Court filings regarding Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court motion to withdraw as counsel and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status.

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

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>Court filings: District Court, order; Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) proposed budget, District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, letter order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. FILEBiRT ~ii:i ~W~+ ARl&lt;ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 17 1001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 1 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W, Mc~~; B --~'"'.'~~= CLE K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Y- PLAINTIFF V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 2J 2007 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS . On October 4, 2007, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. I have attached a copy of the budget to this Order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. 1/Jlt: IT IS SO ORDERED this ~day of October, 2007. Office bf Desegregation Monitoring -lied States District Court Eastern District of Arl&lt;ansas October 3, 2007 The Honorable William R. Wilson Judge, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 500 West Capitol, Room 444 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 RECEIVED OCT - ' 2007 Wm. R. WIison Jr U. S . District Ju'dge E .D. of Arl(ansa8 Enclosed is the proposed 2007-08 ODM budget. The format of the document follows that of ODM's previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. This budget is allocated between the State of Arkansas, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. Since LRSD has been released from all obligations relating tQ any ODM budget after the 2006-07 school year, our proposed 4007-08 budget does not include a financial allocation for the LRSD. I will promptly provide any additional information upon request. Sincerely yours, Andree Roaf Director, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enc. cc: Judge J. Thomas Ray - - - - - - - - - - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2007-08 BUDGET REVENUE ~o:;~~I :~i=~~e ~;~:)tt)J~~ft1; State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 [}f:;iq9!9pQ';q/ LR::.,.,.,_,., 112,356.00 112,356.00 ~1A~~l~~ Minus credit from previous year 4,324.00 4,324.00 \--::_,; 3;Q_51;too :; Equals LRSD's share of the budget 108,032.00 108,032.00 ~\(t{a;o~$.;ti~P NLRSD {f)Zt=JJM.ti:: Budget allocation 41,786.00 41,786.00 : U_~;5_Q1 99..4,QP :J-:,l.,,: :.{?1~-,:'"=:; ~:::-,\;=.:: .. '.f Minus credit from previous year 1,608.00 1,608.00 7:\&gt;'{1;:1~;7)Q,9t ........................... .... ........... . .............. ~-~~~r 1 jr. f ,, ....... .- :, Equals NLRSD's share of the budget ______ _ 40,178.00 40,178.00 ;\iiMlift:@'; PCS SD ~lE:i&gt;;~;/t{;))\/g Budget allocation 77,999.00 77,999.00 ??')Jf;1~ey;9:o} ,_;, ://:.'.~ . "&gt;.~,;;-.;~~-~-i-{ ..: .1~\ )',: Minus credit from previous year 3,002.00 3,002.00 &lt;&gt;./i4\JZti09.\ Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 74,997.00 74,997.00 ~J;j'ij9;p;~~}P.i:f ::::::tE quipment/Furniture ,-.~-'-,:,--- ,..-_,~',._-;.'-", '4"_-_.,~----_.'. ,._ -i0,-,' ---_-_'. . -: '_---:' ~----__ _:-:--.4&gt;- '4"_2:_.'..'~-2563 _8_ :- i_-:-_-i:_.o-~,-_2;_ - ,--,-.,. - _1.c;,'.~t:;;-:_~_-_,~-,:_3:~_,'.:1~_,._;o!_{,:7;,:,;:4'.;._l! ,;.:O~:'.:o:; ::,.::. 4Si~it#~y;ioui{ r&lt;, __- :,!. :;~;-_--:JEi~~~=-;=:::~, -'-"""--t'-,-?'-~-'..,.~ .v..- ""'--'-=- '---'-"'"""'"--"-"'""":':"r "==-""~--- _ ',/ _ Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES - 2006~07 Budget Communications 4,805.00 4,804.97 }?\/j_~9.~@i;: Equipment 0.00 0.00 l'.'.,/y:f :{:g\oo: Food Services 0.00 0.00 :i}:'??;/'/o.f@i Management Services 0.00 0.00 :{\&gt;'\:}_q;qp_". Perlodlcals 108.00 108.00 :-{,::-:/i)4ifue Rent 41 ,454.00 41,453.87 //:{tzi{fo~\QO'. - +------+---------~ Repairs &amp; Maintenance 162.00 161 .25 \:.\'~'.~1'.49.p;Qpi_ Resource Library 0.00 0.00 :::_t.J\:&lt;Y-;qc{ Salaries 302,161 .00 305,462.78 ?//~z~;of#;cfq.\ Staff Development 0.00 0.00 ;:_;_;}\;"'. /-'O[~tj ; l--~-r-ua-p'-:'--1;es_ ___________1_ ,7_1_: -::-: -+---1_,7_1~- :-::- tr?t: t'.s0~~~i: Insurance Difference (Income minus Expendilur~! _ _ ------- ---- - - --- ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2007-08 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2007-08 Budget 10/1/06 %of 2007-08 2006-07 2007-08 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment not spent) LRso NA NA 0 3,056 (3,056) NLRSD 9,842 34.88 59,554 1,137 58,417 PCSSD 18,374 65.12 111,186 2,121 109;065 State of AR 200,000 0 200,000 YrWf~i/i(:': ::: i 2~~~J~i &gt;~q&amp;r, &gt;&lt;Jf o:1i o/ :;} '} \i:~fJi: l: T.~e:J1i:14!t. Described below is:thestep~by'-step:process; reflected,inthe .chartabove,:.that we use.to .determine PCSSD's and NLRSD's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on this year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. The sum is the amount each district is to contribute to ODM's budget. The districts will be notified before the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget. Note: Since the U.S. District Court had declared the LRSD unitary during the 2006-07 school year, the Court ruled that the LRSD had no obligation with respect to future ODM budgets. As a result, the 2006-07 credit, as shown in the chart above, is calculated using the October 2006 enrollment for all three school districts, while the 2007-08 budget allocation is calculated using the October 2006 enrollment for only the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Page3 ------------ EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2006-07 Budget 4,805.00 The 2007-08 communications budget Increased due to two factors: (1) the service provider Increased the standard monthly rate and (2) the service provider charged a one-time fee for moving the phone lines to relocate the office from the 18th floor to the 16u, floor (For more explanation pertaining to the move, see "Rent' on page 4.) The overall Increase for 2007-08 Is offset by reducing the number of phone lines available for office use beginning In November 2007. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations . or associations or payments. to a paying agentfor services provided; such as conferenceregistration: fees. 2006-07 Budget 0.00 Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2006-07 Budget 0.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2006-07 Budget Ex:~~::ires if l~~?::tt:tif 1;i~~f;~ Page4 ~-- - --------- . - Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2006-07 Budget ex!~~:;~~res ;~I~~~~; i~:~~~~~~~:~:, 108.00 The amount budgeted and paid In 2006-07 was for a partial year's subscription for the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The amount budgeted for 2007-08 ls for a full year's subscription. Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2006-07 Budget ,___ __ 4,331.00 The decrease In the 2007-08 budget Is due to a new lease agreement that will begin November. 2007 for a copier with a smaller monthly premium. Professional and TechnicalServices: Services.which by their nature.can.be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2006-07 Budget 783.00 2006-07 Expenditures . With relocating the office from the 18th floor to the 16111 floor, computers, phone equipment, and internet service will have to be moved. The following breakdown includes the one-time charge for moving those three services: 800.00 standard services performed annually 300.00 relocate computers 500.00 Install Internet cabling 1,000.00 relocate phone equipment and lines Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2006--07 Budget Ex:~~:;fires J.~!f ~r' i&amp;t::l;l'.i~r~g( 41,454.00 The decrease in the 2007-08 budget is due to a reduction In office space. ODM Is relocating from the 18th floor in the One Union Nation Plaza to the 16111 floor in the same building. The square footage is decreasing from 2,738 to 1,537 and the monthly rent from $3,203.46 to $1 ,857.21. Page5 Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2006-07 Budget 162.00 2006-07 Expenditures Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a pennanent or temporary nature. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures Below is a breakdown of each.employee's budgeted200.7~08;salary, reflecting.a-329% annual.base. increase, which.is equalto-orless:thantheannualstepincrease.onthe:salaryscales,oftheJo.cal:districts. . : .. 1Gene Jones resigned 3-15-07. 2Horace Smith resigned 6-30-07. .... . - ~- .. Name of Employee Aridree Roaf Gene Jones' Margie Powell - Horace Smith 2 Polly Ramer Linda Bryant 3 ..... - Total 3Linda Bryant's last day to work will be 1-4-08 -- 20D6-07 2007.06 Salary Salary . 1,373 1.19,000 48;480 0 - 77,354 79,899 84,694 0 58,061 59,971 - 32,199 17,204 302,16t . 276,074 - Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures ';\}?:f r:f.it:,~r~ltt\~ Page6 ~elow is a breakdown bv category of each emolouee's 2007-08 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hos pita I Short Total Allowance Security ment -lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Roaf 0 9,103.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,103.50 Powell 1,200.00 6,204.07 11,353.66 3,162.72 32.64 282.48 60.96 62.8B 22,369.61 Ramer 0 4,587.78 8,395.94 3,162.72 32.64 282.48 60.96 62.BB 16,565.40 Bryant 0 1,316.11 2,406.66 1,836.20 10.B0 145.B0 31 .05 32.40 5,660.92 ~tf:;}\)i.V::~ \(Ji~~~;~ci-,: ':,~2f;il:~:/i.} i~J$ida;Y \ff,i~Vii.f: (i;1.foa) {\:;.JjQ'.7it{ tf/ A'.~~:w:,; ;:)1i~2i~: /st$i~J3 y Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2006-07 Budget 2006-07 Expenditures Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel; and other expenses associatedwithtraveling or business, such as parking fees .. Payments for per diem inlieu ofreimbursementsfor. subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2006-07 B0dget 0.00 2006-07 Expenditures Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2008-07 Budget 606.00 2006-07 Expenditures With decreasing the size of the office, the amount of office furniture and equipment will also be decreased, thus reducing the amount of required insurance. Page7 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:45 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/17/2007 at 4:44 PM CDT and filed on 10/17/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4150 Docket Text: ORDER, parties must file any objections within 5 days to the ODM's proposed budget for the 2007- 2008 fiscal year; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/17/07. (&lt;lac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin 2/5/2008 NAACP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/17/2007] [FileNumber=1020016- 0] [99db091723ab95387ed55376e2abde84173cd32f757af69fbebfD366e453fe6d6a 30ecb3de178c4bee78c3e3553b92316e64claa22ba7bc68b6dfa6339c6c01c]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4152 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 1 of 2 _,_ . _._ S:ILEn '.: ... ul ofsrR,cT ~~T ,_. l:l"LSTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 2 2 2007 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. 4:82CV866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL Norman J. Chachkin, one of counsel for Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays that this Court enter its Order pennitting him to withdraw from that representation in this matter because he will be leaving the staff of the NAACP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund, Inc. ("LDF'') effective October 31, 2007. Plaintiffs will continue to be represented by local counsel. Respectfully submi~. ~JM#i /NRMAN J. CHAH~"'- NAACP Legal Defense &amp; Educ'l Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, 16th floor New York, NY 10013-2897 (212) 965-2259 .. K Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4152 Filed 10/22/2007 Page 2 of 2 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on this 16th day of October, 2007, I served a copy of the foregoing Motion upon counsel for the parties to this action, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday &amp; Eldredge 400 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 M. Samuel Jones, ill, Esq. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C.-LR 425 West Capitol A venue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Scott Richardson, Esq. Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 ~ Norman J. C achkin Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:00 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion to Withdraw as Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/22/2007 at 2:59 PM CDT and filed on 10/22/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4152 Docket Text: MOTION to Withdraw Attorney Norman J Chackhin by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua ( dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 2/5/2008 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: - Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStarnp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/22/2007] [FileNumber=1022555- 0] [213d777cf824ab20d17e53b3c5c67bf922eee4068a2775e3efelc72fb42adb4c74 b4 7b72df64 707695aa3b4d63cc28ef3f41536fb8234e0c204fe428375d5afl]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:21 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2007 at 10:21 AM CDT and filed on 10/25/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4153(No document attached) Docket Text: (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting [4152] Joshua Intervenor's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Accordingly, Mr. Norman J. Chachkin is relieved as counsel.Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/25/07. (dmm) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger 2/5/2008 Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:22 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2007 at 4:21 PM CDT and filed on 10/25/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4157 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER granting a 60 day response time by the Joshua Intervenors. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/25/07. (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 2/5/2008 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l0/25/2007] [FileNumber=1025783- 0] [91fddbcc4f9aea5c15f00b473b51d71da937811d78bd2ef82791680e9e20aa9d42 4a82969046042af8fbcfl80d43faa29047f08cf9d724df6de6bcedblllba35]] 2/5/2008 Page 2 of2 c: Met~ ; c:.. " fktd:;~ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS REC E WESTERN DIVISION IVED OCT 3 o ,nn1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT reAINTIFF OFACEOF v. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW DESEGREGATION MONITORING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. The PCSSD believes that it has complied with or is in substantial compliance with its desegregation plan known as "Plan 2000". 2. The PCS SD seeks a declaration of this Court that it is unitary and should be released from all aspects of Federal Court supervision. 3. Because the District can be eligible to receive certain financial incentives as a result of Act 395 of the 2007 legislative session if it is declared unitary by June of 2008, the PCSSD requests that a scheduling order be issued which would facilitate such a determination and decision by this Court within the deadlines suggested by Act 395. 4. This motion is accompanied by a rnemorandum brief, and a copy of Plan 2000 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 13 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a finding by this Court that it is unitary as respects substantial compliance with its desegregation plan, its release from Federal Court supervision and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.corn Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 13 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle. williams@arkansasag .gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com I certify that on October 29, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 3 , Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 4 of 13 EXHIBIT A Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 5 of 13 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAN 2000 DATED November 4, 1999 A. Scope of This Plan (1) This Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions: B. (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation case "Settlement Agreement" as revised on September 28, 1989; (b) Th~ Mqgn.et.&amp;ct,Qol St.ipulation qated :F~Qruary 27, (c) (d) (e) 1987; f L ,:- : . Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and . . -~ . --; : h: - . : :, Orders -of the ~istriqt.:9ourt and the court of appeals interpre~ing orj ~.!ifqi"Giflg sectkm~ (a). throt1gh (d) above to. the ~xt~r:it: nQ.t inconsist~nt.wi~h this Plan. General Obligation .. . . ,' . .,1_: :: ;.' : :, . - : : ." 1. ; ; :, :?: \ ~ ~.: ! t' ' ' I , , , PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the oper~tion qf th-~- P,CSSD, ~nd to pr9vide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending P,CSSO schools. . . _ C. (1) The PCSSD shall continue to implement the current standards for the assignment of students to schoot.s~wittlim :tt,,e _district. The. PCSSD shall Inform the Joshua lntervenors of the documen:ts whi.ch set forth the details of the existing plari. This notice shall be prov1dec;l:w!ttiii:i: $0,-;d~y~_of th$. c&lt;;&gt;ur\'$. a.pproval of _this Plan. (2) The PCSSO shall s~~mit.n.of iater:than-October ~5 in each school year a report concerning one race classes. the report shall set forth for each such class: (i) the school, (ii) the class including the grade level, (iii) the racial make-up of the class, (iv) a description of steps taken to elim.iilate the particular one race class and the 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW boc~~ent 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 6 of 13 reason(s) why this proved to be infe~$ible. The PCSSD shall submit not later than March 1 of each school year a siajilar;,s,Lipple.mental report concerning any one race classes in courses commenc.i n.g ~h. 't~. e~e99nd semester of the s~hool year. ,. - . . D. Advanced Placement, G(ft~d ,and Talented .and Honors Programs :. 'I , ' ~. , ;( Not later than 45 days a~r. the, court's approval: of this Plan, the PCS SD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenor$)h~i taijqards then in 'place for selecting secondary students for and educating them in .~dvan~ed placement, gifted and talented, and honors programs, including standard(tp promote racial diversity in these programs. The PCSSD shall include in this submission notices which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. E. Student Assignment; lnterdistrict Schools (1) PCSSD and LRSD shall operate interdistrict schools in accordance with the following: ___,: .. , ,:;,,.,;,;~:: ,:,: . (a) (b) . (c) (d) (e) 136748-v1 . . : .: i ~ ~_., :-.i1 r{it~_~ r, '.. i . /L .. : : ,, \ . PCSSD. lntetdistrict .Schools. PCS$D shall operate Baker Elerrieritary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary ah~i any. .new elementary school which may be corisfriicfecflii the Chenal Valley area as lnterdis~rict -~~hqql,s, .( J;. '. I ' . I 1 \ , LRSD lnt~rdistri~t Si~~ols. 1-RSO.shall operate King Elementary, R9rn,i111~ ;~iementary: and Washington Elementary a~j {rnt~frdl$.trict SchoQIS. ' Racial Composition. The ideal composition at the interdi~trict ~chpoJ~ snail be as close to 50%-50% as possible with. tne majority race of the host district remaining the,:1;11,aj9.{ity race at the in.terdistrict school, except that ~ak~r School shall not be subject to this requirement., '&gt; :. ... . '' ' . .. .. ''{ :\,,i\-i11 ;_ .. , :. . . . ReservedSea'ts~'~jPC$~.D.shall reserve at least 200 seats at.Cl!n.ton:,E!~m.~rtary and. up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill El~m~ntacy for interdi~t~ict transfer students from L.RS.D. The District shall also reserve up to haif of theseats for LRSD black students in any new Chenat VaU.