plan does not diminish rights secured by the existing plan. The plan submitted by the district should not be approved, if at all, unless and until there has been a hearing to address compliance and other issues raised by Joshua. The role of the Office of Desegregation; the reduction of status of its principal officers; the limitation upon public access to -3- the board in public meetings; the misrepresentation of achievement scores and the comcomitant failure to disaggregate the data; the limitation of access to Joshua in monitoring; the unfamiliarity of the administration with either plan; the lack of commitment to either plan; the continuation of segregated assignments within classrooms the allowance of individual teachers to set rules on the spot which apply only to African American students (see the Cooley case); and the continued disparate treatment indiscipline, special education and extracurricular activities cry out for the Court to set a show cause hearing in order for the district to address the current Joshua concerns. The concerns have not been addressed in part because of the diminished status of the Office of Desegregation of the district. There is no doubt that the Court has the authority to modify the plan. But the Court's previous admonitions have been that the parties work together to that end. That has not been - effectuated and the defendants are now seeking to be rewarded for their failure to cooperate and effectively for their failure to implement the preexisting plan. Good faith is therefore abundantly lacking. The good faith of the district is a prerequisite for the Court's exercise of discretion in a way which favors the district. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to set this matter for a hearing, require the defendants to show cause why its preexisting plan needs to be changed and the particulars therefor and require the defendants to show how the proposed new plan under the new administration will work in face of a diminished Office of Desegregation. Joshua also requests the Court for an opportunity to conduct discovery in order to be prepared for such a hearing. After such discovery and after hearing, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court approve those parts of the plan that are shown to be necessary and positive changes to the existing plan; disapprove -4- those portions of the plan which are not demonstrated to be goal related or likely to work to strengthen or improve the preexisting plan; allow for further amendments and modifications as may be required by the evidence; require the district to allow monitoring and enforcement activities to proceed through Joshua and to pay all fees and costs associated with plan deviation, monitoring and other desegregation activity. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this 3rd day of January, 2000. Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -6- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PCSSD GRADE 5 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science - PCSSD GRADE 7 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science PCSSD GRADE 10 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science PRESS RELEASE Pulaski County Special School District Office of Educational Accountability 1999 SAT-9 Score Increases December 3, 1999 .. 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change 40 43 41 44 +4 40 44 43 45 +5 34 38 34 37 +3 39 42 40 45 '.1-6 34 39 36 40 +6 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change ' 46 45 44 46 0 43 42 41 44 +1 41 40 39 41 0 41 41 38 42 +1 48 50 50 50 +2 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change 45 ' 46 48 48. +3 40 41 44 44 +4 49 49 50 52 +3 41 42 45 47 +6 49 48 50 49 O . _-~. ..- -~. -,. ,_ - . ' . . : . .,_._. /~ _-: -: . ... . -: _ :.- - I , . . . . . .. . ~, -~> :I , . .. .. ,. .. .. . ' - 1998-99 Change +3 +2 .. : , ~ . +3 ::-~ ',( _1 +5 +4 ... , . ',, ', ' , : ..-, . \.' { : 1998-99 --: : ;,~ .- ' Change .... : . . +2 +3 +2 +4 0 1998-99 Change 0 0 +2 +2 - 1 EXHIBIT I A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETAL. :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF PULASKI) AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who admits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I was hired by class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in approximately January, 1990 to monitor the compliance of the Pulaski County Special School District (later referred to herein as PCSSD) regarding its desegregation plan obligations and other court orders that relate to the settlement of this case. 2. Over the years as a member of the Joshua monitoring team, I have monitored PCCSD's compliance with its desegregation plan obligations. PCSSD's mission statement and plan goals are outlined on pages 3 through 12 of their respective plan. See DESEGREGATION PLAN, Pulaski County Special School District, dated April 29, 1992. Over the last five years, we - chose the following areas to monitor during our visits to schools in PCSSD: 1) Building Leadership and Management; 2) Separation of Races in School programs; 3) Staff Development; 4) Student Discipline; 5) Parental Involvement; 6) Curriculum and Educational Programs; 7) Student Achievement and Assessment; 8) Special Education; 9) Talented and Gifted and 10) Extracurricular Activities. 3. Joshua's findings over the past five years with respect to PCCSD's good faith implementation of its plan goals and obligations have been overwhelmingly mixed. The District has a tendency of "going through the motion" with respect to implementation of plan goals and obligations. In other words, it may be able to say on paper that a particular program has been implemented, but there are no evaluation or assessment criteria in place to determine their effectiveness. The District has a storehouse of data it has collected over the years and to my knowledge, has not done anything with its data collection. This can be said for the majority of its efforts regarding implementation of plan obligations. An example of data collection is the District's goal to correct the problem of over representation of black males in special education. Data are collected regarding student participation in special education programs and to my knowledge, nothing is done with the data .. Another example of data collection involves the discipline management system. The intent of the discipline management system was to address disproportionate discipline of black students. Many of the schools in the District have discipline management plans, however, that is just about it. They have them and to my knowledge, they don't do anything with them. The alternative discipline program for at-risk youth for the District has deteriorated over the years. The current format of this program has similarities to that of shift work for a factory. Students attend based upon shifts. Finally, and even more alarming, there is no counselor on staffi 4. In the majority of the schools visited, areas of concern remain in student achievement, ---- - - - - student discipline, separation of races in school programs, student participation in extracurricular activities, student participation in gifted and talented and advanced placement classes, parental involvement and student participation in special education. 5. I have received numerous parent and student complaints of disparate treatment with respect to discipline, participation in extracurricular activities, educational placement and the general overall treatment of black staff and students. 6. Ms. Carolyn Cooley has worked under my supervision as a monitor during the last school year. She reports that a number of classes have black students seated on one side of classrooms while white students are seated on the opposite side. She also reports that at schools like Baker, Oak Grove, and North Pulaski, she has met hostile response from teachers and the administration. They are uncooperative. 7. I have reported Ms. Cooley's findings, as well as my own, to Mr. Bowles. In the past, Mr. Bowles would investigate the complaints and often give our office a written response. Since that time, he has declined to put anything in writing because, we believe, the Superintendent has instructed him not to do so or because of the criticism that he has received from having previously documented his findings. 8. The District has hired a number of new administrators within the past twelve months, virtually all of them have been white. The hiring officials failed to consult in most instances, on information and belief, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation before filling such I vacancies. This clearly relates to effective implementation of the District's desegregation goals and obligations. 9. As a continuing monitor of the PCSSD who is involved on a daily basis in the monitoring activities of the District, I believe that the District has not effectuated any positive changes which favor black students in the PCSSD in the past year and a half In addition, I believe that the District's efforts regarding desegregation are denigrating rather than improving as it strives to achieve unitary status in all aspects of school operations. 10. In conclusion, the District does not give us the support necessary for our monitoring activities to be successful. I hereby state that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SWORN BEFORE ME TIIlS 3n1 day of January, 2000. dlliQ a !Lu:t ublic My Commission Expires: Cf/;:j2dl.s I JANS 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 5, 1999 ORDER In its order entered November 5, 1999 (docket no. 3308), and in response to the LRSD's motion to modify the Settlement Agreement, this Court concluded that there - was no basis to modify the Settlement Agreement so as to increase the total number of magnet school seats the State must fund beyond a total of 4,065 for all six magnet schools. The Court requested additional submissions on the question of "whether the number of stipulated seats for each individual [magnet] school, as set forth in the settlement agreement, involves a substantive commitment (which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in fact or law) or a detail (which may be modified when a reasonable basis for modification exists)." The Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools. The Settlement Agreement does not define the limits to the State's financial obligation in terms of an aggregate number of students for all magnet schools, regardless of individual school enrollment. Rather, the Settlement Agreement ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools. The parties' decision to enumerate individual, specific seating limits for each of the six magnets as defining the limits to the State's financial obligation evidences the parties' belief that those individual seating limits are "substantive commitments" under the Agreement, and not mere "details." Had the parties intended that the State's financial obligation for magnet schools be based on a fixed total enrollment of 4,065 students each year - without regard to fluctuations in the seating capacities at the individual schools - they could easily have crafted the Settlement Agreement to make that clear. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant tto ne General 323 Center S e , Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on January 4, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, m Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Timoiliyatig ~lf 3 FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAN 10 2000 WESTERN DMSION 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 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 2000 OfflCEOf ~MONITORING The Little Rock School District moved for an extension of time in which to respond to the - Court's Order ofNovember 5, 1999.1 For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3321]. The District has to and including January 21, 2000 to respond. 'f--- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ifi_DAY OF JANUARY, 2000 ~uJ\4u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT !"HIS DOCU~.ffNT PffERED Oi"l DOCKET SHEET lN CCJMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a} FRCP '")N /J,/;;O,i) _ BY --~ _ 1 In its Order, the Court directed the parties to brief the Court regarding whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. Docket no. 3308. :,::~~;i~} ~t .p <l-~ rl~ )~,::J~---..---11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVE" -JA. ",,' .: 10 -O-DO OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORIR& LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") states: 1. Counsel for LRSD requests additional time of two weeks within which to respond to the Court's Order of November 5, 1999. 2. Counsel for LRSD has made several attempts to contact AD E's attorney but has been ,, unable to reach him. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffLittle Rock School District prays for an extension of the time within which they must respond to the Court's Order of November 5, 1999 by two weeks to and including January 21, 2000. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher, Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 By: ~t . , Jr . . 92182 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 7th day of January, 2000: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Ann Brown 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 Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A ven~e Little Rock, AR 72~01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAN 1 (,; 'lon~ t <- ' ut.J OftlCE'Of ID~TIONMONITORWG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUAINTERVENORS'RESPONSETO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PLAN APPROVAL On November 17, 1999, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking approval of Plan 2000. The motion was accompanied by a brief which set forth the undisputed facts and the applicable law. The PCSSD consented to a 20-day enlargement of time for Joshua to respond and thereafter, Joshua sought and obtained a second enlargement of time to respond until January 3, 2000. Given the nature of Joshua's response, the PCSSD is at a loss to explain why Joshua needed any enlargement of time whatsoever. Unlike the PCSSD's submissions, the Joshua response is bereft of legal analysis, legal authority or any other matters that would be of any assistance to the Court in determining whether to approve Plan 2000. Instead, Joshua has basically submitted a stream of consciousness narrative decrying certain alleged current practices of the PCSSD and generally grousing about perceived slights and alleged 149205-v1 oversights. While Joshua's response further faults the management style of the new PCSSD administration and asserts that goals of the 1989 plan remain as yet unmet, Joshua has submitted nothing that should deter this Court from simply applying the legal standards set forth in PCSSD's opening brief and approving Plan 2000 without further delay. While the PCSSD could respond in kind and discuss Joshua's inaccurate assertions and unfounded personal attacks, could highlight the generally aggressive, inyour- face monitoring style of Joshua, explain the essentially useless written monitoring reports generated in the past by Joshua which invariably applied incorrect and inapplicable legal standards, could discuss the exorbitant financial demands of Joshua, and could highlight the generally counter productive practices of the principal Joshua monitor, such discussion would not advance a resolution of the legal issues and will therefore not be pursued here. THE PCSSD HAS BREACHED NO AGREEMENT. It is true that in a previous incarnation, Plan 2000 was developed with Joshua as the principal author, as a plan to be submitted jointly by Joshua and the PCSSD. Thereafter, Joshua