Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order

This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS Jl Iv.lRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP ---6 2001 OffiCE Of DESEGREGATION MONffORIMG KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS~ MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr. , filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice. The crux of the LRSD's motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, .violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, that's true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the District's belief that "Attorney Walker violated the courts ' orders ... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23, 1 - - - - - ________ .:___ ___ _______________ _ 2001 ." There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from "appearing at the office" of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker )) "appeared" at the building. It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether 'tvfr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Fendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2 school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honor's opinion: "I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments 'to desegregation." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8tl' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller & Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end, Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD - that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, 'keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end.' They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. ctfully submitted, W- Walker, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 3 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) By{}JLi-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4th day of Septeniber, 2001 via United States mfili pasta e prepfild. (_ alker - Bar No. 64046 4 uFILED EASTE:kt g:if~:g COURT ARKANSAS . I SEP O 4 2001 '-< MEsw f:.. ,. McCoRM m THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT -~ C( :- EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS L : ,..,.__ WESTERN DMSION - --=-",:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO - ~ i\'lmeft DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. *~ ,1'11:U )l MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERrnE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP - & 2.m Off\CEOF: DESEGREGAilON. MOtmOW,\\I AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ST ATE OF ARKANSAS ) - COUNTY OF ~0YLO {ce, jss. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes the affi.ant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P.A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the !sh Instructional Resource Center ("IRC") at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD officials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. 3. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1 W. Walker, P.A. , including lVIr. Walker himself We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23 , 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesley's vitae which we had requested on August '}J 20'h and August 22nd . 5. Mr. Walker and I rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris' offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had.discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesley's vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, "it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it" . Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 2 8. After a quick review of the document, N.fr. Walker then asked, "Is this all of it." And he further stated "I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this." Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesley's office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Iv.fr. Walker take copies available to the public of the "standards and benchmarks" for grades one through eight. 9. Ms: Gillian1 came out of Dr. Lesley's office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As N.fr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, N.fr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional division's agenda items that were on the school board's agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesley's office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesley's office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices and joined N.fr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13 . While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area ofDr. Lesley's offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not 3 ask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of ) 1 the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said "no", and that ifhe needed help "he would ask for it." He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the district's display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesley's offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was corning into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said "no." We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices ofMs. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elston's offices on August 16, 2001 , there was no secretary 4 - in her reception area. In early June, 200 1, when I visited Ms. Elston's offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elston's office and as I did so, I said "hello" in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21 . As I entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted :tv.fr. Walker and JJ Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elston's office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elston's attention with my "hello." 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23 . Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement ("AP") courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recmitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that "all African American students in AP courses were flunking." 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5 participation in AP courses. 2!. On Saturday, June 3 0, 2001, while on my way to lunch with 1vir. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to the District's motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite him over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told ,, him that we wuld not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say "hello" to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me SSI N EXPIRES: 17 Zo0 I 6 SEP O 4 2001 IN TIIB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSiABIES W. McCORMACK, CL~- :-: WESTERN DIVISION E;':--------;L.:::- - -"''' '' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RIEciE~ve n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. g;. ~~ ~L# DEFENDAl~TS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS N.IRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP -6 2001 Offilfl l3t= IDGREG .m . ~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OFARKANSAS ) ~OUNTY OF (,J}lAJ)/( e ~ss. Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23 , 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of "Plainti.ff's Motion for Contempt" wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as ifthere is an Order er;i.tered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1- affidavits, one from 1'Is. Anita Gilliam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: 3. On August 20, 2001, I wrote Mr. Clay Fendley, Friday, Eldredge & Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with iV.fr. Fendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. 4. The first letter, Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also riote that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that "ifwe seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [ without depositions] or . . . by interrogatories." I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, "a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesley's vitae" noting that I was addressing "this request to her as well." See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school bo~d meeting on August 23, 200 l, and I noted "if you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me ... "Mr.Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. 5. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked "would you please provide me a -2- copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation." 1fr. Fendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either N.fr. Fendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8:00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center "IRC" located at 30th and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleaver's office and obtaining a copy of the vitae ofDr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see ("lay eyes on") nor talk ("exchange words with"), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesley's resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesley's vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other ,.., -.J- ) ') professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. 7. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume ofDr. Lesley 8. -and a,ny documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next day's board meeting. On the agenda there were several policy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IV A with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3 ; Credit by Examination with five additional pages; program evaluation agenda for 2001-2002, three pages; weighted credit foruniversity studies courses at Hall High School, two pages; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages; and, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. 9. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilliam ifthere was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. 10. Before I left Ms. Gilliam 's office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of"standard's benchmarks" for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliam's office and walked down the hallways of the IR.C. There were public "pass outs" on the tables -4- ------ - - - ---------------------- - ~ which involved the district's schedule, the LRSD's Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. 11. Dr. Lesley has given an affidavit in support of the district's motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this 12. determination because she speaks in terms of a "they" said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her affidavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesley's office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed; that upon being provided the copy, I asked if it was a complete copy; and I asked if there any other writings that supported the department's agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. 13 . When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the district's response and asking her help: "I am writing this letter to enlist your office's assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens' requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks _to the district's general inclination." Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. 14. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23, 2001, it appears that Dr. -5- J .!) 15. Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: "You came to the !SH IRC OD August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you OD Wednesday." It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit Fin original form from Dr. Lesley. She now indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23ni, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11 .00; for the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through l\lJ.r. Heller and l\lJ.r. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. In Dr. Lesley's letter of August 23 rd , as well as in her affidavit, Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. 16. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSD' s motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be "prudent" to, and in fact, ordered me "to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing." This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Court's Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23rd is -6- slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court's Order which was intended to.clarify her previous Order " . .. directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform consel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court." 17. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. 18. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Fendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. 19. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to 20. obtain a budget document which was on the August 23 , 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from !vfr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001, I simply stopped by the IRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. 21. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -7- Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. 22. The district's counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the district's counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the evening on August 23rd . See Exhibit H. I wrote :tvir. Heller that day, August 23, 2001 , asking ifhe perceived the Court's Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. 23. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiary support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that "all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking," I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11 :30 a.m., August 16, 2001 . I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I "would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley." See Exhibit I. I was unable to meet with him -8- 'j lj during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elston's office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that "Washington testify that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth," I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth. Mr. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9- full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated shortcomings with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights :Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewart's office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either ofus being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain information, verbal or written, from a school district official. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation ofDr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewart's high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. 24. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. 25 . The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10- attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ~ay of~ , 2001. / ~)}1 {2 IJ-&u MY CO,SSION EXPIRES: 17 /zc7,.13 I NefT YPUBLIC ........ ~ ,, l_. j . . \ ~ , . .._..'.I.:..~.. . ' ; -11- J JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS