Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''

District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) status report on magnet school issues; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to file reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, order; District Court, reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan and in opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for affirmative relief; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion to extend time and for referral 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 MAR 6 2000 OFflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN LRSD, for its Response to ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan, states: 1. LRSD admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 of ADE's Motion. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of ADE's Motion . . 3. ADE has failed to comply with its monitoring obligations originating in Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, "Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the, School Districts in Pulaski County." 4. ADE's proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan ("DMAP") will not further LRSD's efforts to comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan") for the following reasons: a. Under LRSD's Revised Plan, LRSD may be released from court - supervision at the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year. LRSD must submit a compliance report to the Court and the parties on or before March 15, 2001 . However, the DMAP does not even contemplate a monitoring report being filed until October 1, 2000. This is too late to be of any benefit to LRSD; b. LRSD now has in place its own internal monitoring processes specifically related to LRSD's Revised Plan. It objects to being required to provide information to ADE so that ADE can reformat the data and give it back to LRSD in the form of a "monitoring report." 5. ADE's motion should also be denied for the following reasons: a. ADE's monitoring no longer needs to be "independent" ofLRSD. ODM provides independent monitoring of LRSD. See the "Allen Letter", "We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified ... after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville."). Moreover, ADE monitoring ofLRSD does not make sense given the status of the parties. LRSD is the plaintiff in this case. ADE represents the "remedial vehicle" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)("Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well."); b. ADE's monitoring was part of the State's "continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities." See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. The other part was State funding of compensatory education programs. Based on this State funding, ADE's monitoring served to ensure "fiscal accountability to the tax payers [sic] of Arkansas." See the "Allen Letter", p. 1. However, LRSD no longer receives State funding for compensatory 2 education programs through the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State's interest in seeing that LRSD spends the State's money in a fiscally responsible manner is substantially reduced. 6. The facts and circumstances set forth above justify modification of ADE's monitoring obligations. As noted above, the Settlement Agreement recognized that ADE was to have a "continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities." See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. At least with regard to LRSD, that role should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. This Court should order ADE to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in achieving this goal. ADE should be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward - monitoring of LRSD. 7. Additionally, since ODM now provides the independent monitoring which under the Settlement Agreement and the Allen Letter was to be performed by ADE, ADE should be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between African-American and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the 3 current year and to pay for ODM in the future; that LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served f the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 6 2000 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITDRJNQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN ADE represents the "remedial vehicle" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)("Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well."). As such, ADE agreed to monitor and evaluate LRSD's compensatory education programs as a part of ADE's "continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities." See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. and the "Allen Letter." No such monitoring and evaluation ever occurred. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, "Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County." ADE's failure to comply with its monitoring obligations, in conjunction with the other facts and circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response, justify modification of the Settlement Agreement. Given that nature of the ADE's monitoring obligations and the modifications sought by LRSD, the Supreme Court's decision in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), provides the relevant legal standard. In that case, the Supreme Court held: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. A myriad of changed circumstances may justify modification under Rufo. See,~ Jacksonville Branch, NAACP. v. the Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (1 Ith Cir. 1992)("Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered."). The modifications proposed by LRSD are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response in that they further the underlying purpose of ADE's monitoring: to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995)(approving the closing oflsh Incentive School because it advances the goal of desegregation); Heath v. DeCourcy. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. l 989)(Modification of a consent decree will be upheld "if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties."). 2 ADE may object to the modifications sought by LRSD arguing that they increase the financial obligation of the State. Even if this is true, this objection is without merit because ADE has been adjudged a constitutional violator. Compare Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1992). In Lorain, the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court order modifying a consent decree and substantially increasing the financial obligations of the State of Ohio for desegregation of the Lorain City School District. The linchpin of the Sixth Circuit's decision was the fact there had been no adjudication of a constitutional violation by the State. Id., at 1153 . The Sixth Circuit concluded: In the absence of an adjudication or admission of [a] constitutional violation, the district court's authority to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the terms of[the] agreement entered by the parties to the consent decree. Id. In the present case, the State of Arkansas was adjudicated a constitutional violator. Therefore, subject to satisfaction of the Rufo standard, this Court has discretion to modify ADE's monitoring obligations in a manner that increases the financial obligation of the State. Therefore, LRSD respectfully requests that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between AfricanAmerican and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; and that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. 3 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED EAsrMk\ 13',i~~',g. ~2~sAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR O 7 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - WESTERN DIVISION ~~ME,fv.~Mc R~ACK ~LERK , ~\AJlJL~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * o P C1:ffiK Plaintiff * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 The Little Rock School District moves the Court for an Order authorizing a special millage election to be held May 9, 2000 [docket no. 3339]. The District states it has a pressing need for additional funds to meet desegregation commitments associated with the construction, renovation, and maintenance of its school facilities. Additionally, the District explains it must plan for the needed expenditures by May 2000 and cannot wait for the annual school election (scheduled for September 2000) to place the proposal before the electorate. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the proposed special election should be authorized. See Liddell v. Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294, 1321 (8th Cir. 1984). THEREFORE, the Court hereby authorizes a special millage election to be held in the Little Rock School District on May 9, 2000 for the purpose of placing before the electorate a proposal to increase the millage rate in the Little Rock School District by 5 mills. FURTHER, the millage election authorized by this Order shall have the same force and effect under Arkansas law as if it were a regular school election. IT IS SO ORDERED TIDS 1%A Y OF MARCH, 2000 ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ::C.;MPUANC;.,ZTH RULE 58 AN~R~(a) FRCP ON ;!i'.25 t7D BY _ j IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, No. LR-C-82-866 l\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * MAR l O zmm KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER v'C1, :'I"\,C,. vr~rC DESEGREGAT!CN MONITOmNQ Previously, the Court held in abeyance its decision regarding the Little Rock School - District's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with respect to the number of magnet school seats within each magnet school. The Court directed the parties to brief the Court 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. 1 The State responded that the "Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools" and "ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools."2 According to the State, the parties ' decision to delineate specific seating limits for each magnet school supports a finding that the limits are substantive commitments under the 1 Docket no. 3308. 2 Docket no. 3320. - agreement, which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in circumstances. LRSD filed a motion for more time to respond to the Court's request for briefing, and the Court granted the motion. However, the extended time for responding has passed and LRSD has not filed a response. The Court provides the LRSD to and including 5 days from entry of this Order to file a response. If a response is not forthcoming, the Court will conclude LRSD does not object to the State's response and enter an Order denying LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement [ docket no. 3292]. JA.- IT IS so ORDERED THIS_%_ DAY OF MARCH, 2000 CHIEF JUD E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUAN~~ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 'JN 3 -9 L q;:, _ !Y t1::;-----; . - 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 11922 1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M. EISEMAN , JR .. P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P. A. ES A . BUTTRY , P.A . DERICK S. URSERY , P . A . ARE . DAVIS , JR., P. A . MES C . CLARK, JR., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P. A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SAXTON . P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P.A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN , P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS, P. A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A. SCOTT J . LANCASTER , P. A . M. GAYLE CORLEY , P. A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN, P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIGHT , P.A. Mr. James W. McConnack FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376 -2011 FAX NO . 501376 2147 March 15, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER , P.A . GUY ALTON WADE , P.A . PRICE C. GARONER. P.A . TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WILSON , P.A . JEFFREY H. MOORE , P.A . DAVID M. GRAF , P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENOLEY , JR ., P.A . JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P. A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX . P. A . FRANC . HICKMAN , P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL . HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYDEA JASON 8 , HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH a, COUNSU WILLIAM J . SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T. LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A. WAIT(A 'S DIAfCT NO . (501) 370-3323 United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiffs Notice of Filing LRSD's Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:IIIOMEIJEANNE\Barbaraljcf lrsd v. pcssd clcrlc-lt.wpd Since~ly, {tjj) l1tC~.~ Jopn C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 JnC. Fend~y 2 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Olt!CE OF Interim Compliance Report DESEGRE6',TION~roNrrrr,ms Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922 -199'1 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P .A . - YRON M . EISEMAN , JR. , P.A . OED. BELL, P.A. AMES A . BUTTRY, P . A . FREDERICKS . URSERY, P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR q P . A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR . , P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P .A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill . P . A . LARRY W . BURKS . P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR . , P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P.A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M . SIMPSON , P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P . A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P .A. DONALD H , BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P . A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR . , P .A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P . A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A . ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P .A. MICHAEL$. MOORE. P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill. P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS , P.A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR . , P.A . SCOTT J . LANCASTER, P . A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR. , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P.A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR ., P . A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P.A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 17, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 2 0 2000 Mr. James W. McCormack District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: SCOTT H . TUCKER , P.A . GUY AL TON WADE , P.A . PRICE C . GARONER, P.A . TONIA P. JONES , P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON , P.A. JEFFREY H . MOORE, P.A . DAVID M . GRAF, P.A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER . P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON , P. A . GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR , P.A . TONY L . WILCOX , P.A. FRANC . HICKMAN, P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT DANIEL L . HERRINGTON K . COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N . RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIOWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A . KASTEN ROBERT T . SMITH Of COUN SEL WILLIAM J. SMITH S . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H . T. LARZELERE , P.A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A . WAITIEll ' S OIAECT NO . (501) 370 - 1506 Enclosed please find the original and three copies of Status Report in the above-captioned case. Please file the original and return copies of same to me bearing your file mark. By copy of this letter I am forwarding copies of same to the attorneys of record. Thank you for your assistance. CH/pch Enclosures cc w/enc.: Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. John W. Walker Richard Roachell M. Samuel Jones Ann Brown Timothy Gauger Steve Jones 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 LRSD STATUS REPORT ON MAGNET SCHOOL ISSUES RECEIVED MAR 2 0 ZOGO OfRGHt oESGREGATIOH OITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its Status Report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. In May of 1999 the MRC asked the Court to approve a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the Magnet - Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposed change was in response to LRSD's reorganization of its school grade structure into a new configuration which includes middle schools. The MRC proposal led to a disagreement between the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD about whether the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement limits either the total number of magnet seats or the number of seats at any particular magnet school for which ADE can be required to contribute funding. 2. LRSD and ADE have resolved their disagreement. They are in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Understanding to reflect the resolution of these issues. A Memorandum of Understanding will F:IHOME\BRENDAK\lr>d\PCSS-sl>!Us. rep. wpd be filed with the Court as soon as it has been completed and signed by the parties. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 37 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 17th day of March, 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 F:IHOME\BRENDAK\lrsdlPCSS-SUIUs.rep. wpd 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72 201 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 Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 0 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DMSION By:-----'Y--~~.,J..J.J.~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * ORDER MAR 2 2 2000 OtEm0F DESEGRE6A1IDll1MlNlTORING The Little Rock School District (LR-SD) filed a status report, informing the Court that the LRSD and the State have resolved their differences related to the State's magnet school funding obligations.1 Currently, the LRSD and the State are finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding to be filed with the Court at a later date. Accordingly, the Court finds that the LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [docket no. 3292]. -fA_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cl<? DAY OF MARCH, 2000 C1~Jk- CIDEF JUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3345. fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANC./CITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP 'JN 3SJ 00 . _ BYtzt: __ 3346 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE 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, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER MAR 20 2fQJ By previous Order, this Court conditionally approved a revised desegregation plan submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCS SD"). 1 The Court directed PCSSD to provide members of the Joshua Class with notice of the proposed revised plan and set March 15, 2000 as the deadline for receiving objections from class members. The time for filing objections has passed and no member of the Joshua Class has submitted comments or objections regarding the revised plan. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23( e ), the Court has carefully reviewed the revised plan and finds it to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Joshua Class. Additionally, the Court finds that counsel for Joshua provided class members adequate representation during negotiations related to the revised plan. 1 Docket no. 3337. Therefore, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for approval of Plan 2000 should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED [docket no. 3309] Further, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions oflaw regarding the Court's denial of PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [ docket no. 3287]. fR IT IS SO ORDERED THIS t2.o DAY OF MARCH, 2000 ~#-,~d' CHIEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN C( .1MPUA~0ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP , ON 3 t, Qo_ ,. BY J7t:: _-' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2000 uFFICE OF :f SEGREGATION MONITOR/NG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") hereby moves the Court for a short extension of time, to and including March 24, 2090, within -which to file a combined reply brief in .... - . support of its motion for approval of a new monitoring and assistance plan and opposition to LRSD's - own request for modification of the Settlement Agreement The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On February l, 2000, ADE filed a motion for approval of a proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan ("DMAP") as replacing and superceding the "Allen Letter." After securing an extension of time within which to respond to AD E's motion, the LRSD filed its response on March 6, 2000. In its response LRSD asserts thatADE's motion should be denied and requests modifications of the Settlement Agreement marlc.edly different than the modifications sought by ADE. 2. ADE desires to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion and opposition to the relief sought by LRSD. Treating LRSD's response as a motion for affirmative relief, AD E's response would be due on or before March 20, 2000. However, due to the press of other business, counsel for ADE will need an additional four days, to and including March 24, 2000, to file such a brief. 3. Counsel for ADE has cont.acted LRSD's counsel concerning this motion and is authorized to st.ate that LRSD does not oppose the extension of time sought herein. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order permitting ADE to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion for approval of the DMAP and opposition to LRSD's request for modification of the Settlement .Agreement, on or before March 24, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRY