Budget, court filings

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 1993 OARL fl, Sy.-. / clerk oep. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly l expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit. which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit. a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed 9 -1 J concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway. although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2-recognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby reguires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed
(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps
(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps
and (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are reguired to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DlSTRICO
t judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- ON BY_Vreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coOfeG 3 ^993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 NOTICE OF LRSD BOARD INVOLVEMENT The plaintiff. Little Rock School District ("LRSD" or District"), for its Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, the order of this Court, states: pursuant to 1. On November 16, 1993, an order was issued and filed directing the Board of Directors of the LRSD to file a report outlining how the Board was being involved in the LRSD budgeting process, how the Board was preparing itself to make specific budget decisions, how the Board's approval was being sought and received, and outlining which specific line item budget transfers the Board had approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. This filing is intended to be responsive to that order. 2. As an attachment to the order. the Court included excerpts from the transcript of a July 8, 1993 budget hearing. In the order, this Court specifically referred to comments by a Board member that he hoped the Board would know by Christmas 1993 what Irsdpul.notbudget cuts to make in order to address the anticipated deficit for the 1994-95 school year. However, by virtue of the manner in which personal and real property taxes are assessed, collected and paid in the State of Arkansas, and the manner in which Pulaski County administrators notify school districts of the funds which will be available to them from those tax collections, District administrators are not in position to provide the initial a financial forecast until after that information has been obtained from the County administration. assessed and analyzed. The information from the State of Arkansas regarding minimum foundation program aid to the respective Districts will not be available until even later in the 1993-94 school year. It is also necessary to place the referenced comments by the Board member into the proper context. Mainly, by order dated June 15, 1993, this Court required the LRSD to begin the development of a planning process that would be used by the District to develop its 1994-95 budget. Prior to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD had been required to submit certain information responsive to that order. The June 15, 1993, order also required the LRSD to develop a written action plan to demonstrate how it would develop a long- range planning and budget process. That action plan had to be filed on or before June 28, 1993. The action plan was timely filed and the LRSD was in the process of developing a written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process at the time of the July 8 hearing. The Court had required that written plan to be Iradpul.iKX 2filed by July 30, 1993. Accordingly, at the time of the July 8, 1993, hearing the LRSD had neither developed, analyzed, adopted nor submitted its written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. Subsequent to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD continued its efforts to develop a written program planning and budgeting process. 3. In developing the planning and budgeting process, representatives of the LRSD conferred with the budget specialists which had been appointed by the Court to assist the LRSD in budgetary matters. Those conferences took place in early July, 1993. At that time. the LRSD was advised that the budget specialists had reviewed the order of this Court and developed a draft paper detailing how many of the requirements of the order could be satisfied. Working from that draft paper. and in conjunction with the budget specialist, the LRSD developed the program budgeting and planning document eventually filed by it on July 29, 1993 . During hearings on August 12 and 13, 1993, regarding the LRSD budget, the LRSD presented testimony outlining the process used to develop the long-range program planning and budget document. Additional background on this process can be found in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed November 3, 1993. on 4. The program planning and budgeting document filed on July 29 constituted the LRSD's response to the June 15, 1993 order of this Court requiring a detailed written action plan for the Indpul.mM 3long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. That order specifically required the LRSD to "clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the School Board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. 11 Prior to the document being filed, the LRSD Board of Directors met on Wednesday, July 28, 1993, for the purpose of assessing, analyzing and adopting the process as developed from the budget specialists' draft paper. 5. Since adopting the program planning and budgeting document, and explaining its workings to this Court during the August 12 and 13 budget hearings, the LRSD has endeavored to utilize that process to develop the 1994-95 budget. In fact. pursuant to the order of this Court, the LRSD has now worked with the Court-appointed budget specialists to identify and purchase software and put in place a project management tool to guide. monitor and control the development and implementation of its planning and budgeting process. The District has filed monthly reports with this Court for the months ending August 31, September 30, October 31 and November 30. To its knowledge, the LRSD is on target with the timelines established in the program planning and budget document as further refined by the project management tool. 6. In assessing Board involvement in the budgetary process, the LRSD would submit that the Board has been involved in accordance with the process outlined in the program planning and budget document as well as in accordance with the refinements made 4 IrtdpuJuK*through the project management tool. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is true and accurate copy of a report submitted by the a superintendent of the LRSD on behalf of the Board of Directors. The response attempts to address each guestion posed by this Court as well as provide listing of the Board's activities and involvement in the planning and budgeting process, is incorporated herein by reference. That document 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum reflecting the budget activities which occurred immediately after the July 8, 1993 hearing. As reflected in that memorandum, the Board of Directors met at 7:00 a.m. on Friday, July 9, 1993, for purposes of providing the administration with a direction and guidance for budgetary revisions to be presented by the administration to the Board. That document is also incorporated herein by reference. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum to the LRSD Board of Directors dated July 28, 1993, giving notice of certain matters regarding the budgetary process. This memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Of significance to this filing. please note that in the second paragraph, it is reported that the LRSD Board of Directors decided to meet each Thursday during the month of July for purposes of budgetary matters. This is merely illustrative of the commitment this Board has demonstrated during the budgetary process. In fact. the Board has continued to devote a substantial number of hours to the District and its operation. lndpul.oo( 59. It is anticipated that the Board of Directors will continue to be involved in the budgetary process as outlined in the program training and budget document, the project management tool and as circumstances otherwise permit or require. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of LRSD Board Involvement has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3^ day of December, 1993. --- Jerry L. Malone 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 Irsdpul.not 6 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 (hand delivered) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IradpuJ.oM 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 30, 1993 TO: Jerry L^J^lnne FROM
1. tarns, perintendeni SUBJECT: Response to Recent Court Order The Board of Directors remains committed to quality implementation of the Court- approved Desegregation Plans, Monitoring Reports, and other Court Orders which include our July 30, 1993, filing. The July 30, 1993, filing presented the districts long- range planning and budgeting process. The Board thoroughly reviewed and examined this document prior to the filing. District staff were questioned extensively by Board mernbers to ensure staff had outlined a planning and budgeting process that would the Board to be involved on ........ .................................... an allow ongoing basis in developing the 1994-95 budget, as well as future district budgets. The document was basically an adoption of a process suggested by Bill Mooney, the Court-appointed budget specialist. Questions Posed by the Court 1. 2. Report on how the Board is being more involved in the budget process. The Board is following the process as adopted in the July 30, 1993, Court filing (see Attachment A for specific activities). Report on how the Board is preparing itself to make specific budget decisions. Board members have requested specific reports and information from the Superintendent and staff in order to stay fully informed and involved. A special report is to be provided during our December Board meeting. Staff has been asked to review the planning and budgeting process that is outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing (see specific activities in Attachment A).Response to Recent Court Order Page 2 3. 4. Report on how the Boards approval is being sought and received. The Superintendent keeps the Board informed of all major activities that have implications for the existing budget and the projected 1994-95 budget. The Superintendent and Board President either meet or confer on a regular basis to address desegregation and budgetary issues, as well as the routine day-to-day activities of the district. Staff provide assistance and information to various Board members through routine written and/or oral requests. Identify which specific line item budget transfers the Board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. Three specific line item budget transfers will be considered for approval by the Board during a special meeting on December 2, 1993. Business cases have been developed for review and approval by the Board to allow the budget transfers for the following programs to be implemented: Program/Project Amount Transferred Truancy Reduction Program Special Assistant to the Superintendent Garland Multimedia Technology Theme - $ 58,943.00 $ 60,000.00 Phase One S 75,000.00 These programs will be funded as follows: Truancy Reduction Program: The police resource officer program was not fully implemented. The projected increase in students attendance will have a positive impact on funds received by the district from the state through an increase of student average daily membership. (Students will benefit academically and socially by attending school on a regular basis.)Response to Recent Court Order Page 3 Special Assistant to the Superintendent: Funds currently budgeted for positions not filled will be used pay for this position. A projected increase in federal funds to the district will pay the future salary of this employee. Indirect costs generated by the acquisition of federal funds should allow the district to expand the grant writing team. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme: Garlands staff has been advised to develop a proposal for the expansion of this project that can be presented during the budgeting process for the 1994-95 school year. Funds were generated from a one-time only carryover, plus existing funds in Garlands incentive school budget. Future phases of this program will follow the process outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing to the Court. The Board remains committed to living up to its obligations as identified in the planning and budgeting document.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS DATE July 8, 1993 7 a.m. July 27, 1993 ______ activities/INVOLVEMENT Discussed with Cabinet, Bob Morgan and Bill Mooney (Office of Desegregation Monitoring) in order to givedirections to staff for reduction of three million dollars from 1993-94 budget. Designated the lead planner from Planning Research, and Evaluation ' Discussed/reviewed approved July 30 uxscusseu/reviewed approved July 30, 1993, Court submission and "Program Planning and Budget Document, II including the budget calendar RESPONSIBILITY Board of Directors Board of Directors Board of Directors August, 1993 Appointed two Board members to participate in work sessions to establish Mission Statement and tentative goals I Dorsey Jackson August 31, 1993 Participated in the work session Board of Directors Developed Mission Statement and tentative goals Dorsey Jackson/ Katherine Mitchell September 9, 1993 Participated in work session - Board Agenda Approved Mission Statement/tentative Meeting. Board of Directors goals. Reviewed: issues related to needs assessment Desegregation Program Inventory Report Mission Statement/Goals Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95) Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formulaLittle Rock School District Board of Directors Program Planning and Budgeting Process Page 2 September 9, 1993 cont'd Considered strategies for funding shortfall Identified/approved program for "fast track evaluation" Provided input regarding public forums September 15, 1993 September 23, 1993 November 18, 1993 October 11 October 26 November 10 November 16 November 30 Participated in planning and budgeting activities: support I Little Rock School District/City of Little Collaborative Effort Rock Raised issues/gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document) to staff Raised issues regarding the resolution of financihq projects with Office of Deseoreaation Mnniiny-inrr and district staff of Desegregation Monitoring Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and (numbers, costs) 1993-94 Requested a report for our December 17, meeting on the projections for the as well as deficit shortfalls 1993, Board 1994-95 budget, Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993 Board Meeting Attended Public Forums: Cloverdale Elementary School Parkview Magnet High School Bale Elementary School Forest Heights Jr. High School Rockefeller Incentive School I Board of Directors John Riggs Katherine Mitchell Bill Hamilton Board of Directors T. Kevin O'Malley Pat Gee Dorsey Jackson John Riggs John Riggs Board of Directors ITo: From: Subj ect: Date: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Board of Directors 72201 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD 1993-94 Budget Revisions July 22, 1993 Thursday, July 8, 1993, the United State District Court, instructed the Little Rock School District to revisit the 93-94 LRSD Budget to consider further reductions through adjustments to recurring expenditure budgetary items. The District was also advised to reductions through adjustments to if any. The District was also advised to consider reducing the reliance, if any, placed on non-recurring revenue sources used to achieve the balanced budget submitted to the court by the LRSD. Prior to the Court adjourning on Thursday, July 8, a rccccc was taken to allow all of the parties, in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to meet and confer regarding a schedule for considering and making the requested budget revisions. A timetable was discussed and agreed upon whereby the LRSD (in consultation with representatives from the O.D.M.) could make the necessary budget review and revisions, if any, obtain LRSD final Board members actions and file any revised document with the court by 6 p.m. on Monday, August 2, 1993. a recess was any Hearings on the LRSD budget were set to resume on August 12-13, 1993. announced Still under the impression that the court would meet regarding the LRSD budget on Friday, July 9, as had been previously announced, the LRSD Board of Directors, administrators and representatives of O.D.M. agreed to begin their meetings on Monday, July 12, 1993, at 7 a.m. Upon returning from the recess, the court was advised of the schedule which had been agreed upon by the parties and O.D.M. In consideration of that schedule, the court, thereupon, announced that the hearings which had previously been set for Friday, July 9 would be canceled. Acpordingly, the parties and O.D.M. agreed that the meetings between and among them would begin on Friday, On Friday, July 9, 1993, the Board of Directors met with me and other administrators to provide direction and guidance for the additional budgetary revisions to be presented to It by the administration. Also in attendance were Mr. Bill Mooney, Court-appointed budget specialist for the LRSD, and Mr. Bob Morgan, with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. July 9 at 7 a.m. <2.Board of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 2 with the advice and input of representatives from O.D.M. ----------------------------- v^.r^.ri., the LRSD Board of Directors instructed the administration of the LRSD to consider ways to reduce or eliminate, if possible, the LRSD's need to rely upon the proceeds from the desegregation loan (a recurring revenue source) in the 1993-94 budget. To accomplish this, the Board directed the administration to consider approaching Rock Classroom Teachers Association regarding the possibility of a one percent salary roll back during the 93-94 The administration was also directed to consider whether across-the-board cuts could be made in the areas of materials/services/supplies (i.e. four percent or less). Other the Little school year. could made four percent or less), areas to be considered were identified as follows: - Abacus Program - Staffing Efficiency - Ish Closing - Reinstatements non- Following the two-hour meeting with the Board of Directors, administrators held various other meetings during the day to consider the LRSD budget and various other desegregation related , Particularly, Sterling Ingram and LRSD attorney, Jerry Malone, met with Bill Mooney regarding the LRSD desegregation plan (On Thursday, July 8, the court directed Mr. Ingram and Mr. Jerry Malone to meet with Mr. Mooney to provide a status update From the meeting, it was apparent that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Mooney had already reached agreement on various matters relating to the program inventory needed for proper implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the desegregation plan process. The program inventory will also play a critical roll in the development of the LRSD budgetary process in accordance with the process outlined in the June 15, 1993 order. issues. audit. regarding the audit.) Board General consensus was reached regarding the purposes to be achieved through the audit procedure developed by Mr. Ingram to accomplish those Ingram reported that inquiries have gone out to the purposes. various program managers to establish the status of implementation on the various program elements. This information is now being returned and compiled by the Office of Planning and Evaluation. On Thursday, July 8, ,1993, the court suggested that the LRSD , uLixy o, uiie court suggesrea mat the LRSD now has an opportunity to consider ways to become more efficient in its staffing and, thereby, achieve significant cost savings. Board also the administration to consider staffing efficiency as an element in the budgetary review process. In accordance with those instructions, on Friday, July 9, 1993, the LRSD administrators (along with Bill Mooney) met to finalize the plans which were already in process to fill the Human Resources Director position. directed to The LRSD 1993, the I also announced other efforts being made to ensure that a greater staffing efficiency is achieved during theBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 3 93-94 school year. . - Particularly, I have enlisted the services of Victor Anderson, principal of Hall High School, to address staffing issues at the secondary level, an expertise in this area. Dr. Dr. Anderson has exhibited Brady Gadberry, our current Human Resources/Labor Director, will continue his efforts to obtain the current Relations continue his efforts to obtain maximum benefit from transfers, reassignments, and new hire process. Your were to make every effort to staff based on This will be particularly critical in meeting the s affing needs of the new King Interdistrict Magnet School. Hopefully, this process will become somewhat instructions enrollment. 4.- , - , , --------- ---more clear now that District knows that Ish Incentive School will be closed during trie 93-Qd cnbnnl mu->4- ______t j ____ ___ _ _ _ the 93-94 school year. process. That could play an important roll in this Later on Friday, July 9, Mr. Malone and I met with Mrs. in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. i:__ in agreement that the LRSD could not and would Ann Brown Mrs. Brown and I were 1 could not and would not seek to delay Its efforts regarding the Desegregation Plan during the interim I Superintendent. In fact, due to my long-term tenure with the LRSD and my administrative background with the District . . obtain the level of team support necessary to implement the process for opening schools. In addition, my familiarity with the Desegregation Plan, will serve to ensure that no loss of momentum occurs. Mrs. Brown and I also discussed matters such as: - Incentive Schools - Staff Organization - Attendance Zones - Position Control - Magnet Schools - Staff Development - Curriculum - Monitoring/Reporting Procedures ' 1553, I convened the LRSD Council to continue revision process. I gave instructions to those in assigned tasks to be accomplished in accordance with the schedule imposed by agreement of the parties and O.D.M. process. Based on the foregoing, it appears that we consider whether any further budget reductions
that we are on target to ensure that a revised document, along with any necessary business it are on target to It also appears that are possible for the cases, willBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 4. be filed by Monday, August 2, 1993. Since being appointed Interim, I have also held conferences with various program managers, Directors, and other administrators including, not limited to. Director of Plant Services Procurement Directors, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation' Desegregation Facilitator, Director of Planning, Research, ' Evaluation, Director of Transportation, I__ Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations" u..i We all understand the immediate, critical needs of the District and are working together to move us forward. I have also had a meeting with representatives of the LRCTA and the Joshua Intervenors. Services, Controller. but Director Director Plant of Planning, & Director of Information and LRSD I have also initial principals' meeting was held on Monday, July 19, ___ Attached you will find an agenda from that meeting. We are off to a good start. 1993. On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, an extended work session was held for the purpose of further refining the elementary school staffing needs for 1993-94. We are hooeful that thp nmrpqq n-i-i i i i i result resources. available. We ere hopeful that the process utilized will efficiency and utilization of our limited More information will be provided as it becomes in greater of as c: Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Brady Gadberry Chris Heller Fred Ursery Jerry L. MaloneTo: From: Subject: Date: Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School Board of Directors Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. July 28, 1993 This memo is to notify you that the hearings before Judge Susan Wright regarding the 1993-94 LRSD budget was recessed on Thursday, July 8, 1993. Pursuant to the agreement reached and accepted by the Court, the hearing will resume on Thursday, August 12, 1993 and Friday, August 13, 1993. calendars. Please place these dates on your If anyone has a conflict with these dates, we must know immediately so that requests can be made for excused absences. Judge Wright has given word that she will no longer tolerate untimely requests to be excused. A' ccordingly, i' t is my request that each of you give immediate consideration to this matter. As instructed by the Court, a meeting was held with board members and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Friday, July 9, 1993. The meeting opened at approximately administration building. 7:00 a.m. at the LRSD As a result of the time constraints within which we are working, the board members decided to meet each Thursday for the rest of this month. Accordingly, the Board will meet at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 15
Thursday, July 22
and Thursday, July 29. The Court has indicated that although the budget for 93-94 is balanced on paper, she fears that the use of non-recurring revenue sources (i.e., the desegregation settlement loan, desegregation settlement proceeds, transfers and other funds, etc.) to cover recurring expenditures (i.e., teacher's salaries, utilities, etc.) will create an iimmppoossssiibbllee situation when the 94-95 budget is prepared. Pursuant to the board's instructions, the administration is now pursuing various options to present to the Board. The Court has instructed the LRSD to file a revised budget by Monday, August 2, 1993. It is imperative that this deadline be met, as the Court has indicated that no variance whatsoever will be allowed. To meet this schedule, it is our hope that final board action can occur on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 . Should there be no drastic changes from the proposals as submitted by the administration to Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 2 the Board, we are hopeful that the necessary revisions and updates can be made to allow the budget to be timely filed on August 2. Judge Wright indicated that she is pleased that the District has begun using business cases. Although we have submitted business those cases for the budget documents currently before the Court, iluse business cases may or may not support the revised budget document to be filed on August 2. Accordingly, it is my request that the administration review the business cases already submitted and provide appropriate revised business cases or new business cases to support the recommendations to be made to you. * Again, please review your schedules to determine whether the August 12 and 13 hearing dates pose a conflict. If so, please notify me immediately. Should any conflicts arise later, each of you must notify us immediately so that a determination can be made whether Should later to request an excused absence from the Court. Please recall that Judge Wright has become very impatient with what she perceives an efforts to flaunt the authority of the Court in attendance requirement. imposing the Let's make an effort to establish a tract record of cooperation and good-faith attention to the requirements of the Court-approved desegregation plan. By doing so, we will be able to develop a factual trail to overcome the conclusory statements placed on record regarding receivership.Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 3 Thank each of you for your kind attention Hopefully, future correspondence will not be to this remember that Z am a lawyer.) as verbose. matter. (However, JLM:nr Mrs. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterling Ingram Mrs. Marie Parker Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Mark Milhollen c:cews O'lhts o' OeseQ'""- 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 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: February 25, 1994
April 6 and 7, 1994
and May 25 and 26, 1994. These hearing dates coincide I I J with the schedule embodied in the LRSD's latest Project Management Tool filed November 30, 1993. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the information required for each hearing may follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December 1993. NITED STATES JUDGE 'HiS DOCI n -'OMPLIANf nr' CM CCCXuT SHEET IN B'/ n :D/OR 7S(a) F.'iCP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER rled'OUfiT 'fiKANSAS By: plaintiff'^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the time in which the LRSD must file its proposed 1994-95 budget is hereby extended to and including April 15, 1994. The hearings on the W4R 1 8 J594 vs. budget originally scheduled for April 6-7, 1994, will be continued to a date after April 15, 1994. The Court will reschedule these hearings by separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March 1994. UNITED SPATES 'DISTRICT .JUDGE FHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 1/1 tr- 1 -Xw-fe. V J MP?r2:->9'4 MON 9:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C' eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COURT t, Hi 1 f. } LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. J./ 'PLAINTIFF NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL district no. 1, et al. SCHOOL MRS. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS notion TO EXTEND TIME AND,TO RESCHEDULE HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District 1. (LRSD) states: The court has established deadlines which a schedule of hearings and development corresponds with key dates in LRSD-s budget process. LRSD is budget to the presently scheduled to submit a Court on March 24, IS scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 and a hearing on the budget 2. Several 1994. important components of LRSD's uncertain at this time for budget are various reasons. in the process of For example, LRSD is with the Little negotiating a professional negotiations agreement Rock Classroom Teachers reluctant to Association and is the project a budget for teachers' salaries thia early in negotiating process. - LRSD is also in the determining process of whether to outsource certain Finally, LRSD support functions. expenses. is continuing to look for ways to reduce its On the revenue side of the budget. funding and the amount the method of state LRSD will likely receive under a new fundingi M??-21-P4 HON 9:37 SUSAN M WRIGHT fomiula remains uncertain. time within which to FAX NO, 5013246576 LRSD must therefore present to the court budget for the 1994-95 school year. 3. LRSD must make decisions certified personnel P. 02 request additional a Complete and balanced concerning the contracts of no later than May 1, 1994. the court sufficient time to In order to provide ot that date, lrsd requests an extension review its proposed budget in advance it must submit its of the time within which proposed budget to and including April lrsd also 15, 1994. be rescheduled to requests that the hearings scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 a date after April 15, I994. 4. counsel for PCSSD, NLRSD, the Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors have been they do not oppose it. contacted and the concerning this motion and WHEREFORE, for the order extending the time reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an within which it must 1994-95 budget to and including April 15, file its proposed hearing on the 1994 and rescheduling the proposed budget to a date after April 15, 1994 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg 400 West Capitol Street Little Rocky AR 72201 Christofer Heli Bar No. 81083 2MAR-23-94 WED 9:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 us DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT m,cqRMACK,CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 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 hearings previously scheduled for April 6 and 7, review the Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed 1994 to 1994-95 budget are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 1994. By April 15, 1994, the LRSD must submit to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring the district's proposed 1994-95 budget, along with business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions. and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction Strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March 1994. 'ATES .-4/^ CT JUDGE RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 5 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. 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 LRSD 1994-95 BUDGET STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD" or "District"), for its LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. The LRSD, pursuant to the order of this Court, developed and adopted a program, planning and budgeting process to guide the development of the District's 1994-95 budget. Also in accordance with the orders of this Court, the LRSD developed and adopted a Project Management Tool process to set out the respective tasks necessary to develop a budget and impose timelines on those persons responsible for the various tasks identified. Both the comprehensive budgeting process and the management tool process were developed and implemented at or near the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The LRSD has been operating in accordance with both the planning document as well as the management tool throughout this 1993-94 school year. Further, the LRSD has provided the Court with quarterly status reports as well as monthly management tool reports.LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 2 2. The Program Budget and Planning Document came into being as outlined in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed herein on November 3, 1993. That filing is incorporated herein by reference. Further, the Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, filed on December 3, 1993, touches and concerns this development. It too is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The LRSD submitted project management tools, as ordered by the Court, for the months ending August 31, 1993, and September 30, 1993. However, beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on October 29, 1993, the LRSD used a format which more closely resembled the format desired by the Court. For each month thereafter, the LRSD has submitted its Project Management Tool to the Court. The tool, among other things, identified the various tasks necessary to plan, prepare and present a budget on behalf of the LRSD. The tool also identified the responsible persons for the various tasks. the percentages of completion and the proposed completion dates. Recognizing the newness of this effort to it, the LRSD placed the Court and the parties on notice that it would continue to fine-tune the process so that the monthly reports would become more accurate, timely and informative. 4. Among the many categories of tasks to be completed was that of "Budgeting. Beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on November 30, 1993, the budgeting category of the tool outlined those steps necessary to build the budget document theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 3 District is obligated to submit to the State of Arkansas. As indicated by the November filing, the proposed budget would be submitted to the Board of Directors of the District on March 24, 1994, revisions would be made, the budget would be submitted to the Board for adoption at its July 28, 1994, meeting and would be submitted to the State of Arkansas on or before August 26, 1994. The time frame outlined was developed based upon the District's knowledge and awareness of the infonnation and steps necessary to arrive at the various components of the budget as well as in recognition of the time when various pieces of information become available to it. For instance. certain steps and procedures necessary submitted before a final balanced budget can be prepared and are not determined until accounts can be reconciled. certain information is received from the State of Arkansas, accounts properly closed out and an ending fund balance determined. 5. The District continued to refine and revise dates it found to be out of sync with the facts and circumstances as they were being developed or less reliable based upon knowledge acquired through the planning and development process. However, the projections regarding the submission of a proposed budget to the Board, the revision process. Board adoption and submission to the State remained in tact. This is so for the Project Management Tools filed on December 28, 1993, January 31, 1994, February 28, 1994, and March 31, 1994. Based on reasonable information and belief, theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 4 LRSD has remained on schedule as reflected in those documents. 6. The Project Management Tools, as suggested by and developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, has consistently contained the District's best estimates of when the various tasks and activities outlined would occur. However, realizing that the District had embarked upon a process vastly different from and more expansive than the process that had been used by the District in prior years, the LRSD continued to notify the Court, as matters became more apparent to it, when and where refinements to the process had to be made. As evident from the recitals above, the critical tasks in the budgeting component remained as established in November, 1993. 7. The LRSD submits that it is still on schedule to present the final budget to the Board of Directors for adoption by the July Board meeting and to submit a balanced budget to the State of Arkansas by August 26, 1994. However, as evident from the Project Management Tool filed on March 31, 1994, the LRSD has further defined those constraints (both internal and external) with which the District is faced and which must be overcome in order for the District to meet these goals. In particular, the Court will note that the tasks between ID #193 and ID #220 of the March "tool" contain greater detail on the items which must come together prior to completion of the process. Notwithstanding, this expanded list is not fully exhaustive of those tasks which must be undertaken andLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 5 completed. Rather, they represent most. if not all, of the substantive events along the way. 8. On March 24, 1994, the LRSD administration submitted to its Board of Directors the proposed annual budget for the 1994-95 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of that budget. Similar to the 1993-94 budget filed herein on December 17, 1993, this budget reflects the financial structure of the LRSD by school and department and shows detail through function codes. object codes and FTE's. The document also reflects the actual revenues and expenditures for 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. It also includes the projected budget for 1993-94 and the proposed budget for 1994-95. The Board conducted a work session on this document on March 29, 1994. 9. Under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1, a budget summary appears which identifies proposed revenues and expenditures for the 1994-95 school year. Based upon the proposals identified, the District would experience a deficit in the amount of $7,099,292 at year end. 10. By order dated March 22, 1994, entered on March 23, 1994, this Court directed the LRSD to submit its proposed 1994-95 budget by April 15, 1994. Exhibit 1 is submitted in compliance with that directive. 11. The Order also required the District to make additional submissions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a Court submission dated April 15, 1994, which contains theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 6 required business cases for programmatic additions, deletions or modifications reflected in the proposed budget, a schedule of major budget adjustments (including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions and proposed deficit reduction measures). Further, the document contains various appendices which provide the rationale for the assumptions underlying each deficit reduction strategy and the steps and timelines the District will follow in implementing the various strategies. Both Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set out word-for- word herein. 12. The budget summary contained under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1 is repeated on pages 204-205 of Exhibit 2. Although a deficit is reflected, the LRSD hastens to point out that the proposed deficit reduction measures identified on page 208 of Exhibit 2 exceed the proposed deficit contained in the budget summary. Accordingly, full implementation of the proposed deficit reduction measures causes the deficit to be eliminated and a positive ending fund balance to be realized. Given the foregoing, the LRSD provides the documents and information submitted herewith in accordance with the directives imposed upon it by the Court to this date. The LRSD is continuing its pace to ensure that the timelines identified by it through the project management tools are maintained. In fact, the Board of Directors continued to guide and direct the budget developmentLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 7 process through a special Board meeting on Thursday, April 14, 1994. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit this filing in accordance with the order of this Court
it prays that it be granted any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled either now or as influenced by future circumstances. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 15, 1994, upon the following, except as othervise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET 1994 - 1995 DRAFT 1 MARCH 24, 1994 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY budget summary line item summary (Object) PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (Function) program budget (Object Within Functions) DEPARTMENT BUDGET DESEGREGATION X c Vi c 2 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT u COURT SUBMISSION April 15, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No, Executive Summary 1 Review Process For Program Development 2 Business Cases: Category I - Incentive Schools 4 Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation Rockefeller Incentive School Alternative Room Specialist Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher) Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher 6 16 22 25 30 43 46 60 64 70 80 Business Cases: Category II - Desegregation Plan/ADE 82 English As A Second Language (ESL) Program Language Arts and Mathematics Applied Biology and Chemistry Science Cumcuium Revision Foreign Language Program Science Program 84 97 106 113 118 126 Business Cases: Category III - Related Desegregation/ADE 134 Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation Social Studies Department Secretarial Position Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Student Assignment Office Reorganization 136 144 150 156 160 165 174 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 204 Schedule of Major Budget Adjustments 206 Proposed Deficit Reduction Measures 208 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F 209 210 211 212 213 214-f./tj /i'n FILED K. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTg^g^gjfifJ^A^jTS^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 8 1994 JAMES W. MCCORMACK. CLERK Cy. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF VS. 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 LRSD^S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING The Little Rock School District ("LRSD" or "District"), for its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing, states: 1. By Order dated May 9, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to submit all written information and exhibits (including business cases) which the LRSD expects to discuss at the hearing set by this Court for May 25, 1994 (to be continued on May 26, 1994, if necessary). 2. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a true and accurate copy of the 1994-95 budget information required by Order of this Court. 3. The information submitted herein reflects the LRSD's progress toward meeting its desegregation obligations through the Program Planning and Budgeting Process developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist.LRSD'S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING May 18, 1994 Page 2 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District sxibmits its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing in accordance with the Order of this Court and prays that it be awarded any and all legal and equitable relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on May 18, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW I 0 1594 JAMES By.-. 5W.McGURMACK,CLERK AZ-v OCP ClRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 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 previously scheduled hearings on June 28 and 29, 1994 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) 1994-95 budget development process. Listed below is the information which the Court will review at that time. The parties must submit all requested information. along with any other submissions they expect to introduce during the hearing, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by the end of the workday on Monday June 20, 1994. 1, Latest revision of the projected LRSD 1994-95 budget. including revenues and expenditures by department and line item category. 1993-94 budgeted expenses. and projected year-end actual 1993-94 expenses. 2. Identification of any budget revisions, which have been made since the last Court submission, that the district has based upon subsequent re-examination of projected enrollment, the employee Reduction In Force, the early retirement program. ? 2 2 16transportation outsourcing, and school closings. 3 . Updates on the status of specific budget-balancing measures which the district has previously identified in submitted documents, such as the Early Retirement Program, salary freezes, use of settlement loan monies, etc. 4. Status of employee salary negotiations and Reduction In Force. 5. Identification and explanation of any new budget-balancing measures introduced since the last submissions. The explanation must include a rationale for the assumptions underlying the measure, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing it. 6. Revised five year revenue and spending projections and anticipated budget balances or deficits by each of the next five fiscal years. 7 . Any new business cases or revisions of earlier business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The business cases must clearly show the budget impact including department. function, and object assignment. 8 . Update on the timeline for budgeting decisions and actions. The timeline must reflect the July 1994 hearing dates and deadlines for submitting the final budget to the school board, the parties, the Court, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Additionally by the same date, the district must provide the -2-following information which is listed in the LRSD May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, and which comprise tasks which will have been completed by June 20, 1994: 1. Copy of the Facilities Study (per Tasks 62-66 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 2 . Copy of the completed Needs Assessment listing (per Task 77 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 3 . Copy of the Program Inventory Report for 1993-1994 (per Task 97 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 4. A list of the Desegregation and Non-Desegregation related programs (as shown in the Third Quarter Program Budget Document) which were actually evaluated, annotating those selected for downsizing, deletion. or modification (per Tasks 184 and 329 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 5. A copy of the Board-approved tentative budget for 1994-1995 (per Task 207 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 6. Copy of the Incentive School program modifications (per Task 228 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). According to Task 5 in the district's May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, the LRSD began in July 1993 to reassess its planning organization and structure. That reassessment is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1994. Also on that date, the district is scheduled to complete Task 6, which is any necessary restructuring and modification of the planning organization and structure. Along with the Project Management Tool items listed -3-above, the district must submit documentation of Tasks 5 and g to the extent to which they are complete on June 20, 1994. Through the ODM, counsel for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has conveyed a request, and the Court has agreed, to review the NLRSD budget at the June hearing instead of the July hearing as originally scheduled. The NLRSD must submit its revenue and expense projection for the 1994-95 budget cycle and a five year projection of revenues and expenses. The district must also submit business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The parties should also be prepared to discuss any other items not specifically listed in this order but which were itemized in the May 9, 1994 order that scheduled a budget hearing on May 25, 1994.* IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June 1994. UNITED STATE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ___Ot 1 / * That hearing was subsequently cancelled by the Court. -4-CC- / FILED O'STI^'CTAR'i^^lSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 06 1994 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMESCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT <Z OEP clerk PLAINTIFF 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 is charged with monitoring the districts' compliance with their Settlement Agreement and making sure that they don't waste desegregation funds. In order to fulfill this charge, the Court keeps a close watch on the districts' budgets. Accurate and complete budgets are important to making sure that the parties keep their desegregation commitments. In this regard, the Court has vs. held hearings on February 25, April 22 and June 28 and 29, 1994 to determine progress being made by the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD on developing their 1994-95 budgets. During the June 28-29, 1994 hearings, the districts told the Court that, in order to complete their 1994-95 budgets in balance. they need to know the level of state support to anticipate through Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). Until the districts know the amount of MFPA for 1994-95, they will not know what additional expense restrictions to implement for next year. The parties have told the Court that the State has been vacillating for some months on the amount which it may place in theMFPA fund, citing amounts that have varied from $50 million down to $0. The Court hereby requests the State to submit the following information: A. Whether the State intends to put additional (new) money into MFPA. B. The amount of any additional monies it intends to place in the MFPA fund. C. The date it will notify the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD of their total individual MFPA allocations for 1994-95. D. The steps the State will take in making the decisions to determine its contribution to MFPA and the accompanying timeline for each step. The Court will hold hearings on July 27-29, 1994 to review the parties' final, balanced budgets for 1994-95. Anticipating those dates, the Court has required the parties to submit their budgets and related information to the Court and ODM by noon on July 18, 1994. Therefore, the Court and the parties must have the above requested information from the State no later than 5:00 p.m., July 13, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of July 1994. UNTTED STATES DISTRI .IT JUDGE rnIS CXXUM9<r EWTlfO 0 tXJCRET SWEET IN COMPUTE MTH_RUL 58 AND/OR 75(a) FRCP ON 7- 6- -RECEIVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 8 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring 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 NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following documents required by the courts July 6, 1994 order. 1. LRSD's current 1994-95 budget document is attached. The budget document includes current revenue and expenditure projections, a line item summary, a program summary by function, a program summary by function and object, department budgets by function and object, a Magnet School budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service. capital projects. and desegregation. 2. Also attached are documents showing LRSD's actual expenditures for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. and the budgeted expenditures for the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's books are not entirely closed for the 1993-94 school year and the attached list of 1993-94 actual expenditures is not a completely final tally of actual 1993-94 expenditures. kathy^'Heaiwg.Budget3. LRSD has separated and identified funds according to their intended use. State reimbursement for Workers' Compensation and Magnet indirect costs are listed as separate revenue items. LRSD is continuing the process of adding necessary function and object codes to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. 4. LRSD has attached revised five year revenue and spending projection with the anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. 5. LRSD has attached business cases for outsourcing of transportation, academic progress incentive grants, the Incentive School Spanish program, and a modification of the business case for desegregation facilitator. Each business case shows its impact on the budget. 6. Because LRSD's books for 1993-94 school year are not yet closed. because some budget issues for the 1994-95 school year remain unresolved (e.g. outsourcing of transportation), and because posting of budget revisions (e.g. early retirement, reduction in force) is not yet complete at the detail level, LRSD is unable to provide a final program summary by function and object and a final department budget by function and object. LRSD has provided a 1994-95 budget for food service, but cannot provide final 1993-94 actual expenditures. Finally, LRSD cannot provide final 1994-95 budgets for federal programs and for desegregation. LRSD's planning documents show a July 21, 1994 deadline for preparation of a final 1994-95 budget, which is scheduled for presentation to the kad^XP-Hcarii^.Budgel a 2board of directors on July 25, 1994 and for approval on July 28, 1994. LRSD expects to have each of the required documents in final form before the scheduled budget hearing begins on July 27, 1994 and will provide those documents to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as soon as they have been completed. 7. The attached budget reflects a reduction in Incentive School expenditures of $2,000,000.00. The amount budgeted for Incentive Schools for the 1994-95 school year is the amount necessary to provide double funding at each Incentive School. LRSD is in the process of preparing a business case which will show whether or not the Incentive School budget can actually be reduced to the double funding level. Because of the need to meet with each Incentive School principal and the Joshua Intervenors as a part of this process, the business case will be submitted to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Thursday, July 21, 1994. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 efiristopher Hell Bar No. 81083 lathy \P-K6anng.Bud get 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of July, 1994. 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 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 ristopher Helleg^^ kalfayXP-Hcanng.Budg^ 4FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS FEB 0 7 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 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 Informational hearings on the Little JAMES By:_ W. McCOiRflNMACK, CLERK AX BtP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Rock School District ("LRSD") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 24, 1995
June 8 and 9, 1995
and August 1 and 2, 1995. These hearing dates coincide with the schedule for budget development which appears in the LRSD's most recent Project Management Tool, filed on January 31, 1995. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the t information required for each hearing may follow. DATED this day of February 1995. TED
t judge rws DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FCP ON BY l/r^^ 2 3 5 0 si IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 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 B* Ji:5-O'STR'CT court eastern district ar Kansas FEB 2 4 1995 JAMES Vl/. ,McCMMACK. CLERK -i u 0 \ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD) filed February 21, 1995 for a continuance of the budget hearing set for March 24, 1995 by Court Order dated February 7, 1995. The LRSD states that several of its administrators, whose participation is necessary at the hearing, have made travel plans during that week, which is the LRSD spring break. In order to avoid placing a hardship on those administrators, the LRSD asks that the hearing be rescheduled. The Court has carefully considered its own calendar as well as that of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in an attempt to accommodate the LRSD's request for continuance. Unfortunately, the Court is unable to come up with a new date that will fit its calendar and that also will be timely as far as the budgeting process is concerned. It regrets that the motion for continuance 2 must be denied. DATED this 24th day of February 1995. -N CM- WlTEly^ATES DISTRICT JUD JUDGE 6 DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ILE 58 AND/O^9(aj FRCP -BYI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED STRICTCOURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAfi - 3 1995 JAMES 'Rmack. clerk llA OEP 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 By previous Order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 1995 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") in developing its budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. No later than March 14, 1995 at 5:00 p.m.. the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties, all of the documents, budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least: the district's proposed 1995-96 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual (August 1994)
and business cases for programmatic additions. deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. Also, the district must identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases. projected revenue reductions. projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the t assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. The Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has thoroughly constructed in the context of the desegregation plans and related court orders. For example, if the LRSD were to consider changing the McClellan Community School Program, the district would have to do so in light of the desegregation plan and this Court's orders regarding McClellan. In orders of December 30, 1992 and August 26, 1993, the Court cautioned the LRSD against changes that would negatively affect the district's ability to desegregate McClellan. The Court directed that the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council "must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment, because the Council is a means for promoting community input so that any changes proposed for McClellan reflect the community's needs and wishes. As another example, if the district were to consider proposing to eliminate the seven period day in its junior high schools, it would have to build a strong business case that takes into account this Court's December 30, 1992 order regarding the seven period day, especially in relation to magnet programs. The Court will expect the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are "as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible." (See Order of December 30, 1992.) SO ORDERED this <3 day of March 1995. U^r^TED ST DISTRICT (JUDGE rHJS DOCUW.i<. UH , .r: -- Ut CVCKET SHEET HM COMPLIANCE With RUlE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP Ji 1 < Tv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION mar 2 V 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 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 ey.jZ ^inCK, CLcSK 1. iC OEP CLcftK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The hearing to review the progress of the Little Rock School District in developing its budget for the 1995-96 school year. which began on Friday, March 24, 1995, will resume at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 10, 1995. Any revisions in business cases or other new information must be submitted to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties by noon, April 3, 1995. DATED this 29th day of March 1995. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . 58 AND/OR79(a) Ff^P BY 79(a 3 u 3
3 M N 2 3 9 1c , HA MOn "10^45 'SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED us fiSTOiCT CO'J.'I' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN,SA5 WESTERN DIVISION I 1995 JAMfS W. WcUUHMACK, CLERK By
-d..i20uV..rn_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OsfCiEMX , PLAINTIFF V. KO, LR-C82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFEN DAI^TS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIOHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OR PER Through an earlier Order, the Court has scheduled hearings to begin at 9:00 a.m, on June 8 and 9, 1995. The purpose of these I ,.
6f-.< i. L hearings is to review the progress of the Little RocR School District (LRSD) in relation to its 1995-96 budget, and to determine 4 the extent to which the district has fulfilled certain orders of the Court. 1 By 5:00 p.n. on Friday, May 26, 1995 the district must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the !> parties all documents, budget material, business cases, and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. As at the last budget hearings, f -f these submissions must include at least: the district's tentative budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual of August 1994
and any new or revised business cases for programmatic or position additions, deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify 11 71 any major adjustments it has made in the budget since submitting A? V. . otilMiK 7, .y MfeFEB-15-96 THU 9:51 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FsLED u s DISTRICT COURT EASTc.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 JAMES! p//J.. McckkuuhkmmAaCcKK,, ccllerk DE? CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-a6b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER , Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996
June 6 and 7, 1996
and July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to 2y.__i VS . the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. I '^"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ,D Oi . DOCKEr SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU' ON -- BY_2 D/OR 79(a) FRCP rH'S DOC'J^'^T SNi u : L- FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS j
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 OffiCS 0> Dece^-iya
jiiHG JAMES By
_4 !J IVIc^HMACK. CLERK OE? CLERK little rock school district PLAINTIFF 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District ("LRSD) draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996
June 6 and 7, 1996
and July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski 1 District. Subsequen Oxders pcrtaj.ning 3 I J vs. the information required for each hearing will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1996. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHS POCL'J/EN COMPLIANCE WITH RL'L ON 5 ON DOCKET SHEET IN C AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 77? -______ Ai f ?. 01 FEE-15-36 THU 9:51 SUSAN N NRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 FsLED U3 Oia',"ICT COURT
TE.R,J CISTRICTA.RKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1596 u'Al'ES Mc^UnMACK. GLt.HK ViC^UnMACK. G OEr CLSnK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-S2-a66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996
June 6 and 7, 1996
and July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD 3oard of Directors are required to artend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the Norrh Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to vs. / the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. .) U.,'/ '"^'UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE rH!S DQC!JV.E>T NT COMPLIANCE Y/iTH PCI' DON DOCKET SHEET IN .AND/OR 73(a) FRCP BY ________ 2 6 2ia ^3. JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol FILED CAS-JiS DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTj^j^^gg EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sy
