Budget process

JUL 1 7 FILED U S. CiSTRICT COURT ASTcpN aokansas JUL 1 5 1992 CARL f!. 3i By: -1/ NTS. CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UEfX
LE^K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pursuant to telephone notice provided to counsel on this 15th day of July, 1992, the hearings to be held on the Little Rock School District budget process previously scheduled for July 17, 1992 are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, August 3, 1992. It is so ordered this /-> day of July, 1992. iJn^ted States District J^ddggee THIS DdOoCcuUMmEeNnTt eEnN ti terMcedu on DOQCS
SJgiN ''OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 7S(a) FHLa" ,1N RECEIVED FILEDcr>< fOT JAM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0EC 3 0 1992 BY^ ' 'i.vucH Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 On August 3, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1992, at a hearing scheduled to address the budgetary process of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD), the Court heard testimony on reductions in the LRSD 1992-93 operating budget. The Court entered a brief order on August 4 finding that many of the reductions have an impact on the desegregation plan. Nevertheless, with the exception of eliminating the seventh period at McClellan High School, the Court approved the reductions for the 1992-93 academic year and ordered that certain reductions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. In this Order, the Court addresses in more detail the reductions made by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Music Teachers The LRSD Board of Directors approved the reduction of 22.8 FTE music teacher positions. the effect of which is to require the classroom teachers to provide the required music instruction. In its August 4th Order, the Court allowed the reduction of music teacher positions for the 1992-93 school year, but ordered that BQ those positions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year.* Music is very much a part of the LRSD's desegregation plan. For example, four-year-olds are to "receive the services of counselors, music teachers" and others (LRSD Plan at 17)
"Students will have opportunities to examine the artistic, musical. scientific, literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethnic groups." (LRSD Plan at 63.) Although it appears that the LRSD will comply with state standards regarding music education, it is guestionable whether. without full-time music teachers, it can maintain a music program with quality high enough to boost desegregation efforts. For example, one of the goals of the four-year-old program is to acclimate young children to the school environment by including them in the total school community through involvement in the broad spectrum of the school's activities. Music teachers help facilitate this assimilation process by working with all grade levels on joint projects such as special programs and presentations. Eliminating the music specialist hinders such coordination and may impede young students' integration into the school community and slow their ability to achieve feelings of "belonging." Four-year-old programs have proven to be a successful desegregation tool, attracting students to the public schools and also serving important functions of both remediation and t In a separate Memorandum and Order filed last month, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore 3.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools, including the full-time music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School, for the 1992- 93 school year. -2-prevention-of-failure. The four-year-old program's quality is directly linked in part to the varied services, such as music teachers and counselors, that the LRSD desegregation plan has promised these very young children will receive. Another result of reducing the number of teachers with highly specialized music skills is decrease in the variety of a instructional options available to classroom teachers and their students. The settlement plan implicitly recognizes that music also sharpens listening skills. teaches group cooperation. commitment to task, and gives children multicultural experiences through the musical traditions of other cultures and countries. Because the Court finds that the reduction of 22.8 FTE positions for music teachers will negatively affect the district's desegregation plan, the Court has ordered the LRSD to restore all 22.8 FTE music teachers in the 1993-94 academic year. Elimination of Seven-Period Dav at Henderson Junior High School Even though the Court believes that eliminating the sevenperiod day at Henderson Junior High School for the 1992-93 school year will impair the success of the magnet program, it approved the proposal for this school year only and ordered the LRSD to restore the seventh period for the 1993-94 academic year. Henderson Junior High School is now the only secondary magnet school with a six-period day. The success of secondary level magnet programs is closely related to the degree of freedom students have to take the elective courses offered as part of the program. At the junior high level, it can be particularly 3-difficult to operate an effective magnet program within a six- period day given the need for students to fulfill certain graduation requirements. The Court made it clear when it granted permission to establish the Henderson and McClellan magnets that the LRSD must maintain distinctive, high quality programs to maintain the public's favorable perception of, and participation in, the magnet concept. Closely related to the quality of Henderson's program is the public's perception of this program compared to those at other magnet schools. The LRSD originally proposed the Henderson magnet program in hopes of reversing five-year decline in white a enrollment. (According to the district's figures, almost a third of the district's vacant junior high seats have been at Henderson.) A magnet program seen as only partially operational would only exacerbate Henderson's image problem, making it more difficult to recruit students and desegregate the school. Gifted and Talented Programs The LRSD reduced the number of its gifted and talented specialists to 16 FTE positions. While the Court did not disapprove this cut for the 1992-93 school year, it is concerned that the staff reductions may make it more difficult to maintain the required level of services to students, faculties, and parents. If this should prove to be the case. these cutbacks will be contrary to both the letter and spirit of desegregation agreements. The LRSD desegregation plan strongly commits the district to gifted and talented education. In a section entitled Gifted -4-Education, the district promises a superior program implemented by teachers with specialized training and experience: 'Services are provided to these [gifted and talented] students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credits in gifted education." (LRSD Plan at 58.) Also, "all three districts are committed to following the best practices in the field of gifted education in identification. curriculum, and program evaluation." (LRSD Plan at 58.) The desegregation plan assures that black children will not be underrepresented in gifted education: "[SJpecial attention shall be devoted to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels." (LRSD Plan at 58.) This plan provision relates to the fact that minority students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds may not exhibit their "giftedness" in traditional ways that are more readily discerned by a teacher inexperienced in identifying exceptional children. Therefore, gifted and talented program cutbacks may result in fewer minorities participating in the gifted program. The cutbacks may not only affect black and poor children, but also may hinder the academic progress of all children whose unusual gifts and talents can be adequately nurtured only through quality, specialized learning opportunities. The desegregation plan contains numerous other provisions that reinforce the district's commitment to gifted education. For example, the LRSD obligated itself to seek federal funds to help support a long list of programs that includes gifted and talented -5-education. (LRSD Plan at 97.) The incentive schools are to offer such specialized programs as gifted and talented "during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended-day, week, or year programs." (LRSD Plan at 154.) The LRSD even made gifted and talented education a programmatic emphasis at the Dunbar Junior High International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School to attract a diversified student body to this hard-to-desegregate school. The magnet program began in 1990 and the school is now within racial balance guidelines. Clearly, the LRSD has promised parents, teachers, students, and the courts that it will advance desegregation by providing a comprehensive, quality gifted and talented program that is attractive to parents and meets the needs of all children. The Court also notes that the State of Arkansas requires and strongly supports gifted and talented programs. The state has specific standards regarding these programs, including requirements relative to teacher-student ratios and the amount of weekly time children spend in gifted learning activities. Cutbacks in the LRSD gifted programs may place the district at risk of violating state standards. The Court will not condone any programmatic or staffing change that would result in the district's breaching state educational standards, including Arkansas Department of Education guidelines for programs such as gifted and talented. Because changes in the gifted and talented program may jeopardize desegregation, the Court will closely monitor the impact of reducing the gifted and talented staff and concomitant program -6-modifications. If the Court determines that the changes detract from the quality or appeal of the gifted and talented programs and magnet features, hinder the participation of all eligible children, or otherwise result in failure to fulfill desegregation plan commitments, the Court may require the LRSD to restore the number of gifted and talented specialists to previous levels or to make other adjustments in the program. Plant Services The LRSD 1992-93 operating budget cut 10 FTE custodial positions, citing an "Omaha Formula" as the basis for allotting custodial staff. The Court warns the district of its responsibility to ensure that all schools are clean and in good repair. with particular emphasis on maintaining the incentive schools and other hard-to-desegregate buildings. The district has recognized that maintenance and facility attractiveness are important to the incentive schools' ability to draw new students. Furthermore, schools with special programs (such as Rockefeller where the early childhood program serves children as young as six weeks of age) may have unusual cleaning needs that the district must not neglect. If school maintenance declines due to the decrease in custodial services. the Court may require a return to previous staffing levels. To facilitate monitoring, the Court requires the district to submit a written description of the "Omaha Formula" and an explanation of how it is being used to determine staffing levels. The district must also furnish, within 30 days from the -7-date of entry of this Order, a complete list of the number of custodians by building, indicating where staffing changes have been made between the last school year and the current one. Teaching Vacancies In an effort to reduce the number of teaching positions, the LRSD decided to eliminate small classes by strictly adhering to a minimum class size of fifteen students. The Court cautions the district about the possible negative impact of dropping small classes, especially in magnet schools where specialized classes are a part of those schools' unigue appeal. Moreover, most of the district's secondary schools offer certain specialized or advanced level courses, such as those in mathematics and foreign languages. These courses have magnetic appeal that helps promote a desegregation. The Court encourages the district to find ways to augment enrollment in specialized classes through recruitment or combining groups so that children will not be denied an opportunity to participate in special learning experiences because a certain class has low enrollment. The Court will monitor the schools to determine what classes are dropped due to the district's fifteenstudent enrollment minimum. If the quality. scope. or desegregative appeal of academic or magnet programs are compromised by the withdrawal of previously offered courses due to low class enrollment, the Court may require the district to reinstate deleted courses. -8-Counselor Department Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel The LRSD's 1992-93 budget reduced the number of FTE counselors by 19 and eliminated the entire Pupil Personnel Department, a district administrative division that was responsible for coordinating and supporting school counseling and other pupil services. The LRSD desegregation plan is replete with examples of guidance and counseling services that it is obligated to furnish the children. (See LRSD Plan at 2829 for