Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to report by the Office of Desegregation Management, PCSSD's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and filing extension, PCSSD's response to court's order dated October 16, 2003, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.

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

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>District Court, notice of filing, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to report issued by the Office of Desegregation Management on the implementation of Plan 2000; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief and reply to response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for an award of attorneys' fees; Court of Appeals, motion for extension of time in which to file their brief and appendix; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the court's order dated October 16, 2003; 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. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD hereby gives notice of its filing of its response to Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report dated May 8, 2003. 451168-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 1, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 451168-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT September 29, 2003 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 www.pcssd.org (501) 490-2000 - Enclosed is Pulaski County Special School District's reply to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Report on the Implementation of Plan 2000, May 8, 2003. Department heads and others with responsibilities to the Plan have submitted responses to the status report in consultation with the Office of Equity and Pupil Services. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, w~ Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services B /l-1.-....t- 16~)-.a.-o-- Dr. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Multicultural Education C Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent of Education Sam Jones RESPONSE TO REPORT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 RECEIVED OCT 2 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Don Henderson Superintendent of Education September 2003 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED OC1 7 1003 Off\CE Of DESEGREGAllOK MOtll10ft1KG Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us October 6, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond &amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys ' Fees which has been filed today. MAH Enclosure cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, --yri~-~ MARK A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED OCT 7 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES Comes now the Defendant Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE"), by and through its counsel, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier, and for its response to PCSSD's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees ("Fee Petition"), states as follows: I. Introduction Legal counsel for PCSSD seeks a total fee award of $78,326.50 for work allegedly associated with its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and For Allied Relief ("Motion to Enforce") filed with this Court on July 25, 2003. On August 18, 2003, this Court conducted a three-hour hearing on issues raised in the Motion to Enforce, and later that same day it issued an order ruling that the State Board of Education's ("SBE") action authorizing an election on the issue of detachment of the Jacksonville Area School System from PCS SD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For the reasons stated below, ADE submits the fee petition of PCSSD is unreasonable and should be reduced accordingly. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT - 9 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ -=:,-=,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHQA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED () e,t, 1 '1 ?nn~ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Pulaski County Special School District's Renewed and Supplemental Motion - Regarding Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3809), which was amended on September 26, 2003. 1 Also Pending is PCSSD's Motion for Temporary Portable Buildings at Robinson High School (Doc. No. 3810). No parties have responded to the PCSSD's motions, and their time for doing so has now expired.2 Sylvan Hills' Band Room In its motion regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room, PCSSD requests authorization to lease a portable building to use as the Sylvan Hills band room for the remainder of the 2003-2004 1On September 26, 2003, PCSSD filed an Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 3811). In this motion, PCCSD revoked its request for permission to build a new permanent band room at Sylvan Hills, which was in the original motion (Doc. No. 3809); accordingly, I will not address the issue of a permanent band room at this time. 2See Local Rule 7.2. oEP CLERK 8 1 5 school year. PCS SD asserts that this portable building is necessary because of recurring water problems with Sylvan Hills' current band room. Robinson High School Portable Buildings According to PCCSD, for a variety ofreasons, the emollment at Robinson High School has significantly increased for the 2003-2004 school year. Because ofthis increase, Robinson -High School is presently conducting classes in the cafeteria, band room, auditorium, and gymnasium. As a temporary remedy to accommodate this increased emollment, while permanent classroom additions are considered, the PCSSD requests permission to lease two portable building for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year. CONCLUSION The PCSSD's Amended and Supplemental Motion Regarding the Sylvan Hills Band Room (Doc. No. 38011) requesting permission to lease a portable building for the Sylvan Hills band room, for the remainder of the 2003-2004, school year is GRANTED. The PCSSD's motion (Doc. No. 3810) requesting permission to lease two portable buildings, for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year, to accommodate increased emollment at Robinson High School is GRANTED. IT JS SO ORDERED thi/day of October, 2003. I ;;/J, 0 ~ 4tt UNIJL~J~~ THIS DOCUMENT El\ffER!::u ui'-J DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~1LE...;)8 AN~cr . ON{O ~ 0~ BY S&gt; &amp;- WM. R. WTLSON, JR. 2 __ EDWti:~t,i,ll'.,f1G.HL ______ -4.,.,-R-I6H-T-;-J:;-JN-1:&gt;-S-EY--&amp;-J-E-N-N-I-N6S- J:;-J:;-P------ ~~~BfR2U~~~ TUCKER ROBERTS. LINDSEY TROY A. PRICE (1913 - 1991 ) ATTORNEYS AT LAW PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR JOHN G. LILE 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE J . MARK DAVIS ~g~~~~ -SG~~~~~! JR . SUITE 2300 ~~t:~\,5,H~:NsN~~~COCK C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JERRY J. SALLINGS PATRICK l. GOSS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . (501) 371-0808 MICHAEL D. BARNES JOHN R. TISDALE STEPHEN R. LANCASTER ~~~~'..Ytfe~~~~:~ 111 FAX (501) 376-9442 ~uy~1 ~~~~CsooNN WILBER ~i~NJ.W~tilt:1o~IVEY 111 www . wlj .com iRis~~ ~~i::-::o~N N.M . NORTON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY CHARLES C. PRICE M. SEAN HATCH CHARLES T. COLEMAN l. ANDREW VINES JAMES l. GLOVER OF COUNSEL JUSTIN T, ALLEN ~~~~~i/t:~HER, JR. ALSTON JENNINGS ~~g~;':.L;D~E!A1i_~~ERLING GREGORY T. JONES RONALD A. MA y PATRICK D. WILSON H. KEITH MORRISON BRUCE R. LINDSEY REGINA A. SPAULDING BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN JAMES R. VAN DOVER MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE WALTER McSPADDEN BLAKES. RUTHERFORD JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wri1cr ' s Dircc1 Di al No . 501 -212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com October 10, 2003 LioetlJlod,opncticebehretbt: UaitedSUta h1t:111ADIIT111doswtO/lia RECEIVED OCT 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD's brief and reply to response to PCSSD's motion for an Award of attorneys' fees. The reply is accompanied by my supplemental affidavit. We ask the Court to consider both items. Thank you very much. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 453145-vl Cordially yours, 2:~EY &amp; JENNINGS LLP e_:;mre/ones, m Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Timothy Gauger (U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (U.S. Mail) RECEIVED ---- .1-------------------------lJOlv-C.\l--.1i._::,4;__,7u,Dn..,u..3,.'---- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 0FFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF AND REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR AN AW ARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES The PCSSD for its reply, which tracks the format of the State's Response, states: IV. Argument A. An Hourly Rate at $215 Per Hour is Appropriate. While counsel for the PCSSD voluntarily grants the PCSSD a 30 % discount, the State is not entitled to the same discount for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State's only current financial consequence for violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement is its exposure for attorney's fees. Indeed, if the State could be assured that future violations would warrant no more exposure than the discounted rate given to the PCS SD, then the State would have even less incentive to hew the line and abide by the Settlement Agreement. B. The Number of Hours Expended is Reasonable. Significantly, the State does not directly challenge the total number of hours expended. Rather, it seeks to avoid attorney fee responsibility in some instances by questioning, without citation to authority, the forums before whom the legal efforts were initially made. As we will explain, the relevant cases demonstrate the fallacy of the State's position. 452284-v1 The United States Supreme Court has squarely addressed these issues in Pennsylvania, et al. v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council for Clean Air, et al., 478 U.S. 546 (1986). In 1977 a citizens group, Delaware Valley, filed suit to compel Pennsylvania to implement a vehicle emission inspection program. A consent decree was entered in 1978 calling for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to seek legislation instituting the program. Id. @ 549. Thereafter, the Pennsylvania legislature balked at implementing the provisions of the consent decree. In this protracted case, the Supreme Court divided the procedural history after the consent decree thereafter into nine phases. For purposes of this analysis, only the relevant phases will be referred to. Phase IX of the case included work done by Delaware Valley in hearings before the Environmental Protection Agency in which the State unsuccessfully sought the EPA approval of a reduced emissions program. Delaware Valley then filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs for all work performed after issuance of the consent decree including the work before the administrative agency. Id. @ 553. Among other matters, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had affirmed the District Court's fee award including an award of fees for time spent "commenting" on the State's proposed emission regulations promulgated during Phase II. It likewise approved the award of fees for work done at the administrative level citing the Supreme Court case of Webb v. Board of Education of Dyer County, 4 71 U.S. 234 ( 1985), in which the Supreme Court held that time spent on "optional administrative proceedings" may be compensable under 1988 if the work was "both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the ... litigation" to the point where the parties succeeded. Id. @ 556. 452284-v1 2 -- - - --- ------------- The Supreme Court rejected challenges from the State that the proceedings involved in Phases II and IX were not judicial in the sense that they did not occur in a courtroom or involved traditional legal work. The Supreme Court reasoned that the work done by counsel in these two phases was as necessary to the attainment of adequate relief for their client as was all of their earlier work in the courtroom which secured Delaware Valley's initial success in obtaining the consent decree. Id. @ 558. It said: Protection of the full scope of relief afforded by the consent decree was thus crucial to safeguard the interests asserted by Delaware Valley; and enforcement of the decree, whether in the courtroom before a judge, or in front of a regulatory agency with power to modify the substance of the program ordered by the court, involved the type of work which is properly compensable as a cost of litigation ... . Id. @ 558. Finally, the Court observed that: Several courts have held that, in the context of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988, postjudgment monitoring of a consent decree is a compensable activity for which counsel is entitled to a reasonable fee. Id. @ 559. After engaging in a discussion concerning the similarities between 304 (d) (the Clean Air Act) and 1988 (the Civil Rights Act), the Court noted that: 452284-v1 Given the common purpose of both 304 (d) and 1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney's fees in the same manner. We hold, therefore, that the fact that the work done by counsel in Phases II and IX did not occur in the context of traditional judicial litigation does not preclude an award of reasonable attorney's fees under 304 (d) for the work done during these portions of the present action. Id.@ 560. 3 Many other cases support the position of the PCSSD in these regards. For instance, in Schlimgen v. City of Rapid City, 83 F .Supp.2d 1061 (D.S.D 2000), the plaintiff was fired as a city employee after he opposed a new real estate development. He appealed his termination to the Department of Labor claiming his termination was a violation of his civil and constitutional rights. Id. @ 1065. The Department of Labor agreed. Plaintiff then filed an action in Federal Court seeking damages and attorneys' fees. Rapid City claimed that as a matter of law Schlimgen was not entitled to attorneys' fees related to the earlier Department of Labor hearing. In interpreting 42 U .S.C. 1988, the District Court disagreed. As the District Court explained: The claim must be for specific portions of work product from an earlier administrative proceeding. The work done must be useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the civil rights litigation to the stage it has reached. 42 U.S.C. 1988 awards are not limited to work performed after the complaint is filed . ... fees may be awarded for "research or investigation done in connection with" a related proceeding, to the extent it "proved directly relevant to the successful prosecution of the later civil rights" action. The District Court also noted that Mr. Schlimgen's DOL action was not one to enforce a specific civil rights statute. Id. @ 1071. Here, however, the efforts of the PCSSD in opposing the detachment were all directed toward preventing the State from violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement, an effort which this Court has previously ruled triggers 1988 including liability for attorneys' fees. (Please see orders cited at pages 2 and 3 of counsel's initial affidavit.) Lambert v. Fulton County, GA, 151 F.Supp.2d 1364 (N.D.Ga. 2000), is to the same effect. Lambert was an employment discrimination case in which the procedural history included an appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board before the federal court action was 452284-v1 4 I I initiated. Id. @ 1368. The defendant claimed that the time spent on the appeal to the Fulton - County Board was non-compensable. Id. The District Court disagreed. The District Court began its analysis by noting that: The starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys' fees is "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate" for the attorneys' services. After calculating the lodestar, the court may within its discretion adjust the amount upwards or downwards based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the legal representation provided. Id. @ 1369. In further addressing the lodestar issue, Judge Thrash explained that: As to the work performed, compensable activities include pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit, background research and reading in complex cases, productive attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine activities such as making telephone calls and reading mail related to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and even preparing and litigating the request for attorneys' fees. Id.@ 1369-70. As to the time spent on the administrative proceeding, the Court noted that: A court should award attorneys' fees for time "spent on administrative proceedings to enforce the civil rights claim prior to the litigation." The District Court also noted that: In this case, Plaintiffs' appeal to the Fulton County Personnel Board was not required for them to file this suit ... . Because the proceedings before the Fulton County Personnel Board were not mandatory, time spent on them is not automatically compensable. The Court, however, concludes that time spent on these proceedings should be compensated because they were "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation." Here, of course, the PCSSD would have likely committed procedural suicide by not opposing the detachment proceedings initiated by the State Board of Education. Despite that fact, and at a minimum, the State Board proceeding served as a vehicle to conduct discovery through the FOIA, to delineate and brief the myriad legal issues and importantly served as a 452284-v1 5 vehicle whereby the State was presented with an opportunity to avoid its current liability by - comporting its actions with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. 1. The State Court Case. At least three observations are appropriate here. First, "but for" the State's passage and activation of the detachment statute, the State Court case would have never been filed. Second, most of the work involved in the State Court case involved identifying, researching and setting forth the legal issues which were generated by the passage of the statute and its activation by the State. Third, most if not all of the issues could have been brought as part of the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as matters of pendent jurisdiction. 2. The State Board of Education Proceedings. Had the PCSSD not opposed the detachment process before the State Board of Education, the argument would have undoubtedly been made that it waived its right to seek relief in this Court by not exhausting its administrative remedies. The PCSSD, as a signatory to the 1989 Settlement Agreement, had no choice but to argue to the State Board of Education, among other matters, that the Board's actions were violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement in at least two particulars. Further, the motion and brief ultimately filed before this Court was in substantial measure an adaptation of the written submissions the PCSSD made to the State Board. Thus, most of the submissions made to this Court by the PCSSD were largely researched and documented as part of the process of opposing the detachment before he State Board of Education. Again, but for passage of a statute which violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement, there would have been no appearances before the State Board because the State Board would not have had this process to engage. 452284-v1 6 3-4. The Passage of the Legislation. The Settlement Agreement itself requires the PCSSD to identify, every biennium, those recent legislative acts or regulations which impede desegregation. Here, the PCSSD identified the legislation while it was still pending and, had the legislature heeded the opposition of the PCSSD to the legislation, and refused to pass the detachment statute, the State would have no _pending fee petition to defend against. 5. Appeal Time. The State's observations concerning premature appeal time are probably correct. C. Other Practices. 1. All of the time entries presented in the petition are for work directly associated with the detachment issue. Except for those entries which have been lined through, counsel for the PCSSD had no other issues pending for the PCSSD during the relevant time period. 2. That which the State regards as "file maintenance" is actually part of the on-going effort to maintain a "computer searchable data base" for the documents, orders, pleadings, etc. generated in this case. This permits a voidance of time-consuming manual searches and assists counsel in locating decades old documents, orders and pleadings through key word searches. 3. The PCSSD believes that the clippings review helped supply a more cogent and refreshed context for many of the events which surrounded the drafting and legislative journey of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Given Arkansas' singular lack of formal legislative history, the PCSSD believes that the results of these efforts fall within the broad framework of Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 452284-v1 7 4. The docket review was to locate orders, pleadings and Court of Appeals - decisions which bore upon the issue of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and other potential issues. 5. The fee petition contains no "block billing" whatsoever. Most if not all of the alleged "block billings" are clearly described and invariably relate to a discreet issue or activity. Conclusion. Significantly, the State does not contend that any time was wasted or that excessive time was recorded. The absence of such an argument helps to bring the issue full circle to the core question' of: Was the time reasonably expended toward the end of securing relief from a State created process which both violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court? Having reviewed the State's response, the answer to this question appears to be clearly "yes" . But for the State's consideration of, passage of and activation of this detachment statute, there would be no fee petition for this Court to consider. 452284-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ______ +--------1,-------- M. Atto cial Sch 8 I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 452284-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 UJonesIII 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. All of the matters contained herein are responsive to positions and statements made by the State as respects the fee petition of the PCSSD. 2. All of the time entries for which the PCSSD seeks reimbursement were directly related to and in furtherance of prevailing on the issue of the Jacksonville detachment effort. 3. The activities which the State characterizes as "file maintenance" are actually on-going efforts to maintain a computer searchable database for all of the documents, orders, pleadings and other paper generated in this case to promote efficiency and avoid wasted time in retrieving such documents, particularly documents which are several years old. 4. The clippings review was both necessary as a historical and legal exercise but was particularly time-consuming because it involved, among other matters, an era during which the State still had two statewide newspapers, generated news stories on the "school 453181-v1 case" on an almost daily basis, and involved hundreds of newspapers stories for the period of time in 1989 reviewed. 5. The "document review" was appropriate to locate those pleadings, orders, etc. which might have significance for the interpretation and implementation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 6. The fee petition does not contain any block billing. The time entries are clearly described and all relate to the legal effort to defeat the detachment issue. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 10th day of October, 2003. My Commission Expires: dean"ie Lacour, Notary Public Pulaski County, Arkansas My Commission Exp. 12,20.2008 453181-v1 Public 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 10, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 453181-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 WILL BOND BOND &amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 NEIL CHAMBERLIN October 14, 2003 VIA FAX (314)244-2780 Michael E. Gans, Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 24.329 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 S. lO ili Street St . Louis, MO 63101 (314) 244-2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9081 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED OCT l fl 2003 OfflCEOF O~tGRi'GATIOtl M0Nff08Ul6 RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, Case No. 03-3088 - Motion for Extension Dear Mr. Gans: Attached is a Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief and Appendix in the above - referenced case. Please file and return a file-marked copy to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. TWB:ab Atch(s) cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann -Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appeal \ clerk. oct.14 . 03 st Regards, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No . 0 3 - 3 0 8 8 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. _MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS/MOVANTS (APPELLANTS) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR BRIEF AND APPENDIX Comes the Appellants, the proposed Bollen Intervenors, by and through their attorney, Will Bond, and for thei r Motion for Ex tension of Time in Which to File Their Brief and Appendix, state: 1 . On or about August 20, 2003, Appellants filed an Emergency Motion for Expedited Review Requesting Suspension of the Rules pursuant Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Motion for Emergency Stay of Judgment o f the District Court. This request came immediately following the decision of the District Court which was adverse to the Appellants. Appellants had received approval from the Arkansas State Board of Education to proceed with an election concerning detachment from Pulaski County Special District. The election was to take place on September 16, 2003. The request for expedited review and the stay was denied by this court. 2. Leading up to the filing of the appeal and the Motion for Expedited Review, Appellants' counsel had spent significant time preparing for and appearing in front of the Arkansas State Board of Education, the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the Federal District Court. Appellants' counsel has been and continues to work on the case on a pro bona basis. Appellants' counsel is in a partnership with one other attorney and two staff members. The issue of detachment, and the litigation leading up to the current appeal, has taken a significant amount of office time and attorney time to pursue. Following the denial of the stay, Appellants' counsel essentially had to get back to work on matters which pay the bills. 3. The need for expedited review of the case has become moot. The election date has passed and the next possible election upon which the issue of detachment could appear on the ballot would be a school election occurring in September of 2004 or the general election occurring in November of 2004. 4. An extension of time in which to file Appellants' brief and appendix is necessitated because: (a) Appellants' counsel himself has been "strapped" in court appearances and dealing with trial dates and briefing schedules in numerous cases from August 20, 2003 until October 13, 2003. 2 (b) Appellants' counsel's administrative assistant was out numerous days in late September undergoing medical treatment and was on vacation October 6 through October 10. (c) Appellants' counsel has also spent significant time since August 20, 2003 dealing with Legislative issues related to education because of his service as a State _Representative in Arkansas. The Arkansas Legislature is dealing with the impending State Supreme Court deadline dealing with the inequities and inadequacies of the Arkansas Public School System. 5. Appellants request an extension of time until November 6, 2003 in which to file their brief and appendix. A short extension will allow Appellants to properly prepare the appeal. Appellants' counsel does not believe any further extensions will be necessitated short of his death. Respectfully Submitted, Bond &amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7 76 Telephone (501) 9 -9081 Telefax (501) 9 By: Wil CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with suff/Ft prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this day of October, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Via Fax@ 376-9442 Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 3 Telephone (501)371-0808 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 376-2011 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Via Fax@ 682-4249 Via Fax@ 376-2147 Via Fax @ 374 - 4187 Mr. Mark Burnette Via Fax @ 375 - 1940 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 378-7870 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 340-8285 4 Via Fax @ 375-1027 Via Fax@ 371-0100 Via Fax &amp; 340-8282 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Telephone 682-2586 By: Via Fax &amp; 682-2591 l.school district detachment . eighth circuit.appealmotion tor extension.oct.14 . 03 5 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS lNTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 6 2003 UTILE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By: , DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPE:CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET Al.. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATIIERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS lNTERVENORS On July 29, 2003, I .received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal yea.r.1 I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2003. THIS DOCUfvic.1'-11 c:NTEH~C, ON JOC!&lt;ET SHEET ,N COMPLIANCE NITH feLE 58 i~N~~mC[ oN_j_O t~/(} 3 BY~ t, t vJ~k~ UNITED STATESD!STIUCDGE W~l. R. WILSON, JR. 1Althou~ the proposed budget was oriJ?inally presented in April, pursuant to an order of this court, action was postponed in consideration of any decisions made by the 8th Circuit while - the case was on appeal. Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2002-'13 Budget 2002-03 &amp;pendltures 2003-04 Budget 200.00 184.66 2,459.00 ,~ .. . .. , ., /J,J, last year, the budget includes gUErSt parking and reimbursement to support staff ror the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount bud,eled at $175. The remainder is for travel and lodging associated with the two training events explained above in Due and Fees, one for $1 ,132 and the other for $1,152. amounts that are the average of the previous costs for each of lhelie two events. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgmeints. 2002~1 Budget 2002-03 Ellpendltures 2003-04 Budget 544.00 544.00 712.00 '---------- ... , Our Insurance has increased to the ;amount shown. We were unable to find an underwritel" at a lower rate. Page 7 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2002-03 Budget 2002.03 Expenditur'ff 2003--04 Budget 91,166.00 92,935.16* 80,018.00 ..... ,..,.,,_ .. "Expenditures exceeded budget Ill; an unforeseen result of provisions In Act 11 of 1999, which govems certain aspecla of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Orop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of Iha 2002-03 fiscal year. Below is a breakdown by categoiy of each employee's 2003-04 budgeted fringe benefits. Increases in this category are due in part to recently-enacted legislation that changed retirement contributions. Some decrease resulted from Ms Mar:,hall's entrv into T-Droo. - Name car so,:tat Retire Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Slloct Total Allowance 8ec:1Jrtty meni !Qtlon" lne. lndemnit.)' Term Benefits Marshall 1.800.00 7,119.82 1,208.22 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 13,024.79 Jones 960.00 4.573.78 -0- -0- -0- -0- --0- --0- 5,533.78 Powell 1,200.00 5,451.79 9,281 .48 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.0Z --""'"""'' ...... .. --- .... _ --.. - --.-- .... ....... , ..... ., ...- -.-~,., ,._. ... .~ . .. -.................... _.. ................ ~_. ... .... ... _._, ______ Smith 1,200.00 5,481 .79 9,281 .48 2.478.43 44.16 250.32 60.96 62.88 18,840.02 Ramer 0.00 4,030.71 6,849.57 2,478.43 44.16 250.32 60.86 62.88 13,7n.03 , Bryant 0.00 2,235.25 3,798.47 2,478.43 27.60 250.32 60.98 62.88 8,913.91 Act 11 of 1999 403.08 684.97 1,088.05 T~I 5,180.00 2!1,286.22 . 31 ,104.19 12,392.15 204.24 ' 1,251 .6Q 3Q4.80 314.40. so.011.00 . "Rates for hospitalization have increased this year, but the exact proportion that will be charged for each employee will not be known until LRSO negotiations have been finalized. F,,r budget preparation, we have estimated the Increase at 10%. Staff Development: Serv:ices petfonned by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. ---~ -- -03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 0.00 0.00 ., ... - .. -... , ... _..,.,. ..... - - . .... --.... ~--~-- - 2003-04 Budget 0.