Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to modify the settlement agreement as regards the magnet schools; District Court, districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, notice of filing, project management tool

The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. :>i.J:>HN W Wt{ I tit'! I IN TRE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT F:ASTF.RN T>TSTRTr.T OF ARKAN.~4.~ WESTEP-1\l DIVT..S!ON LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WO. 1, et al., Defendants, * "' * No. LR-C-82-866 OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7-90) r. UI MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, F>x f fax~ ;2 .., lr_ - I ;;.-- . ,:; ?!-oL ofJ.'-----c~--'-~--=-='__,'--~~r'----,-....,,10C....:.,~~- N::iN 7:)40.,01-311-7386 5099-101 GENERAL SERVICES AOMlNIST~ATIO"'( Y. .- \THEP-'NE .NIGHT, et al., rntcrvenors. ORDER The Little Rock, North Little Rock; and Pulaski. County School Districts ("Districts") filed a motion requesting that t,.,is Coun order the State to distribute funds to the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative upon fon-...a.tion of the cooperative [docket no 3271]. The State responded [docket no_ 3275] and the Districts replied to the response [docket no. 3284]. Having carefully considered the matter, the Court denies the motion_ I_ In 1985, the Arkansas Legislature authorized the State Board of Education to establish a state funded system of multi-county educational cooperatives in Atkansas.1 The legislature intended the cooperatives to "provide to school districts which choose to use them assistance in .. 1 1985 Atk. Acts 349 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1002). - - - - 3 2 95 ----- -- - ----- - SEP- 8-99 WED 10:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 - . meeting or exceeding accreditation standards and equalizing educational opportunities. "2 In I 987, the Districts agreed to form the Pulaski County Educaticna} Cooperative,' and this Court approved the agreement.' Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the State's liabiiity in this case and formulated a settlement agreement, which eliminated the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative. This Court, in an Order issued by the Honorable Henry Woods, transferred the funds previously eannarked for the cooperative to the budget of the Metropolitan Supervisor. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 716 F. Supp. 1162, .. .. . 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989). In light of Judge Woods's Order, the parties agreed that the funds should be .. used to develop effective compensatory and remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation."~ Accordingly, the parties amended Part ill.E of the settlement agreement as follows: State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service [Cooperative] has ceased and the funds were reallocated to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE [Arkansas Department of Education] in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation.' 2 Ark. Code. Ann. 6-13-1002. 3 Docket no. 737. 4 Docket no. 739. 5 Docket no. 1263, joint submission 2, ,i 9. 6 Docket no. 1263, joint submission 3, Part III, E. SEP- 8-99 WED 10:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 03 In 1990, the Eighth Circuit directed this Court to "approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them" and converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("OD~f'). See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 9.21 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8t1t Cir. 1990). In an Order clarifying the obligation of the State with respect to the ODM, this Court stated, "While (the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor' s] name has been changed and the scope of its function narrowed to monitoring the parties' compliance with the settlement plans, the office ~ .. still exists . . . . Therefore, the State is obligated under the terms of the settlement agreement to continue funding the ODM."7 Before the regular session of the 1999 Arkansas General Assembly, the Districts requested that a Pulaski County Educational Cooperative be established. The General Assembly appropriated $328,618 for the cooperative but conditioned the disbursement of funds upon the "entry of a final, nonappealable order" in this case relieving the State "of any further obligation to provide funds for the operation of the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) or any successors to ODM. "1 II. The Districts maintain this Court should invalidate the appropriation contingency and clear the way for the Districts' receipt of co-op funding. According to the Districts, the appropriation contingency conflicts with the parties' settlement agreement Wlth the State. Both the agreement and the legislation appear to be consistent in one important respect: 7 Docket 1442, page 4. 1999 Ark. Acts 1392 17. 3 SEP- 8-99 WED 10:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 - both intend that there will be no cooperative as long as the State is funding the ODM. The legislation reflects this intent unambiguously, while the agreement merely st~tes that funding for the cooperative has ceased and has been reallocated to the ODM. 9 Assuming (without deciding) that the Court bas subject matter jurisdiction to invalidate the contingency, the Court finds that there exist no grounds for such invalidation. The ODM continues to function and receive state funds . Until the State stops funding the<ODM by order of the Court, there is no need to address the issue of the alleged conflict between the legislation and the settlement agreement. In conclusion, the Court finds that the Arkansas General Assembly's appropriation contingency regarding a Pulaski County Educational Cooperative does not obstruct the State's current obligations under the settlement agreement. That being the case, this Court must deny the the Districts' motion. m. THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that the Pulaski County School Districts' combined motion regarding the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative be DEN1ED l docket no. 3 271). ~t'lr\be-r IT rs so ORDERED TillS __ DAY OF .A0Ct:ffl1', 1999 ~~tp: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The agreement refers to the Metropolitan Supervisor, but, as noted above, the latter was reconstituted as the ODM. THIS DOCUMENT E~AED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :;QMP_wNC~ 'Nl~Le 58 ANO~P ON - 1/--. av - RECEIVED SEP 1 3 1999 OfflCE Or A TIORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING September 10, 1999 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Pryor Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School-District No. 1, et al USbC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown and Gentlemen: Enclosed for your record is a copy of the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to the Little Rock School District's Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement as regards the Magnet Schools that I have filed this date with the Clerk of the Court. TG/nc encl. 1 Respectfully, ~/:_ ~ - Tim ger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/_ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN .DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 1 3 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS THE MAGNET SCHOOLS On July 9, 1999, the Arkansas Department of Education (" ADE") submitted its objection to the Magnet Review Committee's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court In that letter the MRC sought the Court's approval "of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year." In its July 9 submission ADE pointed out that the Settlement Agreement (paragraphs II.D. and ILE.) placed limits on the State's obligation to fund the magnet schools, and that while ADE did not object to the proposed changes in grade structure and enrollment in the magnets, ADE did object to the MRC' s proposal to the extent it assumed or implied that the State would be required to pay costs associated with magnet student enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth in the Settlement Agreement No other party filed objections to the MRC' s May 7 letter, nor did any other party file a timely response to ADE' s July 9 submission. On August 27, 1999, LRSD filed a "Response to ADE and Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement" In this pleading LRSD concedes, as it must, that the Settlement Agreement limits the State's funding obligations as regards the magnet schools. LRSD argues, though, that in addition to the proposed changes in grade structure and enrollment, "the MRC determined that ADE and the [Districts] should share the cost increase in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools." From this premise, LRSD argues that ADE is bound by (or is estopped from objecting to) increases in the State's financial obligations necessitated by the restructuring and increases in enrollment In the alternative, LRSD argues that the Settlement Agreement should be modified to increase the State's financial responsibility for the magnet schools because of a "significant change in circumstances," i.e., LRSD's decision to restructure its schools. LRSD' s arguments are without merit, and its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement must be denied. A. The State Is Not Bound By Or Estopped From Objecting To The MRC's Recommendations LRSD' s response and motion is premised on LRSD' s belief that the MRC voted unanimously not only to recommend changes in grade structure and seating capacities in the magnet schools, but also to recommend that the State and the Districts "share the cost increase [necessitated by the restructuring and increases in enrollment] in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools." While the MRC did vote to recommend changes in grade structure and number of seats in the magnets, the - record is ambiguous, at best, on whether the MRC voted on the financial implications of 2 - those