a number of district goals related to availability of such services.) There are also incentive school features that specifically require the direction and support of counselors: the Career Skills Development Program, Attendance and Behavior Guidelines, College/Post Graduation Awareness, Individual and Group Counseling, and Study Skills. Additionally, several of the desegregation plan's incentive school implementation timelines list the Pupil Personnel Department as responsible for helping to ensure that incentive school children receive assistance cataloged under two discrete desegregation goals: "To create a program of counseling/social work to provide extra support to students to ensure them opportunity for success" (LRSD Plan at 183) and "[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor incentive schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement at these buildings." (LRSD Plan at 186.) Eliminating the Pupil Personnel Department is a cause for great concern. One of the main responsibilities of this department's director was to coordinate guidance and counseling -9-services throughout the entire school district. Arkansas Act 908 of 1991 establishes over thirty responsibilities for student services coordinators and names the position of Student Services Coordinator, which is analogous to that of the LRSD Pupil Personnel Department director. Act 908 requires counselors to provide a number of specific services, mandating that they devote at least 75% of their work time to direct counseling services and not more than 25% of their time to administrative activities. The Court fears that, with the reduction in the number of counselors and the lack of direction and support from the Pupil Personnel Department, the district may not fulfill the guidance and counseling functions required by the desegregation plan and state law. If monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions. Non-certified Vacancies The LRSD determined to reassign four instructional aides from the Instructional Resource Center ("IRC") to existing vacancies in the schools. These aides have enabled the IRC to provide a range of instructional support because the aides' assistance helps IRC specialists deliver academic and desegregation-related services directly to teachers in the schools. The desegregation plan casts the IRC in important supporting roles in all the schools. For example. IRC specialists are obligated to furnish inservice and any needed special assistance to principals and teachers in order to promote student achievement and -10-growth (LRSD Plan at 127.) The plan heavily commits IRC specialists to supporting the incentive schools through such means as staff development, participating on special committees, assisting new teachers and those experiencing difficulty. and (See LRSD Plan at 192-93, 194, 201, and 204.) While the LRSD has not cut the number of IRC specialists, the Court is nevertheless concerned that, without their experienced helpers, the specialists will be forced to curtail the extent of school-based assistance they are able to give. Such support is especially critical this year because the district has adopted an expansive new curriculum that impacts teachers in all grade levels. There has been much fanfare about this new curriculum, which the LRSD developed in response to an extensive 1990 curriculum audit, a part of the case record. In the audit report, there are numerous references that go to the heart of instructional problems which the IRC staff shares great responsibility for alleviating. For example, in a report finding entitled "Line of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented", the auditors noted that: "Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction... Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities [included those] which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities..." (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 13.) Distressingly, the report goes on -11-to state that "learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction. expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District." (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 14.) The desegregation plan plainly represents the IRC as an intervention resource for all schools with emphasis on applying IRC expertise to the incentive schools. As the schools adjust to the new curriculum, working to ensure that learning does indeed get better instead of worse, there will doubtless be greater demand for all types of support services, especially those from the IRC which has for many years been the district's seat of curriculum guidance and support. In paring its budget by eliminating services that so closely affect the children. the district risks undermining its own desegregation plan. Once again, the Court reminds the LRSD that the Court will closely monitor these changes to determine their affect upon the district's ability to live up to its desegregation promises. Material, Supply, Equipment, and Substitute Budgets The Court is concerned about the reductions the LRSD 1992-93 budget lists in 44 departmental budgets, and the potential impact these cuts have on desegregation. The Court particularly notes that the reduction in the McClellan Community School budget is so large that it likely will have a direct effect on program delivery. The district must be mindful of the language in its desegregation -12-plan which states that a McClellan Community School planning committee (now called the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council) is a means for promoting community involvement and input so that whatever changes are proposed for the school will reflect the community's needs and wishes. This council must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment. It is within the scope of the committee's responsibilities to help the district monitor the effect of the budget cuts on the community school program, recommend any appropriate changes that will enable the program to achieve its goals economically but effectively, and to work with the district in planning the 1993-94 community school program budget. The LRSD's $25,000 parent recruiting budget cut may jeopardize the district's pledge to recruit white students through activities and events outlined in the desegregation plan. numerous During the process of revising and updating the desegregation plans, the parties chose to incorporate the public relations section from the Tri-District Desegregation Plan into the current interdistrict plan. This addition obligated the districts to aggressive public relations activities that directly affect the ability to attract parents and their children to the public schools and keep them there. Because the work of parent recruiters is crucial to public relations and the recruitment process, the recruiters have tremendous responsibility for the desegregation plan's success. The LRSD desegregation plan explicitly assigns the parent recruiters a long list of responsibilities (see LRSD Plan at 95, -13-216, and 218-22) in addition to those implicit in the interdistrict plan. The district must provide for effective parent recruitment. Furthermore, the district is well aware that it must double fund any incentive school for as long as the school remains racially identifiable. Since recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools is a primary job of the parent recruiters. the district must provide the Court with specific details about how it intends to cut $25,000 from the parent recruitment budget and yet maintain the recruitment level necessary to fulfill its obligations under the plan. Utility Costs The district intends to reduce its utility costs by adjusting the start-up temperatures for activating heating and air conditioning systems in the schools and other buildings. Such a step is a reasonable cost-containing measure
however, the Court advises the district against operating the temperature control systems only while students are in the buildings. If heating and cooling units operate only when children are present. the new utility policy can have a negative effect on staff. School staff frequently remain in their building. after children have been dismissed. for a variety of reasons. including instructional planning, classroom preparation, meetings, conferences, tutoring sessions, and inservice. Many buildings do not have windows that can be opened for ventilation. In hot weather. lack of a ventilation makes it impossible for individuals to work comfortably and productively in buildings once the climate control system has -14-been turned off. Staff should not be expected to swelter or freeze while they donate after-school time on behalf of the district. Conclusion The Court will not tolerate budget cuts inhibiting the full, on-schedule implementation of the desegregation plan. It has ordered the LRSD to restore for the 1992-93 academic year the seventh period at McClellan High School. The Court has ordered that 22.8 FTE music teacher positions and the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. The effect of the other budget reductions: gifted and talented specialists reduced to 16 FTE positions
custodial positions cut by 10 FTE
FTE counselors cut by 19
elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department
reassignment of 4 instructional aides from the IRC
reductions in the budgets for material, supply, equipment, and substitutes
and the strategy to reduce utility costs, 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 Eighth Circuit Court has been emphatic about how it will view budget cuts and the district's commitment to desegregation: We wish to dispel, in particular. any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, an eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. are The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. -15-Even [plan] changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. Appeal of the Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). In its opinion extending the millages, the Court stated: The district court appears to suggest in its opinion that the scope of the remedy can be limited to reflect the loss of the anticipated funds. We cannot accept the suggestion that a remedy can be so limited once this court has found it to be constitutional. Such a course would be contrary to what we said in the opinion and contrary to law. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (Sth Cir. 1992). The success of the desegregation plans depends upon the schools' ability to attract and hold white students and to lower the achievement disparity between black and white children. The Court will find it hard to tolerate any budget cuts that jeopardize the district's ability to do exactly that. This is why the Court is concerned 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 district must be mindful of the many commitments it made in the public relations section of the interdistrict plan. a -16-section which the parties themselves chose to transfer in its entirety from the TriDistrict Desegregation Plan. Recognizing that desegregation will succeed only so far as the community supports and participates in it, this section presents an encouraging picture of energy. creativity, and renewal that promises to build a strong and positive relationship between the school districts and the community. The section stresses that dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of the desegregation plan and that public trust depends upon the districts' fulfilling their commitments. The Court cannot stress too strongly that it will be impossible to build and sustain public confidence and participation if the communityincluding school employeesperceive that they cannot count on the school districts to keep the promises they make. The Court also worries about the impact of the budget changes on teacher morale. The interdistrict plan specifically recognizes the strong relationship between staff morale and successful desegregation, calling on school staff to serve as ambassadors to the community and to share responsibility for recruiting and sustaining desegregated student enrollment. (Interdistrict Plan at 64-66.) Classroom instruction. especially as related to eliminating achievement disparity, is greatly affected by morale
it is also impacted by what the district requires of its teachers and the amount and scope of support the district provides so the teachers can fulfill those requirements. District personnel are having to deal with many significant changes this year resulting -17-from a new superintendent and other top administrators, the effects of the budget cuts, curriculum changes, and desegregation plan requirements. For example: school staff must implement the extensive new curriculum
they must learn how to use the new computer instruction and achievement tracking system, and find the time to feed the required information into the system
they must compensate for the cutbacks in gifted and talented specialists by assuming an additional instructional load
most elementary teachers must incorporate music instruction into their classroom routine without the benefit of music teachers or even a music supervisor as a resource
and teachers' remediation responsibilities have increased due to changes in the district's academic support program (previously known as PAL.) The staff who are most directly responsible for helping ensure children's academic success are having to make many difficult adjustments this year, and the Court is concerned about the effects these adjustments will have on desegregation. The Court does not sanction changes that will have the effect of putting the LRSD at risk of non-compliance with state standards or statutes. The Court will closely monitor the effect of the budget changes and many reductions may have to be restored if the Court determines that the desegregation plan is being impeded by the changes. The Court understands that Superintendent Bernd did not have many options open to him when he joined the district last July, but the Court trusts that he will make choices for 1993-94 and beyond that are as far away from the children and the 18 desegregation plan as possible. Should the LRSD anticipate making any changes, the LRSD must submit these changes to the Court and must not implement them prior to the Court's approval. DATED this -^0 day of December, 1992. _________ UNITED States DISTRICT JUDGE I -19-On January 21, 1992, the United States District Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions in order that ODM could determine that the LRSDs budgetary process would meet the following requisites: (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the districts 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 obligations. The LRSD filed its reply to that order on June 1, 1992 and began an ongoing process to satisfy the request of the court. By incorporating into the general ledger a code structure that ties the districts general ledger to the desegregation plan, a link has been established between the districts legal requirements (the desegregation plan) and its fiscal commitment (the budget). The district has committed to maintaining the code structure and to provide reports to the ODM for monitoring. The district has incorporated the new codes into the 1992-93 budget. The ODM continues to have concerns about the budgeting process that is used in the LRSD and its capability to determine its financial status. The LRSD is a multi million dollar enterprise. It is the states largest school district and should set an example of strong fiscal management. Yet, the district operates its financial affairs like the smallest of school districts that have simplistic needs. The Arkansas Department of Education provides Handbook II as the basis for school district accounting and within the code structure there is ample flexibility to measure any aspect of school finance. The LRSD Policies and Procedures Manual has very little in the way of board policy relative to financial matters. There is no requirement for board approval of major expenditures. Therefore, major financial obligations are undertaken without full public disclosure committing the District to, not only current year obligations, but also to future payments. Examples include the purchase of computer equipment for the CMIT project and the expenditure of millions on the PAL program, as well as the open ended "double funding" of the incentive schools. The Board has not required, as a matter of policy, that new or changed needs that require substantial outlays be funded in the budget, and that the sources of the funds be identified. For example, if additional funds are needed for security personnel, which item in the budget will have to give up the money. The current financial system is essentially an accounting system that produces the accounting reports required by state law. However, it does not generally satisfy the high priority needs of the District itself. Major unmet needs include an improved ability to generate systematic short- and long-term expenditure projections, as well as an improved ability to allocate resources according to explicit District priorities, especially in relation to academic programs.In December 1990, a report submitted by a team from the National Curriculum Audit Team and commissioned by the LRSD Board stated in Finding 5.3 "School management practices show inadequate control of district resources." and in Finding 5.1 "the district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel." The auditors found that "the budget was not used as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent" Neither is the desegregation plan used daily as an instrument to guide implementation of district policy. There is a disparity between the promise of the plan and reality yet there is no evaluation of the programs the school district offers to see "what works", and no changes are made to cut ineffective programs. In effect, the school district seems to have a large slump hole into which it pours money. In no way can the district offer that they have shown good faith efforts to improve the quality of the educational process. The lack of program orientation and other truly useful financial information may impede the Districts efforts to provide an equitable and productive distribution of resources to all students. Program budgeting has the characteristic of a primary focus on the purpose for which funds are intended, e.g., McClellan Magnet Program, PAL Program, Alternative Programs, Gifted and Talented, etc., rather than on object code line items, e.g., textbooks, supplies, certified salaries, etc., or organizational units. When budget documents are presented to the board and public, there should be a comprehensive overview of each program and all of the resources allocated to them. The accounting codes used by the school district provide for the use of a function code which could be defined as program categories in a program budgeting system. School districts provide educational services to students in the form of academic programs such as reading, mathematics, science, social science, etc. Parents, teachers, and students view progress and achievement in the same terms. The financial and human resources to accomplish all of this in the LRSD are accumulated, budgeted, allocated, analyzed and reported in terms of funds, schools, functions and objects, but not the primary programs which embody the reasons for the districts existence. Thus, neither the public education constituencies nor the administrators themselves can readily discern the priorities of the district as reflected in the allocation of resources. The curriculum audit pointed this out to the district in its Recommendation 12: "Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages." That recommendation is especially valid considering the need to balance budgets with revenues in an effective and equitable manner. The recommendation identifies the major steps, found on pages 119-120 of the curriculum audit, necessary to install programmatic budgeting. Instead of concentrating their management efforts on improvement of internal processes and developing basic management information, the district has continued to ignore the direction of the court and its own commissioned audit. The Board of Directors at the direction of the previous administration renewed contracts for all personnel effective May 1, 1992 and passed responsibility to provide a balanced budget to the new superintendent. As a result, sweeping cuts were made to the budget that were inappropriate. At the time of the cuts. Superintendent Mac Bernd made promises to improve the financial process in order to be in better position for the next year. He stated in the budget document transmittal Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the Districts focus to the other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally for the district to operate efficiently and effectively it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-1993, this cannot happen this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items will be considered in the coming months. Now as the District approaches May 1, 1993, history seems to be repeating itself. The district is projecting large deficits for the next year yet has little good information on which to base cuts or deployment of personnel. Again, the plea of "wait until next year" is heard. We can no longer continue down this path. The administration was aware of problems and has not put adequate resources to correct them. The position control system does not reflect the authority for each position or the person assigned to that position. How can a district cut personnel when it cant even determine what positions it has? Where is the plan for allocating personnel to the needs of the children?John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 'i-m 5
1
' (F 3 y U !1 iSroa 8 V *.r. ' FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia & the District of Columbia. February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 -.ng Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget _ J. also like to have a about which you spoke this afternoon. copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours. U). John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell tHase CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNEHSHI? OF INDIVDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCC, ARKANSAS 22201-3493 Tritphone (501) 375-2011 Fix No. (501) 375-2147 DiicetNo. 370-1506 TO: MEMORANDUM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon 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 matten 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 proposed 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)2. 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, Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 4. Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 5. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 The orders WWW 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 plan. 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,"* 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. It 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 24 Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positionsTn 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". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to comElying with its desegregation aooui me utue kock scnooi comm: plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget mal^i^ 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 them). (I have transcripts of almost 3X 1
o There 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. 4 FEB-23-93 TUE 15:03 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 On February 1, 1993, the Court held a hearing to determine, among other things, what progress the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") was making with respect to conforming its budgetary process to that outlined in earlier orders of the Court. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Court determines that the LRSD needs assistance in developing a budget that complies with the Court's requirements for a budgeting process and document that can be effectively monitored. The Court first notified the LRSD of its concern about the LRSD's budgetary process over a year ago. During hearings on the parties' proposed modifications to their settlement plans. the Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The Court specifically addressed its remarks to the LRSD, and followed up its comments FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 with an order filed on January 21, 1992, directing the Lrsd to submit a revised 1991-92 budget, prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM). The Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites
1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for expenditure of settlement funds
2) demonstrate the link between requirements and the fiscal requirements
the and link the the underwriting district's of legal those 3) describe a desegregation budgeting demonstrated, justified, and verified
4) enable the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to desegregation obligations. process that can be and align finances with The LRSD filed its response to the Court's order on June 1, 1992, "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93-1996/97,' A revised version of this document was filed on July 31, 1992. Among the changes and additions in the revision's section entitled "Desegregation Budgeting: Description - Future Year Procedures" were new statements that "[t]he Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process" and "[t]he Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct audit and related budget proposals." a Desegregation Plan Additionally, in the budget document presented to the Court on July 31, 1992, which was the subject of an August 3, 1992 hearing. LRSD Superintendent Bernd, stated: who had come on board July 1, 1992, Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. T- -------- We must begin to restructure the budgeting -2- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 so process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other Issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done hv Next, , This will be done by concentrating attention first on the core curricular areas. programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, i will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently effectively, it will be -------- and administration. necessary to streamline the Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. C*, the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items Will be considered in the coming months. On All of these items Document # 1649. In December 1990, the LRSD Board of Directors received a Curriculum Audit it had commissioned the National Curriculum Audit Center to conduct. This report is a part of the case record. In Finding 5.3, the report found that show inadequate control of district "school management practices resources." In Finding 5.1, the auditors stated
'[T]he district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel." The auditors found that "the budget was not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent . , 11 Finding 5.4. The Court finds that this continues to be the case. -3- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:05 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 Despite the persistent urging of the Court, there is no indication that a budget process of the type sought by the Court is or will be forthcoming from the LRSD. During the February i, 1993 hearing at which budget matters were discussed, the Court asked Superintendent Bernd when the district would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous Orders. Dr. Bernd replied that he believed the district and a half away." was "at least a year The Court has been patient. It encouraged the LRSD to work with the ODM on the district budget, but, despite ODM's diligent efforts to assist, the LRSD has not produced a budget process that enables the Court to meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance. The Court, thus, finds it is necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD at LRSD expense to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs the LRSD agreed to conduct in its desegregation settlement plan. The Court is concerned not only with the LRSD's expenditure of desegregation money but also with all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The LRSD must achieve a budgeting process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The person or persons employed will be paid by the LRSD but will report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The LRSD is -4-0 23 93 14: 4B 301 324 2032 L R School DIst ODM @001 '001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. 1 appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors FEB-23-93 TUE 15:06 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 expected to treat the employee or employees like its other fulltime employees for purposes of benefits and will provide adequate work space, equipment, and materials along with full access to information and support. The Court, after consultation with the person or salaries. persons and the LRSD, The employment will not be will determine appropriate permanent but will continue for as long as it takes to get the job done, as determined by the Court. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates that it understands that budgeting procedures. and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. DATED this day of February, 1993. -5- UNITED STATES DISTRT TCT JUDGE, 0 23-93 14:46 "S'5111 324 2032 L R School Dist ODM @001/001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann
1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself'will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of DirectorsNTF March 2, 1993 TC with Mac about his Feb. 25, 1993 letter re meeting with the new budget person to define what we are looking for." 1 told him we would not mandate a format, rather let the process dictate the format
that I was not so concerned with format, but with the relationships between the plan and the budget, and how it could be used as a tool to help measure progress
that 1 had developed a list of "characteristics" from the orders that would guide us. Assured him that we would talk to, in his words, "pin down a moving target."Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 t ,1 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 b ^993 ,,T h'lonitciing C!f
c3 of D03S=0*3G Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 FILED U.S, OlST.^IGT C JURT EASTERH O!S7?:CT ARKANSAS mar 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR - i 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring CARL LERK DEP.CLEft. 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 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 determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNTTED states DISTRICT' JJUUTDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON CCC:<ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WTH RULE 53 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON p A J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl^JC EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION '^ARL R. 2 6 1993 CLSflK 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. 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Office ot WonAon'^9 INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 24, 1993 On February 24 1993, the Court entered an Order advising the parties that she would appoint at least one person to assist the Little Rock School District in developing a budget from the district and she invited resumes of potential nominees by March 1, 1993 . The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond as follows: 1. They wish to be helpful to the court in helping to develops an appropriate applicant pool for the position and accordingly respectfully reguest the court to set forth the criteria that the Court intends to apply in filling the position. Without such guidance from the Court, Joshua cannot be very helpful. Por this reason, Joshua ask the Court to specify such criteria and extend the time for submission of resumes for an additional five (5) days from the date of such specification. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are concerned that the prospected pool of applicants-considerees be sufficient to increase the possibility of an African-American being the designee. This is very important to Joshua because (a) the school district has shown no inclination to respect the minority interests in the budgetprocess, and (b) by having the person assigned to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring an additional white staff person will cause that already racially imbalanced office to be further imbalanced. We have previously brought this concern to the Court and the Court has indicated that it is mindful of it. (Of eight (8) full-time employees, only two (2) at present are of African American descent.) concern Joshua would also bring to the Court's attention their about the propriety of a member of the ODM staff being an official participant in any Little Rock policy making, programming or budgeting. We do not object to their being helpful to the parties in an advisory capacity, but they should not have actual membership in any of the committees. Otherwise, their neutrality may be compromised and their impartiality reasonably questioned. In filling the budget position, Joshua asks the Court to take great pain to determine that such designee not be an idealogue or other person with particular agenda that is 3 . 4 . a a independent of the task being performed or objective of the Court. 5. On Thursday, February 25, 1993, the Little Rock School District gave notice to the community that they objected to the Court's Order, "to expend funds, to hire another person to develop a budget...[because it] does nothing to improve the performance of students in the classroom. This is just more make work. tl The board member making this statement was Mr. Dorsey Jackson. See Exhibit A. Board President, Mr. John Moore, concurred in this view. Although there has been no formal pleading filed in objection, we wish to advise the court that the argument submittedby Mr. Moore, 1. e. "I don't think I can, in good conscience, spend another $50,000.00 or $60,000.00 for someone to count numbers. It misses the point. This person is not a II numbers counter. If although the job description is not set forth by the Court. The position is essential to the development of a budget to which the District can be held accountable. Moreover, the district. without Court approval and without involvement of a public proceeding and without following its own bid procedure, has entered into an additional contract, open-ended in amount, to hire additional local counsel to supplement the work of Mr. Christopher Heller. That action was taken without official board action and without costs consideration. It was done by Superintendent Bernd and Assistant Superintendent Bernard and Court approval was not sought. Surely if the Superintendent or a staff member can take it on themselves to enter into employment contracts without Board or Court approval, which are open-ended in costs, the objections by the board and its president to the approval of an additional monitor type staff member are inappropriate. WHEREFORE, premises considered. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court allow the parties an additional five (5) days after specifications in writing of the employment criteria and task to be performed in which to submit resumes
that the Court give serious consideration in filling the position to the overall racial composition of the ODM full-time staff
and that the court disregard the objections of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District with respect to the budget position. Respectfully submitted.By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 Jo
72206 Bar No. 64046 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel, on his 26th day of February, 1993. co H-h - cm 55- .i: 0.
a FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1993 3 to
^'dr4er,niandating 'bud^tnpdlt BY CYNTHIA in the had beei pStientybut would ap-" who'have worked dniientirin '/whenihJjob is completer.- DO int ATIA AT* tit AT*Q T3AAa1a Ta Ha XX b . , . . . _ _ I}! J Democrat-GazetiB Educaiion ww classcoom,. board member point one or more people to do '/.-..'Little.Rock Sch'ql Board-^.-Tiorsey Jackson said-at the - the job:''~------ . classcoom,. board member members 'bbjecte'd'Tijrsday to - "boards.meeting. .This is jusf T7 f T..J more make-workdl.'-..^-.-^..:.,-.
.,,,,-:... U-.S.yDistrict Judge.-Si|an 'Wetn- ber'i'Wright^s'.ordep'^i'ng she' . X.---------- - .--x'Wright
saidj'during.a
Feii
-T would-appoint atJeaj&rie per-'-c cdurt hearing andin anbrderis- son to_develop a budg|^tl.t.h.. ' cahtise to monitor-thiaistricts that she dese^egation planctapliance. ..i.7.To'expendTuh'd's'Uhire an- 1 other", person to..a.ey'elp a budt get does nothing tqj'OTove the $ 'sii'edtruesday.that she had re- pe'atedlyaskedthedistrict fora '.budgedthat.wp'uld.link the dis- atrict's're'yeh'iijes.'and'expendi- t tui'esltqJUyiese^egatibh-p rot. .igram,-Qbn'gatiousJShe'said she- T> J -f, ' Board.member-Katherin the'iob-'^=-''-c5->-A/- ... A-t:-Board President John Moore Mitchell asked if the distric Will be temporary
t-he jud^ said. , . ..Jackson said hecould under- the budget. He saidjt was un-.
,ge . why the Office of Desegregation . UI jjczcsiegaLiun. ' $500,000 for the federal Office of ... Monitoring couldnt prepare the i Desegregation Monitoring r . - ^.document:. ....................- I dont think I can-in good --Y s ' i- can-in gooa suggested tnat anynew . conscience spend another . menL Eireiat5maAufac.i ihmh ii . stand that.theldistrfct hadidest- ao vuubui-
ed the judge_spatience7but^^e tents so the district wouldnt pay h',^ "i""
.?-.^i^^.?l?5-.?Si?.'?lSimstratprs' . _
unemplqvment compensation
doesnt help desegregation:
. v , . , . I w V 4iw s. xx,*.* vv aUVbUCi employees be.hired as consul- M $50,000 or $60,000 for someone to^
count numbers, he' said .That J- ' Members discussed the feas bility of anLappearand.'Bern said he would pass themember: concerns to the districts atto
ney, Chris Heller. .The nextcou: hearing isMarch.ig.-hr.'if-iaztiT- A- tu-iiigijiiwxLoai aaj J.7.<
fu
-o:2>2^Vle ! wiir misslISansaS' { I Lflr
- I^I iSmtGwoiSeSlsi Jjhe Associated Press . 07,1. aT :-h?o. edi.-lu:
1 -Arkahsans would .fare.'bettet '.] than many other Americans unf der President'Ciintons'eco- I ri higher .taxes for th'ejrich'and'a: ener^tajtto-be^shjMedbv'all. He'said'the'enM^taxBit would average-ra'b'but'?:$17 nomic package, Rep. ^yjrhom-,
. . ton,'D
Ark.,'said.Thursday. ?i 'Thdrntonaisbgave'Clintdn-'a'-, ': good chance of selling the plan''''
the.nation, and to .Congress,. . ! if the.president emphasizes'"'' spending cuts and applies tax- es fairly. . month. -^1 Ti r A CTT* o yn t e' T, 1-a n. .Thejob^JroK^fs^htend 'ed.to'.md.ye j,eopTepu^df-w fare ahd'ihto wbrkLfar'e
.^'fc ton said.
.Peop,le:i.n-^Mkansa like that i'dea? c.lf/t-'.M
!-'-''' y" 13 [is, oi ""Zll iiB. The reaction that Im getting is that, if we do the cuts first, make sure that leads the list and the people can see that were se- ' Arkansas,' a rui^ state wher motorists drive more miles'tiia: many more-urbanized state
will still take a'softer hit fror. Clintons energy tax because th plan taxes energy in Britis
thermal.units, the amount c Li- .' rious about cutting expenditures and ivaste in government, ,..pp ...x
. . 1 it s going to have a pretty. ..- perature of 1 pound.of wate: J goon chance of passing,? Thom-' \ degTeeFah"renh'eit.r.
t a-.'j.
- heat required to raise the teirRECEIVED FILED MAR 3 1993 MSB*' Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 .zARL HyOni^i uuhr.K OS. 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 response of the Joshua Intervenors to the Court's Order of February 24, 1993, inviting the parties to submit resumes of potential nominees for appointment to assist the LRSD in developing a budget document. Even though the Court set a March 1 deadline and the Court continues to regard this matter as urgent, the Court will accept applications through March 5, 1993. Attached to this Order is a description of qualifications for the position. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNITED States distrIicCtT JUDGE ynis documfnt rule 53 ANO/Ol BY ITV 79(a) FRCP Goal: Special Position To work in collaboration with the Little Rock School District on a short-term project to meet the Court's requirements to develop and implement budgeting processes, budget documents, and budget management procedures and practices that institutionalized are to be as an integral part of the LRSD's ongoing planning, appropriating, monitoring, and evaluating processes to ensure the district fulfills its desegregation obligations. Qualifications: 1. Excellent skills and extensive experience in planning, organization, research, monitoring, and evaluation in a large organization. 2. Strong background in public or private sector administration (public preferred), with specific experience in budget development, management, and evaluation. 3. Expertise in designing and implementing staff position allocation. control systems and resource 4. Expertise in developing internal financial controls. 5. Proven ability to direct and support others to accomplish specific goals and objectives. 6. Strong oral, written, and 7. 8. communication skills. interpersonal Coraputer word management skills. processing and database Minimum of a administration, bachelor's degree educational in public administration, business administration or related field.RECEIVE!^ FILED U.S, DISTSIGT COURT, EASTERh D!St=:CT ARKANSAS MAR 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 CARL B. clerk Office of Desegregation Monitoring DEF.CLER. 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 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 determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. ST'A.KTS'EE.SS DDIISSTTRRIICCT' JJUUEDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 73(a) FRCP ON HHHE ef ' f' Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 c a MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Dessgregciion Mcniforing 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcere^, Ga 7)Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\budget\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SSSSS: ANNUAL BUDGET 1993 -19941993-94 BUDGET PROCESS DATE December December January - February February - March April June July TASK Revenue and Expenditure Forecast School/Department Budget Requests < Staffing Levels Materials and Supplies Evaluation of Prior Yei RESPONSIBILITY Business Manager Principals Department Managers earns (1992-93) Principals Academic Program Administrators Proposed Bi Submit P ? lent iludget to the Board Make Budget Revisions Adopt Budget Business Manager Controller Superintendent Business Manager Controller Board of DirectorsBUDGET SUMMARYLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 Budget 1992-93 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK____________ DELINOUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS_________ INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 64,998,181 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL__________ SEVERANCE TAX 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA____________________ SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD________ ORPHAN CHILDREN________ TRANSPORTATION_________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS________ ADULT EDUCATION o T 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11.000 84,419 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874____________ TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL REVENUE 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 48,670,683 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 46,367,563 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 113,913,390 I k LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS,~EQi DEBT SERVICE " ~ CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 L... u 112,1 i!ioo 0 ^OM INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 634,842 2,321,865 Budget 1992-93 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,560 (1,959,170) 2,321,865 362,695UNE ITEM SUMMARY (OBJECT)I u I u I Object X 'oiio 0115 !0117 I 0120 0121 ,0124 0130 0135 0140 0145 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS OBJECT SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING,. & DEBT FUNDS Description Budget 1991-92 Actual 1991-92 CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Certificated Cert. Instr. Assist. Stipends________________ TOTAL CERTIFIED_______ NON-CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Non-Certified Maitenance______________ Clerical Overtime Substitute Teachers-Short SubSt. Certied Long Ter Subst Non-Certified-Short SubSt. Non-Certified Long Budget 1992-93 Budget 1993-94 TOTAL NCN-CERTIFIED EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0210 [Fringe Benefits______________ 0250 Unemployment Compensation 0290 [Other Employee Benefits_____ ! I TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS i 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0322 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 PURCHASED SERVICES Professional & Technical Instruction Services Instructional Prog Improv Pupil Services Staff Services__________ Data Processing Services Board of Ed Services Other Professional & Tech Budget Control Cleaning Services Carpentry Repairs-Equipment Rental of Land & Building Rental of Equipment & Veh Other Property Services 50,811,617 0 853,790 51,665,407 15,077,845 989,280 0 1,049,784 7,799,115 165,000 80,405 8,044,520 477,139 13,540 1,015,363 46,031 3,790 7,961 488,334 140,306 3,507,346 0 605,058 592,938 95,007 31,325 169,000 53,889,627 8,213 1,224,330 55,122,169 53,991,696 ________0 1,703,640 55,695,336 15,076,555 1,129,828 91,813 871,099 32i 141 k21
54
96 8,783,594 153,797 60,097 8,997,489 327,016 13,309 1,052,785 44,070 40 7,529 57,238 91,162 3,388,097 0 ( 519,413 470,552 50,771 23,214 126,364 16,818,714 0 _____0 900,000 _____0 350,000 0 8,068,714 9,768,728 160,000 73,462 10,002,190 586,390 1,000 691,900 _______0 2,000 _______0 366,862 70,000 3,865,000 15,000 501,558 596,964 42,000 18,464 275,500PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (FUNCTION)-T FUNC. 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1193 1195 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS FUNCTION SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING, & DEBT FUNDS DESCRIPTION I BUDGET 1991-92 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS Early Childhood Education Kindergarten______________ Elementary Elementary Magnet_________ Specialty Program Middle/Junior High School Junior High Magnet_________ Junior High Restructuring High School High School Magnet High School Standards Boys Athletics_____________ Girls Athletics ___________ Football/Minor Sports Volleyball Basketball Track,Tennis.Golf & Swimming Baseball__________________ Other Regular Traveling Teachers Accelerated Learning Substitutes Instruction Itinerant Instruction Resource Room____________ Special Class Homebound and Hospital_____ Other Extended Year Hand. Service Marketing/Dist Ed-Coop______ Marketing/Dist Ed-Expl Business Ed Coop__________ Business Ed Expl Business Ed-Skill Tr_________ Health Coop_______________ Trade & Ind-Coop 1,219,666 2,731,343 19,917,085 51,500 ________0 7,723,977 73,000 644,196 7,970,557 18,700 28 H ^^0 n - 7,^0 45,540- 12,960 9,000 240,394 20,000 2,362,712 1,049,184 889,800 1,975,166 1.279,727 132,161 729,405 12,390 174,719 0 170,853 54^,280 945,875 46,336 170,559 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94 1,243,379 3,107,993 18,969,162 24,950 978,337 8,134,325 71,943 429,685 7,895,831 14,219 ____2,301 5^53 ^33 p,490r 42,794* 9,067 8,947 64,549 21,043 2,278,158 1,393,302 943,193 2.065,294 1,253,040 255,077 823,730 14,152 197,722 2,869 191,121 853,848 970,157 58,755 193,755 1,479,804 3,253,399 21,975,945 265,892 ________0 8,635,782 212,864 492,021 8,407,541 273,096 ________0 44,620 13,230 49,680 7,200 45,540 11,160 10,800 37,697 12,000 2,275,181 1,096,370 901,880 2,189,284 1,296,583 240,566 435,287 0 194,886 ________0 190,480 57^,814 965,542 50,996 189,221 PROGRAM BUDGET (OBJECT WTTHIN FUNCTIONS)Object Description Func ti 1105 ___ 0110 0117 0120 0130 0140 0210 0311 0312 0327 0332 0333 Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Hon-Certlfled Substitute Teschers-Short SubSt Hon-Cortifiod-Short Social Security Tax Instruction Services Instructional Prog Isgjrov Rental of Lend 6 Building Travel-Payroll Travel 0342 0380 0410 0416 0540 0548 0630 Postage Food Services Materials and Supplies Supplies - Supply Center Bqulpsisnt-Personal Proper Bquipnent - Supply Center Dues Fees Subtotal Func I: 1110 0110 0210 0410 0412 0416 0417 Regular Certificated Social Security Tax Hatarlale and Supplies local Supplies Sp Trackin Supplies - Supply Center Supplles-Supply Center * Subtotal ** * Func *>..11120' 0110 0115 0117 0120 0140 0210 0290 0310 0312 0326 0331 0333 0342 0350 Regular Certificated Cart. Instr. Assist. Stipends Regular Boa-Certifled Subet Bon-Certified-Short Social Security Tax Other lagsloyea Beneflte Professional * Technical Instructioaol Prog isgtrov Bepaira-Bgalpeaaat Pupil Transportation Travel Fostoig* A*rtielnq Little Rock School District Object Within Function 1991-1994 Craft Actual 1991-92 .508923.06 133.50 484704.68 417.58 6847.68 144785.75 195.00 650.00 150.00 0.00 4773.60 1074.23 7150.24 74990.71 0.00 8492.60 0.00 2760904.00 318950.86 15123.15 13015.06 0.00 0.00 3107993.07 14477326.70 8212.70 3124.01 1517618.15 44534.64 1997265.51 17.85 I I I 0.00 1486.50 6809.32 87961.35 0.00 6479.16 5574.58 Budget 1992-93 623446.00 0.00 549439.67 0.00 0.00 204639.64 500.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1000.00 1500.00 2123.00 40800.00 5200.00 38656.00 11500.00 0.00 1479804.31 2848548.00 370123.91 10182.00 12968.00 9592.00 1985.00 3253398.91 16554844.8b 0.00 422103.36 1496690.80 0.00 2295506.03 0.00 0.00 400.00 16050.00 119250.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 Budget 1993-94 I i DEPARTMENT BUDGETLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted ABaount * Buget Unit! 0001 Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Stipends Subsubtctal Kindergarten High School High School Magnet Resource Room Special Class Marketlng/Dist Ed-Coop Business Ed Coop Business*' Ed-Skill Tr Trade t Ind-Coop Trade 4 Ind-Bxpl Cons/Rmkg Coord Career-Coop Compensatory Education Guidance Services School Library Services Offi High High I I 01 00 40 1110 0001 0110 01 00 40 1140 0001 0110 01 13 10 1145 0001 0110 01 20 40 1220 0001 0110 01 20 40 1230 0001 0110 01 00 40 1321 0001 0110 01 00 40 1331 0001 0110 01 00 40 1333 0001 0110 01 00 40 1351 0001 0110 01 00 40 1352 0001 0110 01 00 40 1362 0001 0110 01 00 40 1392 0001 0110 01 00 40 1595 0001 0110 01 00 40 2120 0001 0110 i I 01 00 40 2222 0001 0110 2410 0001 0110 1140 0001 0117 1140 0001 0117 II Hon-Certified Regular Non-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled Regular Hon-Certifled Regular Hon-Cartlflad Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled * Subsubtotal High School Accelerated Learning nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Safety S Security I 02 00 40 1140 0001 0120 02 13 10 1195 0001 0120 02 00 40 2134 0001 0120 02 00 40 2222 0001 0120 02 00 40 2410 0001 0120 02 00 40 2542 0001 0120 02 13 16 2587 0001 0120 ' Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seeorlty Sax Kindergarten High School High School High School Magnet Accelerated Learning Resource Room Special Class Marketing/Dlst Id-Coop Business Kd Coop Business Id-Skill Tr Trade 4 Ind-Coop 01 00 40 1110 0001 0210 01 00 40 1140 0001 0210 02 00 40 1140 0001 0210 01 13 18 1145 0001 0210 02 13 10 1195 0001 0210 01 20 40 1220 0001 0210 01 20 40 1230 0001 0210 01 00 40 1321 0001 0210 01 00 40 1331 0001 0210 01 00 40 1333 0001 0210 01 00 40 1351 0001 0210 =llLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted Amount I ** Buget Unit! 0036 t I Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Budget Control Budget Control Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Budget Control Budget Control Subsubtotal * * Hon-Cortifled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-CertlfIsd Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified * Subsubtotal Pour Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blemontary Elementary Elementary Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted 6 Talented Guidance Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Blementary Blementar' Elementar' 0036 0117 0036 0117 Pour Year Old Program Elementary Blesasntary Accelsratad Learning Hurling Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Opkeep of Buildings 1 01 13 02 1105 0036 0110 01 00 20 1110 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0110 01 13 72 1120 0036 0110 01 13 65 1120 0036 0110 01 13 57 1120 0036 0110 01 20 20 1210 0036 0110 01 20 20 1220 0036 0110 01 00 20 1910 0036 0110 01 00 20 2120 0036 0110 01 00 20 2222 0036 0110 01 00 20 2410 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0117 I 02 13 02 1105 0036 0120 02 00 20 1120 0036 0120 02 13 64 1120 0036 0120 02 13 10 1195 0036 0120 02 00 20 2134 0036 0120 02 13 32 2222 0036 0120 02 00 20 2410 0036 0120 02 00 20 2542 0036 0120 I i I Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seourity Tax Social Seourity Tax Pour Tear Old Program Pour Tear Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blementary Elementary Elementary Accelsratad Lsarning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room 01 13 02 1105 0036 0210 02 13 02 1105 0036 0210 01 00 20 1110 0036 0210 01 00 20 1120 0036 0210 01 13 72 1120 0036 0210 02 00 20 1120 0036 0210 02 13 64 1120 0036 0210 02 13 10 1195 0036 0210 01 20 20 1210 0036 0210 01 20 20 1220 0036 0210 I i IFEDERAL PROGRAMSa :X.x<x5:
yv f- ^'' -^* ** ^xa-xj^sss X4a S'tBiMA'RYfjBR Federal Proi ................" > >* ***wwa^ggaagBM 92-93 rams IgU SnlQrios 93-94 Sularfes-'^^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefits(20) >bcsx?dx wvwxx 1 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 1 r C' Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxsx 0.0 $0 ixxxxxsxj $0 TOTAL (l(I>20} XSXCTCSI > Furchased SERVICES (30) TOTAL (30) xxoaxxl xttxxxxl xxxxxxxl .wrciMl l^TERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) XXTO0CS| xxxxxxx [ CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) I TOTAL (40) TOTAL (50) xxsxxxx xxxxxxx xgcxxy xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs xxxxxxx IBkxxxx {XXXXXXX $0 Ixjwcpcx ___________(KXWOK jsxxxxxx fxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) > TOTAi
p0-60) TOTAL (10-60) xjcDcca yobdax JQDCXXXX KVXXXXX 0.0 GRAND TOTAL XXXXX-\X .KXXXXX.X jxxxxxxx Isxwcxx {XXXXXXX twccpgc ~$0 Iwiyxxx |sxxx^ txxxxxxx h "so I $0 IXXX-WCX " ', $0 [xxxxxxx 0.0 so |x.xxxxxx -:-----tuuun $0 jxxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 12= $0 $0 $0row 92-93 Chapter 1 9$
Slarteg-'W^ 93-94 FTJ^ Sal^rfti^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR xxsoda 0.0 $0 xxxxxxx 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF __________Fringe Benefits(20) jTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) ~~ xxsocct 0.0 KSDCDOn so . $0 iXXXXMCt 0.0 xxxxsxx $0 SO::. PURCHASED SERVICES (30) xxxxxxs XXDtXSLX ^ocDoca xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx T xxxxccx TOTAL (30) xxxxxxs $0 xxxxsxx $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs LXXXXXXX SXXXXXX' xxxxxxx xxxxsxx TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $0 CAIITAL OUTLAY (50) I TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx xwcxxx xicxxxxs: xxxxxxx so sxxxxxv iXXXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $0 OTHER (60) XXDtXXX xxxxxxx xxo TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60)~ TOTAL (10-60) xxxxxxx XXXXX-XX 0.0 xxxxx.\x GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx SO $0 so so $0 xx,xxxxxl 0.0 ! xxxxxxxl x.xxxxxxi SO SO SO SOMAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET t1992-33'Bddget Proposal sumMa^VTor magnet schools^ * \x 1991-92 1992-93 CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Principal__________________________ Asst. Prin.________________________ Specialists________________________ Counselors_______________________ Media Spec.______________________ Art-Perf./Prod.___________________ Music_____________________________ Foreign Lang.____________________ Vocational________________________ Special Education________________ Gifted____________________________ Classroom_______________________ Substitutes_______________________ Other-Kindergarten______________ _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY Secretaries_______________________ Nurses____________________________ Custodians_______________________ Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1_______ Paraprofessionals-Other'________ Other-Aides F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 Salaries $346,537 $456,057 37.4 I $1,274,519 12.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 14.0 8.8 5.0 181.4 0.0 14.0 xxxxxxx 296.0 18.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 5.0 39.5 _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Utilities___________________ Travel____________________ Maintenance Agreements Other 97.4 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX BGkxx $444,641 $218,210 $0 $0 $0 $507,273 $248,275 $163,550 $5,308,868 $153,813 $407,561 $1,068,359 $10,597,663 $301,141 $148,859 $346,330 $0 $108,103 $316,035 $185,965 $1,406,433 $12,004,096? $601,780 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 36.2 9.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 8.8 3.5 177.6 0.0 14.0 XXXXXXX 284.7 17.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 6.0 39.5 XxXx)6o(?' 97.4 XXXXXXX xxxxxxx wrxxxxx xxxxxxx Salaries $356,933 $481,040 $1,267,906 $332,407 $224,756 $0 $0 $0 $489,528 $255,724 $121,175 $5,215,774 $158,428 $419,788 $1,185,445 $10,508,904 $310,176 $153,326 $356,721 $0 $111,191 $325,514 $227,463 $1,484,391 ??$W93i2S5:? $627,700 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ____________TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) MS if 6^0 ^38,28 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other xxxxXxx XxXxxXx xxxxxXx xxxxxxx JObOOCMt xxxxxxx xxxxxxX $343,433 $56,509 XXXXXXX? x>x <xxx XWdoiX?? xxxxx)
?' $195,093 $822,793 $399,942 $111,824 xxXXxxx?? xxXxxxX? xXicxxxX XxxxxxX? $379,717 $59,072 $438,789 $120,394 OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx Joaxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL LINE ITEJ ____________TOTAL (60) __________TOTAL (30-60) __________TOTAL (10-60) MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx Xldexxxx 393.4 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $111,824 $8,358 xXxxxxXs Wxxxxx XXXXXJCC XWOOOC: $120,394 $5,895 $8,358 $1,288,412 $13,292,508 $595,333 $13,887,841 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX xxxxxxx 382.1 xxxxxxx XSOOCXXX $5,895 $1,387,871 $13,381,166 $531.886 $13,913,052CAFETERIA FUNDCERTIFIED STAFF I SUPPORT STAFF i ,!..Fnnri SprvicP (92-93
93-94 'few __________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR wxxxxx 0.0 $0 S3CXYXXX 0.0 i $0 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx iTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY '' \' TOTAL <10-20} PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 0.0 I jawaxi
xvxxxxsl XXSjQCOtl xwcoocl xxobcfil so $0^ jSXXgLgd 0.0 $0 $0 TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) TOTAL (40) c CAITTAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) TOTAL (60) TOTAL (10-60) GRAND TOTAL xxxsxxsl xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XXXJOCXX xxxxx^a xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XKXXXSX JOCXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx rxxx}^ xxxxxxs XXTOXX 0.0 xxxxxxx .VXXXX.XX $0 $0 $0 (XXXXXXX xxxxsxxl XX-XXXXXj xxxxxxx! xxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 ' , $0 $0 $0 xxxxxxx sxxxxxx xxxiaxx XWODOt XX-VKXXX 0.0 xxxxxxx $0 jxXXXXXKi $0 $0 $0 $0 M $0CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDEXPEN Dmj RES UTTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 ACCOUNT CODE PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUSTOTXL 32,467.82 32,467.82 03.00.00.2542.0088.0590 7.&40.000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUSrOTAL 2,750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102,788.46 03.06.00.2536.0124.0590 03.06.00.2536.0085.0590 03.06.20.2536.0021.0541 03.06.00.2536.0080.0590 5,400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63.413.03 63,413.03 03.08.00.2533.0088.0319 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS ENERGY GRANT MT WATER TOWER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 196,120.00 55,114.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 03.10.30.2536.0007.0570 03.10.00.254Z 0088.0570 03.10.00.2533.0088.0319 03.10.00.2539.0088.0570 03.10.00.2536.0088.0590 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM 9,209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 D ^50, 83,823.61 EQUIP 453,697.23 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20.944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 6,122.91 EQUIP 27,043.80 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 T 700 70 a 170 -.0570 1.0570 03.11.30.2536.0007.0570 03.11.40.2536.0008.0570 03.11.30.2536.0010.0570 03.11.30.2536.0011.0540 03.11.30.2536.0011.0570 03.11.40.2536.0012.0570 03.11.30.2536.0014.0570 03.11.30.2536.0015.0570 03.11.20.2536.0031.0570 03.11.30.2536.0016.0570 03.11.20.2536.0018.0570 03.11.20.2536.0019.0570 03.11.20.2536.0020.0570 03.11.20.2536.0022.0570 03.11.20.2536.0023.0570 03.11.20.2536.0024.0570 03.11.20.2536.0026.0570 03.11.20.2536.0027.0570 03.11,20,2536.0027:0540 QO3.I 03.11.20.2536.0029.0570 03.11.20.2536.0032.0570 03.11.20.2536.0037.0570 03.11.20.2536.0038.0570 03.11.20 2536.0044.0570 03.11.20 2536.0045.0570 03.11.20 2536.0046.0570DESEGREGATIONNAME DESCX Early ChiIdiood BUDGET CONTROL OSRAM 10:05 NAME: STUDENT NEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer BUDGET CONTROL STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM ID:06 NAME: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Assoc. SURSt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation budget 1992-93 DESEGREGATION DESEGREGATION BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION CUSTODIANS STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM 10:08 NAME: TEACHER RECRUITER Hunan Resources Hunan Resources BUDGET CONTROL - I TEACHER RECRUITER DESEGREGATI OBJECT SALART/AMOUNT 27,000.00 1,044,606.00 16,420.00 19,927.00 50,041.00 168.00 3,639.00 90,195.00 38,240.00 6,870.78 115,018.80 221,932.00 900.00 5,100.00 ,1.51 BENEFITS 0.00 157,426.62 0.00 3,024.68 5,548.24 14.08 304.95 8,891.95 0.00 1,429.30 12,348.18 30,791.10 75.42 427.38 TOTAL 27.000.00 1,202,032.42 16,420.00 22,951.68 55,589.24 182.08 3,943.95 99,086.05 33,240.00 8,300.08 127,366.98 252,723.10 975.42 5,527.38 ACCOUNT CODE 02-13-02-1105-0132-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0120 01-13-05-2212-0121-0110 02-13-05-XXXX-0121-0120 O1-13-O5-XXX3(-O121-O11O 02-13-06-2326-0064-0300 02-13-06-2542-0064-0120 01-13-06-2326-0064-0110 02-13-06-2326-0064-0120 02-13-06-XXXX-0064-0120 01-13-06-XXXX-0064-0110 OSRAM ID:09 MAME: STAFF DEVELOPMENT Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION STAFF STAFF STIPENDS OGRAM 10:10 NAME: ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS Central Hall Hall Dunbar Dunbar Fair Fair Forest Heights Forest Heights Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE is. low 3, 433,132.96 10,000.00 02-13-08-2642-0081-0300 32,204.08 02-13-08-2642-0081-0120 38,464.00 3,740.08 42,204.03 122,363.00 21,066.00 263,596.00 6,534.81 413,559.81 9,960.00 23,302.00 9,466.00 82,061.00 9,960.00 28,680.00 9,466.00 31,069,00 9,713.00 102,915.00 9,054.00 129,004.00 0.00 3,120.13 30,218.14 547.62 33,885.89 2,189.45 3,307.51 2,148.05 10,941.11 2,189.45 3,758.18 2,148.05 3,958.38 2,168.75 14,043.48 2,113.53 17,584.54 122,363.00 02-13-09-2212-0059-0300 24,186.13 02-13-09-2212-0059-0120 293,814.14 01-13-09-2212-0059-0110 7,082.43 O1-13-O9-XXXX-0059-0110 447,445.70 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0001-0120 26,609.51 01-13-10-1195-0002-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0002-0120 93,002.11 01-13-10-1195-0007-0110 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0007-0120 32,438.18 01-13-10-1195-0008-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0008-0120 35,027.38 01-13-10-1195-0009-0110 11,881.75 02-13-10-1195-0009-0120 116,958.48 01-13-10-1137-0009-0110 11,167.53 02-13-10-1195-0010-0120 146,588.54 01-13-10-1137-0010-0110 REFERENCE DATA 1Prog 9 P.O.* OMOrtphon 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 28 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 49 Inoantfva Sctioeta: 61 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 61 64 66 66 72 73 74 75 5 6 28 28 38 46 48 63 82 86 114 129 129 143 148 146 234 227 1-9 93 34 35 28 106 I-56 131 125 00 149 152 153 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 172 176 190 193 t94 153 H'ppy 4 Yr Old Pfograma Sludant Haa/lng Otlfcpe Ofitea Oaaagragallon Ertra-Currlcular Taachar Rac'uhar Stall Davalopmani Acatfamie Support Uulticuhral Programa Incanl^a Granta Original Magnata $p Ed Laaming Cantar Saeurliy OU Procaaaing S/alam U-ip-U Magnai Schoela King School Staphana School Uoniiorlng ActMtiaa ComputarUad Tranap Aomina Thania Community School In-Schooi Suapanalon Jeb Fair Tatting Aatlatanea Library Sarvieaa Param Bacruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Servlcea To Ba AJlocatad OlHca inoantiva Schoela Writing To Raad Science Labt Computer Laba Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Oay/Week Field Tripe Trantportabon Inatructienal Aides Extended Yai tn ca n tfva/Reoeg n i t Ion Stalling Stall Daveiopmant Teacher Siipenda Other Academic Programi sus-total incentives QRANO total SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited BI-0S 92-03 93-04 04-06 06-96 96-07 2H.29i 2'9.772 287.135 295.749 334.621 313.760 795.690 99.232 462.998 31.072 46.824 400.069 2.848.723 164,490 668.575 3,783.217 66.291 703,830 200.727 354,920 0 0 373,986 0 17.267 588.441 22,367 62.714 0 266.247 0 13,347,824 261.482 1.096,148 1,291.788 2.649 416 15.997.246 1.2C2.033 1.238.094 1.275.236 1.313,493 1.352.898 99.087 102.060 105,121 108.275 111.523 433.133 446.127 459.511 473.296 487.495 0 0 0 0 0 42.204 43.470 44.774 46.118 47.501 447.446 490.869 474.695 488.936 603.604 2.785.221 1.868,777 1.024.841 1.062.586 2.042.063 240,316 249.928 259,926 270.322 261,136 320,000 320,000 320.000 320,000 320,000 3.800,000 3,914,000 4.031.420 4.152.363 4.276.933 110.307 113.616 117,024 120,53$ 124.151 617.038 635.550 654.616 874.256 694.482 411.583 721.442 0 0 391.495 10.000 85,816 1.500 1,350 718.604 27.000 85.863 5.000 200.000 13,886,365 63.147 15,000 15,000 15.000 7,603 6,000 863.000 37,500 20.000 549.695 260.000 21.500 914.823 59,500 225.C00 55,C00 3,126,664 17.0,3.020 773.930 543.08$ 2.633,300 0 403.240 10,300 89.248 116,000 r73.739 1.545 11.691 737.999 27.810 67,839 5,000 200,000 16.040.317 65.041 15,450 16,450 15,450 7.726 6.150 888,890 38,625 20.600 566.186 267.800 22.145 042.267 61.285 231.750 56.656 3^20,464 '9 260.78, 1.147.148 1,531.563 1.927.610 669.378 576.159 623.444 2.681,399 2,707.000 419.369 10,609 92,818 116.000 793.827 1.591 12.041 760.139 28,644 69.874 6,000 200.000 19,566,751 66.993 15.914 15,814 16.914 7.967 5.305 915,557 38,784 21,218 583,171 275.834 22.809 970.536 63.124 236,703 58.350 3.3,7,078 22.883.829 2.761.841 2.788,210 436.144 10.927 99.531 115.000 817.542 1.639 1^402 782.943 29,504 71,970 $.006 2C0.000 20,492.274 69.002 16.391 18,381 16,391 8.196 6.494 943,023 <0.877 21.855 600.666 284.109 23.4M 999.651 65.017 245,864 60,100 3.416.591 23,908.865 2.844,696 2,871,856 453,590 11,255 100.392 116,000 642,171 1,668 12,775 806,432 30.389 74.129 5.000 200,000 21,445.873 71.072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8.441 5.628 971.314 42.207 22.510 618.686 292,632 24.198 1.029.641 66.968 253.239 61.903 3.510.088 24.964.U61 03/17/93 16:03 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 i Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold, a public meeting Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from throughout the community. ###03--17/93 16:03 0-501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM El 002 -002 'Ka i *1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold a public mparing Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from th rough out the community. ###-------* JOHN W. W,\LKER RAI.PM WASHINGTON M.\RK BVRNRTIE WILBY A, RR ANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. .JR. John w. walker, p.a. ArroRNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 P. 02 A' adniittfi M Pnu.tn-e in 4 '> Dintnff '>t 'v 'J'nbni. delivered via facsimile March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. c/o Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 72201 Little Rock, AR i 4 I I i irl Re
LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller
exhibits that you would you kindly provide me with any new , plan to use hnHofAt hearina on Friday. I would also like to know who you plan to call as at the budget hearing on Friday. _ . v witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Ciehh 0V<A,' John W. WalkeiH ' .n JWW:Ira TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Telephone (.501) ^^58 FAX (501) 374418/ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON markbvrnettc WILEY A. RR ANTON. -JR- AUSTIN PORTER. -JR- , .. .. delivered via F_ACSIMI1.-E March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 u ii 'r Re
LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller
Would you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with any new Jto the budget hearing on Friday. I would also like to witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, o&hn OVA' Jolin W. WalkeiH^ JWW: lin I i /Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Ti Roher 1024 North Palm Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ti: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, especially enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Margie and Bob told me that you might be willing to volunteer some time to work on the school districts budgeting process. I truly appreciate your offer and will not hesitate to take you up on it. Ill let Mr. Mooney know that youre willing to help and have him contact you after he gets his bearings in his new job. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Clarence L. Horn, Jr. 1911 Rice Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Horn: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefuUy considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 22, 1993 Glenn A. Spung 24 Rocky Valley Cove Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. Spung: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Elizabeth Thalheimer 5005 Crestwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Libby: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Richard B. Steinkamp First Commercial Building, Suite 1700 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Richard: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Clarence A. Hamilton P.O. Box 4555 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Al: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. There were many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Edward N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, AR 72023 Dear Mr. Rolle: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 22, 1993 David Jameson 1421 N. University Avenue, #S320 Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Jameson: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown March 22, 1993 M. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Dear xxx
5" Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks .for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibilitiee of worlgi Very truly yours. .aidui uic uiiic, Ldic, diiu uiuu^iiuuiiicdd yuu iii rl^g with us at ODM. (zW Ann S. Brown. FEB-25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 1421 N. University #3320 Little Rock, Ar 72207 February 25, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Ar. 72203 Dear Judge Wright, I note you are seeking a person to develop a Little Rock School District budget that will permit monitoring compliance with the court-approved desegregation plan. Please accept this letter, and the enclosed resume, as my application for that position. I have been a banker for many years. president, including service as chief operating officer and chief financial officer of banks as large as $700 million in assets. My specialty in banking has been planning, founding and managing new financial institutions. This work has involved development of new financial systems from scratch. including business plans. budgets, general ledger accounting systems, data processing hardware and software, and complete operating systems. I would have no problem in quickly understandin District budget and accounting system, the Little Rock School preparing a budgeting system that meets your requirements, and implementing such a system. Due to unusual personal circumstances. I can be available on one days notice, and for any period of time up to approximately one year. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this position with you. My telephone number is 664-8363. Bincerelv yours. David Jameson received CHAMBERS OF SUSAN WEEWBRr-IG---H--T-FEB 25 1993 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE . FEBt25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 11 RESUME: DAVID JAMESON 1421 N. University Ave., #S320 Little Rock, Ar 122Q1 (501) 664-8363 WORK EXPERIENCE: 1990- Employed as senior officer of a 501(c)3 non-profit international development organization operating in 34 countries. Annual budget of $9 m i 1 1 1 An non-prof i t Annual budget of $9 million. 1987-1990 Ogg. Nat Iona 1 Bancshares, Inc, , Little Rock, Ar. Senior Vice President/Senior Investment Officer $500 million multi-bank holding company of million multi-bank holding company. Chairman of Investment and Asset-Liability Management tVl m 1 * Ci r\ n C* .. 4. 2 _____! . Committees. Executive Committee. 1983-1986 Bre_n_twood_Bank of California. Los Angeles, Ca. President and Chief Executive Officer, three-year contract, planned, founded. Under a iniee-yw contract, planned, founded, staffed and managed this successful new bank for a group of local investors. - third year. Reached $100 million in assets in 19811983 American National Bank. Bakersfield, Ca. Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Directed all line and staff departments in this $700 million bank with 30 branch offices. 1980-1981 National Cooperative Bank,Washington, Director of Lending and Investment, Planned, founded, staffed and initiated operation of the lending and treasury divisions of this national development bank created by Act of Congress with initial capital of $130 million. D.C. 1974-1979 QPEQrtuaity Funding Corporation. Washington, D.C. Senior Vice President for Program Development. Regional Director - Southern United States. Washington Managed venture capital and Ioan programs supporting regional and local development organizations in twenty states. - state, Designed, developed and managed the primary national capital support program for minority-owned financial inst i tut ions. Inc_^, Little Rock 1976-1979 (concurren Cooperative Assistance Fund. New York, N.Y. t) Managing Director of this venture capital fund created from the pooled program-reIated investment funds of ten major national foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Mott,FEB-25-93 THU 17:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 RESUME DAVID JAMESON Page 2 19731974 u. s. 1970-1973 1969-1970 1968-1969 1965-1968 Small Business Administration, Honolulu, Worked under a two-year contract tq init iate U.S. government lending and development programs in Micronesia, Guam, and American Samoa. Trained commercial banks, government agencies and local business groups in credit criteria and processing requirements for federal programs. Central Banking Svstem, Inc., Oakland, Ca, Administrator of Affiliate Banks, Inc Planned and directed operation of six community banks owned by this multi-bank holding company. Concurrently company. served as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of affiliate banks located in Livermore and Fresno, Ca. Deposit National Bank, Mobile, Al, President/CEO under a three-year contract to turn- around and sell this failing bank. Successful, Union National Bank, Little Rock, Ar. Commercial Loan Officer and Assistant to chairman. Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, Ca. Loan Officer and Regional Loan Supervisor. Completed bank management and loan training program with #1 ranking in group of 48. MILITARY SERVICE
1960-1963 United States Army, _ Stationed at The White House COjnniuni cat ions Agency, Washington, D.C, specialist in communications security and intelligence at The White House, Served as EDUCATION: 1963-1965 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts, with Honors. 1960 University of Poitiers, France. 1958-1960 Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Received National Scholarship based on high school record and SAT scores. PERSONAL: Born 1940 in Missouri. One son, 18 years old. Hi.FEB--25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 February 24, 1993 The Honorable Susan Wright U.S. District Judge 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I recently moved to Arkansas after completing my military service and have watched with interest the process and progress of the court in effecting an accecptable measure of desegregation in the LRSD. Todays article in the Democrate- Gazette suggests a further intrusion into the District's operations is forthcoming. Perhaps my background and experience would be useful to you in these endeavors. I have attached a resume and experience history for your perusal. I would add that I still have the energy, initiative and integrity of my previous office and I am politically unencumbered. I am available at your convenience. Sincerely, Colonel, nited States Arra>-Retired ?ECiE(VSD OF WJS.AS WR/gHT FEB 25 1993 IJ. S. DfSTRlCT JUDGE FEB-25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Background Executive Management Project Management Resource Management Operations Training Development Evaluation Personnel Management Education Personal Edvard N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, Arkansas (501) 843-2474 72023 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Over fifteen years in fast paced, demanding Executive, Project and Resource management positions. ___1. experience in operations, training development and evaluation, personnel management and administration. Extensive As deputy chief of a large office within the Operations Directorate of the National Security Agency, coordinated, defined and evaluated operational intelligence activities, improved resource allocation and programming processes, chaired promotion and awards boards and supervised out year planning. As the chartered Project Manager, directed a $120 million Department of Army integrated intelligence automation project in South Korea supporting both senior US and Korean commanders. Defined, acquired, installed and supported widely dispersed networked system of 3 mainframes and 122 terminals. Formulated major modification resulting in a more responsive user friendly system simultaneously avoiding over $1.5 million costs. Project was on-time, within budget with the system 98% operationally available. Effectively managed multi-million dollar long term system oriented fiscal program for the Director of Operations, The National Security Agency. Devised methodologies for system integration leading to the elimination of duplication. Presented, defended and justified program through to congressional submission. cross Revamped and streamlined operational and exercise intelligence support provided to worldwide deployed military forces. Eliminated cumbersome and inefficient decision layers which resulted in a responsive, competent and motivated staff. Conceived, initiated, and contracted a revised, comprehensive training program for automation system users. Reduced training time by 30% through expanded on-site training programs. Measured user performance and tailored training accordingly. more Measured user performance and tailored Highly successful record in selecting and developing staffs, motivating and leading individuals or groups to accomplishing organization'
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.