~ y. . S., c..h. ool . Recruitment Pcssd ~nd LRSD agree to implement programs at interdisfrict schools designed to attract interdistrict transfe~ students and to work 2 : . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 7 of 13 F. (f} (g) Discipline cooperatively to.recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict schools. Outside Students. lnterdistrict schools shall be open to students who ~esid~ outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the interdistrict school In achieving its ideal racial composition. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to interdistrict schools. (1) The PCSSD will continue to gather data which allows a full assessment of its success in achieving its objective, of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. As a foundation for,this effort, disciplinary records shall be kept on each student concerning the nature of any discipline imposed (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.); the teacher.and sJaff member involved; and the school, race, and sex of the student. . : . . (2) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shausubmit to the Joshua lntervenors, for comment, proposed criteria for identifying, from the data collected: (i) teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems ;which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. The Joshua .lntervenors shall have 21 days to provide comments on these proposed criteria. The PCSSD shall then complete the criteria promptly. (3) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation and the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall thereafter provide for and participate in specific efforts to work with teachers anc;f other staff members and the personnel of schools, identified pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraph 2, to promote achievement of the goal of eliminating r~cial disparities in school discipline. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall maintain records showing the specific steps undertaken. (4) PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve (12)), one-half designated by the Joshua lntervenors and one-half by PCSSD and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible remedies. The panel shall, among other things: review discipline records to secure an understanding of the circumstances in which African-American students are disciplined; interview and\or 3 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 8 of 13 survey African-American students regarding their experiences in the system generally and in the discipline process; and consider the possibility of a relationship between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. The written study shall be completed not later than 150 days after court approval of this Plan and shall provide suggestions for prevention and intervention measures. (5) The PCSSD shall develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This initiative shall be implemented not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. (6) PCSSD shall adhere to the_ policies set forth in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, as revised after consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, PACT and PASS, to provide that students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall be responsible for determining the fairness of student disciplinary decisions. He will delegate the student hearing function to a single hearing officer who will consider the appeal brought by parents and the position of the administrator making the recommendation and then make a decision based upon equitable factors. An aggrieved student may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may review the matter or refer it to the school board for action. The committee approach which utilizes school principals in the student appeal process has been discontinued and will not be reinstituted. G. Multicultural Education (1) The PCSSD shall continue its efforts to infuse multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. All phases of a school's environment (M.:., instructional materials, lesson plans and lessons, library cqntents, bulletin boards, extracurricular activities, school assemblies, speaker programs, and food services) shall reflect the system's Plan to multicultural education. (2) A principal activity of the Coordinator for Multicultural Education and the Coordinator's office shall be on-site visits to individual schools to determine whether the system's policy and the provisions of this Plan are being implemented in fact. The Coordinator shall maintain records permitting an evaluation of the status of implementation at each school visited . . - H. School Facllltles (1) The PCSSD shall prepare, with the help of consultants, as necessary, a plan so that existing school facilities are clean, safe, attractive and equal. The plan shall address alternatives for funding its implementation. The Board of School Directors shall approve a plan not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. The Joshua lntervenors shall be given a-14 day period to comment on the content of the plan prior to its adoption. 4 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 9 of 13 (2) An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\Maumelle area will be built. The Board will address the development of a plan for new school construction during the term of this Plan if funds are sufficient, including its funding, and report its conclusions not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. Moreover, the PCSSD shall not close schools which are located in predominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools). (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua lntervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua lntervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal. I. Scholars hips Within 30 days from the date that the LRSD successfully establishes its own scholarship program, PCSSD shall es.t~blish a bi-racial committee to explore a program for providing college scholarships .to designated PCSSD students. J. School Resources PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, a study to determine whether school.resourc;::es are allocated equitably among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil\teacher ratio; pupil\staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer\pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified. K. Special Education (1) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for: (i) stressing intervention strategies and regular class modifications in an effort to prevent inappropriate referrals of black males and kindergarten students; (ii) monitoring the folders