Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve new school site; District Court, three orders; District Court, combined motion and memorandum re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( U03- IQ77) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1 913 1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS l.LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX . JR. GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R, TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILL IAM SPIVEY Il l LEE J. MULDROW N.M . NORTON CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER . JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER D. ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 7220 1-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WEBSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wri ter ' s Direct Dial No . 501-212 - 1273 mj onesQwlj .com June 9, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M PERK INS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M . SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTER SON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 0 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING. Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve new school site which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 108830-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP M. Samuel Jones, Ill IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED: JUN 1 0 1999' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN&. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO APPROVE NEW SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. In its post-unitary commitments recently filed with this Court for approval, the PCSSD pledged to construct a new elementary school in the southeast sector. 2. Pursuant to the Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, the PCSSD established a biracial building committee including representatives from the Office of Desegregation, all as specified at page 81 of the Plan. 3. The committee spent several weeks evaluating possible sites before recommending a site located at the northwest corner of 145th Street and Highway 67/167 proximate to the Siemen's facility. 4. Counsel for the PCSSD is informed that the ODM has been appropriately involved in the site selection process. 5. This process began some time ago with the view toward closing Bates Elementary and simply shifting that student population to the new facility. As matters have evolved, the PCSSD now proposes to close both Bates and Fuller Elementaries 108803-v1 and combine that student enrollment at the new site with no change of geo codes. The PCSSD believes that by simply moving these enrollments to a new facility, that its proposal is race neutral and will have no negative impact upon its current desegregation efforts. However, at the same time, approval of this site will enable these present student bodies to enjoy the conveniences and benefits of a new school facility. 6. Attached as Exhibit A are the original offer and acceptance, including special conditions and the outstanding counter offer. Speciai Condition 2 d. provides that approval of this Court is necessary to finalize this transaction. 7. We further wish to advise the Court that there are current active discussions at the district level which, if finalized, would cause the configuration of the building to be constructed on this site to be that for kindergarten through 5th grade. To - accomplish this, Fuller Junior School would be reconfigured for 6th through 8th grades and Mills High School would be converted to grades 9 through 12. The district has, of course, made no final decisions regarding this, but the district felt the Court should be aware of these discussions and deliberations. If and when a decision to change the configuration is made, an appropriate filing with this Court will also be made. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the school site described herein be approved and that, upon completion of the new facility, that the present Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools be approved for closing. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By _ ~-1------+-=------- ) Special 2 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9 , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 THE HATHAWAY GROUP I 00 MORGAN KEEGAN DRIVE, SUITE 120 LITTLE kOCK, ARKANSAS 72202 HA I OHT' 1.. I N O SEV - (591) 663-5400 OFFER & ACCEPTANCE 4 -l 1. BUYER & SELLER: Pulaski County Special School District, hereinafter referred to as "Buyer," offers to buy, subject to the terms set forth ben,in. the below described property from The Dorothy Eosminier Trust. hereinafter rcfem:d to as '"'Seller." 2. PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: Approximately 22.569 acres, being part of Tracts 27 and 28, Holman Acres, Pulaski County, Arkansa., mon, particularly described on Bxh.lblt B attached .. 3. PURCHASE PRICE: The Buyer will pay $135,400.00 for the property, payable all in cash at closing. 4. SPECIAL CONDffiONS: Buyer's Offer is conditioned upon satisfaction of the Special Conditions anached hereto on Exhibit A. 5. EARNEST MONEY: Buyer herewith tenders a check for $3,000.00 to be ~ upab accct,1'81-:c as earnest mooey which shall llJll)iy to purcbuc price or closina COit.i. &mcst IDDDDY lball be mid In C9CroW by The Hathaway Group. If tide requin:IDCDU arc not fulfilled, or if thoao Special COllditiool providing for ID earnest moocy refuod UC not aatisficd. 1be earnest mooey deposit shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer fails to fulfill his obliptirm or if, after all cooditioi1' have been met, Buyer fails to cloae dlil tramacuoo. the earnest moocy may, at the 901c and cx.clmiYc optim of the Seller, be rctaiucd by the Seller as liquidau,d damages. Alrmnadvely, Seller may recum the eamesr money md uaert all lcpl or cquitlblc rigbta which may exist as a result of Buyer's breach of cootraa. 6 . CONVEYANCE: Convcyaoce shall be made to Buyer, or u mrc::am by Bu:yac, by general wammry deed, excepc It shall be subject to recorded restrictions aod easements, if my, which do D0t ma&erlally affi:cl die property. 7. TJTI..8 INSURANCE: Within twenty-one (21) days of aix:cp(aDce, Seller shall fumiah to Buyer a cnmmirmcnt for an American Land TJtle .As3ociation (ALTA) owner's title insuraDcc policy in tbc amouot of tbc pun:base price issued by a compauy alllhom.ed to insure title to real property in the State of Arbnsas and which company is reuombly accepcable to Buya-. Where Um title commitment shows special excepdoos to title olber Ihm tbole ltandud exccptiom cootaincd in the ALT A commitmcat form. and where such special exa:prlom relare to rcstricdom, 011iMm. det=I or odJcr matters which would interfere with Buyer's use or adversely affi:ct the value of tbc premises, then wilmD fourteeu (14) days of delivery of the title C0111roitmmt, Buyer shall deliver written ootice thei'cof to Seller. Such nock:e &hall awe speciftcally tboee eltCCJl(iom to which Buyer objects. All objecdoos not specifically enumerated within such a timely dclivcnxl DOticc shall be deemed to be waived by Buyer. Within fourteen (14) days of Buyer's delivery of noace of objecdom to Seller, Sell may cun, such objccdoos or baYC the exceptiom waived or removed by the title company issuing the oomrnilJJJtJUf U, witbin sucb fourt.ccn (14) day period, Seller fails to cure and/or have waived such objection., and excepdoas, or within that period, ScDer dclm:ni writlcu notice to Buyer that it will not so cmc, then. within three (3) days from delivery of Slr.b nodce from Seller or the eoci of tbc period within which Seller may CUJ'C (whichever ii applicable), Buyer shall have the option to: a. Tennioale this agreemem by ddlveriDg written nodcc thereof to ScUer, in which evcot all sums paid or dcpo5itcd by Buyer shall be returm:d to Buyer; or b. Purchase the premises subject to such objectioos and~ with no rccluctioo in the purchase price; or c. A&rCC to extend tbc closin& date for thirty (30) days, to give Seller addiJiooal time ID cure such objectiolls. Ir Buyer falls to deUVer notice of termiDation or grant an extemioo of tbe closing date within that period. the objcctioos shall be deemed to be waived and this condition shall be sarlsfiod. Seller lball furnish tbe commincd owner's title iDsuraDce policy as IOOll u pnctlcablc after c:loliug, and shall pay all expcmcs related to the OWDer's title insurance policy. EXHIBIT I /J WR IGHT L. tNOS E ., IJ. .PRORA TIONS: Taxca and special assesnnems due 011 or before cl01tn, shall be paid by Seller. ADY dcpoaita oo raJU1 property &re ~ be transfcncd to Buyer at closing. Imunmce, cunm geueral wes and special VSCSSJDl'UI, r'Clllal ~ utilities, and any interest on assumed loam shall be prorated at closing unless odlerwise specified herein. CLOSING: Closina shall occur at such time as mutually agreed by the partiel, provided that the dale shall be no later lban August 31. 1999, unless such rcquircmcut is waived in writiDg by both parties and a new date substituted tbcretor. Unless oberwiae agreed by Buyer and Seller, tramacdo.n costs will be paid by the party indicated below: Scllcr: Title examination or search fees, Premium for owner's title insurance policy, IRS notification form, Preparation of conveyance documents, One-half of escrow fees., Onebalf of doaimeowy stamps, Other charges as customarily paid by Seller. Buyer. Premium for mortgagee's title in:s1U1111cc policy, Recording fees, Preparation of loan dOCIIIllents, One-half of oscrow foec, One-half of documentary stamps. Other charges customarily paJd by Buyer. 10. POSSESSION: Poi.seaion shall be delivered to Buyer upon the closing dale. 11. A TI ACHED FIX1URES AND EQUIPMENT: Unless specifically excluded herein, all attached fixtures 111d equipment, if any, are included in the purchase price. 12. INSPEC110NS AND REPAIRS: Buyer certifies that Buyer has inspected or will inspect tho property and is not relying upon any wammtic,. repn:scntatioru or statcmeotll of any a&cnt or Seller as to age or condition of improvements, other than those specified herein. 13. RISK OF LOSS: lf prior to closiog of this ttaosaetloo the lmprovemmm on the property shall be destroyed or m.at.crially damaged by nre or other casualty. tills comract sball, at tbc opt1oD or lbe Buyer, be null and void. If Buyer shall elect, in the cvem of such lou, Chat the comnict lbalJ be performed, he shall be cotitlcd to the proceeds of iu&urani:e applicable to the loss for use in repel.rfng said loss. 14. MISCELLANEOUS: - L This Offer and Ac:ccptaDcc shall be goYClllCd by the 1awa of the Stale of Arlcamas. b. lb.is Offer and Accepcmce, iDcludillg all cxhibkl, contains the compl= agreement bctMcn tho parties and cannot be vuicd ex.c:cpt by writa qr-ccmcut by the panics. The partica a,rco lba1 there are no oral agreemcnta, unde~. representations or warranties which are oot expressly set funh herein. c. Any portion of this Offer and Au eptauce JJDt odJerwise <xDRJrnrnated 'It closing wUl surviYe the closing of this n-anslld:loa aa i:i coodnning agm:mem by aod between lbe parties. d. This Ofm' ilOd Accepc.uu, &ball inure to the benefit of md bind the panie., hereto and their rC3Jiective heirs, rcprcscntativcs, suca:ssms, and assigns. c. Tune is of the caax:e witb respect 10 this Offer and Acccptancc. 15. ACCEPTANCE: The tam-~ .. a UICd hcl'cio shall rm thc larer of thc two dates oo which this Offer and Acceptance Is sipcd by Seller Ol' Buyer, u iDdicared by dlelr sipalUrCI below, whicb later date shall be the date of final execution and agreemem by die putiel hereto. If my dat.e or deadline provided for herein ran. on Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday. the applicable dale shall be the next bmioca day. 16. AGENCY: By virtue of The Hathaway Group's Exclusive Listing Agreement with Seller covering this Property, and The Hathaway Group's Exclusive Agency agreement wi1b Buyer, dated March 15, 1999, Seller and Buyer heRby aclmowlcdgc and agree lbal the Usdog/Sellillg Agem Firm and all licellled pe1101111el ISIOcialed with the Listing/Selling Agcat Firm are representing both Buyer and Scllei- in the purchase md sale of Ille abo't'e relereoccd Property and 1ba1 Listing/Selling Agem F'll1D bas been and is now the agent of bath Scllec and Buyer with ~ 10 this cramactioa, Seller and Buyer have both consented to, and hereby confirm their oonsent to 1FDCY repn:se:otatiao ofbacb parties. Further, Seller alJd Buyer: 2 WR I GHT 1,..I N OSE ., a. agree dial tbe J..istiu&ISelliD& Agent F'um shall DDl dia::1olo to either Buyer or Se1lc:r aay penoaal, fimucia.l or OCher con.f1dcm1a1 information cooccmmg the olber puty witboul the cxprea wriUm comm or that party. This rcstrictioo doea DOt include ':nformation actually known by Li.sting/Selling A.gm. Firm which IWSt, at Ustiug/Sellioa A&CDt Pirm'a dJscrction. be disclosed. b. aclalowledge ncdfiadoo lbat when Ustina/Sellinl Aacnt rum ,epreaem bodi partica, a coaflic:t of imercst CAD arise, and Seller and Buyer further agree to forfeit their individual right to receive the uodividcd loyalty of Llsting/Sclling Agent Firm. It is understood, however, that Luling/Selling Agent F"srm is obligated to treat each party fairly and equitably. c. waive any claim now or hereafter arising out of aay c:onffictl of interest from Listing/Selling A&cnt -P-liln rcp~nting bodl parties. Buyer and Seller acknowledge tbe Listiag/Selliag Agent F1rm di9cmed that the L&ting/Sdliaa Agaat F1rm rcpr'CXlltl both partic., ill this tnmactioa, and Daya- md Sellrr ban ghm tbefr couseld to th1I representation before entering into this Offer 1111d Ac:ceptaDce. d. agree that Llsdng/Selliog Ageot P-um'a fee shall be paid by Sell only. 17. EXPIRATION OF OFFER: This offer shall expire unlcsa accepted in writing bySclltrbcfore S:00 p.m. oo June 8, 1999. SELLING AGENT FIRM: The Hathaway Group Jeffrey~(, ~-- s~---1 Urtr:Jr-.....-"'~'~prtd _________ 1999 at __ AM/PM. w~ ag,w to pay 1M llaw nanwd agar/ a Ju for profusiotlal urvku r in Sffllnllg said o/fer, as ~ in a HJ)Q1'QU listing agnanDII. If for (1lfJ reason w eamt!SI money Af'_TC1VU'kd for lwmn is forfeit, u under the provisions herro/. same shall be divided apllJlly bt:twlln Sd/Lr and Listing .Agmt -Firm after payTMnl of inaured apauu. LISTING AGENT FIRM: . The Hathaway Group ingerTrust J.E. Hathaway, Jr. - Agent Date Supervising Broker Date 3 e - 9--39 : t: -l 9PM ;0 1 S;"Q 1cr .:::,F = C E wA C t--1 r L.. , ,._,CSE .,, EXHIBIT B ..: .ar- . , --- S ...... '- -,,---.. 11ft ,.. ---- I ._(.t z.. ' taOf'Ellff Daelll"r~ Pn et Tr.eta a, 1'4 21 Mel ... Aar ... hllll eouncy. u~. -r partlcularlr deac&"lbe4 co-Mlft9 ac ~ i11Mtnecr4;1011 ot ne ~ rl.,,ac-ot-var u,.. et &aac Uldl '"-tend ta. W.at ri11u:-.t-var Une et Dln.11 Del ~-.. ~ l~ , ..... , dqac-af-vr , ... llocUI oo n 40 bsc ,,,.1., teec u u.. 101n or 10::tnucc, tJ\eaae Nertll 11 .- w.et JCM.51 feecr CMACe SouU oo oc >o vcc 1s,.co , .. c to poi"c " ~ Eaatedy ri48'tot- y u .. or U.S. Ni,aw.y W.. H-161r U..nca alon9 tUld .-1.8'C-e(-V.f UM ua oUovl-, IOUI' ... , bearlnq and dlt.a- 1).IIOru. a,,., >o W..t i10.2t r-.t, JI 110n.a > s7 w.ac 6a&.oJ t .. c, )) .-oru. s, > 41 w.ac 110.,~ r .. c, c) !llonll 02 >o ,.,. Vet a>c.os fti ~ace SCNta n H' M caac UtJ.n , .. c ~ polnt oa ~ v.ac rlc,Ac_f_J' u .. of Di,.._ DdI '-""el..-. .. ,. l'l.hC ot--r souc.11 11 co w.ac n1.,1 , .. ,, CAanC:41 co.clMalftt 1---. lei rl9~c-ot-r 0A a~ COCM ci.hc 11&vl1119 ra4l- et 71S.6& , .. c. ell aro dlat.AIIOe of ltt.15 f~ Uld c::IIOnl vt1icll ~r Souu. oa 11 5& v.ac 1,,.20 feec, Uaw: con~llllll"'f IOAtf ,. rl'fl\C-O(-vay Souc- 1, 20 .,. Vc 20.ao fec, ua.nco CCM1Cl11111-, al ... a.& rl~hc-ef-.r on cwrv to t.h4 letc a.v11WJ rulua of ,1s.1, fNc. &A arc dlaUftCa ot 200.05 f-~ AM CMC'1I lltlicll be~ SovQ Ot l' 21 Vt lt , .. c, ~ CGCIClnulnq IOftlll aald rlqllC-f-vey SOUC!I oo ff' U V.C 25.tO feet to CM ,01111' or am11a11-.. c0Aul11l11o9 a,.~,, ecr aor oc l RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - JUN 2 4 1999 OfflCE OF DcSEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 1, 6 1999 JAMES,~MACK, CLERK By: L~ADtv\iL".., OEP CLER;< LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, No. LR-C-82-866 ORDER On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. See Little Rock School Dist. v. North Little Rock School Dist., 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court stated as follows: The three Pulaski County School Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old 3257 system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. 148 F.3d 956, 968. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties subsequently submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. A hearing on this issue was held on January 6, 1999, following which the parties filed post-hearing briefs on the issues raised at the hearing. Thereafter, the three Pulaski County school districts - the Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), and the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") (hereinafter ''the districts") - filed a motion for an Order directing the State of Arkansas to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages. The State, by and through the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE"), responded in opposition to the districts' motion, and the districts filed a reply to ADE's response. By Order dated March 4, 1999, this Court granted the districts' motion, noting that there was no dispute to be resolved as to the appropriate methodology for determining the districts' damages with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance - all parties having agreed on the ADE's proposed methodology- and that all parties were in agreement that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00. The 2 Court thus ordered that the State of Arkansas make payment to the districts in the amount of $20,380,490.00, to be distributed as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCS SD, and 10% to NLRSD. In so ruling, the Court stated that it would resolve in due course whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State, and whether the districts are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. It is those issues to which the Court now turns. The districts first contend that in order to provide equal funding to the districts, the starting point for their damages should be 106% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs -- a percentage they state is approximately the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas1 - and that to provide less is discriminatory and in violation of the Order of the Eighth Circuit. The ADE, however, argues that such a remedy would result in a windfall to the districts that the Eighth Circuit stated was improper, and that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs rather than the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. The Court has considered the matter and agrees with the ADE that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. In directing this Court to determine the appropriate relief to be accorded the districts, the Eighth Circuit only required that the districts "should be placed in a position no worse than they would 1 See Mem. Br. in Sup. of Mot. for an Ord. Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Und. Teach. Ret. and Health Ins. Damages, at 2. 3 have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed," and stated that the "districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change." I 48 F.3d 956, 968. In this regard, there can be no doubt that requiring the State to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance will make the districts whole as envisioned by the Eighth Circuit. The I 06% figure cited by the districts constitutes the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State and ignores the fact that some school districts received more and some received less. Accordingly, this Court determines that requiring the State to pay the districts I 00% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance will hold them harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. The districts also contend they are entitled to an equitable award of prejudgment interest - to compensate them for the State's delay in paying the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. They note that the "adverse effect of the funding change" to which the Eighth Circuit held they are entitled to be held harmless against has manifested itself in many ways, including deprivation of funds -- or the use of funds -- to which they have been entitled since 1996. The ADE, however, argues that the districts have cited no case in which prejudgment interest has been awarded in circumstances similar to the case at bar, and that the districts in any case are not entitled to such an award as the amount of the underlying liability is not reasonably capable of assessment. The Court has considered the matter and determines that the districts are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. Whether or not the districts have cited similar cases in which prejudgment interest has been awarded is of no import as the Court finds that under these 4 circumstances such an award against the State is proper. Prejudgment interest serves purposes of making a claimant whole, promoting settlement, and deterring attempts to benefit unfairly from inherent delays in litigation, and should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional or unusual circumstances exist making the award of interest inequitable. Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 752 (8th Cir. ) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141 (1986). The Court finds no exceptional or unusual circumstances in this case that would make an award of prejudgment interest inequitable, and such an award comports with the Eighth Circuit's directive that the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change implemented by the State. Contrary to the suggestion of the ADE, existing case law allows an award of prejudgment interest against a state defendant in a case such as this. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 - (1989), the Supreme Court held that adjusting an attorney's fee award against a state under 42 U.S.C. 1988 to account for delay in payment was appropriate and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 284. In so ruling, the majority specifically rejected the view, expressed by the dissent, that the Eleventh Amendment requires an "ultrastrict rule of construction for interest awards" comparable to the "federal no interest rule." Id. at 281 n.3 . Based on Jenkins, the Eighth Circuit has refused to impose a strict rule of construction protecting state defendants against prejudgment interest awards, see Winbush v. State of Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471 , 1483-84 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that under Title VII and its "make whole" policy, courts have the power to award prejudgment interest against state defendants), and, as noted in Winbush, other circuits likewise have rejected such a strict construction. See Reopell v. Massachusetts, 936 F.2d 12, 15 5 (!51 Cir.) (noting that "interest is includible [against a