Court filings concerning the Pulaski Educational Cooperative, June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools, and ADE motion concerning monitoring

District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Court's June 18, 1999, order and to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) motion concerning monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of appeal; District Court, three orders; District Court, reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative and supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion; District Court, order; 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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 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 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COURT'S JUNE 18, 1999 ORDER AND TO PCSSD'S "MOTION RE THE PULASKI EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE The Arkansas Department of Education (" ADE") hereby moves the Court for a - brief extension of time, to and including Friday, July 9, 1999, in which to respond to (a) the Court's June 18, 1999 order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's "Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative." The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On June 18, 1999, this Court entered an order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999- 2000 school year. The court's order allowed the parties to and including July 6, 1999, to file any objections to the MRC's proposal. 2. On June 23, 1999, PCSSD served by mail a document entitled "Combined Motion and Memorandum re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative." ADE's response to - this motion is due on or before July 7, 1999. 3. Undersigned counsel for ADE has been out of town on vacation from June 23, 1999, through July 5, 1999. ADE will therefore require a short extension of time, to and including Friday, July 9, 1999, within which to file its response to this Court's June 18, 1999 order and to PCSSD's motion concerning "the Pulaski Educational Cooperative." WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order extending ADE's time, to and including July 9, 1999, to respond to (a) the Court's June 18, 1999 order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's "Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative." Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Atto e G neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 6, 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, III 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 & Clark 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 7220i 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JIJl 1 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESE-aRfGATION MONITCREiG 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 THE COURT'S JUNE 18, 1999 ORDER CONCERNING PROPOSED GIANGE IN GRADE STRUCTIJRE AND NUMBER OF SEATS AT THE MAGNET SCHOOLS The Arkansas Department of Education (" ADE") submits this response to the - Court'c _. ... ne 18, 1999 order. In that order the Court notes that the Magnet Review Committee, by letter dated May 7, 1999, seeks 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." The MRC' s May 7 letter to the Court assumes that the proposed changes in grade structure and number of seats will result in a significant increase in the State's share of funding for the magnet schools. Among other things, the MRC' s letter indicates that "the costs associated with changes in seating will create an initial increase of $129 per student above the current funding level," and estimates that the State's share of funding for the magnet schools for 1999-2000 will increase by at least $567,270 over the State's current level of funding.1 ADE does not object to the proposed changes in grade structure for the magnet schools, nor does ADE object to an increase in the number of seats in the magnet schools for 1999-2000. ADE does object to the MRC' s proposal, however, to the extent it implies that the increases in enrollment will result in an increase in the State's funding level for the magnet schools. While the Settlement Agreement does not place any limits on the number of students who might attend the magnets, the Settlement Agreement does set specific limits on the State's funding obligations for the magnet schools. Paragraph II.D. of the &tttlement Agreement provides that "The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II. E. below." Paragraph ILE of the Agreement states, in pertinent part, that the State "will continue to pay ... [t]he State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools .... " Paragraph II.D. of the Settlement Agreement further provides: 1 It is not clear precisely how large this increase in funding will be. The State's funding level for 1998-99 as used in the MRC's projection does not take into account the 7.25% increase in salaries given to LRSD teachers in March, 1999, and the State's "proposed funding'' level for 1999-2000 used in the MRC's projection does not take into account "possible changes in salaries and basic operating costs for the 1999-2000 school year." It is clear from the MRC's May 7 letter, though, that the MRC assumes that some increase in the State's funding obligation can be expected due solely to the grade level" restructuring and the increase in the number of seats. 2 Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. These seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 Williams 515 Gibbs 351 Booker 660 Mann 935 Parkview 991 The Settlement Agreement thus makes it clear that, no matter how many students actually attend the magnet schools, the State's' funding obligations for the magnet schools are limited to its share of, for example, the costs associated with a maximum of 991 students at Parkview, 935 students at Mann, and so on. To the extent the MRC's May 7 letter implies that the State's share of magnet school funding will be increased due to the addition of 209 seats at Parkview, such an additional burden on the State would be in direct contravention of the Settlement Agreement. The costs associated with magnet student enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be borne either by the LRSD, whose decision to restructure its schools necessitated the restructuring of the magnets and the concomitant changes in seating capacity, or by the Districts collectively. 3 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ~/4 /4~~-:: :r== TIMO (G. GApGER #95019 . Assistant Atto~ General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 9, 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.SamuelJones,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 ~ fi~~1fu~ ?1- - ,., . ,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 1 2 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 "MOTION RE THE PULASKI EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE" In this motion the PCSSD seeks an order requiring the State to distribute funds to an as-yet-to-be-formed education service coorr:!'c1tive1 ("co-op") that would serve only the three Districts. The motion is premised or .. PCSSD's belief that an appropriation contained in Act 1392 of 1999 entitles them to funds for such a co-op, and that conditional language restricting the disbursement contained in the appropriation is "at variance with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement" PCSSD's motion must be denied. This Court lacks jurisdiction to give PCSSD the relief it requests. Because the State has been dismissed from this action, this Court's jurisdiction over the State is 1 Education service cooperatives are "intermediate service units in the state's elementary and secondary education system" that are eligible to receive and spend state and federal funds. They exist to provide to school districts that choose to use them assistance in meeting accreditation standards, using educational resources more efficiently through cooperation among school districts,_ and promoting coordination between school districts and the ADE in the provision of certain services. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1002 limited to enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement (see Kokkanen u. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), and PCSSD does not allege that the State has breached the settlement agreement The Settlement Agreement does not compel or require the State to fund a co-op for the Districts. Indeed, quite the opposite is true - the Settlement Agreement acknowledges that state funding for a Pulaski County co-op had ceased, and that the co-operative had been dissolved, before the Agreement was signed. Settlement Agreement, section Ill E. ("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"). PCSSD' s motion is in reality a somewhat convoluted request that the Court direct ADE to do what PCSSD 1'e1i~ves is required under State law. This Court must deny PCSSD's motion because PCSSD's attempt to enforce State law is not within the Court's Kokkonen-type jurisdiction over the State, and there is no other independent basis upon which this Court can base subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim. Such a state-law claim against the State is also barred by the Eleventh Amendment See, e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 LEd.2d 67 (1984) (federal-court claims against state officials based upon alleged violations of state law are barred by Eleventh Amendment); Angela R. u. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320, 325 (8th Or. 1993) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from granting relief against state officials for violations of state law). Finally, even if this Court could exercise jurisdiction over PCSSD's claim, the motion must be denied because the Districts are not entitled to form a co-op and receive funds for such a co-op under either the Settlement Agreement or State law. Appropriations merely authorize the release of funds from the treasury, subject to other applicable laws including the Revenue Stabilization Act and other substantive law. Further, appropriations, by themselves, do not require that funds actually be disbursed. In this instance, the provisions of Act 1392 and the provisions of other substantive state law prohibit the release of funds for a Pulaski County co-op. Act 1392 prohibits the release of funds for a Pulaski County co-op because as of this date, no order has been entered by this Court relieving the State of its obligation to provide funds for the operation of the ODM. See Act 1392 of 1999, 17.2 In addition, the General Assembly has not amended or repealed other provisions of State law that prohibit the formation of a new, sixteenth CO-l.'P that would serve only the three Districts. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1002 (authorizing State Board of Education to establish "no more than fifteen" cooperatives); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1003(b)(l) and (b)(2) (cooperatives must include at least three counties and include at least ten school districts).3 2 PCSSD attempts to sidestep this restriction by arguing that the language conditioning the release of the funds is "at variance with the requirements of the Settlement . Agreement and must therefore fail and be severed from the Act" The problem with PCSSD' s theory is that the conditional language is consistent With the Settlement . Agreement As noted earlier, the Settlement Agreement does not require that the State fund a Pulaski County co-op, and the special language in the Act recognizes that the State's obligation to fund ODM can only be modifi~ by an order from this Court 3 Thus, even if PCSSD were correct that the contingency language in Section 17 of Act . 1392 is both inconsistent with the Settlement and can be severed from the Act the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1002 and 1003 would nonetheless prohibit the formation of a new "16th co-op" that would serve only the three Districts. For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that PCSSD's motion be denied, and that the ADE be awarded its costs and attorneys' fee incurred in responding to this motion. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General TIMOT q_ GAUGER #95019 Assistant Attorney G~neral --- 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 9, 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, ill 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 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1,3 1999 ~~~E~~- ~~~K,p C~AK OEPC~ 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., lntervenors, * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER Without objection, the motion of the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") for an Order relieving it of its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report is hereby granted. In addition, the Court grants nunc pro tune AD E's motion for an extension of time until and including July 9, 1999, in which to respond to (a) this Court's June 18, 1999 Order - concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's "Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative." .-f1\_ IT IS SO ORDERED this _j.d::_ day of 4--= 1999. 9;1'rruo~j- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1s DOCUMENT ENTER C(.,MPUIJil WITH RULEED ON DOCKET SHEET fN ':)N L 3/ q Cl 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP / BY m::: __j 2 u.s~(L, ,,,.f;,p C:ASTCR. ':,.;.;,': . .:_ v,111r,r .N DI~,, ,,1.,' ,, /~/1,l"S "S ' ,~, I-\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL l 1 1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 1999 WESTERN DIVISION ~;~MES \V McCORM,iCK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ,II 11 1 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITOR~~FENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RELIEVE ADE MOTION CONCERNING MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors respond to the ADE motion concerning monitoring, served on June 28, 1999, as follows. The ADE motion was filed belatedly, rendering the request fait accompli. The - Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that ADE be ordered to file not later than Wednesday, August 4, 1999, their proposed new monitoring and reporting plan. Intervenors further respectfully request that the Court give priority to the development and approval of a new monitoring plan and require that the first report pursuant to that plan be filed not later than November 3, 1999. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 -1- Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this 14th day of July, 1999. Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arknasas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank. Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -2- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUI 1 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSA<:; JUL 141999 JAMfil W, MaQQAMAGK, "!:.EA ijy'-----~-- DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from the order of the district court filed on June 16, 1999 which denied LRSD's request for certain damages related to teacher retirement and health insurance payments from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This notice is filed based upon the understanding that the Arkansas Department of Education intends to appeal this court's decision awarding prejudgment interest to the districts on their claims concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. If ADE does not pursue such an appeal, this notice of appeal may be withdrawn. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller J. Clay Fendley CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the W following on this 14th day of July, 1999 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr . Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( 1903 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A , SCOTT , JR . JOHN G . LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS I LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KI MBERLY WOOD TU CKER RAY F COX . JR . GOROON 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 KATH LYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULOROW 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 McSPADDEN ROGER 0 . 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 .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer 's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mj ones@wlj .com July 15, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark TROY A. PR ICE PATRICIA A. SI EVERS JAMES M. MOODY . J R. KATHRYN A PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CL AIRE SHOWS HANCOCK K EVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KY LE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNE Y MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McK ENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORG E J ANDREW VI NES 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 JUI 1 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enciosed is a copy of Notice of Appeal which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 115616-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 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 IRi,,.- ---- \fEO DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. t' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 11\ J' ,.:'.gg KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. \ l&&REGI '\TORlNG NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from the order of the district court filed on June 16, 1999, which denied PCSSD's request for certain damages related to teacher retirement and health insu-rJ~J ~'::ll ~,( ~..l , _',; ; -~ i ' .,. l s U:i~1-~ ~- ' .... .., payments from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). 11 5268-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 'Nest Capitol Avenua, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~ M. amue Jones Ill (7~060) orneys or Pulaskl..eounty Special cha istrict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 1..5, 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 2 - RECEIVEt' JUL .2 o 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * Intervenors, * * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * Intervenors, * ORDER JUL 181999 Before the Court is a motion by the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") for approval of a new school site (doc.