District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<items type="array"> <item>

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>District Court, order; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion in Limine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental witness list; District Court, transcript and order; District Court, plaintiff's revised witness list for the July 22, 2002, hearing; District Court, letter-order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's witness list for the July 22 hearing as revised July 23, 2002; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to strike; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to strike; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL -8 2002 OFF!CF. OF EGREGATIOH MONITORING u.sfo,{b~cRRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO"fltffERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL Q 1 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being, Plaintiff's request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15, 2002, for June 21 , 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshua's FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOi as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules 6 1 1 A072A {Rev.8/82) of Civil Procedure; but, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiff's Motion forthwith, and request a hearing--if such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DA TED this I 9-:f day of July, 2002. UNITED sT ATESDISTc JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 1/V!Tb:(oE 58 AND/OR~7~ F9R CP r,;, , ~ ..,___ GY _ - - '" _ f_t:___ I -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402 and 403 . The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when "a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated - by that body's officers" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Id. Liability may also be based on "constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels." Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy." Jane Doe A, 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, "custom or usage" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees; (2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) Th[ e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., (proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). "(I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled." Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept., 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). - "Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation." Id. "To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials bad knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action." Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, the Board is the "final authority" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a "custom or practice" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show "that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2 action." Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S . 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate; (2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality; and (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show "that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city "had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights." Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board "had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.]." Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on "notice that its procedures were inadequate" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3 Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan 8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan 8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan 8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403 . 4 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501 - 011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 5 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 A072A (Rev.8/82) I O!INO~ NOl!VU3YD3S3Q d030WO zooz s- 1nr u.fo!k~QAr ... , :\ ;~l'\~U ::JJi \i :.il .J :I g EASn fiN Ol6i/ii1CT MH&lt;AN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 z SA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSD's request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshua's FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshua's counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing ifhe deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshua's counsel's July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshua's counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion, and "then allow either party to request a hearing." This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshua's counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in "haste" because LRSD's motion papers declared an "emergency" and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce A072A {Rev.8/82) documents pursuant to Joshua's FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSD's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-104 provides a "potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days [to Joshua's FOI requests] ." This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5 :00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not "vexed" with counsel--somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOi requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring ofLRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the "Revised Plan"). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. J.n LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1386 (8th Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed "a great deal of weight" on the fact that "the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring," which the Court found to be "essential." Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshua's counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshua 's ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11 , 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDE~,- DATED this 1 ~ day of July, 2002. W~R-~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE -3- JUL . 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOH.,.~ W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable Judge William R Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock. AR 72201 ATToRNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L1TrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsinule - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wtlson: NO .521 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 liEND81!SOl'I RoAD Ltmz Rocr, ~ 72210 l'HON&amp;: (501) 372-3425 J&lt;'AX (501) 372-3428 r.!MA!r..: mchonry,i@awbGll.not - I received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from a trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Wtlliams and Joe Bryant I am surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems so_mewhat vexed ~el. I believe the Court would not be ~ were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the follo'Wing explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the District's record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns from class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the District's infonnation by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8th Circuit and the Settlement Agreements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. BetWeen 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same manner for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Court's conclusion that the requested information "appears quite certainn to JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.521 P.3/3 be "not timely". The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exlnoits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Heller's office delivered bis exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24, 2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Court's comments that the requests are pot pertinent to the three rernainine issues in this case as the case relates to the District's compliance as of March 15, 2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshua's monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon.. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position ofbeing the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Clerk of the Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Lt~ Dennis R. Hansen 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 June 28, 2002 Based on the information available at)v1ay j _t 2002,;frie ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, iUbj'eb(to periodic adJustrr.i'knis: B. 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. A072A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING FIL~e EAS ~ S. 1~~ RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT T RN'2Ji 1 ~NSA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL - 5 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that: (1) because Joshua's witness list fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5 :30 p.m. on July 10, 2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue; (2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Court's May 15 Order; (3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshua's counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses; (4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; (5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High 6 1 6 A072A (Rev.8/82) School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402, and 403; (6) Joshua's failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their "thirty minutes of true rebuttal" prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002; and (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSD's Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSD's Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSD's Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11f DA TED this f day of July, 2002. UNITED STATESDlSTRIC DG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON 7/6/0'6 gy_O-c~,-_=-_..~,a.-- -2- ---- -- RECEIVED .- - -- 'JUL 1 O 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING - . ; /:JLt:::,o .. - E.A.s,f;p. Dtsr g;;;. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT QOURT Noisr~;g~ uRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL OB KA.ivsAs WESTERN_DIVISION JAMs W 2002 By: MccoR MACK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I , ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD 1. Joshua Intervenors ' Witness List , CLERK p.1,,1&lt;,&lt;Dl.A ,,...._.u. F [f::RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) "provide[s] a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue" only on a "tongue in cheek" basis. The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors ' witnesses are employees.1 Moreover, at least 11 oflntervenors' witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors ' list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5 :00 p.m. on 1Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1- July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s) . . Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors' effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, "LRSD Quarterly Status Reports," was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony, with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773 , 775 rebuttal: 743,747,749, 750,755 , 757,758,759,760,762,763 , 764,779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783 , 784 -2- 5. Testimony from Jim Mosbv and Jodv Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding "their recent removal as principals." 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSD's testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators ' responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791 , dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSD's efforts "to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors ... " [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g., Revised ,., -.)- Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors ' response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other - elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors ' proof will be consistent with this fran1ework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain offulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, John -W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has/been senTby fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ,?~ day of l-,, 1, ----:-2002: -r:;:-- 'I // I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis l'l. H en FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I / Joen W. Walker -5- J VHl'i W WHLKt.t-&lt; t-' H N0 . 571 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: July 8, 2002 To: Ms. Ann Brawn Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Sender: Jolm W. Walker P. l/6 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL "&lt;(501) 374-3758'&gt;" The information conr.a.ined uu:his fucsimile message is atto111ey privileged and confidential information intended only fur the use of the individual or entity named aoove. !f the reader of this m~sagc is not the intended recipient, or me emp1oyee or agent responsible to deliver it fo the inrended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communicttion Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. R CEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTu.folb~cPuRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 9 2002 J L 11 2002 OFFICE OF OESEG EGATION MONITORING A072A (Rev.8/82) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Earlier today, United States Magistrate Judge Tom Ray conducted a hearing to receive the parties ' pre-marked exhibits, exhibit lists, witness lists, and witness statements as provided for in paragraph 5 of my May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order. In addition, at my request, Judge Ray also addressed several housekeeping matters associated with the hearing that I have scheduled for 8 :30 a.m. on Friday, July 12, 2002, on LRSD's Motion In Limine. I have now reviewed the transcript of the hearing before Judge Ray, and want to reiterate several points covered during that hearing. First, the evidentiary hearing that is scheduled to commence before me at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002, is limited to testimony and other evidence relevant to LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations in three specific areas of the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2); (2) extracurricular activities ( 2.6); and (3) guidance A072A (Rev.8/82) counseling ( 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 ). The only other evidence the Court will receive during the July 22 hearing will be limited to: (a) LRSD's obligation of good faith( 2.1), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) LRSD's obligations regarding African-American students' achievement ( 2.7), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. 1 Second, after reviewing Joshua's witness list and witness statements, it appears to me that some or all of the anticipated testimony of a number of their witnesses falls outside the scope of the July 22 evidentiary hearing, as defined above, and as defined earlier by Judge Wright, and by my Order of May 9. I assume these potential problems will be cured by the supplemental witness lists and statements that Joshua and LRSD will file by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. In connection with those supplemental witness lists and statements, I expect both sides to comply fully with each and every requirement of paragraph 3 of my May 15 Scheduling Order. Third, I want to reiterate that I will be continuing the practice followed by Judge Wright of allocating and keeping time for each side during the July 22 hearing. As my May 15 Scheduling Order makes clear, Joshua and LRSD are each allocated twenty hours to present their cases. Each side should keep this overall time constraint in mind in calling and examining their witnesses. Absent compelling circumstances, I do not intend to give either side more than their allocated twenty hours. 11 am mindful that Joshua also will be allowed thirty minutes at the beginning of the July 22 hearing to call Ann Marshall and Gene Jones as rebuttal witnesses on the three issues tried to conclusion during the earlier evidentiary hearings before Judge Wright: (1) good faith; (2) African-American student achievement; and (3) student discipline. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) Finally, I have reviewed the so-called "rebuttal exhibits" that Joshua intends to introduce during the rebuttal testimony of Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. Many of these rebuttal exhibits appear to be documents that were available and could have, and, if they wanted them in evidence, should have, been introduced by Joshua in their case in chief. During the July 12 hearing, Joshua's counsel should be prepared to address how those exhibits constitute true rebuttal documents. The lawyers for the parties, especially the lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, should have someone watching their fax machines commencing no later than 8:30 a.m. this Thursday, July 11. It is possible that I will enter an Order early Thursday morning in response to filings made by these parties Wednesday afternoon. The Order may require additional work before the hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. this Friday, July12. IT IS SO ORDERED#. DATED this qr aay of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRIC'i'JUDGE -3- FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas JAester,'1 Division Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 TO: Chris Heller &amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones . 376-2147 376-9442 3i5-1027 221-3331 374-4187 682- 2591 371-0100 Stevejones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Anne Marshaii DATE: There are _"f.J pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. Z:0/10 3rnrl MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wiison, J; U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,..,~ "R 7,,0, ~,, I "-"-J ~ ,, t RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFFICEOF ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors submit their witness list in response to the Court's several directives regarding these matters. Joshua is presenting below a summary of the testimony in some detail of each witness it will call on direct. Joshua is presenting a table of the name of each witness, the expected time each witness will take on direct examination and the approximate time of the appearance of each witness. The times of the appearances of each witness are presented taking into account an equal an1ount of cross examination time by the plaintiff. Possible times for lunch breaks are included. In presenting the matter in this manner, we do not intend to offend the Court by suggesting the exact times of breaks and/or for lunch, nor do wish to offend the Court by presenting this document in this fashion. The manner in which we present it will provide the Court and the parties a timeline of expected testimonial events and provide easy and ready reference to each forthcoming event. We expect our case in chief to be approximately 11 hours (660 minutes). We expect to use the remaining time for either cross examination or for rebuttal (up to two hours). -1- SADIE MITCHELL: The issues Sadie Mitchell will address are extra-curricular activities and guidance counseling. Her respective testimony is that Joshua raised issues of disparate treatment with respect to extra-curricular activities for which she or some subordinate made responses. She will address examples such as discrimination in 9th grade athletics, band, scouts, choir, mock trial, quiz bowl, cheerleaders and the activities wherein participation by race is reflected in the various student yearbooks. She will also address the complaints regarding student honors and efforts to improve minority paiiicipation in AP and honors type activities particularly at Central and Hall High Schools. She will also relate to the inadequacy of data collection regarding extra-cunicular activities and the decision to aggregate rather than disaggregate activity data. She will confirm that aggregation of the data presents a false picture of activity participation in the respective schools which include all the secondary schools. She will also address the failme rates in advanced placement