A V :> THU : 3 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Of THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS CONCERNING THE JOINT OPERATION OF KLRE FM The purpose of this agreement is to provide for the joini operation of the radio station, KLRE FM, (hereafter referred to 1V as the "Station) by the Little Rock School District (hereafter referred to as the "School District") and the University of Arkansas for the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (hereafter - -J', referred to as the "University".) i I. Purpose of the Station The station will operate in the interest, convenience, and ry of the Arkansas radio listener and will provide educa-informational, and cultural programming of consistently good quality. It will also provide an opportunity to qualified students of Doth institutions to participate in the operation of the Station. The Station will continue to conform to high stan-dards of operation. as represented by its present adherence to the criteria for qualification given by the Corporation for nacc I Public Broadcasting and Natioh'al Public Radio. II. Board of Overseers There will be a joint Board of Overseers (hereafter referred to as the "Board") to embody the unity of purpose of the two institutions in the operation of the station and to unify to the % maximum degree possible the resources contributed by them, with the following composition and general purposes: li 1 -1- ' M A V THU 3 : 3 2 P . 0 1. The Board will be responsible for establishing policy consistent with the purposes of the Station, as set forth above, and for recommending to the School District the selection of the Station Manager. 2. The Board will be comprised of seven (7) members. Three will be appointed by the Superintendent of the School District. Three will be appointed by the Chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. These six members will jointly, by majority vote, select an additional at-large member. In recognition of the commitment and significant contribution to KLRE FM of the organization known as the Friends of KLRE, the Superintendent and chancellor will each regularly select one of his or her three appointees to the Board from among the members of the Board of Directors of the Friends of KLRE, so long as the organization, its purposes, commitment and interest in KLRE remain essentially unchanged and at substantially the same or greater level of commitment as presently exists. Each selection of a Frlends of KLRE Board Member will be from a list of two nominees presented to the Superintendent or Chancellor by the Board of Directors of the Friends of KLRE. 3. Members of the Board will serve terms three years in length, with the Superintendent and Chancellor, respectively, determining which of their initial appointees will serve for terms of one, two, and three years. The at-large member will serve a three-year term. Any vacancy that occurs other than at the end of a term will be filled by the District, the University or the Board, as the case may be, for the balance of the unex- -2-T H LI : 3 2 F- . 0 3 pired term. When the term of Board position occupied by a a member of the Board of Directors of the Friends of KLRE expires, that position will be filled with a member of the Friends Board, so that there will always be two members of the Friends Board serving on the Board of Overseers, subject to Paragraph 2 above. 4. The Board will, by majority vote. elect its chair- person and otherwise organize and conduct its business in accordance with recognized rules of order. 3 . The school District will provide the members of the Board with general liability insurance against risks customarily insured against by Boards of commercial radio stations, if such coverage is obtainable at reasonable cost. III. Station Manager Under the oversight of the Board, the Station Manager will be responsible for the operation of the Station, including the selection and supervision of personnel and the administration of the budget, subject to the provisions of Section VIII below. IV. Sharing of Basic Financial Support The School District and the University will contribute equal amounts of basic financial support to the Station annually. a The Superintendent and the Chancellor will determine. in timely manner, the level of support to be contributed by the respective institutions for each succeeding year. In the event they are not able to agree on revised level of support for the upcoming year, the level set for the current year will continue to be applicable. -3- aM ft V 2 3 => 1 THU F- . 0 -4 V. Location The University will provide a studio and house the Station in Stabler Hall. However, the Board may seek relocation of the Station to another site subject to the concurrence of the Superintendent and Chancellor. The university will accord to radio station staff the usual privileges, with regard to parking, building access, and such matters, as are accorded to institutional personnel. Withdrawal or Dissolution Withdrawal from this agreement, by either the School District VI . or the University, will require a written notice of two years. unless decided otherwise by mutual agreement. In the event of withdrawal, or of dissolution as a result of nonperformance of obligations, the party, if either, which beco- mes sole Ixcensee of the Station, will be granted use of all movable equipment which has been an integral part of the Station's operations, for the amount of One Thousand Dollars (Sl/000) per year, unless decided otherwise by mutual agreement. and the use of such equipment shall be automatically renewed annually for the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per year. The withdrawing party or the party causing dissolution of the joint agreement as a result of nonperformance of its obligations, agrees to execute such documents. assignments, notices, applica- tions, instruments of transfer and any other documents or instru- ments necessary to effect the transfer of the license or any permits to the surviving party as sole licensee of the Station. -4- 3 1 THU 3:33 If because of the withdrawal by the University from this P . 0 5 joint undertaking or if the School District should become sole licensee of the Station as a result of the nonperformance of the obligations of the university hereunder, the School District shall have the option to lease the space in which the Station is then located. Such lease shall be upon terms and conditions as mutually agreed between the parties and shall be terminable by the lessee on reasonable notice out not less than sixty (60) days. The rental shall be reasonably related to the rental for similar space in the community considering, however, the value to the University of the continuing use of the Station by its students. VII. implementation 1. For the fiscal year during which this Agreement becomes effective, the School District and the University will each contribute on the effective date an amount equal to $178.08 for each day remaining in the fiscal year. This meets the cri- ter ion set by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as the minimum total budget for stations applying for Community Service Grant. 2. The current station Manager and staff of KLRE FM will be retained as employees of the School District
provided, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to accord a contractual right to continued employment to any such employee or to modify the employment agreements between the Little Rock School District and the current Station Manager and staff of KLRE FM. -S aM A THU Si : 3 -T R . 0 e 3. The School District will contribute to the joint agreement KLRE FM, with its license, Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio qualification that provi- des National Public Radio programming and yearly Community Service Grant, the support of the Friends of KLRE FM, its underwriting, its grants and agreements, including the grants a from the Arkansas Arts Council and the Arkansas Endowment for the Humanities. The tower, transmission equipment, and building with associated land, currently used at 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive, will continue to be dedicated to KLRE FM as a backup for the main transmission system, use in microwave relay, and for ancillary services. in addition. such movable equipment, programming, programming supplies, and related materials as would enhance sta- tion operations in new location will be dedicated to the a jointly-operated station. Depending on the effect of applicable regulations on purchasing and property, and upon the judgment of the Board, such equipment may be retained on the School District inventory or may become jointly owned property or may be leased to the University. 4. The university will contribute to the joint agreement construction permit, 1icense, transmitter, transmission line. tower site and associated equipment for a transmission at the tower site including any buildings that the University may deem necessary, and the audio equipment that was previously purchased for a campus radio station. Depending on the effect of applicable regulations on purchasing and property, and upon the judgment of the Board, such equipment may be -6-THU = : 3 -4 R - 0 T retained on the university inventory or may become jointly owned property or may be leased to the School District. VIII. Continuing Operations 1. In order to conform to the laws of the State of Arkansas, the funds of the Station shall be received, recorded, disbursed, and reported through the accounting system of the School District. The Station shall, therefore, operate under the same laws, acts. regulations, administrative policies and proce- dures, and personnel policies and procedures as the School District. In addition. the Station shall be subject to the normal review. audit. and support of the School District officers having a function in the process. 2. The Board of Overseers shall cause an annual audit, independent or legislative. of the books to be made and shall make an annual financial report in writing to the cooperating institutions. 3. Contracts by the Station shall be let and purchases shall be made in accordance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of the School District and shall be in accordance with the policies and procedures of the School District. The Station staff shall be eligible for the benefit programs available to the employees of the School District and shall for ail purposes be considered employees of the School District. 5. The foregoing approach is not meant to preclude other arrangements which might later be necessary or more -7- 4.r-1 V 2 3 5 1 5 I T H II appropriate and advantageous, if agreed to by the Superintendent F- . 0 S and Chancellor. IX. Special condition This Agreement shall be in effect and binding upon the School District and the University upon the satisfaction of the following specific condition: All necessary permits, applica- tions and approvals from the Federal Communications Commission shall have been obtained. X. Effective Date This Agreement shall become effective on the day the KLRE FM signal is broadcast simultaneously on its present frequency (90.5 FM) and on the frequency assigned to KUAR ( FM). XI. Binding Effect This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and upon their successors and assigns including any successor to the School District by merger or consolidation. THIS AGREEt*lNT is entered into this 7th day of July , 1986 by the undersigned officers of the University and the School District each of whom is duly authorized by appropriate resolution of the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas and the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, as the case may be. for the school DISTRICT! FOR IVERS, Ys Ed Kelly, Superintendent ay T rnton, President - fir Date 7- 7- Date -8-STATfc OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SCHOOL EMPLOYEES CONTR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Copy SALARY CLASS Unci SCHOOL KLRE/KUAR This contract, made and entered into by and between the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT of PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, and Charles Saults Witnesseth
/ R - 0 By a majority vote Of the directors present at a legally held meeting" on !I agrees to employ the said Charles Saults as Board Operator/ Producer I Position) in the above named school district for a period of days 12 months, beginning July 1, 1990 and ending June 30, 1991 paying for said services as follows
