Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order

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 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL ORDER For its Motion, Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: RECEIVED .JlJL 1 o '7h01 _O.OUC f .. ... . , PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 1. The Court directed counsel for the Joshua interveners on Friday not to directly contact LRSD employees concerning this case. On Saturday, counsel for the Joshua interveners called an LRSD employee at home to discuss the case. 2. The Court also directed the Joshua interveners to provide LRSD a witness list by Friday subject to revision of the witness list on Monday. Joshua provided a list on Friday afternoon which listed twenty-five people as witnesses, and additional seven people "tentative witnesses" and noted that Joshua also intended to call "the monitor and associate monitors of the ODM". Counsel for Joshua said by telephone and confirmed in a letter that Joshua's witnesses for Thursday and Friday would be five LRSD witnesses as well as Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation monitoring. LRSD confirmed in writing that the witnesses would be available and asked Joshua to provide the order of their expected testimony so that arrangements could be made to have them in Court at the appropriate time. 3. Counsel for Joshua also said by telephone and confirmed in writing that Dr. Lesley would not be needed as a witness until the August hearing dates. LRSD confirmed in writing that - Dr. Lesley will not be available until the August hearing dates. 4. On Monday afternoon, counsel for Joshua added ten names to his witness list bringing Joshua's total number of witnesses to forty-five. 5. Counsel for Joshua requested time to "interview" for LRSD witnesses on Monday evening or Tuesday. Joshua was informed that two of the witnesses were out of town and that the other two were busy preparing the hearing. 6. On June 10, 1998, LRSD and Joshua made the following agreement with respect to Joshua's participation in implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333 .33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contained a process by which Joshua could bring to the attention ofLRSD, and ultimately the Court, and problems with LRSD' s implementation of the plan. No such problems were brought to the Court's attention during the entire three-year period. LRSD filed an interim compliance report in March of2000 which showed that LRSD was in compliance with its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Joshua filed no response or objection to the interim compliance report. LRSD' s final compliance report was filed on March 15, 2001 . Joshua was given until May 18, 2001 to file objections and a hearing was set for July 5 and 6, 2001. Joshua's deadline for filing objections was extended twice and the objections were filed on June 25, 2001. Within the past two weeks, Joshua has sent dozens of FOI requests seeking thousands of pages of documents many of which were previously provided to Joshua, many of which were produced by committees which contained Joshua representatives and all of which Joshua could easily have reviewed months ago in accordance with the LRSD's 2 agreement to reimburse Joshua's fees for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During the last two weeks, Joshua representatives have also met personally and by telephone with the LRSD Administrators responsible for drafting the Compliance Report. 7. After the close of business on Monday evening, Joshua sent two faxes. The first added eleven names to Joshua's witness list, which now totals fifty-six. Joshua has apparently still not made a final determination about the exhibits to be presented at trial. The second fax purports to rescind Joshua's agreement that Dr. Leslie would not be called as a witness on Thursday or Friday. Apparently in retaliation for LRSD's inability to present witnesses for "interviews" at the last minute, counsel for Joshua threatened to subpoena Dr. Leslie to appear on Friday. This can only be because of counsel's knowledge that Dr. Leslie is willing to appear on Thursday but must attend a family reunion in Texas on Friday. 8. The Court expressed on Friday the hope and the expectation that counsel for the parties would be able to resolve any pre-trial issues. That has not happened. LRSD must now request that the Court limit Joshua's presentation on Thursday and Friday to the five LRSD witnesses originally requested as well as the representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and that the Court require reasonable witness and exhibit lists and establish the parameters for any remaining discovery in this case, including the opportunity for LRSD to depose the witnesses from outside the district who were added last night to Joshua's witness list. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the presentation of witnesses on Thursday and Friday to those originally identified by Joshua, establishing deadlines for providing exhibit lists and reasonable witness lists, establishing a pre-trial process to determine the expected length of trial and providing reasonable limitations on the issues 3 to be presented at trial and on the length of the trial, and establishing a deadline for the completion of any remaining discovery. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher Heller, hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been served upon: by mailing a copy of same by U. S. Postal Service on July 3, 2001. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 3rd day of July 3, 2001 : 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 5 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor 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 ock, AR 72201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 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. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER JUL 5 -1001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGAl\ON MONUOUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes now the Joshua Intervenors, for their response to LRSD' s Motion for Pretrial Order, and state that Joshua is just in receipt ofLRSD's motion to limit evidence and to prevent a fair hearing. Since the court orders on Friday, June 29, 2001, the District has sought to obstruct and preclude the Joshua Intervenors from obtaining information and having access to witnesses. The District's counsel has made himself unavailable to be responsive to the reasonable requests of the Intervemors for information and access to personnel. This is the same vein in which LRSD's sought to lull Intervenors counsel's into the belief that counsel was preceding to undertake settlement negotiations in good faith. It is now evident that the settlement negotiations were delayed, and not otherwise conducted in good faith in an effort to prevent Intervemors' counsel from having access to information. The Motion for Pre-Trial Order is untimely and designed - further to interfere with Intervenors' counsel's ability to prepare for hearing set for Thursday. LRSD's motion is a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling wherein the court required the LRSD to make its personnel reasonable accessibility to Joshua so that neither side would be subject to surprise during the trial. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the court reinforce its order requiring the LRSD to cooperate with the Joshua Intervenors, in the manner established during the years of this litigation so that the court can have the benefit of actual facts and evidence to enable the court to make her judgments herein. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Sii:::t~~fe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been faxed to Mr. Chris Heller at 376-2147 and Ms. Ann Brown at 371-0100 and copies sent to other counsel ofrecord via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 3" day of~ 'ti!; y('~ FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT .A.RKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL O 9 2001 JA_MESJW.~\CORMACK CLERK By. \v ,~\l [\ C\I\ ~C> D PCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUL 11 2001 OffiCEOf DESE6REGATJON MONITORING 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On July 5th and 6th , 2001 , a hearing was conducted pursuant to Little - Rock School District's request for the Court to declare it t o be in unitary status and Joshua's objections thereto. The evidence not being completed, the hearing with respect to the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on August 1, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and proceed until noon on August 2, 2001. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than July 2 4, 2001. Thereafter, the remainder of the hearing on the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on November 19th and 20th , 2001, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. The parties are to exchange lists o f any additional witnesses or exhibits no later than November 1, 2001. A hearing on additional issues in this matter is hereby scheduled to begin on Monday, January 28, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. For P. 1 :14 5 4 i, - 2 - this hearing, witness and exhibit lists are to be exchanged no later than January 4, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this '11t\_ day of~' 2001. S~B8u.~~ Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULl;.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 2:ID-0 J sv___.Ttr"---t---- RECEIVED ttrric~ ..... VITI f: !.Jr COURT FILED &6REGATIOM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT '=ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL JUL 1 0 2001 JAMESJ. M~RMACK, CLERK By: \ , -....U /\ (\/\ fl..A DEP ~LEf$.-. vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion for a pretrial order filed by Little Rock School District which appears to be moot at this time pursuant to the order entered this date setting forth deadlines for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists prior to the hearings that currently are scheduled in this matter. The Clerk is directed to make the necessary docket entry removing said motion from the pending motions' report in this matter. Dated this 10~ day of July, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE: 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 7--f0 - 0/ BY lJt:: SUS WEBERWRIGirr' Chief United States District Judge """ . t J4 5 5 I, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COlJNrv S~PE CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED JUL 16 2001 OFFICE OF DESmREGATION MONITOill PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There has been significant demand by LRSD minority students for seats at Baker Elementary over the past several years. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the most recent enrollment projection for Baker. The conversion of Baker to a middle school frees up the two sixth grade classrooms. The PCSSD proposes to add an additional kindergarten class for the 2001-2002 school year to be followed by the addition of yet another kindergarten class for the following school year. This would give Baker, in year 2, three first grade classes and three kindergarten classes. These classes would then be "rolled up" year by year until the first entering kindergarten class matriculated in the fifth grade and the process would then start over. The PCSSD believes that the emphasis upon recruiting at kindergarten over two years is the most practical approach it can take. It believes that attracting children at this level before they are settled into other schools is both rational and the most reasonable strategy to deploy. 249234-v1 Baker needs to recruit only about 22 additional minority children over two years to attain an enrollment that is safely 20% minority 1 . The PCS SD believes that this strategy, as outlined above, will accomplish this objective.2 The PCSSD believes that the construction of the new activities complex, approved by this Court, will facilitate and ---~!lhance it~ current recT~i!i!1] _effort_s. A~ a source for new students, the District's recruitment strategy will be narrowly focused as described below. Recruiting Target A new apartment complex for low income housing was completed recently at 15000 Chenal Parkway approximately one-half mile from Baker Elementary. The name of the complex is "Chenal Park". It is on the border of the PCSSD and LRSD. Chenal Park contains 176 two and three bedroom apartments for low income families. Information supplied by the LRSD reveals that the LRSD currently educates 48 elementary-aged minority students from Chenal Park of whom 40 are currently assigned to Terry with the remainder scattered among other schools, principally the stipulation magnet schools. (Exhibit 2). In the last two years, school-aged children from Chenal Park have applied to attend Baker under the assumption that its proximity to their homes meant it was their neighborhood school. Until now, the PCSSD has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of these requests. Because of Baker's proximity to Chenal Park, its reputation, the enhancements to the campus that the Court has approved and because of the prior interest expressed by - 1 This, of course, is a minimum goal. However, the PCSSD believes this to be a reasonable initial goal for this on-going effort. 2 Ideally, the PCSSD could commit the funds to add a class at each grade level. However, the recent millage defeat and the allegation made by some that Baker is an "identifiably white" school has dissuaded the District from this proposition. 249234-v1 2 some residents of Chenal Park, the PCSSD believes that this recruitment effort over a period of two years should bring Baker into compliance with its racial balance goals. The PCSSD has scheduled a "registration carnival" to be held at Baker on August 1, 2001. The publicity for this event has been targeted to Chenal Park. August 1st is the first day of PCSSD's three-day registration period. Thus, this timing will permit - - - - - -- --. -- - ---- - -- --- the PCSSD to prefer potential M to M students from Chenal Park before the PCSSD must commit any remaining seats to applicants from within its attendance zone. 249234-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 __:__...:;....,1 _ ___;;;_.....:..;1=-------M. A Sc 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 13, 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 7220f --. - 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 249234-v1 M.S~onesll 4 07 / 12/!ll f.Iru 15: 46 FAX -~141002 Memo . ... _ To: From: Date: Re: STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Chris Heller x/ /\ J Julie Wiedo~er, Director of Student Reg-istrati~O v eJ unes~~ ~ Requ.~~~ for Student Information Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, I have determined that there have been at least 40 Little Rock School District students who have applied through the M to M Transfer application for a school assignment at Baker Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special School District over the past four years and who have not been enrolled. The County's inability to place our M to M students at Baker has been related to a lack of scat capacity after they have placed the Baker zone students. Our data for the 2001-02 school year shows a total of27 Little Rock School District M to M students assigned to Baker, including no kindergartners and only two 1st graders. Pulaski County Special School District has requested the number of elementary students currently on our database living at the apartment complex at l.5000 Chenal Parkway. There are 48 black students and 12 non-black students and 40 of these students are attending Terry Elementary school, the attendance zone school for that area. The remaining 20 are attending Williams, Carver, Booker, King and Washington magnet schools, as well as McDermott, Fulbright and Dodd attendance zone schools. All of these schools are racially balanced. CC: Junious Babbs, Associate Supcdntendent for Administrative Services EXHIBIT I 501 SHERMAN STREET - LITTLE ROCK AR. 72202 - P.HONE: 32~2272 - FAX: 324-2281 - - - .. . al --.J '- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I-'. ! w Enrollment ProiecUons - 2001-2002 Revised 05-21-01 i '-' Iv C1ass PRE-K KIND. FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTA\. ELEMENTARY a:19 .a..l. . Capacity DLK WHT TOT BLK WJIT TOT BLK WlIT ror BLK WBT TOT BLK WOT TOT BLK \VDT T<Jf fiLK WIIT 1'0T BLK WJIT ror BLK " WBT ,,. TOT ~LEMENTARY SCHOOLS CS) .C.D I-' .DIJNS 370 16 4 20 16 4 20 29 19 48 23 18 41 21 11 44 19 20 39 25 22 47 0 0 0 155 60% 104 40% 259 I-' illNOLDDR. 420 0 0 0 ts Gl 77 15 62 77 11 6S 76 I4 41 62 17 44 61 J-4 47 " 0 0 0 86 21~ 328 1''il, -414 IAXER 330 0 0 0 6 34 40 6 34 40 7 37 44 7 41 4& 2 46 48 10 30 -4(1 0 0 0 38 15~ 222 &s'il, uo U1 al I-' IATBS 750 31 n 54 31 23 54 43 43 16 47 '7 94 48 3:5 83 51 46 97 12 S8 J'.lO 0 0 0 323 S4'1> 27S 46~ S'JS I ~ IAYOUMETO " 0 0 0 4 61 n 4 6B n 2 83 15 3 11 80 2 90 n 2 75 77 0 0 0 17 4'1, 461 96'11 478 <.D al I :ATO 576 0 0 0 15 49 64 JS 49 64 10 68 78 16 46 62 20 59 79 16 54 70 0 0 0 92 2291- 325 78'1, 411 I-' w :LINTON 8l3 31 33 71 38 33 71 37 41 78 42 49 91 59 52 111 41 48 89 S9 52 lit 0 0 0 314 50% U1 308 50% 622 Iv '.:OLLl!GESTA 34-0 0 0 0 6 3 9 4 6 10 9 3 12 II 2 13 27 19 46 20 lO 50 0 0 0 77 SS% 63 45% 140 CRYSI"ALIUL uo 29 24 53 29 24 53 46 54 JOO 53 49 102 41 47 9S ,1 49 96 54 52 ,~ 53 59 111 359 50% 3S& 50% 717 DUPIIJ!R 465 0 0 0 13 39 52 13 39 .52 15 31 46 ll 34 47 20 49 69 12 37 49 0 0 0 86 17% 229 7311, 315 IJ..UUUS 525 0 0 (I 12 10 22 12 10 22 16 12 78 16 12 28 21 7 34 29 21 50 0 0 0 112 61~- 72 :w;i. 184 l'VILU .ELE."1 715 0 0 0 62 4, 111 62 49 Ill 45 SI ,6 j5 38 93 54 45 99 51 40 91 0 0 0 329 5$\l, 272 45',/, 001 l.ANDllfARK 568 11 18 3S 11 u lS 24 26 50 25 26 SI 22 28 ,o 30 37 61 35 34 69 0 0 0 170 48111, 187 52% 3S7 111 LAWSON 325 0 9 40 49 9 40 49 3 32 JS 8 24 32 7 34 41 ' 11 36 0 0 0 45 19~ 197 81',\ 242 ) C H JAKGROVJU 476 17 55 72 17 55 n 9 .(0 .(9 12 41 SJ 11 33 44 JO 33 43 14 41 55 14 37 51 104 24~ 335 76\l- .. 439 --1 < DAirnROOKB 500 0 0 0 II 27 38 11 27 38 18 33 51 21 )6 51 14 41 55 14 27 41 0 0 0 &9 32% 191 6S% 280 lJ C ~JNRFORIISf 556 0 16 44 w 16 4' 60 JO 5-2 62 13 31 so 10 73 83 II 53 M 21 65 116 91 21% 361 19% 6:5 lJ H r ~INJ!.WOOO 5l3 0 0 0 12 54 76 12 54 16 n 38 61 22 4& 70 22 411 10 30 39 69 0 0 0 141 3J'ilo 211 67% 422 lf) lWBIN. ELEM. 459 0 s 39 47 ' 41 .:so ~ 39 48 14 43 S1 15 41 51 15 47 62 0 0 0 10 21')1, 251 78'i1, 321 111 ;o < SCOTI 180 0 4 19 23 4 l9 2) 8 21 29 7 10 17 8 10 18 7 JI 18 0 0 0 38 30,t 90 7(111, 118 H () 111 SRl!Jl \\'0OD 460 0 )9 37 SC, 19 37 56 19 33 52 16 37 53 20 43 (i3 19 33 52 0 0 0 112 34'll> 220 6~1' 3]2. SYL. IDLl.S El 456 0 11 38 s~ 18 38 56 11 33 44 21 19 so 22 45 67 25 46 71 0 0 0 11:5 339, 2:2.9 67'l 344 TAYLOR uo 0 21 3S 56 21 35 56 19 36 55 JO JI 61 30 36 66 22 32 54 0 0 0 143 4191, 205 59'1- 348 l'OLLl!SON 570 0 0 0 13 46 59 13 '6 S9 15 51 66 11 48 6.5 20 47 61 14 40 54 0 0 0 92 l!i'll, 278 7S'l, 310 T01"AJ.11L~t. U81 141 157 .l415 421 150 tl72 461 921 1312 452 943 1400 519 853 nn 535 1011 1546 51JI 941 1527 88 161 l49 32Al~ 35~ S1149 65% ,e53 lJ l> EXHIBIT G) 111 I I al Iv '- CS) Iv -- - --- UFILEO EASTElN '6\i~~',g. COURT ARKANSAS JUL 2 6 2001 ~AMES W. McCORMACK IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT cctDR1 CLEF~K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE'ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUL 2 7 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORIN& MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Baker Recruitment Plan, state: 1. Counsel is preparing in the instant case for a hearing scheduled for next week, August 1, 2001. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Undersigned counsel has been unsuccessful in contacting counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District to determine whether he has objections to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Baker Recruitment Plan up to and including July 30, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501):-J)3758 By ~ fi'Wdl~ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this 26th day ofJuly, 2001 via United States m , postage prepaid. fY, W'ttt&~ RECEIVED AUG 1 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 3 0 2001 OfRCEOF QESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DMSION By: ' DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN The Court entered an order on June 5, 2001 where it approved defendant's motion for permission to add an activities complex in Baker Interdistrict school. The Court noted that the defendants had asserted "that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker ... " The Order was not a final one for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, the Court noted the Joshua Intervenors' objections in Footnote 2 of the Order and called attention to Section J of the plan by which the defendants are now reportedly operating their school. The Court did not address the Joshua question of the possibility that private donations may not be used to establish "separate but unequal schools". The Court required the Defendant PCSSD to file a report "setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligation of Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further [ directed] the PCS SD to set forth target dates for the completion of these obligations. The defendants have now submitted their recruitment plan. The Joshua Intevenors observe that the Court required a report which set forth how the district intends to meet its obligation under Section J and directed a target date for completion of the obligation. The Joshua Intervenors do not believe that the defendants have complied with the -1- Court's requirements. The defendants propose the following: a) There will be no recruitment. This is so because enough Little Rock students who reside within the Chenal Park area have applied for entry to Baker but have not been admitted before now because Baker did not have sufficient space to accommodate b) c) d) e) their requests. If PCS SD recruitment does occur, it will be at the kindergarten level only, and be spread over a two year period. It will involve only 22 Little Rock minority children, a number which will cause the Baker enrollment to eventually be 20% minority. It will not involve and be limited to those pupils who apply during recruitment of black students from the Little Rock District as a whole. It will involve the "registration carnival" targeted to occur on August 1st . The Joshua objections at the least are as follows pending a hearing: a) The defendants' response is totally insufficient in that it to meet the explicit orders of the Court. b) The defendants seek to limit the geographic area of Little Rock from which minority students may be selected or, may themselves make a choice of their own for school attendance. Joshua objects to transfers from the Little Rock School District of minority students being limited to the Chenal area or, for that matter to low income minority children. c) The purported recruitment plan imposes no affirmative obligations upon the -2- d) defendants, or for that matter the Little Rock School District, to recruit minority students to Baker, by number, method of recruitment, or by date of recruitment. The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD "has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests". This proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. Accommodation of only 40 black applicants, assuming that the defendants' projections are otherwise correct, would mean that Baker would experience a racial balance of74% white and 26% black for the next school year. The District's proposal to limit placement of black students in kindergarten classes is totally unreasonable and negative to desegregation objectives. Furthermore, the school district proposes to add two kindergarten and effectively an additional first grade class. This undoubtedly would result in between 60 and 75 additional students for a total enrollment 335 students with a net result of Baker's enrollment being only 17% - up from 15% - rather than 20%. Joshua submits that the Baker plan is simply a plan to further enrollment options for majority race students at Baker. Joshua further submits to obtain preliminary Court approval for expanding the basic enrollment capacity of Baker and to enlarge the Baker attendance zone in order to accommodate the increased demand being made by white pupils. -3- e) There is no justification submitted by PCS SD for disallowing primary grade minority students' attendance at Baker as proposed by the defendants. f) The defendants did not set forth as required target dates for the completion of its obligations. Specifically, the defendants did not consult the Joshua Intervenors nor did they otherwise meet the Court's expectations before they submitted their report. g) The defendants' plan requires a minimal goal of 20% for an interdistrict school. The Joshua Intervenors further believe that they are entitled to have an evidentiary hearing before school for which they pray. At that time the defendants should be required to sufficiently . demonstrate the actions which it has taken in response to the Order of the Court. Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the defendants' "Baker Recruitment Plan" be disapproved, because it is not in compliance with the Court's Orders of June 5, 2001 ; that the defendants be directed not to accept any new white students for registration for Baker pending further Orders of the Court; that the defendants be required to develop and implement an effective recruitment plan which affords Little Rock School District minority students immediate transfer options and to assure that such persons electing to transfer will be treated on equally favorable terms as PCSSD Baker attendance zone white children; and that the Court schedule a hearing, before the beginning of school, so that the defendants may report upon the actual progress and results that the district has achieved. The Joshua Intervenors further requests that the defendants be specifically required to involve the Joshua Intervenors in all planning and implementation activities of the school district to the extent that same is required by the revised desegregation plan -4- approved by the Court, pendente lite. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 74- 187 (Fax) J 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 M day of July, 2001. Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 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 -5- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, 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 \ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE 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 July, 2001. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, 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, ill Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 :TohnW. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittleRock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 s'tepheri w. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - -------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET