Responses concerning site selection at Maumelle, reduction of the Office of Desegregation Management budget, appellants' motion to hold appeal in abeyance, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve the re-design of Harris Elementary School and for the rezoning of the Harris and Sherwood attendance zones.

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

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion regarding site selection at Maumelle and for other relief; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the reduction of the Office of Desegregation Management budget; Court of Appeals, appellants' motion to hold appeal in abeyance pending ruling by the District Court on the matter of recusal; District Court, plaintiff's response to the Office of Desegregation Management's 2002-2003 budget; Court of Appeals, plaintiff-appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD) response to appellant's motion to hold appeal in abeyance; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve the re-design of Harris Elementary School and for the rezoning of the Harris and Sherwood attendance zones; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District?s (PCSSD?s) reply to Joshua intervenors' response to motion regarding site selection at Maumelle and for other relief; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, Joshua intervenors' statement of issues and other documents This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. DNI\IO!INOW NOl!V93H93S30 jQ 30HjQ RECEIVED lOOl 6- :BO JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. DEC - 9 2002 OFFICE OF C3J\13,~3H DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Christopher Heller . FRJDA Y, 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 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKAl\lSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. December 6, 2002 DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARK,INSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425 F,1x (501) 372-3428 E~L4..IL: mchenryd@swbell.net Mr. Dermis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. Nlr. Steve Jones JACK,LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 WRJGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM Plaza West Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, Dear Counsel: 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 I Enclosed you will find Joshua Intervenors' Response to Motion Regarding Site Selecition at Maumelle and for Other Relief. JWW:lp Enclosure j IN THE l JNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT" ' -- ~ V EASTERl"J DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS:~ . WESTERl"-J DIVISION - --- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL _DISTRJCTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS ; INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION REGARDING SITE SELECTION AT MAUMELLE AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the court to defer approval of middle school site pending a hearing. Joshua does not opposed the site for it is in keeping with the provision of the revised desegregation plan. Joshua concerns relate to the extent the racial balance can be assured, I the burdens which will be imposed upon the black student who \,Vill be recruited to attend the school, the recruitment process which will be Ltsecl to recruit students from little rock and the ft.mping for the ! I school. I I ! Joshua notes that the current plan is dependent upon state funding (Arkansas Detartment of Education) under the majority to minority transfer provisions. The state is not invol:ved in this proceeding and has not indicted whether it will continue the majority to minority funding . Joshua wishes to be assured that the proposed school will remain desegregated pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and funher that the State may not later argue that it was not involved in these -1- - proceedings. Joshua is informed that the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is preparing a repo1i regarding issues associated with site selection, recruitment and other matters associated with opening a new school. J oslma therefore believes that the Court should solicit the ODM vievvpoints regarding the school as well as possible problems which may be associated with funding withdrawal by the State of Arkansas before the Court issues an Order as requested by the Pulaski. County Special School District. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request that the State of Arkansas be info1med of ' these proceedings and be afforded an opportunity at least to express their future support or lack of I ' support of M to i\11 funding so that that matter may be addressed, and appe~led if necessary, before final plans regarding site selection and school construction are approved. Joshua also requests that the Court direct the ODM to provide a response to the petition filed by the PCSSD before finalizing any order of approval. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted. 7chiv\:V. Walker, AR Bar No.!64046 ' .,.,. / I ,1 (),HNW.WALKERP.A. i -1723 Broadway i Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -2- Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at LavY Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663 -9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing lws been sent by fa)f and U.S . Mail, postage prepaid to the fc 1lowing counsel ofrecord, on this_&amp;.,_ day of -~ , 2002: Mr. ChTistopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Am1 Brown Marshall ODM One Uni.on National Plaza 124 West Capitvi, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Mr. De1mis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rocle Arkansas 72201 Mr. 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 Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley. Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 John '. Walker -3- DNNOllNOW NOllY03l!03S30 d030WO lOOl o 1 ::13 Q3Al3~3l:I RECEIVED DEC 1 O 2002 J. J / r.:. u.!.: ';..;-'- _ { '-"' sT1:: 0i.~rr,1r -, omcE OF ,J Liii';fF6-'-- 1-- 1 -:-,-,. DESEGREGATION MON11ORIKG Dr::c -~' -'--~::2,1s C Q 9 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT co#,.~s If: iFi:: . EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS'------~':,., c:u:: ,--,,,. WESTERN DIVISION - --~ - 1 --:,.1 .. ~ - .t::. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COu1,ffY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE REDUCTION OF THE ODM BUDGET DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors believe that the ODM budget should not be diminished in any way pending a determination that its role has to be substantially reduced. There are many unfinished tasks to be performed by the ODM and while there may be criticism of the ODM role and the past activity, there is no record basis for that criticism. We also note with concern that the Court anticil-iates reducing the role of ODM now that the Court has pa1tially released the Little Rock School District from further Court supervision. We note that that decision is on appeal. We also note that the ODM staff has already been materially reduced. We see no reason therefore for further reduction of the budget. We also question the necessity for the budget being reduced and request that the Court consider holding a hearing on the subject in the event that the Court is inclined to effectuate any budget reductions. Respectfully submitted, i ' l Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 4 5 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 alker, AR Bar No. 64046 W. WALKER, P.A. . 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3758 (501) 374A 87 (Fax) Ri cey icks, Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 No1ih University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 l - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing h~been sen~ and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the fo,lowing counsel of record, on this t day of , , 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Nati0nal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ,, .J -- ------ 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 . Evergreen Place 1100 North University Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 M,. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 02-3867 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Dear Mr. Gans, 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 December 10, 2002 Herewith is the Joshua Intervenors' "Appellants' Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance Pending Ruling by the District Court on the Matter of Recusal." Mr. Walker requested me to file this motion and to sign it for him. As indicated in the certificate of service, it will be provided to other counsel and the desegregation monitor by Fax and U.S. Mail. cc to other counsel, Ms. Marshall, and Mr. Walker Sincerely, ~G'~ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NO. 02-3867 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS INTERVENORS Appellants' Motion to Hold Appeal in Abeyance Pending Ruling by the District Court on the Matter of Recusal The Joshua Intervenors, appellants in this appeal, respectfully move for the entry of an order holding this appeal in abeyance, pending the district court's ruling on a motion by the Joshua Intervenors seeking the recusal of the District Court (Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr.) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 (b) (2). Intervenors also seek such other related relief. Intervenors-Appellants make the following allegations in support of this motion: 1. On September 13, 2002 the District Court ruled that the Little Rock School District had attained partial unitary status. 2. After the denial by the District Court of post-trial motions, these intervenors filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2002. 3. On November 25, 2002, these intervenors filed in the District Court, pursuant to 28 u.s.c. Sec. 455(b)(2), a motion 1 seeking the recusal of the District Court and the vacating of all orders, rulings, and judgments entered by the District Court subsequent to its receiving assignment of this case on January 3, 2002, including the Memorandum Opinion and the Judgment which are the subject of this appeal. See Attachment (Items 3710-11); see also Items 3713-15. 4. On November 22, 2002, this court distributed a briefing schedule for this appeal. 5. This appeal could be affected by the motion in the District Court in multiple ways. For example, it could be mooted, if the District Court granted the motion. In contrast, if the District Court denies the motion, these Intervenors might well appeal that judgment -- and it would be in the interests of judicial economy for the recusal issue to be decided in this Court before the merits issue, which could be mooted by this Court's ruling on the matter of recusal. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that this Court enter an order: (a) holding this appeal in abeyance, pending the District Court's ruling on a motion by the Joshua Intervenors' seeking the recusal of the District Court; (b) requiring the Joshua Intervenors to inform this court of whether the District Court's ruling on recusal will prompt a further appeal by Joshua Intervenors, not later than 10 business days after the District Court's judgment on that issue becomes final; 2 (c) allowing the other parties in the case, whose counsel are - identified on the certificate of service, to inform this Court within the same time period whether the District Court's ruling on recusal will prompt an appeal by that party: and (d) granting such other relief as the needs of justice may require. ~e~-- Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Respectfully submitted, ~~w. w~ (~ RP) John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that this motion has been served by FAX and U.S. Mail on the following counsel and the Desegregation Monitor on December 10, 2002. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldridge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyons and Jones 425 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol #1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 415 N. McKinley, #465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Dennis Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 center st. Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Pressman U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Page 1 of 245 . _. SEJ\RCfl. . to.GIN SUGGESTIONS -:USER PREFS COURlWATCH HELP , .. ~ - . . - . RACER U.S. District Court Case Search Docket Sheet for 4:82-CV-866 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas - Click here for Caption Page j Proceedings include all events Ct:-::.=..7.F:D.il:ea:dtJ e I DNooc. II. I mage II D escrip tio n :===::;:=======:: 11/26/2002 3715 Yes: 1 Page(s): 21 KB; PDF :=========: ORDER by Judge William R. Wilson any party that wants to respond to Joshua's Motion to Recuse should file the response as soon as possible. In addition to any other matter any such party might want to address, I would beinterested in comments regarding the law clerk issue (cc: all counsel) [Date Entered: 12/02/02, By: de] B Yes: 7 Page(s); IVlliMORANDUM BRIEF by Littl_e Rock School in support 11/26/2002 3714 197 KB; PDF of response to Joshua's motion for vacating of orders and recusal [3713-1) [Date Entered: 11 /26/02, By: bm] ::=====: 11/26/2002 B3713 Y es: 3 Page(s); 41 the vacating of orders and recusal [3710-1) [3710-2) [Date RESPONSE by Little Rock School to Joshua's motion for KB; PDF Entered: 11/26/02, By: bm] :======: B NOTICE by Arkansas Education of filing of ADE's Project Yes: 3 Page(s); 36 11 /26/2002 3712 KB; PDF Management Tool for November 2002 [Date Entered: 11 /26/02, By: bm] !:=====: 1112512002 3711 Yes: 19 Page(s); of motion to recuse district judge [3710-1), of motion to B IVlliMORANDUM by Joshua intervenor plaintiff in support 721 KB; PDF vacate orders, rulings and judgments [3710-2) [Date Entered: 11/25/02, By: de] :=====~ B MOTION by Joshua intervenor plaintiff to recuse district Yes: .H...:Page(s); 11/25/2002 3710 290 KB; PDF judge, and to vacate orders, rulings and judgments [Date Entered: 11/25/02, By: de] 1:====~ ::::::========:~====================: B ORDER by Judge William R. Wilson the parties have to 1112512002 3709 Yes: 10 Page(s); and including 15 days from entry of this Order to file 240 KB; PDF objections regarding the proposed 2002-2003 budget of the ODM (cc: all counsel) [Date Entered: 11/25/02, By: de] 1:====~ :======~::========================:! [JI I DOCKETING LETTER: 8 USCA Number 02-3867; 11/25/2002 No counsel to proceed on appendix [Date Entered: 11/25/02, By: de] =======' ~=========:~===================~! nn ORDER by Judge William R. Wilson granting motion to Yes: 3 Page(s): 51 extend time to respond to PCSSD'S motion for approval of http ://www.are.uscourts.gov/wconnect/wc.dll?usdc_racer~get_casejb~4:82-cv-866~~All+Dc. .. 12/6/02 -- - -------- ------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO THE ODM'S 2002-2003 BUDGET The LRSD for its Response to the ODM's 2002-2003 Budget states: 1. It is the LRSD's understanding that the ODM's 2002-2003 budget covers the - period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. ODM's 2002-2003 was submitted to the Court on November 20, 2002 and provided to the parties by Order filed November 25, 2002. While the LRSD has concerns about the ODM's budget, the LRSD does not believe those concerns can be addressed in a fair and reasonable manner given that the budget cycle is almost half over. 2. The LRSD has two primary's concerns about the ODM's 2002-2003 budget. First, while the LRSD recognizes that the ODM has decreased its budget for 2002-2003, the LRSD being granted partial unitary status should permit the ODM to further decrease its staff. Staff salary and benefits constitute 86% of the ODM's budget. Additional staff reductions should permit the ODM to further reduce its budget for 2003-2004. 3. Second, the LRSD being granted partial unitary status renders inequitable the Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 apportioning the cost of ODM to the school districts on a per pupil basis. The LRSD proposes that the ODM be directed to work with the school districts to develop a more equitable means of apportioning the Districts share of the cost of ODM and to submit with its 2003-2004 budget a new means of apportionment. 4. The LRSD respectfully requests that Court direct the ODM to submit its proposed 2003-2004 budget on or before May 1, 2003 such that the Court may approve the budget before the 2003-2004 budget cycle. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the Court enter an Order directing the ODM to consider additional staff reductions for 2003-2004; directing the ODM to work with the school districts and the State or Arkansas to develop a more equitable means of apportioning the cost of ODM and to submit with its 2003-2004 budget a new means a apportionment; and directing ODM to submit its proposed 2003-2004 budget on or before May 1, 2003. F:IHOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 2001 \unitary-response-ODM-budget.wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol :~==--=--72-2_0_1__:-:3.~~4.4~93=-----/-, _V_ __" '------"_ ...._ 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on December 10, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 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 F:IHOME\FENDLEYILRSD 2001 \unitary-rcsponse-ODM-budgct.wpd 3 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED OEC 1 3 2002 QfflC0F DRHI\EGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE V. APPEAL NO. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS-APPELLANTS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE Plaintiff-Appellee Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Response states: 1. This appeal should not be held in abeyance pending the District Court's ruling on the Joshua Intervenors-Appellants' ("Joshua") Motion to Recuse filed November 25, 2002. This is a case of substantial public importance which should be decided without undue delay. 2. The District Court has already indicated that it will not recuse based on the grounds asserted by Joshua. See Order filed October 29, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Tfius ,' this appeal will not be rendered moot. 3. The "interests of judicial economy" would not be served by this Court deciding the recusal issue before the merits of this appeal. For the reasons set forth in the District Court's Order filed October 29, 2002, it is clear that 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2) does not require the District Court to recuse. Consequently, delaying this appeal to allow this Court to first consider the recusal issues cannot be justified. If Joshua decides to appeal on the recusal issue, that appeal may be consolidated with this appeal for oral argument. The issues in the two appeals will be - completely different making it unnecessary for them to be briefed at the same time. Thus, "interests of judicial economy" would not be served by holding the this case in abeyance. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied; that the LRSD be granted its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. F:\HOME\FENDLEY\unitary-appeal-responsc-mot-abey.wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Lilli~ (5~ B : C::::.:ller 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on December 12, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 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 F:IHOME\FENDLEY\unitary-appeal-responsc-mot-abcy.wpd 3 u.foilki~J?uAT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT . . EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 2 9 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. Defendants MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS Intervenors Intervenors 1. On July 22 - July 24, 2002, an evidentiary hearing was held in this case on the issues raised by Little Rock School District's motion for unitary status. 2. On September 13, 2002, a memorandum opinion was entered which ruled upon the issue of unitary status. 3. Last Friday, October 25, 2002, Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, raising two issues: a. Whether I should disqualify because approximately fifteen years ago I represented The Honorable Henry Woods, the presiding judge in this case at that time. This representation was in connection with a mandamus petition by the LRSD and Joshua Intervenors (the latter represented by Mr. Walker, among others); :,E. X,, HJ B I ., .. b. Ms. Janet Pulliam, former counsel ofrecord for a party in this case,joined my staff on September 26, 2002, as a law clerk (she came aboard nearly two weeks after the September 13 Memorandum Opinion). 4. I will deal with the issue involving Ms. Pulliam first. From the outset, Ms. Pulliam has been kept completely separate from this case, and will be in the future. Attached as Exhibits A and B to this order are interoffice memos dealing with this issue. I believe they resolve this question. SERVING AS A LAWYER IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY 5. I turn now to my representation of Judge Woods in the 1987 mandamus proceeding. LRSD and Joshua Intervenors filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that the Eighth Circuit disqualify Judge Woods. LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2dl296, 1301 (8th Cir. 1988). I entered the case, at that time, for the limited purpose ofrepresenting Judge Woods before - the Eighth Circuit in connection with the request that he be disqualified. Crucially important is the fact that the mandamus issues had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. The mandamus was argued orally before the Eighth Circuit (sitting in Little Rock) on November 3, 1987, and, two days later, the Court handed down its decision, denying the request for mandamus. The November 5 opinion, LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112, 113 (8th Cir. 1987), was very brief, and included this language: Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with respect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. I was shown as counsel of record "for Judge Woods in mandamus" in the November 5 decision. Thereafter, I had no further involvement. 2 6. The Eighth Circuit handed down a supplemental opinion on February 9, 1988,LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296 (8 th Cir. 1988). In this opinion, the Court explained, in more detail, why the petition for mandamus had been denied in the November 5 opinion. I am not shown as counsel ofrecord in the February 9 opinion. 7. Actually, the answer to Intervenors' question appears in LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112. The court stated: [A] lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicus curiae in a case called Clark v. Board of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-155. The District Court first consolidated Clark with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(2), which requires disqualification "where in private practice ... a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter." We disagree with this argument. Clark was a closed case , or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judge's partner's activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. Id. at 113. Likewise, my appearance fifteen years ago was brief ("transitory''). I represented none of the parties, and, as stated above, the narrow recusal issue that I addressed on behalf of Judge Woods had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. 8. In United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1998), the Court held that the recusal of a district judge was not required when the judge, as a lawyer, represented a creditor of the defendant (in a bankruptcy fraud case) because the creditor's debt played no part in th~ defense or prosecution of the case. In other words, the key here is the phrase the "matter in controversy." In United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 222533, * 11 (E.D. La. May 5, 1997), the Court stated: In this Court's view, a former representation should trigger the "matter in controversy" requirement if the issues with which it dealt are put "in issue" in the 3 subsequent case in the sense that they need to be resolved by the judge who is presiding over the subsequent case. If the judge need not resolve an issue that either she or her former partners were involved in, then there is no appearance of impartiality and the purpose of Section 455(b )(2) is satisfied. In reaching this conclusion, the district judge in Louisiana cited LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296. WAIVER &amp; ESTOPPEL 9. On top of the fact that my appearance in the case was brief and did not involve, in any way, any of the issues pending before me, a motion to disqualify me under section 455 would not be timely. On January 3, 1984, the Joshua Intervenors, represented by Mr. John W. Walker and Mr. Wiley A. Branton, Jr., filed a Petition to Intervene (docket no. 452). On April 23, 1984, Judge Woods entered an Order ( docket no. 4 70) denying Joshua's Petition to Intervene. On May 23, 1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) directing Judge Woods to grant Joshua permission to intervene as parties in this case. Thus, Mr. Walker was counsel ofrecord for Joshua before, during, and after the 1987 mandamus proceeding in which I appeared as counsel for Judge Woods. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out in E. &amp; J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (91h Cir. 1992): It is true that under section 455 a judge may have an obligation to recuse himself or herself without a motion from one of the parties; it "is self-enforcing on the part of the judge." However, it does not necessarily follow that a party having information that raises a possible ground for disqualification can wait until after an unfavorable judgment before bringing the information to the court's attention. It is well established in this circuit that a recusal motion must be made in a timely fashion. "The absence of such a requirement would result in ... a heightened risk that litigants would use recusal motions for strategic purposes." While there is no per se rule that recusal motions must be made at a fixed point in order to be timely, . .. such motions "should be filed with reasonable promptness after the ground for such a motion is ascertained." (Emphasis adde~.) (Citations omitted.) 4 10. On January 3, 2002, this case was assigned to me by random selection (docket no. 3570). At that time, Mr. Walker knew full well that, thirteen years earlier, I had represented Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding that Mr. Walker, himself, helped initiate in an attempt to have Judge Woods removed from this case. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301 . Yet, it was only after my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion ruling against Joshua on 5 of the 6 asserted grounds for denying unitary status that Joshua's lawyers chose to file the motion for a section 455 hearing. If there ever was a case of waiver and estoppel, this is it. I hasten to point out again, however, that even if Joshua had not elected to take a ''wait and see approach" to deciding whether to file their section 455 motion, there would be no reason for me to recuse since I have never served "as lawyer in the matter in controversy." 11. In Joshua's section 455 motion, there appears this curious language: The Court, in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals .. . hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Motion at 3. One reading the above quoted language with a jaundiced eye might take it to suggest that I attempted to hide my 1987 representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding. I described the language as "curious" since, as noted, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua at the time and one of the moving parties who filed the petition for writ of mandamus. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 130 l. Thus, it is clear beyond peradventure that Mr. Walker knew of my being involved in this case on behalf of Judge Woods. For Joshua's benefit-- I will explain my reason for not citing these cases -- a reason much less sinister than Joshua may be suggesting: they had no bearing on - the unitary status issues that were decided in my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. 5 CONCLUSION 12. Since this Order fully sets forth my involvement in, and my knowledge of, the matters raised in Joshua's section 455 motion, there is no reason for a hearing, i.e., there is nothing material I could add to the above. And, in my opinion, I have fully answered the "concerns" of Joshua. 13. If and when Joshua's counsel obtain copies of the briefs I filed in connection with the mandamus issue, 1 I will be willing to look at the issue again if, and only if, these briefs reveal that my participation in the case was significantly different from my clear recollection. At that time, however, Joshua's counsel would be required to convince me that raising the question at this late date, after losing, was not for "strategic purposes." 14. Joshua's pleading raises thequestionoftherelevance of28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings. Answer: none. SUGGESTION 15. It is obvious that Joshua's counsel feel aggrieved by my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. I again commend the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to them. That Court has had a world of experience in hearing disappointed suitors. In fact, this is its forte. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7--1/ j tay of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll)W)JLE ~ AND/OR 79(a~ ON ~f/!!?._~y~ 1My file has long since been destroyed. 6 \ ij \j'-' BILL ~ILSON JUDGE TO: DATE: RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 MEMORANDUM All Hands at 423 U.S. Courthouse September 30, 2002 LRSD case Janet Pu Ilium was, at one time, one of the attorneys for the Little Rock School District. So, she will not be involved in this case in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly. EXHIBIT A .. , Kay Holt - 09/25/2002 1 U 3 AM Per Judge .. ... To: Mary Johnson/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christa Newburg/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Valerie Glover/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christina Conrad/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS cc: Subject: LRSD case When Janet comes on board we've got to put a Chinese wall between her and the LRSD case. She was involved in it at some point. EXHIBIT B EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORO. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATH LYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3325 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DO VE R Writer's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mJones@wlj .com December 16, 2002 J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAO BOHANNON KRIS TI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY , Ph .D. ' MICHELLE M . KAEMMERLING ERIKA ROSS SCOTT ANDREW IRBY HOLLY A . ADEE MICHELLE HARGIS DILLARD PATRICK 0 . WILSON Licensed to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office RECEIVED DEC 1 7 2002 OfACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed for the Court's review are courtesy copies of the PCSSD's motion as respects Harris Elementary School and the Harris and Sherwood area attendance zones. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 385422-v1 Hon. J. Thomas Ray Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Ann Brown Marshall Mr. Richard Roachell Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP _/fL7P-- uam~ones, Ill 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. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC 1 7 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE THE RE-DESIGN OF HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND FOR THE REZONING OF THE HARRIS AND SHERWOOD ATTENDANCE ZONES PCCSD for its motion, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. After an exhaustive review and analysis, numerous community meetings and recommendations from the "Harris Steering Committee", the PCSSD proposes to revamp the curriculum at Harris Elementary, to designate it as a specialty school and to modify its attendance zones, primarily to reduce the busing burden borne by African American students. 2. Attached as Exhibit A is a narrative and statistical summary of the pro.posed modifications. The narrative includes the particulars of what is proposed, the reasons why, a description of the process followed to reach the recommendations, and a list of the parents, educators, Joshua representatives and others who comprise the - , Harris Steering Committee. 385142-v1 3. Exhibit B is a serial statistical depiction of the proposed student movement, the schools affected and the Geo Codes involved. 4. Attached as Exhibit C are maps depicting the current attendance zones and the proposed modifications. 5. The PCSSD believes that this plan and these changes present the District's best plan for ultimately desegregating Harris Elementary and for addressing needed changes in the described student assignment areas which, in most instances, have not been adjusted since 1989. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Court approve its proposed re-design of Harris and the rezoning of the Harris and other Sherwood area attendance zones. 385142-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __ _,:;...-~----,,&lt;-1===-------- 060) A aunty Special s 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December f/4, 2002, 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 385142-v1 3 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen 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. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 -PROPOSED RE-DESIGN OF HARRIS AND REZONING OF THE HARRIS AND SHERWOOD ATTENDANCE ZONE 2003-2004 November 12, 2002 Executive Summary During the February 12, 2002, Board Meeting the former Superintendent, Dr. Smith, told the Board that outdated attendance zones for Sherwood, Oa.kbrooke, Clinton, and Harris Elementary schools were causing lost enrollment and diminished housing development. He asked that the Board direct the Administration to proceed with steps necessary to bring a defined proposal for Board and court approval. As part of the plan, Dr. Smith asked the Board to approve planning, with community and staff input, for re-designing Harris Elementary, He said that preliminary plans for Harris included more computer technology, a renewed emphasis on academics plus more staff for physical education, music and art, a preschool class, and an extended-year program. The Board voted to undertake planning steps in compliance with the District's desegregation plan to develop attendance rezoning proposals and a re-design and reconstituting of Harris Elementary. To implement the re-design of Harris Elementary during the 2003-2004, it is necessary to have the program planned and to budget for some expenses during the2002-2003 school year. Background It has become necessary to rezone the Harris and Sherwood attendance zones to relieve the burden of busing borne by the black students in the McAlmont, Rixie, and Brushy Island community and white students in the Sherwood community. Students from these two areas have been bused since the beginning of integration in the Pulaski County Special School District. Desegregating Harris Elementary has been difficult because many Sherwood and Indian Hills communities have become more racially balanced to the point that busing is not as necessary. A special program with an acceptable theme has been planned for Harris Elementary. The purpose is to enhance the learning opportunities of black students attending this school and to attract whites that would volunteer because of the special programs offered at the school. Meetings were held on May 13, 2002, May 16, 2002, September 17, 2002, September 24, 2002, and November 4, 2002, to give parents and patrons the opportunity to have input into the process. The Harris Steering Committee was created from the co1mnunity meetings and met on October '14, 2002, October 21, 2002 and October 28, 2002 to help develop plans for the re-design of Hanis Elementaiy School. Representatives from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Joshua Intervenors, and PACT attended community and steering committee meetings. EXHIBIT 1 4 REZONING The consideration of maintaining racial balance in the Sherwood schools was done by reassigning students who live in Sherwood tci schools in that community. Tbis includes the students who live east of Hwy 167 in the Sherwood city limits. Proposed Sherwood school attendance zones meet the required 20% racial balance. Clinton Elementary Magnet also located in the Sherwood community meets the inter-district racial balance requirement, which is 50% black and 50% white. Black students who live in the Harris school community, which is comprised ofMcAlmont, Rixie, and Brushy Island, will be reassigned to Harris Elementary. The proposed reassignment of black students to Harris Elementary will increase the black student enrollment from 69% to 80% (see student enrollment data below from Pulaski County Special School District 2002 Quarterly Report). Harris will become a racially identified school with special programs to enhance learning. Harris Elementary Capacity 525 Current Black Population 117 69% Proposed Black Population 187 81% Current White Population 53 31% Proposed White Population 45 19% Total Enrollment 170 Total Enrollment 232 Clinton Elementary Capacity 833 Current Black Population 334 55% Proposed Black Population 316 55% Current White Population 273 45% Proposed White Population 257 45% Total Enrollment 607 Total Enrollment 573 Oakbrooke Elementary Capacity 500 Current Black Population 102 33% Proposed Black Population 156 39% Current White Population 207 67% Proposed White Population 244 61% Total Enrollment 309 Total Enrollment 400 Sherwood Elementary Capacity 460 Current Black Population 123 36% Proposed Black Population 171 43% Current White Enrollment 219 64% Proposed White Enrollment 230 57% Total Enrollment - 342 Total Enrollment 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary Capacity 456 Current Black Population 150 40% Proposed Black Population 126 37% Current White Population 227 60% Proposed White Population 219 63% Total Enrollment 377 Total Emollment 345 2 - PROBLEM DEFINITION The challenge in planning the program for Harris is four-pronged: 1. The specialty program should not duplicate any magnet program in Little Rock or specialty program in Pulaski County; 2. Designate Harris as a racially identifiable school; 3. The program must attract large numbers of white students; 4. The specialty program must attract black students in the Harris attendance zone. Those programs should provide: a. A focus on an enriched health and science curriculum b. Teachers trained in the sciences and technology c. Integrated technology d. An extended year program (YRE) e. Extended time opportunities for students f. Early childhood learning center g. Physical education and wellness Analysis of Alternatives The planning committee started the process by brainstorming about ways to attract students to Harris Elementary. The committee listed everything they believed should be offered. All ideas were discussed; prioritized ideas were researched. Recommendations The Planning Committee proposes the following recommendations for the Board's consideration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The overall focus should be an enriched health and science curriculum. Harris Elementary should be designated as a racially identifiable school. Harris Elementary should be officially designated as a specialty school. The program should be interdisciplinary . . An extended year program should be provided with academic intersessions. The facility must be well maintained and attractive. The District should explore ways that the labs, media center and gym could be opened after school and at night. The school must have access to state-of-the-a1i technology. A District pre-school class should be provided. The District should actively seek corporate, research, and community support for the program in addition to partnerships with the medical community at large. The District shall work beyond the elementary level to develop a plan for students' continuation of study. 3 I 12. There should be a strong recruiting and public relations program. 13. Extended time opportunities (before and after school hours) will be made available for students. 14. The program will partner with a District elementary school (majority white) to ensure that both student populations have opportunities for cross-cultural interactions. OBJECTIVE The objective of Harris Elementary Health and Science Specialty School is to provide a rich and challenging curriculum that will attract white students from outside the Harris attendance zone and maintain the students zoned for Harris. An attractive, safe school environment is a necessary component to accomplishing the objective. 4 HARRIS RE-DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A. Program Planning Responsibility 1. Conduct community meetings Learning Services/Equity 2. Identify Harris Steering Committee Learning Services/Equity Members 3. Develop a Proposal to present to the Harris Steering Committee Board 4. Obtain Board support Learning Services/Equity 5. Submit the Proposal to the court Equity B. Program Implementation Pending Court Approval 1. Explore partnerships with the medical Learning Services community 2. Create job descriptions for the new Learning Services positions 3. Begin building renovations Support Services 4. Develop curriculum for the Health Learning Services Science Specialty Program 5. Order all equipment Learning Services 6. Develop recruitment plan Learning Services/Pupil Personnel 7. Recruit students Learning Services/Pupil Personnel 8. Post new positions Human Resources 9. Hire Harris staff under reconstitution Principal approach 10. Conduct curriculum inservices for the Learning Services/Staff staff Development/Principal 5 When May 2002-2003 Oct2002 Oct-Nov 2002 Nov 12, 2002 Dec 2002 Dec 2002-Mar 2003 Jan 2003 Jan 2003-Aug 2003 Jan 2003-July 2003 Feb-Mar 2003 Jan 2003 Feb-May 2003 April2003 Spring/Summer 2003 June-Aug 2002 HARRIS RE-DESIGN SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff a. Specifically hired for position b. Trained in health, science, and technology c. Science specialist d. Health/wellness/P .E.specialist e. Pre-K teacher/Pre-K Aide f. Nurse 2. Facilities a. Well-maintained and attractive b. Open after hours c. High tech d. Science Lab e. Health Fitness Center f. Early Childhood Center 3. Curriculum a. Interdisciplinary b. Enriched science and health curriculum aligned with state standards c. Integrated technology 4. Organization a. Year round education (YRE) b. Strong security c. Extended day (before and after school) d. Community based 6 HARRIS RE-DESIGN ESTIMATED COST ANALYSIS District Estimated Cost Specialty Personal &amp; Equipment Science Specialist . lFTE 49,313.00 Health/W ellness/P .E. Specialist lFTE 49,313.00 Nurse lFTE 40,000.00 PCSSD Early Childhood Center Start-up 11,000.00 PCSSD PK Teacher 1 FTE 49,313.00 PCS SD PK Aide 17,000.00 Head Start PK Teacher Head Start PK Aide Head Start - Start Up Year Round Education Principal 12 month contract 18,600.00 Intersession Teachers (15 days) 29,089.00 Transportation (15 days) 7,217.55 Utilities (15 days) 3,000.00 Bookkeeper 12 contract 2,141.00 Custodian 3,385.00 Extended Day Teachers after school 51,264.00 Teachers before school 8,544.00 Voyager Program 2,000.00 Utilities 15,000.00 Extended Day for 15 Intersession Days Intersession before school 480.00 Intersession after school 2,880.00 Technology Computer Lab (3 0 stations) Science Lab Totals 359,539.55 Other Funding Source Cost 25,000.00 25,000.00 14,000.00 78,000.00 10,000.00 152,000.00 Grants and other Sources of Revenue will be actively pursued to fund these programs. n1, c... c.. D... ), rc? V t\- -- ,/,- c.1 o V,, }l)\.i,"' ,~ '- ,,,,.,. ..... ' \ ~ ~ -t .J T V 7 " . HARRIS RE-DESIGN - CAPITAL OUTLAY ESTIMATE Item Cost Roof 500,000.00 Sports Floor 50,000.00 Water Proof the Gym and Gutters 30,000.00 Electrical/Technology Upgrade 200,000.00 Structural Integrity 10,000.00 Renovate Bathrooms 20,000.00 Heating and Air 40,000.00 Flooring 50,000.00 Paint Interior of Buildings District Persom1el Spray Paint Interior of Gym District Personnel Total 900,000.00 - - 8 - Chris Young Stephanie J?onald Bobby Carey Cherrie Johnson Gwen Williams Horace Smith Delores Tate Johnnie Mass Val Marshall Joseph Taylor Ophelia J olmson Victor Roy Florence Lyons Mable Bynum Vicky Drake Ricki Bailey Linda Remele Karl Brown Brenda Bowles Shari 'Coston Carolyn Cooley Monica Bolden Deen Minton Harris Steering Conm1ittee 2002-2003 School School School School Board ODM Community Community Community (Parent) Community Community Community (Parent) Community Community Community (Parent) District District District District District Joshua Joshua (Parent) PACT 9 Proposed changes Harris-Sherwood Areas October 22, 2002 Harris students west of Hwy. 67 /167 Loss to Harris Black students 38 White Students 32 Total 70 Students east of Hwy. 67/167 Black White Total Loss to Sherwood Elem. 12 2 14 Loss to Oakbrooke Elem. 5 0 5 Loss to Clinton Elem. 16 17 33 Loss to Sylvan Hills Elem. 26 0 26 Loss to Cato Elem. 36 1 37 Loss to Adkins Elem. 11 4 15 106 24 130 Harris Elem. Gain 143 students Lose 70 students net gain 73 students Black 194 81 % White 45 19% Total 239 Dupree Elem. Gain 8 students Lose 0 students net gain 8 students Black 115 34% White 223 66% Total 348 Sherwood Elem. Gain 62 students Lose 14 students net gain 48 students Black 171 42% White 230 58% Total 394 Oakbrooke Elem. Gain 52 students Lose 5 students net gain 47 students Black 156 39% White 244 61% Total 400 Clinton Elem. Gain 2 students Lose 33 students net loss 31 students Black 316 55% White 257 45% Total 573 Sylvan Hills Elem. Gain O students Lose 26 students net loss 26 students Black 126 37% White 219 63% Total 345 Cato Elem. Gain 0 students Lose 37 students net loss 37 students Black 66 19% White 279 81 % Total 345 Adkins Elem. Gain 0 students Lose 15 students net loss 15 students Black 132 54% White 112 46% Total 244 EXHIBIT I STUDENTS IN HARRIS AND CONTIGUOUS ZONES (Without Integrative Transfers) ( east of Hwy 67-167) September 2002 Geo Codes B W 1501 1505 1510 1512 1515 1518 1521 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1596 3730 3733 3755 3756 3757 3902 3940 3963 3975 0105 0141 0 4 7 5 2 0 11 21 15 0 13 15 4 1 7 5 5 12 5 6 0 11 9 14 22 Totals 194 81 % 0 2 5 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 4 6 0 0 Area in McAlmont 0 8 2 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 45 19% 239 total STUDENTS IN HARRIS LIVING IN SHERWOOD or JACKSONVILLE (West of Hwy. 67-167) September 2002 Geo Codes B W J acksonvi I le 3988 3989 3990 Totals Sherwood 0 2 0 2 2 0 4 6 South of Kiehl from Summitt to Hwy 1 07 1544 1555 1572 1573 1575 1594 1595 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 New Manson Rd. area Geo-code 48 0 To Jacksonville area school To Sherwood Elem East of 67 /167 in Sherwood City Limits Geo Codes 3730 3758 1525 0106 Totals B 0 1 1 0 1 66 w 2 0 0 6 16 To Sherwood Elem North of Kiehl east of Summitt to Hwy. 67-167 Geo Codes 1528 1531 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 Totals B 4 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 32 w 4 1 0 0 3 0 7 1 1 20 Revised Geo-code 15-36 to Clinton Gap Creek/Austin Lakes 2 0 To Oakbrooke Elem Total 2 - Transfers out of Harris Elem for 2002-2003 September 2002 lntradistrict Transfers Harris area Harris area east of Hwy 67/167 west of Hwy 67 /167 Sherwood Elem. 1 2 Sylvan Hills Elem. 1 3 Oakbrooke Elem. 0 1 Cato .Elem. 0 6 Clinton Elem. 1 Totals 3 18 Integrative Transfers Sherwood Elem. 4 22 Sylvan Hills Elem. 0 9 Oakbrooke Elem. 2 47 Cato Elem. 0 0 Clinton Elem 1 ~ Totals 7 81 Grand Total 10 99 EXHIBIT C Current Attendance Zones and Proposed Modifications EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1003-1077) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1'113 - 1'191 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 ROGER A. GLASGOW LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . PATRICK J, GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR. JOHN R, TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . CHARLESL. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER Mc:SPAOOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUOY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse (501 ) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www .wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjones@wlj.com December 18, 2002 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J, CHARLES DOUGHERTY" M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN CHR ISTINE J. DAUGHERTY , Ph .D. MICHELLE M, KAEMMERLING ERIKA ROSS SCOTT ANDREW IRBY HOLLY A. ADEE MICHELLE HARGIS DILLARD PATRICK 0 . WILSON Licensed to praclice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office RECEIVED DEC 1 9 2002 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: I enclose a courtesy copy of the PCSSD reply to Joshua's response to our Maumelle school site motion. The original has been filed and the parties served. Since I know that the Court will entertain precedents for orders, I enclose a proposed precedent for the Court's review. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 6-~ 386128-v1 Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record 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. RECEIVED DEC 19 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR$' RESPONSE TO MOTION REGARDING SITE SELECTION AT MAUMELLE AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The key provision of the Joshua response is the second sentence which states: "Joshua does not opposed (sic) the site for it is in keeping with the provision of the revised desegregation plan." Accordingly, and because the acquisition and construction schedule could be compromised if a delay is too extensive, the PCSSD believes that an order should issue forthwith approving the site and reserving for future resolution the remaining issues raised by Joshua. The remaining issues, while important, should not hold hostage the simple matter of the site selected. For instance, Joshua professes to be concerned regarding racial balance, busing burdens and recruitment. The PCSSD went to considerable lengths in its motion to explain these issues. Its principal focus will be to recruit those elementary age children it has already recruited from Little Rock to Crystal Hill Elementary School. The same emphasis will be had at Pine Forrest and Oak Grove Elementary although their 383980-v1 numbers are much smaller. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel. The school will be desegregated if the PCSSD is even reasonably successful in recruiting AfricanAmerican children who have already volunteered to attend these elementary schools. As we explained in our motion, there will be no "burden" associated with transportation that does not already exist. The M to M students make a voluntary decision to transfer and volunteer to ride a bus from their neighborhood to these schools. The mere opening of a new middle school will not change this phenomenon. Further, it should be obvious that the PCSSD projections contained in the motion assume that the school will open at capacity. It will not. It will likely be several years before population growth takes it to capacity. Accordingly, by opening at substantially below its ultimate capacity, the numbers of minority students currently projected should result in an initial racial proportion that is far higher in minorities than that projected in the motion. The funding issue is more fundamental ; however, the state cannot simply unilaterally end funding, but would have to have the permission of this Court to do so. It is the position of the PCS SD that the 1989 settlement agreement contains no "sunset" provision regarding M to M funding and that it will therefore continue into perpetuity. Finally, the PCSSD seriously doubts that the ODM is preparing a "report". Be that as it may, the PCSSD has no reason to believe that the ODM will recommend against the site selected. Accordingly, as we noted at the outset, an order should issue forthwith approving the school site and reserving, if the Court desires to do so, any remaining issues for future resolution. 383980-v1 2 -- - -- - ---- Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B _...,,....:::,__--'&lt;------":::.....,1=-'~-----nty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 18, 2002, 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 383980-v1 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen 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. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 M.Sa 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. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending before the Court is the PCSSD motion seeking approval of a middle school site to be constructed at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive in Maumelle, Arkansas. The motion is granted to this extent and the PCSSD is authorized to pursue purchase of the site and construction of the new middle school. Any and all other issues raised by any party as respects this matter are reserved for future disposition. 386131-v1 SO ORDERED this_ day of December, 2002. United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 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. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending before the Court is the PCSSD motion seeking approval of a middle school site to be constructed at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive in Maumelle, Arkansas. The motion is granted to this extent and the PCSSD is authorized to pursue purchase of the site and construction of the new middle school. Any and all other issues raised by any party as respects this matter are reserved for future disposition. 386131-v1 SO ORDERED this_ day of December, 2002. United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED DEC 2 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS ORDER 1. Joshua lntervenors move to recuse me as the presiding Judge in this case under 28 U .S.C. 455(b )(2) and further ask me to vacate my Orders, rulings, and judgments in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). See Motion for Recusal of District Judge and for Vacating of Orders, Rulings and Judgments ( docket no. 3 710). The recusal provision at issue reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) [Any judge, justice, or magistrate of the United States] shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: * * * (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy ... . 1 Rule 60 on vacating Orders reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final 128 U.S.C. 455(b)(2). A072A (Rev.8/82} 2. judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . ( 6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 2 In my previous Orders,3 addressing Joshua Intervenors ' "exploratory" motions regarding recusal,4 I discussed most, if not all, of the points in Joshua Intervenors ' current recusal motion. Nonetheless, I will address those points again. 3. It appears to me that there are at least two dispositive answers to Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal: a. My brief appearance, over a decade ago, as counsel for the Judge then presiding, the late Henry Woods, in a mandamus proceeding before the Eighth Circuit, touched neither the top nor bottom side of any of the issues that have been before me since I was assigned this case in January of this b. year. At the time I was assigned this case, Joshua Intervenors ' lead counsel knew or should have recalled my brief, isolated appearance 13 years ago, but posed no objection until after my September 13, 2002 decision on LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 2FED. R. C1v. P. 60(b)(6). 3See October 29, 2002 Drder Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings at docket no. 3695; November 12, 2002 Order Denying Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal at docket no. 3701; November 12, 2002 Amended Order Denying Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal at docket no. 3702; and November 12, 2002 Order at 3703. 4See Joshua's October 25, 2002 Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings at docket no. 3693; and November 8, 2002 Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal at docket no. 3700. -2- A072A (Rev.B/82) 4. In 1987, I represented Judge Woods before the Eighth Circuit in a mandamus proceeding initiated by LRSD, which sought to disqualify Judge Woods from presiding over this case. That mandamus action was a separate and distinct proceeding, involving separate and distinct issues, that were unrelated to the merits of the underlying school desegregation case. Thus, my brief role as Judge Woods' attorney in that long ago mandamus proceeding in no way constituted my serving as a lawyer "in the matter in controversy," as that phrase is used in 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2).5 Thus, I feel sure that 28 U.S .C. 455(b)(2) does not require my recusal. 5. Joshua Intervenors complain that, when I entered the case earlier this year, I failed to advise them of my long ago appearance on behalf of Judge Woods in that mandamus proceeding. They were not "advised" because they knew. Joshua lntervenors ' lead counsel, Mr. John Walker, was deeply immersed in this case in 1987, and has been continuously since then. After LRSD initiated the mandamus action against Judge Woods, Mr. Walker joined in seeking to have him removed from the case. This is reflected in the reported opinion,6 and is a matter of public knowledge. See Attachment A. 6. Mr. Walker avers that he forgot about my brief appearance in the case. The LRSD responds: The fact that counsel for Joshua "forgot" the Court's earlier representation ofJudge Woods perhaps provides the best evidence that the issues are unrelated. 7 51 also believe it is significant that, in representing Judge Woods, I was not acting as counsel for any of the parties in the underlying school desegregation case. 6See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1301 (8th Cir. 1988). 7Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Response to Motion for Recusal at 5. -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Logic and common sense strongly support LRSD's argument. Furthermore, even accepting Joshua's counsel's statement that he forgot about my representation of Judge Woods, the Eighth Circuit has held that litigants "choose counsel at their peril," and, therefore, the mistakes of counsel are imputed to litigants.8 In view of the certain knowledge of Joshua lntervenors' lead counsel of my involvement in the mandamus proceeding in 1987, it seems to me that the averred lack of knowledge on the part of his associate counsel is irrelevant. 7. In addition, Joshua 's Motion for Recusal is not timely. The Eighth Circuit has consistently required actions under 455(b) to be timely, and has subscribed to the view that "motions to recuse should not 'be viewed as an additional arrow in the quiver of advocates in the face of . .. adverse rulings."'9 In affirming Judge Woods' decision not to disqualify, Judge Richard Arnold wrote: At the outset, we note the irony that most of the major parties to this litigation have at some point sought the removal of the trial judge. Not surprisingly, the parties have generally discovered grounds for disqualification at approximately the same time that the District Court has ruled for their adversaries on the merits. The recusal statute does not provide a vehicle for parties to shop among judges. 10 Mr. John Walker was counsel ofrecord for the Joshua Intervenors at their first appearance in this case back in 1984, and he has remained their counsel of record since that time. At the time ' 8See Inman v. American Home Furniture Placement, In c., 120 F.3d 117, 118-19 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 85 F.3d 1353 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). 10LRSD V. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1302 (8th Cir. 1988). -4- AO 72A {Rev.8/82) I entered this case, Mr. Walker knew or certainly should have recalled that I had represented Judge Woods in the 1987 mandamus proceedings in which he joined with counsel for LRSD in seeking to disqualify Judge Woods from presiding over this case. Yet, only after an unfavorable result did Mr. Walker's memory become refreshed regarding my involvement in the 1987 mandamus proceeding, followed in short order by his decision to seek to have me recuse. The fact that Joshua's motion follows a ruling adverse to them renders the motion suspect as a litigation strategy. 11 The court "cannot permit a litigant to test the mind of the trial judge like a boy testing the temperature of the water in the pool with his toe, and if found to his liking, decides to take a plunge."12 8. In their Motion for Recusal, Joshua 's lawyers allege that I decided the merits of this case based on "fealty and deference to Judge Henry Woods, the individual whose positions [I] was obligated to champion, when serving as an attorney in this case." 13 Joshua 's counsel seem to base this assertion on the following circumstances alleged in their motion: After the time that [I] represented Judge Woods in this case, Judge Woods expressed negative views on the fees for attorneys in the case, particularly the Joshua lntervenors .... In the opinion of September 13, 2002, [I] drew upon (at 43) and built upon (at 38-44) Judge Woods' conclusion about attorneys' fees, although recognizing that the matter was not directly relevant to the issue of unitary status ... (at 40). . . . It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Woods' views about attorneys' fees in this case had a greater influence on [me], after receiving assignment of 11 See United States v. Tucker, 82 F.3d 1423, 1425-26 (8th Cir. 1996). 121n re United Shoe Machine,y Co,p., 276 F.2d 77, 79 (1st Cir. 1960) (citation omitted). 13Motion for Recusal at 6. -5- AO 72A (Aev.8/82) this case, because [I] had earlier assumed an advocacy role for Judge Woods by representing him in this case. 14 My representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus action did not have even the slightest connection with the issue of attorneys' fees in this case. A reading of my September 13 Order in its entirety reveals that I criticize fees received by the entire professional group in this case, not just Joshua's counsel. 15 9. Regarding my employment of Janet Pulliam, 16 I fall in line with a recent decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That Court, in Byrne v. Nez hat, 17 held that recusal was not required where a judge's law clerk had previously worked for a law firm representing one of the parties because the judge immediately isolated the law clerk from the case. Ms. Pulliam has been completely separated from this case at all times. She has not and will not have any connection with this case. 10. Finally, Joshua's counsel asserts that I "held negative views about Mr. Walker's earlier role in this case"18 and that I had "an unfavorable image of [Mr. Walker] due to the court's 14Motion for Recusal at 5. 15lnterestingly, while this point appears to be lost on Joshua's counsel, they do concede that the concerns I expressed regarding the fees that have been paid to the professional group have nothing to do with the merits of LRSD 's Motion seeking unitary status. 16Joshua lntervenors have apparently abandoned this point because it is not raised in their Motion for Recusal. For the record, it should be noted that Ms. Pulliam began her employment with me several weeks after I entered my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion ruling on LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Stats. 17261 F.3d 1075 (] Ith Cir. 2001). 18See Joshua's Motion for Recusal at 6. -6- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) perception of his role regarding attorneys' fees. " 19 Both of these purely speculative assertions are supported by no facts and are patently untrue. In my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675), I expressly recognized that Mr. Walker "has manned the barricades of civil rights litigation in Arkansas for over four decades and that he has a reputation for never yielding on matters of principle." Id. at 41. If at the time I entered that decision I held a "negative" or "unfavorable" image of Mr. Walker, as he alleges, I most certainly would not have paid him such a tribute. 11 . Joshua's Motion to Recuse is DENIED. Likewise, Joshua's request under Rule 60(b )(6) that I vacate my orders, rulings, and judgments in this case is DENIED since no valid reason justifying relief has been presented. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~O day of December, 2002. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMl::1\JT ENTEREO ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANC(!Q~~~:: ON !8'~-~y~ . ' 9See Joshua's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Recusal at 12. -7- JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Michael E. Gans, Clerk O. S. Court of Appeals JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR.KANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 December 22, 2002 111 South 10th Street - Room 24 . 329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re : 02 - 3867 Little Rock School District v . Joshua Intervenors Dear Mr. Gans, OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENltY 8210 HENDERSON RO . .\D LIITLE ROCK, ARK.-1.NS."8 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425 F.-\X (501) 372-3428 ElvL-\JL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal . Transcriots All t,ranscripts needed for this appeal had been prepared earlier for counsel's use in the District Court. Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices . Desianation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors ' designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' statement of i ssues is attached to this letter. cc Chris Heller (LRSD ) other counsel of record in the District Court Aoceal No . 02 - 3867 Little Rock School Dist. v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Tntervenors ' Desianation of ~he Record (1 . ) docket entries :for the period f.::-om January 1, 1998 to date (2 . ) Exhibits 543 to 872 (e!'ld of list} (all exhibits are marked court exhibits) (3 . ) Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March , 1989 (As Revised September 18, 1989) (4 . ) Joshua Opposition LO Little Rock Compliance Report , 6- 25 - 01 (5 . ) Order , 8- 20 - 01 ( 6 . ) Order 10-3 - 01 (7 . ) Response by LRSD, 10 - 5- 01 (8 . ) Order , 10-17-01 (item 3521) ( 9 . ) Ceder , 11-13-01 ( 10 . ) Order , 11-13 - 01 (1 1 . ) Order , 12 - 12 - 01 (12 . ) LRSD , Motion, Memorandum, and Statement of Facts Not in Dispute , 3- 15 - 02 (13 . ) Order, 5-7 - 02 (14 . ) Order , 5- 9- 02 ( 1 5 . ) Order , 5- 15- 02 ( 16 . ) Joshua Intervenors ' ( 1 7 . ) Order, 9- 12 - 02 ( 18 . ) Order, 10 - 11 - 02 ( 19 . ) Order, ll-12 - 02 Opposition, 5 - 30 - 02 (20 . ) t'1otice of Appeal, 11 - 12 - 02 (21 . ) transcripts Subst antive Hearinqs 7-5-01 7 - 6- 01 8-1 - 01 8-2 - 01 11-19-01 11-20- 01 7- 22 - 02 7 - 23--'02 7-24 - 02 Hearings on Procedural Matters 6- 29 - 01 7 - 9- 01 8 - 17 - 01 11-13- 01 12-11- 01 (22 . ) The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, 9- 13- 02 and Order 10-11-02 Appeal No . 02-3867 Little Rock School Dist . v . Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors' Desianation OT Tssues (1 . ) whether some of the District Court's findings of substantial compliance with the Revised Plan were induced by legal error in construing the Plan? (2 . ) whether the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding student discipline, steps to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students, participation in extracurricular activities and advanced and enriched courses, guidance and counseling services, and plan compliance ~t Central High School? ( 3 . ) whether the Revised Plan required that the LRSD show progress in eliminating the racial achievement gap in order to establish substantial compliance with the Plan? (4 . ) whether in the course of assessing the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan the District Court failed to employ monitor ing by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in the manner required by this Court in 1990? (5 . ) whether the District Court erred in holding the Joshua Intervenors to the requirement LDa~ they exhaust the Plan compliance remedies before they could contend thaL the LRSD did noL substantia~ly comply with a requirement of the Plan? ( 6 . ) whether the Distr~c~ Court er~ed in imposing an evidentiary burden on the Joshua Intervenors regarding Lhe Joshua monitoring activities prior to March 15, 2001? 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>