cVJ/) bi / (check one) The rate of $ gcrfev-t .5ma,cn/per year (Daily Rate $ Plus ) The rate of $ Plus per hour for hours authorized. RELATIVE OF BOARD MEMBER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, OR SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR: Said Employee WAS NOT related to a member of the School Board, Superintendent of Schools, or senior administrators reporting directly to the Superintendent of Schools at the time of employment (Board Policy EPS Code: CBCA). ( ) Other conditions
Given this the AZ day of May 1990 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Employer) (Employee Signature) X Preitirlanf_____ ______ iPresideni cftle tdurai Board, J trresiaeni ci me Doar (Address of Employee) (SeSMr^UtUy School Board) Copies of this contraci are to be given to (1) employee, <2> the school board, <3) the county treasurer, and (4) the county supervisor. Food handlers must Comply with Act 128 of 1965. "A legally held meeting is One held: (1) on the regular meeting date of the school board at which a quorum is present
(2) at a called meeting lor which each director has been duly notified In advance and at which a quorum is present r-ttm r^\frrr> r>z>rv [ i Little Rock School District Personnel Directory 1992 Board of Directors 2Lone 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Director Dr. Katherine Mitchell PO Box 1896,03 375-9377 W. D. "Bill" Hamilton 306 Arthur Drive, 04 664-8727 Dorsey Jackson 2901 No. Fillmore, 07 664-2393 Rollin Armstrdng 711 Shea, 05 Dr. 224-6982 John Moore 12015 Pleasant Tree Drive, 11 223-2297 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive, 09 562-0571 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court, 09 568-7585 Term ends 1993 1992 1994 1992 1993 1994 1994 Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)324-20003-vear terms r T SCHOOL DISTRICTS BOARDS OF DIRECTORS COUNTY OF PULASKI 1992 - 1993 Ijii . a ll, ITLE ROCK **M3.9 Mills Dr-. C. .T ------ -- IL^lac Bernd, Supt., 810 West Marltham. LR 72201 G. Jacovelli 6^22 Gold Court------- -resident___________________ Little Rock,^AR 72209 4^ 12015 Pleasant Tree Dr. President__________________ Little Rock, AR 72211 -atricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive ^cretarv------------------------------- Little Rock, AR 72209 2W1 N. Fillmore _________________Little Rock, AR 72207 Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell 1605 Welch St. .Iember_________________________Little Rock, AR 72206 y^ohn A. Riggs 3600 Foxcroft rr------------------------Little Rock, .AR 72207 ill D. Hamilton 306 .Arthur Drive vQn----r-i----------------------Little Rock, AR 72204 x992 LRSD school election postponed- 568-7585(H) 374-6535(W) 223-2297(H) 3r9-2498(w) 562-0571(11) 375-3275(W) 664-2393(H) 374-6305(W) 375-9377(H) 5'70-3528(W) 223-8916(H) 661-2590(W) in in #6 in in #4 #2 324-2000 TW 1993 1994 199^ 1993 1992* 1992* xyyz school election postponed- when rescheduled, those elected shall serve to 1995 ^.TH SmERoS*---STf?fG was appointed to serve the unexpired tern biiiLh, kucK__36.3 Mills Mr. James Smith. Sunt. p^5 Rnv AS? tTTd toTTS------771-5000 1^ Mable Mitchell President Pat Blackstone 'ice President Prentice Dupins Secretary_______ Lynn Hariiilton Member___________ Dixie Harrison Member J. W. Johnson -iember Marty Moore Member Smith, Supt., P.O. Box 68/. NT.R, 771 IS 5006 Glenview Blvd. -------------------------------------------- North Little Rock, AR 72117 3409 Bunker Hill North Little Rock, AR 72116 431 McCain Blvd., F-23 North Little Rock, .AR 72116 4103 /Arlington North Little Rock, AR 72116 One Shady Valley Court North Little Rock, AR 72116 437 West Fourth St. ~ North Little Rock, AR 72114 4417 Central North Little Rock, AR 72118 753-5128 791-O267(H) 758-2209(H) 753-146KH) 771-4506(H) 758-3181(H) iil JE in in #5 in in 1993 1994 I99i^ 1993 1993 1995 4-vear terms __________________ ^ULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL**43.9 Mills -'Ir. Gene Goss President 3-r. Jim Burgett '.^ice President_________ ZMr, Reedie Ray Secretary_______________ Mr. Doyan Matthews Member___________________ LMr. Mack McAlister Member_________________
irs. Mildred Tatum Member Mrs. Ruth White Tucker -Iember Mr. Bobby Lester, Supt. 29 Narragansett Dr. P.O. Box 8601, L.R. 72216 490-W North Little Rock, AR 72120 35 Fairfield Drive North Little Rock, AR 72120 414 East Valentine Rd. Jacksonville, AR 72076______ 5422 Elizabeth Lane North Little Rock, AR 72118 P.O. Box 956 Jacksonville, AR 72076 11405 Highway 365 Little Rock, AR 72206 19001 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 835-1311(H) 982-5650(H) 851-2O97(H) 982-4491(W) 897-4842(H) 821-3224(11) in in in in #6 #1 ?Z2 1994 199^ 1996 1996 1995 1995 1993 - repared by Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION .Q/16192 372-7800 J CCT I 9 1552(5-year terms) Mr. Cecil Bailey President Mr. Thomas Broughton Vice President Dr. George McCrary Member Mr, E, Grainger Williams PULASKI COUNTY BO.ARD OF EDUCATION 1992 - 1993 5805 Eagle Creek North Little Rode, AR 72116 4602 W. 23rd Little Rock, AR 72204 #2 Crestview Plaza Jacksonville, AR 72076 P.O. Box 366 372-4181(W) 835-7104(H) 664-6577(W) 982-4551(W) 372-3056(W) #1 NLRSD 1995 #3 LRSD South 199fc #2 PCSSD 199'' North #5 LRSD 1 . Little Rock, AR 12202, 666-8697(H) "'North ~ 1992 election postponed, position is currently at-large, but will be Zone 5 LRSD/No. 199. Dr. Martin Zoldessy Member 11601 Rodney Parham Little Rock, AR 72212 224-0200(W) 223-0100(H) #4 PCSSD 199^ South Ms. Debbie Crownover Secretary to the Board 504 E. Devon Sherwood, AR 72116 372-7800(W) 835-9347(H) Secretary sine 1985John Moore 374-6535 (work) 223-2297 (home Bill Hamilton 664-8727 (home) Dr. Katherine Mitchell 374-6305 (work) 375-9377 (home) John Riggs 570-3528 (work) Pat Gee 569-2498 (work) 562-0571 (home) Oma (O.G.) Jacovelli 568-7585 (home) Dorsey Jackson 375-3275 (work) 664-2393 (home) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Directors 1992-93May 5, 1992 Ms. Pat Gee Arkansas State Highway Dept. 10324 Interstate 30 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Gee: As taxpayers in the Little Rock School District, we feel that now IS the time for the Little Rock School Board to deal effectively with the needs of the district as well as being sensitive to the needs of the majority of the patrons of the district. The Board must hire an African American Superintendent. It is because of the current high rate of failure for African American students in the Little Rock School District that we support the hiring of an African American Superintendent. are many factors which have resulted in this very high statistic. There Realizing that all of the blame does not belong to the schools, the schools must share some of the responsibility for this problem. There have not been programs or directed curriculum which have dealt with the problems of our children effectively. The fact that the district is 68% African American is a most prevalent statistic which should be considered in the hiring of a Superintendent. We need a Superintendent who can relate to the majority complexion of the district, as well as addressing the most urgent needs of our educational system. At this time, the hiring of a Superintendent who can alleviate our problems and bring our district into focus is most imperative. You must consider the most urgent needs of the district, as well as doing what is best to bring the majority on equal standards as the minority. For too long, the School Board has addressed the needs of the minority and neglected the needs of the majority. The solution for a district such as ours demands special consideration. You must consider the fact that African-Americans represent the majority of students in the Little Rock School District, and black patrons and students should be given special consideration in light of the years of neglect. Very truly yours.1. 2. 3 . Patron's List 4. V^- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11V 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16.1 17. nri^ 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 . 23 . 24 . 25. - H3.?af''<i^
-S^z /z - 8, ^2^ - 3 (^
(U - 1 I I i. .JUL-27-92 MON 15:29 U S DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO. 15019724612 JUL-27-92 HON 13:09 U. S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 02 P. 03 t ii-iesQ. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J- 3 ra . WESTERN DIVISION 'r --------------- dale CHARLS3, ROBERT L. BROHN, SR., GHBN HBVBY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER V. 1cRC^92=476 PLAINTIFFS O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education o the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GES, DR. GEORGS CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSBV JACKSON, DR. KATKERINB MITCHELL and ff.b. BItiL>' HAMILTON, Individually and In Their official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and in their Official Capacities and THB little rock school DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT 1. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 u.S.c. 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.c. 1973j as amended. Relief la sought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U.S.c. S1973j, as amended. 2. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States of the African American descent who reside in the Little Rock, Arkansas School District, a public body corporate. They bring thia action to redress rights guaranteed them under the Constitution of the United states and federal laws. 3. The defendants are O.G. Jacovelli, Patrioia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Doraey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and W.D. "Bill" Hamilton, the individual directors of the BoardJUL-27-92 MON 15:29 U S DISTRICT CLERK JUL-27-92 MON 13:09 U. S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 15019724612 FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 of Education of P. 03 the Little School District, a public body corporate
and the Board of Education of Little Rock School District, 4. This is an action to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school lections for the purpose of electing school directors. This is also an action to ensure that such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district reformed into eeven (7) single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows citizens of African American descent the opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process Early relief prior and to elect representation of their choice, to another school election is further sought. 5. When single member districts were established approximately seven (7) years ago. each district had approximately 25,000 residents. The lines were then drawn using data collected in 1980. That data is now obsolete. 6. The 1990 census reflects that Little Rock has a population of 175,795. The white population in Little Rock is 113,707 while the African American population is 59,742. The balance of th population consists of persons who are designated by the census as others including persons of Hispanics and Aslan origin. 7, Between 1980 and 1990, the African American population in Little Rock increased by approximately 6,600 while the white 2-JUL-27-92 MON 15:30 U S DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO. 15019724612 P. 04 JUL-27-92 MON 13:09 U. S. 01 ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 P.05 population decreased by approximately 9,100. 8. Between 1980 and 1980/ the white population dramatically moved into the western sector of the Little Rook while the African American population moved into the southwest and central sectors of Little Rock. 9. As a consequence of demographic changes, the zones or election districts which are currently utilized fox the election of school directors are now significantly imbalanced. The following listing Bhowfi the relative population (by racial percentage) of each election population by race of each of the zones in the Little Rock school District or school zone in the defendant school district. RGHOQl DT3THICT (ZONE)_(Racial %1 1980 ONE 25,399 (31%) TWO 25,295 (69%) THREE 25,210 (7,3%) FOUR - 24,844 (2,9%) FIVE 25,016 (18,0%) STX 25,107 (17.36%) SEVEN 25,043 (14.1%) 1990 21,239 (85%) 16,607 (77.3%) 26,375 (15.0%) 32,421 (4.9%) 30,354 (24.3%) 23,536 (29.9%) 22,601 (33.2%) Imbalance 4,070 -8,688 +1,165 +7,577 +5,738 -1,571 -3,442 10, Ths United States Constitution provides that each person's vote shall be of equal weight. above do not allow for equal weight of pie of "one man - one vote." The imbalances set forth each vote under the princi 11. The out of balance election syetem in the Little Rook School District limits and denies citizens of African American descent appropriate opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 3' JUL-27-92 MON 15:30 U S DISTRICT CLERK . jUL-27-92 nON 13!10 u. S. DI ST. CT. LR ftRK. FAX NO. 15019724612 FAX NO. 7406096 P. 05 P.06 12. There is a history of Glectiona in the City of Little racially polarized voting in Rock and in school elections. Fuxthemore, the Little Rock School District has a history of unremadiated racial segregation in staff of African American descant. the treatment of pupils and Moreover/ resident citizens of African American descent continue to ejtperience difficulty in securing equal treatment from and by the access directors in the Little Rock School District. to the board of 13. The defendants are aware of the grossly inbalanced numbers in the zones or alection districts. They have taken no steps to bring the itibalance within the "one man - one vote" principle or within the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. The original redistricting of the Little Rock School District was encompassed in the cases of Little Rook School District at ^1. JLu Pulaski County Special Sohool-D.iatrict, ..ell,al t (USDC HO. lr-C-82- 866) . These plaintiffs believe that Lt is appropriate for that history and background to be consldaxed in formulating the relief for which they pray, Ag^ga- 14. School elections are presently set to be held on September 15, 1992 for positions two (2) and four (4) now held by Defendants Hamilton and Cannon. Both districts are naw grossly imbalanced. See Paragraph Hine, supra 13. IC new school elections now set for September 15, 1992 proceed, plaintiffs stand to ba deprived of the right to vote and of their voting rights secured by th* Voting Rights Act. plaintiffs therefore seek to enjoin the schedule elections until a 4'jUL-27-92 MON 15:31 . , JUL-27-92 nON 13:10 U S DISTRICT CLERK u. S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 15019724612 FAX NO. 7406098 P. 07 P.06 new plan is approved by the Court which meets: (a) the "one man - one vote" requirement of the Constitution and, (b) the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. 16. The plaintiffs nave been deprived of well defined and well protected tights as guaranteed by federal law. They have no adequate remedy by which to redress these wrongs but this action for injunctive relief- Any other remedy would be eo uncertain, vexatious and time consuming as to deny full relief. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this matter be expedited on the merits so that a decision thereon can ba promptly reached. Plaintiffs further pray that the present sones be realigned and redistricted in accordance with the "one man - one vote" principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act including the creation of an additional majority African American school voting district. Plaintiffs also pray for their costa including reasonable couneel fees. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WAbKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rook, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 dselidrliiS-lP By: W. walker - Bar Ko. 64046 ^ley A. Branton, Jr., #90053 Mark Burnette - Bar Ko. 88073 Austin Porter Jr,, #86145 5.1 F5LED U.SS.. DDIISSJT-RRIlCCTT CCOOUUPRT EASTEh.--' r/.T-.rcT . nvMMCA OKiCO ci u IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 04 1992 CARL R, iiritr* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW. CLERK .INTIFFS V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE'tfOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the PCBE Zone 5 election currently scheduled for September 15, 1992, is hereby postponed until the time of the LRSD 1992 Board of Education election. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1992. UNITED SSTTAATTEESS DISTRIICCTT JUDGE R 3 c 1 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :OMPL!^^WWiil^TlI RRIULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY L TO: FROM: SUBJECT: little rock : SCHOOL DISTRICT STREET 72201 810 WEST little rock, ARKANSAS January 4, 1993 All Building principals = Z 9 BWX 'J V JAN 1 2 159.3 -''ce cf Cuss-rsjation Mj and Department Heads ttonriQ id Mac Bernd, superintendent new policies of Schools C-- the manner in Bnclosed pleaee find .XaTgeSdat^SStralJ^e*^^"-? Which we review meeting on the eliminated. -- &oi to he at e p.h. on The regular school Boar conduct an will continue the fourth Thursdajy of each month. Please dispose new policies these two new poxx^^-- ?Aloies they replace. of the policies in your policy manual and r"EPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Presentations A. B. C. D. Superintendent Citizens Committees Board Members Partnerships Remarks From Citizens Action Agenda Report Agenda Consent Agenda Audience with Individuals or Groups Student and/or Employee Disciplinary Recommendations Adj ournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the "Remarks from Citizens" section of the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or representatives to speak for large groups whose interests similar. P - require are Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the "Remarks from Citizens" section. If additional time is required for or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the "Audience with Individuals or Groups" complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. section in order toEPS CODE: BDDC ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: On the second Thursday of each month the- Board of Directors will meet to review the agenda topics proposed by the Superintendent of Schools for that month's regular Board meeting on the fourth Thursday During the agenda review meeting Board members will have the opportunity to place items on the agenda and will decide whether items will be on the action agenda, report agenda, or consent agenda. At the conclusion of the agenda review meeting, the agenda will contain only those topics introduced by either the Superintendent or members of the Board of Directors. The Board will strive to keep its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month
however, for good cause, the Board may move any regularly scheduled date to another date agreed to by a majority vote of the Board. The Superintendent will have the agenda and the appropriate background materials printed and delivered to the Board members at least two days prior to the regular Board meeting.CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNEMHI? of INOmDUAU AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTCaNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tslepaone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Dizcet Ko. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts propos^ modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)1. Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation pl^. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: "(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations. It On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that "the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites" and ordered the Little Rock School District to "submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1,1992 a document titled "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court alsQ.notifT.ed the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------tu n'vvu.u 1C4UJ.1C uiai inusxv Lcavuci positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year "will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Coun and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern "about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson)." The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward "other issues of concern to the Court". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review Aem). (I have transcripts of almost 3There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive ttem for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4M.i\R 3 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. OIST.^ICT COURT =ASTERhl 0!S7?:CT ARKANSAS MAR -1 1993 CARL h. p!LEF.K DEF.CLEft PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has detemnined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. TED ST?AATTEESS DISTRICT JJUUTDGE RSCFr/FD V. 'THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W5TH RULE 53 ANO/OR 7S(a) FRCP ON tl E STATEMENT OF JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT to Little Rock School Board and Counsel - March 19, 1993 An Order was issued directing the Little Rock School Board members to appear in Court this morning so that the Court may take this opportunity to explain this case and to explain the constraints placed upon your actions by the orders of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court does not believe that you understand those orders, or if you do understand them, you do not seek to comply. Hopefully, after this morning, you will have an understanding
but whether you do or not. you must comply. This Court has been too lenient with you. The Court has given you ample leeway and opportunity to move toward a unitary school system. Those days of Court leniency and the assumption by the Court of good faith on your part are over. This current litigation is in a larger sense the continuation of desegregation litigation in the Little Rock School District which began in the Spring of 1956. At one time that litigation was thought to have been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management. However, in 1982, the current litigation was brought by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, as plaintiff, against the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District essentially was seeking county-wide desegregation and the -1-reconstituting of school boundaries between Little Rock and the County School District. The complaining party, the Little Rock School District, won its case. It also won its case against the State of Arkansas, and in a settlement involving the three school districts and the State, the State was assessed over $129,000,000 as something in the nature of reparations for its alleged role in promoting continued segregation in Pulaski County. As a part of the settlement approved by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the school districts agreed to a program which, it was believed, would ultimately lead to a unitary. desegregated school system in Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County. This settlement was essentially the product of the Little Rock School District, the victor in this litigation, and it was approved by the Court of Appeals at the behest and active encouragement of the Little Rock School District. Now, it must be put into effect by the District Court. This Court settlement which you and your lawyers agreed to put in place is a costly settlement. The magnet school aspect of it. which seems to be an enormous success, is not nearly as expensive as the incentive schools. which. with one exception, presently appear to be failures as far as desegregation is concerned. In addition to the structure of this system, there are innumerable other aspects of your settlement agreement. which OU were instrumental in having approved, which are very costly. Since the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet -2-of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in Court because the Little Rock School district won its case and won the relief it requested. Yet the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. To help this Court and to assist you in obtaining the relief that you sought and that has been approved for you as you requested, there has been created and approved by the Court of Appeals the Office of the Desegregation Monitoring. That office. as created, has been sufficient as currently staffed until recently when it became increasingly apparent that the Little Rock School District could not or would not develop a budget sufficient to identify the expenditure of desegregation funds. It is unclear to the Court and would be unclear to anyone how funds are being allocated to achieve the desegregation goals sought by the LRSD and approved by the Eighth Circuit. This Court has brought home this deficiency to the administration and attorneys of the LRSD on a number of occasions and has received only unfulfilled promises and requests to give you time. These deficiencies were brought to your -3-attention in the 1990 Curriculum Audit Report and in the Court's order of January 21, 1992. It was discussed again in a budget hearing in August 1992. You have had time. Because you have evidently failed to understand this concern, the Court directed that you appear here today. The Court, either today or in the next few days, will appoint a budget officer to be paid by the Little Rock School District, who will be a part of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and who will operate under the direction of Ann Brown. Now, there are some questions that you and others raise from time to time. My list is not exhaustive by any means, but it contains some rather common questions that are raised or falsely asserted as fact. Here are some of the leading ones, and here are the answers
1. Whv can't we have neighborhood schools? That is a perfectly sound question to be put forward by someone who does not know anything about law. The fact is, there are many neighborhood schools. Because the settlement plans foster voluntary movement to facilitate desegregation, there are other types of schools too. such as magnets. interdistrict schools. and incentive schools. Many features of the desegregation plan are designed to give parents a choice in where their children attend school. However, because the order of the Court of Appeals requires racial balance in the schools, it is not always possible to have neighborhood schools and meet the requirements that have been imposed. That is why busing which originated as a device to bring distant or -4-rural children to the closest public school - is employed as a device to disperse black children to predominantly white areas and white children to predominantly black areas. Racial barriers imposed by law in housing are unconstitutional
but for socioeconomic reasons, there is racial segregation in living patterns here. Extensive and expensive busing of school children to achieve racial balance is the only answer. Until the U. S. Supreme Court changes the law or until the Court of Appeals alters its orders, busing will remain a requirement that cannot be avoided. 2. Why can't we have a revised desegrecration plan focusing on high Quality education and student achievement? The Court is very sympathetic toward that goal and reminds you that the ultimate goal of desegregation is high quality. equitable education for all children. However, that is not all that you agreed to do in your settlement agreement, which you were successful in having the Court of Appeals approve. And so this Court, which in this respect acts as much in an administrative capacity as in a judicial capacity, is directed to carry out your expensive, approved plan. That plan of yours does focus on high quality education, but it also provides large sums of money for items that are not necessarily part of a basic or core curriculum. It was your plan that you agreed to
you got it approved by the Court of Appeals
and I must enforce it. Let me make this clear: while the District Court has some latitude in modifying the plan, the Court of Appeals has identified elements of the plan which it deems essential and which, under present circumstances, are not within the prerogative of this Court of modify. -5-3. A budget officer to assist the School District is just a "make work situation. No, it is not
that is patently false. The Court cannot determine how you are spending your money to achieve desegregation. Your administrators do not know. Your lawyers do not know. And you do not know. If the LRSD were a corporation, I would put it in receivership. By the way, do not think that I have not considered that with regard to the LRSD. Finally, I wish to close these remarks with some more words directed to the School Board. You are in the position of trustees for the school patrons. Until you begin to comply with the orders of this Court and the Court of Appeals, you are not carrying out your trust in an acceptable manner. I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Following is a reminder of some of the provisions of the Plan or Court orders that you have yet to fulfill. Board Responsibilities According to the introductory section of the 1992 LRSD desegregation plan, the LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals, but has so far not fulfilled them: Eliminating achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion referenced tests. Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. -6-in Effectively using interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements all schools and to avoid resegregation. Additionally, under the title "Leadership" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert strong leadership in the following areas
Clearly delineating the district's desegregation mission to the staff and the community. Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for developing policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement those policies. Adopting a budget that will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment. Conducting an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools The district has failed to reserve kindergarten and four-year- old program seats for white students and to documented, those students. sustained, engage in and vigorous recruitment to attract (Plan page 140
May 1992 Order, page 28) Program specialists have not been hired and placed at all incentive schools. (May 1992 order, page 41) A staffing needs assessment has not been administered, analyzed, and used as the basis for staffing decisions. 1992 order, page 41) (May Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each incentive school. (May 1992 order, page 42) Little significant progress has been made toward desegregating the incentive schools, (1992 plan, page 149) with the exception of Rockefeller. There is a lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement all plan recruitment activities. 215-217) (1992 plan, pages The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all -7-activities related to the incentive school plan, page 151) program. (1992 Equity Issues The district has failed to show significant progress in reducing the achievement disparity between black and white students. 26) (1992 plan, page 1
1989 Settlement Agreement, page Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population. (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34) The district has failed to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education. (1992 plan, page 111) Recruitment The district has not developed a strategic recruitment plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan. A recruitment tracking system, first requested during the March 1991 hearing implemented. on LRSD school construction, has not been Additional Items from the May 1992 Order A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students. (May 1992 order, page 38) -8-RECgIVO Little Rock School District Board of Directors Memorandum APR I 1993 Office of Desegregation Mi To: Ann Brown From
John Riggs, IV Re: Attached Statement Date
March 31, 1993 Ann: I read the attached statement at the March 25th board meeting. I thought you may want a printed copy for your and possibly the court's information. If you should have any questions on what my intent or meaning in any of this was, kindly call me and I will do my best to explain the somewhat warped way that my brain sometimes operates. What do you think about the new MLK attendance zones? I like the idea of letting our patrons have the choice of attending a new interdistrict school or an old incentive school, but I fear we may run afoul of the court. STATEMENT OF JOHN RIGGS, IV TO THE LITTLE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT AT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD MEETING -3/25/93 Last Friday, March 19th, was my first visit to a federal court. I have a few observations on that first visit that I would like to share with our board, our administration, and our students and patrons. First, for the most part, people invoked in the federal court system are nice folks. Although at times some folks do get a tab over emotional, on the whole I was very well treated. The court folks were kind enough to reserve a nice big chair especially for me that was in front so that I could see the action up close and personal-if the proceedings had been a Razorback basketball game we would have had the equivalent of court side seats. Being fairly naive about courts and lawyers in general, I found the day to be a very interesting civics lesson, much like the civics lesson Dr. Bernd referred to when discussing some of our Central students and our hearing for Mr. Hickman. I would say on the whole, I enjoyed most of the day and look forward to my ne.xt indoctrination into how our court system works. I just wish you lawyers would stop suing me for trying to do the best I can in this job. I do feel I did pick the best profession for me by becoming a simple tractor salesman rather than a lawyer or judge While we were in court, the judge was nice enough to give us a report on our conduct and what she expects of us as the ultimate leaders of the LRSD. Some patrons and citizens I have talked with since Friday think the Judge was way out of line with this documentI do not. Frequently, as a manager, I give folks who work with and for me oral and written evaluations so that they can become better at their jobs by working on weaknesses and emphasizing strengths. Any good manager (and surly our federal judge would want to be construed as a good manager) does thisso I do not think her actions were out of line. I concur with Judge Wright that we have a legal if not moral obligation to do everything under our power to ensure that the LRSD is pursuing a course of quality desegregated education. I also happen to believe that we should do what ever it takes to comply with Judge Wrights ordersafter all, she is a federal judge, makes a hell of a lot more money than we do, and can not be fired or beat in an election. But besides those reasons, I believe we should do what we can to carry out this plan because the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted to implement it to the best of the school district's ability, and I believe there are parts of it that are effective in achieving the goal of a quality, desegregated educational experience for our students though I again agree with the judge that there are parts of the plan that are expensive and may not be the most economical or effective means to achieve our goals. I do take offense to some of the statements made by Judge Wright in her report to us. First of all, I am not a whiner or a complainer. It offends me that the Judge feels the need to stereotype me for comments that were not made by me nor that reflect the official and stated policy of the LRSD. I would remind the Judge of her own words from the hearing last week "impressions are important". I believe that we should not allow ourselves to be involved in name callit will serve no useful purpose. Again, though I find other areas of agreement with Judge Wright. Her statement that the LRSD acts as if it lost its court case is a dead solid perfect description of how many of the patrons and even this board feels about our current situation. And understandably so, for any time that people lose the right to direct their lives and institutions, then those people have LOST. And in a real sense, the citizens of LR have lost most of the ability to direct the most important institution in our fair cityour schools. The vital, important lesson here is this: do the moral and right thing the first time and hold people accountable so that you do not put yourself in the position where you have to seek help from the federal court system. I also am very concerned about the judge's statements seemingly discouraging discussion by duly elected public officials at an official public meeting. Discussion and debate are key elements in a true democracy. Certainly public debate over the direction of our most important political entity, our schools, should be encouraged. Again. I am not suggesting in an way that we disregard the federal authorities in this casewe should make every reasonable effort to carry out our desegregation plan and Judge Wright' orders with all deliberate speed. I also have some concerns over Judge Wright's orders in regards to our attendance at court hearings. I chose to believe that Judge Wright is being truthful in her document when she requested our attendance at this particular hearii^ because she feared we do not understand our obligations or her ordersothers in the community believe Judge Wright's actions to be purely punitive and vindictive. I chose to reject this argument. I truly believe the judge is concerned about our understanding of some of the issues and her orders in this case. I would ask. though, that the judge give some considerations to the nature of this board when she requires our attendance at more hearings. The LRSD board is composed of non-paid volunteers who are elected by the ta.xpayers of the school district. Each of us have a job we are employed at in order that we can pay the rent, cloth and feed our family, and pay our taxes. We serve because we are committed to public service and to quality public education. The court must be mindful of the already countless hours of time that we take away from our jobs to serve our patrons. I believe the judge runs a very real risk of implying that only the independently wealthy who do not have to work can serve on this or any other public boardthis is a dangerous and wrong signal to send to our community, and again I will remind the Judge that in her own words that "impressions are important". I would contend that if the judge is truthful in her belief that we do not understand her orders (and again I believe that she is) then I would say that if this board does not understand what Judge Wright expects after Friday's hearing then there is absolutely no hope for us and Judge Wr^t should go ahead and hold us in contempt and take over complete control of the school district. I believe that this board certainly got the message and that there is no need to continue to require us to attend hearings for the expressed reason of understanding her orders. The judge also expressed concern that our council and superintendent were not relaying to the board the full concern of the court. I would suggest that as a compromise, if the judge will cancel her order to require us to attend hearings, I will agree to attend all hearings in the next year and give a personal report back to the board on just exactly what the court expects. Although I am like the rest of the board with a job outside of my school board activities, I am very fortunate to work for an employer who will allow me to make this time commitment to the court and fortunate to work with very competent and thoughtful co-workers who will take up the slack in my absence. So I believe the judge has accomplished her goal of getting our attention and I will be willing to attend further hearings to ensure the board keeps the message, although I am sure other board members will want from time to time to attend hearings as they can and as they have done in the past. I would like to explain to the judge and our patrons also why sometimes members of this board seemed confused ( as I am most of the time) about our desegregation plan. Partly, and especially as it relates to our budget, we get mixed signals from the court. One the one hand the judge and Mr. Morgan at the ODM(and certainly me and Tm sure other board members) are insisting that we spend the proceeds of our desegregation settlement wisely and where it will do the most good. Yet, the judge also directs us to fund programs that the school district, this board, perhaps the Joshua Intervenors, and the judge herself feel are ineffective and a waste of money. So here is the great dilemma: we get accused of not spending money wisely by the court and then we are told by the court to spend money on programs that the court feels are wasteful and will not further us on oiu- road to achieve unitary status by having excellent desegregated education in Little Rock. It is no wonder that my wife thinks Fm turning into a schizoid. I talked at the February board meeting about how my company produces a marketing document first and then puts the dollars to it, not vice-versa. This statement was made in the context of agreeing with the court for the need to hire someone to assist us with developing a budgeting process along those lines. I would also remind the court that one of the values of a marketing document is that it is flexible and can be changed as market conditions change. An inflexible document or plan is the surest way I know of to send a company or a school district into bankruptcy. Judge Wright stated in court Friday that we have some latitude to modify this plan.There are only a very few provisions of the plan that are sacred according to the Sth Circuit court of appeals. I have those items and will pass them out to our board in case some of us have forgotten what they were. Anything else is fair game as long as the parties in the case agree that the plan needs to be changed and the changes are not facially unconstitutional. .And finally, since I have taken up too much time already, let me address some thoughts to the Joshua intervenors, the LRSD administration, this board, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the court and most importantly, our patrons. I find it very disheartening that this board and district seem to always find themselves in some sort of battle on a continuing basis. What particularly bothers me is that most times those that we fight have the exact same goals as we do!! And that goal is this: that Little Rock should have the finest desegregated school system that can afford where fairness and equity are found as the rule and where our patrons and students feel that they getting the best education possible in our town. As I was leaving the hearing Friday, Mr. John Walker was we are holding the elevator door for me and said, "come on Mr. Riggs, as long as you don't mind riding with the enemy." Now I know Mr. Walker said this in jest because he knows that I consider him a friend and have great respect for him, but it is this misconception that since we sometimes do not agree on strategies that we must be enemies that holds this district and even this city back from greatness. We are not the enemy of the Joshua Intervenors
we are not the enemy of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring
we are not the enemy of Judge Wright and the eighth circuit court
we are not the enemy of the patrons of our gifted and talent programs
we are not the enemy of the students and parents from Central High
we are not the enemy of the Aero Space Education Center advocates. We are the enemy of ignorance
we are the enemy of prejudice
we are the enemy of inequity in education. I believe all these other groups believe ignorance, prejudice and inequity to be their enemy also. And so instead of enemies, we are allies in this school district's attempt to be an example of excellent desegregated education. It is this Paradigm that we must go forward with from this day on. This paradigm must have at its core inclusiveness
this paradigm must go along the lines of this: that to accomplish our ambitious and noble dream YOU AND I, not you OR I, but you AND I must work together, hand in hand to make our dream reality.f RECEIVED FILED APR 7 1993 U.S. DIS) EASTERN OiS Office of Desegregation Monitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER APR - 2 1993 OiaRu I i bt'iMi * t wi wucFiK ey: CC?. CU5HK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate
CECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education
and THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS SEPARATE ANSWER OF O.G, JACOVELLI, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON AND THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT For their Separate AnsvJer to the Amended Complaint, defendants O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, W.D. "Bill" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (collectively "LRSD" defendants), state: lalhy\P-Ete-S^.Amt 1. The LRSD defendants admit the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The LRSD defendants admit the identity of the plaintiffs. 3. The LRSD defendants admit the identity of the defendants named in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, but deny that the Amended Complaint provides a sufficient basis upon which to proceed against any of the defendants individually. 4. Insofar as paragraph 4 alleges any wrongdoing on the part of the LRSD defendants, those allegations are denied. 5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint is admitted. 6. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 7. Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 8. The LRSD defendants admit that during the decade between 1980 and 1990 there was western movement of both black and white populations in the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint. 9. The LRSD defendants admit that the current LRSD election zones are imbalanced by population according to the 1990 census. but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint, 10. Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint is admitted. 11. Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 12. Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 13. Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 14. Defendants admit that the elections scheduled for September 15, 1992 have been postponed. k*diy\P-Efc-Sep.Ai 215. Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 16. Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 17. The LRSD defendants admit that the County Board of Education is authorized and required by statute to divide the Little Rock School District into zones for the purpose of electing members to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint. 18 Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 19. Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 20 Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 21. The LRSD defendants deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the prayer of the Amended Complaint. 22. The LRSD defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Complaint which is not specifically admitted in this Separate Answer. 23. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that the Amended Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 24 . The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that they are public school officials who acted at all times in good faith and that they claim such immunities as are available to them on the basis of their status as public school officials and their good faith. 25. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that they have no statutory duty or authority to establish or to reform the ]ci(l^\P-Eb*Sep.AoB 3t boundaries of the zones from which the Little Rock School District Board Members are elected. 26. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that the present Little Rock School District election zones were established by court order and that plaintiff should not be allowed to maintain a suit against these defendants which is premised upon defendants' compliance with an order of the district court. 27. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that the Pulaski County Board of Education has prepared and presented to the district court a plan which brings the Little Rock School District election zones into compliance with the "one-man one-vote" and which is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. WHEREFORE, the LRSD defendants pray that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. "Bill" Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Bar No. 81083 |a<>y\P-Be-S<p.Am 4t I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Jacovelli, I certify that a copy of the foregoing Separate Answer of O.G. Jackson, Dr. Patricia Gee, Katherine Mitchell, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey W.D. "Bill" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (collectively "LRSD" defendants) has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A'. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 stopher Helle k>lly\P-Elo-Sep.Am 5 ReCEIVPi^ APR 1 3 1993 Ofiics ot L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE For their Motion to Excuse Attendance, Ms. O.G. Jacovelli, Mr. John Moore and Mr. W.D. "Bill" Hamilton, individual members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, state: 1. That by Order dated March 1, 1993, the court has scheduled a hearing to consider budget cuts for Monday, April 19, 1993 to continue, if necessary, through Tuesday, April 20, 1993. 2. That Ms. Jacovelli was recently discharged from University Hospital and remains under the care of her physician. Dr. William E. Golden, M.D. By letter dated April 7, 1993, Dr. Golden has requested that his patient be excused from court appearances while she is recovering from her recent surgery. copy of Dr. Golden's letter to counsel is attached to this motion as Exhibit "A". That Mr. Moore is a practicing attorney. He is counsel of record in a case which is set for a jury trial beginning Monday, April 19, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the Saline County Courthouse. He kiihyXP-Budtei.Exc 3 . Aalso has a pre-trial conference in another case set for Monday, April 19, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in the Grant County Courthouse. See attached Exhibit "B". 4. That Mr. Hamilton is employed by the Arkansas Department of Health. On behalf of the Department of Health he must attend a meeting of the Regional Program Advisory Committee for the Title X Family Planning Program of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Region 6. The meeting will be held in Dallas, Texas. Due to this meeting, Mr. Hamilton will be out-of-state from April 18, 1993 to April 21, 1993. A copy of the RPAC agenda is attached to this motion as Exhibit "C". WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons. these board members request to be excused from the court's order directing their attendance at the April 19 and 20, 1993 hearing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By CKristopher Hell^ Bar No. 81083 kaihyVP-Budget.Exc 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Excuse Attendance has been served on the follo^i^ same in the United States mail on this depositing copy of day of April, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle: kiihy\P*Budset.Exc 3 .4hPF'-G"- (et' o
