Court filings regarding North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice, response to court letter by Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget, 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>Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) response to Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion regarding school choice; District Court, response to Court letter dated May 23, 2005, by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) objections to Office of Desegregation Management proposed budget; District Court, Joshua's response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) objections to the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing quarterly update; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) sur-reply regarding Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act; 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 AR.KANSAS 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, ET AL. PCSSD REPLY TO NLRSD RESPONSE TO PCSSD MOTION REGARDING SCHOOL CHOICE The PCSSD for its reply, states: The NLRSD Has Been Declared Unitary As to Student Assignment And Racial Balance RECEIVED JUN - 1 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The critical distinction between the status of the NLRSD and the PCS SD is this: The NLRSD was declared unitary as to student racial balance and student assignments years ago; the PCSSD does not enjoy this adjudication and remains obligated to seek and maintain racial balance. Thus, the interpretation of 1.he School Choice Act which promotes the desegregation efforts of the PCS SD must prevail over any other plausible interpretations, particularly since the NLRSD is no longer subject to Court supervision, monitoring or plan compliance on these issues. The Financial Circumstances Of The Two Districts Should Be Taktn Into Account The PCSSD was recently designated by the State as a school district in "fiscal distress". - Please see Exhibits A and B. The NLRSD does not labor under this designation either. It is undisputed that for each child the PCSSD loses, its State aid is reduced at least $5,400 pursuant to Act 59 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2003. The PCS SD is consistently losing enrollment annually as documented by the ODM. However, no school district disputes the proposition that the infrastructure of a school district cannot be immediately or efficiently shrunk or reduced in the face of a declining enrollment. Thus, not only does the PCSSD lose at least $5,400 per student, but its proportionate cost of educating its remaining population of school children goes up. Since the PCSSD is obligated to formulate a plan to extricate itself from fiscal distress, any interpretation of the School Choice Act which exacerbates this financial status is at least suspect. If the PCS SD is unable to escape fiscal distress status, then State law authorizes the State to dismiss the superintendent or the Board, to consolidate the district with one or more other districts or to otherwise eviscerate it. Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908-1910. Such an outcome is inconsistent with this Court' s previous rulings in the Jacksonville detachment matter, which rulings were unanimously affirmed on appeal. Accordingly, an interpretation of the School Choice Act which threatens the very existence of the PCS SD should not be tolerated by this Court especially so long as the PCS SD has yet to attain unitary status. The Implications For Future M-to-M Transfers The rules for M-to-M transfer can only operate so long as at least one of the districts in Pulaski County remains majority white. If and when the PCS SD becomes majority black, the current M-to-M rules cannot continue to operate and the State would then undoubtedly take the position that it has no further obligation to fund M-to-M transfers. However, the current application of the School Choice Act promotes and hastens the PCS SD evolution into a majority black district. While the State might eagerly anticipate attainment of that status, it should not be artificially propelled and State law should not be permitted to operate to promote this eventuality 2 therefore risking an end to millions of dollars of special desegregation funding which actually benefits all three districts. The State Agrees that The School Choice Act Must Yield If It Conflicts With A Federal Court Order Upon information and belief, the PCSSD believes that the State has previously acknowledged that the School Choice Act must yield if it conflicts with the M-to-M stipulation. Conclusion For all of the reasons previously stated, the current operation of the School Choice Act should be suspended as to the schools specified in the initial motion and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol A venue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 By---- M. S ecial 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 31, 2005 , 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 Mr. Horace Smith 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 4 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 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 MAY-O6-05 FRI 12: 11 PM FAX NO. P. 02 {!,,t:.: a~ 0;ii.;=-,.~ Arl(ansas 1t~ -- ~ ), ------ -------- OOM O Al:f- -- ~ )f) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ~ =;_ 'i~ 4 STATE CAPITOi, MAil. , I.Il1LE ROCK. A~ 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 lillp-.//m'kedu.s1,tur.11S Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Educ:adon April 11, 2005 Pulaski County School .District Dr. Don Henderson, Superintendent P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 RECEIVED APR 132.S- ~ J.,,o.6-1"-u.,tt... ~~t~ f.8. ~ i"~ ~~- Dear Dr. Henderson: ~ ,.J ~ )c /{)~ -t J~OS' I On April 11, 2005, the State Board of Education classified the Pulaski County Scho District os bolng In fiscal Distress. In ~ocordance with Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908, "Those school districts Identified by the Department of Education as being In fiscal distress shall file with the department within ten (10) days after the final classification by the State Board of Education a written fiscal distre&amp;s Improvement plan to address any area in which the school district is experiencing fiscal distress as identified by the department." The fiscal distress plan is due no later than 4:30 PM, April 21, 2005. Fllrthermore, this Code requires that the plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following elements: Specific corrective action steps for each indicator stated below A timeline for Implementing each corrective action step Additional action steps the district proposes to take A timeline for Implementing each additional action step For additional information, please refer to the Arkansas Department of Education Rules ldmntifying and Governing the Arkansas Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program (Ruic), Section 7, which describes the Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan. In the Fiscal Distress Identification letter, dated March 3, 2005, the Department identified the following indicators of Fiscal Distress for the Pulaski County School District: The District is projected to have a negative legal balance of $(11, 724,671) in the 2006 fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance with Atk. Code Ann. 6-20-1906, "Any district classified as in fiscal distress shall be required to publish at least one (1) time for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the school district the school district's classification as a school district in fiscal distress and the reasons why the school district was classified as being In STATE DOA RD OF EDUCATION: Ch1lr - JoNcll Caldwell, Little RcK:k Vice Chair JcanDI Watmo.-dand, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonuboro Shelby HlllmH, Carlisle Clvln )Cjng, Marian Jbudy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rl'blck, Lfttlt Rock Diane Tatam, Pine Bluff Naccaman WIiiiams, Jobi"------- A11 tq111f Oppori111dty l:111plo1er EXHIBIT I MAY-06-05 FR I 12: 12 PM FAX NO, P. 03 fiscal distress.~ Section 5.02.1 of the Rule states "The district shall publish this announcement within 30 calendar days of the final classification by the State Board." Accordingly, the Pulaski County School District shall publish this announcement by May 11, 2005. The school district should send to the Financial Accountability Unit of the Department proof of publication in the~ form of an Affidavit of Publlcatlon by the publisher. Please note, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6--20-1907, "your district is unable to Incur any debt without the prior written approval of the Department of Education." Information governing this Is available from the Financial Accountability Unit of the Department. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1908, "A school district in fiscal distress may only petition the state board for removal from fiscal distress status after the department has certified in writing that the school district has corrected all criteria for being classified as In fiscal distress and has complied with all department recommendations and requirements for removal from fiscnl distress." If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Julie Kreth, Coordinator of Financial Accountability, al 601-682w5128. Sincerely, Patricia Martin, Assistant Director Public School Finance PJM/ac l'IAY-06-O5 FRI 12: 12 PH FAX NO. ORDER of CLASSJFJCATION of FISCAL DISTRESS WHEREAS, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann, "6-20-1904, the Arkansas Department of Eclucatlon (ADE) has Identified the Pulaski County School District as a school district in fiscal distress, and has notified the school district of the identification and the criteria indicated by the ADE as the basis for the Identification, and WHEREAS, the Pulaski County School District has failed to file a written request for appeal of the identification to the State Board of Education (SBE) with the Director of the ADE within the time period set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1905, and WHEREAS, the Board, at Its regularly scheduled meeting of April 11, 2005, has dctem1ined that the Pulaski County School District, having been previously identified as a school district in fiscal distress, shall be and is classified as a school district In fiscal distress, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1906, and shall be required to meet the requirements of a school district classified as being In fiscal distress as set forth in the "Arkansas Fiscal Assessment and Accountability Program", Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-1901 et seq., as modified, where applicable, by Act 60 of the 2003 Second Extraordinary Session of the 84th General Assembly. ORDERED AND SIGNED this 11th day of April, 2005 at Little Rock, Pulaski County,. Ark,msas. JoNell 9i/1,, {Jitd,wj Chair Arkansas State Board of Education P. 04 -o,--&gt;Nh~o&gt; ----------- .. -~oo------- ... 1,#o--W- ..,----.,~"- h It .. "' ST A TE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNeJI Caldwell, Little Rock , Vice Chair - Jea111n1 WKtmorcland, Arbdtlphla Mcmbcr11: Sherry Burrow,Jonesboro Shelby :HIDman., Culble Calvin Kin&amp;, MariJPU Jbndy Lawson, Jle11tonvllle MaryJane Rebick. UUle Rock Dint T1tvm, l'lnc Bluff Naccaman Wlllluns, Jobnaen AD Equal Opporlllnll,)' E111ployer MAY-06-05 FRI 12:13 PM FAX NO. Pulaski County Special School District Proposed Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan April 21, 2005 On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education approved the recommendation of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) to officially designate Pulaski County Special School District as a school district in fiscal distress for the 2005-2006 school year. As mandated by ADE regulations, the District respectfully submits the following pl'1n outlining its intent to correct the fiscal issue as identified by the ADE. The plan Includes: 1. Statement of the financial problem that caused the District to be placed In fiscal distress 2. Actions to be taken during 2005-2006 to correct this problem (with attachment) 3. Timeline of events statement of the Problem Based on the ADE's calculation (letter dated Marcil 3, 2005) the District's legal operational fund balance is projected to be a deficit of $5,082.,921 on June 30, 2006. Corrective Action Taken 1. On April 20, 2005 the school board made reductions to Its 2.005-2006 operational budget In the amount of $11,7041249 which will result in containing expenditures to within current projected revenue and restoring a portion of the fund balance. Attached Is a list of those reductions. Toe school board will amend ltS policies to ensure these budget reductions are implemented. 2. The administration has approached the Pulaski Association of Oassroom Teachers (PACT) seeking certain concessions within the negotiated agreement which will assist in controlling costs and add to the fund balance. - These are reflected in the attachment. P. 06 EXHIBIT I /3 ----------- - --======~- MAY-06-05 FRI 12: 13 PM FAX NO. .. Pulaski County Special School District Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan April 21, 2005 Page 2 3. The school board has directed the District budget committee to convene within two weeks to consider further budget reductions. 4. The district currently mee~ the 9% Maintenance funding requirement of Act 1426 of 2005 and will continue to budget for this requirement. s. The school board will adopt a policy that requires adding at least $2 million per year to the fund balance until the District's legal fund balance ls a minimum of 10% of prior year expenditures. 6. The school board will review the salary study and consider any cost savings contained therein. Timelin,e The following timellne will be utilized during the 2005-2006 school year: April 20, 2005 May 10, 2005 June 14, 2005 June 30, 2005 August 16, 2005 September 15, 2005 January 2006 Attachment School board takes action on the fiscal distress Improvement plan and recommended budget reductions. School board will review salary study and consider any cost savings contained therein. School board will adopt a policy for restoring the fund balance. Request for modification of contract language with PACT will be resolved. School board approves budget. 2005-2006 budget due to ADE, School board review of the District's financial status and approval of prior year audit. P. 07 MAY-06-05 FRI 12: I 3 PH FAX NO. P. 08 i ' Prioritized Budget Reductions 2005-2006 Items for Reduction --- ... . . r - -- ---- Amount 1 . Paid off ear!Y retirement Incentive . --- ___ ,___ __ $1 ,000,qoo:OO 2 CloseSiam _____ $19,oqg.oo 3 Harris reverts to r~ular sch95?LY~r _______ ,,___ $116,850:.0Q 4 Reduce Sl.!EPOrt staff sick leave incentive by 50% ----1---- $52,000.00 5 Eliminiate tuition reimbursement __,, ---___ -~9:350.00 6 _ Eliminate open _house_sti~nds ------- --.,_ .. -- $661990.00 -..? _ Eliminate all pajclholida~ for all em~lo~es -~-- $4,058,859.00 B gllminat~.!:Jiring_ in~enti~es _ -- $65;6bo.oo 9 .R.~_ct1:1q~ .1?_r,cmtb_~on!racts !R..?.11 q~.YL._ _. .. $60,000.00 10 . Food Service reorganization (Warehou&amp;____ ___ __ $97,718.00 .. 1t_ ... f0ai!lt~nar~e Dee~~rt!}lent (f,reeze ~J~oslt~ons} _ _ .. - _ $124,098.00 .... 12 .. Eliminate Secondary Saturdayschool -- _ .. _______ $44,992.00 . 13 ... f:lanJ.P!~~~lrm .. Cf!~~?.!3-19.~J!ion) .... __ . __ __ --.. $41,5..Q.OO 1_4 . Tran~.Ef'.rJ_at_lq[!_Dep~_rtmen_t_,reducti(?~ .. ____ ,., __ $310,892.00 15 ___ Freo7.e_sal~cheduie and steps for all.em~ye~s __ .. $3,309,000.00 16 . _Eliminate~ing_newtextbooks __________ ,, ___ ... $~90,000_.Qq ~~ g~: b,;e:~:ra~~~~~~ecn~ 5 ~~:~es/Athletics --.. --- . ____ $~@~:~:~~~ 19 .. Cut_Director_of Su_ppJ)rtStaff Personnel _____ .. __ $93,301~00 __ 20 __ ... Cut Secreta;yjSuperintendent's Office _ ____ ,.. -~ .. $38-,3~~_.06 .. _2_1 . Reduce_Overtimebt50% . _______ ,.____ $102,969.00 22 Redu9e_Legalfees bl?['Y.!!__. ... ,_., ______ - - $_f?_7,750j_q 23 Reduce Out_ of District Travel _by 50% . . ______________ $64&amp;tf&gt;~PO / Reduce formula for assigning Assistant Principals . 24 . _ !reduce 8 eiementary_AP's and 3 Secondary AP's _ _ ---:$_814,422.q_Q 2~ _ ~liminate fg!ly Servic~ .... .. ---- __ . ____ .. __ $~00,00_0.oo Total All Cuts $11,704,24!J.00 4/21/2005 . . NAY-O6-05 FRI 12:14 PN FAX NO, .. ' Pulaski County Special School District Fiscal Distress Improvement Plan Proof of Receipt Received April 21, 2005 by ~---0 ~ }~- an employee of the Arkansas Department olEducatio. RECEIVED APR 2 l ,IAAl. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY P, 09 MlTCHELL WlLLJAMS SELIG GATES WOODYARD PllC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-688-8800 Date: 6/112005 2:24:10 PM Finn General Fax: 501-688-8807 Direct Fax: 501-918-7295 FAX COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS rossmLE TO: .a. U.J"\. -.JV.4. V V.J. RECIPIENT Horace Smith COMl'ANY ODM FAXNO. 171-0100 F.rom: F.ile Number: 22056 Total number of pages including cover: 5 Remarks/special instructions: If you do not receive all pages or there is a problem during transmission, please call: PRIVILGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information following this cover sheet and contained in this facsimile trll.llSmission is confidential ll.lld covered by the attorney-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the person( s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the nmied addressee or ll.ll employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient(s), ploo.se do !!Q!Iead the accomptnying information. Note that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Anyone receiving this mess11ge in error should notify us immedi111ely by telephone and return the original of the trllllSmission to us 111 the above addxess by U.S. mail. Thank you fox youx coopeution. - - MlTCHELl WlLllAMS 5EL1GGATES WOODYARD PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock. AR 7220 I 501-688-8800 Facsimile: 501-688-8807 FAX COVER SHEET Date: June I, 2005 Time: PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT I. Hon. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 2. Hon. Thomas Ray 3. Chris Heiler 4. Stevt Jones 5. John Walker 6. Robert Pressman 7. Mark Hagemeier 8. Horace Smith 9. Mark8W11ette From: Sam Jones file Number: 22056-1 COMPANY Friday Eldredge &amp; Clark Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones John Walker, P.A. Attorney General's Office ODM Total number of pages including cover: 4 Remarks/special instructions: 11:19AM FAX NO. 604-5149 604-5237 376-2147 375-1027 374-4187 1-781-862-l 955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 PHONE NO. If you do not receive all pages or there is a problem during transmission, please call: Ann Overton 501-370-4295. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information following lhis cover sheet and contained in this facsimile tr-ansmission is confidential and covered by the anomey-client privilege. It is intended for the sole use of the penon(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the named addressee or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient(s), please do D!ll read the accompanying information. Note that the dissemination, dislribution or copying of this commUl'litatiOJJ by lUlyont o\htr than 1ht addm$CC is strit'lly prohibited. Arr;ont receiving lhis message in error should notify us immediately by telephone and return the original of the transmission lo us at the above address by U.S. mail. Thank you for your cooperation. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I. ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET The PCSSD for its response, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS l. It admits the accuracy of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the LRSD objection. 2. lt acknowledges the logic of Paragraph 4 and 5 of the LRSD objection, but states that, at the same time, it would be unfair to reallocate costs historically attributed to the LRSD to the PCSSD since nothing about the reduction in monitoring usociated with the LRSD increases any monitoring requilcd of or appropriate for the PCS SD. Logically, what is ideal is for the ODM to ,educe its overall expenditures ~o a level corresponding to its reasonabJy anticipated reduced monitoring activities.: 3. The PCS SD supported the LRSD in its pursuit of unitary status. If the proposed expenditure level of the ODM cannot be immediately adjusted to reflect its reduced responsibilities, then it should continue to absorb the current allocated expenses since its activities and successfu1 claims for relief caused this current issue to arise in the first place. 1 In this regard. the PCSSD is fuUy aware of the diffteulty of shrinking infrastructure as pointed out at page 2 of its reply to NLRSO response to PCSSO motion regarding school Choice 1ited on May 31, 2005. - - - -- - _ _ _ ................... '-' '-' A' VV V J.UJ\. U ~ A.voi Stated another way, the PCSSD has done nothing to precipitate the instant objection nor has it done anything to warrant absorbing a greater proportion of the cost of the ODM. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it not be allocated any greater portion or proportion of the proposed budget than that which it currently absorbs and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, OATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2005, a copy of the fortgoing was served via facsimile and U.S. mail on each of the folJowing: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJc Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Mansas 7220 I Mr. Horace Smith ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220) Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 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 Capito! Avenue LinJe Roe.le, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett JO JO W. Third Street Little Rock., AR 7220 l Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN -2 2005 (fflCEOF DESEGREGATION MO!liTG:mm LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURT LETTER ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2005 BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for its Response to the Court's Letter Order dated May 23, 2005, states: 1. ADE takes no position regarding LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget. 2. ADE would oppose LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget if a reduction m LRSD's contribution to ODM's budget would increase the ADE's contribution to ODM's budget. WHEREFORE, the ADE prays that the. Court enter an appropriate order regarding ODM's proposed budget. Respectfully Submitted, SEP ARA TE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: Assistant Attorney Gen r 1 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this { day of June 2005, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED JUN - 2 2005 (HICF.OF DESEG;,:~ . ti'.J.\ :,lONI.TORJNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682 -3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us VIA FACSIMILE &amp; U.S. MAIL The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Fax No.: 604-5149 June 1, 2005 RE: Letter/Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: Attached please find the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court, faxing copies to Judge Ray, other counsel, and ODM. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. MAH Attachment Very truly yours, ~ cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile and U.S. mail) All counsel (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL l\IlKE BEEBE FAX COVER SHEET DATE: June 1, 2005 Honorable William R. TO: Wilson, Jr. FROM: Mark Hagemeier FAX: 501.604.5149 DIRECT DIAL: 501 .682.3643 ie.t UU.1. / UU4 ------ ----- RE: LRSD vs. PCSSD Response to Court Letter Order Dated May 23, 2005 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (inc. cover): -4 --- 0 URGENT O CALL WHEN RECEIVE O BARD COPY TO FOLLOW O CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS: cc via facsimile: Honorable J. Thomas Ray, All Counsel and The Office of Desegregation Monitoring. If you have any problems with the transmission, please contact Lakeysha at (501) 682-9482. rms MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF TIIE ADDRESSEE(S). IT CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL UNDER THE ATTORNEY ..CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR OTIIERWISE NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO TIIE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY USE OF nns INFORMATION OR DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF TIIlS COMMUNICATION, IS STR!CTL Y PROHIBITED. IF YOU HA VE RECEIVED THlS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW VIA TIIE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. e:lbkesha walla:r\l tfax cover sheet.doc THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE Mark A Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General VIA FACSIMILE &amp; U.S. MAIL The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. United States District Counhouse 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 FaxNo.: 604-5149 June 1, 2005 RE: Letter/Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: Direct dill1: (501) 6!12-3b43 E-mail: m)rk.hag,!rneier@s_s..rtate.ar.us Attached please find the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court, faxing copies to Judge Ray, other counsel, and ODM. Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. MAH Attachment cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile and U.S. mail) All counsel (via facsimile and U.S. mail) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile and U.S. mail) 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.st1te.ar.us/ -- ----- - - --- ---------- --- --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~ UUJ/ UU 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO COURT LETTER ORDER DATED MAY 23, 2005 BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assjstant Attorney Mark A Hagemeier, for its Response to the Court's Letter Order dated May 23, 2005, states: 1. ADE takes no position regarding LRSD's Objection to ODM's proposed budget. 2. ADE would oppose LRSD's Objection to OD.M's proposed budget if a reduction in LRSD's contribution to ODM's budget would increase the ADE's contribution to ODM's budget. WHEREFORE, the ADE prays that the Court enter an appropriate order regarding ODM's proposed budget. Respectfully Submitted, SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: Assistant Attorney Gen r 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 ... . --- - - - -- ----- - - -- -- -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemejer, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served tbe foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this { day of June 2005, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, m 1vfitchell, WilliaruS, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 W. Capitol Ave., Suire 1800 Little Rock, AR 7220i Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Jolm W. Walker John Walker, P.A_ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ UU4/ UU4 JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Suite 3400 425 WEST CAPITAL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Telephone: (501) 375-1122 Facsimile: (501) 375-1027 FACSIMILE COVER PAGE 'l!aJUU.l.l UU:&gt; This facsimile message contains Information that is privileged, confidential, not subject to disclosure, and is intended only for the use of the person or entity named below. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent of the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is illegal and strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephons (collect) and return the original to the above address via U.S. Mail. Thank you. Please contact Paula at (501 I 375-1122 if there are any transmlttal problems. DATE: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 TO: Hon. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. FAX No.: 604-5149 TO: Hon. Thomas Ray FAX No.: 604-5237 TO: Sam Jones FAX No.: 688-8807 A TO: Chris Heller WFAX No.; 376-2147 TO: John Walker FAX No.: 374-4187 TO: Robert Pressman FAX No.; 781-862-1955 TO: Mark Hagemeier FAX No.: 682-2591 TO: Horace Smith FAX No.: 371-0100 TO: Mark Burnett FAX No.: 375-1940 FAXED ONLY --X -- NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 5 FROM: Paula Adams Assistant to Stephen W. Jones HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Offlces In : Conway* A:rk3ns.is Nasnvtll0, Tennessee JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P .. i\. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 3400 ieJ UUZ / uu:&gt; e-mau: Sicnes@t,1l com 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 {501) 375-1122 Tetecopter: (501) 375-1027 direct dial r,o,: (501) 707-552.o VIA FACSIMILE 604-5149 The Honorable William R. Wifson, Jr. United States District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue., Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 June 1, 2005 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School o;strict No. 1, et al Case No. 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed please find the North little Rock School District's Response to your letter/order dated May 23, 2005, concerning LRSD's objection to ODM's proposed budget. We are filing our pleading with the clerk of the court and faxing it to Judge Ray, other counsel and ODM. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Attorney for NLRSD SWJ/pea enclosure cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray (via facsimile) Counsel of Record (via facsimile) Office of Desegregation Monitoring (via facsimile) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS NLRSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET l(f)UUJ / 005 For the first fifteen plus years of ODM's existence, it has been the custom and practice of these parties, and ordered by this Court, that the costs of ODM's budget be born by each district in the same proportion as that district's student population is of the total student population in the three districts combined. Now, the LRSD suggests that this formula should be changed for its benefit and the costs should be assigned based on the proportion of effort needed by the ODM to monitor each district's compliance with its plan. It is understandable that the LRSD has not taken this position before now. If it had, it is fair to say it would have paid for more to date than it paid under the present formula. While it is impossible to calculate with absolute precision the effort expended by the ODM on each district's plan compliance over the last fifteen years, it is fair to say that ODM has spent far more effort monitoring LRSD's plan compliance than the 48% 1 its students represent and far less monitoring the NLRSD than its 17% of students. To - change the rules only now that the dynamics have shifted would be patently unfair. The LRSD should realize a reduction in its actual costs related to ODM but these should be associated with the decrease in ODM's overall budget resulting from the reduction of