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of atn expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2002-03 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 - --------- -- ---Hh - Page6 Repairs and Maintenan1te; Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original :rtate or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2002.()'3 Budget 2002..03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 400.00 408.85 400.00 ----- - -- -~- Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 2002--03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ----- -- Salaries: Salaries are the :amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2002~3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 110,770.00 422,618.40" 405,419.00 .. *ExpendilUres exceeded buoget as an unforeseen result of proV1s1ons in Act 11 of 1999, Which governs certain aspects of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop), which Ms. Marshall entered at the conclusion of the 2002-03 f1SCal year. Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2003-04 salary, reflecting a 2% base increase for Ms. Marshall and, for the remaining employees, a 3.29% base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. - -.. - N&amp;Jine of Employee 2002-03 Salary 2003..CJ4 salary AnriMarshall 116,688.00 119,022.00 Melina Guldin 1 21 ,842.00 0.00 Gene Joneti 2 57,021.00 58,828.00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 70,196.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 70,196.00 .. --- ----- --.. --'- --- Polly Ramer 51 ,011 .00 52,689.00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 29,219.00 ..,.,. __. _, ., ... _...,.._..,J,. ,., J_,._,._. ___ _.. . ,. . .. ..........,. .-..~ ....- ---.--""' Act 11 of 1999 s 5,269.00 . Totial 410,770.00 405,419.00 'Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, 1?1ected to receive payment ror annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 3Polly Ramer will complete her 28111 )'8ar under Iha Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 30. 2004 and will enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan fr-Drop) on that date. Act 11 of 1999 entitles Ms. Ramer to receive the amount noted. which is compensation for unused leave, as she enters TDrop. Pages - Management Services: S,ervices performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. I-~ 3 Budget 2002-03 Expenditur9s 2003-04 Budget 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. ~ - - 3Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 80.00 79.94 121.00 -- The budget covers the cost of !he 1\rkan&amp;as Democrat-Gazette, a daily source of current information on events that directly affect the school districts we monitor. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and bindmg, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 4,902.74 6,000.00 Professional and Technkal Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 ..-~-- - Rent: Expenditures for lea.sing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use . .... ~ ....... 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-G4 Budget 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,880.00 Page4 - EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expmse categories are from the Arkansas School F'inancial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postag,:. ~ 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-04 Budget 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00 -~ ~ We were able to reduoe this budgeli category by arranging to operate on fewer phone lines. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided. such as conference registration fees. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 ExpenditurN 2003-414 Budget ..... 439.00 439.00 735.00 The allotment for 200304 includes regis1ration fees for two professional events that are integral to maintaining staff skills that directly serve the mission of ODM. One is the International Association of Facilitatons, a one&amp;-a-year intense training event in which Ms, Marshall hes participated fur a number of years to hone her facmtatlon ekilla by learning and pracliclng new techniques and methodologies fur facilitation, negotiation, promoUng dialogue, team building, problem solving, and conflict resolution among the parties, school perBOnnel, and patmna. The second is the National Counselors' Conference for ODM associate Ms. Powell, who is a nationally board certifl8d counselor. The conference provides professional development pertaining not only to counseling, but to special education, gifted and talentEd education, alternative learning, discipline, and achievement, all areas that she is charged with monitoring. Equipment: Expenditure:; for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. , ......... dget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003-414 Budget 0.00 0.00 500.00 One of our printers, an old machine, has quit working. The repair service has told us the machine is not salvageable due to Its age. The amount budgeted in lhis categ~ry is to replace the printer, which is indispensable office equipment. Food Services: Ex:pendi1tures for food or preparation and serving of food. which may include catering. 