IEuI.IhI'IS II ITEF'KhL I IEE' Fh/ (10:501-1 1 n FOi 1? University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences DIVISION OF jeneralinternal MEDICINE 4301 Wesl Maiktiam Mail Slot i41 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-7199 Office (501)606-5236 Williom E. Golden, M.D. Directo* (Obert C. Lavender. M D. DiieCtOf General Meriidno Clinic Susan S. Beland. M D. Director MeOicBi Education Generat Meoicme Clinic Appt? 688-7911 Pflrioperative Consullaiion Service Appts 686-5236 epeppr- 688-6022 Univerailv Private Modical Group Appts 088-5545 zqual Opponuntty fcmployer April 7, 1993 Chri.s Heller Attorney at Law, Friday, Eldridg4 and Clark Dear Mr. Heller, Re: Oma C. Jacovelli Please excu.ae Oma G. Jacovelli from her .scheduled coiu-t appearances. Ms. Jacovelli has recently been diochnrgcd from University, .She is recovering from Hospital and remains under my care. surgery and will be unable Lo be in court for the indetennirifuL near .future. Sincerely, - - - - - .5
V William E. Go.ldhiv, M.D. Director WG/pm Exhibit "A" DI STATE OF ARKANSAS Office of The Circuit/Chancery Judge SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS GRANT COUNTY COURTHOUSE SHERIDAN. ARKANSAS 72150 January 6, 1993 Mr. John E. Moore Attorney at Law 400 West Capitol, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Charles R. Padgham Attorney at Law 229 Hobson Avenue Hot Springs, AR 71913 RE: Glenn and Bradley VS Scallion Saline County Circuit Number CIV-92-721-2 Dear Mr. Moore and Mr. Padgham: PHILLIP H. SHIRRON CIRCUIT/CHANCERY JUDGE PHONE 501-942-7818 FAX 942-2442 I have set the above styled case for a jury trial, Monday, April 19. 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at the Saline County Courthouse in Benton, Arkansas. I am in possession of Mr. Moore's witness and exhibit lists and jury instructions. I have Mr. Padgham's jury instructions, but need his witness and exhibit lists by April 19. I would also need copies of any changes to the above, and copies of any new motions, etc. you. ene Davis Case Coordinator /dd cc: Pat Lightfoot, Court Reporter Saline County Circuit Clerk and File I i I i JAN - 7 1993 Exhibit "B" COUNTIES OF GRANT, HOT SPRING AND SALINE ! STATE OF ARKANSAS SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS GRANT COUNTY COURTHOUSE SHERIDAN. ARKANSAS 72 1 50 JOHN W. COUE CIRCUIT JUDGE PHONE S01 -942-2 1 65 March 18, 1993 Mr. John E. Moore Attorney at Law First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Mr. Peter A. Miller Attorney at Law The Stephens Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr, James F. Swindoll Attorney at Law Suite 200, 217 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Lynn D. Lisk Attorney at Law Suite 1620, 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert L. Depper, Jr. Attorney at Law 314 East Oak Street El Dorado, Arkansas 71730 Mr. Kevin J. Staten Attorney at Law Suite 300, 101 Spring Little Rock, AR 72201-2488 RE: Cason V. House Grant County Circuit No. CIV 92-101-1 Dear Attorneys: A pre-trial conference and hearing on all pending motions are hereby set for Monday, April 19, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in the Grant County Courthouse. A trial date will be scheduled at the pre-trial conference. All attorneys or someone authorized to agree to a binding trial date, are required to attend. J<^hn W. Cole Cordially, JWC/me cc: Mrs. Lois Green, Court Reporter Mrs. Linda Shepherd, Circuit Clerk Court File V'
MW I 0193 J II COUNTIES OF: HOT SPRING SAUNE. AND GRANT I-IhR 29 93 19:33 TO 93762147 FRijri kcPkuL'LiC . . -'C. ncr-ii- > r. JAMES BCWMAN ASSCXJIATES 421 EAST eth STREET SUITE B AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 (512) 476-8341 MEMORANDUM TO: RPAC and RTAC Members PROM: Dick Casper SUBJECT: Schedule for our April meetings in Dallas DATE: 26 March 1993 Sunday, 4/18 - RPAC Members travel to Dallas and check into t Embassy Suites, Love Field (PH. 214/357-4500). the TBP has made room reservations and will provide airline tickets. Monday, 4/19 - RPAC Members meet in executive session to: 1. Develop plans for FY'94-'96 Regional Service Enhancement Activities 2. Develop Requests fur Proposals for any Ot the above Activities which are to be undertaken by one or more contractors 3. Plan for August 1993 RPAC meeting. Tuesday, 4/20 AM - RPAC Members continue in executive session. 1:30 PM - Begin general session to include reports from Paul Smith and Dick Casper. ??? PM - Resume executive session as needed. Wednesday, 4/21 AM - State Training Managers (other than Maggie Lujan) travel to Dallas, airline tickets provided by TCHT (see enclosed itineraries). (Hotel reservations have been made for Maggie to stay the night of 4/20. ) 8:30 AM - Nurse Practitioner RTAC meeting. 10:30 - General Training RTAC meeting. 1:30 PM - RPAC rAMirna frt laxecutivo taasion and Stato Training Managers have their own meeting. 4:30 ADJOURN Exhibit "C" RECEIVER COURT ijTcR.. district ARKANSAS APR 1 9 1993 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR J 5 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL R, Sy.-. CLERK /bvU'yy DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of Ms. Oma G. Jacovelli, Mr. John Moore, and Mr. W.D. "Bill" Hamilton, individual members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, to be excused from attending the hearing on the 1992-93 budget cuts, scheduled to resume on Monday, April 19, 1993. The motion is granted as to Ms. Jacovelli and Mr. Hamilton. The motion is conditionally granted as to Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore does not have to appear at either of the two state court hearings. he is to appear at this Court's hearing. Because of their absence. a special, on-the-record hearing will be scheduled for Mr. Moore and Mr. Hamilton. If necessary. this hearing will be scheduled during an evening or on a Saturday. Ms. Jacovelli may attend the special hearing if her health permits. DATED this J^ day of April, 1993. COMFLL'J - II ' J DOCKET SHEET IN ^D/On_73{a) FRCP UNITED STATES DIS JUDGE f-h1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS ' 17 1993 CARLR. BRENTS, CLERK Bv.-_ J V DSP.CUKK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously determined that the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors either do not understand the Court's Orders with respect to the District's obligations under the Plan, or deliberately do not seek to comply with those Orders. Because such noncompliance impedes the realization of a desegregated school system, this Court hereby orders each member of the school board to be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent. Those school board members who are excused from attending a particular hearing will be reguired to attend a review session. The Court has given much thought to the imposition of the attendance requirement on the school board members and concludes that there are no other suitable alternatives at this time. The ultimate accountability for the District lies with the District's school board. and it is the members of that board who are ultimately responsible for the District's good faith compliance & 2with the settlement plan. Yet the school board members, for whatever reason, have failed to fulfill their duties to ensure that the Court's Orders are heeded and that the District is competently managed. Such dereliction of duty has not gone unaddressed. In the past, the Court has instructed counsel for plaintiffs to inform the school board members of the Court's continuing concerns. At the February 1, 1993 hearing, the Court stated as follows
I do intend to order that the counsel for the Little Rock School District inform the district concerning what the Court's concerns have been. Again, I mean, the whole theme for this hearing is that the Little Rock School District is not getting this Court's message ... It didn't get the message with respect to the junior high school problem. to the budgetary process. It didn't get the message with respect It didn't get the message with respect to preregistration and changes in the magnet school programs that had to be made and approved by the Court before preregistration. It didn't get that message. There is a communications problem between the Court and the Little Rock School District and I intend to be more active with respect to the Little Rock School District to address this problem. frequent hearings. I expect to have more I expect to ask Mr. [Christopher] Heller to tell them specifically what the Court has done. There needs to be more communication. Transcript of February 1, 1993 Hearing, pp. 104-05 (doc.#1756). The Court went on to instruct Mr. Heller that he inform the school board members of the Court's concerns, to which he replied that he would. Id. at 206. Mr. Heller subsequently issued a Memorandum (attached to this Order) to the Board of Directors and to Dr. Mac Bernd dated February 22, 1993, in which he purports to relay the Court's concerns. The Court finds Mr. Heller's Memorandum to state a brief history of the case that essentially does nothing to emphasize this -2-Court's concerns. Despite the Court's specific request, the school board members did not "get the message." The District continues to suffer from repeated and continuous mismanagement, confrontation and delay with respect to Orders issued by this Court, and a lack of any leadership that could be expected to turn the situation around in a reasonable time. The District is hereby put on notice that these and other problems currently besetting the District would justify the imposition of a receivership, see, e.g., Morgan V. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) , a situation to which the District finds itself moving ever closer. Although some have expressed concern that requiring the school board members to attend hearings in this matter will possibly deter individuals from running for the school board, implementation of the Plan is the Court's primary concern. Any impact such a requirement will have on the decision of others to run for the school board is secondary.* The Court would only note that it has never refused a reasonable request from a board member to be absent from a hearing. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that each member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent. Those school board members who are * Board member John Riggs, FV, in a letter to the Court dated June 10, 1993, requests that he be allowed to appear in court on behalf of the school board members instead of requiring that all members attend. Although the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Riggs request, the Court has unsuccessfully tried such an approach in its requests to counsel that the school board members be informed of the Courts continuing concerns. -3-excused from attending a particular hearing will be required to attend a review session. Dated this f C? day of June 1993. -4- IJNIT SS DtSSTtRriIct judge entered on docket rwpct i / '^1 - BY IN CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTCaiNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tctophooe (501) 375-2011 Fix No. (501) 378-2147 DiratNo. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts propos^ modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation c^ligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order fEed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the pubEcation of the desegregation plans have been maUed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressmg issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: II (1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requu-ements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements: (3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary m order to align finances with desegregation allegations. II On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that "the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites" and ordered the Little Rock School District to "sij)mit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 -- 1996/97". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and suppEed the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. FoUowing an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elunination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positions in the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year "will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern "about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson)." The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward "other issues of concern to the Court". Ar. that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared. aU previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ay' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED U.S DlSTniCT COURT eastern D1STR!*T ARKANSAS JUN J^1993 MS, CLERK IT PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case for June 24, 1993 and ordered the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present. The Little Rock School District C16RK R/^ has filed a motion to excuse board members Patricia Gee and O.G. Jacovelli from the hearing on grounds that Ms. Jacovelli is currently hospitalized and recovering from surgery, while Ms. Gee is required to appear in the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be and hereby is granted. A review session for board members Patricia Gee and O.G. Jacovelli will be scheduled by separate order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1993. STATES DI st: CT JUDGE - JOCU.MCHr Ei'ITERED ON ^CKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ON WITH RU' P !Y p/OR 79^) FRCP FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W . MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY, P.A. PREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E, OAVIS. JR,. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P.A. larry W. BURKS. P.A. TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. June 23, 1993 JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J- SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. Richard d. Taylor, p.a. JOSEPH 8 HURST. JR.. p.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A Thomas n. rose. p.a. Michael s. moore. p a Diane s. mackey, p.a. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P A CLYDE -TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR.. P A J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR . P A H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR.. P A HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY M. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF PAMELA O. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY.JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P A. ITEM'* DIRECT NO. (601) 370-1606 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office & Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUN 2 4 1993 Re
LRSD V. PCSSD Case No. LR-C-82-866 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: Little Rock School District Board Members Bill Hamilton and John Riggs are out of the state in connection with our search for a new superintendent. They are scheduled to return Wednesday evening, but asked me to advise you that any unexpected delay in their travel plans could result in their being late for the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 24, 1993. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: All Counsel of Record I R I? JUN 2 9 1993 PILED Oitico of Oo^ V' i''.cn !9 ^'^kansas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARLR, 2 5 133J clerk ^P- CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS, MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS. ORDER Pending before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) requesting that School Board President John E. Moore be excused from attendance at hearings scheduled in this case for June 24, July 7, and July 8, 1993. Attorney Moore states that he must be absent on the 24th of June because he must attend a seminar to earn credits toward the required Continuing Legal Education hours that each Arkansas attorney must obtain each year. He further states that he must be absent on July 7 and July 8, 1993 because of trials scheduled in state court. The Court is familiar with the Continuing Legal Education requirements. Further, the Court assumes that since Mr. Moore is an officer of the Court (as an attorney licensed in this District) as well as a School Board Member, that he is being truthful with the Court and is acting in good faith. Mr. Moore is therefore excused from the June 24, July 7, and July 8 hearings. He must, however, attend the review sessions that are to be scheduled on these hearings. The Court would further require that he discuss the contents of those hearings with his fellow Board Members and with the School District attorney. I It is so ordered this day of June, 1993. -2, tates District Judge DOCKET SHeP IN this L - COMPLIANCE ON -2- DOCUME^^Wf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CAfli. yy - 1 J393 K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court has scheduled a budget hearing for the PCSSD and the CLfl^ vs. LRSD on July 7th and 8th, 1993. This Order is to inform the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors that they will not be required to be present on Wednesday, July 7th, since the hearing on that day will primarily cover the budget for the PSCCD. However, there is a possibility that the hearing regarding PCSSD's budget could conclude on the afternoon of the 7th, in which case the Court would immediately begin the hearing on the budget for the LRSD. Therefore, the LRSD board members may desire to attend the afternoon session on Wednesday, July 7th, although they are not required to do so. The board members will, however, be required to attend the hearing on the budget for the LRSD on Thursday, July 8th, and there is a possibility that the hearing will continue into the morning of Friday, July 9th, which also will require the presence of the board members. The parties are put on notice that should the hearing not be completed during the morning of July 9th, the matter will possibly be continued into the following week. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) has filed a motion to quash the subpoena of Sandra Roy [doc.#1870], Executive Director of PACT, on grounds that she has made prior travel plans and her testimony is not essential to the hearings on July 7th and Sth, 1993. PACT has also filed a motion for a continuance of the hearings on July 7th and Sth, 1993 [doc.#1871] on grounds that it will not have an adequate opportunity to prepare for any testimony that might be given by PACT in support of certified raises for Pulaski County Special School District teachers for the 1992-93 school year. For good cause shown, the motion to quash the subpoena of Sandra Roy is granted. The motion for a continuance, however, is denied. The Court has asked the PCSSD to explain how it can continue to fund its desegregation obligations, not whether it can justify the increase in teachers' salaries. Should justification for the increase in teachers' salaries become an issue, the Court will schedule a separate hearing on that issue. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of July 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRI'CT JUDGE -OMPLIANCE.WTTH RULE 5S AN, docket SHEET IN ON y-/-^ BY R 79(a) FRCP HLED M-S. district cm mv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0 1993 I I I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 301 1 2 1993 ORDER ncc/^rsi DEP. CtEflK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case for July 7 and 8, 1993 and ordered the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present. In addition, the Court has informed the parties that this matter may be continued on July 9, 1993 and into the following week. The Little Rock School District (LRSD) has filed a motion [doc.#1884] to excuse board members Dr. Katherine Mitchell and O.G. Jacovelli from the hearing on grounds that Dr. Mitchell is out of the State from June 28 to July 11 to attend conferences in connection with her work as President of Shorter College, while Ms. Jacovelli is currently hospitalized and recovering from surgery. The LRSD has also filed a motion [doc.#1880] asking that board member Dorsey Jackson be excused from the hearing on July 8, 1993 at 3:45 pB. in order to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Centers for Youth and Families, and a motion [doc.#1889] to excuse board member Bill Hamilton on Friday, July 9 at 10:30 a.m. in order to attend a funeral, after which he will return to court. 18 9 2 I I I -I I (Finally, the LRSD has filed a supplemental motion [doc.#1890] to excuse board member John Moore from the budget hearing on July 8 and 9, 1993. Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that each of these motions should be and hereby is granted. A review session for these board members will be scheduled by separate order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of July 1993. united 'STATfS DISTRI ITRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET BM COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7(a) FRCP ONP fl p WSTc
ijD
5TRfcT,
)^LsAS '<^UL 2 1 1995 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION carl R i3^E
\jTQ, Sy-. CLl:RK L:~f. Ci. hX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, I I vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, I i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS, V MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS. ORDER Little Rock School Board Members Pat Gee, Kathrine Mitchell and John Moore were excused, for good cause shown, from attendance at recent hearings in this case. After consultation with these Board Members and with counsel for the District, Jerry Malone, a hearing has been set for 10:00 a.m. on Friday, July 30, 1993, to review the matters discussed at the missed hearings with these Board Members. It is so ordered this <?'! day of July, 1993. I I United States ates District Jud Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ICE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP I I I COMPL)^^ITHj ON BY J ! IUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 869 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0869 Carl R. Brents Clerk July 19, 1993 Gerald M. Parsons Chief Deputy Clerk Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT, ETC ET AL Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Docket Entries (certified] Order filed 6/17/93 Sincerely, Carl R. Brents, Clerk By: i Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS c WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF APPEAL JUL i 6 1555, PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Notice is hereby given that plaintiff Little Rock School District appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Order finding that "problems currently besetting the district would justify the imposition of a I I 1 I receivership" and requiring each Member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School Desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent, entered in this case on June 17, 1993. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 I I BY Christopher Hell I 1 R^CEiven JUL 1 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that plaintiff Little Rock School District appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Order finding that It problems currently besetting the district would justify the imposition of V. 1 a receivership" and requiring each Member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School Desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent, entered in this case on June 17, 1993. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 BY Christopher HellCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 16th day of July, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Norman Chachkin LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 99 Hudson Street New York, N.Y. 10013 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL & ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 1 I i 1 1 i 07-2'=> 1^993 07:20 "ALKER RALPH WASHJNGTriN .mark BrRNETJE '' RRAWIDN, JR. AUSTIN porter. .