of all kindergarten students and black students who are being considered as in need of special education under IDEA and Section 504 to insure nondiscrimination in evaluation and placement. The PCSSD shall Include in this submission materials which are used to inform staff members of th.e relevant standards. (2) The Director of Special Education shall develop a specific plan for additional monitoring each year, by his\her staff, of schools where there are atypically 5 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 0 of 13 high racial disparities in special education classification, generally or as to black male students. The PCSSD shall provide a copy of this plan to the Joshua lntervenors, which shall include criteria for Identifying schools for monitoring. L. Staff (1) The PCSSD shall recruit applicants for each available administrative position, by internal and external means, in a manner designed to communicate, broadly, its availability and to develop a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall, with the cooperation of the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, be informed of the make-up of each such applicant pool and they shall have the authority to direct that additional recruitment take place prior to the offering of the position to a particular applicant. (2) The PCSSD shall engage in recruitment so that new teachers are selected from a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall monitor the recruitment process so that recruitment is extensive and sustained, and the hiring process so that no policy, practice, or custom has the purpose or the effect of imposing an upward limit on the proportion of black teachers. (3) The PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and\or procedures which result in an increase in the number of African-American early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the PCSSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. , (4) The PCSSD will allocate teachers and other professional staff in a manner which avoids the racial identification of schools. M. Student Achievement (1) The PCSSD shall implement the plans designed to improve student achievement, recommended by Dr. Stephen Ross, and shall work with Dr. Ross in their implementation. See Attachment (plans). (2) The PCSSD shall continue to implement its home-school counselor program. 6 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 11 of 13 N. Monitoring (1) The Assista.nt Superintendent for Desegregation shall: (i) develop a plan so that he (or she) and his (or her) staff focus their monitoring and compliance efforts on the specific elements of this Plan; and (ii) provide the Joshua lntervenors within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan a list, geared to the sections of this Plan, identifying the staff member or members with particular responsibilities for its implementation and the position held by each. (2) Upon reasonable notice, the Joshua lntervenors shall have the opportunity: (i) to examine and secure copies of records relating to the PCSSD's compliance with this Plan, including records identified in this Plan, and (ii) to meet with the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation or a staff member responsible for a particular part of the implementation of the Plan. 136748-v1 (3) The PCSSD shall submit statistical reports showing the following: (a) The enrollment in each school by race; (b) The enrollment in gifted and talented programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes, by school and by race; (c) The make-up of special education programs: (i) by disability category, including Section 504, by race, and by sex; and (ii) by school, by race, and by sex; provided that the system may comply with this reporting requirement by providing copies of materials submitted to ADE, as long as they include all information designated in this paragraph; (d) For each school and the system, the number of instances of each form of discipline, by race and by sex; for each school and the system, the number of students receiving each form of discipline, by race and by sex; (e) The racial make-up, in each school, of (i) the administrators, (ii) the faculty, (iii) other professional .staff, and (iv) support staff; (f) The racial make-up, by category, of the various categories of administrators, faculty, support staff, and other workers employed in the PCSSD. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 12 of 13 The information in all sub-paragraphs other than sub-paragraph (d) shall be submitted not later than November 1 of each year, and the information in sub-paragraph (d) twice a year, not later than 30 days after the end of each semester. 0. Continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance wit'1 and modifications of this Plan. Nothing in this Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Plan in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua lntervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. 136748-v1 (a) Joshua shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the PCSSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: (i) the paragraph(s) of the Plan at issue; (ii) the names of all students involved, if any; (iii) the names of all PCSSD agents or employees involved, if any; (iv) all facts of which the Joshua lntervenors are aware relevant to the compliance issue; and (v} a copy of all documents in the Joshua lntervenors' possession relevant to the compliance issue. (b} PCSSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the Joshua lntervenors a written response within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of written notice from the Joshua lntervenors or such later time as agreed. 8 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4159 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 13 of 13 (c) If the Joshua lntervenors are unsatisfied with PCSSD's response, the Joshua lntervenors shall within 15 days of receipt of PCSSD's response submit the compliance issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. (d) If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, the Joshua lntervenors may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. The court may fashion relief. (e) Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, PCSSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Plan. P. The Scope of Compliance Issues The compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section N. shall include the PCSSD's implementation of the terms of the Plan, as well as the standards supplied in accordance with this Plan. Q. Court Submission This Plan shall be submitted to the court for consideration after ratification by a majority vote of the PCSSD Board of School Directors. R. Financial Claims The PCSSD shall continue as a party litigant until its final claims against the state defendants and parties as well as those against LRSD have been fully and finally adjudicated. 