changes or made any recommendations at all concerning the relative financial burdens of the State and the Districts. This Court's June 18, 1999 order characterized the MRC's May 7 letter as a request "for approval of a change in grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools;" the Court's order says nothing about the FY 2000 magnet school budget generally, or how costs would be allocated among the parties specifically. The MRC's May 7 letter states that on December 15, 1998 the Committee unanimously approved changes "L11 the grade structure and number of seats" in the magnets for the 1999-2000 school year. The letter's discussion of the budgetary impact of the proposed changes contains only estimates,1 and the MRC' s discussion of each party's projected "share" of the estimated FY 2000 budget is clearly based only upon the assumption that the State would continue to pay half the total costs of the magnet school budget But even if one accepted LRSD's characterization of what the MRC actually voted on and what it did not, LRSD has not cited any authority for the proposition that the recommendations of the MRC are binding on the parties, particularly when as here the MRC's recommendations purport to require one or more of the parties to assume obligations in contravention of the terms of the Settlement Agreement As has been the case with previous recommendations of the MRC, this Court entered an order giving all 1 The MRC's May 7, 1999 letter refers _.to its estimate as a "projected calculation" and acknowledges that a final 1999-2CXXJ magnet school budget would be submitted to the Court by June 1999. Given the MRCs uncertainty concerning the projected FY 2CXXJ budget on May 7, 1~, one can safely assume that the M~C harbored a similar uncertainty about the budgetary impact of the proposed changes in grade structure and attendance in the magnets on December 15, 1998, when the MRC voted on those proposed changes. 3 -- - - ' .. - parties notice of the MRC' s May 7 letter and set a deadline for the parties to file objections. If, as LRSD contends, the parties are bound by the MRC' s recommendations, why then would the Court submit those recommendations to the parties and provide an opportunity to object? The answer is simple: The MRC' s recommendations are precisely that - recommendations - which carry no force unless and until approved by the Court after giving the parties the opportunity to voice objections. B. LRSD's Decision To Restructure Its Schools As Part Of Its Revised Plan Does Not Tustify A Modification Of The Settlement Agreement Recognizing that the MRC has no authority to unilaterally modify the Settlement Agreement, LRSD implies that ADE should not be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Settlement Agreement because ADE did not object to LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (which makes reference to restructuring of LRSD's schools and the magnets). LRSD argues further, in the alternative, that the Settlement Agreement should be modified to the State's detriment because circumstances have changed so as to make such a modification equitable. Neither argument has merit LRSD's implication that the State should have objected to the Revised Plan in order to preserve its rights under paragraphs II.D. and II.E. of the Settlement Agreement borders on the frivolous. When the LRSD presented its Revised Plan for the Court's approval, it affirmatively represented to the Court and the other parties that its Revised Plan did not and would not alter or amend the Settlement Agreement in any way: 4 This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan") shall supercede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders . . . with the follawing exceptions: a. the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ("Settlement Agreement'') .. Revised Plan, 1.1. Thus, at the time LRSD submitted its Revised Plan to the Court for approval, there was no reason for the State to believe or even suspect that the Revised Plan would change, alter or cucumvent the limits on the State's financial obligations contained that are set forth in paragraphs II.D. and ILE. of the Settlement Agreement LRSD's request for a "modification" of the Settlement Agreement must also be denied. As an initial matter, the LRSD should be estopped from arguing that the restructuring required by its Revised Plan justifies a modification of the Settlement Agreement The LRSD affirmatively represented to the Court and the parties that its Revised Plan would not supercede or extinguish the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and while the LRSD undoubtedly inserted this language in its Revised Plan with an eye toward preserving those aspects of the Settlement Agreement favorable to the LRSD, the LRSD cannot have its cake and eat it, too. In light of the language of the Revised Plan, LRSD should not now be heard to argue that the restructuring required as part of the Revised Plan requires or justifies a modification of the Settlement Agreement Even if LRSD were not estopped, LRSD' s request for a modification of the Settlement Agreement must be denied because no modification is warranted or 5 ,. - . -- necessary in order for the magnet schools to be restructured as set forth in the MRC' s May 7 letter. In support of its request for a modification, LRSD argues that "the MRC's action in restructuring the Magnet Schools promotes desegregation'' and "would further the goal of achieving a unitary school district" ADE has no quarrel with these general assertions; indeed, ADE made it dear in its response and reiterates here that ADE does not object to the restructuring of the magnets or to the changes in enrollment described in the MRC' s May 7 letter. The ADE does object though, to being saddled with financial obligations for the magnets in excess of the limits set forth in the Settlement Agreement and conspicuously absent from LRSD' s motion is any allegation that it or the three Districts collectively2 would be unable to pay the costs of the magnet school program that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the State cannot be made to bear. The LRSD, which "bears the burden of establishing that that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the [consent] decree," has therefore failed to even allege that a modification of the Settlement Agreement is warranted. or necessary to effectuate the MRC' s recommended changes in grade levels and enrollment While the LRSD would undoubtedly like the State to pay as much as possible toward the operation of the magnet schools, the Settlement Agreement places limits on the State's financial obligations to the magnet schools and the State is not willing to 2 Neither the NLRSD nor the PCSSD objected to the MRCs proposal, and neither the NLRSD nor the PCSSD filed any form of response to the ADE' s objection. 6 waive them. LRSD' s desire to increase the State's financial contribution to the magnet schools, by itself, does not and cannot justify a modification of the Settlement Agreement Accordingly, the ADE respectfully requests that LRSD's motion to modify the Settlement Agreement be denied. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorne neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on September 10, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, m Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Oark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~Tim~ger 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1Q03-U77) ROBERTS . LINOSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 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 BUFORO. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 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 McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROW! 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 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer' s Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjonesCwl/.com September 13, 1999 TROY A. PR ICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR , KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON OOHS. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN R. MARGARET DOBSON Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 CFF!C~ Di: lll&REGATION MONITGRl,'JG Enclosed is a copy of Districts' Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 127205-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY .& JENNINGS LLP c':~,111 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. SEP l 1 1999 vtf!CE OF DESEGREGATION MONIJUUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DISTRICTS' MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST 1. On June 16, 1999, this Court ordered the State to pay pre-judgment interest on the sums previously paid by the State, pursuant to Court order, for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits. 2. On July 28, 1999, the Court reduced this order to a money judgment which was then satisfied by the State. 3. Recently, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the districts agreed to abandon their appeals concerning the "106% issue" and the State agreed to forego any appeal regarding the court-ordered pre-judgment ;nterest. 4. The referenced orders concern teacher retirement and health insurance benefits which were owed for the years preceding 1998-99. 5. On May 11, 1999, the three districts filed an amended motion moving for an order requiring payment of the teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 126286-v1 - for 1998-99. The State responded to this motion on August 19, 1999, and thereafter made the principal payments of these sums on September 2, 1999. 6. Attached as Exhibit A is a worksheet calculating pre-judgment interest on the sums owed for 1998-99 at the current federal interest rate of 5.2240%. This calculation and methodology is identical to that previously approved by the Court on July 28, 1999, for the pre-1998-99 award. 7. Pursuant to this calculation, the districts contend that the LRSD is owed $191,991 .04 in pre-judgment interest, that the PCSSD is owed $95,995.52, and that the NLRSD is owed $31 ,998.51. WHEREFORE, the districts pray for a total pre-judgment interest award of $319,985.07 to be allocated as described above and for all proper relief. 126286-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 -' .>"-\ , v~,~ - l._'-- -~ M. Samue1 Jones Ill (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special (~chool 9if>trict / 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September~. 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 He!ler Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM 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 126286-v1 M.~)Jonesj7 3 -- - . . . , :: I .. - -- - - . . - . - --- - --- - -- INTEREST CALCULACTION FOR TEA. AET. & HEAL TH INSURANCE COURT ORDERED FUNDING -INTEREST RATE - 5.2240% 1998-99 AMT. - $10,288,773 - DATE MO. PAY AMT. INTEREST TOT. DUE I 08/31/98 $925,989.57 $925,989.57 09/30/98 $925,989.57 $3,975.92 $1,855,955.06 I 10/31/98 $925,989.57 $8,234.54 $2,790,179.17 11/30/98 $925,989.57 $11,980.19 $3,728,148.93 I 12/31/98 $925,989.57 $16,541.13 $4,670,679.63 I 01/30/99 $925,989.57 $20,054.49 $5,616,723.69 I 02/28/99 $925,989.57 $23,312.63 $6,566,025.90 I 03/31/99 $925,989.57 $29,132.29 $7,521,147.76 I 04/30/99 $925,989.57 $32,293.54 $8,479,430.87 I I 05/31/99 $925,989.57 $37,621 .72 $9,443,042.16 I 06/30/99 $1,028,877.30 $40,545.58 $10,512,465.04 09/02/99 $96,293.03 $10,608,758.07 09/02/99 PAID AMOUNT $10,288,773.00 INTEREST DUE $319,985.07 ~ $319,985.07 I LASO SHARE (~>- -- 91,991.04 I PCSSD SHARE \ \'' _:;,, $95,995.52 NLRSD SHARE ~- <'~ \) $31,998.51 I , --~,_ I ---~-, ~ . ' W ,:...) , I I - 0:..:___,, I (v(~/ I ~ 00 I C. I S; :~"- ,- :'\_--' I (,,.>.' .) '. ( ) ) I /'r ) ~ --:::-:_l 1, \") I \ . , . I / ' ~ _, .. I - EXHIBIT I I? . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 2 3 1999 ufflCEOF JESEGREGATION MOHITORINS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST DEFENDANTS On September 13, 1999, PCSSD (presumably on behalf of all three Districts) filed a "motion for prejudgment interest" In this motion the Districts seek an award of $319,985.07 in "interest'' on amounts paid by the State to the Districts on September 2, 1999. The September 2 payments represented adjustments for teacher retirement and health insurance matching costs for fiscal year 1999. The Districts' motion must be denied. First, it is a misnomer to call the Districts' request as one for "prejudgment interest'' because no judgment has been entered with respect to retirement or health insurance payments to the Districts for FY 1999. The Districts' motion can be more accurately characterized as a motion to establish some form of periodic payment schedule in future years for retirement and health insurance payments to the Districts and to establish an obligation to pay some form of "interest'' if those payments are not timely made. As such, the Districts' motion must be denied because the Districts have already agreed to accept the methodology used to create - Court's Exhibit 504, a methodology that contemplates a single, post-fiscal-year payment to the Districts. Having agreed to such a methodology, the Districts should not now be permitted to essentially "reopen" the litigation concerning the retirement/health insurance remedy so as to establish some sort of monthly or other periodic payment obligation on the part of the State. Second, under the methodology used to create Exhibit 504, retirement and health insurance adjustment payments due the Districts for a particular fiscal year cannot be known - and therefore cannot be calculated with any certainty - until that fiscal year has ended and full-year data on retirement and health insurance costs (including costs attributable to ODM employees) is available for that year. As regards fiscal year 1999, there is no dispute that ADE made FY 1999 retirement and health insurance adjustment payments to the Districts in a timely manner after the FY 1999 data was made available to ADE. There is no allegation of untoward delay on the part of the State, and the Districts do not appear to contest the State's calculations of the appropriate amounts due each District Awarding interest to the Districts under these circumstances - whether one calls it "prejudgment'' interest or some other form of interest - would be inequitable. Accordingly, ADE respectfully requests that the Districts' motion be denied. 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorn eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify-that on September 27, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 Nations Bank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 1 1999 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITOPJm; 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 September, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attor General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 1999 iti:TI:~1;~~:~e~iw~i~zt~'tji,~~,i!l!~i~~f~ i/li~i~1r.ii~11ifll .~li~il(g'a.:m; 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.