ii * AlfloadriHt^lo Fnirtw h FROM JOHN U.UALKEP P.fi. in (inwcu tt Ibn I'>nfnr. i.-tJumhi, TO 3710100 P . 02 r f H r . JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At l.aw 1723 BKoArnvAV Litile R(k:k. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (.501) .374-3758 FAX (.501) .374-4187 July 29, 1993 Mr. John Moore, President Little Rock School District 610 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Mr. Moore: I 1 Board 72201 Re
Dr. Henry Williams vjj n ^1 morning's paper William's schedule, ------- .. it which set out Dr Henry t, scneauie, appears that Pha ------ capriciously omitted from his itinerLv t Intervenors 'versight and surely the Board of assume that is an with us. This is so blcaX the most . to meet District is implementation of its dSL?^ Problem facing the are the principal party. man ... him, except for the The other are urgent problem desegregation plan to which we groups which will meet with ODM, are only minlmV117 involV^d^f at:?! ^Jt^ .JStSuSnS whTi^s^a? V a^sle^TarZ Tf h^ghi^t^r^oX constituencyrTglt^ShSr^' ' that litigation. defamation of constitutional rights, components of the school board' to have had we Would you please let meeting by Joshua e to include at leaest representatives with him. arrange an hour Thank you for your cooperation. sincerely yours, JtVW: j s cc
members receive Dr. f v W( 'hn w. Walker Matthis (with the a Henry Williams copy Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Jerry Malone XtamwMiMaEWff TOTAL P.02 ESS i. d i. 11 I eanaFRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL 8. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 August 4, 1993 RECEIVED DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P.A CLYDE *TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUV ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVtO 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE ceuMtci AUG 5 1993 WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A. VNITCR* OmiCT MO. (601) 370-1566 Mr. Carl Brents, Clerk United States District Court U.S. Post Office & Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue, Room 402 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al U.S.D.C., Eastern District, No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Brents: Please find enclosed the original and one copy of a Motion to Excuse Board Member From Hearing on behalf of the Little Rock School District which I would ask you to file in the above- referenced matter. A self-addressed, stamped envelope has been enclosed for your use in returning a filed-marked copy of the Motion to me. By copy of this letter I am forwarding a copy of this pleading to all counsel of record. Kindest regards. Sincerely yours. Frederick S. Ursery FSU/dkf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker w/enclosure Mr. Sam Jones w/enclosure Mr. Steve Jones w/enclosure Mr. Richard Roachell w/enclosure Ms. Ann Brown w/enclosureIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER FROM HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The court has scheduled a hearing in this case for August 12 and 13, 1993. The members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing. 2. LRSD board member John Moore requests to be excused from the hearing in order to attend a jury trial in which he is the defense attorney in a case which is scheduled to start in the Independence County Circuit Court in Batesville on August 11 and continue through August 12, 1993. 3. Also he is currently scheduled to attend with his family an Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel seminar in Dallas, Texas on August 13 and 14, 1993. He is booked on a flight which is scheduled to leave Little Rock on the morning of August 13, 1993. 4. Attached hereto in support of the motion are the following items:(a) Letter from the Case Coordinator of the Independence County Circuit Court dated January 27, 1993, setting the case for trial during August 9 through 13, 1993. (b) A letter from John Moore of July 30, 1993, to the Case Coordinator confiirming that the case will start on the afternoon of August 11, 1993. (c) A copy of the airline ticket for a trip to Dallas on August 13. (d) A copy of an agenda for the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel meeting for August 13 and 14 in Dallas, Texas. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for an order excusing Mr. Moore from attending the August 12 and 13, 1993 hearing. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District By: FREDERICK S. URSERY, #67055 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Excuse Board Member From Hearing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 4th day of August, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 FREDERIC URSERY 3JOHN E. MOORE Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A. LAW OFFICES FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL. SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 374-6535 FAX (SOU 374-5906 July 30, 1993 Ms. Donna Sullivan Case Coordinator Post Office Box 329 Mountain View, Arkansas 72560 RE: Kirby vs. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co. Independence Circuit No. CIV-91-338 Dear Ms. Sullivan: This conf inns our telephone conversation on July 30, 1993, in which you advised we would pick a jury on the above case Monday morning. August 9, 1993, and begin with the trial at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 1993. I look forward to seeing you then. Ji E. Moore Sinc^ely, JEM/tbr cc: Mr. Jerry Post 5336 JOHN DAN KEMP CIRCUIT JUDGE P.O. BOX 329 mountain view, ar 72560 (SOI) 269-6989 FAX 269-8964 Circuit Court SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT INDEPENDENCE. CLEBURNE. STONE. IZARD AND FULTON COUNTIES January 27, 1993 FAY OILBECK COURT REPORTER PHONE 793-M13 DONNA SULUVAN CASE COORDINATOR PHONE 2e9-9e9 Mr. Jerry Post Attorney at Law P.O. Box 2595 Batesville*,- AR 72503 KE: Kirby v. Cameron Mutual Ins.Co. Independence County CIV 91-338 Dear Mr. Post: This will confirm that the above case is set for trial during the August 9th-13th, 1993, jury term in Batesville. Sunc^ely, Donna Sullivan DS/s cc: Mr. John E. Moore I? JAN28I993 ISSUED BY ANO VALID OHLY ON ^SOUTHWEST AIRLINES . 19 nmiat anoiOR coupons FOR RELated.Chm PASSENGER TICKET AND BAGGAGE CHECK L. nc rwdTBAf^T HM REVERSE SIDE SUBJECT TO COHOITlONS OF CONTRACT ON ISSUED SY ANO VALtO ONLY 0 ' ^SOUTHWEST AIRLINES . k<9t a norm anoor coufons fon related charoes Ufi22SSaSP5?X5S^ tokHaoeweh scieo or w exiendco l!S5SSSSSioET!MK^ro^tT^^ I SSSSn iSSomSIS^ niwSiE io Of cou,Af bsuo okd NO REfUHO ON LOST TICKETS lx s r 6T0NATURE OF CARDHOLDER FLIGHT COUPON 1 oS Touncooe 5O30t,"ra oosflasHasas ifS'rttyOTErraroHN DATTBir (TOORTT^OHN I'LITTLE ROCK AR HOI TRANSFERABLE sziTTSTymi ITINERARY O" f-. vr^trv I, V *SisniCKET DESiQNATOfl OTACLAS LOVE FIELD HKIF' . _______________ ISSUED IN EXCHANGE FOR I Efg H ig^HGiaiTOA OK*"" aWnffS ' LITDALHN 13'A*UG13'AG' CONJUNCTION TICKETS ODALLITHN a3H 13AUG 81 SHH 15AUG I ***** e 5prTnrenrrRES check-in and * if TRAVEL WITH COMPANION * FP TBM/CCIRS3m3Q3abDlDlb5M JOHN Luth. CODE: DaSObU FC LIT UN DAL71.82HXR UN LITALS 4HUR 116.36 *** E MOORE EXP Ob/TS ** !! UTH. code: SOtU FC USD TIS TAX lib.3b 11. bM Ml SC TICKET'EfT MAIL STOCK CONTROL HO. TX 4 CK nno7A77nn7? I CRN ALLOW PCS WT UNCKO DOCUMENT NUMBER CK 1 55b 510M7blD01i 0 I ***** ** *>* CHECR-IN REQUIRED 1 sab SlDMTblOOl Seminar Details Program Highlights ( Agenda Friday, August 13 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 1:00 to 1:45 p.m. 1:45 to 5:00 p.m. 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, August 14 8:45 to 9:30 a.m. 9:30 to 11:30 a m, 11:30 to 11:45 a,m, 6:30 p,m, 7:00 p.m. f "Trial Strategy and Techniques" presented by James McElhaney, Professor of Law Registration What You Need to Know about the Americans with Disabilities Act Trial Strategies and Techniques Reception for the President-Elect Proposed Changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . How to Practice Law and Handle Stress ' Business Meeting Bus Leaves for the Cowboys Game Kickoff - Cowboys versus Raiders Hotel Accommodations Hotel rooms are available at The Westin Hotel in the Galleria for $88 per night (single occupancy) or $98 per night (double occupartcy). To reserve a room, call the Westin at 214-934-9494 and be sure to tell them you are with the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel. Gfo F&S'S -CeA<**^ Registration I 4^ The cost of the seminar is $90 per registrant through August 1 and $ 100 per registrant thereafter. The spouse / guest fee is $25 and children are free. To register, please detach the registration form at the right and mail it and a check made payable to Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel to: Michael R. Mayton First Commercial Building, Suite 1700 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Registration will last from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on FridcQA------- August 13. Those who have not pre-registered may do so at this time. The fee includes all seminar materials and the reception. Travel Arrangements American Airlines is offering special rates for the meeting. To take advantage of the discounted fares, call American at 1-800-433-1790 between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., daily, and refer to Meeting Number 0283HA. Continuing Legal Education The application process is underway for approximately five hours of CLE credit. Case Western Reserve University, School of Law James McElhaney is North America's most widely road author on the art of trial advocacy. Ho is author of McElhaney's Trial Notebook Secot^Edition (LS87, Amarican Bar Association), columnist for the ABA Journal's popular monthly feature "Litigation", and writes "Trial Notebook" lot Litigatiort Journal. As one of tha country's premier lecturers on evidence and trial :. practice, ho is consistently applauded tor his creative, energetic and elfoctiva teaching style. J "How to Practice Law and Handle Stress" ' presented by T. L. "Pete" Caudle, III Pete Caudle is a Dallas lawyer and frequent lecturer on numerous topics dealing with stress manag
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 Resoources.

<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>