9 136748-v1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 C '. ,41/c, ;-0 1 e, ...- ~ 'f; e,, Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DI~T~~W OOFaT,ED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ~~iS. I V WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 O 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DESEGREGATION MONITORING V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Federal judicial supervision over the facets of the operations of a school system was never intended to "extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination."1 Indeed, "[f]rom the very first, federal supervision oflocal school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination. "2 The end purpose of federal judicial supervision was, and remains, "to remedy the violation, and in addition, to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. "3 This is necessarily the case because the return of "schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our government system. "4 1 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248, 111 S. Ct. 630,637, 112 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1991). 2 Dowell, 498 U.S. at 247, 11 I S. Ct. at 637. 3 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S. Ct. 1430, 1445, 118 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1992). 4 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489, 112 S. Ct. at 1445; see also Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S. Ct. 2766, 53 L. Ed. 2d 851 (1977) (observing that "local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition"). Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 2 of 12 A. The current status of school desegregation in Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District has been declared unitary. The North Little Rock School District has recently filed a motion for unitary status. The school district was previously declared unitary in the area of student assignments. On June 9, 2004, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring issued a report to the federal district court5 addressing the school district's compliance with the remaini~g requirements of its desegregation plan. Contemporaneously with the execution of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD adopted a lengthy plan which, together with exhibits, exceeded 200 pages in length and was centered around job descriptions. In the latter part of the decade of the 1990s, the then presiding district court judge urged the PCSSD to enter negotiations with the parties to formulate a simpler and far less complex plan. By that time, the PCSSD had been declared unitary in phases in several areas of operations. Joshua and the PCS SD then set about the successful process of negotiating "Plan 2000" which Joshua and the PCSSD jointly submitted to the District Court for approval and to which no other party voiced objection. The Plan was duly approved and a true copy is attached to the motion as Exhibit A for the convenience of the Court and the parties. The PCSSD has operated under Plan 2000 for approximately seven years and now files its motion for unitary status. While certain or'its provisions are discussed herein, others will be analyzed for the Court as the proceedings progress. 1. Student Assignments. Recent and historical data analyzed indicate that the Pulaski County Special School District is positioned to be declared unitary in the area of student assignments. During 2006-2007 a Pulaski County Special School District elementary 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 3 of 12 school was considered desegregated if its student enrollment ranged between 20 to 51.0 percent black students. 6 Only four of school district's elementary schools feature a black student enrollment outside this range. In 2006-2007 Adkins Elementary School's black student enrollment stood at 59 percent; Taylor Elementary School was 59 percent; and black students comprised 61 percent of the student enrollment at Jacksonville Elementary School. These schools exceed the upper level for enrollment of black students by relatively modest percentages,7 Plan 2000 essentially continued the student assignment zones and geo code designations that were developed in 1989 and which have occasionally been tweaked and changed, always with court approval. Since the inception of Plan 2000, the most significant change in assignment zones occurred with respect to Harris Elementary School. The changes in assignments and - strategies for attracting students to Harris Elementary were by motion, and an order entered by this Court. All of the secondary schools, save Mills, at 60 percent (2 percentage appoints above the targeted range), are within their goals. With only five of the 36 Pulaski County Special School District's schools out of compliance with the enrollment guidelines, the district believes it is in substantial compliance with the federal district court's order to the extent practicable. The "latest word" in school desegregation law was articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. 5 "The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of its Desegregation Plan," Office of Desegregation Monitoring, June 9,2004. 6 The federal district court established the desegregation deviation factor for determining if a school in the Pulaski County Special School District is desegregated. It is based upon a formula. The lower range is fixed at 20 percent. The upper range is determined by taking the total percentage of the school district's black enrollment and multiplying it by 25 percent. An upper range of 51 percent resulted for 2006-2007. 7 The fourth school, Bayou Meto Elementary School, is an isolated school with a small black enrollment. Because of its isolation, it has been exempted by the federal district court from compliance with the desegregation deviation factor. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 4 of 12 The decision has proved controversial to many and its precise impact and effects remain debated. However, even the plurality opinion does reiterate much that has been understood for decades. For instance, at page 24 of the plurality opinion, the Roberts Opinion reminds us that: Even in the context of mandatory desegregation, we have stressed that racial proportionality is not required, see Milliken, 433 U.S., at 280, n. 14 ("[A desegregation} order contemplating the substantive constitutional right [to aJ particular degree of racial balance or mixing is ... infirm as a matter of law" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. I, 24 (1971) ("The constitutional command to desegregate schools does not mean that every school in every community must always reflect the racial composition of the school system as a whole"). Further, to the extent that the racial composition of schools within the district has changed over time only because of private decisions, the fact that the PCSSD has not changed school assignment zones without court approval is of legal import. Again, the Roberts Opinion reminds us: The distinction between segregation by state action and racial imbalance caused by other factors has been central to our jurisprudence in this area for generations. See, e.g., Milliken, 433 U.S., at 280, n. 14; Freeman, 503 U.S., at 495-496 ("Where resegregation is a product not of state action but of private choices, it does not have constitutional implications"). 2. Faculty and Administrative Assignments. A desegregation deviation factor for the assignment of school level administrators and faculties was not established by the court or Plan 2000. In general, however, the case law provides that each school should have a staff that approximates the district-wide racial composition of its school-site administrators, teachers, and support staff personnel. 8 The PCS SD believes it is in compliance with this requirement. 8 Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 5 of 12 The Pulaski County Special School District recently had a ratio of 4 7 .1 percent white and 52.9 percent black building level administrators. Building level administrators in these school districts are evenly distributed and in almost every instance where there is more than one building level administrator assigned to a school there is one of each race. Schools with only one building level administrator are divided fairly evenly between the races. Therefore, the PCS SD believes it is in substantial compliance in the areas of faculty and building level administrative assignments. 3. Facilities. Schools in the Pulaski County Special School District range from excellent to others in need of either extensive renovation, remodeling, closing, or replacement. However, those schools in need of renovation, remodeling, closing, or replacement are not vestiges of the prior dual system of education for the races. Further, one of the significant accomplishments of the state Lake View litigation has been the comprehensive assessment review, remedial plans and, most importantly, the multi-million dollar commitment by the State of Arkansas to upgrade all school facilities in the State. Each district has been required to submit a 10 year plan for the renovation of facilities and the replacement of those whose renovation is impractical or economically unwise. Stated another way, the funds necessary to accomplish equality in facilities in the PCSSD has been appropriated by the State from the recent State surpluses and the Court can thus be assured that the work will be done and facilities will be upgraded. B. What is a unitary system? A unitary school system is one that has complied in good-faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered and has eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination "to the extent practicable."9 9 Dowell, 498 U.S. at 249-50, 111 S. Ct. 638. 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 6 of 12 "The origin of the 'good faith' requirement c;an be traced to the United States Supreme Court's decision in [Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083 (1955)] Brown fl " 10 Good-faith requires that a school district demonstrate "to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance."11 A school district's good-faith commitment to the entirety of the court's orders is necessary "in order to insure that the principal wrong of the dejure system, the injuries and stigma inflicted upon the race disfavored by the violation, is no longer present." 12 A history of good-faith compliance must be found by the federal district court in order that it may "accept [a] school board's representation that it has accepted the principle of racial equality and will not ;suffer intentional discrimination in the future." 13 Compliance "to the extent practicable" with the court's decrees in the present school desegregation litigation requires that each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County demonstrate to the federal district court that they have complied in good-faith with the provisions of their respective consent decrees for a reasonable period of time. 14 Consent decrees or agreements are contractual in nature and, therefore, compliance is required as to each provision even where a provision may arguably impose requirements not otherwise required by law for a judicial finding of unitary status. 15 1 Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon, "School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement," 159 West's Education Law Reporter, 407,407. 11 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S. Ct. at 1446. 12 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 485, 112 S. Ct. at 1443. 13 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 498, 112 S. Ct. at 1449. 14 See generally, William M. Gordon and David E. Bartz, "Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts," 82 West's Education Law Reporter, 283. 15 While a federal district court may not order a remedy over the objections ofa party that is not tailored to remedy a constitutional violation, the parties to a lawsuit may settle their dispute "by undertaking to do more than the Constitution itselfrequires ... , but also more than what a court would have ordered absent the settlement." Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,389, 112 S. Ct. 748,763. 116 L. Ed.2d 867 (1992). 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 7 of 12 Compliance also may be required with what are commonly referred to as the Green factors although this case has likely progressed beyond this analysis and several of the Green factors are not present in Plan 2000 nor are they required to be monitored. In past cases, compliance required elimination to the extent practicable of the vestiges of the prior dual system in the areas of student assignments, faculty and staff assignments, transportation, extra-curricular or student activities, and facilities. Nevertheless, it is not unusual in the latter stages of a school desegregation lawsuit, such as regards the PCSSD here, that orders issued by federal courts may focus on specific facets of the operation of a school system where additional remedies may be required without further mention of one or more or all of the Green factors .16 Finally, when a school district is declared unitary by a federal district court, whether in whole or partially and whether upon consent of the parties or following adversarial proceedings, - judicial supervision is terminated and all orders and injunctions with respect to the declaration are terminated. 