courses as reflected in the Quarterly Reports previously discussed before Judge Wright. JUNIOUS BABBS: Junious Babbs will address the identification of particular athletic programs and other activities with limited African American participation and plans for remediation, review of each school's annual guidance report to identify areas of limited service to African American students such as a) course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher education opportunities; b) access to financial aid; and c) course enrollment to help to facilitate graduation. He will also address his investigation into the participation and inequities thereof of minority students in AP courses and the passing and failure rates related thereto. MS. SHARON BROOKS: Ms. Sharon Brooks will testify regarding her placement of -2- elementary school African American boys without utilization of counseling services for a period of two months. She will address failure to provide a teacher and a counselor for those boys, whom she separated from the girls. DR. MICHAEL FAUCETTE: Dr. Michael Faucette, a teacher at Central High School, will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extra-curricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central high School; the disparate effect of AP courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other oppo1iunities; and he will discuss the issue of the District's good faith compliance. MS. PAM MERCER: Ms. Pam Mercer, an African American parent, will discuss the District's good faith establishment and administration of AP courses at Central High School, the exclusion of African American students therefrom, the privileges extended by AP teachers and activities sponsors to white students, counseling of students for placement in AP courses and the racial atmosphere which exists within AP classes. She will discuss her membership on the Activities Advisory Board for the school district and her dissatisfaction with its efforts. CRYSTAL MERCER: Crystal Mercer will discuss her dissatisfaction with guidance counseling services with respect to the following areas: access to financial aid and course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational oppo1iunities. JASON MERCER: Jason Mercer will discuss his dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure more African American student participation in AP courses. He will also discuss content ., -.)- of Exhibit 797. D.J. THAMES and A VIS THAMES: D.J. Thames, student at Fair High School and Avis Thames, his mother. Their testimony will cover their dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure fair participation in extra-curricular activities such as football. ROMONA HORTON: RomonaHorton,parentof students at Central High School and Forest Heights Jr. High School will testify regarding her dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to encourage her children's participation and retention in Pre AP and AP courses at their respective schools. She will also testify regarding her dissatisfaction with counseling services with respect to her children's success in the classes, access to financial aid and course emollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational opportunities. In addition to testimony regarding dissatisfaction with her children's participation in AP, she will also address the use of racial slurs by an AP teacher. She will also discuss the District's response to her complaints. JODIE CARTER: Jodie Carter will discuss special problems with AP classes in the school district as a whole and at McClellan High School in particular. He will specifically relate to the manner in which courses are constituted at the various schools. The problem with staffing the classes and in filling the classes at the various schools. He will discuss his understanding of guidance counseling as it relates to AP placement, participation in extra-curricular activities and the District's good faith. He will specifically relate to problems that he has observed regarding school board members' support of AP classes, guidance counseling and extra-curricular activities. He will discuss the issue ofracial placement and how the counseling system has worked in his observation at the school district over time. This necessarily will include the varying levels of support provided by the central administration with respect to AP courses, guidance counseling and extra-curricular -4- activities at McClellan in comparison to Parkview and Central High School. MS. DOROTHY MCDONALD: Ms. Dorothy McDonald will discuss counseling in general and at McClellan High School in particular. She will discuss the way counseling has a more negative impact on African Americans than white students at McClellan High School and as she understands it to be at other schools based upon her meetings with JoEvelyn Elston and other persons who oversee and administer the other counseling progran1s. MS. CASSANDRA NORMAN: Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal at J.A. Fair High School will discuss counseling services, placement in pre AP and AP classes at both the middle and Jr. High school and high school and how those courses differ from similar courses at Central and Parkview High Schools. She will discuss AP class sizes, expenditures, teacher turnover and the support of school administrators for her school with respect to these issues. She will address issues regarding counseling within Fair and the problems with a counselor that she had whodid not address the issues in equitable way regarding African American students. CHRIS PAYNE: Chris Payne a former student at J.A. Fair High School will discuss race discrimination in extra-curricular activities. His efforts to participate in the Quiz Bowl at Fair, counseling that he received at Fair while he was there, and the fact that he did not feel that he was fairly treated with respect to those subjects. MR. KENNETH MOORE: Mr. Kenneth Moore will discuss extra-curricular activities, counseling and good faith compliance. His testimony will relate to his experiences at Hall and Fair High Schools and how counseling works at those schools to the detriment of African American students with respect to their participation in extra-curricular activities and with respect to their AP type placements. -5- MR. RAY GILLESPIE: Mr. Ray Gillespie will discuss his role with respect to overseeing the athletic extra-curricular programs and activities and assisting in the monitoring of school programs at the direction of Les Carnine to ostensibly assure eliminating racial discrimination. He will testify regarding the lack of suppo1i that he received in his efforts to achieve equity and his conclusion that African American students and staff are treated differently with respect to these subject areas in comparison to similarly situated white persons. MR. JIMMY MOSBY: Mr. Jimmy Mosby will discuss guidance counseling, extra-curricular activities and pre AP courses during his tenure at Hall High School and at Southwest Middle School. He will address the District's lack of support with respect to pre AP and cow1seling. MS. SUE STRICKLAND: Ms. Sue Strickland will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. Ms. Strickland will also address the lack of truthfulness by Superintendent Carnine with respect to communication with the school board. DR. KA THERINE MITCHELL: Dr. Katherine Mitchell will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. DR. MICHAEL DAUGHTERY: Dr.Michael Daughtery will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. He will discuss his efforts to understand the necessity for relating counseling to AP and pre AP placement, monitoring counseling programs and AP programs and his efforts to have AP programs -6- to become more inclusive for minority students. He will discuss how students can be expected to succeed in AP courses in middle and high schools if they haven't been taught and properly counseled in the earlier grades. DR. TERRENCE ROBERTS: Dr. Tenence Roberts is a District Consultant regarding desegregation activities. He will address the necessity for there to be a correlation between guidance counseling and placement in AP courses. He will discuss the manner in which he has been used by the District to train teachers with respect to these subjects in particular and other subjects in general in Little Rock. Counsel is endeavoring to have him available on either July 23 rd or July 24th . He lives in California and travel arrangements have not been made. DR. STEVEN ROSS: Dr. Steven Ross will testify about the District's good faith compliance, AP courses. He will also discuss the need for criteria for placement and whether all students may be qualified in the absence of standards for placement in AP courses without earlier foundations and specific training. MS. ETHEL DUNBAR: Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance cotmseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. REBUTTAL Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Ann Marshall 7/22/02 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 15 Gene Jones 7/22/02 15 -7- DIRECT EXAMINATION Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Sadie Mitchell 7/22/02 9:30 a.m. 30 Junious Babbs 7/22/02 10:30 a.m. 30 Sharon Brooks 7/22/02 11 :30 a.m. 15 7/22/02 Lunch 12-1:00 p.m. 60 Dr. Michael Faucette 7/22/02 1:00 p.m. 90 Pam Mercer 7/22/02 4:00 p.m. 30 Crystal Mercer 7/22/02 5: 00 p.m. 10 Jason Mercer 7/22/02 5:20 p.m. 15 D .J. Thames/ A vis Thames 7/22/02 6:30 p.m. 15 Romona Horton 7/23/02 8:30 a.m. 30 Jodie Carter 7/23/02 9:30 a.m 120 7/23/02 Lunch 12- 1 :00 p.m. 60 Dorothy McDonald 7/23/02 2:30 p.m. 15 Cassandra Norman 7/23/02 3:00 p.m. 45 Chris Payne 7/23/02 4:30 p.m. 10 Kenneth Moore 7/23/02 4:50 p.m. 15 Ray Gillespie 7/23/02 5:20 p.m. 15 Jimmy Mosby 7/24/02 8:30 a.m. 15 Sue Strickland 7/24/02 9:00 a.m. 10 Dr. Katherine Mitchell 7/24/02 9:20 a.m. 10 Dr. Michael Daughtery 7/24/02 9:40 a.m. 30 Dr. Terrence Roberts 7/24/02 10:40 a.m. 30 -8- Dr. Steven Ross 7/24/02 Ms. Ethel Dunbar 7/24/02 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781 ) 862-1955 11 :40 a.m. 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,,-,, Jdhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 vJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -9- 30 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 10th day of July, 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I . ,,('(;~~--/:.,/ J,ohn W. Walker . RiCEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFACEOF - SEGREGATION MONITORING J:JL 1 O 2~:;, JAMES W r, :,..c .