state defendant] if, under nonnal litigation principles and rules of statutory construction, a court could have been expected to allow prejudgment interest on the underlying recovery"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1004 ( 1991 ); Pegues v. Mississippi State Employment Serv., 899 F.2d 1449, 1454 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting that "Congress did not limit the tools with which courts.could fashion relief to victims of discrimination perpetrated by state defendants"). Nor does the Court find any merit to ADE's argument that an award of prejudgment interest is not reasonably capable of assessment. All parties have agreed -- and this Court has found -- that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00, and today's decision establishes that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance rather than l 06%. - Thus, the amount of the underlying liability is in fact reasonably capable of assessment. 2 That being so, and there being no exceptional or unusual circumstances in this case that would make an award of prejudgment interest inequitable, the Court agrees with the districts that they are entitled to an equitable award to compensate them for the State's delay in paying them teacher retirement and health insurance costs. In sum, the Court finds that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance, and finds that the districts are entitled to an 2 The Eighth Circuit calculates prejudgment interest at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. 1961. Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1331 (8111 Cir. 1995) (citing Dependah/ v. Falstaff Brewing Corp, 653 F.2d 1208, 1219 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968 (1981)). In this regard, 1961 provides for calculation of interest "at a rate equal to the coupon issue yield equivalent (as detennined by the Secretary of Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to the date of judgment." 6 award of prejudgment interest. The Court directs the districts to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order within twenty (20) days of the date of its entry. IT IS SO ORDERED this j1,_~ y of ~ 1999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~:: wmi/WLE 56 AND/OR 79(&) FRCP JN .JeJJk/TI.. ev_n=-JU----- 7 \ J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f r3 1999 JA~AES 1 MC~ACK, CLERK By. \ :;:;;~-2. ~ J, ,LL\ Q,, 0EP CI.Bt( RECE.fVED JUN 2 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee ("MRC") for approval of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated May 7, 1999 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties until and 3269 - including July 6, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving MRC's request. !TIS SO ORDERED this / f 11)ay oKr ., 1999. ~)~)t;u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH/S D0cUMENT ENTE ~c MPLIANce WITH Ru~l~ ON DOCKET SHEET IN )N ~ /J-1/ a q AND/OR 79(1) FR(jp -~-1--.r.J.--,';Lf-.~~~~L_ !Y try : ~ 2 . ~~~!"" ..;;":.~ ~ :;::?:__.,*. -Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 May7, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright" Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 15, 1998 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee tMRC"l approved a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year. This letter is a request for Court approval of this MRC action. t kt The changes approved by the MRC result from the restructuring of schools in the Little Ro~ School District nRSDl to accommodate middle schools rather than the traditional grade arrangements in elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. The Magnet School Stipulation, dated February 27, 1987, and the March 1989 Settlement Agreement, as revised September 28, 1989, describe the magnet schools' structure and establish the enrollment at each. Because the MRCs action alters the terms of those agreements and adds 132 seats to the K- 12 magnet program, the Magnet Review Committee requests your approval of the changes described below. The LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the reconfiguration of grade structure from the traditional elementary, junior high, and senior high to allow for middle schools to house grades 6, 7, and 8. If the magnet schools are to conform to the administrative structure of other LRSD schools, the four elementary magnets must serve grades K-5, the middle school magnet school must serve grades 6-8, and the high school magnet must serve grades 9- 12. The results of moving the sixth grade to middle school and the ninth grade to high school in the magnet program as approved by the MRC are describ