2002-03 Budget 2002-03 Expenditures 2003--04 Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---~--- Page3 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR2003-04 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order ,'.)f June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a. per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order ofDet:-ember 12, 1990: ... [11he office previ,:msly known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/02 %of Total 200~ 2002-03 2003-1)4 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Crull Estimated Allocation (Budget Budget not spent) PaymJlt LRSD 25,430 48.43 177,217 724 176,493 --~ .... NLRSO 8,796 16.75 61,292 250 61,042 PCSSD 18,283 34.82 127,415 520 126,895 - - '" "- State of AR NIA NIA 200,000 NIA 200,000 _,_,,,,_ .. Total .52,509 100.00 565,924 1,494 564,430 This chart shows that the 2003-04 Budget Allocation, the 2002-03 Credit and the 2003-04 BudgetPayment are apportioned among the three school dilitricts according lo last year's OCtober 1 enrollment numbers. After the finel 2003-04 enrollment has been tallied, we wiU adjust the figures according~, and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2003-04 budget Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to detennine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share ofODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contriibutes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the cU1Tent fiscal year. . ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONIT., O. RING. BUD-GET FOR 2003-04 Rf:VENUE 2002-03 2002-03 2003-o4 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET State of Arkansa1; 200,000;00 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - - LRSO Budget alloca~,t&gt;n 184,295.00 184,295.00 177,217.00 Minus credit fn:,m previous year ________4_., 4 ___,_7__0__9___.0___0__ _ ........4..4...,.7..0...9....0...0.. . 724.00 ..... .......................... Equals LRSD's share of the budget 139,588.00 139,586.00 176,493.00 NLRSD Budget allocati,:,n 63,740.00 63,740.00 61,292.00 Minus credit frc,m previous year 15,463.00 15,463.00 250.00 ----------------------- uunuon onuu ............. ________________ Equal!! NLRSD's share of the budget 48,277.00 48,277.00 81,042.00 PCSSO Budget allocati,;,n 132,503.00 132,503.00 127,415.00 Minus credit frtrn previous year 32,144.00 32,144.00 520.00 OOOHOO OOOH o o n o ............................ Equals PCSSO's share of the budget 100,359.00 100,359.00 126,895.00 - Interest 0.00 5,441 .10 0.00 Total Revenue 580,638.00 585,979:10 565,924.00 Note: The sum of the credits in the chart above is the unspent amount of our previous year's OUdget, including bank interest eaml!d. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted ;illocatlon. Both that allocaUon and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous yea(s October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enro!lment number.; for the current year become available. - ' EXPENDITURES 2002-03 2002--03 2003-04 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET Communications 9,700.00 8,416.88 8,000.00 .- __,-, , .Y "-_, Dues and Fees 439.00 439.00 735.00 ,_.., _____ -- Equipment 0.00 0.00 500.00 Food Seivices 0.00 0.00 0.00 Management Seri,icea 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 -Pe-riodicals 80.00 79.94 121.00 Printing &amp; Blndln{1 6,000.00 4,902.74 8,000.00 Prof &amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 -- ------- -.. Rent 47,896.00 47,256.02 48,860.00 Repairs &amp; Maintenance 400.00 408.85 400.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salaries 410,no.oo 422,618.40 405,419.00 Benefits 91,168.00 92,935.16 80,018.00 -- ------ Staff Developmerlt 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplies 6,643.00 4,999.77 6,000.00 Tfl!vel 200.00 184.-66 2,459.00 Insurance - 544.00 544.00 712.00 Total El(pendltu~s 580,538.00 584,485;42 565,924.00 Difference (Income minus Expenditures) 0.00 1,493.68 0.00 TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are l pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wils U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, E'I'. AL. RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 16, 2003 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This responds to the Court's Order dated October 16, 2003, regarding the ODM proposed budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. I am authorized to state that so long as the allocations proposed are not changed, the PCSSD has no objection to the proposed budget. 455118-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ounty Special I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October}, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 455118-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower . 425 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair UttleRock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville A aneRebick - Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 October 31, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:l larkedu.slale.ar.us RECEIVED f\!OV 3 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of October 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 11~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2003. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smitn,#92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Scott Smith, certify that on October &amp;&gt;-rl.\ , 2003, 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 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 October 31, 2003 Bas~d on'th.~ 'iqfor,friatio~'availab!e. at .Septen.,~( 301'2003, the ADE, calcuiated the Equaiizat,oi;iJl:ilridin9tor i=Y63i64;:sob;ecf fo:penoic adjustmerlfa. 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. 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>