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO .- ., -ORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. 1v1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA lNTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT AL WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua filed its Witness List earlier today. Inadvertently omitted was the name of Ms. Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School. Her name is being submitted as a witness who will address the District 's counseling programs, her instructions as to how they are to be implemented and how they are in fact implemented at Hall High School. She will address the counseling role for placement into Pre-AP, AP and Honors courses and she will relate to the counseling with respect to scholarships and other opportunities as well as course enrollment . Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. We urge to allow us to use her testimony on either the 23 rd or 241h if we are making substantial progress and have additional time we have not used in our case and chief. Otherwise her testimony will that of Ms. Ethel Dunbar on July 24th at approximately 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman - MA Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1 955 "'John W o.-64046 JOHNW. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on 1~10'11 ~-ay of ~uly , 2092. \ Ml , ! I ' / -~ / ";c' L}/ -' / . ~ /Ar~-;/ tz~-tt i \, RECEIVED FILED U,S, DISTRICT COURT EASTE~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1,2 2002 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. , 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference held yesterday afternoon. The directions in this transcript are the orders of the Court. - ord.LRSDI IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE VV!TH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ FRCP oN_!Jd__O-Od::'BY -,~~----'-~=- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . No. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Little Rock, Arkansas July 9, 2002 4:45 P.M. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., APPEARANCES: Intervenors. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON United States District Judge. For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER J. HELLER, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 For the Defendant: (No appearance. ) Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 1 For Joshua Intervenors: ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQ. John Walker, P.A. 2 1723 Broadway 3 4 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Proceedings reported by machine stenography; transcript 5 prepared by computer . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: All right, we're having a telephone 3 3 conference hearing this afternoon on the record in Little Rock 4 School District against Pulaski County, et al. It's 5 LR-C-82-866. This conference is regarding a letter that was 6 just hand delivered to me dated July 9 from Mr. Walker and Mr. 7 Pressman. It shows a copy to Mr. Heller. I am going to 8 notify by letter in the morning other lawyers of this 9 telephone conference so that they can order a transcript of 10 this hearing if they want to from Ms. Fant. But in any event, 11 I want to address this letter, and I will just start with the 12 first paragraph. Apparently Joshua got Exhibits 793 and 801 13 over to Judge Ray's courtroom deputy, Ms. Swanson, this 14 afternoon as was directed by Judge Ray this morning. By the 15 way, Judge Ray is here in my conference room. But I 16 understand there are other exhibits that have not been brought 17 over for marking, which are 794, 799 and 800 and I'm puzzled. 18 What's the problem with them, Mr. Pressman? 19 MR. PRESSMAN: One of the exhibits is five 20 yearbooks, and we were told that we could pick up the year- 21 books at five different high schools. 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. MR. PRESSMAN: And take them away to copy. And Mr. 24 Walker wasn't here. I didn't know how to handle that. 25 THE COURT: Okay, I will give you -- 794 and 799 and Carolyn s. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 800 I will give you until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow to do what's 2 necessary to have them delivered to Ms. Swanson by 2:00 p.m. 3 All right, are there other exhibits that we need to 4 address? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't think so. THE COURT: All right, let's look at paragraph 1 of the letter; that he and Judge Wilson are apprised of the following position: "One, we want to reserve for rebuttal that part of our 20 hours which we do not utilize in our case in chief." I'll, of course, allow you to reserve a certain 4 11 amount of time for rebuttal. I will remind you again that I'm 12 big on true rebuttal, not just more evidence that could have 13 been introduced during your case in chief. And I wouldn't 14 allow you, for example, to put on five hours of testimony and 15 reserve 15. What do you want? About an hour or two hours for 16 rebuttal, Mr. Pressman? 17 MR. PRESSMAN: That was -- that was -- that's what 18 Mr. Walker told me. He has handled this. 19 THE COURT: Is Mr. Walker there with you? 20 21 22 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No, he's at the courthouse. THE COURT: Well, I will give you two hours for rebuttal and you notify me by 2:00 p .m. tomorrow by fax -Judge Ray and me both by fax and the other parties if you want 24 more than two hours reserved for rebuttal. I'm not inclined 25 to reserve much more than that, but I will give you an Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunity to address that. If you haven't addressed it by 2:00 p.m., I will assume that two hours is satisfactory with you. Now the next sentence in paragraph 1 I find quite disturbing. It says, and I quote: "We'll attempt to provide a more specific response regarding rebuttal time in our supplemental document regarding our witnesses." Now, I entered this order in May directing the identity of witnesses and detailed statements with respect to 5 10 what they were going to say, and that order was not met. The 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 requirements of that order were not met. Judge Ray today extended that until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. As I understand, Mr. Walker was in the courtroom part of the time, at least, but I'm not sure I understand what "attempt" -- why you use "attempt" rather than say "we will comply." If you will look at the title of that document that I entered back in May or those two documents, the word "Order" is there, not 18 suggestion. 19 And so would you address .that, what the problem is 20 with that, not getting that detailed statement or just 21 attempting to do it? 22 23 24 25 MR. PRESSMAN: I have not been involved in the development of the facts regarding these three areas. I was asked to do this hearing because Mr. Walker was not available. THE COURT: Well, of course, he knew well in advance Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of the trial before Judge Howard he was going to have it and he's had since May to meet those directions. You need to get him tonight and tell him that I'm going to take a very dim look at an attempt rather than a full compliance by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Will you pass that message on to him specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: All right, I appreciate it very much. In paragraph number 2, I'm going to solve that 9 problem real quickly. Just assume that the other side will 10 take as long for cross-examination as you take for direct and 11 we'll worry about whether I ask questions or not. That won't 12 13 14 15 count against you, of course, so that should make it very easy. Any problems with that? MR. PRESSMAN: I will just we'll comply. I just 16 wish to say that I think that attorneys -- it's proper to 17 inform the Court if you feel that the Court's orders are 18 unreasonable, and that was the reaction that we had to these 19 orders about timing. 20 21 THE COURT: What's unreasonable about it? MR. PRESSMAN: Because these things just can't be, 22 you know, determined with that degree of precision. 6 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, you know, of course, judges across the country are doing this regularly. I know one judge from -- district judge in Chicago who is now in the last couple of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 years been promoted to the Seventh Circuit who runs two stop 2 watches, and they count objections against your time if you 3 don't win them, so I don't think that's unreasonable at all. 4 So I'm directing that you comply with it . And, like I say, 5 just give your time for direct examination and assume the 6 other side is going to take the exact same amount of time for 7 cross so you can calculate it. 8 Now I will say this, and I hesitate to say it 9 because I don't want to sound like I will give too much 7 10 leeway. You have a total amount of time here so if you want to 11 go 30 minutes on a witness that you estimated at 20 and take 12 13 14 it off another witness, that's all right. The total amount of time, that is the main thing. However, I'm not going to allow taking much more than your estimated time because what will 15 happen we'll get down to the end and you say, "I have the most 16 crucial witness I've got in the whole case and I don't have 17 any time to put them on . " So you'll have to stick pretty 18 close to your projected time . So that issue has been 19 resolved. 20 On the next page, the last page, the second page: 21 "Last, we want to again point out we do not have the same 22 ability as the LRSD to control the order in which our 23 witnesses will appear. We are not dealing with persons who 24 25 are our employees." I'll cure the problem right now. Subpoena your witnesses for 8:15 on July the 22nd. Have them Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 all there . I will get them in the courtroom, swear them in, 2 and tell them to either stay at the courthouse or be where 8 3 they can be reached by telephone so you can get them there. I 4 will take that burden off your back, Mr. Pressman. 5 Hello? 6 7 8 9 10 11 fees? 12 13 MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Doesn't that solve it? MR. PRESSMAN: Okay . Yes, it solves it. THE COURT: All right. MR. PRESSMAN: I guess we have to pay them witness THE COURT: I would assume. It's very unlikely -- if the exhibits are not over 14 here by 2 : 00 p . m. tomorrow that we have designated, it's very 15 unlikely I will allow their use at the trial. 16 Are there any other issues that we can resolve at 17 this point? If not, I'm going to sign off. 18 19 Honor. 20 21 MR. HELLER: We haven't seen that letter, Your THE COURT: Who's speaking? MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. This is Chris Heller. But 22 it sounds like the issues have been covered and we certainly 23 don't have any other issues at this point. 24 25 THE COURT: All right. How about you, Mr . Pressman? MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't have any other issues, Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 9 1 but I think that Your Honor's approach doesn't account for the 2 3 4 5 6 7 different kind of practice that Mr. Walker has from a large law firm that has a school system as a client. THE COURT: In what respect does it not account for it. What specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Because there aren't the same resources available. Mr. Walker is a unique resource in 8 Arkansas. People are constantly calling him from all over the 9 10 11 12 13 14 state every day about their civil rights problems. His time is called upon from scores of different directions. He has a lot of pressures on his time. He does the best he can within that context, and it's not as easy to comply with these kinds of directives for him as it is for a large law firm. THE COURT: Well, you know, I practiced for many 15 years as a solo practitioner in a small firm and judges 16 imposed these burdens on me regularly, and I just figured that 17 I had to double up. Of course, I was a mere street lawyer, 18 but I would suspect I probably got as much or half as much 19 again number of phone calls as Mr. Walker gets during the day, 20 so he's had since May to do this. This is a major trial. I 21 don't believe he has a more major trial. You are here, so it 22 23 24 looks to me like, Mr. Pressman, since you're one of the counsel of record you may need to stay hooked in here real tight and make sure the deadlines are met. I want you to 25 convey this to Mr. Walker very distinctly. I am not going to Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 10 1 treat him differently than I treat other lawyers. Lawyers in 2 big firms -- I happen to have had the happy experience of 3 being in a big firm myself for over two and a half years in 4 the litigation department, and the lawyers are -- each one has 5 an extremely busy practice. Now we all have a tendency when 6 we are not in one of the big firms to say, "Oh, they've got a 7 hundred or 80 lawyers up there," but unfortunately each of the 8 80 or 70 lawyers has -- they are as busy as a solo 9 practitioner. They have their own solo practice, in effect. 10 I have been there, done that, and I used to get, "You're at a 11 big firm. You"ve got five partners that can do this, that or 12 the other." So I am distinctly unimpressed with that 13 position. I appreciate your expressing it and I'm glad you 14 did because it gives me an opportunity to make it clear that 15 I'm going to hold Mr. Walker to the same standard that I'm 16 going to hold the lawyers representing the other parties. 17 Everybody is going to be treated equally. 18 Is there anything else that we can bring up? I will 19 be happy to hear anything else; an objection, a complaint, 20 whatever else. I'm in a rulifying and commenting mood. 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we don't have anything. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman? 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No. I mean, I just basically 24 disagree with your positions but that's -- you're the Judge. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman, you know, at least half of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 11 1 the lawyers in every case I have disagree with my position and 2 that's one of the wonderful reasons that we have an Eighth 3 Circuit in case I don't do right. But I do appreciate your 4 comments. I take them into consideration. I just I don't 5 agree with your position and particularly not that I should 6 treat Mr. Walker differently than I should another lawyer. I 7 would consider that a very, very bad thing if I did that to 8 any lawyer . 9 All right. There being nothing else that I hear 10 from the lawyers, I want to thank you all for taking this call 11 on short notice and you go have a good evening to the extent 12 you can after my rulings. 13 MR. HELLER: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. PRESSMAN: All right . Thanks. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (At 5:00 p.m., the above-entitled proceedings were adjourned. ) C E R T I F I C A T E I, Carolyn S. Fant, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings in ~e above-ent Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S REVISED WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING RECEIVED JUL 1 l 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22 , 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimon y: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American enrollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program 's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study Page I of 8 conducted by a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by AfricanAmerican students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of African-American students who did not participate; describe the new grants that have been awarded to several elementary schools to support their school improvement efforts, especially in reading/writing literacy; discuss the results of the State Benchmark examinations for grades 4, 6, and 8 (if available by the hearing date); discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK-12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District 's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on "Advanced Placement Courses" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001-the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; describe the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board in the implementation of the "High Schools that Work" framework for high school reform, especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's "Call for Action in Education," and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school Page 2 of 8 - - ---- levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. Dr. Lesley will also update her testimony from November 2001 related to how she sees the District continuing to improve in the next several years. The District's efforts must also be consistent with the requirements of the new federal "No Child Left Behind" legislation. Accordingly, Dr. Lesley will explain the District's plan for implementing these new requirements and responding to the new accountability requirements, including the support for low-performing schools. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, JBA, JBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan 2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of African-American students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the I 999-2000 school year; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African-American teachers thought that activities Page 3 of 8 were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the Activities Advisory Board has begun functioning; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from I :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, JBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarsh.ip opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the Page 4 of 8 data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6, 2.6 .2, 2. 6.3, 2.11 and 2.11 .1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the - District. She will testify that the District has adopted the Total Quality Management philosophy and the principles underlying that philosophy; that the District has been awarded Quality Interest Award and Quality Commitment Award; that Campus Leadership Teams play an important role in school improvement; that the District has provided extensive training to make Campus Leadership Teams successful; that each school develops a school improvement plan each year, focusing on improving achievement in literacy and math; and that an important part of the District's strategy for improving achievement of African-American students is encouraging more African-American student to enroll in more rigorous academic courses. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even ifno longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Mitchell may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 5 of 8 5. Dr. Ken James. Dr. James will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 5:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. James is the current Superintendent of the District and has held that position for one year. Dr. James will testify that he supports and intends to follow District policies which require compliance with the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes. Dr. James will also discuss the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board, its implementation of the "High Schools that Work" framework for high school reform and the importance of students taking a rigorous program of study. Dr. James may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua lntervenors during their case. 6. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. - until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan, Constitution and federal civil rights statutes; that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan; that a representative of the Joshua Intervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua lntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Intervenors appeared on July Page 6 of 8 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect that Joy Springer appeared on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua lntervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a - timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan 8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 7 of 8 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY!fjflzt1~- C. Fendley,Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail or as otherwise indicated on July 10, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F \HOME\FENDLEY\l..RSD 2001 \dcs-uniwy-wimcss-list- 7-22-02-revised.wpd Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 J~&lt;=.F'endCley, fr -~ Page 8 of 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u r-:,S~ll; RRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 JUL 1 5 2002 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 11, 2002 LETTER-ORDER BY FAX Mr. John Walker 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell 11 800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Dennis Hansen 111 Center Street, Suite l 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Counsel: The filings yesterday appear to meet most of the requirements of paragraph 3 of the May 15 order. Joshua does need to file -- today -- a detailed statement of the expected testimony of their two rebuttal witnesses. It appears that Joshua has provided the exhibits referenced in LRSD's Motion in Limine. Joshua's filing of July 8 indicates that the testimony of Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs will not be duplicative -- and the questioning of each witness will only be for ten minutes. It appears that Joshua has removed some of the "rebuttal" exhibits listed earlier. I will take a look-see at the other exhibits at the hearing which commences at 8:30 in the morning, unless LRSD concedes that Joshua's response renders those remaining relevant for rebuttal. LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Two Joshua indicates, in its July 8 pleading, that it does not intend to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. As long as the questioning of these two witnesses (as well as all the other witnesses) relates only to the three remaining issues, there should be no problem. Back to Joshua's two rebuttal witnesses. LRSD argues that they can't provide true rebuttal testimony, but I cannot rule on this point until I see the detailed summary of their expected testimony -- which, as noted above -- must be filed today. Turning now to Joshua Exhibit 767-776, 791 (Ms. Springer's letters). First off, let me state that I will not apply Monell in this case. That 1978 case, involving a Section 1983 complaint, is not applicable in school desegregation cases, in my view. The LRSD's objection to my ruling on this point is denied, and its exception is saved. I now quote from Joshua's July 8 filing with respect to these exhibits: The Joshua intervener should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell . I will have to be more fully advised in the premises, during the hearing in the morning, as to the exact meaning of the above-quoted paragraph. Joshua's July 8 filing also indicates that these exhibits are offered to show "notice." I assume that this means that Joshua is not offering them to prove truth of the contents. If this is correct, it removes the statements from the definition of hearsay, and I must turn to the question of whether "notice", in this manner, is admissible, and, if so, under what theory. In view of my ruling, above, on Monell, I see no reason to go further with respect to LRSD's "relevance generally." I can't put my finger on the objection right now, but, as I recall, LRSD objected to Joshua's designation of LRSD's exhibits as Joshua's exhibits too. If I recall the objection correctly, it is overruled, and LRSD's exception is saved. While courthouse lore is often contrary to established law, it has been the practice of trial lawyers in this state, since the mind of man and woman runneth not to the contrary, to designate the other party's exhibits as their own. LRSD contends (again, as I recall it) that this designation is contrary to some provision in the May LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Three l 5 order. If that order prohibited this specific designation, I'm going to ignore that particular portion of the order (in this context). If there are other issues that should be addressed in the morning, I would be much obliged if the parties would send Judge Ray and me a fax today identifying those issues. Thank you. ci!il~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk of the Court RECEIVED 9N1110llNOW NOllYD3\193S30 JUL 1 s 2002 United States District Court ~033wo --::aor--______EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTIU~rr _ ARI&lt;ANSAS ZOOZ 8 1 1nr - OFACEOF T TTT: r: Rnr'f(Fcltm~~SION rnE ii.R~Ilg~~OM~E~~cr EAST~r1f.Pc1STAICT ARK'lTNSAs ~~~jl:I JUL 1"' 1 2002 LASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et a!.MES W McCORMACK, CLERK CASE NIBvffiER: 4 : 82CV008, ,_..,.,. 1--:- . B~: DEP. C[ERKI -- TnO~L'\S R..~Y Christopner Eelle:::-, et al. Sam Jones, et a1. u!v" 9, ?QQ? \ ~a'fi,1.yn Fant \ FsF Swapsol! . - - x~ 7-~-i;: - ' :x ~~b ~ I I ::x '/ Yip I I ex 'JtP \ \ \ I \ ~ 4S \ \ \ I \ I ex 1 5,) I ( I I I ex '757 I l I I I ex 153 I \ I I I 1 cxt~ I ) \ \ \ ~,si; I I I I . . $:~~;ot;;,ff'g;_\vc.~ ~o' l~-r1'14"~ ~ Tu-14-eo r ~ ~ -/2, ~ ~-a {~ ~qo) (-~ ~ 0'1-;;;i...q-ot ~ _,, ~&lt;;J.&amp;,.._ . hw--,.._-ft ~ H-% tL,v/., ~,~-t ~7-.J.-O ;,' . /07) I t-~ ~ I I - I le -oo ~~ ~ ~ 'To \~~ I c;__ - mi:iJ_ cue~ 03 -01 -o 1 0 . 1-l T ~ 0-,ui_ /14 w....;t cf.d_-fa, C:3-07-D( (l.f:/)..'i/11-f .f'(i/4 ; I It,, ::..n,._d.J.. clLW D 7-b--ul (rfJr.ri - -le l liJ(),\J. (h.ti_ - ~ ~ D7-11p-ot {. g~ 1 (-r,,..&amp;.l I.,~ o&lt;o-~g--01 c,:o&lt;:sa..-f'r&lt;- F H~ ~ -fc o-r,J2.-n4,..;,2 ,~ ~ ~I ( P. tq;;&gt;. tL.d /q 3 \ u cv ~ :J ;o United States District Court ________E_ AS_TE_RN __ DtSTIUCT OF --:::-=:ARKAN==-~SA~S _______ I T TTTJ 'C' Barz DIVISION [T ROCK SCF.OOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJ11BER: 4: 8 2CVOO! J:-iHO~L&gt;\S RAY I ..._,...Ch:- 11 al 1-- r1.stopne= J::ie_ er, et . Sam jones, et al . .!u!v' 9, 2002 l.aTI,1yn Fant I w;; Swapson ex 7 rsr; '!- '1-0 ~ -~ cl.t:rfu- oq-.).q-oo ~ ~ ~ ~ / K~ -~ IU:P~ ;;Jboo-O~ CR _57) I I ~ -riutJ- d,i.,# 10 - 3-00 ~ ~, e~ ~ ~ k - ~ ~ -'Alt ~1--~ ( A @J I 0 l I\ I I I I ( - h\._~ Q -I~ ~ I 3 - if I I rJ.-.,J. Ca:~ c.~ 1q ') I .f\ - ;.. United States District Court -----------=EA:..:..::.S.;::.;:TE=RN_ __ DtSTIUCT OF ARKANSAS I TTTT ,:- Rory --;:;D~[V~IS~I07-;"N~-------- [T ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE IBJMBER: 4: 82CVOOl T""'nfmL-\S RAY 1-- 1-- Chriscophe-:- Eeller, et al. Sam Jones, et: al. Ju!v" 9, 2002 \t'arcilyn Fane \ :acf'"" 5 . . . . - - ~--~v wapson \cx'Y7(p \ \ \ \ \~ ~ Ofv-07-06 ~ ~ il&gt;~1 ex 117 I I I I 1e~ /k ~:;;~-OI United States District Court -----= ______ E_AS_TE_R_N __ D1STR.ICT OF -~ARK.!~!\N:7SA~S ______ _ - I TTTJ ,:- :gnrx DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCROOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N"'illvffiER: 4: 82CVOO! Ju!v" 9, 2002 I \ \ ex 1ero I I ...-.... ......... Christopher Eeller, et al. I. t:"a'fp1 yn F an_t I,__ Kathv s~apson I I I I (-;y...r,i,__,t ~ 09-3o-CO - ~ c=r-c..,, __ -/TJ ~ -ak h{Jz;,/.4- t..,\ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ \ I I I I \ I ~ 1 - ~~ Ct4&lt;M..e. - I ~v-Q_ e,o ~d-'7t j ~ ~ 68-04--Cfq ~ ~ rn~ I] United States District Court ~-------E_A_ST_ER_N ___ D1Sn.ICT OF --=::-::ARK.!::::!\N:::-:S-;-A_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- pnry DIVISION .ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I. 'ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , rnfmL~S RAY I I ........, __ Christopher Eeller, et al. mtv" 9, 2002 \.t"a'fl&gt;1.yn Fant I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT LIST CASE NIBvIBER: 4: 82CVOQ. ~ I . I United States District Court ________ EA_ST_ER_N __ D!STRICT OF_~ARKAN==SA;.:;....S ______ _ - I TT.,..J"" :gnrK D[VISION ~ITTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NillvIBER: 4: 82CV0C 1:--THOK!\.S RAY \ 'chr'i';;opher Heller, e't al. \ 7a:j;nes, et: al. ex &lt;lO / I I I -pG.A.k~..J ~ ~ ~ ~1~ I l ~, 7_;);).-:,btl~ 7-~-557'6 United States District Court ___. ,..___ _____EA _S_TE_RN __ DlSTRlCT OF --=-::-ARKAN~_;;,.;.SA~S _______ - I TTTJ, ROCK DIVISION CTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4: s2cvooc T""'fiim-L'\S RAY \ 'chr':i';;opher Heller, et al. I ~-~nes, et al. J,....u .1. " 'v" 9, 2002 1--"+ F 1--- 1.,ar.9.1.yn an~ Kathv &lt;;wapson ex?; / 3 ~-1-0;).. J!.P.W f-lciB.,Zv().(.d' -~ =-t-14 -t-u~1 9~J~ooo (,--;;i ct- 01qq1,;1. -j-T) /-;).f-0111,;iq. I I J/.d-,0--0 ro ;1.1esc/~ ~ t -c) -DICfl :&gt;.~ I -)f-ol C/ '1~) I I rf..R.. SJ) ~~"--" ~~"'&lt;..LO- t/-l';;l - !'119- 'd{JO() {1--~-K-o/CjCJQ;, ~ /~)(-cJ/19(:;q) 1 I I I I 1:- ~ "'4'.P / '\,U,VTI\J/ ~t:&lt;19 _ g 17 \ \ \ \ \ P~~vt- ~Cll.Ad 1 I I I . l ~-4 . iqqq(l-~-DI . United States District Court ~-------EA_ST_E_RN ___ DIS'TRICT OF _-::-:-:'-ARKAN~-:-:-SA_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- BOrK DIVISION LTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:s2cvoo1: J:-iHOI:La\S RA.Y I ~i-;;opher Heller, et al. I ~-'j;nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 l.ra'fp1.yn Fant I w~ Swapsop United States District Court __________EA_ ST_E_RN_ __ DISTIUCT OF -~ARK.!~~~SA_S_ _______ - I TTTJ i:- BOrK DIVISION :TTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST JLASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJrvfBER: 4:82CV008 Ju!v" 9, 2002 \ :C-a~'lyn Fan~ I w~ Swanson ex Mo I \ex '6ltq \ ~~ i;-D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I \ \ I I I I I I 11--R..SD ~Z&gt; -ot ~~ ~ e (1-:).&lt;;i"'-oJo3~ --fo f-:&gt;-f-6)031./7) l'J'l'L . :/S~ Ct -:&gt;-i ..... Q d-0 iJL/::;;. 71&gt; I- d-&lt;t-Od-() c.;9) United States District Court __________EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTRlCT OF --=::=:ARKAN~~SA~S _______ - r TTT'J ,:- B/"\rT&lt;" D1VISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST lTLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N"'U1v1BER: 4: 82CV001: r:-'fRO!:-LA.S RAY I 'chr'i';;opher Heller, et al. I s:;j';;'nes, ec al. .ru!v' 9, 2002 l.'.Ca'fp1.y:n F~n.t I FsF Swanson ~ sr;;-\ ~g, I ! ! I I Im vT ~..-. DI ( t -- -;;;.. f_ o){Jb{i. --/-&lt;iJ /-";;).f-c~O&amp;:J/';;}. I 1, '\ I~ ~ ~ P~ \ c?.06 r - ').Do ::i. (r --;}. F '-0 ::i. o~ 'gC/7zJ I-';) ?