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 2, JUL I 3 1995 McCormack, clerk OEP CLEW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for August 1 and 1995 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1995-96. On those dates, the Court will also review the 1995-96 budgets of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Listed below is the information the court will review during the hearings. The parties must submit the requested information, along with any other submissions they will introduce during the hearings, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by 12:00 P.M. (noon) on Monday, July 24, 1995. I. A. LRSD must furnish its final 1995-96 balanced budget document, including final revenues and expenditures projections. line item summary, program summary by function, program summary by function object, department budget by function and object. magnet school budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service, capital projects, and desegregation.JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 S. In each of these categories above, include actual expenditures for 1992-93 and 1993-94, and budget and actual expenditures for 1994-95. C. Add function codes and object codes as necessary to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. Commingling of disparate funds will not satisfy the Court's need for budgeting information that is specifically identified D. E. A. according to its planned use. Also, identify all revenue items as revenue items and all expenditures as expenditures to provide an accurate representation of each item. Submit a revised five year revenue and spending projection and anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget, the Each business case must clearly show its impact on budget including department. assignment. II. function. and object The NLRSD and PCSSD must furnish their respective final 1995-96 balanced budget documents. including final revenues and expenditures projections. salaries and wages by object within function, other expenditures by -2-JUL-13-95 THU 11:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 B. C. object within function, federal programs, and other supporting information the districts may provide. Submit a revised five year revenue and projection and anticipated budget balances for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases spending or deficits for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget. Each business case must clearly show its impact on the budget including department, function, and object assignment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1995. ISTRICT JUDGE -3- FaLD U S OISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By
. 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER MAR 1 2 1996 3 W. McQUHMAGK, CLEi RK OeP CLhRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By previous order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 26, 1996 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in developing its budget for the 1996- 97 fiscal year. No later than noon on March 18, 1996, the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties. all of the documents. budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least the following: 1. The district's proposed 1996-97 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual
2. Business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications
An identification of each major budget adjustment. including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions, projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures, be accompanied by expenses. Each deficit reduction strategy must rationale for the assumptions 3 . a 2 6 4 1 underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy
4. An itemization of year-to-date expenditures by object code through the end of January 1996, along with a forecast of expenditures by object code for the balance of the 1995-96 fiscal year. In earlier hearings, the Court has admonished the LRSD to abandon its old practice of basing new budgets on the amounts the district has allotted within discrete categories in preceding annual budgets. (The Court has referred to this procedure as "budgeting on budget.") Instead, the Court has advised the district to build its new budgets on the actual expenditures incurred within the various budget categories during the previous year. (The Court has referred to this practice as II budgeting on expenditures" or "budgeting on actuals.") During the hearing, the Court will ask the district to explain how it is working to construct its 1996-97 budget on actual expenditures, rather than on previous budgets. Further, the Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has carefully constructed in the context of the desegregation plans, related court orders, and the realities of the district's financial condition. For example. the Court will require the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are "as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible. It (See Order of December 30, 1992.) The Court will also expect that any proposed new expenditures will be counterbalanced by similar reductions elsewhere in the budget. For example. it the district were to propose adding an -2-administrative position in one area, the Court would expect to see reductions in another area of the administrative budget to accommodate the proposed change. IT IS SO ORDERED this - /o< aay of March 1996. UNITED STATES^IST] 'RJCT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITy RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP ON IPUANCE WITH RL BY -3-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 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 FILING ei<u '-97 MiR 1 8 J^^^ntiff JAMES w McCormack, By
CLERK DEP. CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In accordance with this court's order of March 12, 1996, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District 1996-97 Proposed Budget and Little Rock School District Business Cases For Proposed Budget FY 1996-97. The budget documents reflect the following significant changes in state funding: 1. twelve Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay a percent (12%) teacher retirement matching contribution. previously paid by the state. which results in an increase to I fringe benefit costs (object 0220 in the line item budget) of $8,371,294.00
2. Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay what was previously the state's share of health insurance costs which results in a $3,501,056.00 increase in LRSD's fringe benefit costs (object 0240 in the line item budget)
k>ihy\MoU*Fil.3183 . Some of the increased costs described above are offset by an increase in state aid, but based on the most current information the impact of the change in state funding will be a net loss to LRSD in the amount of $226,804.00. A chart comparing state aid for the 1995-96 fiscal year and projected state aid for the 1996-97 fiscal year is attached to this Notice of Filing
4 . LRSD will pay twelve percent (12%) retirement a contribution plus additional health care costs for its food service workers in the amount of $486,000.00
5. The changes described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above result in a net loss to the operating fund of $712,804.00
and 6. LRSD will receive its final fixed settlement payment in the amount of $683,125.00. 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:7^__ Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 lathy \Nou*Fil.318 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of March, 1995: 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 HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hell^ knhy\^ou-FU.318 3 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MEPA^*S^?.3HfK LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STATE AID COMPARISON 3-14-96 BUDGET 1995-96 REVISED 1995-96 DRAFT 4 1996-97 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS___________________ SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________________________ ORPHAN CHILDRENMMiiP8B@SS)Wt^1%
^^ TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR TRANSPORTATION -M TO M COMPENSATORY,EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVEEDUCATIONMB818BS3jmS 27.023.348 3.829,942 2.500,000 0 1.100,000 1,444,499 233,992 7,000 3.850,000 AT RISK FUNDING SUMMER'SCHOOlBatiOfeWiaBa^iiSS^ WORKER'S COMPENSATION TOTAL 285,000 2,800,000 790,466 0 0 399.350 430.542 44.694.139 STATE FORMULA AID TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION 27,012,642. 3,829.942 500.000 0 1.100.000 1.444.499 233.992 ?yS3,066/ ^1,656
540i 2.195.910 --9246,030 2.607.195 808.523 . 222
134
5{3a 67,044' 399.350
501.193 42.828.059 29.606.806 s-29.606,806
39,595,812
683,125 0 0 900.000 1,444.499 245.000 m1
656,540 2.500.000 .19ss.a.O' 3.641.000 810.000 FORMUIA" FORMULA^ FORMULA?
? FORMULA - TORMU13V FORMULA'^ 405.275 51.881.251 41.252.352 (8,371.294) (3.501.056) a29.380,a02i FORMULAE ^1226,804)
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>United States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)</dcterms_creator>