#3266]. In its motion, which was filed June 9, 1999, PCSSD states that it'proposes to close both Bates and Fuller Elementaries and combine that student enrollment at a new site located at the northwest comer of 14S1h Street and Highway - 67/167 proximate to the Siemen's facility with no change of geo codes. The time for filing a response to this motion bas passed without a responsive pleading from any of the parties. Having considered the matter, and without objection from any of the parties, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion to approve the new school site described herein should be and hereby is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED this ii:_ ~ay of fl-4- 1999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL t 9 1999 JAMES f" ~RMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER By: \. i~U I) '<'1'. -~ OEP CLERK No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED JUL 2 o 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") filed a petition requesting that the Court grant PCSSD unitary status and release it from further court supervision [docket no. 3253]. The Joshua intervenors responded [docket no. 3253], and PCSSD replied to the response [docket no. 3260]. After careful consideration, the Court denies the petition and for reasons that follow will not, at this time, issue detailed findings regarding its decision. I. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its first petition for unitary status, requesting release from federal court supervision over its desegregation efforts. 1 After receiving notice that the parties contemplated settlement discussions, the Court denied PCSSD's petition, without prejudice, noting the District's freedom to refile the petition if settlement efforts failed .2 1 Docket no. 3057. 2 Docket no. 3211. Presently hefore the Court is PCSSD's second petition requesting a declaration of unitary status. Additionally, PCSSD filed a document entitled "Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments," which sets forth actions PCSSD pledges to carry out in the event the Court grants the District unitary status. The commitments call for a dispute resolution process, whereby the Joshua intervenors could, as a last resort, seek the Court's assistance in resolving compliance issues.3 Thus PCSSD envisions that once it attains unitary status, the Court could retain jurisdiction over this matter. PCS SD explains it provided for the Court's continued jurisdiction "as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision .... "4 However, the Court finds the provision for continued jurisdiction inapposite to whether PCSSD has achieved unitary status. This Court's jurisdiction depends on the existence of a constitutional violation. Once the PCSSD achieves unitary status and thus complies with the command of the Constitution, this Court's jurisdiction ends. See Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd of Educ. 91 S. Ct. 1267, 1276, 1284 (1971). The Joshua intervenors assert that PCSSD has not achieved unitary status and cite their prior submissions addressing PCSSD's 1997 petition to support their position.5 However, the intervenors believe the proposed commitments represent a "renewed and more targeted" plan that 3 Docket no. 3235, Attachment A, Pages 8-9. 4 Docket no. 3260, Page 3. 5 Docket no. 3079 (Opposition Response by Joshua to PCSSD's Motion for Release); Docket no. 3196 (Joshua's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning PCSSD's Motion for Release). 2 could serve as a new or-amended desegregation plan. With the sole exception of a provision concerning the duration of the cornmitments,6 the intervenors embrace PCSSD's proposed plan. In the past, the Court has encouraged the parties to amend their plan, if it would further their goals, and agrees that the proposed commitments would provide the basis for an acceptable amended plan and might even be suitable as a plan itself. II. The Court finds that PCSSD has not achieved unitary status and must deny the District 's petition. In light of the Joshua intervenors' recommendation that PCSSD's post-unitary commitments function as a basis for a revised desegregation plan, and the Court's desire to facilitate agreement among the parties, the Court will not, at this time, issue specific findings regarding its decision to deny the District's petition. If the parties can agree, such an agreement is preferable to court directives. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (8th Cir. 1990). As the parties are in agreement on all items except duration, it would be wasteful of their resources and effort to litigate the many issues concerning unitary status. In any event, duration will be determined, for the most part, by whether the District has achieved its desegregation goals. m. THEREFORE, PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision is hereby denied [docket no. 3253]. FURTHER, the parties have 120 days from entry of this Order to submit an amended desegregation plan for the Court's approval. 6 If the parties desire, the Court is willing to conduct a hearing concerning the duration of an amended plan. 3 FURTHER, in the event the parties do not reach an agreement, the Court will issue detailed findings regarding its denial of PCSSD's petition for unitary status. FINALLY, the time to appeal this Order will run from the date such detailed findings are filed. !TIS SO ORDERED 11-!IS / 'f ./i_DAY OF <;)-, t2" , 1999 ~)t;c UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN XiMPLJANCE Wirf ~LE 58 AND/n::1:1) FRCP , 1N '7//CJ BY - I 4 IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 1999 JAMES w. M~cc MACK, CLERK By: \/_ - u ,'\f\\ll,"- 1 DP ClERll vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. I, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, ORDER -JUL 21 1999 om:Ecr DESBHC-\1 ~ ;roNITORI IJG Before the Court are a number of motions from the Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), and the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") relating to attorney's fees and costs [see doc. #'s 3199, 3200, 3201 , and 3218]. The Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE"), in tum, has before the Court a motion to defer consideration of LRSD's, PCSSD's, and NLRSD's respective motions for attorney's fees and - costs [doc.#3209]. The Court notes-that several of these motions are moot and the Court has been informed that other of these motions will be amended to address circumstances that have arisen since the initial motions were filed. That being the case, and so that the record will