resources needed for monitoring generally in light of LRSD's present status. It would appear from ODM's budget that just such decreases are occurring. This does not, however, justify a change in how those reduced costs should be apportioned to the respective districts. Wherefore, the NLRSD, for the reasons set forth above, asks this court to maintain the existing fonnula for the allocation of ODM's proposed budget; and for all other just and proper relief. June 1, 2005 By: 2 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON &amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5 75-1122 Attorney for N District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD RESPONSE TO LRSD OBJECTIONS TO ODM PROPOSED BUDGET, has been served via facsimile, this 1 ST day of June. 2005, to the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington, MA 02173 3 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Ro , FILED EAST\J.S. DISTRICT COURT ERN D'ISTRICT ArH&lt;ANSAS JUN O 1 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl.JM'MES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: ' WESTERN DMSION DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. .KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUN - 6 2005 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the request of the Little Rock School District that it be relieved of certain financial obligations which it has with respect to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. The budget of ODM was determined by the district court in 1991 on the basis of the student enrollment for each of the districts. It did not make a distinction between the districts with respect to plan obligations. 2. There have been partial releases from plan obligations with respect to each of the districts but there has not been a corresponding budget reduction on the basis of the plan obligations. 3. The Little Rock School District pegs its position on the reduction of desegregation obligations. However, Little Rock still has desegregation obligations to be monitored in many respects including magnets schools and M to M transfer students. Moreover, it has a continuing duty to cooperate with and support the ongoing activities of both the North Little Rock and - Pulaski County school districts. 4. The Little Rock School District request is not one to reduce the amount of the ODM budget; rather it is to reapportion their share of the budget. LRSD was the moving party in this action. The ODM monitoring plan was triggered because of the actions and inactions of all three districts. Furthermore, there is no basis for a reapportionment of the ODM budget as requested. Joshua does note however that the court has not filled the position which was vacated by the resignation of Ms. Ann Marshall. Accordingly, there has been a de facto reduction of the budget anyway. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the request of the LRSD is without precedent and sufficient justification and therefore should be dismissed or overruled. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) _I ,_ --------1\ ;~: l - / &lt;'.'"] . 1:_,_,. , - /41 ., -~)\._,,...--: j / . ,:. . v' C::t. Ltt_J&gt; ...... _ Jrjhn W. Waiker -#64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this I st day of June, 2005. n , I ) . - 1 I \ _; I - (7101~ - /, ... -1ft:..{:~ // r ,7/f c,-e:_llt~( /, J6hn W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET r. J. ,' L-+ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [. _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL ''&lt;(501) 374-3758&gt;" The information conraiued in this facsimile message iS attorney privileged and confidential infonnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disse.mir.ation, distribution or copying of this communication is stri.c:tly prohibited. If you have received This communication in error, please immediate notify us by te!ep.b.one, and return the origillal message to us at the above add.rc.ss via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. -JOHN W W.U.KER SHAWN C!i!LDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A . .A'I'f'ORNEYATLAw 1723 BROADWAY 1rrrr.E RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONt {501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3'74-4187 June 1, 2005 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. 423 U.S. Post Office &amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave, Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; Lener Order dated May 23, 2005 Dear Judge Wilson: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, p_.i,, DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 tW:!lDlQN P.OAO Lrm.E Roox, AllKANSAs 72210 PHo~. {SOl) 372-~a F'"" (1501) :nz.342s EAun.: iuchenryd@ll'\'bell.nl!t Please find the response of the Joshua Intervenors to your Letter Order dated May 23, 2005. As directed, this pleading is being filed with the clerk of the court with copies to Judge Ray, Mr. Horace Smith of ODM and all counsel. JWW:lp cc: All Other Counsel (fax only) The Honorable J. Thomas Ray ----------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DISTRlCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Int.ervenors respectfully oppose the request of the Little Roel&lt; School District that it be relieved of certain financial obligations which it has with respect to the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, 1. The budget of ODM was determined by the district court in 1991 on the basis of the student enrollment for each of the districts. It did not make a distinction between the districts with respect to plan obligations. 2. There have been partial releases :from plan obligations with respect to each of the districts but there has not been a corresponding budget reduction on the basis of the plan obligations. 3. The Little Rock School District pegs its position on the reduction of desegregation obligations. However, Little Rock still has desegregation obligations to be monitored in many respects including magnets schools and M to M transfer students. Moreover, it has a continuing . duty to cooperate with and support the ongoing activities of both the North Little Rock and - Pulaski County school di.s1ricts. 4. Toe Little Rock Sehool Distriet request is n.ot one to reduce the amount of the ODM budget; rather it is to reapportion their share of the budget. LRSD was the moving party in this action. The ODM monitoring plan was triggered because of the actions and inactions of all three districts. Furthermore, there is no basis for a reapportionment of the ODM budget as requested. Joshua does note however that the court has not filled the position which was vacated by the resignation of Ms. Ann Marshall. Accordingly, there has been a de facto reduction of the budget anyway. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit tha! the request of the LRSD is without precedent and sufficient justification and therefore should be dismissed or overruled. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Atkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fux) ; \~~ --&lt;J J_ d _/, ft t (f!fJ.. f8A-. ,,k,bn W. Walker-#64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served on all counsel of record on this l st day of June, 2005. W. Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING OUARTERL Y UPDATE RECEIVED JUN - 6 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONlJORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterlywritten update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Court's Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Be@~ 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 the 1st day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 10 IO W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~ ChristopherHeller Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONLTORIHG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT, PLAINTIFF V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~:_;:J O '? ===J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~:; !\J1E3 ,.r;, '..;0 :':"'.::: :''. G:&lt;, C'...ER!-&lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO.: 4:82-CV-00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. RECEIVED JUN -a 2005 OfRCEOF DESEsawmm MONmmllG NLRSD's SUR-REPLY REGARDING PCSSD's PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION REGARDING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT In its Reply in this matter, the PCSSO raises some arguments for the first time. First, it contends that the fact that the NLRSO was declared unitary in student assignment several years ago while the PCSSO "remains obligated to seek and maintain racial balance" justifies this Court in declaring the Arkansas School Choice Act in conflict with the PCSSO Desegregation Plan, especially since the NLRSD is no longer subject to court supervision. This argument begs the question. The School Choice Act is an expression of the public policy of the State of Arkansas and, as such , is entitled to deference from this Court unless no other alternative is available. In the present case, as has b.een discussed in previous filings, the School Choice transfers to the NLRSO have not placed any PCSSO school in danger of being out of compliance with its racial balance guidelines. Thus, the PCSSD asks this Court to take the draconian step of overturning state legislation on the basis of 1 speculation about possible future negative consequences. We respectfully submit that the time for this Court to take such a step is when the eventuality occurs, not now when there is not only no such development but no immediate threat of such an occurrence. Second, and perhaps most revealingly, the PCSSD argues that it is really all about the money. It argues it is in fiscal distress and that the loss of these few students has such significant financial impact as to justify this Court using the power of federal pre-emption to overturn the application of an otherwise lawful state statute. First, it should be noted that th is appears to be a question, of "whose ox is gored." Obviously, the NLRSD loses the same revenue associated with these stud,ents that the PCSSD i gains if School Choice transfers are prohibited. The NLRSD has suffered significant student loss over the years but has nonetheless avoided fiscal distress. See Exhibit A attached hereto. Also, as Exhibit A reveals, enrollment fluctuates year to year, and it is equally logical, perhaps even more so, to speculate that PCSSD's number of students will increase, especially when one considers that the most of the undeveloped or developing areas in this county, such as Chenal, are in the PCSSD. More important, it is not, nor could it reasonably be, suggested that the PCSSD's current fiscal distress is related solely or even primarily to the loss of these few students . There are a myriad of potential explanations for the PCSSO's current financial situation and School Choice transfers may well be the least of them . Certainly, it is unfair to suggest transferring the economic consequences of these student transfers to the NLRSD simply because it has managed to avoid being designated a school district in fiscal distress. This is especially true in light of the fact that the NLRSD's participation in School- Choice transfers is non-discretionary. Ark. Code Ann. 2 I ! I ii 6-18-206(b)(3)(Supp. 2003).1 Likewise, it is unfair to shift to parents and students the burden of resolving the PCSSO's financial pressures by depriving them of their limited right to choose the school they will attend. Next, the PCSSD speculates that at "some point in time in the future," it might become a majority black school district at which time M-to-M transfers would no longer be possible. Initially, it should be noted that even if the three school districts in Pulaski County are all majority black, it would not prohibit M-to-M transfers from: districts in surrounding counties. More important, however, such a development. is entirely speculative. All three of these districts could well be unitary in c;1II aspects, before this occurred , and growth could occur in the undeveloped or developing areas discussed above which could result in an increase in white students. On the other hand, even if the PCSSD were to become majority black, there is no reason to suspect that School Choice transfers would be significantly responsible for that change rather than, for example, simple demographic changes. The ultimate irony would then be the elimination of the one vehicle remaining to these districts for the exchange of students, the School Choice Act, which permits transfers on a "greater than to lesser than" basis rather than a "majority to minority" basis. Finally, the PCSSO suggests that overriding an otherwise valid state law applicable to every other school district in Arkansas is appropriate if it will assist the PCSSD in eliminating its fiscal distress. However, this reasoning is flawed . One must ask, if the Court is able to overturn one state regulation simply because of its potential financial impact on one of these districts, what other state regulations must it be 1 In its response, we cited Ark. Code Ann. 6-18-206(b)(3)(Repl. 2003), which was subsequently amended to the present version. Previously, only the sending district was compelled to participate, but that was amended to require the participation of both districts. 3 prepared to overturn? Student-teacher ratio? Facility standards? Minimum curriculum requirements? Minimum teacher salaries? The portent of such a decision is that this Court would be put in the impossible position of having to decide, regulation by regulation , and statute by statute, which should be retained and which should be overturned. It would be required to substitute its judgment for that of the Arkansas General Assembly regarding what the proper public policy for the State of Arkansas should be with respect to the education of its students. This asks too much of the Court and goes far beyond the boundaries of the Supremacy Clause of the United States. Constitution. WHEREFORE, the NLRSD respectfully requests that the Court deny the PCSSD's Motion Regarding School Choice; and for all other just and proper relief. June 7, 2005 By: 4 Respectfully submitted, JACK, LYON &amp; JONES. P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5 -1122 Stephen W. Jones (78083) Attorney for North Little Ro District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that the foregoing, NLRSD SUR-REPLY TO PCSSD'S MOTION REGARDING THE ARKANSAS SCHOOL CHOICE ACT, has been served via U.S. Mail, this J1h day of June, 2005, to the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Ave. Lexington , MA 02173 5 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor OOM One Union National Plaza 124 W: Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Off 1ce 501 771-8097 North Little Rock School District Racial Count 1974 -2004 ~~ Osto~:;e1974 ___!Y_on-B~~~~6 - Bli,;31 1 __I_o~06i ___ October 1975 ___ . 8,884 . 2,987 ... 11,871 _ :-g=:~;~ ~ ~~:= -~~:-~;; --_. !~:_;~~ October 1976 . 8,682 3,0mi=12 11,694 _ October 1979~- 7,641 .. 3,287 . 10,928 ___ October 1980 . __ _ 7,247 .__ 3,356 ___ 10,603 October 1981=t ___ 6,711_ 3,365 10,076 October 1982 . _ _ 6,474 _ 3,498 _ 9,972 October 1983_ 6, 194 __ 3,607 __ 9,_801 - October 1984 __ ___ 5,935 ; . _ 3,752 ____ 9,687 October 1985 1 __ 5,769 ; . .. 3,686 ___ 9,455 . October 1986 _ 5, 824 . _ 3, 865 ... 9, 689 October 1987 .. ____ 5, 740 3,997 ___ 9,737 ... October 1988 - .. 5,450 .. . 4,044 ___ 9,494 ____ October 1989 _' _ _ .. 5,208 , .. 4,218 _ _ 9,426 October 1990 __ /- 4,~. _ 4,279 9,194 g~~~~=~-;::; ~--= ::ffi+= . ::!::E:-~:~~~ October 1993 - 4,600 __ 4,485___ 9,085 October 1994 ___ 4,372~_4,691_ __ 9,063 October 1995 ' 4,057 4,844 8,901 _October 1996:r-- 4,033 _5,02t= . 9,053 ___Q ctober 1997 . _ 3,970 _5 ,222 __9~ 1 92 ___ October 1998_ . ___ . 4,001 ___ 5,262 __ 9,263 .... October1999 _ _ 3,814 . 5,188 _____ 9,002 . . October 2000 . -~ - .. __ _ 3,703 __ 5, 133 . 8, 836 . October2001 _ __ _ . 3,876 __ 5,183 _,. __ 9,059_ ----~:~:~~L __ _J~~: . ;:~;! ---t:_; October 2004 3,814 5,296 9,110 ----- - -------------- j :i P - 2 EXHIBIT 06 / 03 /2005 FRI 15: 39 (TX/RX NO 7418 l ~ 002 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Suite 3400 Offices Tn: Conway, Arkansas Nashville. Tennessee 425 WEST CAPITOL UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375-1122 Facsimile: (501) 375-1027 e-mail : sjones@111 .com Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard , PLLC 425 W. Capitol Avenue - Ste. 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller __ ... Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220_1 __ Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Dear Counsel: June 7, 2005 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P .A 172_3 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor ODM One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 ' Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue Suite 149 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Enclosed you will find a copy of the NLRSD's Sur-Reply Regarding PCSSD's Motion Regarding the Arkansas School Choice Act which was filed of record on June 7, 2005. SWJ/kmb Enclosures Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMAU. I.ITTllROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501)682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director of Education June 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECENEO Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III lU~ 0 0 1005 t1Ulli\\t~m~~ ~Oll\10t\\llti Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 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 June 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you h~ve any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier A TE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro , Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Naccaman Williams, Johnson An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW 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 June 2005. Respectfully Submitted, ~"~* cottSmi~ 92251 General Counsel, 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 June 30, 2005, 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. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 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 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,IIl Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 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 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2005 f;la~e:.a:6Jhi:!mQfmfill9-~yiff~6J~tTM.~ZWr"Jf$.:uJi~tf1;~L~:tfielsmie EouoaaHoorEuoa11Yff&amp;JiWlfM&lt;&gt;sT.sYbJ~P-ecioaic;aajusufia 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>