-o~t) 77;) ex g Go I I . I 1~ ~ - ,~ ~o~ ex '6l, ( \ ) \ \ \ \ ~ tJ HD -1 f ' b -~;;J- 6'/-3'{ -r,, 7~ ';,;;). _,;11d 1 \ ( \ \ \ \ t&lt;.. itL,tr ~ vth~::2. ( 1 cx ~ (,)- \ . I ~J;;;ff:LI 1 g ..-- l-0, ~ (7- -;; - [;l/l/D lD 7 - ;;;-;;) - X q, 6 3 I . / I I I I ~ ' 7 ~If!!_ ( c).COC i~4 I \ I I I 1~ ~7-~-m1/fe7-?2-w1J United States District Court --------E-ASTE-RN ---DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I TTII 't" BOrK DIVISION [T~ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al . CASE NUMJ3ER: 4: 82CVOOE .i-:-firo-t-Lt\.S RAY \ 'chr'i;;opher Heller, et: al.. \ ~~nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 luTI,1yn F.ant I wF Swapson I I I -I I I I I I .. - I I \ I I I I I I I ex I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECEIVED - JUL 2 .. 2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.fo lbf cPuRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 1 8 2002 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ----~D::-:E""'P."""c"""'Le=A-R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS ORDER 1. My May 15, 2002 Order read, in part, as follows: 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21 , 2002, will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. (Emphasis added.) 2. In a letter dated July 16, 2002, Mr. Walker enclosed seven proposed rebuttal exhibits. I will deal with them one by one. 3. CX 599 has been previously identified by Joshua and, absent a specific objection, will be admitted. 4. A Bonnie Lesley July 27, 2001 e-mail to Ms. Anne Brown (Marshall) was not - - - - - ----- - - - - -- - - - - - identified and marked prior to the June 21 deadline, and will be excluded. 5. A copy of the cover sheet for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which is entitled "Report on the Little Rock School District's Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan," dated August 11, 1999. I assume, but do not know, that Joshua plans to introduce the entire report, although nothing but the cover sheet was provided in the letter. In any event, it violates the deadline set forth above and will be excluded. 6. Ms. Bonnie Lesley's February 21, 2000 letter to Ms. Anne Brown regarding "recent LRSD publications." It will be excluded for the same reason. 7. A letter dated April 13, 2000, from Ms. Anne S. Brown to Dr. Bonnie Lesley acknowledging receipt of Ms. Lesley's February 21 , 2000 letter and attachments. It will be excluded. 8. Ann Brown's April 25,200 memo to Bonnie Lesley regarding "feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents." It will be excluded. 9. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring's October 26, 1999 "Achievement Disparity Between The Races In The Little Rock School District." This will be excluded. 10. In the last paragraph beginning on the first page of Mr. Heller's July 17 letter, he requests that Mr. Walker be required to identify, by page and line number, the testimony of Dr. Lesley, which renders the rebuttal testimony of Ms. Marshall and Mr. Jones necessary. This is a fair request, and I normally would require it if time were not so short. I do note that Mr. Walker has only thirty minutes, total, for rebuttal. 11 . In the first full paragraph of Mr. Heller's letter dated July 17, 2002, which begins, "in its Motion in Limine ... " LRSD objects to the reading into evidence portions of the -2- depositions of certain Board members. With the exception of Dr. Karen Mitchell's testimony at lines 13-23 on page 27, all of remaining designated deposition testimony relates exclusively to the issues of academic achievement and program evaluations which are not among the issues which will be addressed during the hearing beginning on July 22. The objection is sustained. 12. In view of the sustaining of the objection, in the next preceding paragraph, the remainder of Mr. Heller's letter is moot. IT IS so ORDERErH DATED this / B day of July, 2002. -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTf: ~UL7 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ' 7//9/tJ~ ~ 07/18/2002 11:16 5016045149 PAGE 02 RECEJVED JUL 2 -2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILJ:D : U.S. DISTRl~COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 8 2002 STATE OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEME----=..,,_.,.;._ oJiliP~ Deputy Attorney G&lt;m~l Civil Department Direct dial: (BOI) 682,2586 Mark Pryor Attorney General R~~tr,s July 17, 2002 ... _,,~ The Honorable William R. Wilson . J. a~j (U?"'w:U;_ ~1:~~ Jr. United States District Court ~nO ~~~ '(/ uE.t. ~~sx;~~~~g~e 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 11) : ~ Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: oiC ~ "f!:11-(0)- eneral, counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education in the above-referenced matter, es ec y request that we be excus from the final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School Distnct s otlon or m ary tatus set to begin on Monday, July 22, 2002. The presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School District on the remaining issues does not appear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not intend to examine witnesses or otherwise participate. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. c=~~ DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. SamuelJones,III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q :\Civi1\DenniaHldeeeg\2002\Con-espondcnce\judgeltt07-l 7 .doc JUL.19.2002 10:36AM Ja-!N W W~KER P A N0.732 P.2 na:\;flVEu - JUL 2 2 2002 OFFIC~ OF n ,:.:( .l! '/1"~" "" I~IO NITORING JOffNW. WAt,Klm . SHAWN CH1LD8 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Jlldge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock. AR 12201 JoHNW. WALKER,P.A. u Ff LS::D .s. DISTR1&lt;!'rcou M:TOBNXT kt LAW EASTERN DISTRICT RT 1723 B'RoADWAY ARKAN SAS Lrm&amp;Rocx,ARKANSAB 72206 JUL 1 9 2002 TELEPS'ONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 814-4187 JA_M~~q5M , Sy, -,~~aw;..~,~C~LERK~ . T MOcHFECNORUYN PiE.AL. , _ DONNAJ. ~y VI.a Facsbnile: 604--5149 July 19, 2002 8210 HIMl'l!SON BoAD 14:rrt,&amp; Roc:x. ~ 7l!l!l0 PROm: (501) 11n-3426 Fax (501) 372,M28 EliWl-~bell.net 7 l -- ct_..&lt;!L ,. h , . ~))4 "~ f l)f il)UI-~ ~ dra'I' ~lA lA'L ~ &lt;J r ) i: CA V\11 L _A _1t ,i.,VII\ ~ ,-A,1/~p ))\f I , ~,t.&amp;_ ~;;-.;, ,, u9--1 ) _,d.Jfo/'f .A ~ !-+Iv'' &gt;;f/i u C~----aJfl--\ ~f~i,ll 1 ~l ..,_;;,a,Lv--' i),L{ . ~{' ~'':' 1:,,t--&amp; 1#.."' v-.&lt;1-Y,~J:v ~1,&lt;, I ,. -~--;";j))}-tL ffed: ,e-. Y:,. i,..1L '10 1i '\ tJ,'.Jl.-.- if J?,1 ,uA-a.t.--.;(,~{# ~ '?r.,,/,'P-" v" Ct ~ 1'.-c11~u~ Dear Judge Wilsoll! \,Vw-,.-v' .,/4A, J;-{,t,Jul- \,~A.A. ~t.U: ' IJ"'"t/' One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar~ Principal of Franklin ElementarY , pit.Q.,,( School has been subpoenaed for the 8,30. July 22, 2002 hearing as directed by the Court. She ;,(c.' (J)l)-M has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education }- business at that time. She is scheduled to appear 8$ a witness on Wednesday. I see no probleui n~ L\. in haVing hor appear on Wednesday other th8n your order. Toe District, l llll1 sure, will alao C'- "')'. want her exoused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request tha1 she be allowed to ., v" l..f report on Wedneoda}' momlng, July 24, 2002. ralh&lt;:r than July 22. 2002. ~, ""'; Thank you for whatever consideration you may give regarding this request. JWW:lp cc; Honorable J, Thomas Ray Mr, Chris Heller Ms, Ethel Dun.bar 10/10 39'i1d 51,rs RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Dennis Hansen Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 19, 2002 BY FAX FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 2002 ~~~~ RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866WRW / JTR Dear Mr. Hansen: You may be excused from next week's evidentiary hearing in this case a t - your discretion. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. RECEIVED Fii ;:~ u ~--.. , EAsrMRsN ?;,ftt1ff co URT ' ARKANSAS f JUL 3 0 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . JUL 1 r 2~n2 l a_ OFFICEOF 90ESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTE~I;:~c6ii s~NS~:MES w. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO.-4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEP CLE~K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order of July 18, 2002 which was faxed to us at the end of the business day, yesterday, July 18, 2002. On the day before, July 1 7, 2002, plaintiffs counsel filed a letter with the Comi by fax, also at the end of the business day, wherein counsel made several objections citing authority for one. The Joshua Intervenors were not afforded an opportunity to respond prior to the Court's Order. The Joshua Intervenors, therefore, object to the Court's entry of an Order on a disputed matter without their having been afforded a reasonable response time to the plaintiffs motion. We note that there are only 30 minutes of rebuttal testimony and evidence at issue here. Joshua notes that the positions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) have been considered vital in the previous deliberations during fact finding proceedings. In the past, the Court Itself has invited the ODM to state its findings on matters which it had monitored. That has been the established procedure in this case for its duration. Joshua counsel acknowledges that the transition from one judge to another will result in some changes in the administration of a case; but Joshua believes that it is fundamental that the role of the ODM be preserved not only in operation but in presentation of the facts which it learns during its monitoring. Joshua proceeds now to address the reasons for the motion herein. 1) Joshua communication with Ms. Ann Marshall before June 21 , 2002 and even since then has been difficult due to personal circumstances of Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall's personal situation constitutes "highly unusual circumstances." 2) The Leslie e-mail of July 27, 2001 to Ms. Marshall is a document which the Distiict has had for some time. There is no unfair prejudice to the plaintiff for it to be used by Ms. Marshall during her testimony. We submit that the Court's ruling should be reconsidered because it simply identifies ODM documents. 