refused to execute the plan as an agreement when its monetary demands went unmet. PCSSD then appended the plan to its petition for unitary status dated March 25, 1999. In response and at that time, Joshua vouchsafed no opposition to the plan. Indeed, while Joshua opposed the petition for unitary status, Joshua "embraced" the plan characterizing the proposed commitments as a "renewed and more targeted" plan that could serve as a new or amended desegregation plan. (See - PCSSD brief, p.2) 149205-v1 2 This status was fully discussed at the hearing held by this Court on September 21, 1999. It was submitted then that either party could submit the amended plan unilaterally and that this Court would not have to even apply the contested amendment standard because the parties had agreed upon the plan. The Court agreed with this proposition. (See PCSSD brief, pp.6-7) THE JOSHUA RESPONSE IS A TALE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING. It should be noted here that the PCSSD's declination to discuss each of Joshua's accusations explicitly should not be interpreted as any kind of concession. Indeed, the PCSSD denies them all. Instead, reduced to its bare essentials, the Court has before it only two legally viable propositions. First, will the Court decline to approve Plan 2000 and continue the - 1989 plan, a conclusion, we respectfully submit, that is at variance with the Court's previous pronouncements and rulings; or, will the Court approve Plan 2000 as a better means to the end of this litigation. That is really all this Court can and should do. While it is certainly true that this Court might very well schedule compliance hearings in the future calculated to ascertain compliance with Plan 2000, there is no current logical legal reason for this Court to indulge, by a hearing, Joshua's latest efforts to second guess personnel issues, how board meetings are structured, prematurely hear matters which are currently monitored by the ODM and other similar matters. Clearly, a desegregation plan is not logically or legally required to be tailored to the particular personalities in charge of a school district at any particular time (See 149205-v1 3 Joshua argument at its brief, p.1) but, rather, is required to be tailored to the circumstances extant at the time of the proposed modification in terms of remedying past constitutional violations. (See PCSSD brief, p.3) CONCLUSION For all of its bellicosity, the Joshua response avails nothing. It ignores the legal issues pending before this Court and represents little more than an effort to distract the Court from the real issues. In contrast, the PCSSD has thoroughly and appropriately informed the Court of the controlling law and the guiding legal principles. There are no issues for which a hearing is appropriate, much less necessary. It is respectfully submitted that Plan 2000 should be approved forthwith and the PCSSD directed to commence its implementation. 149205-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 BY_,,...,..._,;__:;,~~~~~d::,.----M. Atto pecial Sch 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January jj_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 149205-v1 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Suelones Ill / 5 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN f; 2000 WESTERN DMSION JA~Es r M~ORMACK, CLERK By '~,- t)( MM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEPCi.lAA 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 RECEI ED WJ 1s iooo OJFlCE OF TlON MONITORING The three Pulaski County school districts-the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District (hereinafter "the Districts") --moved for an award of prejudgment interest related to the State's obligation to fund the Districts' contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance for the 1998-1999 school year [docket no. 3297]. The State responded [docket no. 3298], and the Districts replied to the response [docket no. 3301]. After carefully considering the parties' pleadings and briefs, the Court determines the Districts' motion should be granted. I. Previously, the Court found that the State's new method for funding school districts' contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance disadvantaged the Pulaski County Districts in violation of the parties' settlement agreement with the State. The Eighth Circuit ordered the Court to determine appropriate relief that would place the Districts "in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed."1 In response to the Eighth Circuit's directive, the Court ordered the State to pay the Districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years and found that the Districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. 2 With respect to the 1998-1999 school year, the parties agreed that the States' principal liability totaled $10,288,773. On September 2, 1999 the State paid the agreed amount. Now the Districts move for an award of prejudgment interest. II. The State asserts that the Court did not issue a judgment regarding the States' liability for the 1998-1999 retirement and insurance funding shortfall and, therefore, the Districts should not label their request a motion for "prejudgment" interest. 3 Whatever the label, the Court finds the subst