17 Control of the affairs of the school district in the area or areas in which it is declared unitary are returned to local control and the litigation as to such area or areas is concluded. 18 Thus, a party formerly adverse to the school district is not positioned, following a declaration of unitary status, to petition the federal district court in the concluded litigation to once again exercise its supervision over the area or areas in which the school district was previously declared unitary. In short, once a school district is declared unitary and in compliance with the constitution the jurisdiction of the federal district court is ended. 19 Accordingly, post-Dowell and Freeman 16 "[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree." Dowell, 498 U.S. at 246, 111 S. Ct. at 636, citing Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 96 S. Ct. 2697,49 L. Ed.2d 599 (I 976). 17 Dowell, 498 U. S. at 244-46, 111 S. Ct. at 635-36; Freeman, 503 U.S. at 490, 112 S. Ct. at 1445. 18 "A school district which has been released from an injunction imposing a desegregation plan no longer requires court authorization for the promulgation of policies and rules regulating matters such as assignment of students and the like, but it of course remains subject to the mandate of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Dowell, 498 U.S. at 250, 111 S. Ct. at 638. 19 Freeman, 503 U.S. at 491, 112 S. Ct. at 1445-46. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 8 of 12 there no longer exists a post-operational period following a declaration of unitary status in which the jurisdiction and supervision of a federal district court may be reintroduced upon motion of an adverse party. Once a school district has been declared unitary, the jurisdiction of the federal courts may only be reintroduced in a subsequently filed action in which a finding of intentional discriminatory conduct in violation of the Equal Protection Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment is alleged. 20 C. Good Faith In order to establish that PCSSD should be declared unitary, the District must demonstrate that it has "complied in good faith with its desegregation decree since it was entered." See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co Special School Dist. No. 1, 23 7 F .Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U .s. - 237, 249-50 (1991). See also Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995). The Supreme Court has established that "good faith" is demonstrated when, ... the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. Freeman v. Pitts,, 503 U.S. 467, 491-492 (1992). In this effort, the Court noted that the duration of the school district's compliance record must be considered: ... a court should give particular attention to the school system's record of compliance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. And, with the 20 See Elston v. Talladega County Board of Education, 997 F.2d 1394, 1404 (I ph Cir. 1993), in which a previously declared unitary school district was sued for, among other things, an alleged violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court of appeals observed that: "To establish an equal protection clause violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a challenged action was motivated by an intent to discriminate. " (emphasis supplied.) 8 id. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 9 of 12 passage of time, the degree to which racial imbalances continue to represent vestiges of a constitutional violation may diminish, and the practicability and efficacy of various remedies can be evaluated with more precision." D. Substantial Compliance In addition to proving "good faith," PCSSD must also establish that it is in "substantial compliance" with the PCSSD Plan. As this Court has stated, "[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy." See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1,470 F.Supp.2d 963, 984 (E.D. Ark. 2004). This Court has given the following guidance regarding the test for "substantial compliance": [I]n order to determine if a party is in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree, the trial court must examine whether any of the alleged violations of the consent decree 'were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance' and 'to cast doubt on defendant' future compliance with the constitution.' ... [A] Party can be in 'substantial compliance' with a consent decree even if it has committed violations that are 'inconsequential' in light of the party's overall performance. Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Co. Special School Dist. No. 1,237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1027 (E.D. Ark. 2002) citing Code v. Hillard, 139 f.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8th Cir. 1998).21 21 It should be noted that some time ago Joshua invoked the "Dispute Resolution" provision of Plan 2000. While currently languishing, this process remains technically in progress. 9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 10 of 12 Conclusion The purpose of court supervision was to create a unitary school system from what was once a "dual school system," establishing and maintaining a system in which the interests of both black and white students were equal by involving black representatives into policy making and administration. Before the last election, three of the District's seven Board members were African-American, there are black administrators at every level and each school maintains diversity in certificated staff and student bodies. For reasons set out above, PCSSD should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 10 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 11 of 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.eom Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,lorap72297@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com I certify that on October 29, 2007, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Norman J. Chachkin Attorney at Law 31 Edgar Place Nutley, NJ 07110 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4160 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 12 of 12 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Isl M. Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 688-8800 FAX: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsgw.com 12 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>