3) The Court excludes the ODM "Report on the Little Rock School Districts Preparation for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Report." We note that this report is already a pait of the Court's record. It was filed when it was prepared. Please note the file mark of August 1 1, 1999. The cover sheet was submitted simply for reference by Joshua because the Court already has the entire report. I presume, but apologize for presuming, that the Court was aware that this report was already a pait of the record. [See Par. 5, infra.] 4) The Bonnie Leslie letter of February 21 , 2000 has also been excluded by the Court. We object to the Court's ruling for the reason, supra. The District contends that ODM participated in the evaluations that it made. The letter of February 21, 2000 shows that Leslie invited "feedback for improvement" or questions regarding the certain curriculum documents rather than for "evaluations." We request that we at least be allowed to proffer the document with a note that Ms. Marshall may surely testify about the contents therein. 5) The Court excluded the ODM Report of August 26, 1999. This, too, has been filed as a matter of record in this case since August 26, 1999. It is not a new exhibit. The Court has had this exhibit before it now for almost three years. I ask the Court to reconsider its exclusionary ruling because the effect of it is to remove an admitted document from the record. [Underlining added for emphasis.] 6) Finally, with respect to the identified testimony of school board members, the Court precludes all but the testimony of Dr. Mitchell at lines 13-27 on p. 27. We feel that the Court should reconsider this ruling because an issue of good faith is also raised with respect to the issues which were before the Court in the first proceeding. For example, Dr. Carnine testified regarding the subjects in issue. His credibility was a clear issue. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were asked questions regarding Dr. Carnine's truthfulness to them as board members. We are entitled to show that either they did not consider him credible or that they would falsify a response themselves rather than give a statement of their experiences with Carnine regarding Carnine's truthfulness. Carnine's truthfulness goes to the District's good faith and to the integrity of the evidence recited in the reports prepared under Carnine's supervision in March of 2000 and 2001. Also, please note, Judge Wilson, that the school board members depositions were taken after we had basically concluded our case on those issues before the Court. We could not have presented it during our case-in-chief because it was not then available. Furthermore, the depositions were before the Court as exhibits before the June 21, 2002 deadline for filing exhibits. The cited lines relate to the issue of good faith with respect to good faith, discipline, student achievement and program evaluations. In conclusion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order and to modify it accordingly. Joshua also requests that if the Court is inclined to make an instantaneous ruling on a motion by the District that the Cow1 afford Joshua reasonable time to respond before entering an Order. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 . r, AR Bar No. 64046 ' JOHNW. WALK.ER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Rickey Hicks, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoin/ ~.ha been "},:,lf and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this day of I , 2002: I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis R. Hansen FRlDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones \\TRJGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 rvir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 JUL 2 2 2002 A OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * .I)ISTRICTNO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER u.fo1{fm~cRRr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 :e 2002 i;,~~-1-r I have reviewed Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the July 18, 2002 order excluding - certain documents Joshua recently identified as exhibits for use with their rebuttal witnesses. First, Joshua points out that the Court entered its order without allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond to LRSD's letter requesting the exclusion of those exhibits. While the Court normally allows opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to an issue before ruling, in this case Joshua had clearly violated the Court's May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order that explicitly required Joshua to identify all exhibits they intended to use during the July 22, 2002 hearing -- on or before June 21 , 2002. In light of that undisputed fact, which was the basis for my exclusion of those proposed exhibits, I saw ( and see) no reason for allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond. Second, Joshua points out that a number of the documents have previously been filed in the record. I was fully aware of that fact at the time I entered my order. However, merely because a - --- - - - - - ---- - ---- document has been filed in the record does not excuse Joshua from complying with the May 15 Scheduling Order. It explicitly required them to pre-mark and exchange with opposing counselall exhibits that it intended to use during the July 22 hearing. Under Joshua's interpretation of the May 15 Scheduling Order, they would be permitted to use, as rebuttal exhibits, any of the thousands upon thousands of documents that have been filed in this case during the last two or three years without identifying and exchange those documents with opposing counsel (marked as exhibits) -- as required by this order. Finally, in connection with the excluded deposition testimony, Joshua has construed the remaining issue of "good faith" in far too broad a context. The only good faith issue that remains to be tried in this case is LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, and guidance counseling. To the extent that Joshua desired to use this deposition testimony, which was known to them before the conclusion of the November 19, 2001 hearing, Joshua should have submitted that testimony as part of its case in chief. Since the trial date is upon us, if either side files a motion, at this late hour, an instantaneous ruling is likely if the motion or request is patently meritorious, as it was in this case. For both parties: The chute is about to open -- get your best hold. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o';~9J~J.~; ~~~,o:~ 2 U/f!i;{ [~ U. S. DISTRICT JU~~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRA TE JUDGE J 600 WEST CAPITOL R THOMAS RAY , OOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 2 2002 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FROM: \,..I ~ ,_r\ - ~ '\! N't\ . \'\. ~ ' :s Q(\ FAX No: ~7 4 - L\ \ 'o7 / "3 7lo-2\47 DA7E: ~ "'-\Q 2\/ 200 2 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: ~ ~\~ '2..2. \\~r\"A \..~bb "' ~ '-s s.:h No. Ac. ezcv O0 7 _ 2. 7 - D L-- J s,~ PAGES: {ji_JJ,/\. ~~: } ~vn1.12 J N-'/;" ~ ,zf:;u- lf!J,V; O-A,J) ~I\ 1), ~ /_,M-.(,;_p f-t&amp;.w-J!{ 1M.e_ u,_/,,c6i (\_ ~~ i~!J)_ 1 ~ ,vy&amp;,.~r (a~ tt%/J ,~A.Vi.,i,"-'i.t..J J,f.#.,T waf k lJ.bl} tf--l-L/v4J / ,u. ' ~ 1 ,y-JrJ-i {}/wv1.-' 06V1.,l7f-fQ1::;1 . ri 1~. ~ l&lt;.c ~i!l l,vll~ X C : \../.C1' / ~ 4--(/--r,~ f&lt;-J-,t 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE RECEIVED FROM: 'N~-"- 'v-J :\s ~ JUL 2 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING -FAX ;:.o, 0\ 4- 4\~7 / ~llo-Z I '\7 RE: ~ ::--~ - ?~;- F"!L %fR1 g,srR,~ D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~T ,srR,cr ~/!:J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~. JUL 2 3 2i sAs WESTERN DIVISION s;MEs w M 'OJ2 ccoRMAc K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL V. LR-C-82-866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING AS REVISED JULY 23, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22, 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimony: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American emollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study conducted by Page 1 of 7 a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by African-American students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of AfricanAmerican students who did not participate; discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK- 12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on "Advanced Placement Courses" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001 - the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's "Call for Action in Education," and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer other testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 2 of 7 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, IBA, IBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl , JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan 2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of AfricanAmerican students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-2000 school year; that a 1999- 2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African- - American teachers thought that activities were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 1 :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, IBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with Page 3 of 7 their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarship opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a - good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11 and 2.11. 1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the District. Ms. Page 4 of 7 Mitchell may offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 5. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses, that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua Jntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors appeared on July 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect Page 5 of 7 that Joy Springer appeared on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua Intervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan 8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement - courses; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Respectfully 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.</dcterms_description>

</dcterms_description>

</item>
</items>